With the newly rigorous airport security, that is.
(Thanks to the ever-reliable The Register.)
|
|||||
|
A few days ago, I was sifting through the intranet noticeboard of the large Australian bank I work for, and I stumbled on an organisation-wide message from our CEO. Anyone who has worked for a large multinational knows the breed – conversational in style, it is usually a somewhat ingenuous effort to create a collegial nexus between upper management and the ungrateful hoardes below. Amongst other rather tedious developments mentioned, the boss noted a recently deceased former customer of the bank who had, “in a rare display of loyalty and reciprocity”, left a substantial portion of his estate to the bank in return for a lifetime of what must have been absolutely brilliant service. I was, however, disappointed to read that the bank would be donating the bequest to charities in the deceased’s region of abode. This will not do at all – the banks are going all wobbly-kneed and PC on us! What will the shareholders think? I would be tickled pink if our namby-pamby CEO cocked a snook at the “good corporate citizen” brigade and gratefully donated the entirety of the bequest straight to the bank’s bottom line. Better still if he sallied forth proudly stating “that money will be used to refurbish the executive bathroom for the third time this (financial) year.” Steve Edwards suggested he should blow the lot on a nice new tie. Anyone else have any ideas as to how the bequest might be spent? I am looking for the wildest corporate caricatures – the sort that would make Gordon Gekko blush. The funniest wins a degree of transient notoriety. A driver gets arrested for dangerous driving whilst… blind… and his lawyer, Timothy Gascoyne, argues that he should be acquitted because “the question is not whether his driving was dangerous, but whether being blind makes it dangerous”. I am curious how many people in court were struggling to keep a straight face. Clearly Timothy Gascoyne missed his calling as a comedian!
West Coast Eagles captain and star player Chris Judd weighs in on the big issues. I love it when professional athletes branch out into other disciplines where their prowess is – erm – slightly more modest. (Article link found at Yobbo’s) When poor countries catch up with rich countries, the actual absolute level of inequality between them can increase. Now that’s just wierd. My head hurts. – Tony Stephenson responding to Brian Micklethwait One doesn’t expect much good news from Africa, and Kenya may be notorious as among the most corruptly governed countries in the world, but this is what I call a public service. A strange note in the commentary which I take to be a sign of a global, not just an African, problem:
I have heard similar things in Britain, from both the non-readers and academic acquaintances responsible for teaching non-readers. In a world dominated by bureaucracy, qualifications no longer have any necessary relationship to knowledge, and reading is an act of compliance. But being an outdoor librarian seems like a good job to me. I suppose it had to happen. As global temperatures supposedly rise – and it is not difficult to accept that claim right now in my sweltering apartment – certain groups are playing the victim card by suing governments and other agents for causing global warming and hence hurting their livelihoods. Silicon.com carries a story about one of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ new IT projects. Apparently the “Aspire” project will come in at double the estimated 3 to 4 billion pounds. There is no hint of what the real-world functions of Aspire are supposed to be, but apparently this is part of the department’s attempt to cut the proportion of its costs that are IT below 20% at the same time as reducing its headcount by 12,500 (out of 90,000). Readers who are in business may wish to pause at this point and admire the insanity. Breath the heady aroma of that pompous project name. Note lightly in passing the apparently conflicting goals. Savour a budget for a re-tooling exercise (if that is what it is) of £40,000 a head. Stretch your generosity (it’s good for you) and see that mere billion variance in the estimate as a calculated ±15% derived from risk analysis, not cluelessness at all. Then marvel as the costs bust the error-bars by multiple-sigmas… A Titanic of a project! How unlucky could they be? So far so paradoxical. Business as usual for the government department that purports to oversee your every penny, and guarantees suffering if you can’t account for the office biscuit budget, or provide a full itinerary for a business trip taken five years ago. What’s sort of gobsmacking is this – the National Audit Office (NAO) finds things to praise:
I’m not sure I want to know what “re-competing” is.
– Tamara K |
|||||
![]()
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||