[quote="Gutte"]This is an interesting thread, but, sorry, I have to disagree with many of the posters. Corruption is a lot worse here in y citizen has seen it daily since childhood and finds it perfectly natural.
That’s why you can’t even trust a neighbour who says he or she knows of a very good car or a fantastic piece of land that you might want to buy. All you know about the car or the land is that the person telling you about it does so because he or she is looking at a 3% commission.
It’s the same with the staff in Homepro: ask for the best TV or toilet or paint and the answer will have nothing to do with what is the best brand. It will to 100 percent depend on what brand is paying the staff person you are talking to. These two examples may not be illegal at all, and some may say that they are not examples of corruption. I disagree again. They are examples of the same thinking, and the fact that they are so well accepted makes me pessimistic about the possibilities to overturn corruption here.
Gutte to quote homepro like that is naive what happens if you want insurance or a mortgage in the EU the agent sells the one that gets him the best commission. Go into any shop, assistants are told which items to promote because that is the bigger profit margin, again you gave examples where the same practices are carried out in the western world,
Woke up this morning breathing that's a good start to the day.
OK, so you've all decided that Thailand is no more corrupted than our home countries.
I guess the fact that Denmark, Finland and Sweden (where I come from) are no. 1, 2 and 4 respectively on the corruption list published by Transparency International is the result of ...corruption???
And that Thailand is no. 84 is ...coincidence or something?
I agree with you Gutte, I accept that some corruption exists in the west but you couldn’t even begin to compare Luxembourg where I am now with Thailand. I certainly wouldn’t try to buy my way out of a motoring offense here.
NO , i don't think any one could beat Thailand for corruption as Jockey said other countries at least disiplin wrong doers and fine or put them in jail.
I think its to do with revenge and karma here no wants to be the one to implement the law properly , and i dont know why they have a law in the first place if they do not use it.
Gutte
Are you telling me no one in those countries sell you the goods or takes commission you found that corrupt in homepro.
Are you telling me no politicians get privileges or advantages over others because of there position.
There are different forms of corruption and here it is more open do not believe all you read in the press.
Anybody ever offered to do a job on the cheap if it is tax free and you said no I will pay the tax.
Perfection does not exist.
Woke up this morning breathing that's a good start to the day.
pay more for your meal or eat cheaper in a restaurant using child labour - choose corruption
go to market village and pay 500 B for a dvd or 120 B down the market - choose corruption
pay 300k B for a rolex or 3k down the market - choose corruption
pay 3k for an original polo shirts or 200 B down the market - choose corruption
go to jail for 8 years for a bad traffic accident or pay family/police 300k - choose corruption
use 'shareholders' here to run your business or work back home - choose corruption
Last edited by Super Joe on Mon May 05, 2008 4:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
getting back to the original point of the thread,
if local councillors in the uk started campaigning & offering a cash sum of say £50 to vote for their party, how many people would take the incentive??
i would suggest that it would be quite a high percentage & an even bigger percentage would take payments from more than one candidate !!
Remember, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
redzonerocker wrote:getting back to the original point of the thread,
if local councillors in the uk started campaigning & offering a cash sum of say £50 to vote for their party, how many people would take the incentive??
i would suggest that it would be quite a high percentage & an even bigger percentage would take payments from more than one candidate !!
They actually do this in the form of tax reduction promises.
redzonerocker wrote:getting back to the original point of the thread,
if local councillors in the uk started campaigning & offering a cash sum of say £50 to vote for their party, how many people would take the incentive??
i would suggest that it would be quite a high percentage & an even bigger percentage would take payments from more than one candidate !! :shock:
They actually do this in the form of tax reduction promises.
I think someone should have told Gordon Brown about that last week.
here's a little Thai double standard madness for you...
we live in a country where even the local elections are marred by open vote buying and corruption...
YET
In a poll of over 1200 BKK residents on the performance of the government at the weekend over 71% of them cited corruption as the major problem facing Thailand, (after the South troubles and the failing economy).....
its a funny old world eh?
"Science flew men to the moon. Religion flew men into buildings."
redzonerocker wrote:getting back to the original point of the thread,
if local councillors in the uk started campaigning & offering a cash sum of say £50 to vote for their party, how many people would take the incentive??
i would suggest that it would be quite a high percentage & an even bigger percentage would take payments from more than one candidate !!
They actually do this in the form of tax reduction promises.
yes i agree jockey, but people seem to think that is acceptable & the moral way.
what the government doesn't tell you is that after they give you an extra couple of pounds in your wage packet, they will take it back by raising council tax, fuel duty & vat or maybe just invent a new stealth tax.
they then get their snouts in to the trough, cream off the taxpayers money in excessive expenses, above inflation pay rises & fat cat payouts for their failures & live happily ever after
the fact that they lie, deceive & fail seems to be accepted because they are 'democratically' elected
Remember, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
redzonerocker wrote:the fact that they lie, deceive & fail seems to be accepted because they are 'democratically' elected
Then they get voted out!
Maybe the truth about ex-London mayor Livingstone and payments to his advisors and croney's will come out now? But don't bank on it, the over-riding factor will be to protect the good name of the post, whoever the holder is, to ensure its reputation as a powerful player in UK politics - something I'm sure the Govt. never envisiged happening when they created the post - and that it remains unblemished.
I'll place a bet now that no prosecutions follow the current and ongoing Police investigation.
caller,
I've always thought Ken Livingstone was one of the better politicians, as regards being straight about his views and not trying to con the public; whether that changed when he became Mayor i don't know, but the 'scandal' over one of his closest advisers seemed more like a cleverly worked campaign to tarnish livingstone in the run up to the mayoral elections. neither the Tories nor Labour really wanted him as Mayor when he first stood for it, which to me always made him a more viable candidate!
Jeffrey Archer?
