id tuned out by that point of his post S&J 🙂

Tobacco companies have a long and inglorious history of disputing and covvering up the health impacts of smoking. Like any private company, they need to make a profit, so seek to expand into new markets by encouraging people to do something that will seriously damage their health. These people may not have access to impartial information, or adequate healthcare. Whilst ordinary workers at tobacco companies are indeed just doing a job, those at senior level are responsible for company decision making.

Anyway, back to expenses. What annoys me is that MPs think what they are doing is ok, as long as it’s within parliamentary rules. I say it isn’t ok – they act in a way that would not be acceptable at any kind other employer. It’s the fact that they genuinely don’t think what they are doing is wrong that I find depressing. As it’s clear that they will exploit the system, the system needs to change. I say that any MP whose constituency isn’t commutable to Westminster, should get a “reverse London weighting” in recogntion of their extra costs, and they should ban all other expenses and allowances.

I don’t believe Clarke works for BAT any more BTW.

I dont know either. Maybe they got rid of him when he was no longer a government minister.

oh and sooty you have no idea what I’ve done/seen or where I’ve been to in my life. And, just so that you might actually read what I’ve said I wouldnt work for BAT or any other tobacco company, others do good luck to them. But I dont want my government ministers doing it and for said bloke to start morallising about expenses when he has taken hundreds of thousands on the back of misery and suffering is a bit rich.

So a story which starts off with warmongering chickenhawk Geoff Hoon (the man who once suggested that mothers of Iraqi children killed by cluster bombs would “one day” thank Britain for their use) taking the piss from British taxpayers because according to him he needed a grace and favour home for ‘security reasons’ – well you wouldn’t want the dribbling bubble-blowing ar5ehole to put his life at risk, that story, degenerates into some sort of debate about whether all newsagents are in fact mass murders 😯

There’s an argument that says that working for BAT is obviously worse than working for, say, John Lewis – but there’s also an argument that says anyone looking for clean hands in massively interconnected global capitalism is engaged in a futile game of moral one-upmanship (sp?).

“I once met somone who worked for De Beers and questioned how they could work for a company like that; hate them I do”

Do you feel the same way about Cadbury’s or Douwe Egbert/Sara Lee? You know that De Beers doesn’t work in conflict zones, right – its mining ops are well out of conflict zones, and its buyers are all bought into the Kimberley Process (as far as it goes)? You know what chocolate and coffee workers’ conditions are like, don’t you?

There’s an argument that says that working for BAT is obviously worse than working for, say, John Lewis – but there’s also an argument that says anyone looking for clean hands in massively interconnected global capitalism is engaged in a futile game of moral one-upmanship (sp?).

true, but then you would end up having no morals about what you would and wouldnt do. I have a line based on my life experiance. I also make an effort with any investments I have (or had its all gone) but obviously I have no idea what goes on with my pension…. doubt I would like it.

I wish there a law that dictated people on forums slagging companies/cars/bikes etc. off were required to actually say what line of business they worked/what car drove/what bike they ride when making all these grandiose claims of murder, rape and pillage.

As konabunny says there are many companies you think are okay that maybe don’t exactly gleam. Think about it whilst pulling on that Nike sweat(shop)shirt possibly.

(IT/VW Golf/Niner Air-9 – by the way…..).

they act in a way that would not be acceptable at any kind other employer.

What always irks me is that they get away with stuff which the people who actually run the government departments (ie civil servants) would get sacked for.

true, but then you would end up having no morals about what you would and wouldnt do.

Yes – this is the problem, I agree. There has to be a scale of immorality (rather than yes/no) because otherwise you end up saying that Hitler was only as responsible as the 17 year old conscript, which is obviously bollocks.

But an employee of Kyocera (for instance) slagging off an employee of BAT as some sort of evil deathmerchant is missing the point about how business works – if you don’t work for BAT, you probably sell photocopiers to them (as it were).

I would be unlikely to accept a job with a tobacco company, but I have done consultancy work for them (for my employer) in the past. So…

Edit: the point being that you can’t get into some morality arms race about tobacco companies’ behaviour: either illegalize what is wrong, or just expect them to get on with it.

Thing is, you just know they have an employment lawyer scour all over the allowances just so they can stand in front of the cameras and say “It’s all completely legal…” with confidence

Well, if it’s legal, then there’s nothing actionable about it. So change the law/rules on expenses.