Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-23-2010, 05:23 AM   #501
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by kumquat View Post
Uh, no. Your original post to which I replied stated that they were guilty of perjury. Here it is:
Hang'em now, we'll get to the trial later.

I was very clearly speaking generally about investigations.
__________________

__________________
Emeritus is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 06-23-2010, 06:26 AM   #502
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
I was very clearly speaking generally about investigations.
That is just one area you have wrong when it comes to investigations. You can not treat violations the same you you do inefficiencies in a boardroom. You can not go after the biggest wastes first and not enforce the rest while attempting to get the biggest problems up to speed. If the agency is under manned hire more inspectors. If the inspectors aren't doing their jobs fire them and hire someone who will. It really is that simple. Restaurant inspectors have the right idea. Inspect the place, find the problems, then go back out after a period of time and reinspect. If the problems are not fixed shut the site down. With oil it would be just as simple. Inspect. If any problems are found, give the company a reasonable amount of time to fix the problem and levy a civil fine then do a no notice re-inspection. If the problem isn't fixed shut the rig down and it, gets placed on the back burner for re-inspection. While the well is being drilled there will be several inspections done, similar to a house, to ensure the company is complying with their submitted drilling plan.
__________________

__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 07:40 AM   #503
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire View Post
That is just one area you have wrong when it comes to investigations. You can not treat violations the same you you do inefficiencies in a boardroom. You can not go after the biggest wastes first and not enforce the rest while attempting to get the biggest problems up to speed. If the agency is under manned hire more inspectors. If the inspectors aren't doing their jobs fire them and hire someone who will. It really is that simple. Restaurant inspectors have the right idea. Inspect the place, find the problems, then go back out after a period of time and reinspect. If the problems are not fixed shut the site down. With oil it would be just as simple. Inspect. If any problems are found, give the company a reasonable amount of time to fix the problem and levy a civil fine then do a no notice re-inspection. If the problem isn't fixed shut the rig down and it, gets placed on the back burner for re-inspection. While the well is being drilled there will be several inspections done, similar to a house, to ensure the company is complying with their submitted drilling plan.
No This is how you raise children. Companies are required to comply with the law ON THEIR OWN not merely after an inspection. They are expected to have their own internal inspectors. Public Inspectors are not their consultants to advise them., They are policemen. I used to do mock FDA inspections for firms. If the FDA had found what I found the shop is shut. no warnings no delay.

Why coddle people who know what the law is and simply don't want to comply?
__________________
Emeritus is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 07:58 AM   #504
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
No This is how you raise children. Companies are required to comply with the law ON THEIR OWN not merely after an inspection. They are expected to have their own internal inspectors.
This sounds like some sort of alternate universe to me?

By this thought process, we don't need building inspectors or restaurant inspectors, because these 'Companies are required to comply with the law ON THEIR OWN not merely after an inspection.'?

That is the whole reason for inspectors - in some cases companies can 'get away with' short cuts that their customers may not notice. We don't have govt regulators regulating how good the food tastes, or what they charge for a steak dinner - customers can make that determination on their own. But customers are less likely to be able to determine if the food is stored at the correct temperatures, if the dishwasher sanitizes properly, or if a well is being drilled with accepted safeguards.

Your comment seems far off the mark to me.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now  
Old 06-23-2010, 08:07 AM   #505
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
This sounds like some sort of alternate universe to me?

By this thought process, we don't need building inspectors or restaurant inspectors, because these 'Companies are required to comply with the law ON THEIR OWN not merely after an inspection.'?

That is the whole reason for inspectors - in some cases companies can 'get away with' short cuts that their customers may not notice. We don't have govt regulators regulating how good the food tastes, or what they charge for a steak dinner - customers can make that determination on their own. But customers are less likely to be able to determine if the food is stored at the correct temperatures, if the dishwasher sanitizes properly, or if a well is being drilled with accepted safeguards.

Your comment seems far off the mark to me.

-ERD50
Its the law. A driver has to be in compliance with the speed limit whether there is a cop there or not. We use inspectors to spot check compliance and hammer companies when their internal compliance system does not work.

Sprinkler systems have to work ALL THE TIME unless they have permission to shut them down.. they are inspected by the government as rarely as every 5 years. but we require firms to have private inspectors on a monthly basis, and to be in compliance ALL THE TIME.
__________________
Emeritus is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 08:36 AM   #506
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
Its the law. A driver has to be in compliance with the speed limit whether there is a cop there or not.
Of course they are 'supposed to', cop present or not. But they don't 'have to', and they don't. So we need cops and a system that catches offenders and penalizes them enough to deter them from being repeat offenders. At some point, they lose driving privileges.

Quote:
We use inspectors to spot check compliance and hammer companies when their internal compliance system does not work.
And I keep saying, this appears (I am not going to be judge/jury) to have failed. I keep hearing BP is a bad guy when it comes to how they run their drilling operations, yet, the were not 'hammered' and were not shut down.

BP failed AND the regulation system failed.

I won't 'blame' the cop for someone speeding, but if someone speeds at the same spot everyday, and people report it, and law enforcement take no action, or the judicial system lets the guy off time and time again, then yes, the judicial system shares in some of the 'blame' if that guy gets in an accident.

A better analogy is lets-retire's food inspectors. If those inspectors keep finding violations, and don't shut down the place, the regulators share the blame if someone gets sick there. We shouldn't just shrug and say 'we have laws, the restaurant should have followed them'. We have inspectors paid to do a job, too.


-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now  
Old 06-23-2010, 08:54 AM   #507
gone traveling
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Your comment seems far off the mark to me.-ERD50
Obtuse, circuitous non-answers, pedantic recitation of governmental pablum, wholesale damnation of industry, and condescending, self-serving legalese...

Sounds spot-on to me... our next Czar!
__________________
Westernskies is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 09:13 AM   #508
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
This is an investigation. It always takes place before a trial. Any witness can say "I refuse to answer on the grounds that the answer might tend to incriminate me" No problem. That's due process. Otherwise you answer the questions. Under oath and witht eh penalties for perjury. That is what "subpoena" means
As an attorney... you should know that as long as you do not lie under oath you are not commiting perjury... so you answer in such a way that is not an answer, but also is not a lie...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 09:19 AM   #509
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoingHomework View Post
I'm curious. Do you think there is some defense for dumping millions of gallons of oil in the ocean? It's one thing to argue for due process, which I actually agree is important. But, in my opinion, any practice, legal or not, that results in such horrendous consequences, is wrong.

If this is just one of those things that happens when drilling for oil, then we need to stop drilling.

If this is something that BP did then we need to stop BP and anyone who participated.

So yes, due process is important. We need to decide which of the two choices above applies.

Personally I think we can safely drill for oil and this results from actions taken by BP. But I don't see how finding the other possibility applies helps anyone concerned.

Is there some possibility I have missed? Is there some way for this to have happened and it not be either a systematic risk or resulting from a specific risk or cause?


There are two things that are being discussed in this thread... who is responsible and is it criminal...

Nobody that I have read have said BP is not liable... the question is was their gross negligence... or was there criminal intent (or whatever you need to show to have a crime)...

Now, it seems there are some crimes that 'prove' themselves... if there is a crime for polluting, well, it looks like there is pollution... but now... who was 'responsible' for that crime... BP is saying 'we will pay'... but I don't see them saying 'we are responsible for a crime'...

Most people are saying... we need due process... we need a trial... we need to at least have a conviction before we bring out the noose and hang them...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 09:23 AM   #510
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
No This is how you raise children. Companies are required to comply with the law ON THEIR OWN not merely after an inspection. They are expected to have their own internal inspectors. Public Inspectors are not their consultants to advise them., They are policemen. I used to do mock FDA inspections for firms. If the FDA had found what I found the shop is shut. no warnings no delay.

Why coddle people who know what the law is and simply don't want to comply?
Agree with this one...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 09:23 AM   #511
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Of course they are 'supposed to', cop present or not. But they don't 'have to', and they don't. So we need cops and a system that catches offenders and penalizes them enough to deter them from being repeat offenders. At some point, they lose driving privileges.

And I keep saying, this appears (I am not going to be judge/jury) to have failed. I keep hearing BP is a bad guy when it comes to how they run their drilling operations, yet, the were not 'hammered' and were not shut down.

BP failed AND the regulation system failed.

I won't 'blame' the cop for someone speeding, but if someone speeds at the same spot everyday, and people report it, and law enforcement take no action, or the judicial system lets the guy off time and time again, then yes, the judicial system shares in some of the 'blame' if that guy gets in an accident.

A better analogy is lets-retire's food inspectors. If those inspectors keep finding violations, and don't shut down the place, the regulators share the blame if someone gets sick there. We shouldn't just shrug and say 'we have laws, the restaurant should have followed them'. We have inspectors paid to do a job, too.
-ERD50
Law breakers are lawbreakers.
I don't coddle criminals and I don't blame the cops for the robbers
__________________
Emeritus is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 09:25 AM   #512
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
As an attorney... you should know that as long as you do not lie under oath you are not commiting perjury... so you answer in such a way that is not an answer, but also is not a lie...
I said with the penalties for perjury. The penalties for evasion and refusing to answer are public scorn and iniquity, which have nothing to do with the criminal system.
__________________
Emeritus is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 09:51 AM   #513
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
Law breakers are lawbreakers.
I don't coddle criminals and I don't blame the cops for the robbers
And what is your term for the Health Department inspector that does not shut down a restaurant despite repeated violations?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now  
Old 06-23-2010, 10:05 AM   #514
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
Why coddle people who know what the law is and simply don't want to comply?
There is no coddling in what I described. I didn't post specific time lines because people on this site have problems with attacking examples rather than ideas. I will admit I do not know all of the ins and outs of the oil business, so look at the idea not necessarily the example. I don't know the time lines but just pulling them out of thin air here is what I'm talking about. The inspector goes out find the blowout preventer is the wrong size for the job it is supposed to do. It takes two weeks to replace the preventer. The inspector gives the company two weeks to get the job done and levys a $5000, $10000, $20000, whatever fine for deviating from the approved plans. The error could simply be an oversight, or it could be intentional. It's called giving people the benefit of the doubt. The site can still be worked, but since the company is busy installing the correct equipment and they know the inspector will be out after two weeks they need to get it done. Yes they could wait and continue working the rig until four days out and try to replace the preventer and hope everything goes well. If the inspector returns in two weeks and one day they could be screwed, or they could be in business again. If the error was not fixed then the rig is completely shut down until the company can properly install the correct equipment and the inspector can get back out and inspect. It might not be for two weeks, a month, or six months before the inspector gets out there. They get out there when they get out there. Do you really think a company will risk having their rig shut down for an extended period of time and lose a large sum of money, because they wanted to push the limits?
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 10:34 AM   #515
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Brat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 5,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire View Post
.... Do you really think a company will risk having their rig shut down for an extended period of time and lose a large sum of money, because they wanted to push the limits?
They will if they think they won't get caught or believe they can induce the enforcer to look the other way.
__________________
Duck bjorn.
Brat is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 10:42 AM   #516
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brat View Post
They will if they think they won't get caught or believe they can induce the enforcer to look the other way.
That is why 100% inspection is required. Inspectors who are on the take can be discovered rather easily and put in jail. Many health departments actually have procedures in place to prevent their inspectors being paid off.
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 11:58 AM   #517
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
And what is your term for the Health Department inspector that does not shut down a restaurant despite repeated violations?

-ERD50

Around here... following the law... they can cite them for a 'violation', but once fixed they are allowed to open again... usually the fix is 'throw that thing out' or 'clean up the slime'.... but the next day they can have the same violation... with the same result.. I do not think they can permanently close someone down... (at least here)... repeat violations or not...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 12:20 PM   #518
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
And what is your term for the Health Department inspector that does not shut down a restaurant despite repeated violations?

-ERD50
That he or she is not one of my students
__________________
Emeritus is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 12:23 PM   #519
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Around here... following the law... they can cite them for a 'violation', but once fixed they are allowed to open again... usually the fix is 'throw that thing out' or 'clean up the slime'.... but the next day they can have the same violation... with the same result.. I do not think they can permanently close someone down... (at least here)... repeat violations or not...
Humor mode on
right, and I carry my own food to Texas
(my brother in law was a judge down there) lots of jokes
back to work
It depends on the nature of the violation.
We can require restaurants to pay for private inspectors on a daily basis as a condition of operating.
__________________
Emeritus is offline  
Old 06-23-2010, 12:26 PM   #520
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire View Post
There is no coddling in what I described. I didn't post specific time lines because people on this site have problems with attacking examples rather than ideas. I will admit I do not know all of the ins and outs of the oil business, so look at the idea not necessarily the example. I don't know the time lines but just pulling them out of thin air here is what I'm talking about. The inspector goes out find the blowout preventer is the wrong size for the job it is supposed to do. It takes two weeks to replace the preventer. The inspector gives the company two weeks to get the job done and levys a $5000, $10000, $20000, whatever fine for deviating from the approved plans. The error could simply be an oversight, or it could be intentional. It's called giving people the benefit of the doubt. The site can still be worked, but since the company is busy installing the correct equipment and they know the inspector will be out after two weeks they need to get it done. Yes they could wait and continue working the rig until four days out and try to replace the preventer and hope everything goes well. If the inspector returns in two weeks and one day they could be screwed, or they could be in business again. If the error was not fixed then the rig is completely shut down until the company can properly install the correct equipment and the inspector can get back out and inspect. It might not be for two weeks, a month, or six months before the inspector gets out there. They get out there when they get out there. Do you really think a company will risk having their rig shut down for an extended period of time and lose a large sum of money, because they wanted to push the limits?
What doubt? penalties and other consequences have to be large enough to deter violations.
__________________

__________________
Emeritus is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Car repair experts: brakes - master cylinder leaking or just a spill? soupcxan Other topics 8 04-30-2010 11:58 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:29 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.