Share
985 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 65
clock Created with Sketch.
20/03/18
14:45
Share
Originally posted by BeerBaron
↑
Quite a few posters on here claim that an old conviction relating to a non-financial crime that happened twenty years ago is somehow relevant to their investing decisions. Well if that is their criteria then I assume they have no share holdings whatsoever, no super and no money in banks or indeed any investments at all. Because anybody in any of those institutions could very well have such a history, legally undisclosed thanks to the legislation. They would be hypocrites.
It is also an attitude that resembles society's view of punishment from the 17th and 18th centuries. A man convicted then had the crime held against them for the rest of their lives. See Victor Hugo's tale for an example, but there are many more.
In the 19th century society came to the view that punishment was more about redemption and the concept of paying your debt to society and moving on with your life. Of course some become recidivists but we handle that with sentencing guidelines becoming harsher for subsequent offences. Overall I think it's a good ideal for a modern society.
I don't really care about RE's past - he's entitled to his privacy in my view. It must be devastating for him to read this being continually brought up, especially as he's paid his debt to society and moved on with his life - he hasn't re-offended so what grounds does anyone have for beating this very dead horse?
The AFR's record on this has been appalling. Some claim that the AFR has done a good job by highlighting the financial questions, and of that I have no complaint. But the emphasis on someone's remote past, a minor handicap (dyslexia), some investor having the bad luck to have a father who is suspected of shonky accounting and who committed suicide as a result - these are all irrelevancies that have taken much ink and been the focus of 90% of AFR's reporting. I think it is entirely justified to treat the AFR with contempt for their reporting on this issue.
I'm mostly interested in the company finances, that is what I shall base my investment decisions on.
Expand
Paying your debt to society means serving the punishment, it's nothing to do with being absolved of guilt, responsibility or shame. A murderer will forever be a shameful person, time served or not. Same deal for other crimes, on a lesser scale depending on their seriousness. Blackmailing vulnerable men is an appalling crime, you're just plain wrong on that.
RE is the CEO of this business, he's not a cog in the wheel of a bank or super fund that we don't know about. Someone else coined the phrase "reality free zone" for the BIG forum. I think it's apt.