it's called "deemed knowledge"
same as if your agent or lawyer knows something, you are deemed to know about it. even if they haven't told you.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 18 Jul 2011, 14:55, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

Which is fine in most applications
but if the guy's job's on the line, then deemed knowledge shouldn't be enough, you should have to prove that he knew about it.
( Kroney, Mon 18 Jul 2011, 14:58, Reply)

Would you have any confidence in someone
who was such a bad manager that they weren't aware of what was happening?
( Bazongaloid, Mon 18 Jul 2011, 15:00, Reply)

No, but that's not the point I'm making.

( Kroney, Mon 18 Jul 2011, 15:01, Reply)

Well then you're missing the point.
If he is incompetent, then they should hold the senior positions they do, as they are clearly not capable of doing the job for which they are paid a fucking shitload of cash.

If they aren't incompetent then they are corrupt. Either way, they have to go.
( Bazongaloid, Mon 18 Jul 2011, 15:03, Reply)

Yes, but it should be proven, not assumed.

( Kroney, Mon 18 Jul 2011, 15:06, Reply)

But we know phone hacking has occured, and there is evidence that some officers took bribes
and this information has been know by the police for years and they have failed to investigate it properly. Therefore it can clearly be seen that these guys are either crap at their jobs, or corrupt. So they quit.
( Bazongaloid, Mon 18 Jul 2011, 15:10, Reply)

It comes down to whether or not you feel the figureheads should be culpable
for the actions or negligence of their underlings. I happen to think they should be. What I don't agree with is the automatic dismissal of people because somebody in their department fucked up.

Now this guy might well have known what was going on, but if he was to be punished, there should be an investigation in his involvement and the finding of proof. Pressuring people into resigning so that they don't have to investigate them is every bit as negligent as now knowing what was going on in the department you're in charge of.

I just don't happen to think that getting rid of somebody who *should* have known what was going on is fair.
( Kroney, Mon 18 Jul 2011, 15:14, Reply)

They resign until this whole thing clears over and they're absolved of all association with the scandal
Or they're banged up for it. Whilst the inquiries are ongoing, you could argue that they're not suitable for their job, therefore someone else who's not under the shadow of suspicion should do their job.
( Labia Majora You keep on talking but it makes no sense at all, Mon 18 Jul 2011, 15:17, Reply)

Well, yes, that's a good point.

( Kroney, Mon 18 Jul 2011, 15:19, Reply)

have you not heard the saying
"if they can't do their job, promote them until they can"?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Mon 18 Jul 2011, 15:08, Reply)

i think i disagree here
you are being paid all that money because you are responsible. therefore if the shit is going down because of something that happened on your watch, you are going down with it.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 18 Jul 2011, 15:10, Reply)