> Many with the ability to do so have confirmed it.
Would you happen to have a link handy? I don't mean to be adversarial. That screenshot is just so incredibly outlandish that it comes across as something from an overdone movie and I honestly find it difficult to take at face value.
Basic human decency and social norms aside, I just can't comprehend what manager would fail to recognize something like that committed in writing as a huge legal liability.
Happy for you to provide evidence that shows otherwise.
> Why would the good faith actors get punished for the actions of bad faith actors?
Would or should? They shouldn't get punished, but this precisely the point. Bad faith actors get far more attention than good ones. So this is already happening regardless of whether you want it to.
> Why would we put much credibility into an organization investigating itself?
That's kind of a bizarre question, and I think you're misunderstanding what this is. This sounds like it's a story on the organization's internally-focused management, not some kind of external accountability thing meant to convince you of anything.
According to the article, there were hundreds of complaints from workers. But based on reputation you are willing to disbelieve them all and conclude that the state shouldn't follow up?
For me to believe their accusations. It's not just something that exists in the courts, it's a principle that many (most?) people adhere to in their lives. If you have one co-worker who accuses the other of stealing their phone, would you punish the accused without first asking how they know they stole it or looking at camera footage of the time of the alleged theft?
It's not illegal for you to believe unsubstantiated accusations (not just unsubstantiated, but unsubstantiated in the face of exculpatory evidence). It's not illegal for a boss to fire an employee over an unsubstantiated accusation. Legal, but still harmful to society.
I pointed out that the article you posted said the exact opposite of what you claimed it said (in addition to saying what you claimed it said). How is that not acting in good faith? If the article is contradictory, you need to go to the primary documents, which were available from The Guardian.
Ah ty, this is what I was wondering, I figured the outrage was mostly posturing but still want to approach the issue outside of that drama. I mostly want to see where the audit results are published.
> I've already explained, we can't agree on a mutually acceptable definition of "trustworthy reporters", so this will not happen, ever.
You don't understand. We don't have to agree on a definition of "trustworthy reporters." You seem to be trying to convince me that I should be more skeptical of these allegations, but that's not going to happen unless reporters I consider trustworthy have sufficient access to investigate, to the point where the people you criticize don't have to be relied on. It really doesn't matter what you think of the reporters, and attaching unnecessary conditions is just a deflection and indication there's something to hide.
I agree your petition can't happen ever, but for different reasons. It would probably be quite unwise of you to make it, for obvious reasons.
> Yes, in a sense, You can judge us however you like, also in that sense, we're not obligated to accept your judgment.
That would be defamatory, and potentially extremely unfair, especially if someone lied or was just incorrect, in an anonymous internet forum.
If someone experienced a loss because they relied on untrue statements from an auditor, they would have grounds to bring a case, and the auditor would have a chance at due process to respond to that case.
It probably seems slow and unwieldy when we all want justice now, but this is how we can be assured that justice is, in fact, done, and not injustice.
Why in the world would you be sure of that?
reply