Balfour Beatty & Carillion at £M3.63

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=922

Includes: 'The work to extend the line further north to Highbury & Islington
via the 'Dalston link' is not specified in this Main Works contract but it
is intended to be incorporated into these works and completed in time for
the Olympics.'

Paul

Paul Scott wrote:

Balfour Beatty & Carillion at £M3.63

Fairly typical for britain. Your company causes a fatal rail crash due
its
utter incompentence , gets a trivial 7.5M fine and a slap on the wrist,
then gets rewarded with a nice fat 300+M contract 6 months later.
Talk about giving the finger to the Hatfield victims and all their
relatives.

B2003

On 25 Oct 2006 05:42:34 -0700, "Boltar" wrote:


Paul Scott wrote:

Balfour Beatty & Carillion at £M3.63

Fairly typical for britain. Your company causes a fatal rail crash due
its
utter incompentence , gets a trivial 7.5M fine and a slap on the wrist,
then gets rewarded with a nice fat 300+M contract 6 months later.
Talk about giving the finger to the Hatfield victims and all their
relatives.

What would have been a suitable stance for TfL to take in terms of the
procurement policy for this work?

Are companies always to be "punished" for past errors even if they have
been through due legal process?

I'm not saying this is right or wrong - I'm just interesting in what you
think and why.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:
What would have been a suitable stance for TfL to take in terms of the
procurement policy for this work?

Are companies always to be "punished" for past errors even if they have
been through due legal process?

Yes. Unless they can prove that their processes have been updated
instead of just repeating that tired old mantra "lessons have been
learned"
when in actual fact all thats happened is they've written the fine off
against tax and moved on. If I had my car serviced at a garage and
while on the motorway the wheel fell off due to their negligence do you
think I would ever go back? Why should the corporate sector be any
different?

B2003

Boltar wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:
What would have been a suitable stance for TfL to take in terms of the
procurement policy for this work?

Are companies always to be "punished" for past errors even if they have
been through due legal process?

Yes. Unless they can prove that their processes have been updated
instead of just repeating that tired old mantra "lessons have been
learned"
when in actual fact all thats happened is they've written the fine off
against tax and moved on. If I had my car serviced at a garage and
while on the motorway the wheel fell off due to their negligence do you
think I would ever go back? Why should the corporate sector be any
different?

But name me a company that is untainted?

kytelly wrote:
But name me a company that is untainted?

All companies have skeletons in their closet , but most of them
don't have some 6 foot under in a wooden box thanks to their
gross negligence. Theres a difference between minor health
and safety breaches and not repairing a dangerous known
defect on a high speed main line for however many months
it was when they were well aware of what the consequences
could be.

B2003