Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Automatic charity charge?

cruzemaven

By cruzemaven,
in Silversea

Recommended Posts

Cuizer2

Cuizer2

Posted
Posted
Irelevant of your choice to support or not support the chairty, I think you should be more carefull with the words you are using, some might go as far to say they might be libelous and slanderous. On the chairty web site it claims to be partnered with the Italian Ministry of Health unless you have proof to the contary you could find yourself not only open to libel and slander from the chairty, but also the Italian goverment, also KPMG are mentioned for providing the certification of the budget of the charity, they are one of the largest tax audit companies in the world.

Do you really think that the Italian Goverment and the like of KPMG would put there name to something if it was not 100% above board.

 

Regarding KPMG ...

 

Its accounting scandal erupted last year and its auditor, KPMG, was fired after working for the firm for 30 years. The SEC accused Xerox of having "misled and betrayed investors" via a series of accounting tricks designed to manipulate its earnings and enrich top executives. One Xerox accounting scheme was known internally as "project Mozart" because of its supposed creative brilliance. Xerox agreed to pay a $10m fine to settle the charges but the SEC has still told a number of former executives and KPMG that it is considering filing civil charges against them.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/jun/29/2

 

 

On January 29, 2003, the SEC filed a complaint against Xerox's auditors, KPMG, alleging four partners in the "Big Five" accounting firm, Michael A. Conway, Joseph T. Boyle, Anthony P. Dolanski, and Ronald A. Safran, permitted Xerox to "cook the books" to fill a $3 billion "gap" in revenue and $1.4 billion "gap" in pre-tax earnings. As noted in the complaint: "There was no watchdog at Xerox. KPMG's bark sounded no warning to investors; its bite was toothless."

 

http://www.corporatenarc.com/xeroxscandal.php

 

 

Like the WorldCom fraud, Xerox’s manipulation should have been easy to detect if there was anyone interested in looking. As former SEC chief accountant Lynn Turner noted, “These numbers have gotten so large that it’s akin to auditors driving past Mt. Everest and saying they never saw it.... Corporate America has somehow gotten into the mindset that this is OK.” Xerox’s auditor during the period in question was KPMG, one of the “big four” accounting firms that dominate the profession. KPMG was fired in October and replaced by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

 

KPMG was also part of the SEC investigation that began last year. The evidence suggests that the auditing firm knew what was going on and decided to allow it to continue. An internal document obtained by the SEC contained a statement by a KPMG official acknowledging that Xerox’s schemes constituted “half-baked revenue recognition.” When the KPMG auditor in charge of the Xerox account began to raise some concerns about the company’s improper techniques, he was replaced with someone else.

 

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/xero-j01.shtml

 

 

The settlement, the largest between the SEC and an auditing company, consisted of $9.8m in "disgorged" fees, plus a $10m civil penalty and interest of almost $2.7m.

 

The SEC said it also ordered KPMG to "undertake a series of reforms designed to prevent future violations of the securities laws".

 

http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2005-04-20/sec-fines-kpmg-over-xerox-accounting-scandal-1

 

 

Given the right incentive, both the Italian government and KPMG are more than willing to compromise their integrity. Their seal of approval doesn't mean the charity is "100% above board".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Portolan

Portolan

Posted
Posted
Once again Wripro you are making assumptions and might just be straying into dangerous waters. Good luck:D

 

In the US and, I believe, the EU it is very hard for a public figure to sue for libel or slander:

 

"Public figure is a legal term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with malice (knowledge or reckless disregard for the truth). The burden of proof is higher in the case of a public figure" - from Wikipedia

 

Otherwise, politicians would be sued all the time. I think everybody involved with this is a public figure.

 

BTW: we had no problem with not having the charity charge on our bill. I informed them at check-in and they seemed to be fully prepared to note this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MARIANH

MARIANH

Posted
Posted
Once again Wripro you are making assumptions and might just be straying into dangerous waters. Good luck:D

 

I agree. I can understand that some serial posters, perhaps being keen to maintain a high number of posts on many CC threads, may have limited time to fully consider the implications of what they are saying. But in my view , quality will always win over quantity and it behoves us all to be careful - especially when it comes to allegations. Unless of course the poster is in possession of indisputable facts. However, even in such circumstances it is debatable if CC boards are the appropriate vehicle for negative and personal comments. It seems to me to be outwith the objectives of CC and the Guidelines for posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bon.Vivant

Bon.Vivant

Posted
Posted
Can we please let this thread die a slow death!

 

 

If you don’t want to hear about it, then don’t read this thread. It’s your choice to click on the thread title, or go somewhere else. I don’t think there’s a limit to how long a topic can be discussed, or a limit to how many posts can be made to a thread. As long as posters are abiding by the community guidelines, a subject can be discussed for as long as people want to talk about it. It’s not your place to close down discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Northerncheapo

Northerncheapo

Posted
Posted

So, exactly who is responsible for deciding when a thread gets shut down? When I posted about the security breach on Sept. 21 there was lots of activity. Then the VP of sales for SS posted an explanation/appology and that was it. Lock was put on and no more comments were allowed to be posted.

 

Anyone know how/who/why it's decided when a thread is 'locked'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bon.Vivant

Bon.Vivant

Posted
Posted
So, exactly who is responsible for deciding when a thread gets shut down? When I posted about the security breach on Sept. 21 there was lots of activity. Then the VP of sales for SS posted an explanation/appology and that was it. Lock was put on and no more comments were allowed to be posted.

 

Anyone know how/who/why it's decided when a thread is 'locked'?

 

It could be that the information contained in that thread could have been exploited for illegal purposes. CC is open to the public. Anyone has access to what's on these boards -- you don't have to be a member to read these posts. Someone could have taken advantage of the weakness in the system that we were describing.

 

Although, I could be wrong about that possible rationale. I just looked, and the thread is still there -- with all the entries posted before the lock-down. Perhaps that's a thread that should be completely deleted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bon.Vivant

Bon.Vivant

Posted
Posted
I agree with dougburns. We are all aware of this, we know what to do, let's do it and move on. Get a grip and a life, PLEASE! You are beating a dead horse to death.:eek:

 

Please don’t insult the people who are still interested in this topic, with a statement like "Get a grip and a life, PLEASE!". If you’re not interested in the matter, then don’t come here. People can discuss an issue for as long as they like, and it’s not for you to dictate that a subject is not worthy of discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cuizer2

Cuizer2

Posted
Posted
I agree with dougburns. We are all aware of this, we know what to do, let's do it and move on. Get a grip and a life, PLEASE! You are beating a dead horse to death.:eek:

 

How can you bash a DEAD horse to death? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oceans&Rivers

Oceans&Rivers

Posted
Posted
Please don’t insult the people who are still interested in this topic, with a statement like "Get a grip and a life, PLEASE!". If you’re not interested in the matter, then don’t come here. People can discuss an issue for as long as they like, and it’s not for you to dictate that a subject is not worthy of discussion.

 

I could not agree more. New people join Cruise Critic each day. New-to-a-specific-line (Silversea, in this case) come to read and post to that new-to-them line each day.

 

It is all about free speech, and posters who do not like to read certain topics, regardless what the topic is about, regardless of the board, should simply not read the topics, let alone try to dominate our kind hosts to shut the topics down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLCOhio "Live from...." Rare

TLCOhio

Posted
Posted
My decision is that this thread stays open for posting. Host Dan

 

THANKS to Host Dan! Some of the "regulars" already know about what's going on and/or are tired of this subject/issue, BUT, there are lots of others not aware of what's been going on and why. Until the Silversea VP comes on here, saying "IT'S OVER AND DONE", then . . . there is a real value in letting others know about this sad (for a good company) in doing "business" in this manner. It's hard for the key staff in Ft. Lauderdale to stand up to the family members in Monaco. Eventually, they will correct this "error" in business judgement and customer practice. Until that time, this is a good educational thread saving people money and frustration. Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

For lots of interesting details, great visuals, etc., from our July 1-16 Norway Coast/Fjords/Arctic Circle cruise experience from Copenhagen on the Silver Cloud, check out this posting. Don’t be shy and feel free to ask any questions of interest. This posting is now over 22,000 views. Appreciate those who have “tuned in”.

http://www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1227923

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CruisinPashmina

CruisinPashmina

Posted
Posted

Thanks to everyone who "gets it". This Charity Charge outrage must continue until the company gets it. Some one talked about serial posters on this issue... I am one and once again I object to the presumptuous processing of passengers' unauthorized, unwanted, indefensible use of our credit which the owners of SS appear to think is their right.

 

We've NEVER experienced or even heard of anything like this. What a turn off!

 

I think the arrogance is breathtaking.We owe it to people who are newly attracted to our beloved SS cruise line to point out that this is not a reflection of the wonderful product which IS the SS experience, but a weird aberration that the owners are perpetuating for what many of us see as self serving reasons. Few, if any, long time loyalists can either understand or tolerate such a blatant money grab. I'm sick about this and will continue to post until the policy is rescinded.

 

There is a lot of money involved...our money. If the owners really cared about their special charity they would donate a portion of their sizable profits to support it. We are all asked, every day, to put our money where our mouths, or hearts are...we support our special charities, each in our own ways. My partner and I are so offended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bon.Vivant

Bon.Vivant

Posted
Posted
Thanks to everyone who "gets it". This Charity Charge outrage must continue until the company gets it. Some one talked about serial posters on this issue... I am one and once again I object to the presumptuous processing of passengers' unauthorized, unwanted, indefensible use of our credit which the owners of SS appear to think is their right.

 

We've NEVER experienced or even heard of anything like this. What a turn off!

 

I think the arrogance is breathtaking.We owe it to people who are newly attracted to our beloved SS cruise line to point out that this is not a reflection of the wonderful product which IS the SS experience, but a weird aberration that the owners are perpetuating for what many of us see as self serving reasons. Few, if any, long time loyalists can either understand or tolerate such a blatant money grab. I'm sick about this and will continue to post until the policy is rescinded.

 

There is a lot of money involved...our money. If the owners really cared about their special charity they would donate a portion of their sizable profits to support it. We are all asked, every day, to put our money where our mouths, or hearts are...we support our special charities, each in our own ways. My partner and I are so offended.

 

CruisinPashmina:

 

Thank you for your beautifully articulated post! It expresses so clearly why this discussion should stay alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...