epr64
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 240
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
From today's Guardian
It's not only because the company is partly owned by Halliburton, but WHY do such contracts finish in such hands? Is that "corporate governance"? If so, what is wrong? Corporate, or governance?
Rest of the article through the link.
CU
Y
It's not only because the company is partly owned by Halliburton, but WHY do such contracts finish in such hands? Is that "corporate governance"? If so, what is wrong? Corporate, or governance?
Defence ministers awarded a huge nuclear contract to a company even though officials had had serious doubts about the competence of the firm, internal documents obtained by the Guardian reveal.
The estimated cost then nearly doubled to more than £900m. The Ministry of Defence said one of the main causes of this was the "poor performance" of the company.
The project to build docks to refit nuclear-powered submarines at Devonport, Plymouth, is crucial for maintaining Britain's nuclear arsenal.
The documents, released under the Freedom of Information Act, disclose how ministry officials had concerns about the firm, DML, before ministers awarded the contract.
DML is partly owned by Halliburton, the American company formerly run by the US vice-president, Dick Cheney.
Rest of the article through the link.
CU
Y