On 21:20 29 Mar 2025, Roger Hayter said:

On 29 Mar 2025 at 18:50:23 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:

"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gm4gujh4vh80suevjenbl905k9h0n0eu2h@4ax.com...

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:08:20 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:02:33 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But the question is whether those sending
the letters genuinely believe that US employment law has
extraterritorial effect, or whether they simply don't realise that
employment law is different in different countries. Both of those
would be errors, but they are errors of a different nature

I can testify that a lot of people in the US believe US law is
global.

Yes, they do. But you would hope that people with responsibility for
dealing with non-US entities would be aware that it isn't.

But surely, whether or not what the US Govt is demanding of foreign
exporters, is determined by US Law, is secondary ?

They could for instance, demand that all cars inmported into the US
are now painted with red, white, and blue stripes.

Whether this would be contrary to WTO regulations or any other
international agreements, would be another matter

And it's then up to anyone wishing to export cars to the US whether
its worth the extra expense of setting up the extra spraying
facilities; regardless of whether this complies with US Laws or not.

As to the OP's original question, there is clearly no conflict of
interest. As UK shareholders can have no case against a board that
declined to break UK Law in order to maintain or win contracts.

The conflict of interest would arise if board members willingly
acquiesced in their company breaking UK Law, so as not to lose
contracts.

What is interesting though, is that "tariffs" which are being
universally interpreted it seems, as a "protective measure" being
imposed by Trump so as to protect US industry, are in reality simply
a "tax" he's imposing on US consumers.

Maybe he isn't quite as stupid as he looks, after all.

Same as that Signal "Security Debacle" not really being an
"accidental" leak at all.

Inviting a reporter into a "secret" meeting where they were going to
reveal their true thoughts about Europe. Just in case anyone was
still in any doubt,.



bb

The idea that they're bombing Yemen to "help" Europe is a bit a cheek
anyway; if the US wasn't helping Netanyahu commit war crimes there
wouldn't be problem with the Houthis anyway.

Trump has been promoting his alleged passion for peace as the basis for stopping the Ukraine-Russia war and also forcing the Gaza War to come to
an end.

However, this already thin "peacemaker" cover-story certainly got torn
away when he launched the attack on the Houthis.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09:28 30 Mar 2025, Handsome Jack said:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:23:37 +0000, JNugent wrote:

But there is something being ignored in part of the above, which is
that some UK local authorities (and perhaps some central government
departments) insist that any private contractor with whom they do
business must comply with the council's ideas on "inclusivity" and
"equal treatment".

If it is acceptable for UK authorities to award contracts on an
overtly political basis, it must be equally acceptable for the USA
federal government to have the same sort of rights.

Morally, I agree. But the legal situation may be different. I do not
know how or whether UK businesses - whether public or private sector -
are entitled to enforce these provisions against foreign suppliers.

It may be no more than a rumour but I recall reading that some local authorities are very reluctant to buy from suppliers with a low rating
for ESG (Environmental, Social & Governance).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 21:04:18 +0100, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:

On 09:28 30 Mar 2025, Handsome Jack said:

On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:23:37 +0000, JNugent wrote:

But there is something being ignored in part of the above, which is
that some UK local authorities (and perhaps some central government
departments) insist that any private contractor with whom they do
business must comply with the council's ideas on "inclusivity" and
"equal treatment".

If it is acceptable for UK authorities to award contracts on an
overtly political basis, it must be equally acceptable for the USA
federal government to have the same sort of rights.

Morally, I agree. But the legal situation may be different. I do not
know how or whether UK businesses - whether public or private sector -
are entitled to enforce these provisions against foreign suppliers.

It may be no more than a rumour but I recall reading that some local >authorities are very reluctant to buy from suppliers with a low rating
for ESG (Environmental, Social & Governance).

They are, although it's important to bear in mind here that ESG isn't the
same as DEI. ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) ratings matter to public sector procurement because they matter to the generral public.

Anyone involved in local government will tell you that there's always a
strong pressure from residents to use suppliers with a good environmental record (although that doesn't always mean the same thing to everybody - to
some it means net zero policies while to others it means preserving and enhancing the environment we live and work in), while a good governance
record matters to local authorities because of the reputational risk
involved in hiring a contractor that subsequently fails or is involved in
some kind of very visible misbehaviour (such as a management embroiled in claims of misogyny and abuse). So where tenders for a contract are broadly equal in other respects (such as service delivery and cost), ESG can, and
often is, the deciding factor.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Further news

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/01/business/us-embassies-european- suppliers-dei-intl/index.html

London
CNN
—
US embassies have sent letters to contractors in their host countries
demanding they certify that they do not run any diversity, equity and
inclusion (DEI) programs that violate President Donald Trump’s executive order against race- and sex-based preferences.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)