TeeAyBee Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2009/09/17/trustees-say-no-to-investing-oil-wealth-in-ethical-funds What's next? Kill a Puppy Week? By the logic of some of the members, as long as the puppy was obtained from a source unproven to be ethically sound then it should be fine to kill the puppy, or if the someone trusted to deal with puppies says so then it is their business what they do with our puppy, not our responsibility. It is hard to know what to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeAyBee Posted September 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Sorry to comment on my own post, but having re-read the article I'm fairly staggered by the comments of some of the members. Even if the Oil Industry may or may not have an ethically unsound record, surely that is not justification for unethical investment. Okay if some of the money is dubious in background, but not illegal, wouldn't it be the right thing to do to invest ethically? Try and balance the karma? If we follow the logic of some of the Trustees, perhaps we should invest solely in fags and guns as they seem to be making the best money and perhaps exploit the opening markets of the third world - I mean, Marlboro Lights and Kalashnikovs are exactly what sub-saharan africa needs right now, not food, no. Why am I even surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 The remit is to make as much money as possible, as long as its legal thats what they should be doing. Ethics should be left for the individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marooned in Maywick Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 ^^^ Is it not the remit of the fund managers to make as much money as possible...following the guidelines put in place by the trustees. It is the trustees' responsibility to see that funds are disbursed according to the aims and objectives of the Charitable Trust. Whilst there continues to be a councillor-heavy make-up of the CT, I don't feel that there is the level of disassociation required to enable the funds to be distributed to the best possible benefit of the Shetland community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJ of Hildisvik Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 There should be NO councillors on the SCT, they can't do their jobs because they are wearing 2 hats, and decision making is beyond their intelligence it seems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swc123 Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 The phrase "out of sight, out of mind" seems to ring true here. I understand that the Shetland Charitable Trust's objectives are to administer loans and grants "solely in the interests of [..] Shetland." Now I have no problem with this objective, HOWEVER I do have a problem if in order to do this we are exploiting less fortunate individuals half way across the globe, or acting to encourage behaviour that is not in the interest of the planet as a whole. All so that we can continue our affluent ways. To the best of my knowledge, nowhere in the Deeds of the Trust does it state that they should be seeking to maximise investment income. As a Shetland resident I am a user of the facilities that the SCT fund and I am grateful to have these facilities. But we must recognise that our subsidised leisure facilities, etc are coming at a cost (one that we are forgoing while someone else pays) due to the investment choices the Trustees are making. We are not bearing the full cost of these facilities and I have a problem with this. Right rant over! I will not comment on individual trustees at this stage, but needless to say I am disappointed with a few of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 The best return for the money is all that’s important don’t you think and it is still its legal for the moment. I mean they could have invested it, in the mareel project or the wind farm. That they have already wasted huge sums of money on with no return. that they should be seeking to maximise investment income. . All of you believe that then? There are some who want your money to invest in Nigeria you wont get much of it back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjool Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 The best return for the money is all that’s important don’t you think and it is still its legal for the moment.Interesting point. I wonder if folk would be so quick with such moral justifications if they knew the full implications of their investments. For a quick example: many people are against smoking, but quite happily expect their money to be invested in tobacco because that's profitable. But then how about these so-called 'legal highs'? These are due to become illegal, but should we profit from their promotion as much as possible because profit is the only consideration? Heck, let's just take it a step further and indirectly invest in the production and distribution of other, harder substances. Because this, ultimately, is what investing in arms results in. So it is no wonder that Shetland is supposedly 'awash' with drugs. We deliberately invest our money in their production. I think many posters on Shetlink must be horrified to learn their investments are going on things such as drugs, weapons and human rights abusers. So at what subtle tipping-point does the damage we sow become more beneficial than lowering our average living standards a little? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddtablet Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Shame on them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 So it is no wonder that Shetland is supposedly 'awash' with drugs. We deliberately invest our money in their production. I think many posters on Shetlink must be horrified to learn their investments are going on things such as drugs, weapons and human rights abusers. So at what subtle tipping-point does the damage we sow become more beneficial than lowering our average living standards a little? Depends on what type of drugs you mean Fjool? Are you talking about Pain Killers or Crystal Methamphetamine ect. Not very much in the way of ethical practice in the council housing department What hope has the rest of the council got..What about some investment in the Dogs against Drugs then? At least they might get enough dogs to go round at long last. A dog to be seen up in Leaside for once (** mod edit - not sure what you're talking about PH, but some text has been removed to be safe on the safe side **). After all there is no sign of the management there moving any of them into a house next-door to them selves. I know two men, were reported to the cops for standing in there front window, and shouting to all going by that they had drugs for sale back in June. There’s no sign of the police raiding the house yet never mind the dog . And I was there with the person, when the phone call was made. Everything the council has investments in, could be used for some unethical purposeWhat about Semtex or Fertiliser? with all that the IRA used and now the Talaban, that’s more bangs for your notes . I can see the headline now for fertiliser Council invests in Bum Produce I don’t see any sign of Rick Nickerson and Co whining on about any ethical practice with the Charitable Trust plans to invest in Windfarm, and our beautiful Island being ripped to shreds, for money nothing about making less money then. It’s all about projected profit but to bad if it just one big disaster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 mods is not the above post a bit iffy. if the people mentioned are moving to firth they are now likely to get stick whether innocent or not. betty fullertons comments are worrying she is opposed to smoking and the production and sale but she is happy to make money out of it. As the former head of nhs Shetland she should know how much smoking costs the community. if the trust are faced with £30,000 in fees to move out of tobacco then how much is invested. sound like a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peeriebryan Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 mods is not the above post a bit iffyIt's an off topic and irrelevant ramble, but from what sense I can make of it, it doesn't seem to break any T&Cs. But to be safe I've removed a small section It does, however, deserve a prompt to stay on topic so... PH, stay on topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 As long as they can make as much money for the people of Shetland I could not care less what they invest in. I think so called ethics are for the individual if they are that so inclined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 As long as they can make as much money for the people of Shetland I could not care less what they invest in. I think so called ethics are for the individual if they are that so inclined.Quite right: I bet you could make a pile of money selling guns to Columbian drug lords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimIvens Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 betty fullertons comments are worrying she is opposed to smoking and the production and sale but she is happy to make money out of it. As the former head of nhs Shetland she should know how much smoking costs the community. Smoking may lead to health problems for the smoker and those around them, but the tax revenue on cigarettes is enough to pay for the health service three times over. Surely this is a good example of unethical practice. The government will not ban smoking because it brings them in a large amount of money. Ethical investment is a subjective industry. The more you are prepared to turn a blind eye to peoples suffering the more money you will make. It has always been so and always will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.