Attack and defence: Difference between revisions

Attack and defence (view source)

Revision as of 08:56, 5 February 2023

1,511 bytes added , 5 February 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 Post script: spare a thought for poor old Olivier Giroud, substituted off after 40 minutes.<ref>“Seethed after humiliating early substitution but in truth the game had completely passed him by. 5” said the Guardian. “Slightly lucky at one point not to give away a penalty and so ineffective up front he did not make it to half-time. 5” opined the Express. “A miserable final for the former Arsenal man as he was subbed before half-time,” said the Express, before awarding the poor chap 3. ''L’Équipe'' was so outraged that it refused to rate him at all.</ref>
+===Extending the metaphor===
+Strikes us that this metaphor colon of defence being judged by by consistent perfection, and attack being judged by momentary inspiration, translates.
+A criminal defendant will be severely prejudiced if there are any lapses in her behaviour or story. The prosecutor, however, needs just one moment of inspiration, to breakdown that story, and the prosecutions case can hold.
+A regulated financial services institution, likewise, must be flawless in its conduct of its regulatory compliance program. That it may be unfailingly virtuous, altruistic, and motivated towards public good in 99% of its affairs will count for nothing if a [[bad apple]] is laundering money in an unregarded corner. By contrast, its supervising regulator, less so. What regulatory oversights it misses do not, generally form part of the public record: “[[what the eye don’t see, the chef gets away with]]”. It is not so closely monitored, nor held to account, and — to  great extent — it does not matter how ineffectual its regulatory coverage or investigation was in any other regard: if it finds one regulatory breach it can extract a fine and [[knee slide]] to the gallery.
+There are notable exceptions, of course but these prove the rule by their relative absence the excoriation hand out to the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] over [[Madoff]], and the public criticism of [[BaFin]] over the [[Wirecard]] affair — but even here the relative punishments are in no way comparable.
 {{sa}}