Archived version: https://archive.ph/bE9Vc
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20240126032128/https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68102511
You must log in or register to comment.
I remember in 2011 passing the village below the dam - now under the red mud - a disaster waiting to happen, obvious even to a bus passenger. That local bus in which I traveled was run by the same mining company, who employed most people around there. If that’s still the case, suppose they’ll still control what’s done with the fund money.
the money, which will be adjusted for inflation since 2015, will be put into a state fund and used for projects and initiatives in the area impacted by the dam collapse.
Lol… That won’t get abused at all.
You’re right, we should do nothing and let these irresponsible companies keep it.
Or maybe give it to the people who were actually affected by it? The ones in who’s names the judgement was made?
It literally says it’s a punitive assessment for emotional damages… I don’t think the government got its feelings hurt…
I agree with your first point. But the only thing most companies understand is money. A punitive fine will save lives and prevent future negligence.
A punitive assessment for the emotional damage from deaths and destruction of personal property on a grand scale, including the environment the damaged parties live in, is entirely appropriate.
Levying it under that pretense, but putting it in a discretionary fund under purview of government is essentially a 100% tax on the damages done to the victims.
Claiming it will be used to benefit those victims is a whitewash… It never goes to the victims unless it’s awarded to them.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the punitive assessment, my objection is purely to the recipient.
get abused
Like how the mining consortiums abused the natural resources which caused this disaster?
