Readers' comments (part 2)

Capgemini rebranding – your views

On Cap Gemini’s decision to drop E&Y from its name:

‘The main reason why the ‘E&Y’ was dropped from the Capgemini name is because Capgemini had to comply with the May 2000 contract which stipulated that the E&Y name could no longer be used after 4 years, and Paul Hermelin’s (Capgemini chief executive) comment had nothing to do with E&Y, rather it was pointed toward the other direct consulting competitors (like Accenture). Sounds like this article is exaggerating E&Y’s current situation.’
From Meredith Aiello, [email protected] on 29 April 2004.

Read the article: E&Y has the cruellest month

What Paul Hermelin said: ‘There is a real fatigue about the arrogance of consulting firms. We told clients to beware of Y2K, and they are still waiting for something to happen. We told them not to miss the internet wave and they spent a lot of money. There is a need for a more modest approach. Consultancies need to be more credible.’

Huntingdon Life Sciences – your views

Sue Edwards is not ashamed to sign her name to a letter supporting opposition to Huntingdon Life Sciences because she knows that she will not be subjected to illegal harassment, damage to her property, or personal injury as a result of her views, unlike others associated with HLS, including the auditors Hugh Scott In my view, in a civilised society, anyone who resorts to violence to promote their views is a moron.
Andrew Owens, Sussex, 9 May

Sue Edwards is disingenuous at best in her call for firms involved with Huntingdon Life Sciences to stand up and be counted. Most members of SHAC are not morons as she says, but there are a small minority of violent morons among them. Unless the majority like Sue Edwards make clear their abhorrence of violence and give the police evidence to ensure the conviction of the violent thugs who have hijacked their legitimate cause, it will remain necessary for anyone doing business with HLS to remain anonymous to avoid threats of violence against themselves, their firms and their families.

Name withheld, 10 May

I have been impressed by your balanced coverage of Huntingdon Life Sciences, their auditors Hugh Scott and the diligent attempts by animal rights campaigners to find some information on Hugh Scott. Firms which choose to act as auditors for certain companies should be prepared to stand by their decisions and not try to hide from the legitimate interest of the public when the companies they audit are such as HLS.
It was therefore a disappointment to read the letter from “Anonymous” in this week’s issue (See next letter). SHAC campaigners are not morons. I know. I’m proud to be one of them and, unlike Anonymous, I’m not ashamed to sign my name.
Sue Edwards on 30 May 2004

Aren’t you ashamed to have become the spokesman for these SHAC morons who have undermined the very industry that you purport to write to?
You keep writing about how these extortionists are going to find these new auditors, Hugh Scott, and treat them as despicably as they did Deloitte.
Are you being paid by Deloitte’s competitors to continue embarrassing us in that way?
I am beginning to think your magazine is geared for political extremists, not for us accountants!
Straighten up your act!
Anonymous, via email on 23 April

Read the story: Huntingdon protestors hunt down auditor

Comments may be edited for space and clarity and for legal reasons.