KPMG and witches

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I think it is a bit harsh to accuse KPMG of "sloppy attention to detail" just because they were claimed to be involved in the decision to award grant funding to a witch.

"Apparently, KPMG found the business concept and market potential promising." Well given the number of people out there who are willing to hand over their cash to very similar enterprises, I'm not surprised. From the above and my experience, I suspect that KPMG were asked to consider if the business were likely to succeed and whether it met the necessary criteria to qualify for a grant. The government sets the criteria, not KPMG. They would not be asked if it were legal as that would be a question for a lawyer.

So, they appear to have given reasonable answers to the questions they were asked (and I very much doubt if the government asked them to give an opinion on whether it was ethical to market such products) - hardly sloppy attention to detail.

For the avoidance of doubt I am not now and never have been connected with KPMG in any way.

 

[Trebuchet]

I had pretty much the same thought. KPMG wasn't trying to validate witchcraft, they were looking at the business case. They don't have to look any farther than Sylvia Browne & John Edwards to see there are plenty of suckers out there willing to fork over their hard-earned cash to charlatans.

Sometimes I really wish Randi would put a little more thought into his commentary. I have great admiration for the man but stuff like this, and the year-zero question, reduces his overall credibility.