I'm somewhat confused.
I had to check out the word 'transparency' and then seek the opposite of that word.
Opaque ~ not able to be seen through; not transparent.
Okay, so now I understand.
So, would it be safe to suggest that Mark Reilly, the former boss of GlaxoSmithKline in China, was being Opaque when he first met and spoke with the private investigator he hired to look into whistleblower allegations?
Here's where the confusion, for me at least, comes back again.
An article appeared today in The Sunday Times. It's a fascinating read and digs a little deeper into the whole GSK Chinagate scandal. (It's subscription only but can be read courtesy of The Truthman blog - here)
See if you, like me, are confused.
GSK’s troubles began in the autumn of 2012 when a whistleblower contacted the Chinese pharmaceutical regulators alleging massive bribery and corruption by the company’s sales force in China.
Mark Reilly, GSK’s country manager for China, hired Humphrey to investigate the source of the complaints, telling him the allegations were “false and defamatory”.
Now, lets take a look at The Guardian's coverage of the trial of Mark Reilly.
The British former boss of GlaxoSmithKline in China will be deported back to the UK after pleading guilty to bribery-related charges and being handed a three-year suspended prison sentence.
You can understand my confusion here, right?
Would it be false or defamatory to call Mark Reilly a liar?
Related - The Penny Drops for GSK's Private Investigator.