Firstly, thanks for your patience with my post and for not taking it personally. I think, this exactly highlights the more personal than cultural difference we have on the topic.
Likewise!

Me too.
You consider these as low numbers, I dont. Analysing numerically in the ISO spirit, it is 8% of the CBs and again 8% of the auditors:mg:
Yes, very reasonable point. How about 'relatively low' numbers? But even so, still unacceptable, I agree.
Again, this one auditor who was retired. Heavens know how many organisations he had incompetently audited and @^%#$^&$%#ed (sorry gender specific

) before someone like you stood up and complained.
I totally agree with you. Actually, he was a good case in point for cultural including gender difference. Male - yes. Opinion of women? Seemed relatively low - there to make the coffee and do the photocopying. Acting for the client? not happy. And most of his background (as I recall) was in a state-run environment in Asia. He was doing a 'pre-audit check' and basically just wanted to lay down the law, lecture and go.
The more I debated, disagreed, and queried a/which particular clause was being referenced, why and b/his interpretation thereof, the shorter and shorter temperred he got. He ended up - quite literally - standing and yelling, while shaking his hand, with upright angry finger in my face, and at one point, the client's. I actually got to the point of finding it (almost) amusing, he was so bad, and I'd never, never seen anything like it. Don't expect to ever again, either.
But - when I did complain (with permission from client) the certifier could not have dealt with it better, almost a textbook case of 'how to turn around a complainant'. Interestingly, they said, look some clients love him and some hate him. But as you say - what about the ones who hated him (like me)? I also discovered from the certifier that he had a back injury which was troubling him, so that probably also was a contributing cause. But no excuse. And I suspect that in one sense it wouldn't have mattered whether he was of Indonesian, British, Chinese, American or whatever background, he'd still have been a dictatorial little blighter in any case.
My client didn't know enough to know that this kind of behaviour was completely, completely unacceptable. If they'd not had a consultant there who did, they would probably have shut up, and tried to make their system into one that
he wanted to say (shades of 1994).
Why still auditing? - well here's the rub. They couldn't act without data - ie, formal complaints. (At the time, we had quite stringent labour laws that made it very difficult for employers to get rid of employees, and weighted the scales heavily in favour of employees). And no,
I don't think that's OK either.
Typically, in my 3.5 year career as a certifying auditor, I had conducted around 300 certification audits + so many surveillances. If I got kicked out after all these years, what about those 300 organisations?
True, true, true. No argument from this hemisphere!
$^^%&^$ consultants seliing off the shelf crap do exist and do a thriving business - basically because the crap gets certified.
Indeed, yes. (Multiple expletives here deleted, along with my opinion of such 'consultants' who are not worthy of the name)
This is where I differ. In my language - One rotten apple ...
Oh, very good point.
I too dont claim that this is a widespread or general rule. What I have been trying to highlight by giving links to cases reported by people (including you) across the world is that this is not confined to any specific culture in the world. And whatever is being reported is not good enough a standard of auditing.
Such poor standards of auditing are overriding any and all cultural differences that might exist.
Oh good - I must have misunderstood you. Because now I'm in 100% total agreement with you. It's
not good enough. And it should be better.