When will we learn

tarric

tarric

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,678
Name
dean
Edit My Images
Yes
Once again we are f***ed over by the bankers, is it not about time some or all of these people are prosecuted for fraud and put in prison for a long time. This world is seriously f***edup steal a few thousand and go to prison for years steal billions and get millions in bonuses and a slap on the wrist.WTF

Yes I know that the banks have been fined (but not enough IMO) but none of the bankers have been imprisoned.
 
Perhaps because no criminal offense had taken place? Under labour it was free for all and self regulated. The Tories have actually brought legislation in to criminalize this behaviour and if I am not mistaken they are extending this to other price fixing activities as well. Further more some have found guilty of that after the legislation was brought in.

You can't just retrospective jail people for criminal activity that wasn't criminal at the time.

However be assured there are teams working day and night to find angles in the law that could be utilised and was valid at the tine.

So in short, have a complaint take it uo with labour and ask them why they sat on their laurels unlike the conservatives/coalition who actually did something about this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
eeyore said:
Also don't forget the torys at the time wanted even less banking regulation too.
Click to expand...
I'm not a big fan of regulation, I don't like bureaucracy, we end up paying for it, and by definition it is discriminative to some and provides unfair advantages to others. It distorts market mechanisms. However just by having regulation in place doesn't make it a criminal act ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Not saying it was, just pointing out that all the high horse riding by the tory party at the moment is a little bit misplaced.
 
eeyore said:
Not saying it was, just pointing out that all the high horse riding by the tory party at the moment is a little bit misplaced.
Click to expand...
Because regulation would have criminalised the acts? Hmm try and think again....Labour had plenty of time to do this, but they didn't, George did do it and Labours response was why didn't he do it sooner....Nice one...No wonder the majority don't trust Labour with dealing with these situations....
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
tarric said:
none of the bankers have been imprisoned.
Click to expand...
Firstly, that's not correct. There have been convictions, and there will probably be more.
Secondly, fraud trials typically take a VERY long time to bring to trial, and the trials themselves take forever. If you're ever on jury duty and get a fraud trial... don't plan anything for the next couple of years. The first conviction for LIBOR rigging was in October 2014 - and that was quick because the guy pleaded guilty. The first full trial by jury for LIBOR rigging only started this month.

I can speak from personal experience - I spent a while working for an investment bank (not as a banker, mind), and whilst I was there our Head Offices were stormed by armed police with sniffer dogs and a helicopter (bit excessive?). The CFO was led out of the building in handcuffs and is still awaiting trial. So there ARE cases going through the legal process - just don't expect results anytime soon.
 
Your phrasing suggests this is something new - which it's not. Ancient history.

And all this LIBOR rigging is nothing but a drop in the ocean compared to the massive market manipulation by the Fed. The US and the $ are heading for a fall and the longer we wait, the more earth shattering it will be.
 
dejongj said:
Because regulation would have criminalised the acts? Hmm try and think again....Labour had plenty of time to do this, but they didn't, George did do it and Labours response was why didn't he do it sooner....Nice one...No wonder the majority don't trust Labour with dealing with these situations....
Click to expand...

When the tory party in 2007 released a report wanting less regulation... Did also they want to make it a criminal offence at the time?
Or was it after things went wrong...

Ultimately yes it was down to labour as they were in power at the time to make the rules and laws.

However would it have been any different if the tory party were in power?
 
dejongj said:
Because regulation would have criminalised the acts? Hmm try and think again....Labour had plenty of time to do this, but they didn't, George did do it and Labours response was why didn't he do it sooner....Nice one...No wonder the majority don't trust Labour with dealing with these situations....
Click to expand...
That was like locking the stable door after the horse had bolted :)

The Tories wouldnt have legislated early for exactly the same reason Labour didnt, too scared of losing the money men who effectively determine policy in this country. And if we are reminiscing then lets not forget the seeds for the banking collapse were very firmly planted in 1986
 
  • Like
Reactions: mex
dejongj said:
No wonder the majority don't trust Labour with dealing with these situations....
Click to expand...
Technically, the majority didn't trust *anyone* when you look at the recent results..
 
ST4 said:
Has a banker made your poorer, if so how? Have they caused your salary to drop or something?
Click to expand...
The BoE lowering the interest rates has hammered anyone with savings income but no mortgage (i.e. most retirees).
 
Llamaman said:
The BoE lowering the interest rates has hammered anyone with savings income but no mortgage (i.e. most retirees).
Click to expand...

And those with mortgages have benefited hugely with the lower rates.

Can't please anyone all the time.

Those with sizable lump sums get FSCS protection to £85k per institution the funds are held meaning cash deposits are nil risk, but little reward. Those that want more can invest in stocks/shares and lose the protection but see capitals gains that beat inflation and better yields from dividends.
 
Or invest in property for even better returns, and helping to price everyone's children out of the property market. Result.

I see the Tories have promised to build 200,000 homes over the next 5 years. That'll reaaaaaally help *facepalm*
 
In real terms, while inflation was higher than the interest rate, it was costing money to save money in a deposit account. Capital gains over the threshold are taxable. Dividends are taxed at source and that tax is non refundable. IIRC the rate is 10% on dividends.
 
Llamaman said:
Or invest in property for even better returns, and helping to price everyone's children out of the property market. Result.

I see the Tories have promised to build 200,000 homes over the next 5 years. That'll reaaaaaally help *facepalm*
Click to expand...

Who cares about other peoples children, I don't.

Equities have actually outperformed property over the last 50 years IIRC.

If we let less people into the country, IMHO we wouldn't need to build so many new houses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32816454

A total of 641,000 people moved to the UK in 2014, the Office for National Statistics said.

All these people/families need to live in something?
 
ST4 said:
Can't please anyone all the time.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but my generation has been hammered both ways, when we were young and had mortgages, the interest rates were obscenely high.
Now we have no mortgage and a few quid in the bank the interest rates are obscenely low.

As an aside and slightly off topic, but I think its still pertinent,
Apparently cost of living has fallen dramatically, mostly due to the "low food and fuel prices"
Really? food maybe, but just in the past 5 weeks I've seen Diesel rise by 5pLtr
Its over 120p up here, and yet it was about 105p at the beginning of the year.
 
Where does any money in fines, actually go?
 
Petrol still on the rise here too.
 
Cobra said:
Agreed, but my generation has been hammered both ways, when we were young and had mortgages, the interest rates were obscenely high.
Now we have no mortgage and a few quid in the bank the interest rates are obscenely low.

As an aside and slightly off topic, but I think its still pertinent,
Apparently cost of living has fallen dramatically, mostly due to the "low food and fuel prices"
Really? food maybe, but just in the past 5 weeks I've seen Diesel rise by 5pLtr
Its over 120p up here, and yet it was about 105p at the beginning of the year.
Click to expand...


Hopefully when I am 60 the rates will be obscenely high again...

In all seriousness these things come in cycles and the government isn't the major issue. It has been touched on both labour and tory governments haven't reformed the city, simply because it doesn't need to be. Why kill the golden goose?
 
ST4 said:
Why kill the golden goose?
Click to expand...
I think if you are hungry enough and the eggs are slow to arrive, I think there is a case for that too ;)
 
ST4 said:
Would you shoot the geese in the face?
Click to expand...
LOL well a head shot anyway, so as not to spoil the rest of the meat :thumbs:
 
ST4 said:
Thats ok. I approve of shooting things that one doesn't like in the face/head etc.
Click to expand...
LOL I thought you would approve :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Alastair said:
Technically, the majority didn't trust *anyone* when you look at the recent results..
Click to expand...
How do you conclude that? They got an outright majority of seats, and not just that. Also a whopping 20% more votes than the next largest cohort of votes.
 
ST4 said:
A total of 641,000 people moved to the UK in 2014, the Office for National Statistics said.
All these people/families need to live in something?
Click to expand...
You fail to factor for those that emigrated. I wonder why that is?

I'll rein myself in and describe your post as disingenuous.
 
dejongj said:
How do you conclude that? They got an outright majority of seats, and not just that. Also a whopping 20% more votes than the next largest cohort of votes.
Click to expand...
tut tut tut, I see your at it again
 
dejongj said:
How do you conclude that? They got an outright majority of seats, and not just that. Also a whopping 20% more votes than the next largest cohort of votes.
Click to expand...
The majority is greater than 50% of the electorate, "a majority" is just more than anyone else.

It's interesting that by the rules the Conservatives intend to place on trade unions, the vote they received at the general election was insufficient to represent the decision of the electorate.
 
They got the majority they required mr pedantic ;)
 
jakeblu said:
tut tut tut, I see your at it again
Click to expand...
???? Did I say anything factually incorrect? Why not comment constructive at the post opposed the person?
 
dejongj said:
???? Did I say anything factually incorrect? Why not comment constructive at the post opposed the person?
Click to expand...
You would make a good politician using statitics selectively ;) Mathematically you are correct but its how you have worded it. They didnt get 20% more of the popular vote than the opposition,

One thing to consider when your talking about majorities, both the main parties in this country, the government and the official opposition couldnt muster 60% of the votes between them. Whilst they may bluff and bluster through this parliament if it continues in future elections then the calls for change will become impossible to ignore.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Who cares about other peoples children, I don't.
Click to expand...

You ought to be, they might be wiping your ar$e in your dotage :)
 
jakeblu said:
You would make a good politician using statitics selectively ;) Mathematically you are correct but its how you have worded it. They didnt get 20% more of the popular vote than the opposition,

One thing to consider when your talking about majorities, both the main parties in this country, the government and the official opposition couldnt muster 60% of the votes between them. Whilst they may bluff and bluster through this parliament if it continues in future elections then the calls for change will become impossible to ignore.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, fact is that the tories received 20% more votes than labour did. Another fact is that they gained an outright majority of the seats available.

I don't get why that is so hard to accept.

Sure if there is another system it may have had another outcome. But this is the system we have and this is the system the vast majority of the voters voted for.

I really don't get the issue you have with these facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
dejongj said:
Perhaps because no criminal offense had taken place? Under labour it was free for all and self regulated. The Tories have actually brought legislation in to criminalize this behaviour and if I am not mistaken they are extending this to other price fixing activities as well. Further more some have found guilty of that after the legislation was brought in.....

So in short, have a complaint take it uo with labour and ask them why they sat on their laurels unlike the conservatives/coalition who actually did something about this.
Click to expand...

Errr, excuse me, I would stand corrected, but did'nt Mrs. Thatcher start the deregulation of the UK's banking system in 1986 with her then goverments banking and stock exchange reforms? Even after being warned by many that the idea would bring about financial disaster? The big bankers run the bloody country not the puppets/muppets that sit in number 10, regardless of their right or left views.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top