Rant

I know this wont interest most but anyway... Tony Robinsons answer to the question ''Is there any integrity left in British banking?'' is spot on imo.

if you can be arsed scroll from 1:00 - 3:00 min, but the other comments re criminal prosecution are worth hearing...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01kbz8c/Question_Time_28_06_2012/

I completely agree with Tony when he says, '' I have NO respect for British bankers and the British banking system AT ALL''.

The evidence for this opinion is clear to all who take even the smallest interest in current affairs.

Really; these scumbag bankers are just high class criminals, same as the ass licking, snide, lying, cheating, embezzling politicians they have tucked in their oversized and greedy pockets.
***ts the lot of them! No offence.

 

Totally agree.
Thing is though, what can be done? Us "commoners" have no say, none whatsoever.....we can bleat, we can stamp our feet....but really, does it change anything? THAT is the wind up in this democratic (pah is it f*ck!) C*NTry

 

Calm down dear?
Well said Tony.

 

Handed the sawn off pump action in on one of those "we wont do you" days at the cop shop........and they could not do a damn thing.....it was as funny as fu**!
Building society.....does this creature still exist?

 

Tis a shame she didn't think to get them....doh cant remember what it is called, but when they take the firing pin out or something? Then it makes them legal to own as display pieces and doesn't take much to restore them back to original if needed. Dependant of course on how old the pistols are

 

And I think I just lied........can't remember if it was a "sawn off" barrel or merely a pump action now....it was so long ago!

 

Decommissoned.
Firing pin is removed and the barrel blocked... So I heard.

 

deactivated is the correct term dear boy lol

 

THOUGHT it was....but cos I am not THAT into guns, I was not sure and did not want to look stupid......ok....stupider than usual

 

If I may contribute some thoughts to Kev's original rant (although I do like the direction in which it went off - no pun intended), most of us lump 'bankers' all together as being the spawn of the Devil: this is inaccurate. There should be at least one major division between so-called 'commercial' bankers (those who take deposits and lend money for cars and houses and so on - old-fashioned bankers) and 'investment' bankers. As one who began as the former and ended by masquerading as the latter, I feel qualified to speak about the differences.

Many of you will remember the so-called 'Big-Bang' on 27th October, 1986. This was not the origin of creation (13.7Billion years ago), and nor is it a reference to a certain Korean Boy Band of the same name. Instead it was the Headline-grabbing moniker applied to deregulation of the London financial markets, the combining of roles of stock-jobber and broker and the beginning of the move from open outcry markets to exclusively electronic trading. To be a little rude and overly crude about the process, it brought the 'white-sock' brigade into the old-fashioned, gentlemanly club of banking.

In the same way as some households bring large and aggressive breeds of dog into their family (without knowing how to treat them and control them) so the major London banks brought these aggressive men and women into the fold and simply didn't know what they had done.

I hope I do not offend anyone by these generalisations, but a proper investment banker is a powerful business person (yes, women and men are as unprincipled and aggressive and ruthless as each other) and if you set them targets of say, turnover, then don't be surprised when they do hitherto unthinkable things in order to achieve that turnover - and in a multiple of what you'd agreed with them, so they manage a vast bonus payment on top of their salary. Not only this, but in my former institution which has featured prominently in the news of late, my boss' boss was not only welcomed into Barclays by the main Board, but was allowed to bring with him his chief lieutenants. They gradually took over control of all the money-making and profitable bits of the group and now (God help us) the afore-mentioned gentleman has been made CEO of the whole shebang.

I can relate several incidents in which I participated more than ten years ago which demonstrated to me that the main Board had little understanding of what certain transactions really meant for the bank as a whole. I genuinely believe those august gentlemen (and one gentlewoman) didn't realise what a cuckoo they had brought into their nest until it was too late (J. Martin Taylor, former CEO, did appreciate what was going on, but was removed). I have seen press comment today that the City generally doesn't like or trust the bank's current CEO but is scared to depose him because they think he is the only one who really knows how such a complex, powerful and aggressive entity works. They are probably right, but that shouldn't stop his removal if they are brave enough. It will crater the share price, but only for a short time.

My point (and sorry to labour this, but it is a 'Rant' thread) is that investment bankers are a breed apart: if you can align their interests with what is important to you, whether it be serving customers or making money for shareholders or driving up the share price, then you can sit back and watch them go. But be careful what you wish for! To put it another way, they will do what management inspect rather than what management expect.

The current row about manipulating the London InterBank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is a clear example: no law has been broken. But if you can make more money or gain some advantage by doing it, why wouldn't you? After all, 'Ethics' is a county north of the Thames.

 

Well said Panel Man!!

 

Thing is Richard, speaking a bit more generally re investment bankers and their 'handlers', i dont think the 'means justifying the end' or meeting a desired outcome (by employing said rottweilers) is any kind of excuse in this example whereby the consequences of such greed/targets have had a devastating negative impact on the global economy and quality of life of the planet, with the exception of the rich. No management can absolve themselves from being accountable for the actions of those they employ, or they certainly shouldn't be able to. In the interview, i believe they said there could well be criminal investigations to follow. I hope so. For new crimes there will need to be new laws.

Its my view this is only the tip of the dungheap. There will be much more covert trading that we don't yet know about that will emerge over time.

 

Amen, brother. You haveno idea how close you are to the truth!

 

I have a small idea......