| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich 16:26 - Dec 31 with 5674 views | centrestandswan |
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/banking-culture-inquiry-scrapped
So the really big crooks get away with it again , we are being stitched up good and proper. Never mind there is always a good " kiddie fiddling " story to keep some on here ranting and raving, as distasteful as the practice is surely the banks and businesses who flout the rules should be taken to task and some sort of justice administered.Oh sorry the banks are a special case, crooks in pinstripe suits carrying briefcases untouchables. Masses being pissed on from a great hight as usual. [Post edited 31 Dec 2015 16:26]
|  |
| |  |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 16:30 - Dec 31 with 4976 views | Jackfath |
The headline in your link suggests George Osbourne has been pulling off dogs. I'd suggest that is highly alarming. |  |
| |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 16:37 - Dec 31 with 4960 views | jackportis |
Too many victims.. May I suggest if one is unhappy and feels they are being 'pis sed' on why not better oneself. Become a banker? Become a politician? Retrain? Work hard get a promotion? Nobody will knock on doors and things on a plate. |  |
| Jackportis the brand. “A gifted posterâ€, “planet swans have a real talent on their hands in the name of Jackportis†sky sports 2018. . JP fully supports posters of LBG, mx orientation and ethnic minority groups. Update - now fully supporting the pansexual community. |
| |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 16:43 - Dec 31 with 4937 views | centrestandswan |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 16:37 - Dec 31 by jackportis |
Too many victims.. May I suggest if one is unhappy and feels they are being 'pis sed' on why not better oneself. Become a banker? Become a politician? Retrain? Work hard get a promotion? Nobody will knock on doors and things on a plate. |
I have my own very successful business have had for the last 30 years and still going strong. Unhappy no just bemused by people who just can't see what is going on. Thanks for your comments . | |
| |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 16:49 - Dec 31 with 4924 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 16:43 - Dec 31 by centrestandswan |
I have my own very successful business have had for the last 30 years and still going strong. Unhappy no just bemused by people who just can't see what is going on. Thanks for your comments . |
I wouldn't bother mate ,seriously . |  |
| |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 17:49 - Dec 31 with 4881 views | jackportis |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 16:49 - Dec 31 by oh_tommy_tommy |
I wouldn't bother mate ,seriously . |
Very negative comment. Well done to him if he has a successful business and for over 30 years. Obviously hard work. To say don't bother is a typical comment from a 'victim'. | |
| Jackportis the brand. “A gifted posterâ€, “planet swans have a real talent on their hands in the name of Jackportis†sky sports 2018. . JP fully supports posters of LBG, mx orientation and ethnic minority groups. Update - now fully supporting the pansexual community. |
| |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 18:05 - Dec 31 with 4851 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 17:49 - Dec 31 by jackportis |
Very negative comment. Well done to him if he has a successful business and for over 30 years. Obviously hard work. To say don't bother is a typical comment from a 'victim'. |
I said wouldn't bother , not don't bother .
Happy new year 👠| |
| |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 18:12 - Dec 31 with 4839 views | mrrockin |
The reality is we should have let the banks fail, it's a disgrace what happened in the higher echelons of banking. Not in retail, but investment banking - this has a lot to do with Gov policy as well mainly in the States which pushed banks into lending sub prime mortgages.
That aside the crash happened and they should have failed, we would have had a deeper recession but now we have a serious moral hazard. Brown didn't save the World, he saved the City. |  | | |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 18:17 - Dec 31 with 4830 views | exiledclaseboy |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 18:12 - Dec 31 by mrrockin |
The reality is we should have let the banks fail, it's a disgrace what happened in the higher echelons of banking. Not in retail, but investment banking - this has a lot to do with Gov policy as well mainly in the States which pushed banks into lending sub prime mortgages.
That aside the crash happened and they should have failed, we would have had a deeper recession but now we have a serious moral hazard. Brown didn't save the World, he saved the City. |
Any Chancellor would have done what Brown did. They couldn't let the banks go under. I maintain, often to much I'll informed derision, that Brown's actions at that time meant that the recession was a lot less deep than it could have been. Remember the economy was back in positive, albeit weak, growth by the time of the 2010 election. Six years on and the economy is still in positive but weak growth. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 18:20 - Dec 31 with 4822 views | mrrockin |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 18:17 - Dec 31 by exiledclaseboy |
Any Chancellor would have done what Brown did. They couldn't let the banks go under. I maintain, often to much I'll informed derision, that Brown's actions at that time meant that the recession was a lot less deep than it could have been. Remember the economy was back in positive, albeit weak, growth by the time of the 2010 election. Six years on and the economy is still in positive but weak growth. |
Yes, you're probably right that doesn't make it right though.
But one the reasons labour had positive growth going into the election was not the capital put into the banks, that's not 'day to day' spend it was the fiscal deficit of 12%. You would need to be a Muppet of epic proportions not to get growth then.
If Ozzy decided to borrow say another 80bn over the next year we'd probably have growth over 8% does that make him an economic genius? Hell no. | | | |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 18:25 - Dec 31 with 4809 views | johnlangy |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 18:17 - Dec 31 by exiledclaseboy |
Any Chancellor would have done what Brown did. They couldn't let the banks go under. I maintain, often to much I'll informed derision, that Brown's actions at that time meant that the recession was a lot less deep than it could have been. Remember the economy was back in positive, albeit weak, growth by the time of the 2010 election. Six years on and the economy is still in positive but weak growth. |
Quite. When the Conservatives got in they inherited an economy from Labour growing at 1.9%. Now after 6 years of austerity we've got an economy growing at ................ ? Not much different from 1.9%.
Wonderful. What geniuses. | | | |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 18:26 - Dec 31 with 4806 views | mrrockin |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 18:25 - Dec 31 by johnlangy |
Quite. When the Conservatives got in they inherited an economy from Labour growing at 1.9%. Now after 6 years of austerity we've got an economy growing at ................ ? Not much different from 1.9%.
Wonderful. What geniuses. |
Oh dear the ignorance never ceases. I really do give up now. | | | |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 18:39 - Dec 31 with 4788 views | dgt73 |
Gordon Brown couldn't run a bath - how they put him in charge of the country is beyond me. |  |
| |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 19:14 - Dec 31 with 4757 views | 3swan |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 18:25 - Dec 31 by johnlangy |
Quite. When the Conservatives got in they inherited an economy from Labour growing at 1.9%. Now after 6 years of austerity we've got an economy growing at ................ ? Not much different from 1.9%.
Wonderful. What geniuses. |
If we only bought & sold goods/services in the UK I would agree.
Problem is we deal with the rest of the world and their economies have a large affect on how well or badly we do. | | | |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 19:18 - Dec 31 with 4750 views | mrrockin |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 19:14 - Dec 31 by 3swan |
If we only bought & sold goods/services in the UK I would agree.
Problem is we deal with the rest of the world and their economies have a large affect on how well or badly we do. |
Yes, I seem to recall after the election A.Darling holding an emergency meeting where the euro was about to implode. But nevermind it was all Brown's genius and Osborne's incompetence of course.
We'll discount the fact Brown borrowed sh11t loads more which even a geranium would realise would increase growth. Maybe that's the answer sod fiscal responsibility just borrow and continue to borrow. | | | |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 20:41 - Dec 31 with 4699 views | PozuelosSideys |
Article is a bit misleading.
It makes out as though the whole thing hasn't been looked at and has been swept under the carpet. The reality is that that could not be further from the truth. This/these issue(s) are looked at daily and by all the various regulators (both UK and EU and there are a few) from all different angles, and a great deal has changed within that world. You don't know about it as it doesn't get printed, it doesn't make a good story. Granted, there is still money to be made there if you are good at what you do, but 'the good 'ol days' are long gone.
I bet the OP didn't realise that there is now regulation in place which now makes senior employees solely responsible for their risk remit, failure to comply and manage properly can lead directly to jail time? It may be after the horse has bolted, but the rules/legal obligations are now there. There is a heck of a lot of other stuff going on too - most of which never makes it to print. |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 23:08 - Dec 31 with 4653 views | Nookiejack |
When's Quantitive Easing ever going to be unwound? | | | |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 13:19 - Jan 1 with 4550 views | controversial_jack |
When the banks crashed and had to be bailed out, that proved to me that capitalism doesn't work. These banks are the very meaning of capitalists and had to be bailed by the state.They should not have been bailed out | | | |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 13:33 - Jan 1 with 4530 views | blueytheblue |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 13:19 - Jan 1 by controversial_jack |
When the banks crashed and had to be bailed out, that proved to me that capitalism doesn't work. These banks are the very meaning of capitalists and had to be bailed by the state.They should not have been bailed out |
Ok, no bank bail out.
Banks collapse.
Millions of people lose their money.
I can see that one working. | |
| |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 14:39 - Jan 1 with 4488 views | controversial_jack |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 13:33 - Jan 1 by blueytheblue |
Ok, no bank bail out.
Banks collapse.
Millions of people lose their money.
I can see that one working. |
They could have been compensated directly, rather than just give it to the banks.It mostly investment banks and not savings banks | | | |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 15:02 - Jan 1 with 4472 views | blueytheblue |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 14:39 - Jan 1 by controversial_jack |
They could have been compensated directly, rather than just give it to the banks.It mostly investment banks and not savings banks |
And how would they have been compensated directly - create new bank accounts elsewhere and then make claims?
The time taken to have processed all that would have left millions without access to money other than that they had in their pockets for a while.
The problem was the lack of segregation between the high street business and the riskier investment side, granted, but no bailout would have caused major, major problems for millions. | |
| |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 16:49 - Jan 1 with 4424 views | controversial_jack |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 15:02 - Jan 1 by blueytheblue |
And how would they have been compensated directly - create new bank accounts elsewhere and then make claims?
The time taken to have processed all that would have left millions without access to money other than that they had in their pockets for a while.
The problem was the lack of segregation between the high street business and the riskier investment side, granted, but no bailout would have caused major, major problems for millions. |
Why should the taxpayer have to compensate those who invest in private banks and companies. It's not the job of the state to bail out these investors. Those who lost money in their personal bank accounts could have been compensated | | | |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 17:19 - Jan 1 with 4400 views | blueytheblue |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 16:49 - Jan 1 by controversial_jack |
Why should the taxpayer have to compensate those who invest in private banks and companies. It's not the job of the state to bail out these investors. Those who lost money in their personal bank accounts could have been compensated |
And again, how long would it have taken to get those who lost money in their personal bank accounts compensated - months? years?
Yeah, that would have caused financial hassle for millions of people but hey it would have stuck it to those bankers... ignore the collateral damage.
The taxpayer did not hand out money willy nilly. Short term loans were made, Government got shares in banks... so hardly free money for "evil" shareholders. | |
| |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 23:26 - Jan 1 with 4333 views | controversial_jack |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 17:19 - Jan 1 by blueytheblue |
And again, how long would it have taken to get those who lost money in their personal bank accounts compensated - months? years?
Yeah, that would have caused financial hassle for millions of people but hey it would have stuck it to those bankers... ignore the collateral damage.
The taxpayer did not hand out money willy nilly. Short term loans were made, Government got shares in banks... so hardly free money for "evil" shareholders. |
The banks had direct infusions of taxpayers money, so it was handed out, admittedly not to shareholders.Tthis will have to be recouped from the taxpayers, this is why we now have austerity policies
The financial compensation scheme is very efficient it wouldn't have taken that long.
What if this happens again, as there is every possibility it could, should the taxpayer bail out the banks once again? | | | |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 23:43 - Jan 1 with 4322 views | blueytheblue |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 23:26 - Jan 1 by controversial_jack |
The banks had direct infusions of taxpayers money, so it was handed out, admittedly not to shareholders.Tthis will have to be recouped from the taxpayers, this is why we now have austerity policies
The financial compensation scheme is very efficient it wouldn't have taken that long.
What if this happens again, as there is every possibility it could, should the taxpayer bail out the banks once again? |
What was the quid pro quo of those infusions? It wasn't free money handed out. Either short term loans of the government obtained shares in return for the infusion.
No compensation scheme is ever very efficient. Even if it took say a month to fully verify and pay everybody, then those millions of people would have had no banking facilities for a month. Compensation, fine, but it's silly to put them into a situation causing financial hardship for a dogmatic response.
In reality, the root problem ( mixing of investment and high street banking ) was something that needed addressing. The solution implemented wasn't ideal but was the best ( or more accurately, not the worst ) in the situation.
If the investment / high street banking are segregated, then in theory the chances of this happening again would be low. Should a bailout occur? If it means not damaging millions of people, then yes it should. | |
| |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 23:59 - Jan 1 with 4303 views | Jack_Meoff |
| One law for us and one for the f..kin' rich on 23:26 - Jan 1 by controversial_jack |
The banks had direct infusions of taxpayers money, so it was handed out, admittedly not to shareholders.Tthis will have to be recouped from the taxpayers, this is why we now have austerity policies
The financial compensation scheme is very efficient it wouldn't have taken that long.
What if this happens again, as there is every possibility it could, should the taxpayer bail out the banks once again? |
It's going to happen. And it'll be a bail in this time. |  |
| If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
