Banking Scandal - Page 3

cashman · 04-07-2012, 07:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by entwisi

if you mean me I am obviously bound by my terms of employment to discuss anything of any sensitivity...

as for who earns 6 million let me point you at a huge number of premier league footballers who beat this hands down for kicking a bag of wind around.....

The difference being a footballer who commits fraud and caught out, will face ban n prosecution, not be rewarded, as is likely in B.D.s case, not a valid comparison in my book.

Margaret Pilkington · 04-07-2012, 07:52

Nor in mine. The situation in banking looks to be escalating and I think there will be many more twists and turns in this sordid tale. What it does, is undermine public confidence in the whole of the banking industry...this cannot be good for anyone.
Banking is no longer a service,(and you don't mind paying for a service if it provides you with what you want) the banks have become greedy and have taken the whole country for a ride...treated its clients as mugs. They have undermined the likelihood of an economic recovery by their toxic practices.

Bob Diamond will come under scrutiny today. I wonder which high paid flunkies are currently crapping themselves.

Just as an aside, Bob Diamond should get absolutely nothing when he stands down....why should sharp underhand practice be rewarded by more money than the common man would earn in two lifetimes?

cashman · 04-07-2012, 08:02

I would also point out,if a footballer commits fraud n is caught, It costs him, "NOT" rewards him, a suttle difference i think.

Whist i understand yer T@C prevent comment (Fair Enough) I doubt very much if they state yeh must try n shift the spotlight? Bit pathetic in my view.

Margaret Pilkington · 04-07-2012, 08:18

small businesses have gone to the wall as a result of this crazy practice...jobs lost, houses repossessed(how can these people be compensated for this) that might not have been, had the banks been truer, more open in their dealings...and it looks like there also might have been some political involvement too...as well as the BOE(which I mentioned in an earlier post).

jaysay · 04-07-2012, 08:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by entwisi

if you mean me I am obviously bound by my terms of employment to discuss anything of any sensitivity...

as for who earns 6 million let me point you at a huge number of premier league footballers who beat this hands down for kicking a bag of wind around.....

Ya but they bring enjoyment to thousands not misery

Jim Procter · 04-07-2012, 13:18

No one has mentioned about the tax this Bob Diamond should have paid on his vast salary and bonus. It seems he pays very little, as Barclays pay his tax for him.So his salary and bonus last year which amounted to 21 million is now worth another 5.7 million as his tax was settled by his bank.By my reckoning he should have paid at least 60% to HM Government amounting to about 12.6 million.How do these guys get away with it?

Margaret Pilkington · 04-07-2012, 16:36

Jim they get away with it because the rules are made to catch the little flies...the big flies just break through the net that is supposed to catch them.
It has always been this way and I can't see any real change coming soon.
The mantra of these guys is 'because I'm worth it'......they are greedy and do not see that by them shirking their tax burden, we all have to bear a little bit more of the burden. If they paid what they should, there would be no cuts in services...but you see cuts in services never affect them.
They have probably done untold harm to the reputation of Britain

Guinness · 04-07-2012, 16:48

Like I pointed out in the Graham Jones thread...politicians would rather go after the guys who knock the odd £10 off your car repair for cash, than deal with people who make millions from the misery of others, while producing absolutely nothing

garinda · 04-07-2012, 17:07

I've said before, in the eighties when I was a student, out of the then four high street British banks, Barclays was the only one who did business in pre-apartheid South Africa.

Profits before morals every time.

Mancie · 08-07-2012, 21:58

Wiil the Tories or anyone take any notice of this bloke?

Cable warns banks are 'throttling' recovery - Telegraph

The Liberals are the lamest of lame ducks in this government..they pop up every now and then but are useless and god only knows what if any policy they have.
This government have not been elected and have no mandate to push through their programme of dismantling of the whole social and economic struture of this nation.. be gone I say!

gynn · 13-07-2012, 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

This government have not been elected and have no mandate to push through their programme of dismantling of the whole social and economic struture of this nation.. be gone I say!

So a General Election tomorrow.

Choice?

David "Lord Snooty" Cameron or
Ed "School Sneak" Miliband

Is that the best we can do?

Guinness · 13-07-2012, 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by gynn

So a General Election tomorrow.

Choice?

David "Lord Snooty" Cameron or
Ed "School Sneak" Miliband

Is that the best we can do?

I'm afraid it is...

Living in a predominantly labour ward, my vote is meaningless, vote labour it's +1 to the 600+ majority..vote anything else it's a 600+ -1 vote

Proportional representation is the way to go..but that was flummoxed last time out by politicians (who want jobs for the boys) screwing with the question, over complicating the outcome, and media scaremongering. Result..proportional representation is buried for the foreseeable future.

Really can't see the issue here, you take 100% of the vote and share this between 100% of the parties who stand, and you do it proportionally. Majority party has the PM and cabinet, the rest either agree or disagree in the commons. This works in many other countries.

Oh, and you need to make parliamentary whipping illegal..forcing someone to vote the way you want under threat is illegal for joe public, but not in parliament..the mind boggles!!!

The mother of parliaments as an ideal is outdated and about as relevant as the forum of Rome, it's antiquated and past its sell by date.

The argument that you need someone to represent you who lives in the area is flawed, thats why they move cabinet members into 'safe' seats (and why we have people like Graham Jones who, once they are in, think they are more educated than the people they represent)

Alan Varrechia · 13-07-2012, 22:35

Absolutely bang on the money. Karma added and deserved.

Mancie · 13-07-2012, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by gynn

So a General Election tomorrow.

Choice?

David "Lord Snooty" Cameron or
Ed "School Sneak" Miliband

Is that the best we can do?

Putting the question that way it's the devil or the deep blue sea.

Mancie · 14-07-2012, 00:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinness

I'm afraid it is...

Really can't see the issue here, you take 100% of the vote and share this between 100% of the parties who stand, and you do it proportionally. Majority party has the PM and cabinet, the rest either agree or disagree in the commons. This works in many other countries.

Umm it's called a hung parliment..which happened in the last election.. one party had the most MP's but not a winning majority and so another party agreed to support the party with the most MP's in exchange for seats in the cabinet..Google Page Ranking in practice.