# Senior Bankers let off the hook.



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Or rather the hook is abolished before the bankers can get themselves anywhere near it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-burgon/george-osborne-banking_b_8869678.html

Someone certainly knows who needs special privileges.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Stanner said:


> Or rather the hook is abolished before the bankers can get themselves anywhere near it.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-burgon/george-osborne-banking_b_8869678.html
> 
> Someone certainly knows who needs special privileges.


 The corruption is getting totally blatant now or is it I am bias against this sincere, incorruptible government?


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

The reverse burden of proof concept would have gone against the very basic principle of innocent until found guilty - a principle that we cherish in our society. Had the measure been included, then bankers would have had to have proved their innocence rather than the prosecuting authorities proving their guilt.

It was pleasing to see that sense prevailed and the Lords passed the amendment.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

The problem is that, at the time all this went on, there was (as far as I can find out) no actual offence on the statute book, to cover what these turkeys got up to. (Probably because no-one dreamt any banker could be so bad. Isn't hind sight wonderful??) 

Anyway you cannot make any law retrospective. If, at the time anything was done, there was no law to cover that act then there is no chance of a prosecution. In days gone by it was very difficult to prosecute someone for "stealing" a car. A vital part of the offence was it had to be proved there was an intention to "permanently deprive the owner of it" 

The crooks would say they only intended to borrow it!!! So they had to be prosecuted for "stealing" the petrol they used. That's why the offence of "Taking a Conveyance" was introduced. Daft but true, the law is always very specifically worded and it is sometimes very difficult to accept that although something is clearly "wrong" it might not actually be illegal.

It makes my blood boil to think that these cheating conniving bastards have got away with virtually bankrupting our country, at our expense, whist they got huge bonuses but if there was no law saying they couldn't do it they have, as time has proved, got away with it! 

Andy


----------



## eurajohn (May 9, 2005)

greygit said:


> The corruption is getting totally blatant now or is it I am bias against this sincere, incorruptible government?


And of course the years of the Blair and co Government were squeaky clean.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

greygit said:


> The corruption is getting totally blatant now or is it I am bias against this sincere, incorruptible government?


And who was it that went for a "Light Touch" when it came to banking regulation???

I believe the chaps name was Gordon Brown wasn't it? and HE was a mate of that paragon of truth and virtue Tony B Liar

Andy


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Mrplodd said:


> The problem is that, at the time all this went on, there was (as far as I can find out) no actual offence on the statute book, to cover what these turkeys got up to. (Probably because no-one dreamt any banker could be so bad. Isn't hind sight wonderful??)
> 
> Anyway you cannot make any law retrospective. If, at the time anything was done, there was no law to cover that act then there is no chance of a prosecution. In days gone by it was very difficult to prosecute someone for "stealing" a car. A vital part of the offence was it had to be proved there was an intention to "permanently deprive the owner of it"
> 
> ...


So how come people who just happen to get caught up in a disturbance at somewhere like a demonstration can be done for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time (can't remember what the catch all phrase is for the "offence"*) and have to prove that they weren't involved. 
Surely that isn't innocent until proven guilty either but is still OK for the lower orders. Why can't that apply to bankers?

* Collective responsibility or guilt by association or some such.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

I am just pointing out the difficulties in launching a prosecution against these bankers. If you read ALL of my post that is very clear.

As for your question, not knowing the full circumstances it would be difficult to answer, however, there must have been some offence committed because, once an arrested person is taken to a Police station there is a "Custody Officer " (my daughter is a Police Sgt who carries out Custody Sgt duties on a regular basis) who's sole job is to satisfy themselves that the arrest is lawful and was justified. It is up to the arresting officer to convince the custody officer they acted both lawfully and correctly. Any doubt at all is ALWAYS afforded to the person arrested. 

If it transpires that there was not enough evidence and justification for the arrest then that person MUST be released at that stage. (It happens a lot more times than you would think!!) Any unlawful arrest is a serious matter (do not confuse unlawful with unnecessary, there is a huge difference) and any person subject to an unlawful arrest is in line for a fair chunk of compensation. 

Therefore, in the example you have asked, I suspect you are NOT in possession of ALL the facts of the case (and most certainly neither am I) It is very easy to make assumptions, I have tried not to make any but to just explain the process. 

There is a substantial amount of paperwork involved where the Custody Sgt must document the reasons they accept an arrested person into custody. That "paperwork" is actually computer based on a nationwide system that cannot be edited or altered once the information is inputed but CAN be (and very frequently is) accessed by the IPCC and must be made available, in its totality, to the arrested persons solicitor. So it has to be right!!

Andy

I am not for an instant trying to defend the actions of the dubious banking individuals who caused so much grief for so many, but they cannot be prosecuted for an offence that, at the time of their actions, didn't actually exist. Unpalatable it certainly is and I can do nothing to alter it, sorry!


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

Mrplodd said:


> ........ but they cannot be prosecuted for an offence that, at the time of their actions, didn't actually exist. Unpalatable it certainly is and I can do nothing to alter it, sorry!


Apparently they could have been but for that great legal mind George Osborne pushing through the Lords the legislation in question. Interesting that it was one Lord Lawson an ex Chancellor himself who was one of those that spoke out against this blatant twisting of law designed to purely to keep the HQ of HSBC in London as was Osbourn's sacking of regulator Martin Wheatley who was "too enthusiastic" in his running of the Financial Conduct Authority.

If it was a light touch to banking that led to the last debacle, look out for the future.

Dick


----------



## ob1 (Sep 25, 2007)

I've posted on another thread that although the governments are weak-kneed some private individuals are not. Fred Goodwin, for one, will in court following a private prosecution next year trying to answer for his crimes - please don't call it incompetence, although that will no doubt be his defence.

Ron


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Of course, there was probably no offence in the law over being an absolute useless waste of space that could have prevented the UK being taken to the edge of bankruptcy under the control of B Liar and co and of course Mr G. Brown who was incapable of seeing what affects his actions would bring about (but then he couldn't see much out of his one remaining nearly functional eye and so applied the "Nelson touch" very single day.....

I am sorry to say that news of such actions does nothing to convince me that corruption is confined to third world countries - it can be encountered MUCH closer to home IMO.......

and of course we will NEVER be allowed to know the full facts behind what happened........ that would propbably have disatrous effects on the support of ANY political party.......

Dave.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

eurajohn said:


> And of course the years of the Blair and co Government were squeaky clean.


Don't expect me to spring to that showers defence.:grin2:


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Mrplodd said:


> I am just pointing out the difficulties in launching a prosecution against these bankers. If you read ALL of my post that is very clear.
> 
> As for your question, not knowing the full circumstances it would be difficult to answer, however, there must have been some offence committed because, once an arrested person is taken to a Police station there is a "Custody Officer " (my daughter is a Police Sgt who carries out Custody Sgt duties on a regular basis) who's sole job is to satisfy themselves that the arrest is lawful and was justified. It is up to the arresting officer to convince the custody officer they acted both lawfully and correctly. Any doubt at all is ALWAYS afforded to the person arrested.
> 
> ...


Andy

A very good explanation of the role of a Custody Officer, particularly the point that even some police officers are probably not happy with the decisions that some Custody Officers make at times. I have had a couple of drinking pals that have been Custody Sargeants for several years at London Police Stations in Hammersmith and Ealing and have a good insight into the job which is a very responsible role.

I am pleased to know that your daughter is good enough a Police Officer to fulfill that job.

Geoff


----------



## H1-GBV (Feb 28, 2006)

Mrplodd said:


> And who was it that went for a "Light Touch" when it came to banking regulation???
> 
> I believe the chaps name was Gordon Brown wasn't it? and HE was a mate of that paragon of truth and virtue Tony B Liar
> 
> Andy


At the time, I believe, GO accused him of being heavy handed.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Actually, wasn’t it the blessed Margret that kicked off all the bank deregulation?


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Nope !!!

All down to Gormless Gordon 

Andy


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Mrplodd said:


> Nope !!!
> 
> All down to Gormless Gordon
> 
> Andy


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f8aaf08-a122-11e2-bae1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ve8bhHep :wink2:


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Unfortunately though I can open the page that link leads to and I can see the headline, I can't see the article.


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

erneboy said:


> Unfortunately though I can open the page that link leads to and I can see the headline, I can't see the article.


Got to be a subscriber to the "pink 'un" Alan. Either that or the Tories have managed to expurge the Internet of all that could be deemed critical of the blessed Margaret. You know just like they deleted every speech made by DC before 2010. :smile2:

Dick


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Glandwr said:


> You know just like they deleted every speech made by DC before 2010. :smile2:


Not sure where you got that from Dick?

Anyway you can find DC's pre-2010 speeches here - if you are so motivated!

http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.o...arty=&searchRangeFrom=1895&searchRangeTo=2015


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Sorry about link it seems to be unavailable for some reason but if you want to search yourselves here is some cut and paste links.

*Thatcher legacy*
*By John Plender FT Markets Insight April 9, 2013 *

It would seem history is rewriting its self. :wink2:


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

peribro said:


> Not sure where you got that from Dick?
> 
> Anyway you can find DC's pre-2010 speeches here - if you are so motivated!
> 
> http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.o...arty=&searchRangeFrom=1895&searchRangeTo=2015


Big story at the time Peter do you not remember it? They failed though despite that charlatan Shapps thinking it could be done :smile2:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-24924185

Dick


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Glandwr said:


> Big story at the time Peter do you not remember it? They failed though despite that charlatan Shapps thinking it could be done :smile2:
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-24924185


Thanks Dick - I missed that at the time although it doesn't surprise me in the least. This lot are as bad as the last lot at spin although possibly a bit more subtle. To see Cameron making the figures up when he was talking about flood spending whilst in Yorkshire yesterday made me feel like driving up there to join in the heckling!


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

peribro said:


> To see Cameron making the figures up when he was talking about flood spending whilst in Yorkshire yesterday made me feel like driving up there to join in the heckling!


Could you post a link that shows the figures were made up??

Andy


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

I was frankly shocked to see the prime minister of Great Britain on television yesterday being interviewed wearing a VERY prominent North Face logo.

What was all that about? Does of one of his trans Atlantic mates own the company or was he trying to connect with the common man? As you say Peter every word, gesture and figure is carefully analysed and chosen to serve a purpose.

Dick


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

An emblem saying two faced would be more appropriate.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Glandwr said:


> I was frankly shocked to see the prime minister of Great Britain on television yesterday being interviewed wearing a VERY prominent North Face logo.
> 
> What was all that about?


He's thinking ahead about his next job.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Mrplodd said:


> Could you post a link that shows the figures were made up??


I read in an online news article early this morning that Downing Street and DEFRA had been asked to provide verification for the figures that the PM was quoting yesterday but that neither of them had been able to do so. I can't remember which news site it was but I will endeavour to try to find the link. Obviously the failure of Downing Street to provide support for whatever the PM might say doesn't of course mean that he was making it up - I should hastily say by way of clarification!!


----------

