[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by NewMan

What about discussing it on the established thread instead of running two concurrently?

My apologies

Mods please merge the thread

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Presumably because so they can whip themselves into an orgasmic frenzy with double the amount of banker bashing ....

Bit like public sector bashing

[kav]

Originally Posted by Kebabhead

Bit like public sector bashing

This is what I don't get. There seems to be this perception that it can only be one or the other. Guess what? Both are a ****ing mess, it's entirely possible to hold the opinion that both need improvements, not just one or the other.

The fact that inaccurate and often downright incorrect information gets posted here and people seek to correct it does not mean that they condone or support the actions that some employees of the banks took.

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by kav

This is what I don't get. There seems to be this perception that it can only be one or the other. Guess what? Both are a ****ing mess, it's entirely possible to hold the opinion that both need improvements, not just one or the other.

The fact that inaccurate and often downright incorrect information gets posted here and people seek to correct it does not mean that they condone or support the actions that some employees of the banks took.

Both are a mess

However you have to laugh when people who threaten to strike are called extortionists

[IronGiant]

Can we keep this vaguely on topic please

[sharger]

Originally Posted by NewMan

More of the same bank bashing, actually...

Barclays bandits

Bob Diamond has already said he and other execs won't be getting a bonus this year.

Boo banks, burn everyone associated with them at the stake. Lets go back to bartering chickens for IT services.

That's ok then..... He gives up his bonus so banking is honest again ( if it ever was).

Only thing he should be giving up is his liberty.... In the Scrubs

[NewMan]

In your haste to bash bankers, and those who like to be rational about such things, you seem to have inferred that I somehow think that forgoing his bonus "makes it all ok". Nowhere have I said, or implied, anything of the sort. In fact, I tend to try to stay out of these "boo, all banks and bankers and anyone associated with them are pure evil and eat babies" hysterical outpourings - I was merely responding to kebabhead's claim that he bets "the CEO will still get his million pound bonus".

Apology accepted.

[Toko Black]

This is a prime example of why unfettered capitalism and unrestricted free markets don't work.

You simply can't rely the antiquated naive trust in banks and corporations to operate ethically when such large sums of money are at stake that effects nations. With large cash incentives some people will always try to cook the books one way or another.

If they are not fiddling the figures, they are miss selling ppi, loans and causing global financial meltdowns.

[CAS FAN]

It's absolutely disgusting and anyone found to be a part of it should be locked up and heavily fined. As if the reputation of banks wasn't bad enough...when will they learn?

[gibbsy]

It looks as though this is going to be deeper than just Barclays with several other banks being investigated both inthe UK and the US. What's happened with Barclays is that they know that they have been caught and have pleaded guilty and cooperated with the authorities.

It almost smacks of a major criminal case at the Old Bailey were one of the defendants turns super grass and pleading guilty to get a lower sentence.

Yet another nail in the coffin of a sector that the public now thinks of as lower than a snake's belly.

[sharger]

Originally Posted by NewMan

In your haste to bash bankers, and those who like to be rational about such things, you seem to have inferred that I somehow think that forgoing his bonus "makes it all ok". Nowhere have I said, or implied, anything of the sort. In fact, I tend to try to stay out of these "boo, all banks and bankers and anyone associated with them are pure evil and eat babies" hysterical outpourings - I was merely responding to kebabhead's claim that he bets "the CEO will still get his million pound bonus".

Apology accepted.

You stay out when you can't defend the in defendable.... Just make comments that create smoke and mirrors.

Why is this thread banker bashing anyway? Did they not do anything wrong in your eyes? Man up and give a proper view.... Or would that be seen as banker bashing?

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by gibbsy

Yet another nail in the coffin of a sector that the public now thinks of as lower than a snake's belly.

A few questions:
1) How many people were employed by Barclays during the period in question?

2) How many people were involved in setting Libor rates?

3) How many people in the UK are on benefits?

4) how many people commit benefit fraud in the UK?

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Wore Nowt

Considering that this conversation took place some time between 3 and 7 years ago the trader has quite a remarkable memory for detail.

I couldn't recall the exact words that someone used last week in such great detail let alone several years.

Is he absolutely sure that the chap referred to him as "Dude" and not "Bud" or "Mate"

Errrr ......... Email....!

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by sidicks

A few questions:
1) How many people were employed by Barclays during the period in question?

2) How many people were involved in setting Libor rates?

3) How many people in the UK are on benefits?

4) how many people commit benefit fraud in the UK?

Question 1-3 ask the Barclays CEO you know the guy on a multi-million pound salary and bonus

Question 4- Ask Cameron

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Kebabhead

Question 1-3 ask the Barclays CEO you know the guy on a multi-million pound salary and bonus

Question 4- Ask Cameron

Maybe you'd like to try and answer the question yourself....

[sharger]

Originally Posted by sidicks

A few questions:
1) How many people were employed by Barclays during the period in question?

2) How many people were involved in setting Libor rates?

3) How many people in the UK are on benefits?

4) how many people commit benefit fraud in the UK?

Here starteth the quiz with sidicks.....

What has this got to do with benefits? This is about pure banker greed? Surprised you haven't lumped the public sector in to strengthen your er point.... Whatever it is

If I were in the banking industry/closely related industry I would be wanting to distance myself massively from this fraud.... Not try and deflect it with benefits comparisons

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Maybe you'd like to try and answer the question yourself....

I don't have the answers but they should

Also comparing benefit fraud against this level of fraud is really scraping the barrel

[sharger]

Originally Posted by BISHI

Errrr ......... Email....!

But that doesn't allow room to create some smoke and mirrors.... Get with the programme

[CAS FAN]

I don't see how anyone could even start to defend this sort of behaviour regardless of their views on the public and private sector or their political allegiance. It's just completely appalling.

They have said that the likes of CitiBank, Lloyds banking group, RBS and others are also under investigation so this could be absolutely huge!

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by sidicks

A few questions:
1) How many people were employed by Barclays during the period in question?

2) How many people were involved in setting Libor rates?

3) How many people in the UK are on benefits?

4) how many people commit benefit fraud in the UK?

I think people, decent , reasonable hard working people are sick to the back teeth of the hypocrisy in the way blue and white collar crime is treated. People struggling at the bottom of the scale and often struggling to cope have an existential reason to require more, those at the top have more than enough as is but still want more ... IMO this makes them by far the more serious criminals and worse citizens. Is the punishment proportionate to their situations..? I doubt it. Millionaire bankers fiddling books and super rich mps ripping off the tax payer for moats and duck houses seem to get off lightly. You can't blame the poor for wanting a small slice of the pie when there are those making the crusts of their already substantial pies even thicker at the expense of decent tax payers.

[CAS FAN]

I think what we have to do in this situation is not confuse issues. I have an ideology that hard work should be rewarded and incentivised so that those who work hard and create good levels of wealth should be applauded, not penalised by over taxation etc. I know that there are people on here who disagree with this and feel that wealth should be more evenly distributed but that is a completely different issue to people breaking the law to create extra wealth at the expense of others.

If bankers were working hard, creating consistently high levels of wealth legally, then I would have no issue with remunerating them accordingly but that is in no way the case here. This is a situation driven purely by greed and it is disgusting. For any credibility at all to be maintained, those found guilty of involvement in this should be severely punished.

[gibbsy]

Originally Posted by sidicks

A few questions:
1) How many people were employed by Barclays during the period in question?

2) How many people were involved in setting Libor rates?

3) How many people in the UK are on benefits?

4) how many people commit benefit fraud in the UK?

It's a perception that a great many have of the banking sector. Everyone knows that the ordinary worker behind the counter and the vast majority of those working behind the scenes are, just that, workers. Doing a daily grind to pay the bills and keep a roof over their heads.

It is tainted by the actions of the few in positions of trust that have gambled and lost, lied and cheated their ways to very very large bonus payments.

How many ex bank workers are now claiming benefits because of the actions of those greedy ones further up the food chain. As for benefit cheats then that just goes to show that fraud if prevelant in all walks of life. The greedy banker, the dishonest member of parliament, the lazy and feckless. It just seems that on this forum it is far easier to pick on those of benefits because their scams are easier to pick up on and certainly easier to prosecute.

If I had been dishonest at work and brought 'the fire service into disrepute' I would have been sacked. End of. Just doesn't seem to happen in the rarefied air of the upper echelons of the financial sector and this is what people resent.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by CAS FAN

If bankers were working hard, creating consistently high levels of wealth legally, then I would have no issue with remunerating them accordingly but that is in no way the case here. This is a situation driven purely by greed and it is disgusting. For any credibility at all to be maintained, those found guilty of involvement in this should be severely punished.

I'm yet to see anyone that has disagreed with this view.

My previous point was that many people go out if there way to emphasise that benefit fraud only takes place amongst a small minority of people and that the rest of benefit claimants should not be tarred with the same brush.

Yet when a report on a banks suggest fraud has taken place (in which probably single figures of individuals at each bank would be aware, and a smaller number directly involved) all if a sudden we get the generic 'all banks, all bankers are evil' rhetoric.....

[Kebabhead]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Yet when a report on a banks suggest fraud has taken place (in which probably single figures of individuals at each bank would be aware, and a smaller number directly involved) all if a sudden we get the generic 'all banks, all bankers are evil' rhetoric.....

It's always a case of the minority spoil it for the majority

As Gibbsy pointed out is is the hard workers who end up paying the price by losing their jobs

[kav]

Originally Posted by CAS FAN

I don't see how anyone could even start to defend this sort of behaviour regardless of their views on the public and private sector or their political allegiance. It's just completely appalling.

They have said that the likes of CitiBank, Lloyds banking group, RBS and others are also under investigation so this could be absolutely huge!

I don't think anyone has defended it, certainly not on this thread.

And of course this is not restricted to Barclays. My opinion (unsupported at present) is that there will be worse to come.

Originally Posted by sidicks

A few questions:
1) How many people were employed by Barclays during the period in question?

2) How many people were involved in setting Libor rates?

3) How many people in the UK are on benefits?

4) how many people commit benefit fraud in the UK?

1) Varied between 100,000 and 155,000 in that period, AFAIK.

2) Maybe a hundred, if that. The key thing though of course is the ramifications of the fraudulent activity of that small group of people are enormous.

Not sure on the benefit questions, don't have that info to hand, but question 4 is probably impossible to answer accurately.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by gibbsy

It just seems that on this forum it is far easier to pick on those of benefits because their scams are easier to pick up on and certainly easier to prosecute.

I'd suggest that this forum is more up for banker bashing and more ready to defend benefit claimants, when in truth fraud in either area should not be condoned.

Originally Posted by gibbsy

Just doesn't seem to happen in the rarefied air of the upper echelons of the financial sector and this is what people resent.

Actually it does - Barclays can't fire those people involved at the time who no longer work for the company...

And as we've said previously, hopefully the FSA will be taking robust action against individuals directly responsible.

[NewMan]

Originally Posted by sharger

You stay out when you can't defend the in defendable.... Just make comments that create smoke and mirrors.

Why is this thread banker bashing anyway? Did they not do anything wrong in your eyes? Man up and give a proper view.... Or would that be seen as banker bashing?

Smoke and mirrors? Is this your new phrase of the moment for when someone says something you don't like?

Why is this thread banker bashing? Oh, I don't know, when you say "banks are rotten to the core" and other such wildly hysterical nonsense, that's banker bashing. You seem to enjoy lumping every single bank, and its employees, in with ones who have done wrong (and it seems they have done wrong, yes - there's your pathetic "man up" comment out the window too, eh?).

We get it, you hate banks. You hate bankers. You'll use every opportunity to paint every last one of them as criminals who ought to be locked up. If you hate them so much, put your money where your mouth is and keep it all down the back of your trousers.

[gibbsy]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Actually it does - Barclays can't fire those people involved at the time who no longer work for the company...

And as we've said previously, hopefully the FSA will be taking robust action against individuals directly responsible.

David Cameron has said today that there are serious questions to be answered by Barclays. Still took time out to mention that this had happened under the previous government. Pot calling the kettle black as the kettle had already called the pot black..................or, it's not my fault guv!

If Bob Diamond was in charge of that particular department at the time of the illegal goings on then you have to ask the question 'should he fall on his sword'. It's seems that even the Tories look somewhat willing to cast him adrift. I think that perhaps he will resign and may take some others with him. Yet he will undoubtably walk away with some renumeration for failure whilst those at the bottom just had their P45s.

As they say s*** rolls down hill.

If people in the street where asked what kind of profession would they be proud to work in, just where at the moment would banking stand? Which is rather sad.

[sharger]

Originally Posted by NewMan

Smoke and mirrors? Is this your new phrase of the moment for when someone says something you don't like?

Why is this thread banker bashing? Oh, I don't know, when you say "banks are rotten to the core" and other such wildly hysterical nonsense, that's banker bashing. You seem to enjoy lumping every single bank, and its employees, in with ones who have done wrong (and it seems they have done wrong, yes - there's your pathetic "man up" comment out the window too, eh?).

We get it, you hate banks. You hate bankers. You'll use every opportunity to paint every last one of them as criminals who ought to be locked up. If you hate them so much, put your money where your mouth is and keep it all down the back of your trousers.

Smoke and mirrors is my phrase for when people put up nonsense that detracts from what has gone on in reality.

I don't hate bankers I hate the Scumbags who engage in, condone and belittle what has gone on here.

I bank with the Cooperative bank. Very pleased with the service they give me. I don't expect we'll be seeing them implicated in this criminal activity.

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

This is a prime example of why unfettered capitalism and unrestricted free markets don't work.

You simply can't rely the antiquated naive trust in banks and corporations to operate ethically when such large sums of money are at stake that effects nations. With large cash incentives some people will always try to cook the books one way or another.

If they are not fiddling the figures, they are miss selling ppi, loans and causing global financial meltdowns.

Actually that's exactly what they want you to think. In fact it is nothing like a free market system, it's that cartelised central banking system that has created the opportunity because banks are not in competition. If you vote for more regulations you are playing into their hands, they already ignored the regulation about Libor. Banks are bailed out instead of being allowed to go bankrupt, they don't need to hold large reserves. Have you considered who makes up the regulations? The cleverest financial minds are unsurprisingly in banking, so who better to come up with a set of regulations that look very good on paper but leave the banks free to continue. I always think that admission such as the Barclays case are an attempt at covering a far bigger fraud. You can't blame the bankers if you just keep voting for them to make up their own rules, they will always get away with it. Banking is a greedy business, it's people who like money and know all the tricks to get it and that's fine because they are experts.

Put the banks in free market competition, you can regulate them as much as you want, but compared to hanging them out where they are in the same arena as everyone else would be the biggest change that would far outweigh a shelf full of regulation. Get rid of central bank support and then they would need to borrow off each other, when your in direct competition, borrowing off your competitor can seriously hurt your profits. Banks can print their own money. We wouldn't need the Gold standard then, because banks would be far more cautious. Borrowing would slump, house prices would cease to rise.