The Great Banking Scandal Part 2

[Seaford Saint]

Key players in the Libor Party:

Angela Knight, Michael Fallon, Terry Smith, Michael Spencer.

What they all have in common:

 

They all support or work for the Conservative Party

 

They’ve all been involved in the Libor sector for years

 

They all have obvious conflicts of interest

 

The five organisations involved in this cosy crony-club are the British Bankers’ Association (BBA), ICAP, Tullet Prebon, The Treasury Select Committee (TSC), and the Conservative Party.

 

Michael Fallon is Deputy Chairman of the Tory Party, a senior member of the TSC, and a senior Board member at Tullet Prebon – a company described to me last night by a City insider as “dominating the Libor sector”. At least three of the major institutions reporting on Libor rates are known to be Tullet clients. Fallon may thus have been questioning one of his clients when he interrogated Bob Diamond of Barclays last Wednesday.

 

Angela Knight was until recently the CEO of the BBA, an organisation on behalf of which she gave misleading Libor evidence on at least one occasion. She is a non-Exec director of Tullet Prebon, and she used to be a Conservative MP.

 

Michael Spencer is the founder and CEO of ICAP, the largest Libor-sector money brokerage in Europe, he used to be the Tory Party’s Treasurer, and he (and his company) last year donated £1.3m to the Conservative Party. In 2010, Spencer was censured by the City for selling £45m of ICAP shares three weeks before issuing a profit warning.

 

Terry Smith is the CEO of Tullet Prebon. Derek Tullett, founder of inter-dealer broker Tullett Prebon, was listed as ‘a major contributor’ to Tory Party election funding during 2010. On his Board he has collected both Fallon and Knight, and although Fallon says Tullet’s “helped to nail the banks” that must in turn have put Angela Knight into an awkward position, she being the UK’s greatest defender of both the Banks and Libor. Smith spent the first five years of his life working on the investment side at Barclays, and is an Associate at the Chartered Institute of Bankers.

 

Is Britain still a country where the chosen few look after each other and ignore the law? If the conflicts outlined above do not lead to a judicial enquiry at least, then the answer must be a resounding “Yes”.

 

from my favourate blogger

[trousers]

Yeah, but what about Labour?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Desperate stuff.

 

Terry Smith talks more sense than all the politicans added together and he has been very critical of the Govt and it's economic plans.

 

Where is Gordon Brown's quote to Barclays and other banks in 2006, when he told them "I congratulate you, on remarkable achievements, an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London.”

 

That was the beginning, how did Brown's "golden age" end?

[View From The Top]

The problem the tories have is that they berated Labour for not having LESS regulation.

 

Let's not forget Osborne's demands for the "lightest of touches" to allow us to emulate the Celtic Tiger.

 

Labour was scared of The City & the Tories were, and are, on their payroll.

 

We have a genuine opportunity for a full judicial review but there are so many vested interests, on all sides, that it won't happen.

[trousers]

The problem the tories have is that they berated Labour for not having LESS regulation.

 

Less doesn't always mean better. Quality vs quantity.

 

There's no point having loads of regulatory rules if they're executed poorly.

[View From The Top]

Less doesn't always mean better. Quality vs quantity.

 

There's no point having loads of regulation if it's executed poorly.

 

I agree but let's not pretend that Osborne didn't say that the regulations under the last administration were too restrictive on the City and that "the markets" were quite capable of policing themselves.

 

I'm all for less but effective but there appears to the a cultural problem with in The City, in addition to far too many politicians being on the payroll and I'd like a full judicial review.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The problem the tories have is that they berated Labour for not having LESS regulation.

 

 

The enquiry into the RBS named Brown and Balls and concluded that their foolish decision to take regulation away from the BoE and set up the Tripartite regulation was disastrous. Every single Tory interviewed at that time argued against this move but Brown and Balls blundered ahead. Hence why they were the only politicians named in the RBS report.

 

Terry Smith speaks the most sense I've heard on the whole thing. He says it was not a question of not enough regulation, but the wrong regulation. There should have been less regulation, but it should have been proper regulation.Each bank has countless compliance officers and there are thousends of pages of regulations. As Dominic Lawson said on QT last night,the banks took retail money and used it to gamble. Brown, Balls and everyone was fully aware they were doing this, yet nobody saw what was coming down the line. Why? Maybe it was that they really did believe they had "abolished boom and bust".

 

"No more Boom & Bust" alongside "an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London” sum up Gordon Brown turning a blind eye (no pun intended).

 

Nick Robinson said on the BBC that Labour really do not want a judge led review. They were in charge, if there are skeletons, they will be Labour ones. But they have calculated that Cameron will not call one, and therefore can be seen on the right side of the arguement. Tory thinking is that any skeletons can be unearthed by a Parlianmentry one, without too much light being shone on their donations and other aspects that may effect them.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that all 3 parties are playing politics with this, with eyes firmly on the next election.

[View From The Top]

The enquiry into the RBS named Brown and Balls and concluded that their foolish decision to take regulation away from the BoE and set up the Tripartite regulation was disastrous. Every single Tory interviewed at that time argued against this move but Brown and Balls blundered ahead. Hence why they were the only politicians named in the RBS report.

 

Terry Smith speaks the most sense I've heard on the whole thing. He says it was not a question of not enough regulation, but the wrong regulation. There should have been less regulation, but it should have been proper regulation.Each bank has countless compliance officers and there are thousends of pages of regulations. As Dominic Lawson said on QT last night,the banks took retail money and used it to gamble. Brown, Balls and everyone was fully aware they were doing this, yet nobody saw what was coming down the line. Why? Maybe it was that they really did believe they had "abolished boom and bust".

 

"No more Boom & Bust" alongside "an era that history will record as the beginning of a new golden age for the City of London” sum up Gordon Brown turning a blind eye (no pun intended).

 

Nick Robinson said on the BBC that Labour really do not want a judge led review. They were in charge, if there are skeletons, they will be Labour ones. But they have calculated that Cameron will not call one, and therefore can be seen on the right side of the arguement. Tory thinking is that any skeletons can be unearthed by a Parlianmentry one, without too much light being shone on their donations and other aspects that may effect them.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that all 3 parties are playing politics with this, with eyes firmly on the next election.

 

I'm not saying anything about the last Labour government (whose myriad of faults we all know) nor what they want now, I'm simply stating a fact regarding the tories credibility gap regarding The City & my own personal desire to see a judicial enquiry.

 

Perhaps you should take your anti-labour blinkers off, they ruin your posts.

[solentstars]

I've got no faith in either party has the Tories are paid by taxavoiders and the city and labour have sucked up to them under thatchers son Blair.so when they start putting in jail the crooks we have bailed out for years and shut down tax fiddles by being based in the Cayman isles etc the working person will carry on being taken for mugs.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

In the background which should always remember that whatever its faults the city and the banking industry is a major financial asset and we should make sure it works for us. Long winded enquiries serve very little in getting us back on the road to recovery.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Labour was scared of The City & the Tories were, and are, on their payroll.

 

You accuse me of having "anti Labour" glasses, but the hat very cleary fits yourself. It is always Torys bad for sinister selfish reasons, Labour wrong because they were "scared". It was the same with the Levison threads. Torys were in the Murdoch's pocket ect, whereas Labour just went along with him because they had to, or were scared.

 

I am no Tory voter, all I am trying to do is address a bit of balance to the Anti Tory rants on here.

[solentstars]

In the background which should always remember that whatever its faults the city and the banking industry is a major financial asset and we should make sure it works for us. Long winded enquiries serve very little in getting us back on the road to recovery.

I don't think so ask the average small businesses if the bankers lend to them and big coporations don't pay tax only small people do.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I don't think so ask the average small businesses if the bankers lend to them and big coporations don't pay tax only small people do.

 

Well I am a small business and no they would'nt even give me a small loan the other month. I hate banks and bankers for that matter but unfortunately we will not get out of this mess until they are back on their feet. As for big corporations, tax ratesa are just a tool to get them to come and set up business in our country and employ our peoplr. Why do you think Google went to Dublin.

[View From The Top]

You accuse me of having "anti Labour" glasses, but the hat very cleary fits yourself. It is always Torys bad for sinister selfish reasons, Labour wrong because they were "scared". It was the same with the Levison threads. Torys were in the Murdoch's pocket ect, whereas Labour just went along with him because they had to, or were scared.

 

I am no Tory voter, all I am trying to do is address a bit of balance to the Anti Tory rants on here.

 

Labour needed New International & The City to become electable. You are disputing that?

 

The City & the tories are and always have been connected in a major way? You're disputing that?

 

You're denying that the majority of big tory sponsors are City based?

 

I'm not a Labour voter but you are so blighted by bigotry that your often good points are lost in your rants.

[View From The Top]

In the background which should always remember that whatever its faults the city and the banking industry is a major financial asset and we should make sure it works for us. Long winded enquiries serve very little in getting us back on the road to recovery.

 

Yeah, right, let's let them butt fu.ck us for another £1.5 trillion as they are so important and got us into this mess in the 1st place.

[bridge too far]

Seems like some people are voting with their feet (or at least with their bank accounts)

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/04/banking-move-your-money

 

Power to the people!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Yeah, right, let's let them butt fu.ck us for another £1.5 trillion as they are so important and got us into this mess in the 1st place.

 

So we should screw the city into the ground and frighten off all of all the foreign operators who ply their trade. I think they call that cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Seems like some people are voting with their feet (or at least with their bank accounts)

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/04/banking-move-your-money

 

Power to the people!

 

I like the concept but can I move my debts!

[Special K]

I like the concept but can I move my debts!

 

If you adopt the same principles of the banks, you can make some money out of selling them!

[bridge too far]

If you adopt the same principles of the banks, you can make some money out of selling them!

 

Isn't that what they call an oxymoron?