It's all part of the 'blame culture of UK' sometimes called 'the free press democracy thing. . .'
The newspapers are under attack, so, to divert attention away from their nefarious activities they have come up with a new plot based upon the fictional notion that somehow LIBOR rates are fixed and holy-writ.
The deputy governor of the Bank of England said (something to the effect) that interest rates do not need to be so high.
I do not hear any criminal words in that - any more than my saying the low interest rate of .5% paid by the Bank of England on my Income Bonds does not have to be so low. Or is that a treasonable remark?
This country became successful because of it's buccaneering spirit - I just think there are far too many people now who wish to squash that.
Not only did Sir Francis Drake capture a lot of Spanish galleons, he also dragged cannon up the beaches to California to fire down on Spanish settlements there. Bad boy. But he came home with lots of gold.
Did you know that Black Beard (Mister Teach to thee and me) is held up as some kind of national hero in South Carolina? He made it all possible, because without him there was no economy what-so-ever.
Then the Royal Navy killed Black Beard - 15 cuts with a heavy cutlass before he died.
I notice that Dave is not saying very much, because I think he knows too. . . .in this game, like any other game, there are winners and losers.
Don't be a loser.
Maybe for the same reason I got four thumbs down for my answer to this question not long ago: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
I often had an inkling that there was more to it than just scamming from the bankers. It seems highly plausible that either Alistair Darling or Gordon Brown asked the banks to fiddle the interest rates for a while to buy time to put in a bailout package to prevent a run on the banks and total economic collapse. Firefighting, in other words. I don't think though it came cheap to the taxpayer, and the banks certainly were well reimbursed for this little service.
None of this would have been necessary had it not been for politicians over the last 30 years being hell-bent on deregulating the financial sector, and dismantling any sense of moral probity or public duty in the pursuit of hitting quarterly targets.
Not ungrateful - jealous
The amount of money that was scammed by the wheeler dealers who were doing the manipulation is staggering
If they had let the right people in the press know, so they could have "dipped their beak", we would not be hearing about this today
But like all criminals, they were greedy, and did not share
So now the ones who were hosed are getting revenge
the knowledge that
1. the banking industry put in place the very reasons why it was going to "collapse eventually" back in the past?
2. derivatives, derivatives
3. the Press( more likely WITH full assistance from the crony politicians) wanted only the people to shoulder the brunt of the collapse, protecting the bankers).
Elmbeard and me disagree on the regulation part, it is over regulation and lack of correct regulation that in my opinion that led to this.
But please Elmbeard keep posting on the various News stories, I actually heard on 5 Live first thing the point made (the first time I had heard it at all) that an upside to all this is that we did not end up having to bail out Barclays. However the interviewer skipped over this and changed back to the Banks making money out of the savers, which of course meant the borrowers did better out of it, but that was of course ignored.
Personally I think Elmbeard is giving too much credit to Gordon Brown (and Darling was I believe kept in the dark over many things) being able to grasp the concept involved, if he did it was because others told him.
Which would go back to the B o E. no laws were broken but the law should be changed on this purely because, whilst I believe it was used for good in this case (but that was due to self preservation of Barclays and making some extra bucks not altruism for the UK taxpayer) it could easily (and probably was) be used for gain on a massive scale but could also be used to threaten the structure of banking in a negative and destructive manner.
However the very Nature of the fact that so much of Taxpayers money was not used should not be lost sight of, demanding someone should go to prison because they manipulated some figures for which no criminal Laws were broken is just done from jealousy and envy of succes, not for a need to overhaul a squirearchy of Banking that sits in its own smug world.
So you think it right that a trusted institution should lie to its regulator, the government, its shareholders and the public so that they can earn higher profits which have a direct impact on bonuses? What a skewed view of morality that is.
Lol, that's funny. A better question is, when are the bankers going to prison?
