Bankers

[Bingo1976]

Zod said:

Bingo1976 said:

I can assure you I have, and I used to work in Canary Wharf.

Now in Singapore and the carpark is insane. Even more when you consider that a Ferrari will set you back £400k, a Maserati £200k.

Even more insane when you consider that there's nowhere to drive them!

Malaysian speed limits are not heavily enforced - nothing $50 can't fix anyway...

[Laughingman21]

eccles said:

The sums involved with the banks was in a different league to what some scrote of a builder will claim in benefits.

Which is why it's made all the headlines. That said, the banks have paid their money back. How many benefit claimants pay back their benefits once they've got a new job?

[elster]

eccles said:

Laughingman21 said:

eccles said:

Laughingman21 said:

Transmitter Man said:

The traders who refuse to lose by breaking the law or were these boys just morally wrong?

Are you suggesting it's only bankers that "break" the law to try and make a few quid?

Have you ever seen programmes like Watchdog and Rogue Traders? Every profession has a few wrotten eggs that try and bend the rules for financial gain. The bankers make the headlines because they deal in large amounts (so any gains they make are larger than your average rogue trader) and right now the general media despises them slightly more than your average dictator.

But your average rogue trader hasn't just been bailed out with public money.

Which the banks have paid back in full. (or nearly? - I can't remember exactly)

Also, depends on how you look at it. When Mr Rogue Trader Ltd's building firm goes under because people have seen what a crook he is on TV, he'll still be able to claim benefits i.e. the state will bail him out.

The sums involved with the banks was in a different league to what some scrote of a builder will claim in benefits.

That doesn't make it any less right or wrong. It is just an industry that has larger figures than most.

[eccles]

Laughingman21 said:

eccles said:

The sums involved with the banks was in a different league to what some scrote of a builder will claim in benefits.

Which is why it's made all the headlines. That said, the banks have paid their money back. How many benefit claimants pay back their benefits once they've got a new job?

Perhaps they've paid for their benefits through National Insurance already. Mind this is Pistonheads, so anyone claiming benefits has never worked a day in their life, and live like kings.

[Murph7355]

eccles said:

The sums involved with the banks was in a different league to what some scrote of a builder will claim in benefits.

So because the scrote builder only steals a small amount it's ok. Even if that small amount was the single little old lady he targeted's life savings. Etc?

The press are stirring the proles up into a frenzy and linking all manner of things that are not related.

Assuming these guys are guilty of a crime (and I'm not suggesting they aren't - I don't know) then they'll have broken the law and should be punished accordingly. Who allegedly funded them is totally and absolutely irrelevant.

Who has funded banks, especially ones like Barclays, is a totally separate matter and if all you do is get your information from the Daily Mail, you will be massively ill informed and be making incorrect judgements.

Sadly there is (and will be) no headline in "banks pay back all debts PLUS large amounts of interest and taxpayer sees a profit from the debacle". Mainly because it wouldn't give politicians someone to take the heat they should be feeling and means the proles would have to blame someone else for their woes (perhaps themselves, perish the thought).

[rhinochopig]

Laughingman21 said:

eccles said:

Laughingman21 said:

Transmitter Man said:

The traders who refuse to lose by breaking the law or were these boys just morally wrong?

Are you suggesting it's only bankers that "break" the law to try and make a few quid?

Have you ever seen programmes like Watchdog and Rogue Traders? Every profession has a few wrotten eggs that try and bend the rules for financial gain. The bankers make the headlines because they deal in large amounts (so any gains they make are larger than your average rogue trader) and right now the general media despises them slightly more than your average dictator.

But your average rogue trader hasn't just been bailed out with public money.

Which the banks have paid back in full. (or nearly? - I can't remember exactly)

Also, depends on how you look at it. When Mr Rogue Trader Ltd's building firm goes under because people have seen what a crook he is on TV, he'll still be able to claim benefits i.e. the state will bail him out.

Paying back the initial loans is very different to the global impact the banking collapse had though isn't it. We're still reaping the 'rewards' of sub-prime, irresponsible lending, etc.

[eccles]

Murph7355 said:

So because the scrote builder only steals a small amount it's ok. Even if that small amount was the single little old lady he targeted's life savings. Etc?

So you're saying the amount doesn't matter? I think most courts would disagree.

[turbobloke]

eccles said:

Murph7355 said:

So because the scrote builder only steals a small amount it's ok. Even if that small amount was the single little old lady he targeted's life savings. Etc?

So you're saying the amount doesn't matter? I think most courts would disagree.

It looked to me as though Murph7355 was of the opposite view in response to an earlier post about bank bailouts being bigger than a benefits payment.

[Rugbyman]

djstevec said:

Transmitter Man said:

I used to work for HR Owen delivering cars (Ferrari, Maserati, Lotus, TVR, Lamborghini and Bentley) to that great garage under Canary Wharf.

TVR's in the recession years I guess

and Porsche's in the 80s...

[AndrewW-G]

That a fine of £290m has been agreed, would indicate that Barclays have been co-operating with the various authorities for some time.

It would also mean that if there were a decent chance of any convictions being made, charges would have already been at the very least in the pipeline.

My 2p, is that whilst it does deserve digging into, it will be blown up out of all proportion to create a nice smoke screen, for the bigger problems both internally in the UK and in the EU . . . . . . lets not forget, how the bankers were made out to be responsible for the mess that the labour traitors made of the UK's finances and all the halfwits swallowed it hook line and sinker!

[DonnyMac]

eccles said:

But your average rogue trader hasn't just been bailed out with public money.

RogueTrader steals public money and is bailed from Bournemouth Magistrates' Court

[Laughingman21]

eccles said:

Laughingman21 said:

eccles said:

The sums involved with the banks was in a different league to what some scrote of a builder will claim in benefits.

Which is why it's made all the headlines. That said, the banks have paid their money back. How many benefit claimants pay back their benefits once they've got a new job?

Perhaps they've paid for their benefits through National Insurance already. Mind this is Pistonheads, so anyone claiming benefits has never worked a day in their life, and live like kings.

Paying their tax and NI is the equivalent of the Banks paying their corporation tax and employers NI. On top of this, the banks have also repaid the money lent to them to ease their cashflow.

[Saddle bum]

With regard to bankers, I'm beginning to hear the expression "Spiv" bandied about.

Good to see it come back into fashion, applied to a fitting subject.

[Laughingman21]

rhinochopig said:

Paying back the initial loans is very different to the global impact the banking collapse had though isn't it. We're still reaping the 'rewards' of sub-prime, irresponsible lending, etc.

Irresponsible lending or irresponsible borrowing?

Just look at the mess some of the EU governments are in. People/Companies/Governments have been borrowing more than they can afford for years. It was a global problem with the culture towards what people could afford to borrow. Everybody had got caught up in spending today and paying back tomorrow to the point nobody did their sums. To blame just the banks is very narrow minded.

If you want people to blame, the credit agencies should easily share some of the blame, but they never made the headlines as they were merely the middle men and didn't actually take a financial hit for their wrecklessness.

[jonah35]

You compare yoursself to your peers and who you are around. If you live in a poor part of hull you may be happy if you earn £40k and have an m3 if your mates get the bus etc. if you are a trader and have bought a second hand f430 you may feel miserable if your boss has an enzo etc.

Its all relative, butnthats the issue imho

[jshell]

AndrewW-G said:

lets not forget, how the bankers were made out to be responsible for the mess that the labour traitors made of the UK's finances and all the halfwits swallowed it hook line and sinker!

I was counting the posts to see how long it would be until someone spewed this usual pish onto these pages. Cheers!

Poor/wrongful/underhand/dodgy practises are wrong regardless of the rules in place. Remember the MP's expenses? Poor MP's being hounded or snout dipping, public-money troughing barstewards? They didn't break any rules either...

[Murph7355]

eccles said:

So you're saying the amount doesn't matter? I think most courts would disagree.

The main thrust of my full post was the folly in you linking this particular "crime" with the "bailouts". As though this made it in some way worse. It doesn't. The two things are in no way linked (even if your view on these bailouts is correct...).

I should probably have quoted a different one of your posts to clarify that. Mind you, there's probably room for a philosophical debate on whether it is worse for one entity to "scam" a million pounds or a million entities to "scam" a pound

Getting angry and upset about things is all part of life. But good solutions will only happen if the actual problem is understood properly, along with its root causes. And at the moment there seems to be a lot of irrationality around the whole banking/bankers thing - the red mist is in full effect.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Laughingman21 said:

the banks have paid their money back. How many benefit claimants pay back their benefits once they've got a new job?

I'm willing to be a massive proportion of benefits is spent in the UK economy while bankers are buying foreign assets and squirrelling their money away in tax havens.

With more revelations every day we are gradually exposing the rot and corruption which has been going on among the City, Westminster and their mates in the press.

[AndrewW-G]

[quote=jshell]Stuff[quote]


So you don’t think that the traitorous scum used the "banking crisis" as a smoke screen?

[crankedup]

AndrewW-G said:

That a fine of £290m has been agreed, would indicate that Barclays have been co-operating with the various authorities for some time.

It would also mean that if there were a decent chance of any convictions being made, charges would have already been at the very least in the pipeline.

My 2p, is that whilst it does deserve digging into, it will be blown up out of all proportion to create a nice smoke screen, for the bigger problems both internally in the UK and in the EU . . . . . . lets not forget, how the bankers were made out to be responsible for the mess that the labour traitors made of the UK's finances and all the halfwits swallowed it hook line and sinker!

Poor old bankers eh! The truth is now slowly coming into the public domain regarding the investment banking industry. Lets not forget the part they have played which has led to the 2007/8 global financial crisis. Just 25 years has brought an industry from being one of the respected industries to its current lowly level.