Reverend Paul Flowers - Ex Co-Op Bank boss busted.
Discussion
Andy Zarse said:
How are all these new stores performing? Any info gratefully received...
Our local Kwik Save>Somerfield>Co-Op does pretty well, mainly due to location (i.e. comfortably the largest store -still small by modern supermarket standard - within easy walk or drive of a large catchment).They sell some decent plonk too. Plus (Digga sr spotted this) for some inexplicable reason, they mark older stock down in comparison to newer bottles from the same source, irrespective of the comparative merits of the vintages. Must be a communist thing.
RSoovy4 said:
crankedup said:
....... my judgement has been wrong.......
And so, cranky (hello mate by the way) we see what happens when political interference in Banks is allowed to happen, and when "the people" with no experience of banking are put in the driving seat of such organisations instead of experienced people who know what they're doing.You spent ages on here some time ago banging your tambourine for the Co-Op as a shining beacon of all that is good and wholesome in banking. Now you say that their problems are caused by overpaid idiots.
No, their problems have been caused by inexperienced cronies of Millipede and Balls who were appointed for politicial reasons, comrade.
"Why do these fat cats earn so much money" scream the lefties on here, day in day out. "Anyone can run a bank, it's a piece of p155. I could do it"..... (c) crankedup 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013......
Well, this is what happens when you let "the people" sit on a bank board and make decisions about its management and who the boss should be. The Co-Op board who appointed Flowers to run the Co-Coperative Bank included....... and you'll enjoy this......... a plasterer and a horticulturalist
Great decision making there.
Financial Times said:
Midway through the Co-operative Group’s attempted purchase of 630 branches from Lloyds Banking Group last year, the financial regulator started raising alarm over a lack of expertise on the mutual’s banking board.
Rather than the typical make-up of company executives and non-executive directors, the Co-op Bank’s board included a plasterer, a nurse and horticulturalist, as well as the now disgraced Methodist minister and chairman, Reverend Paul Flowers.
The recent scandal that has engulfed the Co-op – first the near collapse of its banking business after the exposure of a £1.5bn capital hole and, in recent days, allegations that Rev Flowers bought illegal drugs – has shone a new light on the governance shortfalls.
The Financial Services Authority, which approved Rev Flowers’s appointment as a non-executive director of the Co-op Bank in 2009 and his promotion to chairman a year later, was never under any illusion that the minister was an experienced banker, according to people close to the former watchdog.
They believed his political experience – he was a local Labour politician and had close links to the Co-op movement – could help bring order to the bank’s large and dysfunctional board, however.
Rather than the typical make-up of company executives and non-executive directors, the Co-op Bank’s board included a plasterer, a nurse and horticulturalist, as well as the now disgraced Methodist minister and chairman, Reverend Paul Flowers.
The recent scandal that has engulfed the Co-op – first the near collapse of its banking business after the exposure of a £1.5bn capital hole and, in recent days, allegations that Rev Flowers bought illegal drugs – has shone a new light on the governance shortfalls.
The Financial Services Authority, which approved Rev Flowers’s appointment as a non-executive director of the Co-op Bank in 2009 and his promotion to chairman a year later, was never under any illusion that the minister was an experienced banker, according to people close to the former watchdog.
They believed his political experience – he was a local Labour politician and had close links to the Co-op movement – could help bring order to the bank’s large and dysfunctional board, however.
So the wholesome Co-Op Bank has a bunch of people on its Board (inclduing a drug taking sec offending crony of Balls and that student tw@t Millipede) with zero experience of running a bank. And surpirse suprise it's ended up with a £1,500,000,000 hole in its accounts.
Genius.
[b]Balls and Millipede, and their millionaire Primrose Hill champagne swigging socialist tw@t friends must be pooing their rompers.
There is a LOT more to come on this one. A lot more.
[/b]
Edited by RSoovy4 on Wednesday 20th November 09:58
Edited by RSoovy4 on Wednesday 20th November 09:59
1. I have never advocated a Board of non experienced people. I have advocated a Board with a representative from Shareholders, that is a single seat.
2. The 'Board of experienced people' had their chance and look at where that got the businesses they were heading up.
3. I still uphold the values of Ethical and moral trading, I cannot argue that Co-operative retail bank has plunged away from that ethos. Am I angry regarding the Co-op bank issues - of course, at least the City hadn't pronounced that they uphold ethical / moral standards, and that makes the Co-op's problem even worse (if it could get worse)
4. This self made travesty washing into the Co-op bank has not altered the principles of overpaid fat cats one jot so far as I am concerned. However, it proves that a few individuals can walk a corrupt path and called untold damage to millions of people. Nothing has changed in that respect.
5. I will await the outcome of a Public Enquiry, however the damage will take many years to repair without further scandal coming to the fore.
DonkeyApple said:
crankedup said:
DonkeyApple said:
crankedup said:
Yes that is the basis of their business ethics. Massive damage has been inflicted upon the Co-op, another absolutely fine established name is now being dragged through the mud, thanks to gross incompetency of the over-hyped and over-paid idiots.
I told you coop was screwed over two years ago when you were making them out to be the saviours of the retail banking world and pitching them with religious ferver. I told you to stop reading their mantra and look at the truth as to what was going on. Now you can do the same with their main business. Have a look at what is really going on there.
Yes they appointed an idiot into a powerful position, and for that are paying a heavy price in financial and reputation terms.
They are still a business that I support and look forward to a fresh start on the banking side. As for my making them out to be the saviours of the retail banking world, well you can guess just how disappointed I am I expect. Must have made your year to see the Co-op hit this trouble.
There is no pleasure at all from seeing this farce come to light. It was stated enough times that both mutuals and ethical banks cannot effectively compete and so either have to charge more and lose business or charge the same and take on higher risk. Nothing has changed in that regard.
And they didn't just appoint one idiot, there are a whole block of them in there.
Sorry I don't follow your meaning about having 'to fund the hole'.
I simply do not accept your POV regarding Ethical and Moral trading having to raise charges to compete. Those people who choose to trade with such Companies do so mainly for their own personal beliefs or stated business philosophy.
And the Co-op businesses trade under their own sectors.
Andy Zarse said:
Do you know how the Society managed to finance all those new corner stores? If you look back over a two year period they must have opened literally hundreds of them. It was a massive expansion of the brand, and from a standing start in many areas, though some came from Somerfield I guess. How are all these new stores performing? Any info gratefully received...
As we report our half year performance, the full scale of the problems within the Bank is laid bare and the difficulties that stem from this become clear, with implications for the Group as a whole. In keeping with the 2012 year-end figures, the Bank’s issues have pushed the Group into a £559m loss before member payments. We clearly communicated in June that this would be the case. Impairment charges were taken into account when we put in place the Capital Action Plan to stabilise the Bank.At the same time, the results also show the wider work that is needed to transform the Group. Revenues across the Group fell 1% to £5.8bn, with our family of Trading Group businesses delivering solid performances in difficult markets and cash flows improved. This contributed to a fall of £474m in net debt from the year end, which was also driven by the proceeds from the sale and leaseback of our new head office, 1 Angel Square. However, the challenges those businesses face are clear and we believe they can do better. The rest of the top team and I have started a wider strategic review of the Group that will look at how all of our businesses can be improved and what other changes need to be made to our strategy and focus. The detail of the turnaround plan for the Group will be outlined to members at the Annual General Meeting in May 2014, with an update on progress when we make our annual results announcement in March 2014.
Capital Action Plan
In the plan that we announced on 17 June, we explained that the capital shortfall in the Bank was £1.5bn, as agreed with the Prudential Regulation Authority, the banking regulator. Today’s results reaffirm that requirement, which also covered currently anticipated future losses.
Finding a solution to the difficulties we face required us to balance our responsibilities to our members, to investors in the Bank’s bonds and preference shares and to the financial lenders to the Group. This was not easy. Our priorities were three-fold: to stabilise the Bank, to develop a plan to ensure the long term profitability and sustainability of the Bank and Group as a whole, and to avoid seeking taxpayers’ help.
http://www.co-operative.coop/Corporate/PDFs/Interi...
Andy Zarse said:
crankedup said:
The Co-operative has its roots in Labour of course, and thats a good thing IMO. I mention politics as in National politics, politicians scoring points based exactly as you mention 'overt Socialism' and all the rest of it. My real concern is just what were the Regularity Authority doing giving the green light for this appointment. Cutting slack you say - as in where have I done this exactly?
Fred the evil shred, now that has been an entirely different matter, unless the Co-op have asked for tax payers for a bailout - no they haven't.
....... Unlike your comment about having roots in Labour. Surely anything to do with money needs to stay as far away from Labour as is physically possible? Fred the evil shred, now that has been an entirely different matter, unless the Co-op have asked for tax payers for a bailout - no they haven't.
Followed most of this, here and everywhere else, difficult to avoid really.
Everyone seems to be exercised about the political and financial implications of this man and his late tenure with Coop Bank.
So, the conclusion is drawn that what is important is his qualifications for the job, his political roots and connections, and the resultant ‘damage’ to the bank.
Well just a bvleeding minute! Why has nobody raised the question of, and considered it far more important, his history with gay porn and rent boys? How is it that adherence to a moral code of personal behaviour and insistence on impeccable standards of living is now of little or no consequence and all we care about is money? Are the regulators doing the same things? They were in a position to unearth these details since 2011.
Why wasn’t he the subject of police investigation? I’m absolutely horrified that people like this are able to get round normal barriers to, and I will say it because I mean it, perverted behaviour? Can there be anybody outside politics or banking that would actually employ this deviant? Or is this another subject that is now considered prohibited?
Thorodin said:
Followed most of this, here and everywhere else, difficult to avoid really.
Everyone seems to be exercised about the political and financial implications of this man and his late tenure with Coop Bank.
So, the conclusion is drawn that what is important is his qualifications for the job, his political roots and connections, and the resultant ‘damage’ to the bank.
Well just a bvleeding minute! Why has nobody raised the question of, and considered it far more important, his history with gay porn and rent boys? How is it that adherence to a moral code of personal behaviour and insistence on impeccable standards of living is now of little or no consequence and all we care about is money? Are the regulators doing the same things? They were in a position to unearth these details since 2011.
Why wasn’t he the subject of police investigation? I’m absolutely horrified that people like this are able to get round normal barriers to, and I will say it because I mean it, perverted behaviour? Can there be anybody outside politics or banking that would actually employ this deviant? Or is this another subject that is now considered prohibited?
Surely he will have been asked, prior to taking up his position, to sign various undertakings as to his personal conduct by both the Co-op Bank and the then regulator the FSA? Can anyone clarify what is required to become a banking big cheese?Everyone seems to be exercised about the political and financial implications of this man and his late tenure with Coop Bank.
So, the conclusion is drawn that what is important is his qualifications for the job, his political roots and connections, and the resultant ‘damage’ to the bank.
Well just a bvleeding minute! Why has nobody raised the question of, and considered it far more important, his history with gay porn and rent boys? How is it that adherence to a moral code of personal behaviour and insistence on impeccable standards of living is now of little or no consequence and all we care about is money? Are the regulators doing the same things? They were in a position to unearth these details since 2011.
Why wasn’t he the subject of police investigation? I’m absolutely horrified that people like this are able to get round normal barriers to, and I will say it because I mean it, perverted behaviour? Can there be anybody outside politics or banking that would actually employ this deviant? Or is this another subject that is now considered prohibited?
Thorodin said:
Why wasn’t he the subject of police investigation? I’m absolutely horrified that people like this are able to get round normal barriers to, and I will say it because I mean it, perverted behaviour? Can there be anybody outside politics or banking that would actually employ this deviant? Or is this another subject that is now considered prohibited?
What someone does in their private life is, quite rightly, up to them. If they do something illegal, then maybe as an employer I'd look closely. But I'm not sure why I should be bothered about his liking for gay porn, unless he was doing it at work.Would you have the same problem with employing a straight man who likes to view straight porn? If so, I'm certain that a large number of PHers would have employment issues.
DonkeyApple said:
Our priorities were three-fold: to stabilise the Bank, to develop a plan to ensure the long term profitability and sustainability of the Bank and Group as a whole, and to avoid seeking taxpayers’ help.
http://www.co-operative.coop/Corporate/PDFs/Interi...
Thanks for the info. http://www.co-operative.coop/Corporate/PDFs/Interi...
Off on a tangent, why should they even think that taxpayer's help is available? If my, or anyone else's, business goes bust due to our own stupidity and greed then why would we even think the Govt will bail us out? These folk are just another load of useless "too big to fail" leeches. f
k the Co-op.The directors of such failed institutions really need to be made to wear hair shirts. We won't get anywhere with changing the culture of banking in the UK until this happens. And we won't rebalance our economy until our banks are properly reformed.
longblackcoat said:
Thorodin said:
Why wasn’t he the subject of police investigation? I’m absolutely horrified that people like this are able to get round normal barriers to, and I will say it because I mean it, perverted behaviour? Can there be anybody outside politics or banking that would actually employ this deviant? Or is this another subject that is now considered prohibited?
What someone does in their private life is, quite rightly, up to them. If they do something illegal, then maybe as an employer I'd look closely. But I'm not sure why I should be bothered about his liking for gay porn, unless he was doing it at work.Would you have the same problem with employing a straight man who likes to view straight porn? If so, I'm certain that a large number of PHers would have employment issues.
longblackcoat said:
What someone does in their private life is, quite rightly, up to them. If they do something illegal, then maybe as an employer I'd look closely. But I'm not sure why I should be bothered about his liking for gay porn, unless he was doing it at work.
Would you have the same problem with employing a straight man who likes to view straight porn? If so, I'm certain that a large number of PHers would have employment issues.
Of course what is done privately is up to him. However this is somewhat different. It is a major public office and I would have thought it would be important to those that put him forward for the job. In fact he WAS doing this at work. His council office laptop was found to have images on it!Would you have the same problem with employing a straight man who likes to view straight porn? If so, I'm certain that a large number of PHers would have employment issues.
Would I have the same problem? It's not my problem! It's his problem! This is entirely the point of my earlier post. I'm disgusted at the apparent acceptance of such 'venerated' people being allowed to such high office and be so susceptible to scandal. The gay/straight issue is irrelevant, his habits indicate an unsavoury nature and, if disclosed, would prevent me from employing him. Too right.
crankedup said:
I still uphold the values of Ethical and moral trading.
I'm sorry mate, this isn't a personal dig but I've had it up to here with being told what is or isn't 'ethical'. For some years now, the word ‘ethical’ has been misappropriated. Utterly convinced of the rightness of their convictions, the bien pensants have cornered the market in ethics, loudly extolling the virtues of ‘FairTrade’, environmentalism and ethical investment. This latter is practiced by financial institutions (well-known bastions of scrupulous probity that they are) that promise to be ‘socially responsible’. Speculating on businesses producing such laudable products as wind turbines that don’t actually work is acceptable but placing funds into, for example, arms company stock will not do. It is, of course, unlikely to say the least that the hectoring bleeding hearts will have the good grace to concede, as they observe the Globemasters, Black Hawks and countless warships delivering aid to the desperately stricken Phillipinos, that these products of the death merchants aren’t quite entirely evil.Obviously, anything that isn’t ethical must be unethical. If one holds views that do not coincide precisely with those prescribed one must, by implication, be unethical too. If, let’s say, you choose to question the efficacy of so-called fair trade policies; if you dare to suggest they might be doing more harm than good; that they might exist purely to salve the beleaguered conscience of the western consumer; and that they might actually serve to enrich the charities behind them while condemning the majority of third world farmers to remain in poverty, then I’m afraid you’re demonstrably unethical. You must change.
So who decides what is ethical? Who are these radiant moral arbiters, these guardians of rectitude towards whom we should all look for guidance? Who will save us from ourselves and keep us from drowning in a roiling ocean of depravity? Why, the good old Co-op – that’s who. Never shy of issuing proclamations about its impeccably right-on principles, it loves to tell us what to think.
Unfortunately, certainly where its banking arm is concerned, it doesn’t seem to have kept too close a watch on those principles itself. Anyone can make a mistake - as the entire financial services industry has ably demonstrated lately - but the Co-op is different, right? The Co-op is a caring, sharing kinda bank. So much so that it seems to have appointed a board based on friendship. Isn’t that sweet? The Co-op apparently put friendship – though some cynics might prefer the term ‘political cronyism’ – ahead of, y’know, actual experience and acumen. And boy did they make mistakes. About £700 Million pounds worth.
If only it had ended there. Though I’m sure the Reverend Paul Flowers, former Chairman of the Co-op Bank, would have been at pains to ensure the Colombian farmers involved were paid a fair price for their produce, getting rumbled trying to buy a bagful of Class As might just appear a little dodgy. And that wasn’t his only vice. It turns out the Crystal Methodist was forced to step down from his role as a Labour councillor after ‘inappropriate material’ was found on his (taxpayer-purchased) computer. Nice.
Ethical? How about just giving the word back.
Andy Zarse said:
Surely he will have been asked, prior to taking up his position, to sign various undertakings as to his personal conduct by both the Co-op Bank and the then regulator the FSA? Can anyone clarify what is required to become a banking big cheese?
Take your point. Elsewhere, if applying for a job, one's history is examined to verify details on the CV. You would have thought that resigning from a local council mid term following a discovery of'inappropriate' items on his office computor might have prompted at least a raised eyebrow. Much more lowly individuals have got the sack for less.Thorodin said:
Andy Zarse said:
Surely he will have been asked, prior to taking up his position, to sign various undertakings as to his personal conduct by both the Co-op Bank and the then regulator the FSA? Can anyone clarify what is required to become a banking big cheese?
Take your point. Elsewhere, if applying for a job, one's history is examined to verify details on the CV. You would have thought that resigning from a local council mid term following a discovery of'inappropriate' items on his office computor might have prompted at least a raised eyebrow. Much more lowly individuals have got the sack for less.It can't be just me that sees this whole furore as part of a wider malaise, be it the police 'cuffing' and 'stitching' crime stats, bullying staff in hospitals, banks playing procedures to lessen the PPI claim hits, breast implants containing the wrong silicone etc.?
There seems to be a lot more that's wrong in this country than right at the moment.
There seems to be a lot more that's wrong in this country than right at the moment.
Roy Lime said:
crankedup said:
I still uphold the values of Ethical and moral trading.
I'm sorry mate, this isn't a personal dig but I've had it up to here with being told what is or isn't 'ethical'. For some years now, the word ‘ethical’ has been misappropriated. Utterly convinced of the rightness of their convictions, the bien pensants have cornered the market in ethics, loudly extolling the virtues of ‘FairTrade’, environmentalism and ethical investment. This latter is practiced by financial institutions (well-known bastions of scrupulous probity that they are) that promise to be ‘socially responsible’. Speculating on businesses producing such laudable products as wind turbines that don’t actually work is acceptable but placing funds into, for example, arms company stock will not do. It is, of course, unlikely to say the least that the hectoring bleeding hearts will have the good grace to concede, as they observe the Globemasters, Black Hawks and countless warships delivering aid to the desperately stricken Phillipinos, that these products of the death merchants aren’t quite entirely evil.Obviously, anything that isn’t ethical must be unethical. If one holds views that do not coincide precisely with those prescribed one must, by implication, be unethical too. If, let’s say, you choose to question the efficacy of so-called fair trade policies; if you dare to suggest they might be doing more harm than good; that they might exist purely to salve the beleaguered conscience of the western consumer; and that they might actually serve to enrich the charities behind them while condemning the majority of third world farmers to remain in poverty, then I’m afraid you’re demonstrably unethical. You must change.
So who decides what is ethical? Who are these radiant moral arbiters, these guardians of rectitude towards whom we should all look for guidance? Who will save us from ourselves and keep us from drowning in a roiling ocean of depravity? Why, the good old Co-op – that’s who. Never shy of issuing proclamations about its impeccably right-on principles, it loves to tell us what to think.
Unfortunately, certainly where its banking arm is concerned, it doesn’t seem to have kept too close a watch on those principles itself. Anyone can make a mistake - as the entire financial services industry has ably demonstrated lately - but the Co-op is different, right? The Co-op is a caring, sharing kinda bank. So much so that it seems to have appointed a board based on friendship. Isn’t that sweet? The Co-op apparently put friendship – though some cynics might prefer the term ‘political cronyism’ – ahead of, y’know, actual experience and acumen. And boy did they make mistakes. About £700 Million pounds worth.
If only it had ended there. Though I’m sure the Reverend Paul Flowers, former Chairman of the Co-op Bank, would have been at pains to ensure the Colombian farmers involved were paid a fair price for their produce, getting rumbled trying to buy a bagful of Class As might just appear a little dodgy. And that wasn’t his only vice. It turns out the Crystal Methodist was forced to step down from his role as a Labour councillor after ‘inappropriate material’ was found on his (taxpayer-purchased) computer. Nice.
Ethical? How about just giving the word back.
Of course, as individuals its a POV I dare say is shared by many I expect, we can't all share the same values, good or otherwise. We choose where we like to be and we are all subjected to being disappointed from time to time. Recently its been City banking thats taken a hammering, now its the turn of a Mutual Bank. As many posters have said in response to 'city bank bashing' mine included, its just a few rotten apples that are intoxicating the system. This argument is just as valid perhaps regarding Co-op bank.
Ethics and morals, to a degree you may wish to adopt, or not, is a personal decision. I'm not saying I have the highest order of either of these traits, far from it, but a World devoid of such things and we are all done for. If a small business failed to invoice for a product would you (not personally) have your Company request that invoice? Same question only a large business? This is not meant to come over all preachy and I apologise if its the case.
carinaman said:
There seems to be a lot more that's wrong in this country than right at the moment.
Don't agree.One of the good things about the more open society we have compared to 30 years back is that this sort of story actually makes the papers - in prior decades it wouldn't have done. Rent boys and illegal drugs have been around forever, but because of cameras on phones it's a damn sight easier to expose them.
Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith et al got away with it because they were on a pedestal, and no-one dared touch them. The times we live in now are such that we can and do question people at all levels. Essentially it's easier than ever to lift the carpet and look at the dirt underneath; it's certainly messy, but don't fool yourself that the dirt wasn't there before.
DonkeyApple said:
T
So, in short, the mutuals were destroyed by the very people who benefited directly from them but voted for a fast buck and a sell out.
Absolutely - because by the 1990s, the vast bulk of "members" of Building Societies were mortgage holders and had little or no interest in the "mutual" aspect of the entity from which they had received their mortgage.So, in short, the mutuals were destroyed by the very people who benefited directly from them but voted for a fast buck and a sell out.
When Halifax asked me to vote "!Yes" or "No" for de-mutualisation, I voted "No" on principle.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff