[quote][cite]Posted By: Charlton Dan No offence mate but the World is far more complicated than youre making out and youre coming across as rather alarmist & reactionary.
Go back 400 odd years and its people like you that would say that the only way to prove that a woman wasnt a witch would be to hold her under water. If she survived, then she must be a witch.[/quote]
yes alarmist and reactionary compared to most (especially City workers) and probably able to think beyond the basic.
the alarmist and reactionaries more or less always in history are proved right (eg greenpeace, the fans forum etc)
[quote][cite]Posted By: Charlton Dan ]And without these banks trading such toxic assets how do you think people would have been able to take on such affordable mortgages in the 1st place.
i am no economist but surely without the high mortgages being thrust on society for the banks profit then houses would have been cheaper!
you manipulate a contract by falsifying the results that prompt the bonus payments
if you are happy to pursue a few Mps for the low thousands they have taken rather than the bankers for the billions then wow go for it!
I read the Valley Review
I am thinking thank you. I'm not saying that the banks weren't responsible for negligence but they DIDN'T falsify profits. There are too many regulations (SOX etc) in the FS industry these days to "falsify" results.
What you're doing is comparing negligence with deliberate fraudulent activities. The two don't compare no matter what sort of vitriol you spit out.
[cite]Posted By: Charlton Dan No offence mate but the World is far more complicated than youre making out and youre coming across as rather alarmist & reactionary.
Go back 400 odd years and its people like you that would say that the only way to prove that a woman wasnt a witch would be to hold her under water. If she survived, then she must be a witch.
the alarmist and reactionaries more or less always in history are proved right (eg greenpeace, the fans forum etc)
And Nostradamus?
You really should get yourself a sandwich board you know.....
[cite]Posted By: Charlton Dan ]And without these banks trading such toxic assets how do you think people would have been able to take on such affordable mortgages in the 1st place.
i am no economist but surely without the high mortgages being thrust on society for the banks profit then houses would have been cheaper!
The reason house prices have risen has nothing to do with the banks, but simple supply and demand. That's why a 3 bed house in a crap area is cheaper than a 3 bed house in a nice area.
If your explanation were correct then all houses of a similar standard would be of a similar price as a mortgage from Nationwide is available to anyone, no matter where they live....
"The reason house prices have risen has nothing to do with the banks, but simple supply and demand."
the banks are a massive part of the demand because, as you say, they funded the big mortgages!
and to say that there was no falsification is the same as an MP saying he didnt know he had paid his mortgage off! the banks are still at it ........ now creating toxic debts that can be written off now and funded by the tax payer and then accounted for as profits (and bonus building!) once the debts are repaid as they were never toxic in the first place. the accountancy firms turn a blind eye as their fees are at stake
you must be losing the discussion as you are now getting complimentary and offering me good advice
If the ToryGraph hadnt made a big song and dance over this would they have given the money back ? would Brown and Cameron be telling us "they understand peoples anger"------------ not a naffing chance.
The way the Speaker of thee House bollocked two MPs for going t the press rather than doing something about those with their noses in the trough SINKs -- sack him.
The press in many ways in the UK can be total arses but its articles like the ToryGraph`s that prove a free press is in all our best intrests.
The reason house prices have risen has nothing to do with the banks, but simple supply and demand. That's why a 3 bed house in a crap area is cheaper than a 3 bed house in a nice area.
...........
I agree that supply and demand is part of the reason, but the loosening of credit rules over the last 25 odd years has helped create demand for housing ownership and allowed many people to buy homes that aren't really sustainable given their incomes. For example once you often had to put down a hefty deposit and then mortages were only availble on relatively low multiples of income. Banks like Northern Rock and RBS were offering mortgages of over 100% of the house value and offering a mortage on five times salary. Clearly those dodgy lending practices were creating demand by putting home ownership within the grasp of people who shouldn't really have been in a position to buy. That's ok when house prices keep rising as the banks could recoup their loans if the home owner defaulted, but in a market where house prices are falling then it isn't good business practice and that is what has ben happening.
Do you really think the banks drive the housing market? Or is the downturn, lack of consumer confidence etc that has lead to the housing market dropping. All this despite mortgages being at their cheapest for God knows how long.....
I've offered you reasons why there is none of the falsification you claim there is, yet you're answering it with more speculation.
Under normal circumstances an organisation that was suffering such financial distress would have gone to the wall. The problem with letting the Banks do that (in any country) is that it would plunge the whole of the that country into a recession similar to the one in the 1930s. That's why the Govt underpinned them. Just as they have done with many other companies. I dont see you claiming that it was LDV's management should be hung drawn and quartered....
Toxic Assets are not being written off as profit (Jesus!). Where did that gem come from!
Do you know anything about what you're talking about Ken?
Accountancy firms in on it, Bankers making up false profits, Fred the Shred manipulating his contract...... Blimey! That's a huge number of people that have been "in on it" for the past 15 yrs. And no one caught wind of it until 18mths ago!
Never heard of Enron / Arthur Andersen? And the falsifying of their profits, in which AA were complient, and lead to an industry wide initiative called SOX that ALL banks comply with?
Im not trying to "win" anything Ken. Im just simply pointing out that you don’t know what youre talking about and that, despite your deflectionary tactics, that your original point that Morley and Goodwin are just as bad as each other is fundamentally wrong.
BFR - Its a chicken and egg situation though isnt it?
The desire to own you home has really only been there since the early 80s sell off. So was it the banks that reacted to a changing market with "better" offers or did the banks create that market and desire in the 1st place?
[cite]Posted By: Charlton Dan[/cite]BFR - Its a chicken and egg situation though isnt it?
The desire to own you home has really only been there since the early 80s sell off. So was it the banks that reacted to a changing market with "better" offers or did the banks create that market and desire in the 1st place?
As you know Dan the banks (and other financial institutions) have consistently lobbied (ie demanded) for looser credit rules and less regulation/oversight and that has resulted in an explosion of credit either via mortgages, credit cards or loan companies. The average Brit now owes more than they are actually worth and that isn't sustainable.
Im aware of that but it doesnt address the point we were talking re the housing market and the rise and fall of house prices.
The loosening of the regs has also lead to London being the centre of the financial universe which brings in millions & millions of £ of tax that underpins the UK.
Im not saying what has happened is right, and lessons dont need to be learned, but its not as black and white as Ken likes to make it.
Also regarding the rise and fall of house prices the developers are also partly to blame, by building fewer homes than there is demand for they help to keep prices high - this comes under the constriction of supply.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Also regarding the rise and fall of house prices the developers are also partly to blame, by building fewer homes than there is demand for they help to keep prices high - this comes under the constriction of supply.
Agreed.
Why do they only build flats these days? Oh yeah...Pack em high!!
My point dan is not that Morley and Goodwin are as bad as each other but that Goodwin et al are far far worse and that all this attack on Mps expenses is because most cant understand or grasp the shear scale of the fraud that has happened in the City.
enjoyed the argument although it is a shame you get personal, but then i am arguing on the wrong forum I suppose.
[cite]Posted By: kentred2[/cite]My point dan is not that Morley and Goodwin are as bad as each other but that Goodwin et al are far far worse and that all this attack on Mps expenses is because most cant understand or grasp the shear scale of the fraud that has happened in the City.
enjoyed the argument although it is a shame you get personal, but then i am arguing on the wrong forum I suppose.
I'm not sure that they are comparable. Morley has more or less admitted to fraud, but is claiming the "over-sight" defence, he may or may not yet face charges and I for one think he has a case to answer.
I'm not sure that Goodwin has done anything illegal. His "crime" was to literally bet the bank on the assumption that property prices would continue to rise and that sub-par loans/mortages could be bundled up and sold onallowing RBS to chase more of the mortage/loan market. That and the il-advised purchase of ABN Ambro. If he's guilty of anything it's being a bad businessman and a reckless gambler and taking advantage of lax credit legislation, but I don't think he did anything illegal.
Sorry I thought you said that the Bankers had committed crimes. Now youre saying it "looks" worse because the figures are higher. As others have said the MP has activities are fraudulant. The Bankers made bad business decisions. The two cannot be compared.
Yep Oggy, a crime is a crime and Morley is certainly going to have a few uncomfortable nights sleep, but it does have to be proven that he deliberately intended to defraud the system to be found guilty, and that may be the sticking point.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Yep Oggy, a crime is a crime and Morley is certainly going to have a few uncomfortable nights sleep, but it does have to be proven that he deliberately intended to defraud the system to be found guilty, and that may be the sticking point.
He knows he's committed fraud, however much he wriggles.
But as an MP, he probably knows a handy barrister who can mitigate his situation.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Yep Oggy, a crime is a crime and Morley is certainly going to have a few uncomfortable nights sleep, but it does have to be proven that he deliberately intended to defraud the system to be found guilty, and that may be the sticking point.
He knows he's committed fraud, however much he wriggles.
But as an MP, he probably knows a handy barrister who can mitigate his situation.
I agree, as I said upthread he has a case to answer, I'm merely making the point that guilt does have to be proven.
I suspect Morley will, even if he is exonerated, step down at the next election doubtless to "clear his name" or "spend more time with his family".
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Yep Oggy, a crime is a crime and Morley is certainly going to have a few uncomfortable nights sleep, but it does have to be proven that he deliberately intended to defraud the system to be found guilty, and that may be the sticking point.
Well you say that but I've read about plenty of people that were found guilty of fraud for "forgetting" to tell that their circumstances have changed, like that referee claiming disability and forgetting to tell them that his back had improved. Surely they cannot plead ignorance their MP'S ffs. Ignorance I thought is not a defence in law. IE I didn't know the speed limit.
Morley should be sacked and charged, no excuses, he has defrauded the taxpayer in a manner similar to a benefit fraudster or tax dodger, which is another big issue with politicians. Why should they avoid capital gains tax? It is after all gains, from the support of the public purse.
On a related issue, the speaker, michael martin is a horrible shiite who is hated throughout parliament and abuses his status. He will be kicked out soon as he has made so many enemies in parliament and they are all gunning for him now.
Comments
Go back 400 odd years and its people like you that would say that the only way to prove that a woman wasnt a witch would be to hold her under water. If she survived, then she must be a witch.[/quote]
yes alarmist and reactionary compared to most (especially City workers) and probably able to think beyond the basic.
the alarmist and reactionaries more or less always in history are proved right (eg greenpeace, the fans forum etc)
i am no economist but surely without the high mortgages being thrust on society for the banks profit then houses would have been cheaper!
I am thinking thank you. I'm not saying that the banks weren't responsible for negligence but they DIDN'T falsify profits. There are too many regulations (SOX etc) in the FS industry these days to "falsify" results.
What you're doing is comparing negligence with deliberate fraudulent activities. The two don't compare no matter what sort of vitriol you spit out.
And Nostradamus?
You really should get yourself a sandwich board you know.....
the banks are a massive part of the demand because, as you say, they funded the big mortgages!
and to say that there was no falsification is the same as an MP saying he didnt know he had paid his mortgage off! the banks are still at it ........ now creating toxic debts that can be written off now and funded by the tax payer and then accounted for as profits (and bonus building!) once the debts are repaid as they were never toxic in the first place. the accountancy firms turn a blind eye as their fees are at stake
you must be losing the discussion as you are now getting complimentary and offering me good advice
The way the Speaker of thee House bollocked two MPs for going t the press rather than doing something about those with their noses in the trough SINKs -- sack him.
The press in many ways in the UK can be total arses but its articles like the ToryGraph`s that prove a free press is in all our best intrests.
DAN, WHAT DO I DO?!?!
...........
I agree that supply and demand is part of the reason, but the loosening of credit rules over the last 25 odd years has helped create demand for housing ownership and allowed many people to buy homes that aren't really sustainable given their incomes. For example once you often had to put down a hefty deposit and then mortages were only availble on relatively low multiples of income. Banks like Northern Rock and RBS were offering mortgages of over 100% of the house value and offering a mortage on five times salary. Clearly those dodgy lending practices were creating demand by putting home ownership within the grasp of people who shouldn't really have been in a position to buy. That's ok when house prices keep rising as the banks could recoup their loans if the home owner defaulted, but in a market where house prices are falling then it isn't good business practice and that is what has ben happening.
I've offered you reasons why there is none of the falsification you claim there is, yet you're answering it with more speculation.
Under normal circumstances an organisation that was suffering such financial distress would have gone to the wall. The problem with letting the Banks do that (in any country) is that it would plunge the whole of the that country into a recession similar to the one in the 1930s. That's why the Govt underpinned them. Just as they have done with many other companies. I dont see you claiming that it was LDV's management should be hung drawn and quartered....
Toxic Assets are not being written off as profit (Jesus!). Where did that gem come from!
Do you know anything about what you're talking about Ken?
Accountancy firms in on it, Bankers making up false profits, Fred the Shred manipulating his contract...... Blimey! That's a huge number of people that have been "in on it" for the past 15 yrs. And no one caught wind of it until 18mths ago!
Never heard of Enron / Arthur Andersen? And the falsifying of their profits, in which AA were complient, and lead to an industry wide initiative called SOX that ALL banks comply with?
Im not trying to "win" anything Ken. Im just simply pointing out that you don’t know what youre talking about and that, despite your deflectionary tactics, that your original point that Morley and Goodwin are just as bad as each other is fundamentally wrong.
Go with the flow......
The desire to own you home has really only been there since the early 80s sell off. So was it the banks that reacted to a changing market with "better" offers or did the banks create that market and desire in the 1st place?
As you know Dan the banks (and other financial institutions) have consistently lobbied (ie demanded) for looser credit rules and less regulation/oversight and that has resulted in an explosion of credit either via mortgages, credit cards or loan companies. The average Brit now owes more than they are actually worth and that isn't sustainable.
The loosening of the regs has also lead to London being the centre of the financial universe which brings in millions & millions of £ of tax that underpins the UK.
Im not saying what has happened is right, and lessons dont need to be learned, but its not as black and white as Ken likes to make it.
Agreed.
Why do they only build flats these days? Oh yeah...Pack em high!!
enjoyed the argument although it is a shame you get personal, but then i am arguing on the wrong forum I suppose.
?
I'm not sure that they are comparable. Morley has more or less admitted to fraud, but is claiming the "over-sight" defence, he may or may not yet face charges and I for one think he has a case to answer.
I'm not sure that Goodwin has done anything illegal. His "crime" was to literally bet the bank on the assumption that property prices would continue to rise and that sub-par loans/mortages could be bundled up and sold onallowing RBS to chase more of the mortage/loan market. That and the il-advised purchase of ABN Ambro. If he's guilty of anything it's being a bad businessman and a reckless gambler and taking advantage of lax credit legislation, but I don't think he did anything illegal.
For example, what's worse, mugging an elderly person who later dies of their injuries in hospital?
Or killing 2 or more people at the same time with a gun?
It's the same crime that has been committed.
It's only the extent that varies.
In Morley's case, £16,000 fraud shouldn't be dismissed, compared with banks' unfortunately legal profiteering.
He's the one who's committed the crime.
He knows he's committed fraud, however much he wriggles.
But as an MP, he probably knows a handy barrister who can mitigate his situation.
I agree, as I said upthread he has a case to answer, I'm merely making the point that guilt does have to be proven.
I suspect Morley will, even if he is exonerated, step down at the next election doubtless to "clear his name" or "spend more time with his family".
No, of course, he wouldn't do that, lol
Well you say that but I've read about plenty of people that were found guilty of fraud for "forgetting" to tell that their circumstances have changed, like that referee claiming disability and forgetting to tell them that his back had improved. Surely they cannot plead ignorance their MP'S ffs. Ignorance I thought is not a defence in law. IE I didn't know the speed limit.
On a related issue, the speaker, michael martin is a horrible shiite who is hated throughout parliament and abuses his status. He will be kicked out soon as he has made so many enemies in parliament and they are all gunning for him now.