Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Those naughty banks; luckily the government are on their case.....



Stato

Well-known member
Dec 21, 2011
6,528
I think labour are far more culpable here. They were in office when these crimes occurred, and it is a direct result of their deregulation.

Do regulations matter to people who are breaking the law?

They weren't in office when Green was made a minister despite his bank's crimes being known about by the government:

http://www.theguardian.com/business...-data-misconduct-stephen-green-trade-minister

Its also not the first time this government has appointed people who were in charge at organisations while they were responsible for crimes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27998411

Cameron can't claim he didn't know this time:
 


Jul 24, 2003
2,289
Newbury, Berkshire.
Once you give one person the right to avoid paying the full amount of tax to which they are liable, you give that right to all.

Therefore , those of us who pay PAYE and have that monies deducted from our hard earned salaries are morally obligated to expose those who do not follow our example ( it is not a question of whether we like or dislike paying tax, it is a question of EVERYONE in society obeying the same law ), and if there are those in society who are breaking that law, then exposure, by whatever means, is legitimised.

Whistleblowing is NOT the same as passing official secrets to a countries enemies, like the Cambridge spies, Philby, McClean and Blunt. It is simply a matter of breaching a confidentiality agreement, and is therefore a Civil, not Criminal act ( unless it amounts to Misconduct in a Public Office ). As far as I am aware, HSBC is a PRIVATE institution.
 


Jul 24, 2003
2,289
Newbury, Berkshire.
Whether we are left-wing, or right-wing, it is clear that we are all getting an unfair deal, while the wealthy elites are getting away with economic murder.

Ideally we could ignore our political differences and unite in doing more to tackle the problem of this kind of corruption together.

The French managed it in 1789, and the Russians in 1917................

It's nothing new. But we haven't done it since 1642 and the 'Devine right of Kings'. Now we have the 'Devine right of the rich'...........

If we continue to let this kind of thing go unfettered, we will be back to Rotten Boroughs, Parliamentary corruption and all the other practices that led to the 1832 Reform Act.
 


yxee

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2011
2,521
Manchester
You keep arguing whether it was labour or the tories who are to blame, because it's obvious to everyone that they have completely different approaches to the wealthy evading tax :facepalm:

No I don't, that was the first mention of either party I made in the thread.
 


lawros left foot

Glory hunting since 1969
Jun 11, 2011
13,673
Worthing
I think labour are far more culpable here. They were in office when these crimes occurred, and it is a direct result of their deregulation.

But the evidence of the crime was only revealed I May 2010, so Labour was then in opposition. It would have still been going on, at HSBC had the whistleblower not blown the whistle
 




Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,547
Fiveways
The French managed it in 1789, and the Russians in 1917................

It's nothing new. But we haven't done it since 1642 and the 'Devine right of Kings'. Now we have the 'Devine right of the rich'...........

If we continue to let this kind of thing go unfettered, we will be back to Rotten Boroughs, Parliamentary corruption and all the other practices that led to the 1832 Reform Act.

We managed it in 1945. That ushered in a thirty year period of high growth, few and limited downturns, and an increasingly egalitarian share of the spoils. And unlike the French in 1789 and the Russians in 1917, it was managed without any internal blood shed. It's happened. We should do it again, but this time paying attention to the other great challenge of the century: climate change and other environmental issues.
 


spring hall convert

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2009
9,608
Brighton
And you know this because...? i'd venture this chap working in the Geneva office didnt care for ordinary account information, but the risk is someone else in another office would be able to. lets get back to the HMRC having already recovered the funds its identified as tax evasion, as thats more important. probably HSBC should be fined for naughtiness involved, and Lord Green publically flogged for being in charge at the time (there's far more stories from that time i believe).

Wouldn't some high profile court cases deter people from breaking the law again in the future? Or is deterrant only a concept that works with poor people? You make it sound like these people did HMRC a favour.
 
Last edited:


spring hall convert

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2009
9,608
Brighton
I genuinely despair for the people framing this as a party political issue. The Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and UKIP are all desperate for these people's money. That some choose to pay lip service to stopping the rich doing exactly as they please with their money and others don't is merely window dressing.
 




fat old seagull

New member
Sep 8, 2005
5,239
Rural Ringmer
if you're a HSBC customer, you should probably be more concerned about the "wistleblower" taking the account information from the bank. thats the real story here, not that a bank offers offshore bank accounts.

Sorry, but if people, organisations, businesses or government departments act 'outside the law' IMO the whistleblowing is not just excusable, but praiseworthy.
 


Jul 24, 2003
2,289
Newbury, Berkshire.
We managed it in 1945. That ushered in a thirty year period of high growth, few and limited downturns, and an increasingly egalitarian share of the spoils. And unlike the French in 1789 and the Russians in 1917, it was managed without any internal blood shed. It's happened. We should do it again, but this time paying attention to the other great challenge of the century: climate change and other environmental issues.

BUT it happened as a consequence of MASSIVE bloodshed between 1939-45, and (in Nazi Occupied territories ), vast earlier bloodshed.

The 30 year period you're talking about was not a "revolution against corruption and injustice" , and you have conveniently forgotten about the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland, the collapse of the British Empire including much armed struggle by Colonial nations against Britains occupation ( and the collapse of overseas markets - take the declaration of UDI in Rhodesia by Ian Smith as just one example, or Idi Amin's military coup in Uganda ), the Suez Crisis, the Korean War, The Miners strikes ( a prime example of an authoritarian regime trying to break the working class ), the 3 day week, a MASSIVE war debt payable to good old 'Uncle Sam' paid for by everyone in this Country who pays tax etc.

Sorry, but your rose tinted view of 1945 - 1975 is not one I share. What you see as high growth, I see as rebuilding a shattered war-torn infrastructure. In 1945 Britain was economically on it's knees, and without the USA, would have been pronnounced dead on arrival.
 
Last edited:


Diego Napier

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2010
4,416
I thought the opening of your post was fairly patronising so I responded in kind. My apologies for that, I stand by my point though the Labour party are not a 'left' part and are a long way from their socialist roots.

Don't apologise, the opening line of [MENTION=27836]Barham's tash[/MENTION] 's post was patronising and you simply replied in kind.

The fact is that you'd pulled the rug from under his vacuous, shallow and cliched attack on socialism and it looked like the best he could do in the way of a face-saving riposte!
 




Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,547
Fiveways
BUT it happened as a consequence of MASSIVE bloodshed between 1939-45, and (in Nazi Occupied territories ), vast earlier bloodshed.

The 30 year period you're talking about was not a "revolution against corruption and injustice" , and you have conveniently forgotten about the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland, the collapse of the British Empire including much armed struggle by Colonial nations against Britains occupation ( and the collapse of overseas markets - take the declaration of UDI in Rhodesia by Ian Smith as just one example, or Idi Amin's military coup in Uganda ), the Suez Crisis, the Korean War, The Miners strikes ( a prime example of an authoritarian regime trying to break the working class ), the 3 day week, a MASSIVE war debt payable to good old 'Uncle Sam' paid for by everyone in this Country who pays tax etc.

Sorry, but your rose tinted view of 1945 - 1975 is not one I share. What you see as high growth, I see as rebuilding a shattered war-torn infrastructure. In 1945 Britain was economically on it's knees, and without the USA, would have been pronnounced dead on arrival.

WW2 was of course hugely significant in this, but I think the experience of the 1930s played a formative role. I'm not 'rose-tinted' about 1945-1975. There were all those developments you mention but also, more importantly, the backdrop of the Cold War and especially the Cuban missile crisis. You're right about rebuilding a shattered infrastructure, but 30 to 40 years of neoliberalism has had a pretty devastating impact on our current infrastructure. The US propped up war-devastated Europe in the aftermath of WW2 but this was equally to do with the start of the Cold War, and wanting to have markets to export to as it had then achieved a position of economic pre-eminence. The Marshall Plan was also the US providing loans (with interest), so it wasn't exactly an act of altruism -- the UK only finished paying off those loans last decade.

If you're going to write off the post-war consensus as a period to view through rose-tinted glasses, what period are you going to invoke? Or is it your view that one particular period of (our) history is never better than another?
 


seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,690
Crap Town
I think labour are far more culpable here. They were in office when these crimes occurred, and it is a direct result of their deregulation.

So if HMRC further investigated the financial well being of those 1100 already caught for tax evasion lets say between 1979 and 1997 they would find them all squeaky clean ?
 






seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,690
Crap Town
This is not my assertion, nor would I excuse it if it happened to be true.

Whoever is in power be it Labour or Conservatives they are as bad as each other when it comes to looking after their own.
 


jackanada

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2011
3,150
Brighton
Whoever is in power be it Labour or Conservatives they are as bad as each other when it comes to looking after their own.

The conservatives really are a lot worse. How else do you think they attract so many large donations from wealthy individuals.
I would also mention that Sir Charles Dunstone, Tory peer and major donor, was the subject of an investigation for carousel fraud, robbing the exchequer of north of 100 million, specialist counsel recommended the prosecution go ahead but the CPS dropped the case under 'pressure from the very top' because getting surly teens to disinterestedly sort you out the wrong mobile phone contract makes you a job creator and the prosecution not in the public interest.
 


Jul 24, 2003
2,289
Newbury, Berkshire.
WW2 was of course hugely significant in this, but I think the experience of the 1930s played a formative role. I'm not 'rose-tinted' about 1945-1975. There were all those developments you mention but also, more importantly, the backdrop of the Cold War and especially the Cuban missile crisis. You're right about rebuilding a shattered infrastructure, but 30 to 40 years of neoliberalism has had a pretty devastating impact on our current infrastructure. The US propped up war-devastated Europe in the aftermath of WW2 but this was equally to do with the start of the Cold War, and wanting to have markets to export to as it had then achieved a position of economic pre-eminence. The Marshall Plan was also the US providing loans (with interest), so it wasn't exactly an act of altruism -- the UK only finished paying off those loans last decade.

If you're going to write off the post-war consensus as a period to view through rose-tinted glasses, what period are you going to invoke? Or is it your view that one particular period of (our) history is never better than another?

I don't think we have ever attempted 'real' socialism in this country. We are still obsessed about 'class' and 'status' originating partly from our Constitutional monarchy and it's awards and gongs, and partly because as an Island nation, we see ourselves as 'a breed apart' and able to stand on our own two feet. The reality is of course that we can't, and without the influx over the years of Jewish people, Hugenots from France, Chinese from Hong Kong / Taiwan, Afro-Carribean or Indian / Pakistan or even Eastern Europeans, to do the jobs that we see as being 'beneath us' we would be forced to face up to the fact that we are still a society of 'haves' and 'have nots'. It's just that we now have a welfare system where the 'have not's' can be spared the ignominy of applying for Charitable handouts, otherwise there would still be (admittadly small but there nevertheless) a part of society completely disenfranchised from ever achieving social mobility.

But to get back to the thrust of this thread, that welfare system ( and all the other benefits we take for granted like education, health, transport infrastructure, a secure defence from invasion, a independant judiciary, social service provision for the vulnerable young and old and not being expected to work until we drop ) can ONLY be paid for if we ALL pay our fair wack.

Tax evasion or avoidance, call it what you will, is like taking the benefits of club membership without paying the annual subscription fee.
 


spring hall convert

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2009
9,608
Brighton
The conservatives really are a lot worse. How else do you think they attract so many large donations from wealthy individuals.
I would also mention that Sir Charles Dunstone, Tory peer and major donor, was the subject of an investigation for carousel fraud, robbing the exchequer of north of 100 million, specialist counsel recommended the prosecution go ahead but the CPS dropped the case under 'pressure from the very top' because getting surly teens to disinterestedly sort you out the wrong mobile phone contract makes you a job creator and the prosecution not in the public interest.

Actually I'd disagree. At least you know where the Tories stand.

I strongly suspect Labour are all talk. If there's one thing they hate more than taking donations off tax dodgers, it's being beholden to the Unions. Lesser of two evils in their eyes.
 




Machiavelli

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2013
16,547
Fiveways
I don't think we have ever attempted 'real' socialism in this country. We are still obsessed about 'class' and 'status' originating partly from our Constitutional monarchy and it's awards and gongs, and partly because as an Island nation, we see ourselves as 'a breed apart' and able to stand on our own two feet. The reality is of course that we can't, and without the influx over the years of Jewish people, Hugenots from France, Chinese from Hong Kong / Taiwan, Afro-Carribean or Indian / Pakistan or even Eastern Europeans, to do the jobs that we see as being 'beneath us' we would be forced to face up to the fact that we are still a society of 'haves' and 'have nots'. It's just that we now have a welfare system where the 'have not's' can be spared the ignominy of applying for Charitable handouts, otherwise there would still be (admittadly small but there nevertheless) a part of society completely disenfranchised from ever achieving social mobility.

But to get back to the thrust of this thread, that welfare system ( and all the other benefits we take for granted like education, health, transport infrastructure, a secure defence from invasion, a independant judiciary, social service provision for the vulnerable young and old and not being expected to work until we drop ) can ONLY be paid for if we ALL pay our fair wack.

Tax evasion or avoidance, call it what you will, is like taking the benefits of club membership without paying the annual subscription fee.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last two paragraphs, but am unclear as to what you're actually arguing in the first. Is it that you think we should attempt 'real socialism'; if so, who has attempted it, and when?
 


cunning fergus

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2009
4,744
I genuinely despair for the people framing this as a party political issue. The Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and UKIP are all desperate for these people's money. That some choose to pay lip service to stopping the rich doing exactly as they please with their money and others don't is merely window dressing.



Indeed, as always its about the powerful and powerless.

It wasnt that long ago Labour were getting the brickbats because of this peice of sh*t.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...s/miliband-defends-labour-co-op-links-6326127

A previously convicted sexual deviant and drink driver, with a strong addition to drugs and orgies with rent boys. He still knew enough well connected people though to become a Labour Councillor, appointed to the Labour Party Treasury Committee and Chairman of the Coop Bank; an institution which was bankrolling the labour party with loans at interest rates that wholesale and retail customers could only dream of.

So much for a culture of "Treating Customers Fairly".

Labour supporters should be attacking the wankers that turned the political party into a ersatz Tory Party, not the Tories.

At least the scots have cottoned on.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here