Barclays: What sort of crisis is it?

Johnysid | 21:52 Wed 04th Jul 2012 | News

32 Answers

Barclays operated a Derivatives Market to profit from part of the £554 TRILLION being invested as hedges against the LIBOR. From 2005 Barclays cheated investors out of billions by rigging the market. This is criminal fraud.
In 2008 Barclays helped rig the LIBOR further, perhaps encouraged by government, to allay fears of general bank collapse.
The media have jumped from the serious crime to the dubious practice without a qualm and mixed the two events together. Who will demand justice when the media fail us? Does anyone care? Who is immoral, Barclays, the media or the electorate?

Thought this girl warrented a mention

Should we cut the Army?

Answers

1 to 20 of 32

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Johnysid. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

jackthehat

Is it a) the post-marxists, b) the post-structuralists or c) post-modernists?
Perhaps you could be succinct with your answer, or just direct us to the solution on your blog?

sandyRoe

A while ago it was said that some banks were too big to fail. Now it seems that some banks are so big that if they commit a crime it can't be called by its proper name.

thenry

Who gives a sh*t? Bob Diamond takes a £20m payoff and the press report it ! ?

sandyRoe

And where were the parliamentary pit-bulls to give that supercilious ****, Bob Diamond, a good mauling today?

Johnysid

Question Author

Well, Jack the Hat, you tell us.

Johnysid

Question Author

thenry: "who gives a s**t"." So do you think it is the electorate?

jackthehat

Not fair......
It was your question.
You answer it.

thenry

Nothing like a McVitie !

EDDIE51

Problem is 1/2 of Tory MPs are also directors of banks and financial institutions .
They won't sh!t on their own doorstep !

thenry

So you think the average elector has anything to do with it ? £20 (fuc**ing) million ! ?

emmie

The banks in all their guises have robbed the customers, those who rely on them, the businesses that have gone bust because of high interest rates, the small investor, the one who goes 1p over drawn and gets punished with a massive bank charge. The banks who misssold PPI to their customers, who have had to pay a lot of it back. You name it, it's not a new problem, and will keep on happening, as they feel they are masters of the universe, and can do as they damn well feckin please.

Gromit

Every Government in the world are mesmerised by the banking system. The banks make obscene profits from me and you and buy influence from the politicians. No matter how bad the banks' transgresions are, I do not see that alliegance changing anytime soon.

emmie

very likely, but someone should be held accountable, robbing people this way is inexcusable.

ChuckFickens

Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob a country.

Johnysid

Question Author

thenry, you said "Who gives a sh*t?". It was you who said that people do not give a Sugar. That the people are immoral because they do not care. This is a good point.

em10: "... someone should be held accountable, robbing people this way is inexcusable.". Yes, its outrageous. What is more it is simple fraud. Why are the police or Serious Fraud Office doing nothing? The crime is on the statute books, the penalty is jail, so why is the media talking about enquiries and not demanding prosecutions of individuals? Why haven't the bank directors closest to the crime been banned from holding directorships?

Johnysid

Question Author

jackthehat: "Is it a) the post-marxists, b) the post-structuralists or c) post-modernists? "

These are good ideas Jack. I am seeking answers rather than giving them (ie: Answerbank). So perhaps you can help. Do you think the anti-foundationalism of postmodernism is responsible? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

berniecuddles

what those people have done at barclays is fraud so why has no one been arrested yet?

FredPuli43

Cameron is speaking of the Serious Fraud Office being involved. Someone on the BBC was saying that some of the activity was before the passing of the Fraud Act. Can't see that that matters. 'False accounting' was an offence before and would be after it, however it is described. Theft/ larceny was still theft though we changed from the Larceny Act, 1916, to the Theft Act , 1968.

And this activity seems to be false accounting; the dishonest making of false entries in documents required for an accounting purpose,with a view to gain or to cause loss; quite apart from other offences disclosed

Johnysid

Question Author

The Financial Times said that:

"The Serious Fraud Office opted against a criminal probe into whether bankers tried to rig the London interbank offered rate, or Libor, last summer after its then-director decided it would be a drag on an already limited budget and would duplicate efforts of other agencies, people familiar with the situation told the Financial Times."

So the SFO knew there was a statutory fraud but deliberately refused to investigate. This may be one of the biggest frauds in history because the annual LIBOR Derivatives Market is over £500 trillion so just skimming 0.01% would yield £50 billion. The SFO knew this fact.