Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

please sign the e-petition on all the major banks


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-21 of 21 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 30 Jun 2012 21:17:22 BDT
S HANCOCK says:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35421

I am hoping that the sub prime lenders will follow, as a lot of them have Barclays as a backer.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jun 2012 21:45:02 BDT
gille liath says:
What about them?

Posted on 30 Jun 2012 22:31:01 BDT
Charlieost says:
Why not go onto the website and find out gille. Ctrl c click Ctrl v.

Good for you S Hancock. Have shared on facebook.

Good luck. Charlie.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Jun 2012 22:37:29 BDT
gille liath says:
Or someone could tell me so I know whether it's worth looking into...

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jul 2012 07:51:36 BDT
Molly Brown says:
e-petition

Public inquiry into wrongdoing and ethics of bankers
Responsible department: Her Majesty's Treasury

We the undersigned call for an independent, judicial public enquiry into fraud, wrongdoing and ethics of British banks, their management and their staff, and the role of the British Bankers Association. The terms of reference of this inquiry should also include the manipulation of interest rates on about 225 trillion of assets. The inquiry must have full powers to compel witnesses to appear on oath, and to obtain all forms of evidence.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35421

Number of signatures:
9,628

Created by:
Ann Pettifor

Closing:
28/09/2012 08:54

This is the petition, and not very well supported so far. Waste of time really, but worth signing I suppose, it needs to be at least 100,000 people's signatures apparently for government to take notice.

There seems no intent by any of the Parties to do anything about the Banks, just keep giving them our money. Barclays, never a very reputable bank in history, remember South Africa, boasted that they never needed a bail-out from government so kept all their ridiculous bonuses. Now we know why they didn't need a bailout don't we!

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jul 2012 08:39:14 BDT
S HANCOCK says:
What about them ? It's all about GREED.

Why are you one of them.

Posted on 1 Jul 2012 09:01:30 BDT
Molly Brown says:
Four out of five people want individuals to be prosecuted when banks break the law, according to a new survey.

Two-thirds of people believe the Governent will not act in their best interests when implementing banking reform.

And only one in five think the Financial Services Authority is effective in regulating UK banks.

The consumer watchdog Which? is calling on the Government to ensure criminal prosecutions can be brought against individuals - up to boardroom level - who have presided over corrupt practices.

"Banks and bankers will continue to be seen as untouchable unless individuals are held to account for their actions and the culture of banking is changed for good. The fines handed down to banks are not a deterrent. Last week Barclays was fined less than 60m in the UK, compared to 231m in the US, and has paid out 2bn in compensation and settlements in the last three years, but that seems to have little effect. The Government needs to change the rules so that criminal prosecutions can be brought against individuals if banks have flouted the rules."

http://news.sky.com/story/954671/four-in-five-want-bankers-prosecuted

Posted on 1 Jul 2012 09:19:49 BDT
Molly Brown says:
Barclays bosses must pay for rate-rigging scandal, says George Osborne. Barclays executives must "pay the price" for rigging interest rates in a scandal caused by a culture of systematic greed and irresponsibility, George Osborne said today.

The Chancellor said Barclays and other banks had been in "flagrant breach" of their duties by allowing traders to distort basic data on the key interest rate called Libor.

He said the scandal was a "shocking indictment of the culture at banks like Barclays", as mortgage holders, credit card users and businesses may have been charged too much for their loans.

The Chancellor said ordinary people have paid a "very heavy price" because of the banks and executives must now answer for their greed.

The Goverment will now try to claw back the 290 million fine paid by Barclays to settle the Libor case. Currently, it will be re-distributed among British banks in the form of lower fees to the regulator.

The bank's share price dropped 16 per cent, as Bob Diamond, its chief executive, faced mounting pressure to resign.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9361952/Barclays-bosses-must-pay-for-rate-rigging-scandal-says-George-Osborne.html

"A senior Barclays Treasury manager informed BBA in a telephone call that it had not been reporting accurately, although he noted that Barclays was not the worst offender of the panel bank members. "We're clean, but we're dirty-clean, rather than clean-clean."
The BBA representative responded, "no one's clean-clean." The senior Barclays Treasury manager replied "no, because ofthe very fact of what happened to us ... We were clean ... the market ... reacted accordingly. And that's why we stepped away again."

On 26 October 2006, an external trader made a request for a lower three month US dollar LIBOR submission. The external trader stated in an email to Trader G at Barclays "If it comes in unchanged I'm a dead man". Trader G responded that he would "have a chat". Barclays' submission on that day for three month US dollar LIBOR was half a basis point lower than the day before, rather than being unchanged. The external trader thanked Trader G for Barclays' LIBOR submission later that day: "Dude. I owe you big time! Come over one day after work and I'm opening a bottle of Bollinger".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9359392/Key-emails-how-Barclays-manipulated-Libor.html

The fine will be re-distributed among British banks, but what about the mortgage holders, credit card users and businesses who have been charged too much for their loans over the last years this has been going on. And why is there no criminal investigation into this clear fraud against the British people. What will the bankers do, open a bottle of Bolinger and carry on as usual, slap on the wrist, and just come up with another scam to extort money from innocent people.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jul 2012 09:20:16 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 1 Jul 2012 09:20:32 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jul 2012 19:56:00 BDT
gille liath says:
One of what - those people who can't give a straight answer to a question? No.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jul 2012 19:57:42 BDT
gille liath says:
Much obliged to you. Not surprised now that I didn't get an answer, because it's sufficiently vague. Another enquiry? To what end? Is there any point? As long as these people are the lynchpin of the world economy, they'll continue to swing the lead. Close one loophole and they'll find another.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jul 2012 06:45:28 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jul 2012 06:45:58 BDT
Molly Brown says:
"Barclays chairman Marcus Agius quits in bid to stop the bleeding"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/barclays-chairman-quits-in-bid-to-stop-the-bleeding-7902913.html

"The hardening of government rhetoric - Mr Cable says the Serious Fraud Office is re-examining evidence of rate-fixing - came as Barclays and other banks at the heart of the scandal braced themselves for "BP-style" lawsuits that are likely to cost billions of pounds in compensation. The Barclays board hopes that the departure of Mr Agius, who had a difficult relationship with shareholders, will relieve some pressure on the bank's embattled chief executive, Bob Diamond."

Background Marcus Aguis:
(Marcus Agius is married to Katherine daughter of Edmund de Rothschild of the Rothschild banking family of England and has a close involvement with the Rothschild family estate, Exbury Gardens in Hampshire). Spent his formative years working for Lazards, never heard of them?

The Last Tycoons: The Secret History of Lazard Freres & Co. (Unabridged)

"It really is amazing just how unpleasant most of these people were.
Also many of them seemed to be pretty incompetent.......It shows that Investment banking has probably always attracted the "morally challenged"

Posted on 2 Jul 2012 08:05:01 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jul 2012 09:49:14 BDT
Molly Brown says:
Barclays Bank - the untouchables

In 2006, a South African activist group, the Jubilee South Africa backed Khulumani Support Group, sought reparations from Barclays in addition to Citigroup, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Ford, GM, and Deutsche Bank for their roles indirectly supporting the apartheid government in South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s. The legal proceedings are being heard at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, and the South African Ministry of Justice is seeking dismissal of the case on the grounds that it undermines its national sovereignty.

In additon to funding Robert Mugabe's regime now and in the past, Barclays also provides two of Mugabe's associates with bank accounts, ignoring European Union sanctions on Zimbabwe. The men are Elliot Manyika and minister of public service Nicholas Goche. Barclays has defended its position by insisting that the EU rules do not apply to its 67%-owned Zimbabwean subsidiary because it was incorporated outside the EU.

On 30 August 2007, Barclays was forced to borrow 1.6 billion (US$3.2 billion) from the Bank of England sterling standby facility. This is made available as a last-resort when banks are unable to settle their debts to other banks at the end of daily trading. Despite rumours about liquidity at Barclays, the loan was necessary due to a technical problem with their computerised settlement network. A Barclays spokesman was quoted as saying "There are no liquidity issues in the U.K markets. Barclays itself is flush with liquidity."

Bob Diamond, then the head of Barclays Capital, was set to receive a 14.8m bonus in 2008, as Barclays Capital made a profit of 2.3bn in the year, despite the subprime mortgage crisis in the US forcing the division to take a 1.6bn hit in 2007.

In 2009 Reuters later reported that the British government would inject 40 billion (US$69 billion) into three banks including Barclays, which might seek over 7 billion. Barclays later confirmed that it rejected the Government's offer and would instead raise 6.5 billion of new capital (2 billion by cancellation of dividend and 4.5 billion from private investors).

In March 2009, Barclays was accused of violating international anti-money laundering laws. According to the NGO Global Witness, the Paris branch of Barclays held the account of Equatorial Guinean President Teodoro Obiang's son, Teodorin Obiang, even after evidence that Obiang had siphoned oil revenues from government funds emerged in 2004. According to Global Witness, Obiang purchased a Ferrari and maintains a mansion in Malibu with the funds from this account.

In March 2009, Barclays obtained an injunction against The Guardian to remove from its website confidential leaked documents describing how SCM, Barclays' structured capital markets division, planned to use more than 11bn of loans to create hundreds of millions of pounds of tax benefits, via "an elaborate circuit of Cayman Islands companies, US partnerships and Luxembourg subsidiaries".

A 2010 report by the Wall Street Journal described how Credit Suisse, Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group, and other banks were involved in helping the Alavi Foundation, Bank Melli, the Iranian government, and/or others circumvent US laws banning financial transactions with certain states. They did this by 'stripping' information out of wire transfers, thereby concealing the source of funds. Barclays settled with the government for US$298 million.

On 13 February 2010, Barclays announced it would pay more than 2 billion in bonuses. In March 2011 it was reported that Barclays had overtaken Banco Santander to claim top spot as the UK's most complained against bank, with the country's official banking regulator, the Financial Services Authority having recorded 276,315 new customer complaints against Barclays Bank during the second half of 2010,

In February 2012 Barclays was forced to pay back 500 million in tax which it had tried to avoid. Barclays was accused by HMRC of designing two schemes that were intended to avoid substantial amounts of tax. Tax rules forced the bank to tell the UK authorities about its plans. One tax scheme involved Barclays claiming it should not have to pay corporation tax on profits made when buying back its own IOUs. The second tax avoidance scheme, also designed by Barclays, involved investment funds claiming that non-taxable income entitled the funds to tax credits that could be reclaimed from HMRC. The treasury described this as "an attempt to secure 'repayment' from the Exchequer of tax that has not been paid".

In June 2012, as a result of an international investigation, Barclays Bank was fined a total of 290 million (US$450 million) for attempting to manipulate the daily settings of London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor). The bank was found to have made 'inappropriate submissions' of rates which formed part of the Libor and Euribor setting processes, sometimes to make a profit, and other times to make the bank look more secure during the financial crisis. This happened between 2005 and 2009, as often as daily.

(Barclays was Britain's most complained about bank in the last six months of 2011. Between 1 July and 31 December the financial ombudsman dealt with 11,524 complaints about Barclays, finding in favour of customers in 84% of cases.)

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jul 2012 09:58:55 BDT
gille liath says:
Exactly! And the trouble is, we do need investment banking.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jul 2012 13:41:39 BDT
Why?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jul 2012 13:45:11 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 3 Jul 2012 13:46:14 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jul 2012 06:01:50 BDT
Molly Brown says:
"We need investment banking", not sure who we are, but is it possible to find an honest person employed in this industry?

Posted on 5 Jul 2012 15:33:47 BDT
I thought we "invested" our money in banks in return for interest and / or free banking and the banks "invested" the money to people who needed it in return for a higher rate of interest. Are there non-investment banks? How do they make their money?

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Jul 2012 16:05:54 BDT
me

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jul 2012 07:22:07 BDT
Molly Brown says:
They used to be called Building Societies, you remember them, I wonder if retailers still accept B/S cheques as payment which is as good as cash anymore? Where I used to work, a furniture shop, we would accept 1000's and let customers take the stuff away if they paid us that way. Not worth the paper they're printed on now I would imagine???

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Jul 2012 07:23:02 BDT
Molly Brown says:
I believe you PP, but look what happened to you, they don't want honest people do they really? It would make the others look bad!
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  6
Total posts:  21
Initial post:  30 Jun 2012
Latest post:  6 Jul 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions