Bank Watch ...

[Aurora]

Biffvernon:" the activity around the time of the 2008 crash when, it may transpire, all sorts of things went on in an emergency to make sure cash still came out of the ATMs and the planet kept orbiting the Sun. That could be used as an arguable excuse."

It would be an arguable excuse if this was followed by a reforming of the system. But to do this and then allow the broken system to continue as BAU is inexcusable. 4 years later and still nothing being done.

Indeed. And when I say it's an arguable excuse I'm not saying the argument should be won. It would have been better for the system to have crashed ( )

My point is that there is a difference in morality between the two situations. Traders making money for themselves illegally is one thing. Government ministers and central bank officials acting illegally for the greater good is another thing. Intention and motivation has to be taken into account when judging law-breaking.

If something is illegal or immoral, it's wrong.

No ifs, no buts. Wrong.

[biffvernon]

Yes, but, but, but, some wrongs are bigger wrongs than others. That's why we have judges.

Radio 4 a few minutes ago, Robert Peston was saying just what I wrote (but he used more words).

[biffvernon]

If something is illegal or immoral, it's wrong.

It's a very big mistake to confuse illegal with immoral. Sometimes they coincide but quite often they don't. That's why we have two different words. Sometimes illegal actions are not wrong. That's one reason why the law is changed fdrom time to time.

For example, yesterday we heard that the Drax 29 could appeal their conviction. That was because of a wrong action by the prosecution in the trial and not because holding up trains has suddenly become legal. However, the action that the 29 took in publicising the danger to humanity from burning coal by holding up a coal train going to Drax was not wrong. It was a moral action. It is the law that allows fossil carbon to be burnt on this scale that is wrong. One day that law will be changed though probably too late.

[Aurora]

If something is illegal or immoral, it's wrong.

It's a very big mistake to confuse illegal with immoral. Sometimes they coincide but quite often they don't. That's why we have two different words.

Agreed, but in the case of the reptilian investment bankers, I'm prepared to make an exception.

They've obviously lost touch with the meaning of both words.

[adam2]

Yes, but, but, but, some wrongs are bigger wrongs than others. That's why we have judges.

Radio 4 a few minutes ago, Robert Peston was saying just what I wrote (but he used more words).

Yes, to break the law for personal gain by for example manipulating interest rates, is very wrong and a jail term could well be considered justified.

To break the law, without any personal gain, in an emergency in the national interest might be justified, and even if not fully justified is IMHO a far less serious matter, for which a prison term is arguably OTT.

Had the cashpoints emptied in 2008, I believe that large scale rioting and disorder would have broken out within hours.
I very much doubt that the police could have coped, without martial law, military assistance, and shooting rioters.
I suspect the thousands of lives would have been lost.
The police and the army might not have been very keen on putting down the riots if unable to access their own wages.
Almost any action could be justified to avoid such an eventuality.

[emordnilap]

Sometimes illegal actions are not wrong.

And, as in your second paragraph, sometimes immoral actions are not illegal.

[UndercoverElephant]

There seem to be two quite separate things:-
1, the pre 2008 crash Libor fixing by traders for personal gain and, possibly, for the bank's gain, and
2, the activity around the time of the 2008 crash when, it may transpire, all sorts of things went on in an emergency to make sure cash still came out of the ATMs and the planet kept orbiting the Sun. That could be used as an arguable excuse.

I think they are they other way around. First they got an instruction to fiddle the LIBOR submission to make it look like Barclays wasn't insolvent, and that gave them all the cover they needed to start fiddling it to trade fraudulently.

[UndercoverElephant]

I agree Biff. In fact, they're debating it on Newsnight right now, and Nigel Lawson just more or less made the same point.

Trouble is, we then immediately get into "pots calling kettles". So, manipulating the LIBOR for personal gain is morally repugnant, but doing it to shore up a doomed, creaking system is kind of OK?

Clearly it is not OK if other people are losing money because of it, but there is a more important issue. If it becomes obvious that the LIBOR rate has been repeatedly manipulated during times of financial crisis, then what happens next time there is a crisis? Will this fiddling occur next time too, even though everybody knows it is being fiddled? And if so, where does the fiddling stop?

[Tarrel]

And if so, where does the fiddling stop?

When Rome has finished burning?

[hodson2k9]

If something is illegal or immoral, it's wrong.

No ifs, no buts. Wrong.

Disagree!

Not everything is black and white.

[extractorfan]

Anyone who says a group of employees acting dishonestly made them "physically sick" is so obviously lying through their teeth it's, it's, it's just a disgrace, however such dishonesty always fails to make me physically sick.

Things like dead Badgers on the road with guts hanging out come close, but dishonesty just doesn't hit the mark for me.

[RenewableCandy]

It is interesting to note, however, that perceiving gross unfairness triggers the same response in the brain as disgust does. So even if it's not literally true, as a metaphor it's spot-on. "Physically nauseating" would be true, I suppose. Nausea is measurable (skin resistance, temperature and blood pressure iirc). Right I shall stop being a pedant now. Erm, til the next time.

[extractorfan]

actually yes, he said he "felt" physically sick, but even so maybe I have some kind of very strong constitution when it comes to witnessing acts of gross unfairness. It's never made me feel like puking.

however, whjitnessing a situation of gross unfairness has, but it's not going to be a bunch of blokes conspiring against the public to make money!

You know what, I'm going to stop watching / listening to this charade, it's just making me lose the will to take anything at all seriously. In fact it's making me want to act selfishly and dishonestly and to hell with everyone.

Hows that work????

[Little John]

He's a lying f***ing psychopath

He was forced to admit that libor fiddling had been going n for years prior to the financial crisis

He was forced to admit that it went on went on during the crisis

He was forced to admit that the traders were shouting across the trading floor to each other about how they were fixing the rates illegally

He was forced to admit that, apparently, the compliance officers who were in the trading room in all of the years this went on did not pass this information up....not once

He was forced to admit that his own bank had, through some of its investment analyst, made statements to media outlets about their concerns that there was systematic underreporting of the libor rate in the banking system in general

He even went on to say that during the crisis, he personally felt that other banks were misreporting their rates.

And yet....

During all of this time, despite being able to discern fiddling in other banks, he would have us believe that he never once thought to check to see if such malpractice was going on in his own bank

During all of this time, he would have us believe that such malpractice in his own bank was never reported to him by anyone

As i was saying...lying f***ing psychopath

[extractorfan]

As i was saying...lying ******* psychopath

and one of life's winners. he's not going to go through a process of unrichment, so everyone can see, that's how you act if you are successful.