Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by Philip »

Alex Salmond's startegy to win the referendum on Scotland.Tory allegations.

Alex Salmond 'will try to turn England against Scotland'

Alex Salmond will try and win the independence referendum by turning the English against Scotland and making lavish spending pledges, Ruth Davidson has predicted.

Ruth Davidson gives her speech on the final day of the Tory conference
By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor
02 Oct 2013

In her keynote speech to the Conservative conference, the Scottish Tory leader warned the mainly English audience that he would appear on television over the next year deliberately “saying things designed to get right up your nose.”

In addition, she said the First Minister has already resorted to the "last refuge of every shameless populist" by making £32 billion of uncosted promises for an independent Scotland.

But she emphasised that Mr Salmond does not speak for the majority of Scots and urged her party colleagues in the rest of the UK to join the fight against separation.

In an attempt to quash any apathy about the referendum result, with polls showing support for independence in the doldrums, she warned delegates “this could be your last-ever UK party conference".

Speaking immediately after her, David Cameron used his speech to reiterate to Scots that people in the rest of the UK “want you to stay” and claim there is an “unanswerable case” to reject independence.

Ms Davidson was giving the most high-profile speech of her career, having been handed the “warm-up” slot for the Prime Minister’s keynote address, in a full conference hall that included the Conservative members of Cabinet.

She highlighted the 1995 referendum on Quebecois independence, which the separatists lost by less than one per cent after “Canada said ‘We want you to stay.’”

“So, over the next year, when Alex Salmond comes on your television, saying things designed to get right up your nose. Know that he’s doing it on purpose, and that he doesn’t speak for the majority of Scots,” she told delegates.

“Know too, that while this is the most important decision in Scotland’s history – it also affects each and every one you, no matter where you live.”

She said the result would impact on “every one of our great British institutions”, highlighting how the armed forces’ regiments, frigates and aircraft would have to be divided up after independence.

So far Mr Salmond’s strategy has relied on claiming that nothing would change, she said, with an independent Scotland keeping the pound, the Queen and even the Bank of England despite expert evidence otherwise.

But the Scottish Tory leader said he has tried a new tactic in recent months, adding: “His new tack is the last refuge of every shameless populist in history staring down the barrel of defeat. It’s to promise things for free.”

Among the estimated £32 billion of promises she highlighted were renationalising Royal Mail, increasing overseas aid, setting up a Scottish version of MI5 and subsidising more wind farms.

Ms Davidson joked that she is expecting the next one to be “free beer with every vote”, before warning: “It is this ‘say anything’, ‘do anything’, ‘promise anything’ approach to breaking up Britain that we are fighting.”

The Prime Minister used his speech to say the English, Welsh and Northern Irish want to “stick together” with the Scots. He added: “Think of all we've achieved together, all the things we can do together. The nation, as one. Our kingdom, united."
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by Philip »

Commonwealth blues.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/o ... hya-jammeh

Gambia quits the Commonwealth
Announcement on west African nation's state television channel does not explain reason for decision
Afua Hirsch, west Africa correspondent
The Guardian, Thursday 3 October 2013

Yahya Jammeh
The Gambian president Yahya Jammeh greeting militants in 2011. Photograph: Seyllou/AFP/Getty Images

Gambia has withdrawn from the Commonwealth, a collection of 54 nations made up largely of former British colonies, saying it will "never be a member of any neo-colonial institution".

In an unexpected announcement broadcast by the west African nation on state television on Wednesday it was not immediately clear what prompted the decision to leave the Commonwealth, which is headed by the Queen.

"The government has withdrawn its membership of the British Commonwealth and decided that the Gambia will never be a member of any neo-colonial institution and will never be a party to any institution that represents an extension of colonialism," the statement said.

A British Foreign Office spokesman said: "Decisions on Commonwealth membership are a matter for each member government. We would very much regret the Gambia or any other country, deciding to leave the Commonwealth."

The Gambia joined the Commonwealth in 1965, when it gained independence from Britain. Although it remains a major tourist destination for British and other foreign holidaymakers, it has long had a troubled political relationship with its former colonial master.

The UK condemned the decision by the Gambia's president Yahya Jammeh – who seized power in a 1994 coup and who is one of Africa's longest-running and least democratic rulers – to execute nine death row prisoners, including one woman, without warning.

"I am deeply concerned over reports that nine prisoners on death row in The Gambia have been executed following comments by President Jammeh that all death row prisoners would now be executed," said foreign office minister Alistair Burt in a statement at the time.

The Gambia's decision to leave the traditionally English-speaking Commonwealth comes as Francophone African nations have expressed interest in joining the grouping. Former Belgian colony Rwanda joined the Commonwealth in 2009, while Gabon, a former French colony and key ally to France in Africa, sparked rumours it could follow suit when it announced it would introduce English as its second language.

The Gambian government did not give a reason for the decision to leave the Commonwealth. However, it comes amid a greater emphasis by Britain on human rights and increasing pressure to promote equality based on sexuality.

Jammeh on the other hand has been highly vocal in his condemnation of homosexuality, and last week gave a speech at the United Nations calling it a threat to human existence.

The UK ceased bilateral aid to the Gambia in 2011, but still gives roughly £8m per year to the country through multilateral donations to agencies.
Hari Seldon
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9374
Joined: 27 Jul 2009 12:47
Location: University of Trantor

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by Hari Seldon »

Our friends, the Brit(urd)s...

Churchill wanted to use chemical weapons against Indian tribes
To suppress the tribes of north India during the British colonial rule in the early 20th Century, Winston Churchill wanted chemical weapons to be used against them, a noted historian has claimed citing an official memo.

Giles Milton, who has written a number of non-fiction historical books, has illustrated Churchill’s commitment to the use of chemical weapons, explaining that he had supported their use against rebellious Indian tribes in early 20th century when he was not the Prime Minister.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13257
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by Lalmohan »

indeed the raf had used chemical weapons against pashtun tribes in th 1920's and 30s
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

eklavya wrote:
brihaspati wrote: For example the "libor fixing" thingie. There was no crime because the laws miraculously fit the requirements for tailor made non-pinnable-non-crime slots.
brihaspati-ji, it seems like the dimwits working in the Serious Fraud Office either did not receive or did not understand the memo which declared libor fixing a "tailor made non-pinnable-non-crime" thingie. :lol:
Fresh criminal action in Libor probe
July 15, 2013 3:09 pm
By Brooke Masters in London

Two former interdealer brokers who worked in rates trading with Tom Hayes, the former UBS and Citigroup trader, have been hit with criminal fraud charges for allegedly attempting to manipulate the yen-Libor rate.

Terry Farr and James Gilmour, who were arrested and released alongside Mr Hayes in December, were charged on Monday with conspiracy to defraud, the Serious Fraud Office said. Both men live in Essex and worked as rates brokers for RP Martin while Mr Hayes was working at Citi and UBS.

Mr Farr, 41, and Mr Gilmour, 48, were charged by the City of London Police at Bishopsgate police station and released. They will appear before Westminster magistrates’ court at a later date. Mr Farr faces two counts of conspiracy and Mr Gilmour faces one.

Representing Mr Farr, Katie Wheatley of law firm Bindmans said in a statement: “Mr Farr will place his trust in the court to determine a just outcome. But it is regrettable that of all the . . . organisations and individuals who may have contributed to the failings of Libor setting, the SFO has chosen to charge Mr Farr, an unqualified interbank broker who had no responsibility whatsoever for setting Libor rates – a minnow in a very large pond – for doing what he believed to be his job.”

Mr Gilmour’s lawyer could not be reached for comment. RP Martin declined to comment.

Mr Hayes, Mr Farr and Mr Gilmour are the only individuals to face UK criminal action to date in a global scandal that has seen three banks – UBS, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland – pay a combined $2.6bn in fines for attempting to manipulate interbank lending rates. The London Interbank Offered Rate is set by taking a daily poll of panels of banks and authorities allege that traders worked with interdealer brokers to influence bank submissions in order to make money on derivatives.

Mr Hayes was charged in June with eight counts of conspiring to manipulate the Libor for Japanese yen between August 2006 and September 2010. He plans to indicate how he will plead to the charges at his next court hearing in October.

The SFO alleges that Mr Hayes engaged in a conspiracy to defraud with employees at RBS, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, ICAP, RP Martin, Tullett Prebon, Rabobank and HSBC.

Almost 20 institutions are under investigation by 10 different national authorities, with Dutch lender Rabobank and ICAP – the world’s largest interdealer broker – among those that may eventually settle with the UK and US regulators who have been leading the probes. No deal is expected before September.

Mr Hayes and Roger Darin, a Swiss citizen involved in UBS’s submissions to the Libor rate-setting process, have also been charged criminally by the US Department of Justice. Neither Mr Hayes nor Mr Darin have indicated a plea on the US allegations.
Oh! But I was not besmirching the name of the impeccable British image in my post - was I, to elicit a rotfl from you? :wink: I just indicated the prevalent legal confusion that took such a short time of more than a year from the beginnings of the media leak about alleged Libor-fixing to angry US legal action to the Parliamentary committee report to "charging" under "serious fraud".

It is the absence of appropriate legislation to fit the alleged "crime", or the vagueness and "gaps in legislation" (not my terminology) that is perhaps needed to be seen and acknowledged? At least, some "British" seem to think so :

Commenting on the publication of the Final Report, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, Andrew Tyrie MP, said:

"Recent scandals, not least the fixing of the LIBOR rate that prompted Parliament to establish this Commission, have exposed shocking and widespread malpractice.
“Taxpayers and customers have lost out. The economy has suffered. The reputation of the financial sector has been gravely damaged. Trust in banking has fallen to a new low.
“Prudential and conduct failings have many shared causes but there is no single solution that can restore trust in the industry. The Final Report contains a package of recommendations that, together, change banking for good.

“A lack of personal responsibility has been commonplace throughout the industry. Senior figures have continued to shelter behind an accountability firewall.
“Risks and rewards in banking have been out of kilter. Given the misalignment of incentives, it should be no surprise that deep lapses in banking standards have been commonplace.
“The health and reputation of the banking industry itself is at stake. Many junior staff who may have done nothing wrong have been impugned by the actions of their seniors. This has to end.
[The three charged all are grey seniors in their 20's or 30's when they alone were fixing the whole thing up - and for this we must admire the SFO]
“Rewards for success should be better focussed on generating long-term benefits for banks and their customers. Where the standards of individuals, especially those in senior roles, have fallen short, clear lines of accountability and enforceable sanctions are needed. They have both been lacking.
[This can't be true! The SFO was aware of these things all along and there were concrete legislations on the market for the SFO to take action - since did not need my memo anyway to take action! ]
“It is not just bankers that need to change. The actions of regulators and Governments have contributed to the decline in standards.
[hmm..this too can't be true! How can they make such a blanket accusation of the always morally and ethically superior British government over this! Why should they need to change? Laws and procedures were already in place before the memo they missed!]
“Governments need to get on with the job of implementing these reforms. Regulators and supervisors need rigorously to enforce them. We need better regulation: this may mean less, not more. And we need a better functioning and more competitive banking industry.
[this is tarnishing the image of the SFO! who needs to implement reforms since the legislation and procedures were already in place? You reform only something that needs to change! SFO was already enforcing them rigorously - why this uncalled for demand to do so when SFO was already doing this long before the committe report came out!]
“High standards will strengthen Britain as a global financial centre. International co-ordination, while desirable, should not be allowed to delay reform. We must get on and do what is right for the UK.”
[why do you need to "strengthen" something that is not weak! International coordination can delay "reform"? nah! that can imply that SFO was not prompt enough or waited for international pressure and action before moving in for token kid-bashing (compared to the "seniors")! surely this can't be true!]

Key points

Given the misalignment of incentives in banking, it should be no surprise that deep lapses in standards have been commonplace. The Commission’s Final Report, ‘Changing banking for good’, contains a package of recommendations to raise standards.
The recommendations cover several main areas including: making senior bankers personally responsible, reforming bank governance, creating better functioning and more diverse markets, reinforcing the powers of regulators and making sure they do their job.

Key recommendations

A new Senior Persons Regime, replacing the Approved Persons Regime, to ensure that the most important responsibilities within banks are assigned to specific, senior individuals so they can be held fully accountable for their decisions and the standards of their banks in these areas;
A new licensing regime underpinned by Banking Standards Rules to ensure those who can do serious harm are subject to the full range of enforcement powers;
A new criminal offence for Senior Persons of reckless misconduct in the management of a bank, carrying a custodial sentence;
[This is not needed! there were already specific fraud laws on which the great SFO moved!]
A new remuneration code better to align risks taken and rewards received in remuneration, with much more remuneration to be deferred and for much longer;
A new power for the regulator to cancel all outstanding deferred remuneration, along with unvested pension rights and loss of office or change of control payments, for senior bank employees in the event of their banks needing taxpayer support, creating a major new incentive on bankers to avoid such risks.
I am positive that all admirers of the impeccable honesty and integrity of British institutions including its banking and finance ones, were all aware of the non-existence of legal loopholes and grey zones that were mistakenly and criminally sought to be used by the accused to claim that they had "done" nothing wrong. I am also positive that they were simultaneously aware of the non-existence of the difficulty in prosecuting alleged criminals in this particular connection except under more general fraud laws which already have been beaten to a dead rat in very public debates in the UK over the more than a year it took the SFO to file charges.


By the way eklavya ji - what is your take and interpretation about the British approach towards and definition of honesty, integrity and morality around the "NatWest three"?
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by vishvak »

Since UK is already center of financial markets no need to go to world wars. Only need to set decades of financial mismanagement in order. But it is indeed strange how world economic forums are silent on this or merely protesting ad-hoc instead of concrete uniform measures say distributing risks and confederation of economics.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

Slightly OT - but relevant because the case now overlaps across the pond in both directions. In one direction - across the Atlantic already class action suits against the banks have taken a blow - being dismissed in an US court. This does not mean legal process is over there - but it is already given relief to an extent to the bankers and upper levels because of the way the laws have been vague and "with gaps" and has ample space for incentivizing stuff that the public is looking at with anger now.

The way things are moving, the top cats seem to be headed for "unpinnable" "non-crimes". Note that a much lower level financial misdemeanour from an "ordinary", non-upper-level-banking-fat-cat person - would be much more promptly and assuredly prosecuted.

The upper levels get away with things for two reasons : first they do not need to transgress laws to satisfy their desires because of much greater access to resources, and secondly the laws build up in ways to catch the smaller fry better and for some strange reasons always are much more vague where areas of interest to the fat cats are concerned.

One of the arguments that have legally gradually been taking strength is that estimation of "potential loss" due to some decision or action by a key functionary in some financial setup is based on "estimates" and not necessarily concrete real losses or gains. Hence the very basis of penalizing such people gets weakened from the legal perspective because it borders on "intentions" rather than actual "crime" where especially fixing the quantum of guilt [necessary for sentencing] becomes speculative.

At this point it becomes not just an ethical question but a kind of societal appreciation or depreciation of values. Strict legal fairness need not coincide with perceptions of justice.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by eklavya »

brihaspati wrote: Oh! But I was not besmirching the name of the impeccable British image in my post - was I, to elicit a rotfl from you? :wink: I just indicated the prevalent legal confusion that took such a short time of more than a year from the beginnings of the media leak about alleged Libor-fixing to angry US legal action to the Parliamentary committee report to "charging" under "serious fraud".
What you actually said (see your post below) was that the laws in the UK had been made in such a way that rich and powerful people have no need to break the law, and then you specifically cited libor fixing as an example of a rich and powerful person's misdemeanour that is not criminal under UK law (in your words "there was no crime").

Your post includes nothing about the timing of the prosecution, let alone acknowledge that there is an ongoing criminal prosecution; so don't pretend otherwise. I was laughing at the gross ineptness of the example you chose to illustrate your claim. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. :lol:
brihaspati wrote: The laws should be made in such ways that the rich and the powerful have no need to break them. Even if they do, those breaks vanish or are perhaps never seen or perhaps never recorded. Or keep laws vague in zones where the rich and the powerful would otherwise be forced to break them but which are completely irrelevant for the lives of the "lower" levels. For example the "libor fixing" thingie. There was no crime because the laws miraculously fit the requirements for tailor made non-pinnable-non-crime slots. The aam on the other hand would have had no power to fix the libor anyway - so it is not as if the laxity or large holes in the legal net can be taken advantage of by them anyway.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by eklavya »

brihaspati wrote: By the way eklavya ji - what is your take and interpretation about the British approach towards and definition of honesty, integrity and morality around the "NatWest three"?
a British Court extradited the NatWest Three to face justice in the US. It shows that financial crime against a "US person" committed in the UK can land the felon in a US court and a US jail. Apparently the fear of incarceration in the US may encourage fraudsters in the UK to confess to their crimes to the UK authorities. :lol:

Your question suggests that there is one British approach to honesty, etc. That by itself is a ridiculous suggestion. There are law abiding people and people with criminal tendencies in every country, in every town, in every village, and every street.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

eklavya wrote:
brihaspati wrote: Oh! But I was not besmirching the name of the impeccable British image in my post - was I, to elicit a rotfl from you? :wink: I just indicated the prevalent legal confusion that took such a short time of more than a year from the beginnings of the media leak about alleged Libor-fixing to angry US legal action to the Parliamentary committee report to "charging" under "serious fraud".
What you actually said (see your post below) was that the laws in the UK had been made in such a way that rich and powerful people have no need to break the law, and then you specifically cited libor fixing as an example of a rich and powerful person's misdemeanour that is not criminal under UK law (in your words "there was no crime").

Your post includes nothing about the timing of the prosecution, let alone acknowledge that there is an ongoing criminal prosecution; so don't pretend otherwise. I was laughing at the gross ineptness of the example you chose to illustrate your claim. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. :lol:
brihaspati wrote: The laws should be made in such ways that the rich and the powerful have no need to break them. Even if they do, those breaks vanish or are perhaps never seen or perhaps never recorded. Or keep laws vague in zones where the rich and the powerful would otherwise be forced to break them but which are completely irrelevant for the lives of the "lower" levels. For example the "libor fixing" thingie. There was no crime because the laws miraculously fit the requirements for tailor made non-pinnable-non-crime slots. The aam on the other hand would have had no power to fix the libor anyway - so it is not as if the laxity or large holes in the legal net can be taken advantage of by them anyway.
Well well well - since you do acknowledge that I did not mention time frame initially - I might actually have been quite consistent in what I said. I deliberately did not put any time frame - to see whether the defenders of British image would actually confess to knowing more about the time frame of "knowing" and "taking action". Have you considered the possibility that I might have deliberately avoided times because there were already "limited access" public domain [well may not be entirely public domain at that stage] material on libor-fixing in the UK, years before 2012?

I am surprised that given such intimate knowledge of the British system, you always seem to be blissfully unaware of very British sources that contradict your particular representation of British integrity, ethics and morality- as in the very British and partially-restricted-for-public-access reports damning the collusion between gov, police and intel agencies in so-called counter-insurgency operations that went against your claims of the British gov/police always working within the constraints of the law.

Would you care to honestly acknowledge whether you are aware of any factoid that indicates that the relevant UK authorities were aware of the "libor-fixing thingie" before the miraculous revelations last year? You can say clearly with a yes or no - that the British authorities were aware or unaware of libor-fixing before year XXXX (put your choice of four digits). I would be keen to know your time frame for the "knowing".
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

By the way eklavya ji,
you seem to be ignoring the parliamentary commission's views : they appear to think there were gaps in the law, that need "correction". You are also either not aware or deliberately keeping silent on the legal problems in UK laws prosecuting these guys under fraud laws onlee. Obviously, the delay in prosecution stemmed apart from other factors - from the weakness in existing laws about this particular "crime", even absence of clear cut relevant definitions of what would be "legal" or "illegal".

I guess whenever you get caught out in your hagiography of everything British as a system - you resort to personal ridicule with a blatant ignoring of facts even from your much-admired-Brits if it goes against your whitewashing campaign. This of course is a very British trait. Was it imbibed at Doon? :wink:
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

eklavya wrote:
brihaspati wrote: By the way eklavya ji - what is your take and interpretation about the British approach towards and definition of honesty, integrity and morality around the "NatWest three"?
a British Court extradited the NatWest Three to face justice in the US. It shows that financial crime against a "US person" committed in the UK can land the felon in a US court and a US jail. Apparently the fear of incarceration in the US may encourage fraudsters in the UK to confess to their crimes to the UK authorities. :lol:

Your question suggests that there is one British approach to honesty, etc. That by itself is a ridiculous suggestion. There are law abiding people and people with criminal tendencies in every country, in every town, in every village, and every street.
What was the role of the media and government in the build up to the extradition? Are you saying that UK needs the external fear of US jails to extract honesty and integrity out of its citizens? UK laws and system are not enough to do so?

Anyway, sticking to more mundane aspects - can you elaborate on your estimates of the role of the media and gov in the lead up to the extradition and what they reflect in your estimate is the British systemic attitudes towards such "crimes".
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by eklavya »

brihaspati,

You said that British laws are made to protect the rich and powerful and to illustrate your point, you said that Libor fixing as an example of a wrongdoing of the rich and powerful (rather than the "aam" person) that is not a crime under UK law (in your words "there was no crime"). The fact is that Libor fixers are being prosecuted under British criminal law, so the example you provided to illustrate your contention was, you ought to admit, ridiculous.

The whole world (except for the Canadians, who were always perfect in these matters) is tightening its financial laws and regulations in response to the global financial crisis.

In the US they have the Dodd-Frank Act, etc.

In the UK they have introduced "ring fencing" (of retail banking from wholesale banking) and several other measures; the latest law being considered is to make "reckless misconduct in the management of a bank" a criminal offence carrying a 7 year jail sentence.

UK's 'reckless banking' charge to carry seven-year jail term
By William James and Matt Scuffham
LONDON | Tue Oct 1, 2013 8:37pm BST

(Reuters) - Senior bankers in Britain could face a jail term of up to seven years if their bank fails and they are subsequently found guilty of "reckless misconduct", draft laws published on Tuesday said.

The sentence was included in a wide-ranging set of proposed amendments to the Banking Reform Bill which the coalition government is seeking to enact in the wake of the financial crisis.

A cross-party panel of lawmakers had recommended introducing the charge of "reckless misconduct in the management of a bank" earlier this year as one of many proposals aimed at cleaning up Britain's banking culture and improve the standards of corporate governance.

"During the financial crisis and in recent years, the reputation of the City of London took a real knock," Financial Secretary to the Treasury Greg Clark told activists at the ruling Conservative party's annual conference in Manchester.

"I think it is particularly important for a City of London whose reputation throughout centuries has been based on integrity, on trust, on probity that we should move further and faster than others to restore it."

The government said in July it would back most of the panel's recommendations and on Tuesday laid out the 86 changes it wants to make to the current draft bill to implement them. If approved, these could become law early next year.

Britain wants to avoid a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis when 65 billion pounds of taxpayers' money was needed to bail out Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group.

The government said the new laws would enhance competition among British banks, impose higher standards of conduct and ensure that taxpayers will no longer have to pay out for future bank failures.

"Today's amendments mark the final part of the government's plan for the biggest ever overhaul of the UK banking system," a finance ministry spokesman said.

Led by Conservative lawmaker Andrew Tyrie, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards produced its final 500-page report in June. Chancellor George Osborne said the government accepted its main recommendations, although he did not agree with some proposals.

Unusually, and to the annoyance of Tyrie and opposition lawmakers, the bill is undergoing significant changes in the un-elected upper house of the British parliament because the government wanted to avoid lengthy delays in the lower house.

The new 'reckless banker' offence would apply to those listed on a newly-established register of senior bankers if they make decisions which lead to the failure of a bank, or fail to stop other making such decisions.

"The maximum sentence for the new offence is seven years in prison and/or an unlimited fine," a briefing note by the finance ministry said.

"The new offence will strengthen individual accountability for senior bankers, and act as a deterrent against misconduct."

The government also said it would accelerate the process of splitting up any bank which tries to circumvent new rules designed to ring-fence their retail operations from riskier investment banking activities.

Fearing that banks might try to circumvent those rules, earlier this year the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards (PCBS) recommended a backstop power that could force full separation if a bank didn't stick to the spirit of the legislation.

"Banks will game the rules unless discouraged from doing so," said Tyrie. "The revised amendments enable the regulator to split a bank which tries. That creates a strong deterrent against gaming the ring fence."

The government has also adopted the commission's proposal that the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), one of Britain's new financial supervisors, be asked to promote competition within the industry.

It is keen to break the dominance of the country's biggest four lenders - Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays and HSBC - which control around three quarters of UK retail accounts.

The requirement will be secondary the PRA's main objective of ensuring the financial safety of the firms it regulates.

It will also bring forward plans to reform regulation of bank's payments systems in order to make it easier for new challengers to enter the industry.

(Additional reporting by Guy Faulconbridge in Manchester; Editing by Greg Mahlich)
Now, back to you original contention: that UK laws are made to protect the rich and powerful. If your contention is correct, why would the British parliament be considering laws such as the above?

Perhaps your contention is that chief executives that manage financial institutions with balance sheets larger than or approaching the GDP of the UK are not "rich and powerful"? In which case, why talk about the Libor fixers, most of whom were half a dozen if not more rungs removed from the real decision makers in these institutions.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by eklavya »

Here's a good paper on why UK criminal laws in respect of financial misconduct need further tightening:

The global financial crisis: the case for a stronger criminal response

These issues are being debated openly in the UK, and the financial elite is certainly not immune from the changes that are underway.
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by panduranghari »

eklavya wrote:Here's a good paper on why UK criminal laws in respect of financial misconduct need further tightening:

The global financial crisis: the case for a stronger criminal response

These issues are being debated openly in the UK, and the financial elite is certainly not immune from the changes that are underway.

link

It's the dark heart of Britain, the place where democracy goes to die, immensely powerful, equally unaccountable. But I doubt that one in 10 British people has any idea of what the Corporation of the City of London is and how it works. This could be about to change. Alongside the Church of England, the Corporation is seeking to evict the protesters camped outside St Paul's cathedral. The protesters, in turn, have demanded that it submit to national oversight and control.

What is this thing? Ostensibly it's the equivalent of a local council, responsible for a small area of London known as the Square Mile. But, as its website boasts, "among local authorities the City of London is unique". You bet it is. There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies. The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It's not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who "appoint" the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple.

There are four layers of elected representatives in the Corporation: common councilmen, aldermen, sheriffs and the Lord Mayor. To qualify for any of these offices, you must be a freeman of the City of London. To become a freeman you must be approved by the aldermen. You're most likely to qualify if you belong to one of the City livery companies: medieval guilds such as the worshipful company of costermongers, cutpurses and safecrackers. To become a sheriff, you must be elected from among the aldermen by the Livery. How do you join a livery company? Don't even ask.

To become Lord Mayor you must first have served as an alderman and sheriff, and you "must command the support of, and have the endorsement of, the Court of Aldermen and the Livery". You should also be stinking rich, as the Lord Mayor is expected to make a "contribution from his/her private resources towards the costs of the mayoral year." This is, in other words, an official old boys' network. Think of all that Tory huffing and puffing about democratic failings within the trade unions. Then think of their resounding silence about democracy within the City of London.

The current Lord Mayor, Michael Bear, came to prominence within the City as chief executive of the Spitalfields development group, which oversaw a controversial business venture in which the Corporation had a major stake, even though the project lies outside the boundaries of its authority. This illustrates another of the Corporation's unique features. It possesses a vast pool of cash, which it can spend as it wishes, without democratic oversight. As well as expanding its enormous property portfolio, it uses this money to lobby on behalf of the banks.

The Lord Mayor's role, the Corporation's website tells us, is to "open doors at the highest levels" for business, in the course of which he "expounds the values of liberalisation". Liberalisation is what bankers call deregulation: the process that caused the financial crash. The Corporation boasts that it "handle[s] issues in Parliament of specific interest to the City", such as banking reform and financial services regulation. It also conducts "extensive partnership work with think tanks … vigorously promoting the views and needs of financial services." But this isn't the half of it.

As Nicholas Shaxson explains in his fascinating book Treasure Islands, the Corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker's chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City's rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London's mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two cities, one of which must unsee the other.

Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, "over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster." The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it "has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate". It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.

It has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible. Shaxson shows how the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government. AIG's wild trading might have taken place in the US, but the unit responsible was regulated in the City. Lehman Brothers couldn't get legal approval for its off-balance sheet transactions in Wall Street, so it used a London law firm instead. No wonder priests are resigning over the plans to evict the campers. The Church of England is not just working with Mammon; it's colluding with Babylon.

If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …".

The Corporation's privileges could not withstand such public scrutiny. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons why a written constitution in the United Kingdom remains a distant dream. Its power also helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK's dependent tax havens.

But now at last we begin to see it. It happens that the Lord Mayor's Show, in which the Corporation flaunts its ancient wealth and power, takes place on 12 November. If ever there were a pageant that cries out for peaceful protest and dissent, here it is. Expect fireworks – and not just those laid on by the Lord Mayor.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by vishvak »

"There are law abiding people and people with criminal tendencies in every country, in every town, in every village, and every street."
Other than claiming generalized criminal tendencies it means nothing much, especially when old boys network in London city make what the London city is.
"The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …".
Not everywhere you will find such an arrangement directly plugged into world financial markets and in fact at the very top of it.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

eklavya,
I had some very simple questions for you :

(1) Would you care to honestly acknowledge whether you are aware of any factoid that indicates that the relevant UK authorities were aware of the "libor-fixing thingie" before the miraculous revelations last year? You can say clearly with a yes or no - that the British authorities were aware or unaware of libor-fixing before year XXXX (put your choice of four digits). I would be keen to know your time frame for the "knowing".

(2) can you elaborate on your estimates of the role of the media and gov in the lead up to the extradition [NatWest three] and what they reflect in your estimate is the British systemic attitudes towards such "crimes".

Further, you touted the SFO charging as proof that there was no vagueness and confusion in the law that dealt with large scale financial crimes - the domain of the "elite". Seriously - you must be aware of the problems with the fraud laws as sought to be applied in this case? And if there were already concrete laws that made such acts illegal - why the need to "reform", and bring in such laws now specifically - as reco'd by the Commission?

Anyway will wait for your answers to the questions.
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by panduranghari »

eklavya wrote: brihaspati-ji, it seems like the dimwits working in the Serious Fraud Office either did not receive or did not understand the memo which declared libor fixing a "tailor made non-pinnable-non-crime" thingie. :lol:
Eklavya ji
Are you aware of the London gold pool which ran between 1961-1968. Basically 8 central bankers who wanted to keep the gold price fixed at $35.20.

LIBOR fixing in my opinion is exactly the same. Nothing different.
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by Cosmo_R »

panduranghari wrote:
LIBOR fixing in my opinion is exactly the same. Nothing different.
So were mortgage backed securities and CDOs. They were priced based on 5-6 bids from holders and averaged. Came to a halt in August 2007 when the charade became public and led to the crash of 2008.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by eklavya »

pandurangrahi,

Libor fixing was being done by derivatives traders who trade contracts written against the level of Libor. They were not trying to keep Libor stable, rather they were aiming to influence it in a direction that suited their trading positions (which may have been long or short). Frankly it was closer to "match fixing" rather than a "cartel".

Once the GFC was in full swing, Libor was being mis-reported by some banks (e.g. by Barclays) as a means of disguising the extent to which other banks were wary of exposure to that institution, to avoid the vicious circle that comes with a "loss of confidence".
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by panduranghari »

MBS and CDO were second tier frauds. The bullion banks learnt from the central banks and tried their luck. They kept pushing it until it got so big that it was about to fall but they were rescued by the central banks. What happens at central banking level is different from what we understand about banking.

The biggest thing to take away from the collapse of London gold pool was the fight came from within. It was French Central bank which broke the LGP. The Rome accord of 1957 is very important document to study. That document lead to the formation of EURO. This game was at the central banking level.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by eklavya »

brihaspati wrote:And if there were already concrete laws that made such acts illegal - why the need to "reform", and bring in such laws now specifically - as reco'd by the Commission?
brihaspati, from your POV surely the more interesting question is "if the purpose of British law is to protect the rich and the powerful, why are new laws being introduced to criminalise financial misconduct"?

Maybe its because its the rich and the powerful that benefit the most from well-regulated transparent financial markets?

Think about it .... :)
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by panduranghari »

eklavya wrote:pandurangrahi,

Libor fixing was being done by derivatives traders who trade contracts written against the level of Libor. They were not trying to keep Libor stable, rather they were aiming to influence it in a direction that suited their trading positions (which may have been long or short). Frankly it was closer to "match fixing" rather than a "cartel".

Once the GFC was in full swing, Libor was being mis-reported by some banks (e.g. by Barclays) as a means of disguising the extent to which other banks were wary of exposure to that institution, to avoid the vicious circle that comes with a "loss of confidence".
LIBOR, EURIBOR etc were inter-bank lease rates. The central banks were forced to rescue the problems created by bullion banks. The real issue is not misreporting LIBOR. The real issue is why was LIBOR not set by the central banks?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

eklavya wrote:
brihaspati wrote:And if there were already concrete laws that made such acts illegal - why the need to "reform", and bring in such laws now specifically - as reco'd by the Commission?
brihaspati, from your POV surely the more interesting question is "if the purpose of British law is to protect the rich and the powerful, why are new laws being introduced to criminalise financial misconduct"?

Maybe its because its the rich and the powerful that benefit the most from well-regulated transparent financial markets?

Think about it .... :)
Can you please try and answer the two questions? I do not need to ponder anew the reasons behind calling for these "measures" now. There is a clearly established pattern of kicks from certain international quarters that precede such flurry of activities after often years of quietness with pointers to the relevant authorities being aware of what was going on all the time until it becomes a hot potato with internationally crucial-for-UK forces. But that is beside the point. You tried to put the SFO move as proof that there was no problem with prevailing laws which apparently even the Parliamentary commission does not agree to. But you have carefully avoided this side of the Commission's views which contradicts your position.

I am waiting for your responses to those two simple queries. Given your in depth knowledge of the British system, surely they are not that difficult to answer?

Repeating them -

(1) Would you care to honestly acknowledge whether you are aware of any factoid that indicates that the relevant UK authorities were aware of the "libor-fixing thingie" before the miraculous revelations last year? You can say clearly with a yes or no - that the British authorities were aware or unaware of libor-fixing before year XXXX (put your choice of four digits). I would be keen to know your time frame for the "knowing".

(2) can you elaborate on your estimates of the role of the media and gov in the lead up to the extradition [NatWest three] and what they reflect in your estimate is the British systemic attitudes towards such "crimes".
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

Now this is to a tangent and this is still not about the "law" : but should be interesting for people to chew on:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... t-end.html
This week, businessman Gary Bolton was sentenced to seven years in prison for selling fake bomb detectors. Sentencing him, Judge Richard Hone said the equipment he had sold, sometimes for as much as £10,000 per unit, was “useless” and “dross”.

Judge Hone could have used the same words to describe the credit and identity protection products sold by Credit Protection Plan Limited and 13 high street banks.

Announcing the establishment of a £1.3bn compensation scheme for victims of what it described as “mis-selling”, Britain’s market regulator was rather more restrained in its language.

Despite finding that banks sold 23m policies to 7m customers that either grossly exaggerated the level of cover on offer or were entirely superfluous, the only enforcement action taken by the authorities has been to fine CPP £10.5m.

As with interest rate swap mis-selling, the Financial Conduct Authority has defined its main duty as being to secure customer compensation against the need for a proper investigation of potential fraud.

To put this in context, the total fines for the systematic and potentially fraudulent sale of credit insurance and interest rate derivatives total one-third of the penalty the Prudential was hit with after regulators decided it had been a little tardy in telling them about its failed takeover of AIA three years ago.

It is laudable that regulators should take such a keen interest in ensuring those hit by these scandals should be properly compensated. However, these redress schemes appear to involve a Faustian pact with the banking industry whereby they pay compensation to effectively buy off a far more damaging and dangerous investigation into potentially serious wrong doing by their staff.

As if this state of affairs were not bad enough, the extreme reluctance and often shabby treatment of potential victims by the banks should have made the FCA far more wary about striking these type of deals.

It is now 14 months since Martin Wheatley, the FCA’s chief executive, announced a compensation deal with banks over the mis-sale of interest rate swaps.

Yet today, not one victim has seen a single penny of compensation. Ironically, many of those involved in the mis-selling have to date done rather better out of the compensation scheme, with many former bankers being hired at rates of up to £900 a day to administer the process.

You do not have to be a rabid bank basher to see that there is something fundamentally wrong in all this and that the FCA’s approach is neither good for customers, nor the banks themselves.

Though there is much that is wrong in the highly-politicised approach of the US regulatory system, its ability to extract real concessions and frequently punish even the biggest of banks has something to recommend itself.

It is notable that in all likelihood the Libor scandal would never have been come to light had it not been for the aggressive approach taken by the US authorities. It is time that British regulation got a bit more American.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

Opinion from someone officially involved in fraud investigations in the UK: approximately one year ago.

http://www.ianfraser.org/britain-contin ... its-peril/
Britain ignores this epidemic of financial crime at its peril
August 1st, 2012 (minor revisions September 4th 2012)

by Rowan Bosworth-Davies

The most prestigious names in the British banking and finance routinely engage in criminal activities on a scale that would make any Mafia family proud.

Whether it’s by facilitating international money-laundering; manipulating markets through Libor rigging; institutionalised insider dealing; misappropriating money from clients’ pension savings funds through hidden fees; ‘misselling’ inappropriate financial products to customers … an industry that could once lay some claim to integrity and decent values has become a byword for crime on an epic scale.

The recent revelations about Libor-rigging by Barclays, and about the blind eye that HSBC turned to money-laundering for despotic regimes, drug cartels, terrorists and organised criminal gangs over more than a decade, have lifted the veil of deceit and hypocrisy behind which these institutions have hidden for may years.

Many people have recently asked me to explain the concept of ‘misselling’ where it relates to banking activities. They have read about banks and other financial institutions being forced to repay billions of pounds to clients, savers and investors but are confused as to what has been going on. ‘…If there was nothing wrong with their actions…,’ they ask, ‘…why do they have to repay the money?’

It’s simple.

Financial institutions make massive profits from ‘cross-selling’ financial products such as insurance policies, pension plans, loan protection, etc to their existing customers. They encourage financial intermediaries to introduce clients to them, as well as asking their own front office staff to sell these often useless products to their unsuspecting clients — whilst making it very clear to staff that their bonuses and even their jobs are dependent upon the number of these products they sell.

The employees are given very little training (to train employees is expensive since it takes them away from the sales-point for too long), yet are expected to sell complex financial contracts to clients, the vast majority of whom have very little expertise or understanding of what they are entering into.

What became known as the ‘great pensions swindle’ was driven by the introduction of more flexible pension rules by the government of Margaret Thatcher in 1986. Insurance companies launching personal pensions offered massive carrots, in the shape of generous front-loaded commission payments, to financial advisers and banks who sold the personal pensions to their clients. The advisers duped hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who had very safe and beneficial arrangements in occupational pension schemes into switching into unsuitable or risky pensions.

We have more recently seen a similar scandal with payment protection insurance, (PPI). Banks ‘missold’ largely redundant PPI policies to UK consumers in industrial quantities from about 1994 onwards. The ‘misselling’ was carried out not just by the banks themselves, but also by other providers and third-party brokers. But customers who realised they were being fleeced and complained they were stonewalled and passed from pillar to post for years. Following a seminal court case in April 2011, British banks were finally forced to accept the consequences of their actions and the total bill for compensation across the UK banking sector is now expected to be more than £10bn.

More recently, it has emerged that Britain’s high street banks systematically ‘missold’ wholly inappropriate complex derivatives known as ‘interest rate swap agreements‘ (IRSAs) predominately in 2005-07 to their small and medium-sized enterprise customers. The banks did this by omitting important information, lying about the true nature and implications of the swaps, and coercing clients to take them out (for example making it a condition of the loan). Already, tens of thousands of British businesses are struggling to meet their payments, verging on bankruptcy, or already bankrupt as a result after having been duped into taking out falsely presented swaps, including so called ‘caps’ and ‘collars’.

All these examples are straightforward criminal activities.

If you induce a person to pay money or commit to paying money to you, and in the course of so doing, you lie to them about the product you are providing, and because of your lies, the other person agrees to the proposal, you have committed the criminal offence of fraud.
If you lie to someone or even if you don’t properly explain important elements of a proposal and as a result they agree to allow you to obtain a financial benefit, you have committed a criminal fraud.
If you take money from a client’s account without telling them or properly explaining the implications of what you are doing, you are committing a criminal fraud.

There are effectively three main ways by which any person can commit fraud. Under the Fraud Act 2006, they are

Fraud by false representation
Fraud by failing to disclose information
Fraud by abuse of position

If a person misleads the benefits agencies as to the true state of their affairs when applying for social security, they commit the offence of fraud, and people are routinely imprisoned for such criminal offences. If a financial institution does the same thing, it is called ‘misselling’!

The financial institutions commit these offences routinely every day and in every way, and have been for years. The problem is that the incidence of such fraud is so immense there has been no politically acceptable way to describe these activities. If the British government had to openly admit that these activities were fraudulent, can you imagine the international implications for the British financial system and the financial sector?

That is why this meaningless, euphemistic and politically-correct form of words was first created — a concept entirely unknown to British criminal jurisprudence. It has the useful effect of disguising what is essentially criminal activity — and downplays the vast scale of criminal enterprise which is being perpetrated every day and under our noses, by people who we ought to be able to trust.


Money laundering is a crime in its own right, and laws have existed to outlaw it since 1994. There are also significant volumes of regulations relating to money laundering which banks and financial institutions are supposed to implement. Their breach too is covered by penal sanctions. Unfortunately, from 1994 to 2000, none of the UK’s regulatory agencies was prepared to take responsibility for policing these provisions, and the financial institutions chose to largely ignore them.

They may have paid lip-service to the regulations, but they wholly ignored the proper implementation of their requirements. Since 2000, The Financial Services Authority has been supposed to police financial institutions compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations, but it has been slow to act, and despite issuing the occasional sternly-worded report demanding better compliance, the laws are generally still ignored.

Insider dealing is rife and examples of such trading by employees of investment banks and securities brokerages are regularly observed in the securities markets. The FSA has begun to take more action against such criminals in recent times, but again, their actions have tended to be too little and too late, and most City insiders know that the risk of being caught are extremely small.

Market manipulation such as the Libor rigging activities is also a criminal offence, and the tremors unleashed by the recent publicity regarding the part played by Barclays in this scandal, have already cause four high level resignations at the bank, and further revelations of what appears to be organised fraud on a vast scale are expected in coming months.

These actions are crimes in their own right and those who commit them are criminals. Yet a common feature of our system of criminal justice over the past several decades has been to downplay or overlook criminal behaviour committed by members of what once was called ‘the upper socio-economic group’. I prefer the more down to earth phrase, ‘the crimes of the powerful’, but whichever phrase you use, they refer to the same activities.

Criminal offences were being committed, are being committed, and they’re being committed for vast financial gain by persons and institutions that continue to seek to portray themselves as acting with the utmost honesty and integrity.
However, we have now reached a tipping point. It is simply no longer possible for our government and law enforcement agencies to continue to pay lip service to investigating and prosecuting white collar criminals. Nor can the banks and financial institutions any longer get away with hiding behind threadbare euphemisms such as “misselling”.
[Rowan Bosworth-Davies is a former Metropolitan Police fraud squad officer and a former head of investigations at City regulator Fimbra (one of the predecessor bodies of the Financial Services Authority) who now works as a specialist financial crime consultant. ]
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

^^^There is an interesting angle to his claim about fraud laws being able to cover the current crimes. But we can come to that later. Perhaps after eklavya responds.
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1869
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by Lisa »

Brihaspatiji, you seem to spend your entire career on this thread trying to prove the gross failings of the UK legal system and its inherent corruption. May I ask you, if one had a score of 100 for perfect justice in a said nation and say 0 for no national justice, e.g. say Somalia where there exists no real national government, what score would you give the UK?
Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by Virupaksha »

Lisa wrote:Brihaspatiji, you seem to spend your entire career on this thread trying to prove the gross failings of the UK legal system and its inherent corruption. May I ask you, if one had a score of 100 for perfect justice in a said nation and say 0 for no national justice, e.g. say Somalia where there exists no real national government, what score would you give the UK?
Interesting side track. Usually this is a standard tactic when logic and truth is not on their sides and all they can do is attack their motivations. Since this is your first post, I do not have any knowledge of yours. So no comments on you from me.

Do we really need a reason for giving any khujli to these murderers and looters?

All I remember is Somalia never claimed to have even a half-decent legal system.

But we have the UK-vadis here jumping all over claiming UK is the promised land for legal system and is the ideal which India should follow. If India should follow, after all we should explore what that promised land is.

and Oh! any khujli caused to our looters and their chamchas here is just an additional popcorn time. :mrgreen:
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

Lisa wrote:Brihaspatiji, you seem to spend your entire career on this thread trying to prove the gross failings of the UK legal system and its inherent corruption. May I ask you, if one had a score of 100 for perfect justice in a said nation and say 0 for no national justice, e.g. say Somalia where there exists no real national government, what score would you give the UK?
There was an overwhelming presence on this thread of those who find everything admirable and none to fault - about the UK from systemic viewpoints. I think I merely brought forward a contrarian viewpoint to that majority. I have other careers to sustain than maintaining careers on threads.

If you see the initial points at which I intervened - it was about literary appreciation of out-and-out British sadistic imperialists and India and "Hindu" bashers, by Indians. This had nothing to do with legal system and any systemic corruption or bias. So your claim is not true.

As for Somalia, I am surprised that UK has been reduced to being compared against Somalia to be seen as better off? Doesn't seem to be directly related or relevant for the thread anyway.

If you want, I can bring up the role of UK in Somalia's evolution to its current state too - are you game for it?
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1869
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by Lisa »

My, my Brihaspatiji who knows so much about law and in particular UK law cannot even provide an assessment of grade of competence but yet is full of posts to show UK law's faults. But then I am used to this. Last time he could not even give a yes or no answer to Separatism's legality! What's new!
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by eklavya »

panduranghari wrote:The real issue is why was LIBOR not set by the central banks?
London Inter Bank Offered Rate is boadly speaking the rate at which a bank can borrow from another bank, and is used as the benchmark for commercial loans. Broadly speaking, it represents (or used to represent) the rate at which a bank can borrow from the "market".

The "base rate" is the rate at which banks can borrow (typically on a secured basis, and is therefore sometimes referred to as the repurchase obligation rate or Repo rate) from the central bank, and is used as an instrument of monetary policy (the central bank's means of intervention in the market for money).

Central banks do influence LIBOR through their intervention in the money markets, especially through purchase of government bond securities, as most interest rates (government borrowing rates, inter-bank rates, etc) tend to move together.
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by eklavya »

brihaspati wrote:Can you please try and answer the two questions?
I find it amusing that you chose Libor fixing as an example of misconduct by the rich and powerful that does not amount to a crime in the UK at a time when the SFO is pursuing criminal prosecutions for Libor rate manipulation. If you were aware of the SFO prosecution when you made your post, you did a damn fine job of hiding it. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and move on. :)
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

Lisa wrote:My, my Brihaspatiji who knows so much about law and in particular UK law cannot even provide an assessment of grade of competence but yet is full of posts to show UK law's faults. But then I am used to this. Last time he could not even give a yes or no answer to Separatism's legality! What's new!
You lied when you claimed that my entire "career" on this thread was based on legalities. I see that you do not acknowledge that when pointed out.

Second, I asked you whether you want to see UK "better" in use of law in comparison to Somalia. Somalia was irrelevant for this discussion, as what was being alluded to was the internal subjective or opportunistic use of law - within the UK. So that was a half hearted strawman that you attempted.

Regarding "separatism" being "illegal" and its definition within UK law, again was not the real issue - which you are cleverly trying to obfuscate. It was about whether the UK police/secret service/gov was "always constrained to act within the law" theory. Yours and eklavya's claim was that they "always did" and hence my suggestion to do the same stuff that was done to thwart the IRA could be done for khalistanis - was per your position un-doable - because such stuff was not sanctioned by the UK law.

On repeated pointers to get answers from you as to awareness of studies/evidence/reports on such "bending of law" that you claimed were not done - you were evasive and sometime in denial. When I pointed to the semi-publci domain very British survey on this - then you fell silent, and took recourse to definition-of-separatism line. As per your new defence - the vagueness of definition of "separatism" or aspects of separatism allowed separatism somehow not to be illegal [which is different in legalese from saying it is legal] and therefore the UK authorities were wellw ithin their rights not to thwart or intervene in the khalistanis as long as they were staying "peaceful".

When I showed that even "peaceful" IRA links were non-peacefully treated/subverted/thwarted/tortured/eliminated just for being in politically or economically supportive role - you claime that it was to prevent "violence". Somehow that same logic seems inapplicable to a similar context to the khalistanis.

I might say that what you left unsaid after all this twisting was that - yes UK will onlee move against even peaceful supportive roles/individuals/groups towards violence and terror - if it is in perceived UK national interests, and will not do so or even allow to flourish if that too is in UK national interests. That is exactly what we want to show up as British attitudes and behaviour - that laws/ethics/morality touted by the system are all opportunistically applied in narrow self interest and with a lot of pretension at being unbiased or being non-selective.

Do follow up on your own logical twisting and then accuse others.
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by panduranghari »

eklavya wrote:
panduranghari wrote:The real issue is why was LIBOR not set by the central banks?
London Inter Bank Offered Rate is boadly speaking the rate at which a bank can borrow from another bank, and is used as the benchmark for commercial loans. Broadly speaking, it represents (or used to represent) the rate at which a bank can borrow from the "market".

The "base rate" is the rate at which banks can borrow (typically on a secured basis, and is therefore sometimes referred to as the repurchase obligation rate or Repo rate) from the central bank, and is used as an instrument of monetary policy (the central bank's means of intervention in the market for money).

Central banks do influence LIBOR through their intervention in the money markets, especially through purchase of government bond securities, as most interest rates (government borrowing rates, inter-bank rates, etc) tend to move together.
My question was zimble. Why is LIBOR not set by CB when the CB tend to be the ones who end up rescuing the banks from the mess they create. The base rate is base rate. In current era it has no meaning as there is unlikely to be any meaningful increase in the base rate. A increase of even 25 percentage points, screws the whole west. of course East suffers too, but then when has east not suffered? The point I was making is why cannot the LIBOR be fixed by the CB. They wont because they know the banks are profligate and the price will be paid by the common man irrespective of the the people being fined for fixing LIBOR. Also it gives the central banks excuse to print more money.

LEVI INSTITUTE

This line of discussion has been ignited by the testimonies
of the former head of Barclays and a senior Bank of England
official before a UK parliamentary committee that suggested
that Bank officials had actively encouraged Barclays in the
manipulation of its LIBOR submissions


Brihaspati ji is right, why is the need to create new laws and prosecute now, when the problem was going on for a while. And if it was a simple open and shut case where a few bad apples caused this, then the prosecution would be done and dusted. But its not. It wont be done for a long time.

My take on the need for the prosecutions is to try escape the financial transaction tax which Brussels will impose at the detriment of the UK.

You have to understand why whose who own mansions in the UK. Other than the pleasant climate and relatively convenient tax arrangement, is the shady behind the scene wheeling dealing that happens. LIBOR fixing is just a minor distraction for the banks. As I said the LIBOR fixing is exactly like the London Gold Pool of the 1960's. Just like that did not end well, this wont end well.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

eklavya wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Can you please try and answer the two questions?
I find it amusing that you chose Libor fixing as an example of misconduct by the rich and powerful that does not amount to a crime in the UK at a time when the SFO is pursuing criminal prosecutions for Libor rate manipulation. If you were aware of the SFO prosecution when you made your post, you did a damn fine job of hiding it. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and move on. :)

I did leave the time period open ended. I wanted to see whether you would acknowledge existence of material indicating that the UK authorities and therefore SFO was aware of the Libor fixing thing long before they went ahead and charged three juniors. All those years no action was taken. The fraud laws had been amended in 2006, so from the first detection of the problem [which was not very private either] SFO could have applied those laws. It didnt. Neither did any other related financial or public authority. It moved onlee when US courts went into action and had already been hot on the heels of the connection to the "city".

The fraud laws as they stand have difficulties for this particular context. Being so knowledgeable about this issue - you must be aware of that.

I have given already two versions from British mouths themselves - one of them connected to fraud investigations as career. The parliamentary commission clearly trashes your attempt to show that "sufficient laws" existed to tackle the problem, and it supports my contention that the laws in this zone were vague enough to allow the upper levels of financiers to escape.

My position that such loopholes were deliberate - is supportable on the fact that lower amounts/levels of financial crime were however already severely penalized at the same time the law remained vague for upper-level context, which means that the law making system was fully aware of the criminality of the upper level games.

This is the line that underlies the ex-fraud-investigators piece which I quoted in full.

So you are avoiding to answer those two questions for very obvious reasons because you would have to acknowledge material that is not helpful for the British image?
eklavya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2182
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by eklavya »

brihaspati wrote: I did leave the time period open ended.
brihaspati ji, when you said "there was no crime" you were actually leaving the "time period open ended", and not talking about the present day when a criminal prosecution is underway.

Some people may worry about citing an example that they know is incorrect in the present day, but obviously some people don't worry about mere formalities about being factually correct in the present day.
brihaspati wrote: I wanted to see whether you would acknowledge existence of material indicating that the UK authorities and therefore SFO was aware of the Libor fixing thing long before they went ahead and charged three juniors. All those years no action was taken.
So when you wrote "there was no crime" in your original post you were deliberately leaving the "time period open ended" in anticipation of whether I would "acknowledge existence of materials indicating etc etc ... ".

Thank you for taking the time to set up such a great test for me. If only everybody was as generous.

Reminder to gentle readers: guru-ji's "there was no crime" post on Libor preceded my response that highlighted the ongoing SFO criminal investigation.

A dull person may think you are making things up to hide your embarrassment, but I will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt. :)
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

You still would not like to answer the two questions :

(1) when do you think the Uk authorities came to know about libor fixing? This is directly related to what they thought was "crime". SFO was there also before - all along.

(2) what is your assessment of UK systemic attitudes towards financial "crime" as revealed in gov + media reactions to the buildup to the extradition of the "NatWest Three"?

Are you trying to hide your own embarrassment in contradicting the UK Parliamentary Commission? :wink:
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

My experiences, the Scott Inquiry, the British Legal System
A curious viewpoint - which perhaps can be sought to be dismissed as "the ex-con pouring hatred over the pure justice system". But interesting clues as to mechanisms of decption and pretension.
http://awakenvideo.org/pdf/777/British% ... System.pdf
By Gerald Reaveley James
[...]

The Astra case and my case reflect much that has been to the fore in recent years in not only scandals around arms companies like Astra, Matrix Churchill, Ordtec, Forgemasters, Walter Somers, Ferranti and other companies like Polly Peck, BCCI and Maxwell but also in the Scott Inquiry, the BSE Inquiry and the Lloyds of London affair and other scandals. The underlying problem is secret unaccountable government which bypasses Parliament and how the law is administered in the UK, gives aid and succour to such a state of affairs. The most common device is the concealment of evidence and manipulation of cases. There is a tendency when challenged for those in authority to talk of conspiracy theories. My experience is that those who do so are usually part of the conspiracy. My company Astra gave rise to much of the circumstances which created the Scott Inquiry, the Supergun revelations (we reported it first), the Aitken affair, the murder of Gerald Bull in Brussels in March 1990 and much else.

Background note:
My name is Gerald Reaveley James. Until March 1990 and between 1980 and 1990 I was chairman of Astra Holdings PLC (“Astra”) which became a leading ammunition and weapons manufacturer. By the late 1980’s Astra had factories in the United States (9), Canada (2), Belgium (5), United Kingdom (5) and administrative headquarters in Washington Dc, Brussels and London and employed 4,000 personnel. The story of Astra is too long to recount here but a summary is contained in my book, “In the Public Interest” published by Little Brown UK hardback 1995, Warner paperback 1996, London. Astra became involved in covert weapons and ammunitions operations organised by MI5 and MI6 and the CIA, the MOD, DOD, FCO and the State Department and the DTI. To such an extent was Astra involved with its pricipal subsidiaries, Walters, Accudyne, Kilgore USA PRB Belgium, BMARC UK; in the covert trade manipulations of Foreign Policy. In 1989/90, following a reappraisal of Foreign Policy in the light of the demise of the Cold War and changing circumstances in the Middle East, where it became apparent the US, UK and EEC had transferred Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons technology as well as conventional weapons to countries like Iran and Iraq, and the discovery Pakistan had the atomic bomb, the whole covert network was reorganised. This involved the collapsing of companies like Astra, Ferranti/ISC, Polly Peck, BCCI, Maxwell Group etc and the prosecution of lesser fry Companies and their directors – companies like Matrix Churchill, BNJ, Ordtec, Euromac, SRC, Forgemasters, Walter Somers are examples. The directors of Astra were to a large extent ignorant of the full range of covert activities carried out in their name but aware of some of these activities and the likely destination of their goods. As however all operations were sanctioned by the DTI, MOD, FCO, and in the US by the DOD and the State Department and in Belgium by the Belgian Government, not too many questions were raised initially. However, in late 1988 and 1989 it became clear to me as Chairmen that the clandestine operations far exceeded anything remotely sanctioned by the full Board and I set out to investigate in depth. I became aware that certain plants were used to secretly store and ship goods; that monies were being transferred to other operations without book records or board approval in secret commission payments; that our paper work and parallel bank accounts were being used to process arms shipments from major UK defence companies like British Aerospace, Royal Ordnance, GEC Marconi, Thorn EMI etc. A leading British Defence Journalist wrote a report which was largely kept secret which indicated £100m was stolen from the Export Credit Guarantee Department (“ECGD”) in a fictitious subcontract for propellant which BMARC, an Astra subsidiary, had secretly obtained in 1998 from Royal Ordnance.

I also became concerned about payments to and business with MI6/CIA front company Allivane which had occurred between 1983 and 1988 via Astra. Is also became clear that all our main operations were involved in covert operations in the USA Belgium and the UK, and that Astra, when it acquired these companies, had inherited a hard core of MI6, MI5, DIA agents who operated behind the back of the original directors and who treated them as “useful idiots”. All our main companies were involved with Space Research Corporation (“SRC”) and the late Dr Gerald Bull who was behind the Supergun and other secret projects which Astra companies were also involved in. In 1989 I realised we had a hugely dangerous individual on our main Board and the BMARC Board who was an MI6 agent. This individual, Stepahnus Adolphus Kock had high level political connections to Thatcher, Hesletine, Younger, Hanley, etc as well as MI5 and MI6 connections.
It is now clear to me that he was involved in the murder of Dr Gerald Bull in Brussels on 22nd march 1990 and Jonathan Moyle in Santiago, Chile on 31st March 1990.

BMARC was the only company outside the Atomic Weapons research Establishment and Government Arms depots with the capability to store nuclear bombs like Redbeard and WE177. By early 1990 my probing had become a major problem and a plot was hatched to remove me as Chairman shortly before the Supergun and other revelations and Bull’s murder. A new dummy board ld in reality by Kock with two MI6/MI5 stooges ran the company into the ground over the next two years. In order to explain away the destruction of the company with a £350m order book and a market capitalisation of £120m desperate attempts were made to find evidence of malpractice by the original directors. Gumbley, my Managing Director, who had been with Bull until an hour before he was shot had discussed with Bull suing UK Government and senior civil servants using Bull’s extensive knowledge of high level corruption and illegal operations. It had been agreed I would return with Gumbley to agree with lawyers how to proceed a week later. I had discussed such matters with Bull some six months previous but no further action had been taken. Gumbley was immediately framed up for corrupting an MOD official and jailed for 9 months and after desperately trying to find something on me and failing, Kock and MI6/MI5 decided to institute through Peter Lilley and the DTI a DTI Inquiry. Lilley was Secretary of state at the DTI at the time. The DTI Inquiry lasted three years and cost £2.5m plus (as much as the Scott Inquiry). The announcement of the Inquiry and the misleading press statements issued by the DTI and Government ensured the downfall of Astra. Crooks and MI5, MI6, agents or informers were put in charge of Astra – Kock, Roy Barber FCA and Tony McCann. Barber and McCann whose managerial and industrial competence and experience were negligible paid themselves £330,000 and £280,000 pa respectively. Barber took £100,000 in the first month. Barber’s annual payment was more than I received in salary and expenses as Chairman over ten years while I built the company. PRB was sold off immediately for £3m to avoid embarrassing revelations. MI5, MI6 and MOD police and Customs launched 17 raids on Astra premises in order to steal any sales and other documentation incriminating Government. No new orders were obtained in spite of the Gulf War and the company ran on the £350m order book we had left for two years, before it was put into receivership on 2nd February 1992 on the eve of me giving evidence to the House of Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee re Supergun, Project Babylon and arms to Iraq (and Iran etc).

Press coverage was huge and adverse. This facilitated, as clearly city interests like Banks and Astra’s main shareholders 3i, Prudential and Clerical and medical cooperated with Government for their own interest and purposes against the interests of smaller shareholders ( a parallel with Lloyds techniques). Kock had a cover as a consultant in Midland Bank’s secret arms department, Midland and Industrial Trade Services (”MITS”). This was staffed by ex service officers, MI5, MI6, agents and intelligence affiliated bankers. Midland with the Bank of Boston were Astra’s main bankers and dominated by MI6 CIA agents. Kock was also said to be head of Group 13, the Government’s assassination and dirty tricks squad according to Richard John Rainey Unwin, a close associate of Knock himself who was a contract MI6 agent and Consultant to Astra. Kock and Unwin, with Martin Laing Construction, negotiated the £2bn Malaysian defence deal before George Younger, the Defence Secretary even knew of it.

The MOD police arrested several of my colleagues, framed Grumbley up. I was subjected to harassment, burglaries; I was arrested by Customs, investigated by the Inland Revenue, subjected to surveillance, threats, bugging, telephone tapping (all documented), a DTI Inquiry which lasted 3 years and a DTI prosecution which lasted 4 years. In addition I had to give copious evidence to the Scott Inquiry over 4 years, 2 DTI Select Committees, Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Defence Select Committee, Public Accounts Select Committee, Public Services Select committee, Police (SOI), a huge law suit in the United States (Dooley case). My family suffered considerably, my two eldest sons army careers suffered, my youngest son’s education because of adverse publicity, my brother was killed in an accident never satisfactory explained which could have been intended for me.

In the course of my own experiences I took considerable note and interest in parallel cases like Matrix Churchill, Ordtec, Euromac, Atlantic Commercial, BNJ, SRC, Forgemasters, Walter Somers, Polly Peck, Foxley Ferranti/ISC, BCCI, Maxwell etc. All these cases and others and the Astra case involved the gross abuse of power by Government and its agencies and servants, concealment of key evidence, intimidation, threats, false and selective prosecutions, manipulation of evidence, perversion of the course of justice. It has also been clearly demonstrated that there is no separation of powers within the United Kingdom. Key legal appointments like Lord Chancellor and attorney General, Solicitor General are wholly political. It has also been clearly demonstrated that Parliament has no control of knowledge of events and that a vast apparatus of permanent unelected Government exists. This permanent Government consists of senior civil servants, intelligence and security officers, key figures in certain city and financial institutions (including Lloyds of London), key industrialists and directors of major monopolistic companies, senior politicians. The Lord Chancellors Office which is responsible for the appointment of Judges, Clerks of the House of Commons select Committees and approval of Chairmen of such committees and the approval of the Queen’s Counsel, holds a total control of the legal administrative framework and has strong connections to the security and intelligence services. The last Clerk to the Crown in Chancery was Sir Thomas Legg, KCB QC who had strong links to the intelligence and security establishment and who was responsible for allocating Judges to controversial trials of a political nature where the “national interest” and “national security” (those much abused phrases) were involved, ie the Ponting Case. Legg’s successor will have a similar role. Sir Thomas was duly wheeled out to keep the lid on the Sandline Inquiry re the strange events surrounding the FCO, Sierra Leone and real foreign policy as opposed to the sham variety discussed at Westminster. He has been wheeled out again to keep the lid on an inquiry regarding the corruption in the hugely expensive building of new MP’s offices opposite Big Ben. The companies involved in this case are Alvis, formerly United Scientific Holdings and its Germany partner in the installation of a £35m contract for copper cladding. United Scientific Holdings is the company where ex Chief of defence Procurement and ex Lord Mayor Sir Peter, now Lord Levene was Managing director (later a Director of N.M. Rothschild) was Chairman. An American competitor alleges irregularities and corruption as it offered to do the work for a much lower price. The real framework which secretly controls our lives is little understood or studies even by those who work within its musty and murky depths. It has only recently emerged that Appeal Court Judges are secretly briefed making appearances before such luminaries a sham and a joke. The public can thank Mr Geoffrey Scriven for these revelations. Lloyds names can hardly have realised that legislation was secretly framed to prevent wrong doers being sued. (Times Magazine Article 21/2/00).

The other area which is little understood is the Crown. To many the Crown represents the Royal family but we now have a Constitutional Monarchy. The Crown in its constitutional sense is the last home of secret government. Much is done in the name of the Crown which is without the permission or knowledge of the Monarch. Token gestures are made by sending her despatch boxes of “selected” information. The Crown is represented by the Monarch but does not represent the on secret and major issues. The armed forces (the last bastion of institutional integrity) swear their allegiance to the Monarch not to Parliament as do Judges and the Intelligence and security services – the latter are totally unaccountable as is the Lord Chancellors’ office which controls Courts and Judges. The Lord Chancellor is unelected as is the Attorney General who although chosen from the ranks of MPs is not elected, like the Solicitor General. The Attorney General holds sway over the Crown Prosecution service, serious Fraud Office, HM Customs (as revealed by the Scott Inquiry) and the Police in respect of sanctioning cases. The Law Officers, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are the Chief Legal Advisors (assisted by the Solicitor General) has overall responsibility for the work of the Law Officer’s Departments:

ie The Treasury Solicitors Department
Crown Prosecution Service
Serious Fraud Office
Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

All the duties of the above departments (and HM Customs) are ultimately supervised by the Attorney General. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is also responsible to the Attorney General for the performance of his functions. There are also additional responsibilities with regard to civil and criminal law. The other area which is key to overall secret control outside Parliament is the Privy Council. It is important to note that all main members of the Cabinet become members of the Privy Council as do leaders and sometimes the deputy leaders of the opposition parties.

The Privy Council oath which all members take means they cannot freely discuss any matter they are informed of or told of “Under Privy Council terms”. This means that the Cabinet and opposition leaders cannot discuss freely in Parliament or elsewhere any matter told to them on “Privy Council terms”. This means in practice that the key MPs cannot discharge their democratic duties. It is in effect a gagging system like Public Interest Immunity Certificates dispensed by Judges on application of Government and its agencies. All senior Judges and Appeal Judges are Privy Councillors as is the Lord Chancellor, The Attorney and Solicitor General and other invited and key persons. This secret unelected body has a wide range of powers. On the surface other permanent secretaries, sometimes the Cabinet Secretary and certain members of the established aristocracy are Privy Councillors. The appointment is for life and Jonathon Aitken is one of the few members to resign. It should also be remembered Aitken was a Chairman of the Pinay Circle comprised of senior intelligence officers and world leaders who hold secret meeting around the world.

It is widely and erroneously assumed the Cabinet is the Executive of the elected Government whereas in our unwritten ill defined constitution it is in reality the executive arm of the Privy Council. The Privy Council is responsible for the arrangements leading to the making of Royal Proclamations and Orders in Council for certain formalities connected with Ministerial Changes: for considering application for the grant or amendment of Royal Charters, for the security and approval of by laws and statutes of Chartered Institutions, of the governing instruments of universities and colleges, for the appointment of High Sheriffs and many Crown and Privy Council Nominees for governing bodies. Under the relevant Acts, the office of the Privy Council is responsible for the approval of certain regulations and rules made by the governing bodies of the medical and certain allied professions.

The President of the Council has responsibility for the working of the Privy Council. A leader of the House of Commons he or she is responsible for supervising the Government’s legislative programme. He or she allegedly upholds the right and privileges of the House as a whole and in its capacity it falls to him or her to move motions relating to the procedure of the House. In January 1994 the Privy Council assumed responsibility for the newly formed Central Drugs Coordination Unit.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest Court of Appeal for the Commonwealth except the United Kingdom and those countries which had abolished appeals to it. It still can confirm death sentences in certain territories and in the UK hears ecclesiastical cases and appeals against disciplinary decisions by disciplinary bodies of the medical professions and certain allied bodies. Its more secret and sinister workings are little known and in theory it is the advisory body to the monarch. It appears that the bulk of elected politicians do not penetrate its inner recesses yet can be influenced by it. The Privy Council allied with the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) and the Cabinet and Cabinet Intelligence Unit which is the real control over the security and intelligence services are part of the secret permanent unaccountable Government. We have seen from the arms to Iran, Iraq affairs, the Sandline affair and other scandals that politicians and Parliament have little or no control and are more like players in a pantomime put on for the general public and gullible public.

The roots of this sinister power are rooted in history, particularly that of the usurping Tudors. The Privy Council and secret services have developed since then and it is wrong to regard MI5 and MI6 as the sole such bodies. As Douglas Hurd told a Commons Select Committee regarding nuclear proliferation they are but two tributaries of the main stream of intelligence. The communication and eavesdropping unit GCHQ works extensively with the intelligence and security services and with those of other countries including the intelligence services and National Security Agency of USA and with the Services of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Each regularly circumvents domestic laws for the benefit of the others under programmes like “echelon” and agreements between UK and USA. Politicians and civil servants and other leading figures who get out of line can be surveyed or bugged and then threatened, blackmailed, framed up or worse.[He is writing this way before Snowden]

Secrecy breeds corruption, secrecy is power, information is power particularly confidential information[...] Secrecy has breed corruption and lack of account ability. Judicial Inquiries are cosmetic and carried out by the Judiciary who are key tools of the “cover up” and the status quo. (ie the Scott Inquiry). London is a key world money laundering centre (£500 billion per annum). Damage to Lloyds’ credibility will damage London and its position as a money or financial centre.

Much of the Uk’s traditional industry is gone. To deal with Lloyds from the point of view of justice, will rock the boat and damage the so called national interest. Privileged persons in politics and the judiciary etc have been protected and the rest do not matter. The policy is to protect Lloyds and cover up. The same arrogant and self serving attitude was evident in the arms trade and the related drugs trade. Those on the inside are only interested in concealment, cover up, and their own on going benefits protected by secrecy and privilege. Justice does not count. The scandals involving political parties, large companies, the intelligence and security services, and corruption in Germany (Kohl), France (Mitterand/Dumas,etc) Italy (Craxi) are pale shadows of what has gone on in the UK. We have what the late Roberto Clavi of Banco Amnrosiano in Italy as described “potere occulto” –secret power.

Ironically the main threat to this secret power is the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) Article 6 which overturns Uk legal decisions regularly and has already caused the sacking of deputy Judges, and Magistrates in Scotland while threatening Scottish Judges. Scotland under devolution adopted ECHR in 1999 and England did so in October 2000, although the Lord Chief Justice (Bingham) already recommended as a result of the Kebbilen case that the ECHR should be recognised in England before this.

It is significant that the Home Secretary Shaw is proposing the abolition of juries and magistrates in many and perhaps eventually all cases. This will put further power in the hands of secret and unaccountable Government and corrupt Judges. The ramifications are extremely sinister and serious. Already the rules of evidence have been perverted in favour of secret an unaccountable Government who routinely conceal evidence and pervert the course of justice.

It has never been more vital for people to challenge the views of politicians and opinion formers. We live in an age where much if not most of the media is controlled. The legal mechanism and Judges and the court system need to be beyond reproach. Sadly they are not and the chronicle of abuse and manipulation of cases is appalling. Judges are not independent in most government related cases and are no different to salaried and pensioned civil servants. The independence of the Judiciary is an allusion fostered by the Judiciary.

Too often a Judicial Inquiry is a system for cover up and concealment. Too often the courts are influenced by political considerations as in the Scott Inquiry and the recent Lloyds of London case. Perhaps with pressure this can be changed.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Post by brihaspati »

When the SFO "thinks" or "does not think" that there was crime: dated but revealing:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/f ... audiarabia
Blair forced Goldsmith to drop BAE charges
David Leigh and Rob Evans
The Guardian, Thursday 1 February 2007
The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, changed his mind about whether there was enough evidence to bring corruption charges against the arms company BAE after pressure from Downing Street, legal sources have told the Guardian.

In emergency meetings before Christmas, Lord Goldsmith initially agreed with lawyers and prosecutors that the Serious Fraud Office could bring charges against the former head of BAE Sir Dick Evans.

The allegations involved backdoor gifts to the then head of the Saudi air force, Prince Turki-bin-Nasser.

Having reviewed the SFO's files, Lord Goldsmith agreed that BAE could, in effect, be offered a plea bargain in which investigators would drop further potentially politically embarrassing inquiries if the company agreed to plead guilty to these relatively minor charges.

But within 48 hours the agreement was countermanded after decisions taken in Downing St, Whitehall sources said.

The director of the SFO, Robert Wardle, was forbidden to make the approach to BAE. Instead the attorney general told parliament the entire Saudi investigation was to be halted, and that there was insufficient evidence for it to succeed.

Lord Goldsmith also said in the Lords that MI5 and MI6 believed national security was in danger. The heads of the agencies have refused to endorse his claim.

The attorney general is supposed to act in an impartial, quasi-judicial role, to protect the public interest. But since the prime minister's elevation of Lord Goldsmith to the post in 2001, he has caused increasing controversy.

Writing in the Guardian today, the human rights lawyer Lord Lester calls for Lord Goldsmith to be stripped of his political powers. The Lib Dem peer criticises his conduct in three key "political" cases: the BAE inquiry; his Iraq advice, where it also emerged that he had changed his mind under political pressure; and the cash-for-honours police inquiry. The government's reputation has been harmed by "weaving and ducking, buck-passing and hand-wringing", Lord Lester says, and the scandal of Lord Goldsmith's halting of the BAE investigation has "gravely eroded public confidence in the government's integrity".

The attorney general's conduct is likely to be the subject of attacks by other Lib Dem peers in the Lords today. The veteran former Labour minister Shirley Williams has called for a debate on his responsibility for preserving the rule of law.

The SFO initially assembled evidence on the Prince Turki aspect of their Saudi case with the close involvement of a senior fraud barrister, Timothy Langdale QC, who regularly acts for the government as Treasury counsel.

The legal view was that adequate evidence existed to bring charges and to open a Crown case against BAE in court, although their defence to the allegations has so far never been heard.

Yesterday BAE said the suggestion there was enough evidence "directly contradicts the position of the attorney general and the SFO". They stressed that Lord Goldsmith had said: "I consider, having carefully examined the present evidence, that there are obstacles to a successful prosecution so that it is likely that it would not in the end go-ahead."

Asked whether Sir Dick Evans and the company denied making payments to Prince Turki, BAE said: "The fact that we have not commented specifically on any statements made by the Guardian should not be taken as any kind of admission."

The SFO refused to comment last night, but Lord Goldsmith's office said: "The decision to discontinue the [Saudi] investigation was made by the director of the SFO ... The final decision was his alone. The prime minister gave his views on the national security implications.

"Having considered the full public interest case the SFO concluded that pursuing the case, either as a full investigation or on some more limited basis, created the same risk to national and international security. In view of those risks to national and international security the director of the SFO decided to halt the case."

On Tuesday, Tories and Lib Dems also attacked ministers in the Commons over alleged BAE corruption in government-backed arms sales to Tanzania. Disclosures in the Guardian that the company made secret payments of $12m (£6m) into a Swiss bank account to seal the deal were not disputed by the international development secretary, Hilary Benn. He said: "Those matters are the subject of investigation by the Serious Fraud Office".

His cabinet predecessor, Clare Short, told MPs: "The police came to see me and said they have the documents showing that it was bribery." She said it was time to end the "deep culture" within government which "sees it as their duty to push all arms sales deals". BAE deny wrong-doing in the Tanzania deal.
Locked