This blog supports Scottish Independence
trisIts hard to believe how corrupt the banking system has become they just act well er! are above the law...the fsa fines them well there bank not them individually so we the taxpayer pay the fine for the criminal acts of diamond and his co-conspirators.One hopes(posh eh!) criminal charges do follow this out and out criminal act.
How little you know Niko in how corrupt the establishment is. Westminster is compliant in carrying on this sham as they have no choice decreed back in the 16 hundreds. So you cannot complain as you wish it to continue by voting no to democracy and yes to serfdom.Most of the investment banks are at this and have been for decades with wimps of MPs who can only attack the poorest in society to keep the 1% at the top.
New Labour should've brought this lot to heal, instead they went the other way, creating a huge debt bubble. Still, every Labour government since Ramsey Macdonald has left office with the nation's finances in tatters.I've been banking with Scottish banks (William and Glyns) since my days in the Royal Marines, so I'm looking forward to an Independent Scotland and a return to world class financial probity as befits a truly intelligent people.Steve (an English friend of the Scotti and ex-Labour voter)
trisCH gives his history lesson yawn! 1600s yawn some of us Normal types live in the now...........still to ch 1600 was a very good year
Time you went back to school Niko.The RemembrancerThe Remembrancer, whose position dates from the reign of Elizabeth I, is the City's official lobbyist in parliament, sitting opposite the Speaker, and is "charged with maintaining and enhancing the City's status and ensuring that its established rights are safeguarded". His office watches out for political dissent against the City and lobbies on financial matters. Then there is the City's Cash, "a private fund built up over the last eight centuries", which, among many other things, helps buy off dissent. Only part of it is visible: the Freedom of Information Act applies solely to its mundane functions as a local authority or police authority. Its assets are beyond proper democratic scrutiny.This is what you and your party are defending Niko must make you very proud to defend such corruption.
Niko I forgot a history lesson for youElizabeth I of England(7 September 1533 – 24 March 1603)You are an utter disgrace to the working people of Scotland as are an awful lot of your Labour party with their shallow talk.
One does, indeed Niko, but one doubts that it is going to happen.Your lot wouldn't touch them, and this lot positively worship them, not surprisingly as more than half their funding comes from the City. To be fair I seem to remember Alex Salmond having no problems with the banks either...So, Osborne will talk big, and pretend he knew nothing about it (which in his case might even be the truth as he knows nothing about anything. Sir Melvyn, who seems to ahve got every forecast he ever made in the entire world wrong (how the hell did he get that job?) will talk another pile of bilge... he definitely should have known. And the FSA might as well be the SFA in both senses of the initials!
Good heavens, CH, I didn't know about this. Where was this 'remembrancer' fellow in 2008? Where is he now? Can he be held accountable? Why does the FoI act not apply to this mob of thieving conniving bastards? The more I hear of the corruption in London the more I long for the day when we are no longer a part of it. A fund for buying off MPs... For heaven's sake!
Hi Steve...I can't wait for the day when we have a proper regulatory body, that hasn't fallen asleep on the job, or isn't so full of placemen with not a clue about what they are doing, and too fond of liquid lunches and boxes at the National Theatre.Roll on...
CH- City of London. The corporation is an ancient, semi-alien entity lodged inside the British nation state; a "prehistoric monster which had mysteriously survived into the modern world", as a 19th-century would-be City reformer put it. The words remain apt today. Few people care that London has a mayor and a lord mayor - but they should: the corporation is an offshore island inside Britain, a tax haven in its own right.And Cameron says that this stuff is repugnant, when practised by Left leaning so-called comedians, and yet he presides over it as prime minister?Two faced prat.
Welcome to corruption central protected by Tories/Labour and the LibDems that is why all of the media and especially the BBC are against the SNP and independence as the repercussions will be volatile to the british state and its con of democracy. Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Ah the Cameroon Bar speaketh!I think the term "Talk is cheap" springs to mind and when talking about the Con/Dems it is very VERY cheap indeed!Lest we forget the giant Millipede has also spoken an utterance. He is calling for criminal charges to brought against these bonker bankers!Erm, can someone please remind me what political party was in power in the lead up to the "crash" of 2008?What political party had 13 years to sort out the banking system, but didn't?Which political party had the screwiest, nuttiest, maddest Chancellor since time in memorial?Which political party left the country in ruins and now acts like it was Casper the ghost who caused all this financial fiasco?
Found this comment over on Newsnet."This whole thing stinks. The banking industry needs this news like a hole in the head and they only have themselves to blame – again."Now shall we play a little game here: :lol:Who is credited with saying this comment. NO CHEATING!a) George Osborneb) Gordon Brownc)David Camerond) Ed Millibande) Ed Ballsf) Alistair DarlingGive up yet?Well here's a wee clue.BITTER TOGETHERGot the answer yet?No?Give up?Well the answer is.......BIG DRUM ROLL :lol:f) Alistair Darling!..... DA DA!!!! :lol:
Treu CH. If you have the purse strings...AQnd with that in mind, it is interesting to note that they is a fund to bribe corrupt MPs to not vote for anything that would hurt the City.And because it happens between the City and the ROYAL palace of Westminster, the law couldn't touch it, even if the law (in the form of the Met), wasn't as bent as a nine bob note.So, let's just get this straight.The Commons, the Lords, the City, the Met, are all crooked. Their crookedness benefits them and not us.Why would we ever want to stay as a part of that?BTW...are we allowed to know who this Remembrancer, this guy who quite legally, it appears, can use a slush fund to pay off MPs to vote against our interests and for theirs, actually is? What his name is; how he got the job; is it hereditary, full time, well paid....do we provide him with a grace and favour residence, blah, blah?
Erm... would you be talking about Gordon Brown and Labour there Arbroath?
Och Bless! It was darling old Alistair. But wait... was not he the Chancellor of the Whatsit at some stage?Was he, therefore, not in a position to bring in legislation at a time when the country would have supported him, to curb these people and their mediaeval practices? Or did the Remembrancer (sounds like something out of Harry Potter) bar his path, waving a large quantity of brown envelopes?I say call their bluffs. They can all sod off to Mumbai, or Hong Kong or Dubai, and see it they can get a Remembrancer to bribe their way through legislation in some 15th century kind of way...Or we could just attach them to lamp posts? Or better still they can stay where they are and ruin the UK again, but without Scotland as a part of it.
Apparently Bernie Ecclestone wants to have London start holding F1 races. As he says it will be good for London and good for ENGLAND!With this in mind perhaps we could use the useless gits as a crash barrier!On your point about sending these useless gits off somewhere I think you'll find that H.K., Mumbai and Dubai DO actually have certain standards that MUST be met BEFORE they allow people in. :lol:Oh I have heard that Afghanastan is on the look out for some influential individuals, perhaps we could send them there.
I find myself bewildered and utterly enraged that the "rigging" of the LIBOR rate is not a statutory offence.It forms part of the "derivatives market" the monitoring of which is now in the hands of the FSA. However the FSA have no powers over abuse and criminality within this financial market.Clearly there is a fraud and I suppose that common law could then be applied.The British Banker's Association who "own" LIBOR now deny any responsinility for it as they just own the "identity" and franchise other people to do for their association.The situation, especially that of legal responsibility and accountability is of course quite different and it was the US who pushed this particular rock over to see what was living beneath and in the dark.They fined Barclays the karger part of their fine and Barclays did a "co-operation" deal in exchange for the fine and promise of no prosecution. They rae in the process of providing all the dirty on the others in this fraudulent scheme so, expect bigger fish being howked out and prosecuted in teh US.Their "deal" does not apply in the UK but, as there is no way of a straight forward prosecution (or even a quick application of justice) the banksters are laughing their collective cocks off at us.Scotland needs to think very hard about what sort of financial services industry we want post independence and then set up a framework of legislation to control it pro-actively.I am sure there is much more of this excrement to ooze out in the next wee whiles.
Yes Arbroath. As I was writing that I was thinking, have we not done enough to India without sending them this bunch of country saboteurs. On the other hand, as you say, they have standards in their banking.
Yes Wolfie. I expect there is. Thanks for explaining the background. There seem to be no laws at all in the UK that control anything bankers do, very possibly because of this ridiculous medieval City of London Corporation and its Rememberancer (whom I can only picture in my mind as some sort of grim reaper figure).It makes a bit of a mockery of the claim that the City is the worlds most successful financial centre. If it is, it is only so because it is a den of thieves and crooks, aided and abetted by laws from the middle ages, further aided and abetted by a slush fund to keep MPs in line. It reminds me a little of the Vatican. A place where all the standards of modern life have not penetrated and all semblance of propriety is something from another world and another time.Scotland certainly needs a very different culture for Edinburgh now, never mind post independence.The laws of the ancient fiefdom of The City cannot apply in this country.
CHThanks for bringing this place a bit closer to Stormfront with that false quote from the same people who brought you "The protocols of the Elders of Zion"Are there any other anti-semitic stereotypes you want to bring up, just in case you want to continue in this vein?
Don't forget Tris, it is not only Barclays that are in the firing line, RBS, Lloyds and HSBC are also in the club as well.Another little ditty you may or may not know is that in 2008 Naguib Kheraj joined the FSA from....... Drum Roll please.......Barclays where he was Group Finance Director of Barclays, a role he held from January 2004 until March 2007. He ostensibly joined the FSA to sort out the Northern Rock fiasco.One thing stands out to me over this appointment in 2008. Kheraj's move to the FSA was in 2008, the fine announced applies to "financial irregularites" during 2007/2008. Now just a wee thought here but wouldn't the Financial Director of Barclays have been involved in the sort of decisions that led to the "financial irregularites" in 2007/2008. Now who might that be.........ah yes Naguib Kheraj of course!
I put this on mine you should try it rather than try stirring them.I believe Darling was warned about the potential abuse of LIBOR back in 2008 and ignored it which is not surprising by a man who flipped his homes 3 times in 1 year for financial gain.
chI believe Alex Salmond was banker for many years that explains why he so untrustworthy and slippery.
There are bankers and banksters Niko the later are Labour's friends.
Anon: That quote appears to be correct; or it is widely reported across the net as being so...In one example the word "supply" is inserted after "money". Apart from that I can see no evidence of a misquote.
I see Arbroath. It certainly looks as if he may well have been aware of what was going on... or complicit in them.I expect we might apply the maxim...set a thief to catch a thief..Not that I am in any way implying theft on the part of Naguib Kheraj. it's merely an expression.
CH: Presumably Mr Darling thinks that it is Better Together because under Scots Law in the Scottish Parliament you are not allowed to flip your home once, never mind 3 times. It is, therefore, much better for him, because although they probably frown on it a bit in Westminster, one by one all the constraints that they brought in after the Telegraph let us know just what a shower of greedy grasping bastards they are, are disappearing.It's also better for him that we stay together, because I would imagine that he will be shortly be elevated to the aristocracy and Lord Darling. No chance of that in Scotland your nobleness!On the other hand for someone who has lost their job... or can only get part time work... or is paid very very low wages in a high rent area, say Glasgow or Edinburgh, for example, things won't be that much Better Together when they find themselves flung out of their home, and have to go back to live with their parents... particularly if their parents live 200 miles away, because that set of detritus that we call MPs have decided to balance the books by hitting the poor a bit harder.But, I dare say Mr Darling doesn't give a 2p stuff about that kind of person. It's a wonder all they are facing is Scotland and Jersey wanting to break away. A full scale revolution and some head chopping off would serve them right.
Och Niko. Have you not got another record?
trisYou will find no historical source for that quote. THe first record trying to attribute it historically is a book (Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island") in 1994. The story of him using it in context of him setting up the Federal Reserve is in a film dated 2006.Only one problem. Rothschild died in 1812101 years before the Federal Reserve Act. 182 years before "The Creature from Jekyll Island" and 196 years before the filmTHe places this is quoted tend to be Far-right or tinfoil hat websites.If you can quote a reputable, primary source for this, I would be interested
AnonQuotation of Mayer Amschel RothschildAs I am unaware of anyone from that family in being misquoted one can only assume that there was/is an element of truth in that quotation. But for you to turn it into something of which it was not intended says more about your own self than what is in the quote which in my opinion is true no matter who said it.Yes I believe that Jews have rights but so have Palestinians and I will not sully this blog to satisfy your own personal agenda.
CynicalHghlanderThat film is the one I referred to. It presents the "quote" in the context of the creation of the Federal Reserve as if Meyer Rothschild was involved.Despite the fact Meyer Rothschild died a century before that Act.If you can present any primary source for that quote, I'll admit I am wrong, but as it stands I don't think you can.BTW I accept you are not anti-semitic, but that "quote" is used all the time in far right contexts where anti-semitism s part of the agenda.MY Agenda is merely as a Jew who want's Scottish Independence.The whole Israel-Palestine thing is so f-ed up that no one can claim right on their side any more.
AnonIt is quoted in here History of money well worth reading.
CynicalSo the answer to the question "can you find a primary source?" is "No"I know it is all over the flipping Internet. So was the news that last Wednesday was the day in the future Doc Briwn goes to at the end of Back to the Future.That wasn't true eitherYou notice that "quote" lists no source or attribution?Why are you so attached to it? Why us it so important to you that that man said those words, even though you can find no reputable source for it?
There are no verifiable quotes from the bible but many people believe them and I am sure that if anyone in that family feels as aggrieved as you appear then they have the financial resources to have it removed from widespread circulation.I repeat that I will not fall into your obvious intention on this issue here.
CHMy only obvious intention is to see that a fake quote often used by the far-right does not become part of the common currency of the Indyref.You cannot find any near credible, contemporaneous source for this quote, but instead of putting your hands up and saying "fair enough, I've read it, but it looks like it could be a fake" you defend your use of it.It's not on pled. It's not twisted. It's not a trap. I'll ask it simply as this."Do you now consider that the quote you attribute to that man may not have bee said by him and may, in fact, be a fake?"
OK. SO you believe it to be true.What proof?Not a quote from an unattributed source with no evidence?An actual, honest to God real nbit of evidence.You see I originally put this down to an unintentional thing on your part. I know this "quote" has a certain currency here and there, and I was sure that there was no anti-semitism intended.I cannot, now say I am so sure, and it is because of a couple of things you said earlier."if anyone in that family feels as aggrieved as you appear then they have the financial resources to have it removed from widespread circulation.""I repeat that I will not fall into your obvious intention on this issue here."You see, that makes me think that maybe you are antisemitic, you just don't want to openly admit it, so you are "wary of a trap" when none was intended.Well, I feel sorry for you. Luckily I believe that such a view is in the minority in the Independence movement otherwise I'd be over to the other side trying to kick their arses and turn them into something competent so fast your head would spin