|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Stephen Green: a deafening silence
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
For the past 6 days the UK media - print, online, TV and radio - has been full of the activities of the private international banking division of HSBC and its activities, and much has been made of the fact that the head of the division with responsibility for this part of the bank's activities was one Stephen Green, who now sits in the House of Lords as Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint.
Significant rows are ongoing between government and opposition front benches over which knew what about the bank's activities when Lord Green was first appointed as a Minister for Trade in December 2010.
Rather less has so far been made of the fact that he is an ordained priest of the CofE and is the author of the Green Report, which was greeted so enthusiastically by the Archbishops (and others) last December.
Perhaps one of the bishops who endorsed the report so fulsomely would care to give us this thoughts??
[ 13. February 2015, 10:28: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
From what I've read on the reaction to the Green Report, it was greeted more with "What fresh hell is this?" than acclamation.
But yes. He's been either, a very naughty boy, or making like the three wise monkeys. He might be in Holy Orders, but [comment deleted].
[Potentially defamatory comment deleted
Eliab
Purgatory host ]
[ 12. February 2015, 13:37: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I suspect that Lord, or I suppose in this context Prebendary, Green, is one of those Evangelicals* who has a basic belief that [DELETED].
*This is not intended to cast a party slur, but IME this belief is more commonly found, in the CofE, among Evangelicals than among those of other traditions. [DELETED]
[Potentially defamatory comments deleted
Eliab
Purgatory host ]
[ 12. February 2015, 13:40: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
[Hosting]
You can discuss the proper response of the Church to a financial scandal.
Accusations, or suggested accusations, of actual (personal) complicity in fraud could potentially expose the Ship to legal consequences. Please do not post them on this thread.
[/Hosting]
[ 12. February 2015, 13:52: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Let me rephrase. [DELETED]
[NO - Eliab]
[ 12. February 2015, 15:05: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Albertus - I'm not interested in having accusations re-phrased. DON'T MAKE THEM.
Commandment 7 covers posting potentially libellous material. It's there for a reason. Insinuations of fraud - or anything that might be taken to be an insinuation of fraud/dishonesty/deliberate misconduct/lack of ethics against a public figure - are potentially libellous.
No more please.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I took great care to suggest none of the things that you list, rightly, as being potentially libellous.
So whereof we (are told that) we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent. And I shall. I must accept, and I do not question, your hostly judgement, but that should not be taken to mean that I agree with your conclusions.
[ 12. February 2015, 15:20: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Most of the tabloids have not been reporting this, preferring to focus the minds of the population on more critical issues such as Eastenders plots and football contracts. There are quite a few deafening silences, one of which is the refusal to comment on HSBC business "out of principle", and another rather deafening silence is from HMRC.
Hopefully this will cause so much stink that HMRC and HMG will actually collect the tax they should do, the budget deficit will be sorted, and the chancellor will be able to continue claiming that the improvement is due to austerity - an equally distributed austerity.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Tell you what, this is what I think of Prebendary Green: he's * ****** *********** ******* and * ***** ********.
There you go, I've redacted it myself to save you the trouble. Ain't I helpful?
Can we play hangman? I'll start with A
[ 12. February 2015, 15:18: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I did, as you see, have second thoughts about that post. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I won't rephrase, to save my further blushes. Suffice to say, if I'd been at the helm of a bank during a phase which involved being repeatedly and consistently found in breach of what little regulatory framework exists and fined billions of pounds/dollars, I'd probably go off and be a tree surgeon. HSBC has been guilty of money laundering, mis-selling PPI, exchange rate swaps, LIBOR fixing and other infractions. They are now in the frame for aiding and abetting tax evasion on a substantial scale.
On that evidence, Stephen Green is not the person I'd want either in government, nor writing a report on the future of the CofE.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
The church needed someone who understood the church and business to write a report about whether the church should be run in a more business-like way. When they got the report, they were planning to carefully consider it rather than blindly do everything it said.
Given what's happened, do we throw the report away and get someone else to write another report, or do we consider it even more carefully.
I see the report as a somewhat technical one, and hence one that can be objectively assessed on its merits without considering if the author is sufficiently beyond reproach.
But I've heard it said that [DELETED] ptarmigan [DELETED] madras curry paste at 6.47am [DELETED] in the library with the candlestick.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
I see the report as a somewhat technical one, and hence one that can be objectively assessed on its merits without considering if the author is sufficiently beyond reproach.
I don't think it's a question of 'beyond reproach'. It's a question of the author's judgement. Again, overseeing a multinational company is a complex task, requiring many skills. How did that go for Lord Green, and should the CofE be remodelled in the shape of HSBC?
I would argue, again based solely on the evidence of HSBC, that would be not in our best interests. I would go further and argue doing the exact opposite might be worth looking at.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
When this story first emerged I was only half-listening to the news and thought Stephen Green of Christian Voice fame had been running a high-street bank.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The Green Report - which can broadly be summarised as proposing a fast-track for future bishops and deans and a short-course 'MBA for clergy' for those already in-post - was officially welcomed by both Archbishops.
It was welcomed and proposed for implementation notwithstanding several respected churchmen pointing out that it said little about the church and plenty about business.
As usual with such things, ++ Justin promised ' opportunities for people to engage with and comment on the proposals' but two months on nothing in the way of consultation has appeared.
Given the revelation of the ethics (or lack of them) prevalent in the UK banking sector in general over the past 20 years (and it could be said in HSBC in particular) vis-a-vis conforming to the spirit of the law when it comes to tax avoidance and evasion, it is astonishing that Lord Green was even appointed to lead such a body.
Some of us noted when he was appointed that having a former oil company executive in charge of the CofE might not give the church the 'business edge' it thought it was getting - perhaps now the reality is becoming clearer.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Two questions before we gleefully wind ourselves up with our preconceived prejudices.
First of all, does anyone actually know whether Lord Green is an evangelical? According to wikipaedia, he went to Lancing which is always supposed to be rather high church.
Second, and this is a much more controversial suggestion, it's very fashionable at the moment to blame the bankers for everything. But is there really much difference between a banker who has all manner of different account holders in his or her bank, some good and some bad, and a lawyer who acts for every different sort of client who comes through the door?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Depends on the sort of banker, Enoch.
The bankers who are the target of so much ire for the 2008 crash were merchant (or wholesale) bankers: in point of fact it wasn't the bankers so much as the bulk brokers who brought about that catastrophe, although buying up billions of junk bonds wasn't very clever.
The type of banker that Lord Green was for most of his career at HSBC was a retail banker. Where the breaking (or manufactured, depending on your point of view) scandal about the HSBC offshore accounts differs is that it is about retail bankers and retail banking practices, which up until now have been the more innocent party in the whole sorry mess that is UK banking.
Of course, you could argue that retail banks should be that exclusively - certainly there is a good case to be made for splitting up banks so there isn't a mix of retail and wholesale activity.
The latest HSBC difficulty is in the half-way house world of so-called 'private' banking - that is the provision of retail banking to wealthy individuals, which usually tries to package accounts with other functions such as wealth management.
But because HSBC didn't differentiate between private account holders who were based in the UK and who were using a Swiss based account for tax efficiency (or evasion) and UK citizens who were resident in Switzerland who had their account with HSBC because it meant they could use the same account in both countries, this has muddied the waters significantly. Its over this last that Lord Fink has become mired in the latest spat.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second, and this is a much more controversial suggestion, it's very fashionable at the moment to blame the bankers for everything.
Actually, I would contest this.
It's current Conservative party strategy to blame the last Labour government for everything - including, apparently, the banking collapse in jurisdictions far removed from UK shores, and all recessions in economies everywhere post-2008. I never knew Gordon Brown was so powerful.
It's also fashionable in some quarters to blame the working poor, the unemployed, and immigrants for everything, which is why those are the ones who are paying the heaviest price economically.
Both of which, I believe, are deliberately designed to deflect criticism of said bankers, who have pretty much got off scot-free, despite layers of - bluntly put - practices that ought to be criminal but aren't, because they have such a disproportionate influence on the law.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I haven't heard anyone from the Government benches - either Conservative or LibDem - blame the last Labour Governments for banking collapses outside these shores.
What I have heard is the accurate apportionment of blame for the fatally flawed 'relaxation' in banking regulation to governments between 1998 and 2007 - in other words at a time when Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer. And it is entirely right that this should be brought up because although the principle of lighter touch regulation was approved widely, the way it was implemented was fundamentally flawed, and that was pointed out at the time, not only by LibDems and Tories but also by John McFall, who was Chair of the Treasury Select Committee from 2001 to 2010.
McFall (a Labour MP don't forget) was a thorn in G Brown's side and a vicious campaign was mounted against him, led by Damian McBride briefing the press against him. At the same time anonymous briefings from sources within the Treasury's Council of Economic Advisers - Chairman Ed Balls 2001-2004, replaced by Ed Miliband.
It was the CEA who produced many of the proposals for the light-touch legislation and right up to 2008 (in other words after the run on Northern Rock) they were still arguing that it worked and that the Bank of England had a clear view of what was happening within the domestic banking sector.
I think that gives a fairly comprehensive over-view of who knew (or should have known) what when and where the buck should stop.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
That would appear to be a strong argument against the "light touch" principle as a whole, which is demanded by businesses in all sectors. I haven't seen a government since that of Harold Wilson between 1974 and 1976 do anything to the contrary of that (the post-1976 Callaghan government was hamstrung by the IMF, which was and is business-driven).
[ 13. February 2015, 09:52: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
As for blaming the working poor, I don't think that the PM calling for private companies to pay staff more constitutes an attack on the working poor. And I think it is entirely fair to point out that one of the major causes of the continued proliferation of extremely low-paying jobs in the UK has been the seemingly limitless supply of cheap labour moving to the UK in search of work and a better life.
to turn to the bankers: there are people within the banks who should be rooted out of the system. In fact I'd go further and say that there are whole divisions of current wholesale banking which shouldn't exist since the 'business' they are engaged in is nothing more or less than ultra high-stakes gambling: they produce nothing, it is simply churning of currency to produce an ephemeral profit which ends up being paid for by everyone while creating nothing tangible and no wealth.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I would have thought my posts made it very clear that I'm very much against so-called light-touch regulation for banks. When you are dealing with institutions to which every man and woman in the country is meant to entrust the money they earn, their savings and thus, in effect, their plans for the future, regulation must be strong and effective to ensure that lives are not destroyed on the whim of an over-promoted 20 something running out of control.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I haven't heard anyone from the Government benches - either Conservative or LibDem - blame the last Labour Governments for banking collapses outside these shores.
So, relatively straight forward question: what caused the simultaneous banking collapse in the US and Europe?
Was it, (a) the banks? or (b) the Labour government?
Now, you could reasonably blame the collapse in the UK on the Labour government, but only if you were also going to blame the collapse in every other country on their governments at the time. Or, alternatively, you could collectively blame the global push for lighter regulation, led by neoliberal economists and politicians paid for by the banks, who then took massive, and often illegal, liberties with the freedoms they gained to then siphon off vast wealth for themselves.
I'm going for the latter. I'm not letting governments off the hook completely - they should have had the balls to stand up for their populations by choosing to act in their interests, rather than the banks, but even the last governor of the Bank of England has said the bank collapse and subsequent recession wasn't Labour's fault. I appreciate it's not exactly an (a) or (b) choice, but the vast majority of the blame lies with the banks.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for blaming the working poor, I don't think that the PM calling for private companies to pay staff more constitutes an attack on the working poor. And I think it is entirely fair to point out that one of the major causes of the continued proliferation of extremely low-paying jobs in the UK has been the seemingly limitless supply of cheap labour moving to the UK in search of work and a better life.
Or he could raise the minimum wage.
I'd argue that the proliferation of minimum wage jobs is directly related to the proliferation of in-work benefits. Which was a Labour idea, and is a crashingly expensive way of keeping millions of people trapped in low wages, while letting some very rich companies become even richer.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Doc Tor quote:
I'd argue that the proliferation of minimum wage jobs is directly related to the proliferation of in-work benefits. Which was a Labour idea, and is a crashingly expensive way of keeping millions of people trapped in low wages, while letting some very rich companies become even richer.
Its not the only reason for low wages but yes, it is a major contributor.
In fact Brown was warned before the introduction of Tax Credits that (a) it would be fiendishly difficult to administer, (b) it would be very easy to defraud, and (c) that it would mean large companies being effectively given a subsidy by the taxpayer: he rejected all of that, although latterly one of his justifications for keeping tax credits was the large number of bureaucrats who would be out of work if they were scrapped by a higher minimum wage being introduced instead.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
lighter touch regulation was approved widely, the way it was implemented was fundamentally flawed, and that was pointed out at the time, not only by LibDems and Tories but also by John McFall
Can you name a single piece of legislation that was aimed at lighter regulation of the banking sector, which was opposed by the Tories as a party during that period?
Or alternatively a single piece of legislation aimed at stronger regulation of the banking section that was supported by the Tories as a party.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
It would appear the archbishops have issued a statement
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
It would appear the archbishops have issued a statement
I had originally misread the OP, and thought it was a reference to the report 'Serving God? Serving Mammon?'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I liked the phrase "historic allegations" in the statement. It makes it seem so long ago and unimportant.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
It would appear the archbishops have issued a statement
I am very disappointed by this statement.
[deleted section]
Perhaps this is the precise result of the MBA culture.
[material removed as per Commandment 7]
[ 13. February 2015, 19:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
As pointed out earlier in this thread, you are free to discuss the general implications of this affair, but not to make statements that can be construed as libellous - see Commandment 7.
It is the hosts' job to be arbiters of what may be so construed in order for the Ship not to sink under legal action. Please help us achieve that by double-checking before posting.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Have we suddenly entered the twilight zone? Has the Church really released an official statement defending Green before he has actually said anything himself?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
He hasn't said much but Lord Green has resigned from The City UK, a body that promotes good governance in banking.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Reading the Archbishops' statement I hear the sound of people trying to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the embattled peer.
Rather a contrast to their championing of him just a few short weeks ago.
Lord Green may not be covered with glory at the moment but the statement by the ABs does them no credit.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I suppose that the question here is what, if anything, the church should do if a cleric, acting in a 'secular' capacity (e.g. heading a non-Church organisation) is found to have been actively or negligently complicit in behaviours by the organisation which are illegal or unethical (and to be quite clear, before the Housemaster calls me into his study after evening prayers for another talking-to, I am not suggesting that Lord Green has been or will be or should be found to be any such thing). Can and should the church take action against the cleric, as a matter of clergy discipline, even if that cleric is not convicted of any offence?
[ 14. February 2015, 17:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Can and should the church take action against the cleric, as a matter of clergy discipline, even if that cleric is not convicted of any offence?
I think in the general sense it's simply a case of whether a cleric does something or participates in something that then renders them unfit for ministry.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Depends on the sort of banker, Enoch.
The bankers who are the target of so much ire for the 2008 crash were merchant (or wholesale) bankers: in point of fact it wasn't the bankers so much as the bulk brokers who brought about that catastrophe, although buying up billions of junk bonds wasn't very clever.
The type of banker that Lord Green was for most of his career at HSBC was a retail banker. Where the breaking (or manufactured, depending on your point of view) scandal about the HSBC offshore accounts differs is that it is about retail bankers and retail banking practices, which up until now have been the more innocent party in the whole sorry mess that is UK banking.
Of course, you could argue that retail banks should be that exclusively - certainly there is a good case to be made for splitting up banks so there isn't a mix of retail and wholesale activity.
The latest HSBC difficulty is in the half-way house world of so-called 'private' banking - that is the provision of retail banking to wealthy individuals, which usually tries to package accounts with other functions such as wealth management.
But because HSBC didn't differentiate between private account holders who were based in the UK and who were using a Swiss based account for tax efficiency (or evasion) and UK citizens who were resident in Switzerland who had their account with HSBC because it meant they could use the same account in both countries, this has muddied the waters significantly. Its over this last that Lord Fink has become mired in the latest spat.
It isn't that simple: there are closer ties between merchant banks and retail banks than most people realise. When the wholesale market went down the tubes, it was inevitable that retail followed. Mind you, the wholesale went down the tubes because retail was demanding more and more of it.
Regulation has become much lighter over the years. Having had recourse to work with the regulators in the mid 90's following the major crash of the late 80's, I can assure you from first hand experience that matters then were much more controlled than they are now.
Reporting was tighter and demands from the regulator much more prescriptive (even if they weren't made public, you were left in no doubt that you were expected to toe the line or else). Even decisions that made excellent business sense were subject to the tightest scrutiny and if anything looked at all wonky (technical term), then the drains went up right away.
Despite that, things went on that were certainly illegal but which were so commonplace, nothing was ever done. It was sort of "accepted" provided it wasn't pushed too far. But the seeds of the present crisis were sown as successive Governments were lured into relationships with financial institutions which meant that impartiality went out the window with the big boys lunches.
Back then, regulators like the Bank of England were way behind the game with technology. They even ran their own in house mortgages on a PC before they sold them to the Halifax - a deal brokered by individuals common to both organisations.
[ 14. February 2015, 18:33: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Can and should the church take action against the cleric, as a matter of clergy discipline, even if that cleric is not convicted of any offence?
I think in the general sense it's simply a case of whether a cleric does something or participates in something that then renders them unfit for ministry.
Well, indeed. But the question is where the line if unfitness for ministry is drawn. Let us suppose, for example, that an NSM was a trustee of a trust fund which engaged in complex and extensive but technically legal tax avoidance on its own account. Would that count? If so, or if not, why?
[ 14. February 2015, 19:52: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Not that interesting or perceptive. It interviewed one or two people who clearly already weren't his friends. But it didn't give us much more than has already been in the news, apart from he's a bit dry and aloof, which is hardly the earth shattering wickedness that justifies condemning a man unheard.
- I am reserved.
- You are a bit of an introvert.
- He is aloof.
Incidentally, nobody's yet answered my two questions earlier. To put them a different way.
Much is made of Lord Green's being ordained, but is he actually functioning as a priest at the moment? If he does, obviously he's non-stipendiary. Does anyone know which parish he does duty in?
And why should anyone insist that a bank is responsible if some of its account holders do dodgy things with their money? It seems to be yet another example of 'blame the wrong person', like saying the medical profession is guilty because Harold Shipman murdered his patients, rather than that he was. Are barristers responsible for the crimes their clients commit, or doctors because their patients are too fat?
After all, this time, the accusation is not that a bank had been speculating with customer's money but on its own account.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
And why should anyone insist that a bank is responsible if some of its account holders do dodgy things with their money?
The accusation is not just this, but also that the bank encouraged and facilitated its account holders to do dodgy things with their money, knowing full well that it was dodgy and not caring.
Which they have form for, of course, with HSBC's massive fine for money laundering drug cartel money from Mexico. Along with other dubious practices that transferred billions from personal accounts into their corporate coffers.
My well of sympathy is pretty much dry, I'm afraid.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
i) (Lord) Stephen Green was chairman of a bank which has been found guilty, in a number of jurisdictions, or criminal and civil breaches of banking law, before, during and after his time in office.
ii) (Reverend) Stephen Green is a non-stipendiary minister of the Church of England.
In what capacity was he asked to review the selection of senior managers/bishops? Almost certainly the first rather than the second. On that basis, how should we consider his report? If the first, then the tax avoidance revealed this week must reflect on the management report as well.
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well, indeed. But the question is where the line if unfitness for ministry is drawn. Let us suppose, for example, that an NSM was a trustee of a trust fund which engaged in complex and extensive but technically legal tax avoidance on its own account. Would that count? If so, or if not, why?
Well, in general a church can draw lines of morality which are stricter than the guidelines drawn by the law.
In reality though, the Church of England generally doesn't do this, and there are plenty of parts of the church who are fairly comfortable with power, and fairly uncomfortable with the critique of power. I am reminded of the various apologetics advanced by evangelicals of the HTB stripe in the service of bankers after the 2007 crisis. This for instance:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/gods-bankers-how-evangelical-christianity-is-taking-a-hold-o f-the-city-of-londonrsquos-financial-institutions-2270393.html
[ 14. February 2015, 22:30: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
On the whole, Christians don't seem to come off too badly out of that article. Most of its criticism is reserved for younger professionals reluctant to speak out about their faith, rather than of those at the top being reluctant to speak out about corruption.
(I just got back from watching this film about the Clearstream Affair which is a depressingly good portrayal of the scope of the problem).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Rev per Minute:
quote:
In what capacity was he asked to review the selection of senior managers/bishops?
Well gee, that's handy isn't it! So all those full time clergy haven't got the same get out clause, and had they taken the time to think it through they would have all gone non-stipendiary; that way they could have behaved in their capacity as priests and misbehaved in their capacity as bankers, accountants, doctors, bus drivers and whatever else. Then when the shit hit the fan they could in perfectly good and clear conscience have turned around and said, 'Yes, but that was in my capacity as banker/accountant/doctor/bus driver/asshole and nothing at all to do with my priestly vocation in which I behave impeccably.'
Sadly, and this is slightly depressing to admit, white collar crime is rarely if ever taken to full prosecution. Reminds me of that Michael Moore Wall Street edition of COPS skit.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
On the whole, Christians don't seem to come off too badly out of that article. Most of its criticism is reserved for younger professionals reluctant to speak out about their faith, rather than of those at the top being reluctant to speak out about corruption.
Possibly. I agree with you that the bulk of the article is mainly about young professionals, I did feel that there was a critique of people not speaking out though and perhaps this was exacerbated when reading it in the context of responses to the financial crisis as embodied in the writings of Ken Costa/Stephen Green and others.
I do think HTB (particular) has a tendency to give power/money the most benevolent reading possible and they tend towards the hagiographic when it comes to dealing with those in power who make faith claims.
In that they take an approach that has long been native to certain other parts of the Anglican church.
[ 15. February 2015, 10:46: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Lord Green produced a report and it has his name on it. He owns up to it, takes responsibility for what is presented in his name. The question of relative experience or background (or personal history) may have had something to do with his appointment - or it may be relevant to folks who would use doubts about his reputation to rubbish the contents. But that's playing the man, not the ball.
Simple questions. Is the report sensible? Does it stand up to critical examination re content? And if so, what have any questions about probity got to do with its endorsement?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I don't think I'm criticising the Green report on the basis of his alleged lack of probity. I'm criticising its findings on the basis of his alleged lack of expertise.
To take a tortured analogy, are you going to read a book on managing written by Alex Ferguson? Yes, of course. Why? Because of the success enjoyed by Man Utd during his tenure.
Are you going to read a book on managing written by Lord Green? Yes? Based on the 'success' enjoyed by HSBC during his tenure? Really?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Maybe I'm being purist, Doc?
I used to work on the basis that findings and recommendations spoke for themselves, regardless of who the author was. Most professional reports don't rely on reputation for acceptability. The quality of evidence and argument is what counts in the end. Or, at any rate, that used to be the standard. Not all experts come from 50 miles away, despite the propaganda of consultants.
Bad people can produce good reports - and vice versa. What's wrong with that as a starting point?
[ 15. February 2015, 14:08: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
On the whole, Christians don't seem to come off too badly out of that article. Most of its criticism is reserved for younger professionals reluctant to speak out about their faith, rather than of those at the top being reluctant to speak out about corruption.
Though one of them suggests that his moral dilemma arises when a client wants to go with him to a strip club - as if there weren't bigger moral issues.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
