1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

This has slipped through on the quiet.

Discussion in 'Personal' started by lexus300, Oct 15, 2015.

  1. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Just read in the FT that the Treasury has abandoned Senior Bankers accountability rules.

    Yes "we are are all in this together" apart from the criminals who caused it all.

    Strange how the Government have remained very silent on this along with the opposition as well!
    maurice-r likes this.
  2. monicabilongame

    monicabilongame Star commenter

    Proper barstewards are this government - do anything for their buddies (probably in return for huge bungs or consultancy posts....) and skreww the poor and disabled and disenfranchised into the ground.
  3. maurice-r

    maurice-r Established commenter

    Any reaction from the geriatrics i/c the Labour Party about this yet?
  4. BobbyPhilips

    BobbyPhilips Established commenter

    Is it unreasonable?

    "the Treasury has abandoned the “reversal of burden of proof” rule that would have held senior managers to account for failings on their watch, with the threat of a fine or a ban.

    This meant executives would have had to prove that they had taken all reasonable steps to prevent breaches, rather than the regulator proving its case, as is normal under UK law."

    Would you accept reverse burden of proof when charged with an offence?
  5. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    When so much money is involved and so much is at stake and the state (the taxpayer) ends up shoring up the system after their corrupt behaviour and when you consider their salaries and bonuses then the Treasury should use all means to ensure they do not repeat the events leading up to the crisis.
  6. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    They are strangely silent.
  7. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    There is more.........
    Yesterday the City won a second clear signal in 24 hours of a political shift in its favour as well as other emollient moves for the banks which have not been openly discussed. Financial regulators granted another key concession on the ring-fencing rule for the UK's largest banks allowing the transfer of capital from their retail arms to other parts of their business in the form of dividends.
    As a note, ring-fencing and the accountability regime were key elements of 'post-crisis' reforms designed to reduce the likelihood of taxpayer bailouts and also to clean up 'the City' after the misconduct scandals.
    Tory U-turns (favouring their city pals) like this have very nicely slipped under the radar whilst the Labour party falls closer and closer under the microscope. We have a serious problem with our form of democracy IMO.
  8. BobbyPhilips

    BobbyPhilips Established commenter

    In what way should our democracy be changed so that government only does things you approve of.
  9. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    It is all about balance as far as I am concerned. Democracy should be about equality for all within a common set of balanced rules. We have at least a two tier democracy, the top tier being covered and protected by rules for the powerful and the wealthy and the tier underneath which is the rest of us who must operate under different and often far more stringent rules and controls.
    You need only to examine personal taxation to see the injustice of it all.
    Now we have a media scourging of the Labour party (who are not even in power) where apparent directional change is held up to public scrutiny in such a way as to demonstrate the media right wing prejudice yet the Tories back track on measures designed to prevent banking fraud (which led to the banking crisis for which we all are paying) yet hardly a word in the media or via Westminster.
  10. BobbyPhilips

    BobbyPhilips Established commenter

    The taxation is the same for all. The difference is how you choose your employment or reward structure. Explain to me why that is unjust, anyone can be self-employed.

    Do you think having to prove innocence is good law? You also seem to forget that government and decision making is not just those people elected in general elections. (And is was not fraud which led to the banking crisis. Your hyperbole)
  11. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    you try to simplify the taxation of millions into a sentence BP., life and people are never that simple or straight forward.
    If you make the choice to become self employed and then follow the law regarding taxation (including the spirit of the law BTW) then I have no beef at all. It is the situation where the wealthy can evade/avoid taxation such that a tiny fraction of their income is paid in taxation whereas those on PAYE (many millions) pay a much higher proportion of their income. The poorest paying the highest % of all.
    The words used were "held accountable" your words bring in the hyperbole not mine.
    the Chancellor made the decisions and on my last recollection he was part of this right wing fiasco called the conservatives.
  12. BobbyPhilips

    BobbyPhilips Established commenter

    Can you not see the difference between being an employee and self-employed? The risk of one and not the other,
    that is not true of UK earned income. Arranging tax affairs to be minimal is available to all.
  13. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    You are either deluded or you live in a different world to me and most other people.
  14. BobbyPhilips

    BobbyPhilips Established commenter

    I post unemotionally. If you put emotions to one side you would see more clearly.
  15. emilystrange

    emilystrange Star commenter

    You post with a deliberate aim to twist words, annoy, misdirect and provoke. You don't answer questions put to you, either.
    Imo, of course.

Share This Page