Why can't all banking shares be suspended?

1echidna

Dustangle wrote: »

wrote: »

The bankers, devious little vipers that they are, will have leaked it to him. He's a reporter, you know.

And incidently those hedge fund managers and others operating at our expense will have been left out of the loop. What is fairer than the public having the information at the same time as market insiders?

cheerfulcat

1echidna wrote: »

Hi cheerfulcat,

You seem to understand well the rules under which markets operate but not the rules under which journalists operate.

Hi, 1echidna,

As it happens, I trained as a journalist. I agree that nothing should be hidden from the wider view; my point is that what Peston reported on several occasions was not, in fact, true. Again I have to ask, when you said

Originally Posted by 1echidna

What if Peston had the correct scenario - RBS explained that their capital situation could be parlous implying that they did need help but did not actually specifically ask for it

Explained to whom? They certainly said nothing of the sort in any official capacity. And I don't quite see how " those devious little vipers " ( not my quote, btw, could you fix your post please? ), the bankers, could benefit from RBS being wiped out.

1echidna

Hi cheerfulcat

I have edited my post to remove the impression that the quote about little vipers was yours (I just pressed the quote button). You ask - explained to whom? My understanding was it was what was said at a meeting between top executives of RBS, LLoyds and Barclays and govt and BoE. Not sure if the objective on the part of the bankers was to get the gov't to act - if so they have succeeded.

cheerfulcat

1echidna wrote: »

I have edited my post to remove the impression that the quote about little vipers was yours (I just pressed the quote button). You ask - explained to whom? My understanding was it was what was said at a meeting between top executives of RBS, LLoyds and Barclays and govt and BoE. Not sure if the objective on the part of the bankers was to get the gov't to act - if so they have succeeded.

Thanks for the edit, 1echidna. And thanks for clarifying ( I've emboldened the important part ) - my problem is that someone at that meeting must have briefed Peston and regardless of who it was doing the leaking, it was a case of market abuse, not of investigative journalism!

1echidna

cheerfulcat wrote: »

Thanks for the edit, 1echidna. And thanks for clarifying ( I've emboldened the important part ) - my problem is that someone at that meeting must have briefed Peston and regardless of who it was doing the leaking, it was a case of market abuse, not of investigative journalism!

Thanks for your response cheerfulcat, perhaps we can meet half way? From the point of view of those with a heavy stake in the market it may have been market abuse, from the point of view of the rest of us (or those who are are not so concerned about our stake as to not be interested in what is really going on) it was investigative journalism.

cheerfulcat

Hi, 1echidna,

My point is explained more eloquently here - LINK.

1echidna

cheerfulcat wrote: »

Hi, 1echidna,

My point is explained more eloquently here - LINK.

Perhaps he was justified in breaking the letter of the law, particularly if they can't pin it on him. It is my understanding that investigative journalist often break the law in some way or other and, depending on the exact circumstances no one would dare prosecute, particularly if he was well defended by his organisation and had public support.

cheerfulcat

It really is not investigative journalism to pass on leaks which were designed for public consumption. He has broken not just the letter but the spirit of the law.

1echidna

cheerfulcat wrote: »

It really is not investigative journalism to pass on leaks which were designed for public consumption. He has broken not just the letter but the spirit of the law.

Oh I don't know its too complex for me, perhaps it is a case for a court? My opinion though is it wouldn't stick.