Merry Xmas on behalf of the Farepak victims.

iamesbo

Have a nice Xmas if you got bailed out by the government, you should get your money in time for Xmas!!
Which is more than the Farepak savers got, they got nowt fom the government, not even an orange in a sock.

And a very Merry Xmas to Andy Hornby HBOS Chairman, how you must be !!!!ing yourself laughing eh?

Isn't it rich, the goverment is bailing out you, the wealthy multi-milionaire, who was the architect of his own downfall, and was the head of the bank which pocketed Farepaks money!!

They got nowt you got a good share of £200 billion pounds.

Not bad going eh?

You can't make stuff like this up because if you put in a book they would say that that could never happen in real life as it is too unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!

Still try not to feel to guilty about it Andy me old mucker nor you Sir James Crosby the former chairman of HBOS who is advising (and being paid to!!) the governement on how to get out of the mess he helped create along side you. Nice to help out your old mates ain't it???


:xmassign::xmassign::xmassign::xmassign::xmassign::xmassign::xmassign:

:xmassign::xmassign::xmassign::xmassign::xmassign::xmassign::xmassign:

iamesbo

I have no doubt that David Cameron will be giving Gordon Brown and Darling Alistair a right good grilling about this at the next PMQ's (not).:rudolf::xmastree::snow_laug

:snow_grin:santa2::xmassign:

iamesbo

Oh yes, and let's add a little bit more poetic irony, you would be amazed how many people came on the Farepak forum and told then they were stupid because it was safer to put their money in a bank.

nicko33

iamesbo wrote: »

it was safer to put their money in a bank.

it is though, isn't it.
There are compensation schemes and rescues for banks (and building societies)

opinions4u

Farepak deliberately moved money from one subsidiary to another one, knowing it would screw savers.

It wasn't the customers' fault.

It wasn't the bank's fault (banks are not charities !!!!!!).

Perhaps the government should have ensured there was a compensation scheme for this sort of savings plan long before.

darktrader

I had considerable sympathy for the victims of the Farepak collapse. I am sorry that some of the posts on the site now, particularly on the Icesave debacle must be like rubbing salt into your wounds. I hope you didn't lose too much and have been able to recover financially.

confused_landlord

Was farepak covered by the FSA? Just curious. For me, the thing with the Icesave fiasco is that the FSA guarantee was kinda ambiguous, implying that the money was under double protection.

I understand The Govt has recovered £4billion in assets from Icesave and are on the hook for £5billion in deposits (leaving a gaping hole of 1 billion). Im guessing, the 4 billion should have been enough to cover all the depositors up 16K limit, and the rest (upto 50K)Govt would have been liable for anyway.

Hillfly

"iamesbo" If the banking system were to collapse it would cost a whole lot more than the money being "invested" to save it.
There's probably very few people it wouldn't adversely effect in this country and it would make Xmas a very sorry affair.
Perhaps you should consider the implications of not bailing out the banks.

iamesbo

opinions4u wrote: »

Farepak deliberately moved money from one subsidiary to another one, knowing it would screw savers.

It wasn't the customers' fault.

It wasn't the bank's fault (banks are not charities !!!!!!).

Perhaps the government should have ensured there was a compensation scheme for this sort of savings plan long before.

They didn't and haven't, there are many such unprotected saving type schemes, but they are generally for people who have little money, so no point in helping them out is there?

HBOS knew jolly well went to pull the plug when 95% of the savers money would be there They knew who would suffer the hardest loss, they knew they were taking childrens Xmas money, do you doubt that? (Honestly).

iamesbo

Hillfly wrote: »

"iamesbo" If the banking system were to collapse it would cost a whole lot more than the money being "invested" to save it.
There's probably very few people it wouldn't adversely effect in this country and it would make Xmas a very sorry affair.
Perhaps you should consider the implications of not bailing out the banks.

There would be little implication, the banks responsible would go bust and thoses
with savings would be compensated up to the limit, whch with several accounts is a very considerable sum indeed. And then we would not be forking out £200 billon for zero impact.

Did someone offer me the Chancellor's job?? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

bristolleedsfan

iamesbo wrote: »

Did someone offer me the Chancellor's job?? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Yes, you can be Chancellor Father Christmas, :xmassmile and hand out some billions to the ordinary man and woman in the street. :xmassmile better than Chancellor Thunderbirds IMO. :xmassmile