FAREPAK-Patronising

peterbaker

stugib wrote:

Ummm, suggest you find a more appropriate insult to use that '!!!!!!' given its common meaning!

You may be right - perhaps I can now replace it with the word '!!!!!!' since that one made it's way into Hansard this morning!

I don't think anyone's glad it happend but the debate's moved on from shock and anger to how it happened and how can it be prevented in future. Inevitably some of this discussion will be educating the general public how unsafe these schemes are despite what Farepak etc say.

Anyhow, I think many less than sympathetic responses were triggered by what many saw as a campaign of emotional blackmail and spinning it as some sort of national tragedy, making out it was other people's/companies responsibility to replace the funds rather than a charitable act. What you're seeing now is not smugness per se, just balancing up the other side of the argument as people like the BBC are obliged to do.

I am not lagging behind the debate. The thing that raises my blood pressure is that we are many days after the event here (it is twice as old as the Litvinenko story) but unlike Litvinenko, we have no firm stand being promoted by the leaders we trust.

I often like to use the old "Persecutor, Victim, Rescuer" template to analyse the players.

What we have seen from the outset, quite obviously, are Victims. Unlike individual corporate shareholders who might be 'victims' of a crash for example, Farepak victims can't be criticised for being corrupted by greed in any way at all. They are quite literally the poorest in our society. Their motives were conservative. They are the meek, and they have been robbed. They may not be attractive or eloquent but they do have dignity and there is absolutely no point in intelligent people expending energy on 'educating' these quietly dignified people in the dangers of how bad people get away with operating. They know. Bad people will steal you blind one way this week and a completely different way next week. Take endowments, pensions, PPI, unfair bank charges, eBay scams - big and small - as just a few of the twists and turns bad people take. And these same unfortunates have probably lost money on more than one of those too - with little chance of ever getting it back because they just aren't the sort of people who understand who are aphids and who are ants in this jungle.

It's not the aphids that need educating. It's some of the ants, preferably with a bright light and magnifying glass - or better still with a bloody big stick.

The first reactions shown by the media were groups of "Rescuers", some pure "do-gooders" who set up the fund, and then others like banks who made big donations and whose motives naturally are still questionned.

Now we have small-time persecutors who are kicking the victims on the floor...that's cheap.


What we should all be asking is where are the original Persecutors now - the real bad people - the ones who caused the huge dollops of cash to be misappropriated? Long gone? Documents nicely shredded? Or still here wearing other hats, and wrapping themselves well in new legal cloaks funded by some of the £45M no doubt? Books nicely cooked? Hoping that Christmas comes and goes quickly now so any investigation can be relegated to the files of one more clinical and impersonal administration procedure in the New Year undertaken by a different sort of accountant, but one who is equally indifferent to the real lives being touched?

If you want to point a finger then point it at them.

No, I am not lagging behind the debate - just trying to make sure it is on track.

niccy

I would like to say through this thread, to any Farepak savers, i am very very sorry about what has happened.
If i was prime minister they would lock up all those involved in dank prison cell for the christmas period.
And anyone who offers a patronizing comment.
Once again those most vunerable have been conned by fat cats

THE_LONE_RANGER_4

at the end of the day these people have been ripped off probaly by the bank involved they were regarded as easy little did they no the fuss it would cause if these people want to save for xmas they should open a credit unon account and sleep easy at night l

pulliptears

My 2 penneth, for what its worth.

I feel nothing but sympathy for the people who have lost money. Its not a system I would use myself but obviously its worked for them in the past.

What I do object to, however, is the constant stream of mothers on TV with sobbing small children whom they have actually told "christmas is cancelled!"

Had it have been me in this situation Id have done my damned best to protect my children from it. Telling small child that santa isnt coming for the benefit of seeing him/her cry on national TV is nothing but cruelty. At times like this you have to try and "get on with it". God knows Ive had christmasses in the past where Ive really struggled, but Ive never let on to my children this. Its not fair on them one bit.

I suppose these select few "mothers" are hoping that the donations will come flooding in. Personally it has completely the opposite effect on me.

slates

I have already posted on this thread earlier as i felt the census was that farepak savers were naive and should've saved with a bank/BS.

But as the previous poster wrote seeing certain Farepak customers on TV crying and stating xmas is over and showing the tears of the kids, I totally agree with your comments.

I have read in one local newspaper in the Taunton area that two families got PC's for their xmas from a local company as they lost their xmas savings..But my feelings are what about all the other farepak customers who must feel absoultly gutted that some customers are getting something but they're not. It seems unfair on them, especially theo one's with kids.

I must stress that I am not a parent so I havent got to worry about cancelling xmas for anyone, I just cannot be extravagant with my gifts and my visit to the sales after xmas. But i'll just get on and enjoy xmas. :beer:

Mike_re_searcher

OK I`m totally baffled why the mainstream media has failed to report this FACT. Farepak own multi-million pound company called European Home Retail plc. It was formerly the well-known MLM home shopping catalogue company called KLEENEZE. They have the money NOW to pay off their debts and they are getting away with NOT paying their debts and we have fund raising going on for the unfortunate people that lost money in Farepak.

peterbaker

So here we are, one week after the last post in this thread. Did I hear that there is indeed to be a Parliamentary Select Committee sitting to hear evidence on the Farepak fiasco? Or was that just wishful thinking on my part? I am still looking forward to seeing that Knight of the Realm squirm on tv!

Rex_Mundi

I've seen so many posts blaming the bank for the collapse of Farepak. I can't see in any way how this is the case.

Customers paid money into Farepak>>

EHR (Farepaks parent company) had massive debts, and used the Farepak customers money to pay off some of the debts of the parent group>>

EHR tried to increase their borrowing from the bank to put the money back>>

The bank looked at the companies business plan/debt levels, and refused extra credit (as they are entitled to)>>

This collapse is the fault of the directors of EHR and Farepak. Noone elses.

peterbaker

Rex_Mundi wrote:

I've seen so many posts blaming the bank for the collapse of Farepak. I can't see in any way how this is the case.

The bank has to be a good citizen. We naturally expect banks to be on the lookout for moneylaundering, for example, but that's a relatively new safeguard we have made them responsible for. Banks have always monitored large transactions. They obviously know what Farepak's business is - it is in fact very obviously like a banks savings business for a large part of the year! So if £45M goes out at the wrong time of year, the bank will notice it, know where it goes initially and who authorised it. One would quite rightly assume that they would query it too. If they didn't, then they automatically become part of the problem - that's all part and parcel of banking risk. Handling money isn't an anonymous business, nor is it without consequence. If you offer any business to handle money for other people you better make damn sure that you are not aiding and abetting crime when you let £45M of money you know full well was collected on a doorstep disappear out of your control.

The Bank Of England eventually had to settle with BCCI customers - similar reasons one or two steps up the chain - and no-one really liked the idea of UK taxpayers baling out that kind of bank customer, but bale them out we did in the end.

UK laws go even further than that in other situations. If your car is stolen and joyriders kill or maim innocent third parties whilst driving in your car, then your insurers will eventually treat those third parties as if you were driving. Quite right too.

Farepak customers are the purist victims you can imagine from a banking scam and that is what this is, despite the fact that Farepak wasn't regulated as a bank. A big regulated bank was however involved in the business, and not just on paper - this was big banking business. So surely fixing the Farepak problem via the banks and then sorting out the criminals as a separate issue behind the scenes later is a much easier thing to condone than it ever was with BCCI?


Edit:
Now we are getting to the truth ... according to what was said and not denied in front of an official HBOS spokesman just now on a BBC News report, it seems that out of the missing £45M around £28M was clawed back by HBOS in the late stages of the collapse to repay an ridiculous overdraft, and that the CEO of HBOS plc, Andy Hornby sat in on at least one of the meetings which decided Farepak's fate! He was only born in 1967 so perhaps he is still learning right from wrong/good guys from bad guys/etc.