We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Should I leave the Co-Op Bank?
Comments
-
Drugs, !!!!!! and rentboys, sounds a bit more like a Conservitave or liberal than a Labour supporter!:rotfl:0
-
I think you'll find that The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time was Alistair Darling not Osborne. When speaking at the Treasury Select Committee Flowers, who was not Chairman at the time the Britannia merger occurred in 2009, said that it and other deals were undertaken under pressure from senior government ministers
I can't write a whole book about it in a forum post. I have to assume prior knowledge of the reader. George Osborne rather blindly supported the Co-op Bank and ended up with egg on his face when the Project Verde project fell through after the discovery of the shortfall. He should have done his research before he supported it. News has also emerged that he pressured EU ministers into allowing the Co-op Bank relaxed banking rules which were afforded to mutuals to which the Co-op Bank was not entitled because it was not then and never had been a mutual. But it's irrelevant who was what in government at the time: The government is responsible for it.
I can't say very much about Rev. Flowers. He's an unfortunate person who is being subjected to a hatchet job by government and media. As far as I know the alleged and unproven rent boys incident happened 30 years ago, the images found on his computer were not illegal and he bought cocaine after he had left the Co-op Bank and there is no evidence that he was a user while at the bank. But is all that relevant to the downfall of the bank which stems essentially from the acquisition of Britannia? As far as I'm concerned the responsibility for the downfall of the bank lies squarely at the door of the regulator!0 -
Appreciate your points Jackyann and see where you are coming from. I also feel very disappointed. For me, its not so much the sensationalist reports of drug-taking etc, so much as the financial impropriety, previous fraud and the wider political cover-up. It suppose it is not surprising that Cameron is trying to make political capital out of it, which is not edifying in itself, but it doesn't make the original mess any more justifiable. My eyes have been opened. However, I do feel very sorry for all the telephone staff at the Co-Op, they have always been terrific over the years, what must they be thinking?0
-
Yesterday on BBC News I counted the same story about the Co-op Bank 6 times per hour. ..
Exactly the point I was making. The relevations regarding the Crystal Methodist have rather excited the media's interest....The rest of your statement is just spewing the propaganda you've experienced..
I'm spewing propoganda? You're the one dragging politics into it!:)..The facts are that the FSA interviewed Rev. Flowers twice and approved him on each occasion. Enough said, he got the job.
Que?
The point I made was that the Co-Op Bank have clearly been telling everybody porky pies over the past few years. What's that got to do with how and why the Cocaine Cleric was appointed, God only knows.....The FSA also looked at the acquisition of Britannia and approved that too. Enough said, the acquisition went ahead. The question here is whether the Co-op Bank or the Co-op Group or indeed George Osborne should have questioned the decision of the regulator. Well yes, perhaps they should have but unlikely they would..
Why mention George Osborne? He wasn't even Chancellor in August 2009 when the Co-Op/Britannia deal went through. Don't you mean Alistair Darling?....I'm just stating the facts. The implication is that the promise of an inquiry and the materialisation of it are two different things. ....
No you weren't. You were just 'spewing propoganda'.:) There actually is an inquiry. The old FSA inquiry into RBS did indeed 'materialise'; so will the one into HBOS. You might not be satisfied by the results, but that can't be helped....Given the sheer number of entities which together likely contributed to the downfall of the Co-op Bank - the bank itself, the FSA, the Co-op Group, The Labour Party and the government itself - any inquiry will likely be toned down. There are too many skeletons in too many closets!
You think the Labour Party "contributed to the downfall of the Co-op Bank"? Good grief! Perhaps the Treasury Select Committee should call on the two Eds to appear and fess up to their involvement?0 -
....I can't say very much about Rev. Flowers. He's an unfortunate person who is being subjected to a hatchet job by government and media. As far as I know the alleged and unproven rent boys incident happened 30 years ago, the images found on his computer were not illegal and he bought cocaine after he had left the Co-op Bank and there is no evidence that he was a user while at the bank....
Yea right. It happens all the time. The stress of being asked to appear before a Treasury Select Committee is such that it often causes perfectly upright citizens to acquire a taste for cocaine and rent boys. :rotfl:...As far as I'm concerned the responsibility for the downfall of the bank lies squarely at the door of the regulator! ...
Well that's allright then. We can blame the FSA for the failure of the Co-Op Bank. So we can blame them for the failure of RBS, HBOS, Northern Rock et al. Just don't ask who actually set up the FSA eh?:)0 -
Exactly the point I was making. The relevations regarding the Crystal Methodist have rather excited the media's interest.
But the BBC News intensive coverage didn't carry through to the National Newspapers which generally confined themselves to new news on their inner pages. On BBC News the same story was the top news for 3 days!I'm spewing propoganda? You're the one dragging politics into it!:)
Que?The point I made was that the Co-Op Bank have clearly been telling everybody porky pies over the past few years. What's that got to do with how and why the Cocaine Cleric was appointed, God only knows.
They were not telling porkies at all. They just didn't know the answers to the questions which was illustrated during the interview of Rev. Flowers by the Select Committee. That's what happens when the FSA endorses the appointment of someone who has absolutely no qualifications nor experience in the job!
How and why Rev. Flowers was appointed is irrelevant to the downfall of the bank and makes the statement by Mr. Cameron, "The man who broke a bank" ridiculous. It was the acquisition of Britannia that broke the bank, that acquisition was in 2009 and Rev. Flowers took up the post of non-executive chairman the bank in 2010. He didn't have a hand in it. The date when he took up the post differs according to what we are reading and may be in 2009 or in 2010. But since he was a non-executive at the time of the merger we can assume that he did not make executive decisions. At any rate that's what the FSA stated in their defence of endorsing Rev. Flowers. Certainly if he was at the bank in 2009 the merger with Britannia was well under way when he joined.0 -
But the BBC News intensive coverage didn't carry through to the National Newspapers which generally confined themselves to new news on their inner pages. On BBC News the same story was the top news for 3 days!...
So the BBC's "intensive coverage didn't carry through to the National Newspapers"? Where does the "invasive attention" come from then? Make your mind up, is there too much or too little coverage of the Flowers debacle?...They were not telling porkies at all.
Look it's quite simple. The Co-Op acquired Britannia in 2009. Then suddenly four whole years they claimed that "previously undiscovered bad debts" that were "sold by the building society" had blown a big hole in their finances. It takes a bit of effort to keep half a billion quid's worth of wonky loans a secret for that long. Somebody was telling porkies. No doubt the ongoing PRA investigation will be trying to find out who.....How and why Rev. Flowers was appointed is irrelevant to the downfall of the bank...
So why do you keep banging on about it?....They just didn't know the answers to the questions...
Well yes I noticed that too.:) Kinda embarassing I thought.0 -
Not really, this means they are members (as well as Labour) of the Co-operative Party which is a registered party supporting the sort of co-op values that the poster supports. The party get some funds from co-ops around the country but the Co-op Bank as such isn't relevant to this.
Candidates can be members of both parties if they want to but that's not compulsory. Candidates run under both party banners because the Co-operative Party is a sister party of the Labour Party. My local candidate runs under "Co-operative with Labour" but that could equally be "Labour and Co-operative".
The Co-operative Party represents the interests of the Co-operative Movement or as it is often referred to the Wider Co-operative Movement to distinguish it from any one Co-operative Society. There is a lot more than one Co-operative Society and not all of them are consumer (customer) Co-operatives and include employee co-operatives, trade co-operatives, etc. In addition to being a member of The Co-operative Group I'm also a member of a pub co-operative comprising just one pub and a bookshop co-operative comprising just one bookshop.
Here's a link for anyone who is interested in finding out more:
http://www.party.coop/0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.9K Spending & Discounts
- 244.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards