Should I leave the Co-Op Bank?

innovate

antrobus wrote: »

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.

Not only that. They proceeded to pretend for some time that they could afford to spend billions on buying branches of Lloyds. And no regulatory body or industry pundit or journalist did spot that this was just another bad attack of bankers' megalomania.

Seems the Reverend Flowers wasn't the only one on drugs.

Jennifer_Jane

I always felt that the acquisition of Britannia was a step too far for Co-op, now that's been shown to be true. How all this came to light, as far as I understand it, however, was that the next expensive step for Co-op was to try to take over the Lloyd's branches. When LLOYD'S did the due diligence of whether Co-op could afford this, they discovered the problems.

So no-one, it seems, at the Co-op (including the delightful Rev Flowers) seemed to be able to understand their own finances.

Rev Flowers was accused of downloading !!!!!! on to a Council computer. Most businesses, if not all, have this as a instant dismissal transgression. Whether it was illegal !!!!!! or not is irrelevant. It was not HIS computer. The assumption a company would make is that they do not want !!!!!! downloaded on their computers and that presumably this is often done during working hours (although no-one has accused Flowers of this).

Nevertheless, the hypocrisy of a Reverend, a man of God, downloading !!!!!!; of using prostitutes, of being convicted of public indecency. None of this I would like in a minister of God, and none of this I would like to be running my bank. And especially the "mind-altering substances" (and if people like to think that the incident shown in the Mail was the first instance of drug-taking, well to me he seemed pretty practiced at purchasing it).

In addition, add in the allegations of expense fraud and so on. He really is the news gift that keeps on giving. But I for one, am saddened by it all. I really like the Co-op bank, I will be sticking with them (although I have several other current accounts), but I saddened at the vast hypocrisy and shameful way this man appears to have behaved.

I understood the tie up with the Labour Party which was bad enough, but to give £50,000 to Ed Balls's office, seems very specific a gift. Surely it should be going into general Labour party coffers rather than so specifically to one person's office? Have I understood that correctly?

As for the FSA, what on earth were they up to?

Also, regarding the political aspect, old Ed Balls is now saying it's all George Osborne's fault, as he was promoting the Lloyd's branch take-over.

Hmmm.

Anthorn

innovate wrote: »

Not only that. They proceeded to pretend for some time that they could afford to spend billions on buying branches of Lloyds. And no regulatory body or industry pundit or journalist did spot that this was just another bad attack of bankers' megalomania.

Seems the Reverend Flowers wasn't the only one on drugs.

Basically, you don't understand the Co-operative Group. I think what best describes it is organised chaos and power-plays which apparently they have only just started to address in their re-organisation.

The Co-operative Group itself is relatively young being established in 2007 from a merger of smaller societies which themselves were mergers and those mergers were mergers and so on right back to the Rochdale Pioneers. The new chairman describes it as "fragmented".

When we have mergers we have power plays and politicking and I think it's true to say it's that which has dogged the Group. I don't think anyone is denying that. The Bank has never been a mutual and is directly owned by the Group and so is also subject to those power plays.

As for regulation I personally think that the evidence suggests that the Co-operative Bank was not regulated at all and that's the fault of the regulator!

At this time the Midlands Co-operative Society and Anglia Regional Co-operative Society is proposing a merger to its members and I think a lot of people will be watching the progress of that. If it merges it will be the biggest independent Co-operative in the U.K. ahead of Midcounties Co-operative.

innovate

Anthorn wrote: »

Basically, you don't understand the Co-operative Group.

I am not entirely sure what you mean, and even less sure I want to understand any airy-fairy marketing bull about cooperatives. What I am sure about is that I can see corruption, megalomania and hypocracy when the evidence is overwhelming and plastered all over the news media.

Anthorn

innovate wrote: »

I am not entirely sure what you mean, and even less sure I want to understand any airy-fairy marketing bull about cooperatives. What I am sure about is that I can see corruption, megalomania and hypocracy when the evidence is overwhelming and plastered all over the news media.

I thought I explained it very well. To add to that it's a co-operative and not a public company and there are major differences between the two.

There has been no corruption, megalomania nor hypocracy. Where is your evidence to support that? Mistakes were made, yes, but mistakes are not crimes.

Here I'm referring to the organisation and not specifically Rev. Flowers because I think he's been hung out to dry and unjustly used as a scapegoat while others who are more responsible get away with it.

innovate

Anthorn wrote: »

I thought I explained it very well. To add to that it's a co-operative and not a public company and there are major differences between the two.

There has been no corruption, megalomania nor hypocracy. Where is your evidence to support that? Mistakes were made, yes, but mistakes are not crimes.

Here I'm referring to the organisation and not specifically Rev. Flowers because I think he's been hung out to dry and unjustly used as a scapegoat while others who are more responsible get away with it.

It makes no difference if corruption and deception appears in a co-operative or public company. It's corruption and deception, and equally disgusting and criminal. Perhaps a little more disgusting when it happens in a co-operative where people are lulled into some sort of community-spirit that only exists in the marketing hype that, sadly, most of the members of the co-operative fall for.

You may not see any corruption, megalomania and hypocracy. I do, and it seems the media do, too. Of course we might both be wrong, but my money is on us being right. Unless you prove us wrong. Tough job for you because so far all the evidence stacks up against you.

Anthorn

innovate wrote: »

It makes no difference if corruption and deception appears in a co-operative or public company. It's corruption and deception, and equally disgusting and criminal. Perhaps a little more disgusting when it happens in a co-operative where people are lulled into some sort of community-spirit that only exists in the marketing hype that, sadly, most of the members of the co-operative fall for.

You may not see any corruption, megalomania and hypocracy. I do, and it seems the media do, too. Of course we might both be wrong, but my money is on us being right. Unless you prove us wrong. Tough job for you because so far all the evidence stacks up against you.

But again I ask where is your evidence?

I'm wasting my time because all you can see is the diversion you're supposed to see.

Lastly, if there is an inquiry which is doubtful my money is on the results being published just before the 2015 general election.

Over and out

innovate

Anthorn wrote: »

But again I ask where is your evidence?

I'm wasting my time because all you can see is the diversion you're supposed to see.
)

There is by now plenty of evidence of deception, corruption, incompetence, drug-dealing, mis-claiming of expenses etc. If you cannot see it, please provide evidence that none of the above occurred.

Also, what diversion am I supposed to see?

Edit: even the Reverend Flowers himself now admitted to most of the above, so why are you still trying to defend him, and the organisation he used to represent?

ColdIron

Anthorn wrote: »

There has been no corruption, megalomania nor hypocracy (sic)

You don't think indulging in hard drugs and using rent boys whilst being an ordained minister is not just a tad hypocritical? It seems the church takes a different view

I feel that working for the Lifeline project, which works in the field of drug abuse, whilst abusing class A drugs himself qualifies for gross hypocrisy by any yardstick you care to use

And during all this he sits in a senior position in a organisation that purports to be an ethical bank and works to a higher moral code than its competitors

This goes beyond mere hypocrisy, it stinks

If I was a Co-operative customer because I believed in their noble purpose I would run a mile until they can prove their actions match their words

Anthorn

innovate wrote: »

There is by now plenty of evidence of deception, corruption, incompetence, drug-dealing, mis-claiming of expenses etc. If you cannot see it, please provide evidence that none of the above occurred.

Also, what diversion am I supposed to see?

Edit: even the Reverend Flowers himself now admitted to most of the above, so why are you still trying to defend him, and the organisation he used to represent?

I'm not defending Rev. Flowers I'm seeing it for what it is which is one person hung out to dry and used as a scapegoat. For example was the board of the bank a one man band or conversely was Rev. Flowers the only board member? If not what about the other board members? Did they not have a hand in making decisions and the exchange of information?

What is being concentrated on in relation to the failure of the bank is not the actions taken at the bank but the personal affairs of one person!