Should I leave the Co-Op Bank?

Thrugelmir

Anthorn wrote: »

The rest of my original post is a question of degrees: In 2008 the government pumped billions upon billions into several failed banks and then proceeded to pump billions upon billions into the economy the failure of which was caused by those same banks.

The Government of the day must be taken to task for their light touch regulation. Bankers were welcome guests at both no 10 and no 11. The FSA was populated with the architects of the GFC. Poachers became game keepers. Most of the dirty business was conducted in London by the global banks.

Brown loved the banks as they funded his public spending plans. So when the boom went bust. New Labours economic policies were shown to be a mirage. The two Ed's lack credibility themselves in this regard.

innovate

Anthorn wrote: »

. 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?

!

Exactly. You are beginning to ask the right questions. They were all party to not spotting their huge debt for 4 years. At a minimum, this is utter incompetence. But it might well be deception and/or corruption.

At least Len Wardle has immediately taken action and resigned. Mind you, he has just stopped turning up, he hasn't stopped taking any of his £145K salary. I take it this is another ethical practice.

jimjames

datostar wrote: »

It's the Co-operative Group, not the Bank, that gives the bungs to the Labour Party.

I really don't see the issue with this. I saw it raked up in the Daily Mail and it seemed like one of their usual rants.

The Co-op group is part of the co-operative movement which follows/followed the same principles as the Labour party. Surely being a member of the Co-op you sign up to that and can't really complain when your profits help support an allied organisation.

Anthorn

innovate wrote: »

Exactly. You are beginning to ask the right questions. They were all party to not spotting their huge debt for 4 years. At a minimum, this is utter incompetence. But it might well be deception and/or corruption.

At least Len Wardle has immediately taken action and resigned. Mind you, he has just stopped turning up, he hasn't stopped taking any of his £145K salary. I take it this is another ethical practice.

Standard business practice really and it all depends on his contract. In the industry I previously worked in we would sack electronics engineers and require them to leave immediately but still pay them their month's notice required in their contract. Much the same applied to resignations.

Thrugelmir

jimjames wrote: »

The Co-op group is part of the co-operative movement which follows/followed the same principles as the Labour party. Surely being a member of the Co-op you sign up to that and can't really complain when your profits help support an allied organisation.

There's more to this story though I suspect. Much in the same way that Fred the Shred played Brown. Flowers has used Ed Balls. Only difference appears to be that Fred was a Tory at heart! So wasn't interested in politics merely growing RBS into the biggest bank in the world.

innovate

Anthorn wrote: »

Standard business practice really and it all depends on his contract. In the industry I previously worked in we would sack electronics engineers and require them to leave immediately but still pay them their month's notice required in their contract. Much the same applied to resignations.

You are basically confirming what I have always thought - that whole "mutual" and "ethical" spiel is just that, a smoke and mirrors marketing hype sort of thing, roping people in under false pretences. In reality, there is no fundamental difference between them and the rest of the industry, as you rightly say.

Anthorn

ColdIron wrote: »

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

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the bank or the events at the bank. It's personal to Rev. Flowers.

What is happening is that the real issues are being masked and we are being spoon fed propaganda that the Rev. Flowers was responsible for all the ills at the bank because he was a drug-taking user of !!!!!! and rent boys. That's ridiculous because as I explained in a previous post the board at the bank was not a one-man band.

When that propaganda fades we are fed another carrot and those carrots are being fed to us almost daily. Even The Co-operative Group threw a carrot in demanding a return of money from Rev. Flowers. I read somewhere that for the media it's a gift that keeps on giving.

But what about the board of the bank, it's owner Co-operative Group, the regulatory authority, the government? What influence did they have over the bank? Why is it that no-one knew the state of the bank until Lloyds and the regulator almost miraculously found it during the Project Verde fiasco?

There are answers we need but we are not getting them because no-one with the power to ask the questions is asking them. All we are left with is Rev. Flowers and even the Select Committee is pointing the finger at him!

Yes, it does stink doesn't it.

innovate

Government orders independent inquiry:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25059633

I bet a fair few people are quivering in their boots now.

ColdIron

Anthorn wrote: »

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

And yet you assert the rather bizarre suggestion that

He's an unfortunate person who is being subjected to a hatchet job by government and media.

This comes pretty close to any common definition of defense that I can think of

I see that he has been arrested in connection with an "an ongoing drug supply investigation" or in plainer terms, pushing drugs. Is it your contention that now the police are colluding with the government and media to subject this unfortunate person to a hatchet job rather than being motivated by upholding the law?

You seem to think that this is all propaganda despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you would do well to acquaint yourself with the principle of Occam's razor


Now ethical banking doesn't float my boat but fiduciary competence does and there has plainly been a deficit of this at the Co-op in recent years so I will not be beating a path to their door

For those to whom ethical banking is important, I notice that elsewhere someone posted a message about Charity Bank. I know nothing about them beyond what they say on their website but they are regulated by the FCA and are a member of the FSCS so may be worth a look

1jim

Charity bank don't do current accounts for personal customers, more of a savings account type of place if that's what your looking for