Next recession, trade wars, up to 50% portfolio losses

ANGLICANPAT

slapmatt wrote: »

I don't think Neil Mitchell is a particularly reliable source of unbiased information about RBS.

https://www.ft.com/content/ecc6d949-1832-389f-b04d-00333bdb890f

Thats a year old - the position appears to have moved on considerably . Time will tell I suppose, how serious or not it has become.

Malthusian

JohnRo wrote: »

Honestly, the same applies to views at ten..

The News at Ten is run by public sector officials in a democracy who have a remit to be independent of the state, and to take a balanced view. We all know their idea of what is a balanced view is a little skewed. But it still makes them very different from an outfit whose objective is to proclaim the glory of the Putin regime, whose only concern is to preserve the wealth he and his cronies stole from the Russian people during the chaos of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

If I read in Russia Today that the sky was blue I'd want verification from an independent source.

The idea that there is a scandal afoot in RBS' corporate restructuring department is true. Everyone has known that for years (everyone who took an interest). The idea that this is something we should specifically be concerned about right now comes from the Kremlin, and should be viewed as b******s until proven otherwise.

dividendhero

IanManc wrote: »

RT's job, and the reason that the Russian government fund it so heavily, is to undermine the West.

I don't see it that way, the wealth of Russia's elite is held in the West - they don't want to foul their own nest

A_T

dividendhero wrote: »

I don't see it that way, the wealth of Russia's elite is held in the West - they don't want to foul their own nest

They send their money west but it all comes from their oil at home. Trying to shape the governments of the West is what they're all about. The money is safe.

Glen_Clark

Malthusian wrote: »

The News at Ten is run by public sector officials in a democracy

Democracy?
When did we elect the Head of State and Hangers On, or the absurdly over-populated House of Lords? (bigger than the whole of the EU Parliament for 27 countries)
- both of which have power of veto over the 'democratically elected' who are held up by bribes to buy DUP votes.
An unbiased media would give at least equal coverage to the campaign for an elected Head of State, as it gives to Royal Births and Weddings etc.

eskbanker

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Democracy?
When did we elect the Head of State and Hangers On, or the absurdly over-populated House of Lords? (bigger than the whole of the EU Parliament for 27 countries)
- both of which have power of veto over the 'democratically elected' who are held up by bribes to buy DUP votes.
An unbiased media would give at least equal coverage to the campaign for an elected Head of State, as it gives to Royal Births and Weddings etc.

When did the head of state last exercise a power of veto over anything?

eskbanker

IanManc wrote: »

When Queen Anne refused Royal Assent to the Scottish Militia Bill on 11 March 1708.

....but was that accurately reported on that evening's News at Ten?

Malthusian

Glen_Clark wrote: »

An unbiased media would give at least equal coverage to the campaign for an elected Head of State, as it gives to Royal Births and Weddings etc.

Ooh, that's a tough one. Do we broadcast footage of a royal wedding with parades, flags, pomp, circumstance and a celebration of national unity and shared history, or do we broadcast interviews with tedious shrivelled-up pub bores who spend their free time smugly correcting anyone who refers to 'British citizens' ("don't you know you're a subject?") while wearing "Blair for President" T-shirts.

Reaper

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Democracy?
When did we elect the Head of State and Hangers On, or the absurdly over-populated House of Lords? (bigger than the whole of the EU Parliament for 27 countries)
- both of which have power of veto over the 'democratically elected' who are held up by bribes to buy DUP votes.

I have a soft spot for the House of Lords. Its members don't have to pander to public opinion and party whips have limited control over the members because they tend not to have any political ambitions that can be manipulated. As a result they can look objectively at daft legislation pushed through the Commons and point out the flaws.

Although you say they have a power of veto they do not. They can only delay bills for between 1 month and 1 year, and some types not at all.

Personally I would like to see it have more power to act as a break on stupid, ill thought out measures governments push though to jump on the latest band wagon, but sadly there is no prospect of that happening.

Glen_Clark

eskbanker wrote: »

When did the head of state last exercise a power of veto over anything?

The fact Her Unelected Majesty & Hangers On, and her staff are always exempted from inconvenient legislation like the, Employment Protection Act etc suggest she does use it But we don't really know much about they because they are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act too, and refuse to give interviews or answer unscripted questions. We only know what gets past her spin doctors.
We have not one page of written constitution, they make it up to suit themselves as they go along.
All we have is an unwritten understanding she won't use her power as long as everything keeps going her way.
This is what they call Democracy.