Martins Joned the scare-mongers camp

agent_orange_2

Just watching Martin on itv at the moment. He's allowed himself to join the scare-mongers camp on the safety of bank accounts.

Fella

Totally disagree. I thought he asked a sensible question that needed to be asked. And now we have (TV evidence) of what action the Govt would take.

Hats off to him IMO.

RayWolfe

Makes for journalism at its very worst. Why comment on the compensation scheme as if there were a MAJOR problem, and then say in the small print at the end, well actually there's no problem. He could have said that at the outset but it might have spoilt the program.

MSE_Martin

RayWolfe wrote: »

Makes for journalism at its very worst. Why comment on the compensation scheme as if there were a MAJOR problem, and then say in the small print at the end, well actually there's no problem. He could have said that at the outset but it might have spoilt the program.

Thanks for those notes Ray...

Actually as you may not have realised we did the interview with Yvette Cooper late last night - having had a request in for three weeks. The Treasury contacted us just before the programme went to bed today and we hastily changed the ending as there had been NO conclusion from the interview.

I certainly do not believe I was scaremongering.

This was a programme about how its 'unlikely' any bank would collapse but to take sensible precautions.

The initial commentary said "and the shocking discovery that the fund mightn't have enough money to pay out" this is TRUE - it doesn't. And then we added "and the governments response."

The fact is I am very proud of the journalism here, both the discovery and that by doing the programme we've now gained confirmation that the governement will back up the scheme - something that didnt exist in the past.

If you consider that poor journalism - that's very well. I consider this is a responsible programme that explained a complex subject, wiht balance terms, deliberately reassured people that any event was unlikely and that people should protect themselves. The FSCS lack of funds was a true worry, and to have resolution was great. A programme like this is filmed over a month and in edit for five days - to be able to turn it around at all to get the Treasury confirmation in was due to the dedication of the team.

Martin

NikkiP_2

I didnt see the programme but what I would say is check out the institution you are saving with. Ask them for their Financial Accounts.
If you wanted to borrow from the bank they ask for your Accounts. They are borrowing from you so ask to see their Accounts. Quite simple really.

Fella

NikkiP wrote: »

I didnt see the programme but what I would say is check out the institution you are saving with. Ask them for their Financial Accounts.
If you wanted to borrow from the bank they ask for your Accounts. They are borrowing from you so ask to see their Accounts. Quite simple really.

No it's not. Bear Stearns were audited as being OK about 5 seconds before they went to the wall.

Fella

RayWolfe wrote: »

Makes for journalism at its very worst. Why comment on the compensation scheme as if there were a MAJOR problem, and then say in the small print at the end, well actually there's no problem. He could have said that at the outset but it might have spoilt the program.

I really don't get where you're coming from here.

It wasn't said "in the small print". It was said exactly the way the rest of the show was said.

The Govt spokesperson was CLEARLY stumbling over what would happen in the event that a top 25 institution went bust & any idiot can see that that's the reason the Govt followed up with a second statement.

I have no reason to kiss Martin's a** but like I say, hat's off to him. I for one have wondered about exactly this topic & now I'm better informed.

Riq

That bloke from America with the Bear Stearns shouting, I loved him. He was in Iron Man and I thought he was made up. I'm glad I watched just for that!!


I dislike the Tonight programme with a massive passion and was expecting the usual scaremongering. It wasn't that bad and I was happy that it was stressed the chances a bank collapsing are miniscule.

Although my mum is in a panic at the moment hastily researching numerous savings accounts to move her and my dad's money around. :rolleyes: So Tonight hasn't quite lost it's sensationalism roots.

Steve_xx

The content of the program was advisory and balanced. It served well the purpose of highlighting the fact that the FSCS is inadequately funded and that if a small UK bank was to fail then it would not be able to properly cope with the demands that might be placed upon the scheme. The subtext of all of this was in the governments hasty last minute response which half indicated that the government would reluctantly be prepared to bail out any depositors caught up in any run on the FSCS. This rather nifty piece of governmental assurance is obviously due to the unease with which it regards any uncertainty surrounding the banks at this time.

Fella

And another huge point which hasn't even been emphasized yet, is that the Government's response here is tacit admittance that the whole FSCS is a sham. In fact the guarantee is nothing to do with the FSCS itself - but rather with the fact that if an institution goes bust the Govt will wade in rather than face the fallout.

That is a huge admission IMO.

agent_orange_2

I just hate the way tv news/current affairs programmes seek out the most sensationalist angle they possibly can. When this forum asked if anyone wanted to appear (I'm guessing this was the programme), I suggested, anyone wanting to appear should state that they can't sleep with their lights off and that their paraplegic, blind grandmother was now keeping her life savings under the matress.
It's similar to wearing a large hat at a televised cricket match - it'll get you on the tv