Good riddance to the feckers I say

RossFixxxed · 04-07-2013 03:57PM

I ..... don't ............................................................ know

......................................................................

why

............................................................
there's so many

...................................................................... dots

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 03:59PM

RossFixxxed wrote: »

I ..... don't ............................................................ know

......................................................................

why

............................................................
there's so many

...................................................................... dots

Cos they're (dots that is)...... lovely.

I am pie · 04-07-2013 03:59PM

RossFixxxed wrote: »

I ..... don't ............................................................ know

......................................................................

why

............................................................
there's so many

...................................................................... dots

He´s bleedin' angry Joe, angry.......
....
...
..
..
.......
...
..angry.

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 04:20PM

I am pie wrote: »

He´s bleedin' angry Joe, angry.......
....
...
..
..
.......
...
..angry.

............ and comma's,,,,,,,,, they're quite nice too.....

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 04:22PM

BUT....... it.... still..... is...... the.... case......that....... more..... than.... just...... senior...... execs..... at......the banks..... were...... involved...... in...... sharp....... practice.......FACT !

steddyeddy · 04-07-2013 05:04PM

lkionm wrote: »

Pop quiz, what is a credit default swap or sub prime market.
How does a bank create money?
What is the IS/LM model?

So you call my argument about alcohol stupid, but surely any sane person should have borrowed only as much as they could afford?
A bit similiar to how you should only drink as much as you can handle.

What about the people who banked with Ulster bank, you know they were the only bank to give students an interest free overdraft. Fair enough, this is my only experience of banking with Ulster bank and for collecting bags of change for work which they didnt charge me any service charge even though they were supposed to charge 5 euro.

I'm not one to jump to any assumptions but there is no way you are an adult? What I mean is, you sound like an 18 year old rambling on the side of the street trying to make a difference but the man keeps getting you down.

Apologies if you are not and are a fully functional human being.

I don't agree with the OP's shameful joy but I think that the banks have a huge role in deciding whether someone can pay back a loan or not.

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 05:49PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't agree with the OP's shameful joy but I think that the banks have a huge role in deciding whether someone can pay back a loan or not.

No 'shameful joy' from me..... anything but on this subject.

All I am saying is that, whilst it is senior bank executives i.e. at CEO level and similar, who are the real enemy (for want of a better expression)..... they could not have done it all on their own....... that there had to be an army of compliant and obedient subordinates who also 'did their bit', were aware that in some areas things were not right, and did not ask any questions..... therefore complicit.

There is no question that this is the case...... quite simply those senior 'boyos' could not have managed it all on their own.

I don't state this with any sense of pleasure or 'shameful' joy'..... I simply state what is a fact.

I am pie · 04-07-2013 06:59PM

AnOrdinaryJoe wrote: »

No 'shameful joy' from me..... anything but on this subject.

All I am saying is that, whilst it is senior bank executives i.e. at CEO level and similar, who are the real enemy (for want of a better expression)..... they could not have done it all on their own....... that there had to be an army of compliant and obedient subordinates who also 'did their bit', were aware that in some areas things were not right, and did not ask any questions..... therefore complicit.

There is no question that this is the case...... quite simply those senior 'boyos' could not have managed it all on their own.

I don't state this with any sense of pleasure or 'shameful' joy'..... I simply state what is a fact.

I suggest you whip your dictionary out again Joe, look up the definition of fact Joe, don't think you have it nailed Joe.

lkionm · 04-07-2013 08:37PM

AnOrdinaryJoe wrote: »

No 'shameful joy' from me..... anything but on this subject.

All I am saying is that, whilst it is senior bank executives i.e. at CEO level and similar, who are the real enemy (for want of a better expression)..... they could not have done it all on their own....... that there had to be an army of compliant and obedient subordinates who also 'did their bit', were aware that in some areas things were not right, and did not ask any questions..... therefore complicit.

There is no question that this is the case...... quite simply those senior 'boyos' could not have managed it all on their own.

I don't state this with any sense of pleasure or 'shameful' joy'..... I simply state what is a fact.

You know when you invert things in commas, it means the opposite.

You have no proof that mary down at the bank knows any of this, because she dosent.

Its not a conspiracy, if you think it is go to the conspiracy forum and you will see how factual your 'facts' are.

Same with any other relevant forum with any other query you have.

Most of them were just following company policy as do most of us do every day. Just like how I cant go around telling my co workers they are gowls and have really saggy boobs for a 23 year old. If we dont want to follow this policy set down in our contract, we leave.

I'm sure you have followed some sort of policy before?

What you are trying to get across is what has been covered a million times before. It was a handful of people who did any of this activity. The people underneath them were probably more often than not oblvious to any of it.

Also if they knew anything illegal was happening and that came to the surface and allowed it happen, then they would be complicit and could be charged.

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 08:54PM

I am pie wrote: »

I suggest you whip your dictionary out again Joe, look up the definition of fact Joe, don't think you have it nailed Joe.

'..... they could not have done it all on their own....... that there had to be an army of compliant and obedient subordinates who also 'did their bit', were aware that in some areas things were not right, and did not ask any questions..... therefore complicit.' FACT !

I am pie · 04-07-2013 08:56PM

AnOrdinaryJoe wrote: »

'..... they could not have done it all on their own....... that there had to be an army of compliant and obedient subordinates who also 'did their bit', were aware that in some areas things were not right, and did not ask any questions..... therefore complicit.' FACT !

Had to be Joe, it's fact Joe...i say it is, so it is Joe.

*Click*

Joe?...are you still there Joe?

Careful not to hyperventilate too much.

lkionm · 04-07-2013 08:57PM

AnOrdinaryJoe wrote: »

'..... they could not have done it all on their own....... that there had to be an army of compliant and obedient subordinates who also 'did their bit', were aware that in some areas things were not right, and did not ask any questions..... therefore complicit.' FACT !

Just because you put FACT in capital letters dosent mean it to be fact.

Your posts are the most coherent and trustworthy on the whole internet. FACT.

lkionm · 04-07-2013 08:58PM

I am pie wrote: »

Had to be Joe, it's fact Joe...i say it is, so it is Joe.

*Click*

Joe?...are you still there Joe?

Careful not to hyperventilate too much.

I heard they get coffee for free thus putting coffee shops out of business.

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 09:02PM

lkionm wrote: »

You know when you invert things in commas, it means the opposite.

You have no proof that mary down at the bank knows any of this, because she dosent.

Its not a conspiracy, if you think it is go to the conspiracy forum and you will see how factual your 'facts' are.

Same with any other relevant forum with any other query you have.

Most of them were just following company policy as do most of us do every day. Just like how I cant go around telling my co workers they are gowls and have really saggy boobs for a 23 year old. If we dont want to follow this policy set down in our contract, we leave.

I'm sure you have followed some sort of policy before?

What you are trying to get across is what has been covered a million times before. It was a handful of people who did any of this activity. The people underneath them were probably more often than not oblvious to any of it.

Also if they knew anything illegal was happening and that came to the surface and allowed it happen, then they would be complicit and could be charged.

It was not 'a handful who did any of this activity'.... it may have been a small number of people at senior level who made the big decisions regarding corporate policy and the like....... but it was more than just them uns who did things that were sharp practice in nature, and who assisted in the cheating of fellow (non bank employee) citizens, etc.

I'll say it again..... the minority who make the big decisions did not, could not have done it all on their own and without an army of compliant subserviant subordinate co-conspirators.

Maybe some Mary's didn't know...... but some Mary's sure as hell did know.

It's not pretty.... but it's factual.

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 09:04PM

lkionm wrote: »

Just because you put FACT in capital letters dosent mean it to be fact.

Your posts are the most coherent and trustworthy on the whole internet. FACT.

And likewise when someone puts FACT in capital letters it doesn't mean that it isn't FACT.

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 09:11PM

lkionm wrote: »

Also if they knew anything illegal was happening and that came to the surface and allowed it happen, then they would be complicit and could be charged.

Now we're getting somewhere.

You probably have a point lkionm....... better to keep stum and say nothing even though it may be acknowledged what is going on i.e. the cheating, the fraud, etc.

Wouldn't want anyone to suggest complicity now would we ?

The paycheck in some cases having no conscience and all that.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 04-07-2013 09:18PM

AnOrdinaryJoe wrote: »

And likewise when someone puts FACT in capital letters it doesn't mean that it isn't FACT.

Well perhaps Joe you might get your facts correct first, for instance regarding your opening post RBS are NOT the bank that was found to be behind the LIBOR scandal, that was Barclays and UBS both of which were hit by huge fines.
As for the 1,800 individuals who may be about to lose their jobs I, like most sensible people who are not blinded by ignorance and bitterness, have the greatest of sympathy for them in what must be a very worrying time.

lkionm · 04-07-2013 09:24PM

Joe, your posts are delusional.

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 09:28PM

I anticipate lkionm and I am Pie that you will probably have an issue with this comparison..... I think it's valid so what the f**k !

Whilst Jimmy Savile and his BBC buddies were f**king under age children, colleagues were aware that things weren't right, that some colleagues were doing wrong things.

Some reported the bad things (and were either ignored or told to stop telling lies)...... meanwhile the under age kiddie f**king continued.

Some didn't report the bad things, they simply ignored what was going on..... taking a 'none of my business, see no evil, hear no evil' attitude.

I take it those employees, by taking the stance they did, in your worlds, were not complicit ?

And same in other areas i.e. kiddie fiddling priests, etc, where others were aware of same but said nothing in case they were regarded to have been complicit.

Of course bank officials/employees/whatever title you wish to give them were not f**king under age kids or similar (none that I'm aware of anyway)........ but some of them were ****ing their fellow citizens etc over and taking the monthly pay cheque without any conscience.... just 'doing their job'.

You may wish to disagree, that's your perogative...... but you would be wrong..... a handful of banking senior execs all on their own could not have done everything on their own and without assistance from others.

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 09:30PM

Old and grey wrote: »

Well perhaps Joe you might get your facts correct first, for instance regarding your opening post RBS are NOT the bank that was found to be behind the LIBOR scandal, that was Barclays and UBS both of which were hit by huge fines.
As for the 1,800 individuals who may be about to lose their jobs I, like most sensible people who are not blinded by ignorance and bitterness, have the greatest of sympathy for them in what must be a very worrying time.

No Old and Grey, you should get your facts right.... RBS are one of the banks up to their tits in Libor fraud, PPI mis-selling and other sharp practices. Do your research please.

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 09:44PM

Old and grey wrote: »

Well perhaps Joe you might get your facts correct first, for instance regarding your opening post RBS are NOT the bank that was found to be behind the LIBOR scandal, that was Barclays and UBS both of which were hit by huge fines.
As for the 1,800 individuals who may be about to lose their jobs I, like most sensible people who are not blinded by ignorance and bitterness, have the greatest of sympathy for them in what must be a very worrying time.

BBC News

6 February 2013 Last updated at 15:50

Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) has been fined £390m ($610m) by UK and US authorities for its part in the Libor rate-fixing scandal.

The UK's Financial Services Authority issued a fine of £87.5m, while about £300m will be paid to US regulators and the US Department of Justice.

The fines are £100m greater than those issued to banking rival Barclays last year for similar offences.

RBS chairman Sir Philip Hampton said it was a "sad day" for the bank

A Dub in Glasgo · 04-07-2013 10:22PM

I can't believe I wasted 15 minutes of my life reading this shite, when will I ever learn?

I am pie · 04-07-2013 10:32PM

AnOrdinaryJoe wrote: »

I anticipate lkionm and I am Pie that you will probably have an issue with this comparison..... I think it's valid so what the f**k !

Whilst Jimmy Savile and his BBC buddies were f**king under age children, colleagues were aware that things weren't right, that some colleagues were doing wrong things.

Some reported the bad things (and were either ignored or told to stop telling lies)...... meanwhile the under age kiddie f**king continued.

Some didn't report the bad things, they simply ignored what was going on..... taking a 'none of my business, see no evil, hear no evil' attitude.

I take it those employees, by taking the stance they did, in your worlds, were not complicit ?

And same in other areas i.e. kiddie fiddling priests, etc, where others were aware of same but said nothing in case they were regarded to have been complicit.

Of course bank officials/employees/whatever title you wish to give them were not f**king under age kids or similar (none that I'm aware of anyway)........ but some of them were ****ing their fellow citizens etc over and taking the monthly pay cheque without any conscience.... just 'doing their job'.

You may wish to disagree, that's your perogative...... but you would be wrong..... a handful of banking senior execs all on their own could not have done everything on their own and without assistance from others.

Boring troll is boring now.

daithi1970 · 04-07-2013 10:50PM

AnOrdinaryJoe wrote: »

It is a fool who thinks that mass fraud and corruption is executed just by a small number at the top of the corporate or where applicable any other tree.

By the same token....

Only chief constables commit criminal acts within their respective police forces.

Only terrorist figureheads engage in acts of terrorism.

Only Hitler committed heinous WW2 nazi associated attrocities.

Only Pol Pot committed attrocities in Cambodia.

etc, etc, etc.

Now, before a few of you start ranting on about how inappropriate i.e. unconnected to the thread, this may be..... these are simply used as examples to illustrate, or to attempt to illustrate to some of you, how, whilst there may be recognised 'figureheads' in some areas, by your argument no-one else was involved or should be considered to be significant.

These people couldn't have done it all on their own........... they were assisted by people 'just doing their job'..... and probably 'nice people' who love their wives and their kids and do the whole living like a regular every day sort of guy or gal thing.

I haven't a f**king clue who any of them might be, neither could I provide proof that 'others' were involved........ but I think everyone knows that 'others were involved'.

Just a hunch.

FYP:)

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 11:01PM

I am pie wrote: »

Boring troll is boring now.[/QUOTE

IAP, you are an ass...... and you appear to deliberately go out of your way to miss the point, any point.

It is clear that bank employees other than CEO's and Chairmen and the like were involved, complicit, whatever....... those guys may be all sort of things but supermen they are not.

Evidently you have an interest in avoiding this, in not acknowledging this....... the question is why..... are you a bank employee, is your partner a bank employee and is the truth unpalatable.... embarrassing perhaps ?

It is not an argument for any party to take the view that yes, my employer may be corrupt, they may engage in major fraud and sharp practice, etc....... but they give me money so that's ok.

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 11:13PM

Old and grey wrote: »

Well perhaps Joe you might get your facts correct first, for instance regarding your opening post RBS are NOT the bank that was found to be behind the LIBOR scandal, that was Barclays and UBS both of which were hit by huge fines.
As for the 1,800 individuals who may be about to lose their jobs I, like most sensible people who are not blinded by ignorance and bitterness, have the greatest of sympathy for them in what must be a very worrying time.

More 'stuff' from t'internet Old and Grey....... therefore probably NOT FACT, and
somebody probably just putting stuff into the public domain which is a load of old bollox. Your research is probably much better, more relevant and generally more factual and accurate...... I would think.

Please feel free to come back and advise re the information I have gleaned from the generally inaccurate 't'internet and other sources is wrong and your comments are not.

OTTAWA | Fri May 31, 2013 10:46pm BST
(Reuters) - The Royal Bank of Scotland Group has agreed to hand over documents demanded by Canada in its probe into whether the bank was involved in a global interest rate-rigging scandal, Canada's Competition Bureau said on Friday.

The move marked a reversal for RBS, which had launched a legal challenge against the bureau's demand for internal documents. The Competition Bureau is trying to determine whether RBS and several other banks sought to manipulate the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor).

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 11:18PM

lkionm wrote: »

Joe, your posts are delusional.

And the basis for your comment /your argument is..... ?

Nemeses · 04-07-2013 11:28PM

AnOrdinaryJoe wrote: »

And the basis for your comment /your argument is..... ?

As I've told you.. your arguments are invalid.. see my previous post on when I quoted you on your own contradiction..

AnOrdinaryJoe · 04-07-2013 11:33PM

Nemeses wrote: »

As I've told you.. your arguments are invalid.. see my previous post on when I quoted you on your own contradiction..

Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzz

I am pie · 04-07-2013 11:33PM

AnOrdinaryJoe wrote: »

I am pie wrote: »

Boring troll is boring now.[/QUOTE

IAP, you are an ass...... and you appear to deliberately go out of your way to miss the point, any point.

It is clear that bank employees other than CEO's and Chairmen and the like were involved, complicit, whatever....... those guys may be all sort of things but supermen they are not.

Evidently you have an interest in avoiding this, in not acknowledging this....... the question is why..... are you a bank employee, is your partner a bank employee and is the truth unpalatable.... embarrassing perhaps ?

It is not an argument for any party to take the view that yes, my employer may be corrupt, they may engage in major fraud and sharp practice, etc....... but they give me money so that's ok.

Insults from you are received with glee, although you could be more creative.

To your questions, No & No.

Vent it away Joe, we are listening Joe. Keep at it Joe. Good man yerself Joe.

Good riddance to the feckers I say

Comments