Thursday, February 26, 2009


Yesterday Lord Adair Turner told a committee of MPs that Brown and Balls told the FSA to lay off The City. Brown and other Bilderbergers are now using the resulting financial crisis as a reason to call for world government.

Today the FT is reporting on Turner's appearance but is for some reason NOT reporting Turner's extraordinary allegation against Brown and Balls.


Is it because a few months ago Brown's fellow Bilderberger Gideon Rachman at the FT called for world government, citing the very financial crisis that Brown and Balls engineered?

Is it because Rachman's boss at the FT, Martin Wolf, is also a regular Bilderberger?

Are the two protecting Brown and Balls?



UK banks to face tougher rules

By Jennifer Hughes

Published: February 25 2009 20:21 | Last updated: February 25 2009 23:00

A “revolution” in financial regulation was promised by the head of the City watchdog on Wednesday as he outlined a series of tougher rules for banks and hedge funds.

Adair Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, told MPs that the light-touch approach of his predecessors had been “mistaken” and pledged to quell the “animal sprits” of bankers.

Lord Turner told a hearing of the Treasury select committee that tougher measures would include requiring banks to hold up to three times as much capital against their trading assets. In addition, there would be far more probing tests of whether senior bankers were “fit and proper” for their jobs.

He also warned that hedge funds “sufficiently bank-like in their scale” should have bank-style rules on capital and liquidity applied to them.

The comments come less than a month before of the release of a wide-ranging review headed by the FSA chairman of how the UK should overhaul its financial regulation in light of the crisis.

The review is also expected to lead to an overhaul of regulations on the structure of pay for bankers, credit derivatives and capital requirements for banks.

The language of Lord Turner, who became chairman of the FSA in September, was the strongest renunciation of the regulator’s past practices yet uttered by a senior official of the body. Asked about its previous supervision of HBOS, the mortgage giant forced into a merger with Lloyd’s last month, he said: “I think it was a competent execution of a philosophy of regulation that was, in retrospect, mistaken.”

Before the current crisis prompted a deep rethink of regulation, FSA staff had not considered whether banks’ business models were sufficiently robust because the watchdog had left that to industry and did not consider that its job, he said.

“You might find that surprising,” he said, before adding that pressure for the previous so-called “light-touch” low-cost regulation had come from politicians as well as from the financial industry.

Asked several times whether the FSA was fit for purpose, Lord Turner refused to answer directly. He said: “We are in the process of putting in place necessary changes.”

However, Hector Sants, chief executive of the regulator, told MPs he “completely rejected” the idea that the FSA was not fit for purpose and said the regulator was already “fundamentally different” from what it was 18 months ago, when the crisis really began.

Lord Turner said the crisis had to be viewed in the light of a “fundamental intellectual failure” around the world of regulators, politicians and economists. Asked whether he would have made the same mistakes had he joined the regulator earlier than September last year, he said: “I fear I would have.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

Wednesday, February 25, 2009


So it was Gordon Brown and Ed Balls(?) who told the FSA to lay off The City.

Ed Balls was at Bilderberg in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 and was Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury.

He knows.

Get Balls in the dock immediately.

Bilderberg want world government. Brown and other Bilderbergers now use the current financial crisis, which we now know Brown and possibly Balls engineered, to claim we need a world government to stop this kind of global crisis happening again. It is definitely a case of problem-reaction-solution.

Want a world government? Engineer a world war and when the people are slaughtered and unable to resist, implement some world governing organizations.

Want a world government? Engineer a financial crisis and claim we need some more world governing organizations to stop it happening again.

Want a world government? Engineer a panic over something global, e.g. the climate, and implement yet more global governing organizations to interfere with everyone's lives.

Want a world government? Suggest that all the aforementioned global organizations would work better if they were all joined together and functioning as a bona fide world government.

Brown is overtly working towards this, betraying not only us but his own children to the monsters who engineered WW1, WW2 and the Holocaust.


Gordon Brown helped fuel Britain's banking crisis by pressuring City watchdogs into 'light-touch regulation', MPs were told today.

In damning evidence to the Treasury select committee, Financial Services Authority chairman Lord Turner said there was clear 'political' pressure not to question the business models of banks such as Northern Rock, HBOS and Bradford and Bingley.

The phrase 'light-touch regulation' was one often used by Mr Brown when chancellor and his then City minister Ed Balls.

Monday, February 23, 2009


I don't understand it. I just don't understand why nothing I submit to The Times is posted.

In response to Ken Macdonald's comment in The Times today I submitted a comment in response asking why The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 Fraud by Abuse of Position cannot be applied and for further details to see this blog. Guess what? IT HAS NOT BEEN POSTED! Just like 100% of everything else I have tried to post on The Times.

Maybe there is something in applying The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 "they" don't want Macdonald to understand...

Not to worry. I'll write to Macdonald directly.



Give us laws that the City will respect and fear
Mug some one in the street and you go to prison, but mug their savings and you can buy a yacht. It's a disgrace to justice
Ken Macdonald

Our system for regulating markets and for prosecuting market crime is completely broken. If you mug someone in the street and you are caught, the chances are that you will go to prison. In recent years mugging someone out of their savings or their pension would probably earn you a yacht.

How did we get here? Well, financial deregulation undoubtedly released great energy and wealth into the markets and did so in part by giving bankers and financiers more space. But this space had another effect. It created a growing distance between wealthy and powerful individuals and the agencies designed to police their behaviour.

Not sensing the danger in this, our two main political parties supported looser regulation over many years. Now, apparently tainted by past misjudgments, they are deeply compromised in trying to find solutions. Yet put simply the scale of failure is laid bare by one inevitable consequence clear for all to see: too many people and too many institutions function as though they are beyond the reach of the criminal law.

In Britain we had an additional burden: legislators who preferred criminal justice to be an auction of fake toughness, so long as the toughness was not too tough to design. So no one likes terrorists? Let's bring in lots of terror laws, the tougher the better. Let's lock up nasty people longer, and for longer before they are charged. Let's stop medieval clerics winding up the tabloids. Let's stop off-colour comedians outraging homophobic preachers. Let's pretend that outlawing offensiveness makes the world less offensive.

This frequently made useful headlines. But it didn't make our country or any other country a better or safer place to live. It didn't respect our way of life. It brought us the War on Terror and it didn't make it any easier for us to progress into the future with comfort and security.

Our legislators faltered because they seemed to ignore the fact that what makes good politics doesn't always make good policy. And they didn't want to tackle the more complex issues that really affect safety in people's lives. It was easier to throw increasingly illiberal sound bites at a shadowy and fearsome enemy.

In Britain, no one has any confidence that fraud in the banks will be prosecuted as crime. But it is absolutely critical to public confidence that it should be. If there was fraud in RBS or in any of the other failed banking institutions, if there was fraudulent misselling or corruption or any other criminal activity, it needs to be uncovered and dealt with. The alternative is the worst possible lesson for our national life.

Do people believe this will happen? No, they don't - and that is a damning and corrosive conclusion, encouraging deep cynicism towards our national institutions. For all the fashionable talk of rebalancing criminal justice in favour of victims, for all the talk of community engagement and targeting offenders, this is the acid test.

Forget the paranoiac paraphernalia of national databases, identity cards and all the other liberty-sapping addictions of the Home Office. Forget the rhetoric and do something useful. If the Government really wants to protect people beyond armoured-vest posturing, here is the opportunity.

We need a new financial regulatory and law enforcement authority that inspires respect and, when it's needed, fear. Financiers will say that this would inhibit entrepreneurship. But regulation and law enforcement exist for a reason beyond the fear that they might inspire, and they are not inconsistent with free markets.

On the contrary, as an important aspect of the rule of law, they support enterprise. They exist to create an environment in which people can make decisions, go about their lives and do business confident in the knowledge that what they legally hold will not be stolen from them. This is the basis of all law and it is shockingly absent from our financial markets.

So we need a single powerful authority to take the place of the failed Financial Services Authority and the embattled Serious Fraud Office. Independent and strong, it should have responsibility for both regulation and prosecution. It should take an informed, expert view of what activity to regulate - and what to prosecute through the criminal courts. And when it prosecutes it must do the job properly. It needs a reputation that says regulation must be respected and that, with the right evidence and scrupulously fair trials, prosecution means long years in prison. It is an absolute failure of public policy that we have no means of reassuring the public that this is at present the case for finance crime.

And that's where legislators come back in. How seriously do they really take financial wrongdoing?

Do they understand the wreckage it brings? How much money will they put into uncovering it? How long do they think the sentences should be?

Do they really believe that an illiterate mother-of-five drug mule from a village in The Gambia should be serving five times the sentence of a millionaire City fraudster?

Let's have fewer terrorism acts, fewer laws attacking our right to speak frankly and freely. Let's stop filling our prisons with junkies, inadequates and the mentally damaged. How apposite in 2009 to have, instead, a few more laws to confront the clever people who have done their best to steal our economy.

Sir Ken Macdonald, QC, is a member of Matrix Chambers and was Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-08

Saturday, February 21, 2009


It's funny, isn't it, when George Galloway and a convoy of aid for Gaza are stopped and arrested for terrorism and news and pictures of the arrest are all over the media, but a few days later they are quietly released without charge?

It's funny, isn't it, when Mohammed al Fayed finally, after ten years, gets an inquest into his son's death (which also examines the death of Diana), but as soon as the Coroner rules out the possibility of murder (even after one witness swears he saw a motorcyclist attend the crash, the passenger get off to examine the crash, make a sign and then speed off) al Fayed is accused of sexual assault of a 15 year old girl but months later the charges are quietly dropped after a lazy, unprofessional and lacklustre investigation?

It's funny, isn't it?

Thursday, February 19, 2009


The Office of National Statistics is predicting that the bailout of the banks could cost as mush as £1.5 trillion pounds (just like I knew it would).

Somebody must investigate this!

Somebody must go to jail under the Fraud Act 2006 Section 4, Fraud by Abuse of Position!

Just think of all the things that we could do with £1.5 trillion instead of paying off someones reckless and inconsiderate gambling debts.



Bank bail-out 'could send national debt soaring by £1.5 trillion'

• 'Terrible' tax returns for January
• Government likely to miss borrowing target
• Public net debt hits record 47.8% of GDP - set to rise to 100%

Julia Kollewe
Thursday 19 February 2009 11.30 GMT

The government's rescue of some of Britain's biggest banks will push up the national debt by as much as £1.5 trillion, the Office for National Statistics announced this morning.

Alongside a grim assessment of the state of the public finances – which suggests Alistair Darling's borrowing forecasts are much too optimistic – the ONS said that Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland should be treated as public companies, as they were now partly under the control of the state.

The ONS said it would take time to assess exactly how much damage its decision would do to public sector net debt, but estimated that it would push it up by £1tn-£1.5tn. The upper estimate is twice the current national debt, and equivalent to about 100% of GDP.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009


Because nobody else is doing so I am starting this new blog relating to The Citizens Pecora Commission, the intention of which is to act as a depository for information on how and why we just bailed out a cabal of selfish warmongering megalomaniacs with trillions of pounds and dollars. It may take a while for information to be returned so don't expect anything soon. I have no powers of subpoena, just an inquisitive mind.


Boxer worked his arse off, worked himself into an early grave, always believing his masters were right and had his well-being in mind when the orders to work were given out.

One beautiful summer day Boxer collapsed from exhaustion, and was told he was going to a very good hospital to recover his strength to continue the good work. But in fact his masters had sold him to the local horse slaughterer. The animals arrived just in time to read the lettering on the van that took him away to be slaughtered, and the word 'slaughterer' worried the animals very much.

The animal leadership explained that the vet had only just bought the van from the local horse slaughterer and had not had time to repaint the van, hence the word 'slaughterer' on the van.

The animals accepted this explanation.

A few days later it was reported that Boxer had died.

You see, the animals didn't think. They, like Boxer, thought Napoleon was always right. They didn't, and could never, believe that Napoleon could be corrupt.

They believed that Gordon Brown was always right.


Sure, enjoy life. Party on, dance, laugh and sing.

But when you have Presidents of the USA stating the following,

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.",

then it's time to stop, look and listen...and think!

The ex-chief of MI5 Stella Rimmington is all over most broadsheets today because she believes the threat from terrorism is being used to implement a police state.

But did that terrorism just appear?

Or was it engineered? Provoked? Perhaps both?

My website The Conspiracy Explained proposes that Israel was engineered into existence to provoke global Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism and WW3 to benefit the United Kingdom, or to be more precise to benefit the ruling class in the United Kingdom. One piece of evidence is the nick name for London, Londonistan, due to its location as the HQ and sanctuary of many Islamic terrorist organisations.

Why would we allow such terrorists to remain here for years?

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

Sunday, February 15, 2009


What a fantastic phrase that is, from Dad's Army, Lance Corporal Jones.

They can't abide the cold steel, sir! no, sir! They don't like it up 'em.


It looks like someone has the ammo to prove that Gordon Brown is guilty of engineering the current financial crisis, one that he and his Bilderberg buddies are using more and more often to claim that "global problems require global solutions".

Because that's what it's all about; world government.

That's what our grandfathers and great grandfathers fought and died for in WW1; their world government in the form of The League of Nations and the Bank for International Settlements.

That's what our fathers and grandfathers fought and died for in WW2; their world government in the form of The United Nations, the World Bank, and to provoke the third and final world war, bloody Israel.

I would advise Mr Moore to hastily make many copies of his documents and hand them to a few lawyers for safe keeping, and to also take a little more care. His evidence, if it is what he claims, could expose, or lead to the exposing of, a few facts that would prove that the whole banking and regulatory network have been engaged in a conspiracy to fcuk the unsuspecting British taxpaying public, which would ultimately support my legal argument that the vast majority of loans and mortgages from British banks are null and void due to sections 3,4 and 5 of the FSMA 2000 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.



Blame Brown: Revenge of the whistleblower

A former HBOS executive says he has documents that prove the Prime Minister must take responsibility for the mess in the markets

By Margareta Pagano and Jane Merrick

Sunday, 15 February 2009

The HBOS whistleblower whose revelations led to the resignation of one of the Government's top regulators is about to release a tranche of documents which he says point a direct and accusatory finger at Gordon Brown's responsibility for the banking crisis, and has called on the Prime Minister to resign. In a further blow to Labour, an Independent on Sunday poll showed voter support for the party evaporating, leaving it only a few points ahead of the Lib Dems.

Paul Moore, the former head of risk at HBOS, told the IoS that he has more than 30 potentially incendiary documents which he will send to MPs on the Treasury Select Committee. He says they disprove Mr Brown's claim about the reasons for HBOS's catastrophic losses – now estimated to be nearly £11bn – and show that it was the reckless lending culture, easy credit and failed regulation of the Brown years that led directly to the implosion of British banks.

After Mr Moore's explosive testimony at the MPs' banking hearing, the Prime Minister had denied the former executive's central charges and said that HBOS's difficulties were due to its flawed business model. Mr Moore says his documents refute this and prove the cause of the crisis can be laid at Gordon Brown's feet. He believes Mr Brown's failure to intervene over the reckless lending undertaken by all the banks over the past decade means he should go. "The failure goes right to the heart of the system – to the internal supervisory system and right to the top of government."

Mr Moore told the IoS yesterday: "Brown must go. He cannot remain in office. He has presided over the biggest boom in the history of the country as well as one of the biggest busts. But he promised no more boom and bust. He must be held accountable for his failure to oversee the stability of the country.

"Brown presided over a policy based on excessive consumer spending based on excessive consumer credit based on massively increasing property prices, which were caused by excessively easy credit which could only ultimately lead to disaster. But no, in Gordon's mind it was all caused by global events beyond his and anyone else's control."

Mr Moore's evidence to the Treasure Select Committee last week led to the resignation from the Financial Services Authority (FSA), the City regulator, of the ex-HBOS chief executive Sir James Crosby, who dismissed Mr Moore from the bank after his warnings. In an exclusive interview with the IoS, Mr Moore revealed his documents contain all the evidence to support allegations he made to the HBOS board, which have been strongly denied by the bank and KPMG, the auditors brought in to investigate Mr Moore's claims. Yesterday, Mr Moore said his documents will "put to bed the idea that the KPMG report can be relied upon by Mr Brown, Sir James, the FSA and any other of the HBOS directors on the board at the time".

He says the papers – which he has kept from his time in his post as head of risk, from 2002 to 2005 – show that HBOS was involved in a huge sales drive to win market share which ultimately led to its collapse. Mr Moore claims that the "driven sales culture" was led by Sir James, and this, plus the "staggering failure" of the Government to manage the economy, had forced him to speak out. "Brown swaggers around holding himself out as the economic saviour of the world with a level of hubris that defies belief. But does he ever acknowledge that it was he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, who presided functionally over the economic strategy that got us into this mess in the first place?"

As a trained barrister, Mr Moore stressed that his new evidence being sent to the committee will back up his claims. "I have compiled a meticulous record of my time at the bank. This will show that the version of events given by KPMG, which was brought in to carry out an audit of my claims, is inaccurate," he said. "Key witnesses were not included in the original audit and there are many factual errors. I will only be vindicated when all my allegations are proved by the evidence I have."

Mr Moore also attacks Mr Brown's judgement in appointing Sir James as his key adviser on the mortgage market, whom he blames for HBOS's high-octane sales culture. He says: "What I would like to ask the PM is this. If you are going to appoint the deputy chairman of the FSA, and former HBOS boss as your adviser, don't you think you should take references? Wouldn't you ask for references of the FSA? If you had got those references, they would have showed that there were serious concerns raised by the FSA over the business model."

The revelations come after a stunning week of developments in the banking sector, with HBOS – taken over by Lloyds TSB last autumn in a move prompted by Mr Brown's intervention – proving to have lost £11bn. Eric Daniels, the Lloyds chief executive, said £800m in profit had been annihilated by HBOS's losses. This is about £5bn more than City investors had been expecting and has renewed fears that the Government will have to nationalise the newly created Lloyds Banking Group. But senior sources said it could weather the storm. The Chancellor, Alistair Darling, has refused to rule out a full nationalisation.

Meanwhile, the IoS/ComRes poll finds that the controversy over bonuses has rebounded badly. Mr Brown, who has for several months enjoyed a polls boost because of the way voters view his handling of the financial crisis, is back at 25 per cent, the lowest since last September, before the banking crisis. The Lib Dems are the main beneficiaries, rising to 22 per cent, and the gap between the two parties is now at its narrowest since 1987 when support for the SDP/Liberal Alliance was at a high. The poll also reveals a backlash against bankers' bonuses, with 82 per cent of those asked calling for the bosses of bailed-out banks to repay their bonuses.

Regulatory failure: How the Prime Minister smoothed the way for 'disastrous' HBOS takeover

Surrounded by some of the City's most senior figures at a party on the day of the collapse of Lehman Brothers last September, Gordon Brown held a conversation with Sir Victor Blank, the chairman of Lloyds TSB. As champagne was nervously downed against the backdrop of a banking system on the brink, the Prime Minister, who never drinks at such events, facilitated Lloyds's takeover of the collapsing HBOS by agreeing to waive competition rules.

Details of the conversation at the Citigroup reception were widely briefed the next day, with Mr Brown apparently happy to let it be known he had helped rescue HBOS by smoothing the waters for the takeover.

The Prime Minister's role in the takeover, and his other swift responses early on in the banking crisis, marked the beginning of his resurgence. Five months on, with Britain in a deep recession, and Lloyds Banking Group shaken by the £10bn HBOS loss, Mr Brown's word in the ear of Sir Victor is viewed in a very different light. Critics say his eagerness to see the deal completed now looks reckless, and has fuelled suspicions that Lloyds bosses had their "arms twisted", in the words of the Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, Vince Cable.

HBOS whistleblower Paul Moore is not the only one to argue that Mr Brown's contribution to the crisis goes back much further. As Chancellor, he presided over a weakened banking regulation structure – of his own design, in defiance of strong expert dissent at the time – and excessive consumer credit, critics say.

Mr Moore is backed up by Lord Burns, Mr Brown's first permanent secretary to the Treasury in 1997. Giving evidence to a committee of peers last week, Lord Burns gave a damning assessment of the tripartite arrangement of the Bank of England, the Treasury and the FSA introduced by the then Chancellor, arguing that the three were not joined-up, allowing reckless banking to go unchecked.

Lord Burns told the Lords Economic Affairs Committee: "The new system had been set up on the basis of a Treasury instinct that the Bank of England was always too ready to rescue banks. Much of the arrangements were designed to make it just a little more difficult for the Bank to get involved in this."

Mr Brown's role is also under the spotlight because of the resignation of his close ally Sir James Crosby as deputy chairman of the FSA last week, following claims by Mr Moore that Sir James ignored his warnings about HBOS.

Critics said yesterday that Mr Brown had to take "huge responsibility" for the crisis at Lloyds and elsewhere. Former Tory Chancellor Lord Lamont said: "What has happened with Lloyds TSB/HBOS is truly scandalous.

"The Government encouraged the merger, the Prime Minister personally claimed the credit for it and the Government – despite many warnings – suspended the competition rules so that the merger could happen. The result has been nothing short of a disaster."

Jane Merrick

Friday, February 13, 2009


Only now, after the City of London has fcukt us good and proper, does the FSA, the watchdog the City finances to regulate the activities of the City, ask for more money from the City in order to employ more personnel and to pay them salaries equivalent to those found in the City.

In case you still have not understood how the City is 'regulated', here's how it works. This watchdog called the FSA, the brain child of Gordon Brown, is supposed to regulate the City of London, but the FSA is financed by the very City of London it is supposed to regulate! Hence the City of London controls the quality and quantity of personnel at the watchdog that is supposed to regulate its activities. Yes, I know! It is ludicrous, bizarre, mental, etc. But hey! Who would believe we allow a bunch of selfish warmongering megalomaniacs the power to create all our money?!

And this FSA, according to the FSMA 200, is supposed to tell you how the financial system works. Has it? Absolutley not! It is conspiring with the City to keep you uneducated so that the City can fcuk us all good and proper, just like it has done to the tune of approaching £1 trillion. This request for more money from the City is evidence that the FSA and the City have been in bed together since before the FSA was created, other wise why would the City have allowed the FSA to be created in the first place?

Note that ex-banker Hector Sants, now Chief Executive at the FSA, says that more money is required to fund the new approach to "intrusive and directive" supervision of the City.

Why now, when it's way too late?

Why not before, years ago?

Why not from day 1 of operation of the FSA?

Did the City ever say to the FSA, "look ,we think you need more personnel and of a higher quality to investigate us, so here, take this, it's another couple of mil, and you'll get that extra every year from now on. And if you stop us from fcuking the British taxpayer we'll throw in a holiday in the Bahamas or Maldives or wherever you want to go. OK?"

And how many times did the FSA request more money from the City for that purpose, and what was the response?



City watchdog sets aside £10m for staff pay rises
Comments (5)

* Jill Treanor
*, Thursday 12 February 2009 14.56 GMT
* Article history

Regulators at the Financial Services Authority are in line for pay rises totalling up to £10m as part of a concerted effort by the City watchdog to attract and retain the highest calibre of staff.

Hector Sants, chief executive of the FSA, said its board had agreed to the extra funds to make the salaries comparable to those on offer in the City. Firms the FSA regulates face steep rises in the amount they will pay to be supervised.

The regulator, which is funded by the 25,000 companies it oversees, wants to raise £437.7m in the year to 31 March 2010, a 36.5% rise. Most of the increase will be borne by the biggest financial companies. The big high street banks could see the fees they pay double from £10m or so, while London-based investment banks would face rises of between 60% and 70%.

Sants defended the move to extract more money from the cash-strapped financial sector: "We have been sharing these numbers quite widely with industry prior to publication, and we believe we have the strong support of the larger groups," he said.

The extra funds were needed to enforce the FSA's new approach to "intrusive and directive" supervision, he added.

Sants was speaking today after the FSA had tried to defend its second most senior regulator, Sir James Crosby, who was forced to resign yesterday in the face of allegations made by a whistleblower.

In an attempt to demonstrate that Paul Moore had only sounded alarm bells when he knew his own job was under threat, the FSA last night revealed that it had been concerned about the risks being taken by HBOS since 2002.

Moore's allegation that he had been sacked by the former HBOS chief executive because he had warned the bank was "going too fast" was enough to force Crosby's resignation, despite his protestations that the claim was unfounded.

Moore had been head of regulatory risk at HBOS between 2002 and 2005, and eventually received "substantial" damages after his departure.

The FSA tried to stake the sting out of his allegations by giving an insight in to the workings of the regulatory system. It published an unusually high level of detail about its risk assessments – known in the City as ARROW reports – dating back as far as 2002.

It also revealed that on 29 June 2006 – a month before Crosby left the bank – it had written to HBOS to warn "the growth strategy of the group posed risks to the whole group and that these risks must be managed and mitigated".

Sants insisted today that such remarks were not usual and only a "snapshot" into what was going at any single firm.

The details also showed that Moore had only raised the alarm in 2004 – two years after the FSA had begun demanding changes at HBOS – when he may have believed his job was at risk.

The regulator had been talking to the lender about its "risk management environment" and believed the bank was making good progress after commissioning a detailed investigation by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The "skilled persons report" by PwC in 2003 showed changes were needed.

One of the measures HBOS was putting in place was a root-and-branch revamp of its risk control team, which included a review of Moore's role. The bank eventually turned the job into a more senior position, appointing insider Jo Dawson as group risk director.

Moore believed the appointment of Dawson would weaken the control function rather than strengthen it, pointing out that she had little experience.

The FSA commissioned KPMG to look into his allegations. The accountants concluded he lost his job because of personality clashes, saying that one of the reasons for his departure was his "relationship with key stakeholders".

Wednesday, February 11, 2009


Consider this fictional scenario of a group of MPs questioning a group of bankers about a fictional financial crisis.
How the world works.

MP1 : what is your name?
Banker : Sir Tom McKillop
MP2 : are you sorry for what has happened?
McKillop : Yes, but I have loadsamoney so I’ll be OK.
MP3 : do you think we know what we are talking about today?
McKillop : No, that is why I have attended because I know you know nothing and will ask questions of little relevance or insight.
MP4 : but you do think we MPs look and sound like we are clever and giving you the grilling you deserve?
McKillop: Yes.

So that’s how the world works.
Here’s how the world should work.

MP1 : what is your name?
Banker : Sir Tom McKillop
MP1: did you attend the Bilderberg meeting last year?
McKillop : Yes.
MP2 : Was the financial crash discussed there, and if so what was said about it and by whom?
McKillop : I am not at liberty to divulge such information.
MP2: Why not?
McKillop : because I will probably die in an accident or be ‘suicided’.
MP3 : You realise that we, the people, have given you a tremendous, possibly God-like, power to create money for the economy?
McKillop : Yes.
MP3 : How did you use that power?
McKillop : We created money for the economy.
MP4 : How? How did you create the money? And for whom?
McKillop : First we encouraged lending with low interest rates and got our friends in the BBC to show lots of home improvement and relocation programmes to encourage people to increase the values in their homes and put them up for sale in order to buy more expensive homes. This gave us loads of debt instruments based on those mortgages and we sold them to raise cash to fund gambling in derivatives, which has obviously failed.
MP2: were you asked or told to do this by somebody?
McKillop : I am not at liberty to divulge that information.
MP2: Why not?
McKillop : because I will probably die in an accident or be ‘suicided’.
MP1 : So you accept that you have a tremendous responsibility because you create money for our economy that we all depend on for our jobs and homes?
McKillop : Yes.
MP3 : So why should you not be prosecuted under The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4?
McKillop : because what I did was not fraud.
MP1 : How?
McKillop : we, and by we I mean ALL banks, were simply trying to make money.
MP2: So you think that risking the stability of the whole economy, whole global economy, is acceptable so that you and your organisation can make loads of money?
McKillop : absolutely.
MP3 : What is a bank?
McKillop : a bank is a money creating machine.
MP4 : Can you expand on that answer?
McKillop : Yes. The majority of people believe that a bank is simply a depository of funds and that we lend out deposits as loans and mortgages from those deposits alone, and pay interest and earn our high salaries from this. This is not quite the whole truth. A bank can issue loans and mortgages many times the quantity on deposit. Thus a bank creates money. But it cannot create money for itself. It needs to generate demand. So we encouraged a property boom. The more demand, the more money we created, so that eventually we had loaned out FIVE times the quantity we had on deposit.
MP1 : did you tell anyone about this?
McKillop : The Bank of England knew about this a few years ago.
MP2 : What about the FSA?
McKillop : We had no legal obligation to do so. It is up to the FSA to find out about it, and as we fund the FSA we have a certain degree of control over it, and the quality of person it employs. Our main man is Hector Sants. They weren’t going to do much. We have too much power.
MP3 : What do you mean by that?
McKillop : Look what’s happened. We banks have blown the money we should have used to grow the British economy on gambling, we lost, and you’ve bailed us out with hundreds of billions of pounds! You go down to your local casino and lose £100 on betting red when it lands on black and ask the government to pay your debts. See what kind of answer you’ll get.
MP1 : So you would compare what you have done to gambling? If so, are gambling laws applicable to banking?
McKillop : It depends on what branch of banking you are looking at.
MP3 : Let’s go back to this “it was not fraud” claim. Now you claimed that what you had done was not fraud and that therefore you could not be charged under The Fraud Act 2006 Section 4 Fraud by Abuse of Position. May I quote what that section states:
4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act
against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his
conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

Now forgive me, but to me it is bleedin’ obvious that you satisfied point 4 (1) (a), because as banks you have the responsibility to safeguard the whole British economy and the well being of the British people, not just the bank accounts of yourselves, you satisfied point 4 (1) (b) because you dishonestly abused that position because although you did not tell anyone of your plan you must have known that taking such a risk had huge implications if it went wrong and you did not consult regulatory bodies to check that such a plan was acceptable, and regarding points 4 (1) (c) (i) and (ii) you intended to make a huge gain for yourself and your organisation in the full knowledge that if it all went wrong the losses incurred on the British taxpayer would be huge, in terms of job losses and resulting homelessness, and possibly with the full knowledge that you would be bailed out and safe because you are fully aware of your privileged position.
What would you say to that?
McKillop : [silence]
MP1 : What is your answer to that, Sir Tom McKillop?
McKillop : [silence]

Monday, February 09, 2009


Vice-President Joe Biden apparently extended his hand of friendship to Russia and Iran. Do not be fooled by this apparent reset.

According to the CFR website Biden is a self-described Zionist, and his and Obama's silence on Israel's genocide in Gaza while condemning the Mumbai bombings says a lot.

Biden is still convinced that Russia, not Georgia, started last August's war, and has promised tie-muncher much support. Tie-muncher said of Biden, "Vice-President Biden is our and my old friend,".

So beware of Biden. White man speak with forked tongue. Just remember Holbrooke, another rabid anti-Russian, is running the relationship with Russia over the tinder box of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Give 'em a chance by all means, but I believe there is a strong possibility that apparent friendship is being shown so that when unacceptable terms are proposed by the USA and rejected by Russia and Iran then the USA and Israel can turn to their people, shrug their shoulders and say, "well we tried, they didn't want to know, let's have a great big lovely war".


It really is that simple.

It is a cover-up of some sort.

It's an inquiry into why some bankers deserve bonuses, but not really addressing the real questions that need to be asked, such as where has all the money and credit gone and why. If we're lucky one or two might get asked in the process, and I look forward to seeing Bilderberger Sir Tom McKillop effectively in the dock for a few hours. But I have little faith in the inquiry.

Saturday, February 07, 2009


1. using the power of citizens arrest to drag suspects into police stations for questioning. We know who the suspects are. If you want to arrest a banker cite the Fraud Act 2006 Section 4, Fraud By Abuse of Position. It's bleedin' obvious they have abused their powerful position of creating money for the economy and blown it on gambling.

2. establishing a citizens Pecora commission to investigate the financial crisis and laundering of drug money. If our governments are not going to investigate (fearing what would be uncovered) then we as citizens have a duty to establish our own commission. It need not meet every day and question witnesses in the dock (though that would be brilliant). But at the least requests for interviews and letters with deep questions should be sent and responses collected in a central depository, published on a website for all to see.

Friday, February 06, 2009


At least Jeremy Clarkson apologised.

Brown has done no such thing for not seeing the current financial crisis coming, despite occupying the two most privileged positions in government. Instead Brown has bailed out the banks, who instead of issuing credit to develop a growing and stable economy decided instead to blow all the credit they could issue as fast as possible, regardless of repayment probability, in order to feed the derivatives monster, and they lost. Now we're all doomed to decades of even more debt, which I confidently state will be in the trillions of pounds sterling while hundreds of thousands of families will lose their jobs and homes through no fault of their own.

Meanwhile Brown is using the financial crisis, like war criminal and rent-a-ranter extraordinaire Henry Kissinger, to call for world government, the publicly stated aim of those he mingled with at Bilderberg 1991.

Purleaze don't tell me there isn't a conspiracy to create a world government. The calls for such will come thick and fast now. They'll soon all be crawling out from underneath the rotting pieces of wood they live under, crying "world government! world government!".


I cannot believe that Jeremy Clarkson has the flaming cheek to mock our glorious Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Brown has been trying his hardest to work for the best interests of the elite of society.

He mingled with the richest of them at Bilderberg 1991.

He then became Chancellor in 1997 and for ten years failed to see the unpayable debt bubble and the increase in gambling in the form of derivatives by the banks.

He then sold off tonnes of our gold at rock bottom prices to decrease the price of gold in order to support the gold conspiracy identified by Reginald Howe.

He then supported the invasion of Iraq which was supposed to give Iraqi oil to the Iraqis but instead Iraqi oil has been awarded to the very people he mingled with at Bilderberg 1991.

He then bailed out the gambling banks with hundreds of billions of pounds of our money withhout any investigation into how the crisis occured (but such an investigation could raise the complicity of Brown himself).

The wealth gap increased between rich and poor under Brown.

So Clarkson. Leave our glorious Prime Minister alone!

I wil not stand for people to mock or criticise our Fuhrer.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009


Robert Kagan in The Bilderberg Washington Post today pleads that the massive increase in spending on the US military since 9/11, thanks very much indeed to the new Pearl Harbor he and others prayed for, is not reduced by the new Obama administration. Apparently a 10% cut in his budget is being requested of Robert Gates as Defense Secretary. This has outraged Kagan and his ilk, and obviously the current owners of The Bilderberg Washington Post, because they have been pushing the PNAC agenda set out in Rebuilding America's Defenses for multiple, simultaneous wars across the globe, in concert with the A Clean Break agenda, in order to initiate WW3. Rebuilding America's Defenses was written by Donald Kagan, founder of PNAC and father of Robert, and published when Robert was Director of PNAC.



No Time To Cut Defense

By Robert Kagan
Tuesday, February 3, 2009; Page A15

Pentagon officials have leaked word that the Office of Management and Budget has ordered a 10 percent cut in defense spending for the coming fiscal year, giving Defense Secretary Robert Gates a substantially smaller budget than he requested. Here are five reasons President Obama should side with Gates over the green-eyeshade boys.

[TTS: 1. war, 2. war, 3. imperialism, 4. a resulting tyrannical fascist world government, and not forgetting 5., even more war (NB in points 1,2, and 5 Kagan and his ilk will be thousands of miles away from the front line enjoying life with their families and kids in their comfortable homes)].