Stonewall, Cardinal O'Brien and free speech

Wikipedia, a reasonable enough source,  defines bigotry as

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".^[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.

Stonewall, the 'charity' that promotes homosexual causes has awarded Cardinal Kieth O'Brien, the head of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland, the title of 'Bigot of the year'.

This is presumably because Cardinal O'Brien openly and strongly opposes the UK government and Scottish parliament changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. 

Among the senior public figure opponents of these proposals, Cardinal O'Brien is probably a safe bet.  He isn't going to be issuing any fatwas, after all, as some other opponents might.  Plus, by displaying their own intolerance of any opinion that differs from their own,  Stonewall still manage to keep the issue on the 'front page'.

One has to wonder at what point Stonewall will consider they have achieved their aims?  When everyone is homosexual - surely not - don't they proclaim it is all about choice?  So someone can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual - right?  However, to pass any comment about homosexuality is somehow bigotry?

Read the definition again.  Where or when has Cardinal O'Brien ever spoken hatred against homosexuals?  Yes, Catholics consider homosexuality a sin and yes Cardinal O'Brien can be expected to speak out against it, just like he does against poverty etc..  However, in my experience Catholic teaching condemns the sin and not the sinner - so, I would suggest that it is the act of of homosexuality which is against Church teaching and that the homosexual person is not the target.

I would go further, when reading the definition and consider that the actions of Stonewall constitute bigotry since they are;

obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;

and, in Stonewall's case are religiously motivated.  Or perhaps that is anti-religiously motivated.

Ruth Davidson, the homosexual leader of Scotland's Conservatives won Stonewalls Politician of the year award at the same time.  If she has a shred of decency, she should immediately decline this in the strongest possible terms.  Being associated with bigots cannot ever be right.

Barclays Bank are considering their sponsorship of Stonewall.  Considering?  What's to consider?  Surely they can see that their donations are being used to fund bigotry?

Coutts Bank are also considering their position- last time I looked, Coutts were owned by the majority sate-owned bank RBS - yet another example of the elite using taxpayers money to promote their agendas.

Incidentally, aren't charities supposed to refrain from politics?   Don't expect too much of a backlash though, minorities somehow have a completely dis-proportionate grip on the levers of power and the political agenda in the UK.

RBS, LIBOR and the Public Interest

Think about the LIBOR issue for a moment.

I believe we all know or strongly suspect that Barclays were not alone.  That there is a strong likelihood that other major banks, such as RBS and Lloyds were also manipulating their LIBOR data submissions.

So let's posit that these two were.

Would it be in the public interest to issue fines against them?   Given the level of taxpayer ownership, the bulk of any fines would be tantamount to the taxpayer transferring money from one trouser pocket to another!  Of course on the way though, some or much would be lost due to fees from our noble (?) legal brethren!

Indeed, to go further, since publishing such fines and censure then leads to share price falls, is there maybe a case for doing nothing, in the public interest,  at the Corporate level?  Of course seeing share price activity in recent days, maybe the negative implications have already been 'priced in'?

I don't suggest that the authorities let the individuals concerned, get away with any criminal activity, quite the contrary, I would like to see them imprisoned - not fined, imprisoned - though with the Serious Fraud Office (mis) handling the case, the likelihood has to be low!


Any thoughts on this?


Incidentally, listening to Bob Diamond's light toasting in front of the Treasury Select Committee, the other day (simply appalling service on BBC TV World News, with constant 'talking head' interruptions to give us statements of the obvious!),two things came to the fore, for me.

One, Barclays seemed to be always on the high side and it was suggested that they were advised/told or somehow or other encouraged to lower their rates.

Secondly, the method of deciding LIBOR seems to be to take the submissions from the 17 banks,  and then eliminate the 3-4 lowest and 3-4 highest and then find the rate amongst the middle.

So in both cases the actions of Barclays (and it's traders) , while possibly criminal (mis-representation and conspiracy etc)  has either had no effect or any effect was to reduce the potential cost of borrowing for anyone.  Have I got that right?

 Oh! and still no resignations from Labour or apologies for their complicity in this issue.  This all happened on their watch - loose or invisible regulatory institutions, nods and winks approach to economic (mis) management and Gordon - no more boom and bust - Brown telling us all how he saved the world's financial system! 

Fixing LIBOR - Surely a crime?

I can't work out if the fixing of LIBOR by Barclays and others has had any real impact on the actual cost of borrowing at the retail level, for you and I.  I suspect little or no real effect but no doubt the 'ambulance chasers' sorry, class action lawyers, will get to the bottom of that (and claim their large fees)

What does bother me though, is the lack of actual police action. 

It seems that the 'regulatory authorities' (that wasn't a joke, I will try to slip one in later) on both sides of the Atlantic, have managed to find sufficient evidence to force Barclays to cough-up $450 million in fines.  I can't imagine that this was done unless there was compelling evidence.  No bank willingly pays that sort of money unless they are truly in a corner.

So....

Why no criminal charges?

Surely fraud has been committed (but please, please, let's not get the incompetent SFO involved, please).  Also a conspiracy to defraud?  Assuming someone lost out on this fixing, that would suggest theft as well.

I don't count myself among those bank bashers or people that negatively harp on about banker's bonuses but for the sake of our society and the only known effectivesystem of business (the capitalist one) none of us can allow such behaviour to go unpunished. 

The criminal people carrying out these actions are the same people who would be screaming from the roof-top that last summer's rioters  or welfare cheats should be locked up but they really think the law doesn't apply to them.  Where are the Bank of England and other financial institution leaders in all of this?  Why are they not clamouring for a house cleaning and criminal charges?  Surely they must realise that failure to speak out, says volumes about where there moral compass is set.    Same applies to politicians. 

I am not talking about any kind of public inquiry, we need criminal charges to be brought - dawn raids, doors smashed in, these criminals 'banged-up' with no bail.  Such crooks need to be embarrassed and shamed in front of family and friends.  By all means alert the press - local and national - for maximum effect!

Right now, the clear message, as far as financial fraud is concerned is - do it and don't get caught, but if you do get caught, you can use part of your criminally achieved gains to make the problem go away and, just for good measure, we will get the shareholders of the company (who might actually be taxpayer-owners) to foot the bill.  Doing time?  Sorry that is so not for us, it's not as if we are common thieves!

Oh!  Bob Diamond - of course he should go.  As should the chairman of Barclays.  How can there be any question.  Same should apply for any other banks that are found to have been partaking.  Those activist shareholders and financial institutions MUST demand this on behalf of the pension fund investors that they represent.  To do otherwise gives a nod and a wink to the criminals that operate, seemingly with impunity.  I don't suggest that Diamond committed any criminal act but such acts seem to have taken place while he was in charge.  Anyone with a shred of honour or integrity would have already resigned. 

Just for good measure and as a boost to the economy - pass a law, with retro-active effect, such that these fines, say any imposed since the start of this fiscal year, should not be allowed to be offset against corporate taxes, in fat go one better and dis-allow such fines by a factor of 2 - so a fine of £290 million means that Barclays costs are raised by a further £290 million and its taxable profits by a further £580 million.

Since it seems the police aren't acting, it is up to you to do so:

• If you are a shareholder in Barclays, send a letter to the board and demand Diamond's resignation and that of the chairman.
• Otherwise write to your pension company and demand they take action. 
• Don't forget to also write to your MP.  This isn't a party political issue.  This is about criminality and decency.  No party has the monopoly on this!
• Write to your local council and ask them to divest from Barclays until appropriate action is taken.

Private sector pay

We are just entering the period when financial institutions declare their 2011 corporate earnings and in many cases the 'bonus pool' that will be shared among their employees.

Following the bail-out of RBS, Lloyds and HBOS, the retail and investment banks now fall into two camps.  Part state-owned (see earlier) and those others institutions such as HSBC, Barclays JP Morgan, CitiCorp and Goldman Sachs, which received zero bail-out funding from the UK government  - we will call these latter type - private institutions.

We can expect lots of the usual froth from commentators about 'excessive' bank bonuses and how the 'government ought to do something about it'.

So what can the government do?

Well in the case of the part state-owned RBS, Lloyds and HBOS, they can use the shareholdings, that they hold on behalf of the UK people, to limit the amounts of payouts.  These could be limited to those that are required to meet contractual obligations - some people have bonuses built into their contracts of employment and if they meet certain targets, then legally, these must be paid - and they can then limit other payouts to zero or to certain pay grades etc., however, they and the other shareholders see fit.

In the case of the private institutions, it is really none of the business of government to interfere in how the shareholders (otherwise known as owners) spend the income of their company.

If the government wants to affect such private sector bonus payouts, it could do so through the tax system (as I have proposed, on an earlier blog) but it cannot and should not dictate to private companies on the remuneration that they give to any of their workers.

If the government wants to set the tone around pay restraint, then maybe they should concentrate on the areas which are within its span of control................

So, set a cap on the pay of anyone employed by a public organisation.  So local authority executives, civil servants, military chiefs, ministers, BBC executives, etc.  My suggestion would be around  £100,000 per year.  Many private sector companies have re-organisations and require personnel to re-apply for their role, so do the same with all of the above - get them to re-apply for their job but at a reduced rate of maximum £100,000.  Oh, and let's make the maximum include taxpayer contributions to pension funds.

That might start to sound a little more like 'we are all in this together' in action!