Court case latest

[Cyberman]

.. and of course we must not forget the run caused by HMG which subtracted about 12 Billion from the amount of liquidity and thus added to the loan from HMG that the Rock required. Was it deliberate in order to force a cheap nationalisation with the assistance of Peston and the BBC ?

http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/0...over-bbc-leak/

[Ardesco]

I don't see what a speed camera case has to do with Northern Rock. Speed cameras throughout Europe are used as a stealth tax, so I am not really surprised at somebody losing a case.
Northern Rock is a straightforward case of HMG stealing assets which have a high value and trying to deprive shareholders of their worth to float later and make billions. That's a totally different moral issue.

It wasn't about speeding, the case was based around the fact that after a speeding offence you are not legally allowed to have the right to silence in this country. If you try to use your right to silence you are fined £1000 and given 3 points on your licence. The only option is to put in a guilty plea and get a £60 pound fine and 3 points on your licence.

Look through the actual transcript and you will see that the way the law has been implemented for speeding is wanton disregard for your rights which is acknowledged by the courts, but ignored anyway.

Just think what sort of mess we would be in if this mentality was applied to other cases, like your for example, or how about for more serious criminal activities. It changes the basic assumption from innocent until proven guilty, to guilty until proven innocent which is a big shift in the wrong direction.

It started with speeding offences, but where will it end.....

[OwlHoot]

and we must never forget that all this Northern Crock business blew up, and was made much worse than it might have been if adequately handled, because at the time Brown was dithering about whether to call an election and had his eye off the ball. As usual, he was obsessing over party politics and self-interest, to the exclusion of all else.

-- "Mr Brown, you do talk about politics a lot!"
HMQ

[ASB]

HMG have always implemented the decisions of the ECOHR as far as I am aware. There was also an asylum seeker case that they lost. Can you give an example a case that HMG lost and refused to implement ?

Nope, because there aren't any (though the french are vey good at dragging their heels and only implementing when the EU start to get heavy). The result of us not doing so would ultimately be withdrawl from the EU.

The point, however, was that the you said decisions had to be implemented. That is simply not true. We have to choose to implement them. There is (currently) absolutely no mechanism by which the EU can force any member state to implement anything.

I agree that we will implement them - because the stake will become too high for us not too - but that is not quite the same thing.

[tim123]

Tim123, I did read but your assertions are incorrect and I am not going to waste more of my time. You don't accept that there is a liquidity crisis that is affecting all banks so there is no point arguing with you.

That is incorrect.

Of course the lack of funds affects all Banks. But it affects them differently, which is the point that I was trying to make, that you are not listening to.

However, on another level, it HAS caused them all to lose 90% of their value in the past three months.

What is it exactly, that leads you to expect that NR would still be worth 100% of its September (was it, I CBA to check) value, if HMG hadn't bailed it out?

tim

[tim123]

Really no way he should have lost, but the ECHR decided to side with the UK government rather than open a can of worms that would tie up the UK courts for years and cost the government billions of pounds in paid back fines.

That is coblers.

They sided with HMG because the law specifically allows minor breaches of human rights where the wider benefit to society are more important (though obviously written in EU Legal gobbledygook.

The courts just decide that both parts of this test had been met. As they had previously decide on EXACTLY the same issue when a different national had asked the same question. The surprising thing here is that they even bothered to hear the case, not the way that they rulled.

tim

[Cyberman]

Government had already secretely made a high valuation of the Rock !!!! Thieving gits !!!

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle5515655.ece

[Cyberman]

'Northern Rock was secretly given a “substantial” valuation by the Government while shareholders received nothing in compensation when it was nationalised, the High Court was told yesterday.

Documents obtained under disclosure rules, which cannot be published, show that the Government knew that it was obtaining a “valuable asset”, Lord Pannick, QC, for SRM Global, the bank’s biggest investor, said.

The figures also showed how much the Government expected to make from the sale of the bank on the market once economic conditions improved, he said.

Northern Rock, he added, was “a solvent company with valuable assets facing short-term liquidity problems”.

That was “precisely the reason that the Government was so confident that it would be able in the medium term to sell the asset it had acquired back to the market for a very substantial sum of money”, he said. '





So evidence of this attempted theft of a valuable asset from shareholders is documented. Well done !!!!!!!

[Cyberman]

Read all about the major events during the court case from the UK share holders association.

http://www.uksa.org.uk/Demonstrations.htm

[BrilloPad]

Read all about the major events during the court case from the UK share holders association.

http://www.uksa.org.uk/Demonstrations.htm

NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT ASK WHAT THE VERDICT MIGHT BE IN DUE COURSE. ALL WE CAN ADVISE IS THAT THE LAWYERS AND COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANTS APPEARED TO DO AN EXCELLENT JOB IN REPRESENTING THE CLAIMANTS CASE.

what a bunch of creeps!