Reply to: Court case latest

[Cyberman]

I don't really care what they use the Rock for now, and the Plaintiffs also said this in the court case. What we want is fair value for a profit-making company that had liquidity problems which every bank has had since. What HMG do to the Rock and how bad they try to make it look for political purposes, I am past caring about.
I will settle for 3 to 4 quid a share and HMG can continue to foul-up the entire national debt etc to their hearts content.
I will certainly not be a major taxpayer bailing them out in the future because I will be drawing my comfortable pension. I just feel so sorry for the children and taxpayers of the future. Never before has so much damage been done by one government.

[BrilloPad]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...t-lending.html

Government will use Northern Rock to boost lending

The plan would come alongside the creation of a state-owned "bad bank which will house the major lenders' toxic assets. The Government will also unveil plans to implement Sir James Crosby's proposal to guarantee new loans to homebuyers and businesses.

When the Government nationalised Northern Rock in February last year it imposed strict limitations on the new lending of the Newcastle-based lender so it did not fall foul of the European Union's rules on state aid. Capping Northern Rock's lending also meant it could make large repayments on the £27bn the Government loaned it.

However, it is understood that the Treasury has been working on a reversal of this policy. Ministers now believe the bank presents an opportunity to increase lending as many other lenders have cut the amount of business they are doing.

The plans come as the banking sector suffered another dramatic day on the stock market. Barclays lost a quarter of its value, leaving it down more than 40pc on the week. Shares in rivals were also hit, with Royal Bank of Scotland sliding 13pc to 34.7p, Lloyds TSB down 5pc to 98.4p and HSBC off 2pc to 535p.

The final hour marked a dramatic reversal of the day's earlier trading which had seen Barclays' shares up 5pc and RBS rise 9.5pc on hopes governments on both sides of the Atlantic will again bail-out the battered sector.

Barclays attempted to shore up confidence with a statement after the market closed in London, saying that the board expected its full year profits for 2008 to be "well ahead" of analysts' consensus of £5.3bn. These profits would be achieved after all write-downs on bad debts, the bank said.

Barclays also said its capital ratio would be 9.5pc and its equity tier-one ratio would be 6.5pc.

Barclays said of the dramatic fall in its shares: "We know of no justification for the fall in our share price. We are fully aware of our reporting obligations. We have not said anything."

Barclays did not take money from the Government as part of its £37bn bail-out of the banks in October. However, analysts believe that the bank will be given no choice by the Treasury and Financial Services Authority over the bad bank and will be forced to participate. This may mean Barclays has to take more write-offs on the value of its assets, which could reduce its capital ratios.

Other banks which will participate in the bad bank include Lloyds, which has bought HBOS, and RBS. The Government is a major stakeholder in both Lloyds and RBS and they are not thought to have put up significant opposition to the plan. HSBC, which has not taken any Government money, would also be expected to take part.

The Prime Minister yesterday indicated he was readying fresh action to thaw out the financial system and attacked the past "irresponsible" lending of British banks now being supported by the taxpayer.

Forming a plan for a bad bank will be highly complex, sources said, and the Government is only expected to have a blueprint ready by tomorrow or Monday. It will then have to thrash out the detail with the different lenders.

[Cyberman]

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!

I'm sure that they would not expect anything less, considering the cost !!

[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!

[Cyberman]

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

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

[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]

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

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.....

[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/

[Cyberman]

'HMG expect to make a windfall by floating Northern Rock at the expense of shareholders'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ut-unfair.html

[Cyberman]

You honestly think so??

Have a look at the case of O'Halloran vs UK in the ECHR:

http://www.ius-software.si/EUII/EUCH...9_06_2007.html

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. The most interesting reads are the dissenting statements that were released (bottom of the page)

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.