Reply to: Where's CyberSmug today?

[tim123]

History shows that many people have hidden agendas in government.

Remember when HMG granted the judiciary exemption from IR35 ?
.

No they didn't They ruled, quite rightly that the government had a right to change tax law.

Only this week the ex-HBOS guy Crosby resigned from the FSA, because he was regulating his old bank from which he had previously sacked the risk-analysis guy, after he warned him that he was growing HBOS too fast. The useless Brown hired Crosby himself. Conflict of interest.... Naah !!

What has that got to do with the judiciary. They are the party I was defending as independent.

You are very naive tim123.

And you are incapable of comprehending what people are saying to you.

tim

[tim123]

So if HMG refloat the Rock at 5 quid a share in the future and makes a massive profit on their theft, that is fair on pensioners etc that have invested in good faith over the years ?

Yes.

For the reason that I have already stated.

If HMG hadn't stepped in, the Crock would have been worth zero and that's what the pensioners would have got.

If HMG sell it later at 5 pounds a share, all of that increase will have been because HMG did step in and bail it out. So why should any of that money go to the pensioners? I really can't see how you can argue that it should (your argument seems to be based around substituting predatory hedge funds with poor little old ladies).

Remember sitting where we are now, you don't know that they will be able to sell it for 5 pounds a share. It might make an even bigger loss in the coming years and cost HMG even more money.

Are you prepared to take this downside risk, in order to obtain the upside risk that you were expecting the court to give you? If so, put you GBP 2.50 per share on the table now (noting that when the shareholders of the other bank's were offered such a deal, they all declined to put their money on the table).

Your expectations here have no financial basis at all.

tim

[Cyberman]

History does no support that claim one iota. There are dozens of examples of judges ruleing against HMG, and doing so in cases with much bigger implications than this tiddly little tin pot worthless company.

tim

History shows that many people have hidden agendas in government.

Remember when HMG granted the judiciary exemption from IR35 ?

Only this week the ex-HBOS guy Crosby resigned from the FSA, because he was regulating his old bank from which he had previously sacked the risk-analysis guy, after he warned him that he was growing HBOS too fast. The useless Brown hired Crosby himself. Conflict of interest.... Naah !!

You are very naive tim123.

[Cyberman]

But in this case the bank was up **** street before the funding was given. And the original offer of funding was temporary.

This is not the same as someone asking for money to buy a house, because if the funding is refused, then the house won't be purchased.



No they are not. The value to be paid is still to be assessed.

This court case was not about the actual assessed value, it was about the right of the government to asses it in a way which doesn't take into account any future value of the company which will be brought about because the government took on the risk of taking it on.

This seems fair, if the government hadn't taking it on you would be holding shares worth absolutely zero now AND have no-one to sue. If you get 20p you will still be 20p better off than the alternative.

tim

So if HMG refloat the Rock at 5 quid a share in the future and makes a massive profit on their theft, that is fair on pensioners etc that have invested in good faith over the years ?
Pull the other one. No wonder people are not investing in pensions and shares nowadays. A socialist HMG reaps what it sows and if people do not have pensions they will be more reliant on the state and will not pay taxes. They become net takers, and HMG deserve it, but all other taxpayers end up paying for them too.
That is very short-sighted policy, but does not surprise me at all.

[the_duderama]

Warning - The value of shares may go down as well as up!

You lose!

Now quit carping

This.

[thelace]

Warning - The value of shares may go down as well as up!

You lose!

Now quit carping

[tim123]

Any company that has funding withdrawn will not be a going concern. This does not give a bank the right for instance to withdraw my mortgage and claim ALL of the equity in my house.

But in this case the bank was up **** street before the funding was given. And the original offer of funding was temporary.

This is not the same as someone asking for money to buy a house, because if the funding is refused, then the house won't be purchased.

There is a break-up value and NRK shareholders are even being denied this, but NRK is clearly not bust and has repaid 14 Billion in loans.

No they are not. The value to be paid is still to be assessed.

This court case was not about the actual assessed value, it was about the right of the government to asses it in a way which doesn't take into account any future value of the company which will be brought about because the government took on the risk of taking it on.

This seems fair, if the government hadn't taking it on you would be holding shares worth absolutely zero now AND have no-one to sue. If you get 20p you will still be 20p better off than the alternative.

tim

[tim123]

I've not read the judgement yet as I just heard the news on the radio, but I am not that surprised. After all, judges are very close to HMG.

History does no support that claim one iota. There are dozens of examples of judges ruleing against HMG, and doing so in cases with much bigger implications than this tiddly little tin pot worthless company.

tim

[cailin maith]

I'm surprised nobody posted yet, but

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahah

[bobhope]

I'm surprised nobody posted yet, but

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahah

[Cyberman]

... and why would a UK judge find in our favour when it would ruin his chances of a knighthood and entry to the Lords gravy train of 350 quid a day expenses ?
Please do excuse my cynicism.

[sasguru]

Oh dear

Indeed. Next he'll be telling us that his property has actually lost value over the past year

[Cyberman]

CyberHypocrite you are no better than the BNP.

Once minute you are complaining about the human rights act.
Next minute you are trying to use it to support your own interests.

Nothing hypocritical there at all. I just don't see why people that have no allegiance to the UK(ie asylum seekers) have any rights here, and also, if somebody is a convicted murderer, I do not believe they should have the same rights as other citizens.

[FSM with Cheddar]

It's to do with confiscation of property (ie shares, houses or any other assets of the individual) without proper compensation. That is deemed against human rights and there are precedents that have already been set with ECOHR.

CyberHypocrite you are no better than the BNP.

Once minute you are complaining about the human rights act.
Next minute you are trying to use it to support your own interests.

[BrilloPad]

From the article:

"At the time of nationalisation the government said that any subsequent valuation for compensation purposes should be based on the assumption that the Northern Rock had not been a going concern."

Any bank that needs a bailout is not a going concern IMO and the subsequent rescuer is entitled to value it as it thinks fit. If the banks don't like it, how about running themselves as proper banks and not overleveraged gambling machines. Then they wouldn't need a bailout, eh?

Face it Cyber Cretin, it's a fair judgement and you lost because you have no clue about your investments.
Now will you stop boring us with your absolute gobtulip, you cretin?

Godd to see that relaxation mode you were in after your holiday has ended and you are back to normal.