• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Another thieving parasite banker

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Another thieving parasite banker

    I'm not going to translate this, but this **** has presided over a bank that was nationalised by the Dutch state and is now subsidized by my taxes and is leaving with a 'leaving compensation' of 8 million euros. The business he runs has just recieved the biggest welfare cheque in the history of the Netherlands and he's oing off with milions. This is f**king revolting. People get wound up about so-called benefit scroungers and sinlge mothers on income support, but their contribution to the general bloodsucking effort is nothing compared to the senior management of banks.

    Should we just stop using the word 'banker' and replace it with 'tapeworm'?

    http://www.nrc.nl/economie/article21...oor_topman_ABN
    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

    #2
    And yet no laws were broken.

    Whinge, whinge, whine, whine... come the revolutions... hang from the lamposts... blah, blah.

    That's you that Mitch, that's you.
    When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice - Ayn Rand, Atlas.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by deano View Post
      And yet no laws were broken.

      Whinge, whinge, whine, whine... come the revolutions... hang from the lamposts... blah, blah.

      That's you that Mitch, that's you.
      It wasn't me a year ago, but to see my taxes being spent on this can make my blood boil.
      And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
        It wasn't me a year ago, but to see my taxes being spent on this can make my blood boil.
        Have you tried to get a contract role at the new nationalised bank yet?
        If your company is the best place to work in, for a mere £500 p/d, you can advertise here.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by pmeswani View Post
          Have you tried to get a contract role at the new nationalised bank yet?
          I might do that actually; the rates are OK and I can get some of my tax money back.
          And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
            I might do that actually; the rates are OK and I can get some of my tax money back.
            If you do get a contract there, let me know if they have any Security roles going.
            If your company is the best place to work in, for a mere £500 p/d, you can advertise here.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by deano View Post
              And yet no laws were broken.
              Make retrospective tax law to cover personally those people then so that they won't think they got away with it.

              I am pretty sure if there was a desire to dig their books then one would find that plenty of laws and regulations were broken - it's just nobody (in powers that be) wants to do it since it would show that regulators, Govts were not just asleep but benefited from this stuff.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by AtW View Post
                Make retrospective tax law to cover personally those people then so that they won't think they got away with it.

                I am pretty sure if there was a desire to dig their books then one would find that plenty of laws and regulations were broken - it's just nobody (in powers that be) wants to do it since it would show that regulators, Govts were not just asleep but benefited from this stuff.
                That’s a Gordon Brown style solution. I wouldn’t try that.

                I think what needs to happen is to determine whether these individuals really meet the legal definition of a ‘director’. If they are directors of a public or private limited liability company then they will have invested at least 18,000 euros of their own money in that company according to Dutch company law. That 18,000 is a drop in the ocean, but they must lose it. Then you have to look at the decisions they took in the last year or so, as the business ran into trouble; under Dutch law a director can be held personally responsible for losses IF you can demonstrate gross or deliberate negligence, such as spending huge amounts on bonuses and takeovers while knowing that the business’s finances are on a weak footing, or not handing in a correct bookkeeping (there could be a case for this in the weird valuations of so-called ‘assets’). Limited liability brings legal responsibilities, and I’m not sure that those responsibilities have been met.

                If however they haven’t invested their own money, then they are not directors. They are salaried managers, in which case the normal laws of redundancy apply, in which redundancy payments are limited to the number of years service multiplied by monthly salary not including bonuses. However, if you demonstrate incompetence, they can be fired just like anyone else.
                And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                  That’s a Gordon Brown style solution. I wouldn’t try that.
                  IMO Gordon mainly robs the middle classes - he does it for revenue reasons (rather than for justice as I suggested above) and he knows he needs to steal from many people in order to make lots of money - one won't raise a lot of revenue from such bankers.

                  US will jail a few bankers for sure, UK won't do that and probably leave things as they are, and mainland Europe will tighten up regulation. All in all they will get away with it but I hope at least derivative junk will be kept in check after this one.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    and can you find evidence of gross or deliberate negligence?

                    Not evidence that is good enough for people who don't like bankers, but real evidence. Evidence acceptable and admissable in a court of law, and which a judge will allow to be presented to a jury?

                    I'm not sure that retrospective laws are legal under any constitution, because decisions were made in accordance with the law at the time and to retrospectively alter the law to say those decisions were not just wrong but illegal is contrary to natural law.

                    What would happen if a retrospective law to raise the age of consent to 21 were introduced. You would criminalise people who had sex between the ages of 16 and 21, who acted perfectly legally. You can see why I doubt whether a retrospective law would ever survive challenges through the courts.
                    When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice - Ayn Rand, Atlas.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X