When you think that not
a single banker went to jail for causing the economy to collapse in 2008 you do
wonder how they could all have got away with facing any kind of retribution for
their actions, but this very morning the answer has been presented to me in the
form of an article on the BBC website, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26178868.
The article tells of a
court case that took place between 1991 and 1992 that resulted in the
conviction of four high level bankers for fraud, a few months later the ruling was overturned in an appeal court because the complexity and
length of the trial meant the jury couldn’t have reached a fair verdict, which
I have to say is the biggest load of s**t I’ve ever read.
But what this meant was that since that ruling the Serious Fraud Office has basically shied away from daring
to take on a big City institution or senior City executives, which is infuriating
because it shows there’s one rule for a select few and one rule for everybody
else.
This ruling that the
case was so complex a fair verdict couldn’t be reached is such a copout, who
else could/would get away with that?
Who else could appeal
and say their line of work is so complex the plebeian minds of a jury couldn’t
possibly begin to comprehend the matters at hand and so aren’t fit to judge?
It’s something I always
suspected but now it’s there in black and white since 1992 the banks have been
able to do what they want and everybody is too scared to do anything about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment