Nineteenth century philosopher and critical thinker
Arthur Schopenhauer once said, “The discovery of truth is prevented more
effectively, not by the false appearance of things present which then mislead
into error, nor by weakness of the reasoning powers, but instead by
preconceived opinion, by prejudice” and there is little doubt in my mind that preconceived
opinion played a major role in keeping the extent of banking criminality and
its capture of our government from the wider audience for many a year.
Even now, after countless government inquiries,
regulatory investigations and whistle blower revelations the “company line” continues
to disguise banking crimes as mistakes and in so doing allows the culprits to
remain at liberty while a molecular level of banking criminality continues to contaminate far and wide. Common sense and history tell us rewarding illegal behavior only encourages more of it yet in the absence of deterrent or moral
restraint, banksters have been permitted to wreak economic carnage while their regulators
have refused to use the law to affect redress.
Invisible to the naked eye of regulatory enforcement
and further aided by the preconception derived from a misplaced belief that banking
integrity must still be inherent the City, the light touch of deregulation has served
only to pave the way for tantalizingly lucrative but nonetheless entirely illegal
pastimes for those with sufficient power with which to implement them.
Laundered money for drug cartels
Laundered
money for terrorists
Sold
toxic mortgage products
Miss
sold insurance products
Misrepresented
the nature of their loan books
Disguised
volatile investment products as low risk to off load their exposure
Misrepresented
their exposure to risk.
Engaged
in insider trading
Manipulating
markets, LIBOR and anything else they could lay their hands on.
Participated
in various Ponzi schemes and,
Cooked
their books to miss lead the government, their regulators, their investors,
their shareholders and the general public alike.
As a direct result of these crimes many people have lost their homes, their livelihoods and their financial futures. Prejudged
by the banks and their henchmen to be scoundrels and wasters who are
not prepared to face up to their responsibilities (rather than accepting we are
the victims of banking criminality) those of
us who find ourselves in this
position have been left with two options.
- To accept ruin at the hands of these scurrilous banksters and withdraw, with our families, to wait for the relentless persecution of their henchman.
- Fight for our futures with the assistance of the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Having chosen the latter I have, over
the past five years, become well versed in each and every guideline set down
for the behavior of creditors during the complaints process. However being privy
to this information has made it no less distressing to discover the Halifax Bank of
Scotland chose to instruct their debt collectors to initiate recovery proceedings
for my disputed shortfall during the complaints process. Deeply troubled by HBOS’s
actions, I was nothing short of astounded to further discover the Financial Ombudsman Service’s
response to my request they ask HBOS
to desist from their recovery action until my case secured a Financial Ombudsman Service ruling.
This was their reply,
Dear [Life after Debt]...
“I have spoken with Bank of Scotland
regarding the letters you provided and your statement that you are finding them
distressing [however,] I must manage your expectations at this time ... to ensure you are fully aware of what we at
this service can ask a business to do.
We are able to ask a business to suspend
any litigation activity that it has started or intends to start while we
investigate a complaint. However while we can ask the business to do this,
there is no obligation for it to agree.
Yours sincerely,”
Financial Ombudsman Service Adjudicator
The executives of big banks invariably
pretend wrong doing is only ever committed by one or two low level employees
while both their personal and corporate objective is always to comply with financial
regulators, financial guidelines and the law. However, when the truth reveals a
bureaucracy such as the Financial Ombudsman Service has insufficient power to
affect a simple instruction despite their request being supported by both Regulatory and
Mortgage Code of Conduct Guidelines, I can only conclude I have little chance
of them defying prejudice and preconception to flex their feeble musculature in
my over valuation and mortgage miss selling case.
Tennessee born Republican politician Ric Keller once said, "You can lead a bureaucrat to water but you can't make him think" and, if my own case is anything to go by, I can only assume this is precisely what our untouchable banksters are counting on.
