Comments on: Shock Penalty Charges Ruling By Supreme Court http://www.moneywell.co.uk/blog/bank-charges/shock-penalty-charges-ruling-by-supreme-court Personal Finance Guide Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:36:46 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Sid http://www.moneywell.co.uk/blog/bank-charges/shock-penalty-charges-ruling-by-supreme-court/comment-page-1#comment-35831 Sid Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:53:11 +0000 http://www.moneywell.co.uk/blog/?p=460#comment-35831 I believe it was Stalin who said that, if you kill one man it is murder but if you kill a million men it is a statistic. If one person had bankrupted a bank that person would, no doubt, have been charged with something in a court of law. When all the banks did the same it became a statistic and the taxpayer pays while the culprits go free with millions of pounds from bonuses in their back pockets and a nice pension to ensure they enjoy a comfortable retirement. It would be nice to think that those who caused the problems would face some sort of justice but it seems unlikely. It seems Stalin was right. I believe it was Stalin who said that, if you kill one man it is murder but if you kill a million men it is a statistic.
If one person had bankrupted a bank that person would, no doubt, have been charged with something in a court of law. When all the banks did the same it became a statistic and the taxpayer pays while the culprits go free with millions of pounds from bonuses in their back pockets and a nice pension to ensure they enjoy a comfortable retirement.
It would be nice to think that those who caused the problems would face some sort of justice but it seems unlikely.
It seems Stalin was right.

]]> By: pc http://www.moneywell.co.uk/blog/bank-charges/shock-penalty-charges-ruling-by-supreme-court/comment-page-1#comment-35795 pc Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:33:31 +0000 http://www.moneywell.co.uk/blog/?p=460#comment-35795 I understand that the banks' (now owned by the taxpayers) defence was that they would have to defend too many legal actions if they lost. Would mass slaughter be more easily forgiven than a single murder? I understand that the banks’ (now owned by the taxpayers) defence was that they would have to defend too many legal actions if they lost.

Would mass slaughter be more easily forgiven than a single murder?

]]>