Our Glorious Government

  Zaphod 3 16:29 22 Jun 09

Won't pay to help these people, but are quite happy to pay for moats, duckhouses and all sorts of other bits to feather their nests.

Just hope they never need this organisations help, I know what I would tell them.

click here

  Quickbeam 16:33 22 Jun 09

Why should anyone bale out the trustees of any charity... they could have spent the money on what it was given for.

  user8 16:36 22 Jun 09

Very sad, but the Government are not at fault here.

  Forum Editor 16:46 22 Jun 09

Why should taxpayers fork out to recompense a charity which made what turned out to be a bad investment?

  Zaphod 3 17:08 22 Jun 09

The giveaway is a treasury select committee said they should be compensated. The inference is that the Government should do so, they were fast enough to support councils and NHS trusts.

Don't even get me started on the bankers who have put greed in front of common sense.

Just because the Government scrapped plenty of bank regulations does not mean that, the processes were suddenly without risk.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 17:09 22 Jun 09

There is no way that I would contribute to this bunch of investment idiots. They went for a high return in a FOREIGN bank, in spite of the fact that virtually all other banks were offeriing 2% less. Boo Hoo, but they will get nada from me. The trustees should be responsible not the taxpayer.


  Al94 17:31 22 Jun 09

Totally agree - greedy and irresponsible management of the charity's funds

  dagnammit 17:50 22 Jun 09

Yeah but ultimately it's people availing of the charity's services that will suffer.

  WhiteTruckMan 17:53 22 Jun 09

Had they invested in fred umbongo's bank of nigeria I would have joined the people condemning them. However, they instead chose to invest in the (at the time) largest bank in iceland. Now can anyone point to any evidence available at the time that iceland was less than a secure risk?

Also, there seems to be some disagreement over the final cause of the banks demise.

click here

As yet I havent been able to find out if the case has been heard. But if it can be shown that the UK government (that bastion of honesty and competance that we all respect and admire) had a hand in the banks collapse then there might be a case for some form of compensation.

I'm not saying I like it, but it appears (as so often is the case) that things are not as clear cut as some would have us believe.


  Al94 18:08 22 Jun 09

Nothing to do with hindsight in this case, the alarm bells were ringing re the Icelandic banks as far back as March 2007 and the credit default swap ratings bear this out. Anyone handling large sums of cash should have been prudent and ask why they were paying well above market rates and at the very least, spread their risk by investing in a spread of safer deposits.

  Forum Editor 18:37 22 Jun 09

available at the time that iceland was less than a secure risk?"

My pleasure:-

In the year leading up to September 2008 the money supply in Iceland grew by over 50% and GDP grew by 5%. Anyone with a grain of investment knowledge would have known what the Central Bank of Iceland was doing - it was trying to shove its finger in the dyke by printing money, and the economic bubble was bound to burst.

Investing other peoples' charity donations in an Icelandic bank in such circumstances was asking for trouble, but that's exactly what the trustees did.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

Prehistoric Britain is laid out in these Royal Mail stamp illustrations

Best running headphones | Best sport & fitness headphones: 4 brilliant pairs of wireless…