Pedestrian Has Cyclist Death Conviction...
News0 min ago
Bl**dy Banks!
13 Answers
Antony Worrall Thompson has had to shut four restaurants, leaving 60 of his staff redundant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7877289.stm
What is the matter with our banks? Not content with trousering billions of pounds from the tax payer, they're sitting on all that cash and not lending it to anyone.
This story makes my blood boil.
I actually can't stand Antony Worrall Thompson - I find him very irritating, but even I feel sorry for the guy and his staff.
Shameful.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7877289.stm
What is the matter with our banks? Not content with trousering billions of pounds from the tax payer, they're sitting on all that cash and not lending it to anyone.
This story makes my blood boil.
I actually can't stand Antony Worrall Thompson - I find him very irritating, but even I feel sorry for the guy and his staff.
Shameful.
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Might be worth seeing these bank bosses getting a grilling on TV this week. I'm sure they have their own staff in mind?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/02 /bank-bosses-face-commons-grilling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/02 /bank-bosses-face-commons-grilling
Bloody bankers indeed - emergency legislation should be passed immediately to prohibit the paying of any bonuses to any level of banking staff where tax payers money has been used to support the banks.
Incorporated in the same emergency legislation, ALL members of the Banks' hierarchy should be made to to pay back all bonuses already received during the number of years they have negligently/ recklessly acquired destructive toxic debt to damage our economy. Laws should permit criminal action to be taken against the transgressing Banks' executives for the reckless management that has and still is ruining the lives of so many hard working people.
It beggars belief that they still have the temerity to even think about awarding themselves bonuses when they have been so culpable in causing the financial and economic mayhem we are all suffering now !
Gordon Brown and Co. and FSA have so far been complicit in this gross financial mismanagement and still seem to be afraid of meaningfully penalising our failed bankers. Time will tell, but dont hold your breath !
Incorporated in the same emergency legislation, ALL members of the Banks' hierarchy should be made to to pay back all bonuses already received during the number of years they have negligently/ recklessly acquired destructive toxic debt to damage our economy. Laws should permit criminal action to be taken against the transgressing Banks' executives for the reckless management that has and still is ruining the lives of so many hard working people.
It beggars belief that they still have the temerity to even think about awarding themselves bonuses when they have been so culpable in causing the financial and economic mayhem we are all suffering now !
Gordon Brown and Co. and FSA have so far been complicit in this gross financial mismanagement and still seem to be afraid of meaningfully penalising our failed bankers. Time will tell, but dont hold your breath !
In times of recession, the restaurant trade always suffers badly. Last year, a third of British Restaurants went bust.
The banks may have been indirectly responsible for the recession, but the banks have never loaned money to businesses that are clearly in trouble. Mr Worrall Thompson's businesses have been losing money. A loan from the bank would not have saved them, because the customers are staying at home.
His bank would see that his chances of survival are very slim and the chances of them losing their money is too risky. That's Capitalism for you.
The banks may have been indirectly responsible for the recession, but the banks have never loaned money to businesses that are clearly in trouble. Mr Worrall Thompson's businesses have been losing money. A loan from the bank would not have saved them, because the customers are staying at home.
His bank would see that his chances of survival are very slim and the chances of them losing their money is too risky. That's Capitalism for you.
From your link:
Mr Worrall Thompson said he could have saved his entire company by offering his home as a guarantee to the banks, but said that he wasn't willing to take such a "horrendous" risk.
So he wanted the Bank to gamble their money but wasn't prepared to gamble with his own money.
He is the best person to know if his business would survive the recession. The fact that he is not willing to put his money where his mouth is speaks volumes.
Mr Worrall Thompson said he could have saved his entire company by offering his home as a guarantee to the banks, but said that he wasn't willing to take such a "horrendous" risk.
So he wanted the Bank to gamble their money but wasn't prepared to gamble with his own money.
He is the best person to know if his business would survive the recession. The fact that he is not willing to put his money where his mouth is speaks volumes.
I can hardly believe what I'm reading...
�...he wanted the Bank to gamble their money but wasn't prepared to gamble with his own money.�
�Would you lend him money to keep afloat?�
�why should banks support his business if he himself thinks the risk too great?�
So I suppose what you are all saying is that unless it's a nailed on, cast iron, etched in stone business, then the banks should not lend any money because there is a 'risk'.
Are you guys for real?
All businesses are a risk. Every private sector business is a financial risk. It's the nature of the beast. To pretend that some businesses are without 'risk' is a fantasy.
At the moment there seems to be an attitude with the banks that says if an investment (or loan) has ANY element of risk attached to it then they won't lend money.
That is the way depressions are born.
Let's say you don't have a car but you've just landed yourself a new job and you have to drive to work. So you need a car. But you haven't got the cash to buy one outright. So you approach your bank and apply for a loan. The bank offers you two loans. One unsecured with a low rate of interest and one secured on your property with a slightly higher rate.
Given the current economic climate, which one would you choose?
Would you risk your house?
�...he wanted the Bank to gamble their money but wasn't prepared to gamble with his own money.�
�Would you lend him money to keep afloat?�
�why should banks support his business if he himself thinks the risk too great?�
So I suppose what you are all saying is that unless it's a nailed on, cast iron, etched in stone business, then the banks should not lend any money because there is a 'risk'.
Are you guys for real?
All businesses are a risk. Every private sector business is a financial risk. It's the nature of the beast. To pretend that some businesses are without 'risk' is a fantasy.
At the moment there seems to be an attitude with the banks that says if an investment (or loan) has ANY element of risk attached to it then they won't lend money.
That is the way depressions are born.
Let's say you don't have a car but you've just landed yourself a new job and you have to drive to work. So you need a car. But you haven't got the cash to buy one outright. So you approach your bank and apply for a loan. The bank offers you two loans. One unsecured with a low rate of interest and one secured on your property with a slightly higher rate.
Given the current economic climate, which one would you choose?
Would you risk your house?
So I suppose what you are all saying is that unless it's a nailed on, cast iron, etched in stone business, then the banks should not lend any money because there is a 'risk'.
Are you guys for real?
Yes there is always a risk. A bank will weigh up that risk and think about whether it is sensible to lend.
They have looked at the proposal and thought it not appropriate without further security.
Apparently though, you seem to think that you know better despite not being privy to his accounts, how he has run his accounts, his cash flow forecasts or any other information.
Are you for real?
Do you think a bank should lend people five times their salary because they say that they can pay it back?
Are you guys for real?
Yes there is always a risk. A bank will weigh up that risk and think about whether it is sensible to lend.
They have looked at the proposal and thought it not appropriate without further security.
Apparently though, you seem to think that you know better despite not being privy to his accounts, how he has run his accounts, his cash flow forecasts or any other information.
Are you for real?
Do you think a bank should lend people five times their salary because they say that they can pay it back?
Worral Thompson is shut these restaurants and then started up a new company and bought their assets for a song leaving all his suppliers out of pocket. This while not criminal is wrong. In addition he refused to put his house up for collateral to guarantee new money his bank offered. He wants the banks to take all the risk but has no faith in his own efforts.
1 to 13 of 13
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Computers6 mins ago
Where Have All The Starlings Gone?
Home & Garden10 mins ago
Law16 mins ago
