Yesterday was a nightmare. Supporting Andover you don't get a brilliant day out, and come home with 3 points very often, and yesterday didn't change that.
Setting off at 1:30 thinking; away to Mangotsfield. Fairly easy hour and a quarter drive and the possibility of 3 points. Wrong. Getting lost in (one of the) arse end(s) of Bristol, nothing to do with my map reading, means we are late to the game. I get a text at 3:03 saying we are 1-0 already, bollocks. Finally we find the road the ground is on, and within 5 minutes I get another text to say 1-1, game on. We pull into the car park and find no spaces, so have to make due with a space in the rugby club car park next door. Scampering out, we turn a blind eye to the signs stating the car park was for patrons of the rugby club only, and make our way towards the turnstiles. We are greeted by a loud cheer from the home supporters. 12 minutes gone and we are 2-1 down. Thinking we have missed all the goals there were to be, we take our spot and cheer on the team. The rest of the first half is just as open as the first 12 minutes sounded and Andover head in at half time leading 3-2. Half time pint down, confidence high, back out for the second half.
In terms of possession and opportunities, the second half was fairly even, that was apart from the 2 Mangotsfield goals. Here we go again, leading a game, only to be beaten late on, until.....penalty. A Mangotsfield defender handballs in the area and the Andover captain has a chance to equalise. Does he? Does he balls...The keeper falls to his left to collect the ball fairly comfortably. Oh well...a good performance, a narrow defeat, always next week and all that.
That should of been the end of the annoyances. That was until a wrong turn ended up taking us on a 10 mile detour, through some Postman Pat villages, in the pissing rain. Once in Bath we were at a stand still in traffic for a good half hour, until it dawned on us that we had hit the traffic coming out of Bath City's FA cup match and the traffic going into Bath Rugby club for their match. 2 and a half hours later I am home. Cold, tired and disappointed. Ah...the beautiful game.
Sunday, 29 November 2009
Orwellian views on English language
According to George Orwell;
"Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
It is this political language that Orwell blames for the failings of the English Language. Combining "Politics and the English Language" and the lecture last Thursday, we can see how the use of this bad English is having a huge effect on the way that we speak and write. It is from political speeches and the unwillingness to state plainly what we mean that people are taking new ways of speaking and writing and employing them on the English language.
Orwell described major issues in the way language is used, describing three common faults:
"Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
It is this political language that Orwell blames for the failings of the English Language. Combining "Politics and the English Language" and the lecture last Thursday, we can see how the use of this bad English is having a huge effect on the way that we speak and write. It is from political speeches and the unwillingness to state plainly what we mean that people are taking new ways of speaking and writing and employing them on the English language.
Orwell described major issues in the way language is used, describing three common faults:
- Dying Metaphors - The use of metaphors that are either no longer relevant in the context in which they are used, or where the meaning of such metaphors is lost or not fully understood by the writer.
- Verbal False Limbs - Using verbs in phrase, rather than using single verbs that could be used just as easily. Orwell uses the example of using the phrase "render inoperative" instead of simply saying "break".
- Pretentious Diction - The use of words used purely to dress up simple statements and to give the writer a sense of self importance.
In my opinion, it is the use of pretentious diction that is easiest to spot being used in speech or writing. Sometimes, if not all time, you get a sense that the use of such words and phrases is merely an ego boosting opportunity, and that using this language gives the writer a sense of self worth and cultural importance.
Back at school we were always told to describe things in detail, but surely as Orwells work implies, we should get to the point as quickly as we can. Being on a journalism degree, this is even more important. Get the facts; who, when, where, what, and eventually why. There is simply no need to mess about describing something in ridiculous amounts of detail.
Orwell describes how the decline of good English has spread and become the convenient norm. He talks how effects can become a cause and a vicious circle can begin. He uses the analogy of a man turning to drink;
“A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”
Despite being written over 60 years ago, Orwells article is still relevant today. As a reader we accept all these little inaccuracies and sloppy language, but it is only when you contrast this unnecessary language with plain, straight to the point speech that you can really see how improper the English language has become.
Monday, 12 October 2009
The Dreyfus Affair
Following the defeat to Prussia in 1870, a proud French nation set out to discover the reason behind their defeat to a supposedly inadequate Prussian army. Some 24 years later saw Jewish army officer Alfred Dreyfus stripped of his medals in front of a Paris crowd. The French army accused him of spying for the Prussians, and in turn, causing the defeat of France. He was sent to Devil's Island, a penal colony of the coast of French Guiana. The evidence that was used to convict Dreyfus was a document detailing French army secrets, that was found by a cleaner. The root of this document was then traced back to Dreyfus. Some thought that Dreyfus was being framed by military top brass, merely an illustration of French Anti-Semitism. Major Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy, another French army was the man who was accused by Georges Picquart, the new chief of army intelligence. However, Esterhazys trial which took place behind closed doors, was widely believed to have been a farce, and saw him walk free. This prompted anti semitic riots throughout Paris. This lead to Emile Zola's famous newspaper front page; "J'accuse!", in which he denounced the French President Felix Faure and the highest order of the French Army.
The Dreyfus affair was not the first time anti-semitism was seen in France. Just two years earlier, the French government lost nearly a billion francs, during the Panama Canal scandal. It emerged that French government officials took bribes to keep quiet about the financial failings of the company hired to build the Panama Canal. Two of the officials who were accused of taking the bribes were French Jews, Jacques Reinach and Cornelius Herz. Their involvement was seized upon by Eduard Drumont, whose anti-semitic newspaper La Libre Parole, took every chance it had to attack Jews. During the Dreyfus affair the headline read "The Traitor Convicted", "Down with Jews".
Consequences of the Dreyfus affair were huge. 19th century France had seen anti-semitism become prominent, perhaps the most illustrated account that had been seen. As we all know, anti-semitism was even more in the forefront of a nations thinking during Nazi Germany, with six million Jews losing their lives.
The birth of Zionism emerged from the whole Dreyfus scandal. Journalist Theosdore Herzl was assigned to wrie a report about the trial and the aftermath. His book Der Judenstaat, or The Jewish State, outlined how in order to avoid anti-semitism in Europe, an independent Jewish state should be formed.The World Zionist Organisation claimed that this independent state would be known as Israel and be located in what was known as Palestine. In 1948 their wish was granted and the state of Israel was declared. The creation of the Israeli state sparked the Palestinian war which still rumbles on today, with the Israelis on one side and the Arab occupation that was originally in place.
The Dreyfus affair may have happened over 100 years ago, but the effects it had are still relevent today.
The Dreyfus affair was not the first time anti-semitism was seen in France. Just two years earlier, the French government lost nearly a billion francs, during the Panama Canal scandal. It emerged that French government officials took bribes to keep quiet about the financial failings of the company hired to build the Panama Canal. Two of the officials who were accused of taking the bribes were French Jews, Jacques Reinach and Cornelius Herz. Their involvement was seized upon by Eduard Drumont, whose anti-semitic newspaper La Libre Parole, took every chance it had to attack Jews. During the Dreyfus affair the headline read "The Traitor Convicted", "Down with Jews".
Consequences of the Dreyfus affair were huge. 19th century France had seen anti-semitism become prominent, perhaps the most illustrated account that had been seen. As we all know, anti-semitism was even more in the forefront of a nations thinking during Nazi Germany, with six million Jews losing their lives.
The birth of Zionism emerged from the whole Dreyfus scandal. Journalist Theosdore Herzl was assigned to wrie a report about the trial and the aftermath. His book Der Judenstaat, or The Jewish State, outlined how in order to avoid anti-semitism in Europe, an independent Jewish state should be formed.The World Zionist Organisation claimed that this independent state would be known as Israel and be located in what was known as Palestine. In 1948 their wish was granted and the state of Israel was declared. The creation of the Israeli state sparked the Palestinian war which still rumbles on today, with the Israelis on one side and the Arab occupation that was originally in place.
The Dreyfus affair may have happened over 100 years ago, but the effects it had are still relevent today.
Sunday, 11 October 2009
The shape of things to come? Or a failed experiment?
Yesterday Fabio Capello's undefeated spell as England manager came to an end with defeat against Ukraine in Dnipropetrovsk. But perhaps the biggest talking point surrounding the match, had nothing to do with events on the pitch. Since the demise of Setanta TV, which originally held the rights to show the game, no other TV channel were willing to pay the asking price in order to show the game. Step forward 'Perform', a digital media group, who eventually bought the rights.
The premise was simple, subscribers would pay a fee which would allow them to watch the game over the internet through a specially created website. The fee would begin at £4.99 and gradually increase the nearer to the matchday, eventually reaching £11.99. Now we were always going to discover something about how the media was shaping up, depending on how successful this was. Were we seeing the future of broadcasting? Or just an experiment failing badly?
I would suggest it was more toward the latter. Almost all the people I spoke to about the matter felt it would not work, and that England games should not be shown on pay per view internet streaming. Around 300,000 people paid the fee to watch the game, and I would make a completely uneducated guess that the same number of people watched the game via other, shall we say, less legal streams.
There were so many things that could have hindered the interest in this game. For a start, England had already qualified, so nothing was really at stake here. Secondly, surely the whole nations "traditional" way of watching England games was at the pub with a few mates, cheering on your country over a few beers. Despite some pubs showing the game, most went without.
Media convergence is undeniable, but was this a step too far, too quickly? Sites that stream live sports from around the world for free are always going to be most peoples preference when torn between that and paying £11.99 to watch one game. With these sites around this form of media will struggle to make much impact on the way in which football and sport is consumed by the public.
The premise was simple, subscribers would pay a fee which would allow them to watch the game over the internet through a specially created website. The fee would begin at £4.99 and gradually increase the nearer to the matchday, eventually reaching £11.99. Now we were always going to discover something about how the media was shaping up, depending on how successful this was. Were we seeing the future of broadcasting? Or just an experiment failing badly?
I would suggest it was more toward the latter. Almost all the people I spoke to about the matter felt it would not work, and that England games should not be shown on pay per view internet streaming. Around 300,000 people paid the fee to watch the game, and I would make a completely uneducated guess that the same number of people watched the game via other, shall we say, less legal streams.
There were so many things that could have hindered the interest in this game. For a start, England had already qualified, so nothing was really at stake here. Secondly, surely the whole nations "traditional" way of watching England games was at the pub with a few mates, cheering on your country over a few beers. Despite some pubs showing the game, most went without.
Media convergence is undeniable, but was this a step too far, too quickly? Sites that stream live sports from around the world for free are always going to be most peoples preference when torn between that and paying £11.99 to watch one game. With these sites around this form of media will struggle to make much impact on the way in which football and sport is consumed by the public.
Monday, 28 September 2009
Winchester Journalsim link
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=38 - MA Journalism
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=13 - BA Journalism
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=13 - International Journalism
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=41 - BJTC
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=19 - Studios and Facilities
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=40 - Lecturers
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=38 - MA Journalism
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=13 - BA Journalism
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=13 - International Journalism
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=41 - BJTC
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=19 - Studios and Facilities
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/?page=40 - Lecturers
England ICC Champions 2009?
Well done to the England cricket team on what was a fantastic performance against the South Africans last night. The victory sees them through to the semi finals and gives them a great chance to do the unthinkable and win the ICC Champions Trophy.
Following dismal performances in the post-Ashes one day series, England were a massive 18-1 to win the ICC Trophy. Being drawn in the same group as South Africa and Sri Lanka, probably the two best one day teams in the world, along with a potentially tricky New Zealand team, probably didnt help their chances. Well, they have proved everyone wrong, with victory of Sri Lanka and hosts South Africa, the team have every chance of going all the way.
Despite the injuries to Flintoff and Pietersen, the England team still look to be on the up, with Joe Denly and Owen Morgan coming through to prove themselves and a great new bowling attack of Broad, Swann, Anderson and Onions. In Andrew Strauss the team have a great natural leader, despite too very average performances with the bat so far. English cricket is set to be on the up once again.
Following dismal performances in the post-Ashes one day series, England were a massive 18-1 to win the ICC Trophy. Being drawn in the same group as South Africa and Sri Lanka, probably the two best one day teams in the world, along with a potentially tricky New Zealand team, probably didnt help their chances. Well, they have proved everyone wrong, with victory of Sri Lanka and hosts South Africa, the team have every chance of going all the way.
Despite the injuries to Flintoff and Pietersen, the England team still look to be on the up, with Joe Denly and Owen Morgan coming through to prove themselves and a great new bowling attack of Broad, Swann, Anderson and Onions. In Andrew Strauss the team have a great natural leader, despite too very average performances with the bat so far. English cricket is set to be on the up once again.
Operation Fightback...Too little too late?
The season for politicial party conferences is underway. Last week saw Nick Clegg and his Lib Dem team focus their attention on the weaknesses of the Tory party. "Now that it's clear beyond doubt that Labour can't win, it's time for us to take the gloves off with the Tories." These were the words of Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne, highlighting the fact that the next general election could bring about the end of the Labour government. It was with this agenda that the conference took shape, with each spokesman highlighting how a Tory government would offer no respite, with Vince Cable suggesting the Tories would hike VAT to 25%. The seemingly ominous spending cuts were also high on the agenda, with changes to tax credits to the middle class one pledge from Nick Clegg. Each party seemingly trying to get one up on each other in the past few weeks on what they would be administering cuts on lead Nick Clegg to launch a blistering attack on Tory leader David Cameron, describing how he has "put the con back into the Conservatives. Just telling people what they want to hear".
This week it's Labour's turn to attempt to improve puplic opinion at their conference in Brighton. Again changes to public spending and other economic changes seem set to dominate speaches. Today Alistair Darling will reiterate the party's attempt to cut bankers bonuses. Although the Chancellor is to bring in new laws in the Autumn to curb bankers bonuses, Darling will today tell banks there is no need to wait to stop bonuses. Gordon Brown has admitted that Labour would probably be underdogs at the next general election and has began "Operation Fightback" to try and change public opinion.
Now don't get me wrong, I understand hindsight is a great thing, but surely Labour's latest offering is too little too late. Before the recession, the government seemed perfectly happy for bankers to receive these big bonuses, and high public spending. Only when it all went downhill did Labour change their view on these things. Lord Mandelson says the party is "up for the fight", but I believe it would take one hell of a fight for the Labour party to turn things around and pursuade much of Britain they still have what it takes to run the country.
This week it's Labour's turn to attempt to improve puplic opinion at their conference in Brighton. Again changes to public spending and other economic changes seem set to dominate speaches. Today Alistair Darling will reiterate the party's attempt to cut bankers bonuses. Although the Chancellor is to bring in new laws in the Autumn to curb bankers bonuses, Darling will today tell banks there is no need to wait to stop bonuses. Gordon Brown has admitted that Labour would probably be underdogs at the next general election and has began "Operation Fightback" to try and change public opinion.
Now don't get me wrong, I understand hindsight is a great thing, but surely Labour's latest offering is too little too late. Before the recession, the government seemed perfectly happy for bankers to receive these big bonuses, and high public spending. Only when it all went downhill did Labour change their view on these things. Lord Mandelson says the party is "up for the fight", but I believe it would take one hell of a fight for the Labour party to turn things around and pursuade much of Britain they still have what it takes to run the country.
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Mid-week football moan
A couple of football related news items I want to talk about, both from today's Sun.
The first is Tottenham boss Harry Redknapp moaning that the way the fixture list is "ludicrous" that his team have a match scheduled three days before the Carling Cup final. He whinges "There's no time for us to get any rest." Yes he may have wanted a bit more time to prepare for a big game, but surely he has to be professional about it. I follow my local team Andover. Due to the weather over the winter, they have had a large number of games postponed. With the league not allowing clubs to play any games after a deadline, this means the club are likely to have to play games on a Tuesday, then Thursday and then on Saturday in the space of a week, towards the end of the season. If part time players, on under £100 a week are able to do it, why can't these over paid prima-donnas do it? Does Harry Redknapp think that everyone else is out to get him and his Spurs team?
Another article in today's Sun features Middlesbrough. The clubs Safety Officer, Sue Walton has issued a note to fans, stating the following;
"I am receiving more and more complaints from our own fans about both the persistent standing and the constant banging and noise coming from the back of the stand. Please stop. Make as much noise as you like when we score, but this constant noise is driving some fans mad."
Surely these people who are complaining about the noise at a football match would be better suited to stay at home and watch their team from their own home where they wouldn't get bothered by all the big scary men making loud noises. Or alternatively, most grounds have Family Stands where it's less rowdy. Another point is, from what I see on TV, compared to most other grounds, The Riverside Stadium is like a morgue most match days anyway. Fans go to matches to support their team and if they are asked to sit down and be quiet, surely that takes away the point of going to watch the match live if you are unable to create an atmosphere.
These two articles, in my opinion, illustrate how the Premiership, and professional game in general are slowly becoming more and more of a joke.
The first is Tottenham boss Harry Redknapp moaning that the way the fixture list is "ludicrous" that his team have a match scheduled three days before the Carling Cup final. He whinges "There's no time for us to get any rest." Yes he may have wanted a bit more time to prepare for a big game, but surely he has to be professional about it. I follow my local team Andover. Due to the weather over the winter, they have had a large number of games postponed. With the league not allowing clubs to play any games after a deadline, this means the club are likely to have to play games on a Tuesday, then Thursday and then on Saturday in the space of a week, towards the end of the season. If part time players, on under £100 a week are able to do it, why can't these over paid prima-donnas do it? Does Harry Redknapp think that everyone else is out to get him and his Spurs team?
Another article in today's Sun features Middlesbrough. The clubs Safety Officer, Sue Walton has issued a note to fans, stating the following;
"I am receiving more and more complaints from our own fans about both the persistent standing and the constant banging and noise coming from the back of the stand. Please stop. Make as much noise as you like when we score, but this constant noise is driving some fans mad."
Surely these people who are complaining about the noise at a football match would be better suited to stay at home and watch their team from their own home where they wouldn't get bothered by all the big scary men making loud noises. Or alternatively, most grounds have Family Stands where it's less rowdy. Another point is, from what I see on TV, compared to most other grounds, The Riverside Stadium is like a morgue most match days anyway. Fans go to matches to support their team and if they are asked to sit down and be quiet, surely that takes away the point of going to watch the match live if you are unable to create an atmosphere.
These two articles, in my opinion, illustrate how the Premiership, and professional game in general are slowly becoming more and more of a joke.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Empiricism and A Priori Reasoning Lecture
Yesterdays lecture on empiricism and A Priori reasoning was something quite interesting and not something that I was expecting. Some of the ideas that were discussed; for example, Descartes famous quote: "I think, therefore I am" and empiricist views, which rely on ideas that are rooted in direct experience, are both very contrasting views, but both ideas have valid points.
Empiricist views may seem like the sort of ideas that can be truly believed as they can actually be physically proven, but on the other hand most A Priori ideas are based on logic and there is no way in order to disprove them. For example, David Icke's "Reptilian Agenda" views cannot be totally rejected as there is no way of proving that we are not ruled by lizard overlords.
For our task we were asked to find one example of empirical argument and one of an A Priori argument. My example of an A Priori argument comes from The Times on Monday. There was an article detailing how a senior British military commander, referring to the city of Basra in Iraq, stated that "we will be leaving behind a city that is in a far better nick than it was when we arrived in 2003." Although much of the British public may believe that the armed forces have carried out a good job in Iraq, there is no empirical proof of this or, in fact, any way of measuring how much better the city has got. He also states in the same article how the deaths of 179 servicemen is a price to pay for success. Once again, there is no empirical proof of this. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5741840.ece
An example of an empirical argument that I found was in yesterdays Sun. A piece by ex-pro Ian Wright, who drew up comparisons between Chelsea and Aston Villa. He came to the conclusion that since both teams were taken over by foreign buyers, Chelsea by Roman Abramovich and Villa by Randy Lerner, Aston Villa had performed better. The evidence he gave for his argument was plain to see. In the 4 years since American Lerner took over at Villa, the Midlands team have gone from finishing in 16th position, to 11th, to 6th and currently sit in 3rd place. On the other hand, since Abramovich has been at Chelsea, they have gone from winning the title in 2006, to dropping a place every season since. Wright states that this shows that Lerner understands the game more than Abromovich. Although there is no empirical evidence for this, there is still evidence that Aston Villa have performed better. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/article2243267.ece
Empiricist views may seem like the sort of ideas that can be truly believed as they can actually be physically proven, but on the other hand most A Priori ideas are based on logic and there is no way in order to disprove them. For example, David Icke's "Reptilian Agenda" views cannot be totally rejected as there is no way of proving that we are not ruled by lizard overlords.
For our task we were asked to find one example of empirical argument and one of an A Priori argument. My example of an A Priori argument comes from The Times on Monday. There was an article detailing how a senior British military commander, referring to the city of Basra in Iraq, stated that "we will be leaving behind a city that is in a far better nick than it was when we arrived in 2003." Although much of the British public may believe that the armed forces have carried out a good job in Iraq, there is no empirical proof of this or, in fact, any way of measuring how much better the city has got. He also states in the same article how the deaths of 179 servicemen is a price to pay for success. Once again, there is no empirical proof of this. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5741840.ece
An example of an empirical argument that I found was in yesterdays Sun. A piece by ex-pro Ian Wright, who drew up comparisons between Chelsea and Aston Villa. He came to the conclusion that since both teams were taken over by foreign buyers, Chelsea by Roman Abramovich and Villa by Randy Lerner, Aston Villa had performed better. The evidence he gave for his argument was plain to see. In the 4 years since American Lerner took over at Villa, the Midlands team have gone from finishing in 16th position, to 11th, to 6th and currently sit in 3rd place. On the other hand, since Abramovich has been at Chelsea, they have gone from winning the title in 2006, to dropping a place every season since. Wright states that this shows that Lerner understands the game more than Abromovich. Although there is no empirical evidence for this, there is still evidence that Aston Villa have performed better. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/article2243267.ece
Friday, 13 February 2009
This credit crunch business....
My first news blog and I feel there's only one thing I can start with.
With the world in such an economic downturn, it was no surprise to find an article in todays Daily Mirror regarding the well publicised resignation of former HBOS chief Sir James Crosby. Following on from claims by a former employee, Paul Moore, alleging that he was dismissed by Crosby for warning him that the bank was expanding too fast, a second former worker has come out stating that he also tried to warn the banks bosses of the approaching trouble. Tony Main, the banks former head of funding states that he had also become worried by the amount of money the bank was borrowing from US banks in order to fund lending. He too, alleges that although Crosby said he was "alarmed", nothing was done to stop the banks expanding.
This got me thinking that although ultimately Sir James Crosby has lost his job because of his negligence, why has it only come to light after the collapse of Britain's banks? Sure, the two whistle blowers claim that Crosby ignored their worries, but surely if they were that worried they would have continued to push their point until someone took them seriously. To me, coming out to the papers after this all happened seems like they are competing to make themselves look more competent at their respective jobs. Rather than blaming each other maybe the bankers should be trying to make this recession pass as smoothly as they can, if that's possible.
Today, Lloyds announced that HBOS made a yearly pre-tax loss of £8.5 billion , stating that this was driven by £7 billion of bad loans. With Eric Daniels, boss of Lloyds claiming that his £1.6 million pound salary was "modest", and the ongoing Crosby saga, it strikes me that it's no surprise that the economy is in the state that it is when we have these clowns running the countries banks.
With the world in such an economic downturn, it was no surprise to find an article in todays Daily Mirror regarding the well publicised resignation of former HBOS chief Sir James Crosby. Following on from claims by a former employee, Paul Moore, alleging that he was dismissed by Crosby for warning him that the bank was expanding too fast, a second former worker has come out stating that he also tried to warn the banks bosses of the approaching trouble. Tony Main, the banks former head of funding states that he had also become worried by the amount of money the bank was borrowing from US banks in order to fund lending. He too, alleges that although Crosby said he was "alarmed", nothing was done to stop the banks expanding.
This got me thinking that although ultimately Sir James Crosby has lost his job because of his negligence, why has it only come to light after the collapse of Britain's banks? Sure, the two whistle blowers claim that Crosby ignored their worries, but surely if they were that worried they would have continued to push their point until someone took them seriously. To me, coming out to the papers after this all happened seems like they are competing to make themselves look more competent at their respective jobs. Rather than blaming each other maybe the bankers should be trying to make this recession pass as smoothly as they can, if that's possible.
Today, Lloyds announced that HBOS made a yearly pre-tax loss of £8.5 billion , stating that this was driven by £7 billion of bad loans. With Eric Daniels, boss of Lloyds claiming that his £1.6 million pound salary was "modest", and the ongoing Crosby saga, it strikes me that it's no surprise that the economy is in the state that it is when we have these clowns running the countries banks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)