XXXXXXXXXX – Rossendales

[old bill]

its well worth contacting the Minister for Justice I emailed this week and the more we can send over the better!

 

Agree with you entirely, Mellymoo. The more peeps who tell Secretaries and Ministers of State and their MPs what is going on, the better. Involving the media can be a good move as well, especially if an incident or case is serious or bordering on serious.

 

Have you heard back from the Minister of State at the MoJ yet?

[outlawla]

Agree with you entirely, Mellymoo. The more peeps who tell Secretaries and Ministers of State and their MPs what is going on, the better. Involving the media can be a good move as well, especially if an incident or case is serious or bordering on serious.

 

Have you heard back from the Minister of State at the MoJ yet?

 

OK,

 

I've already contacted some of the addresses in the above posts, those I haven't yet I will be doing. As for the OFT and Rossendale's credit fitness, I found the following details on other posts and internet searches, so they too will be sent details when the full report is completed.

 

Company Name: Rossendales Limited

 

Company Reg No: 1501584

Credit Licence No.: 0594823

[brassnecked]

Hopefully this wholly corrupt and obnoxious company that is Rossendales is closed down and the smile wiped from the face of the egregious Mrs Green-jones

[old bill]

OK,

 

I've already contacted some of the addresses in the above posts, those I haven't yet I will be doing. As for the OFT and Rossendale's credit fitness, I found the following details on other posts and internet searches, so they too will be sent details when the full report is completed.

 

Company Name: Rossendales Limited

 

Company Reg No: 1501584

Credit Licence No.: 0594823

 

I would send the complaint to OFT Credit Fitness Team and Trading Standards asap.

[old bill]

Hopefully this wholly corrupt and obnoxious company that is Rossendales is closed down and the smile wiped from the face of the egregious Mrs Green-jones

 

I feel it is more a matter of Julie Green-Jones' fitness to act as a company director and that of her fellow directors that is the main issue. They are the ones in charge of the company and, ultimately, responsible for any misconduct, including law-breaking, by Rossendales' employees.

[mellymoo74]

Had a response from Debbie Sugg his PA.

Everything is with my MP already done OFT and they are putting it with the other complaints and not heard back from the LGO yet

[outlawla]

Letter to the Humberside Police Authority

 

Humberside Police Authority

Pacific Exchange

40 High Street

Hull

HU1 1PS

 

12/08/12

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: Humberside Police Crime Management Branch Ref: xx/xx

 

I'm writing to complain to the Humberside Police Authority about the force's negligence in handling a complaint made for the attention of the Chief Constable. The complaint (copy enclosed) was made in reference to Humberside Police’s Economic Crime Section where in connection with two separate incidents it demonstrated that it was its policy not to take seriously allegations of fraud when made against a local authority.

 

The letter was dealt with by Xxxx Xxxxx, Detective Chief Superintendent – Head of Crime, and his reply (copy enclosed) was in itself clearly another example of the Police fobbing off members of the public. The complaint was barely addressed and probably not read, which demonstrated a lack of responsibility to the taxpaying public and struck me as being arrogant, especially considering who it is that pays his salary.

 

All records are on file and so are available, but here is a sample of Humberside Police’s attitude to allegations of fraud in connection with North East Lincolnshire council's bailiff contractor Rossendales Ltd:

"

As you rightly say tens of thousands of people are in a similar position to yourself. No one other than you has argued this is a criminal matter worthy of police investigation to me during my 5 years in this post."

 

If you require any or all correspondence relating to the two occasions I needed to involve Humberside Police’s Economic Crime Section, these can be sent as email attachments. Letters involving the IPCC and Humberside Police's Professional Standards Department can also be sent if required; in fact correspondence involving the LGO and North East Lincolnshire council which are all relevant are also archived.

 

To add an important note here, I've read on the Humberside Police Authority's website that a formal complaint against a Chief Officer will be overseen by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I have been down this route before, and quite frankly my experience of the IPCC’s involvement has been, metaphorically, a "final kick in the teeth" with no demonstration of impartiality.

 

The outcome, like all complaints procedures dictated by statute, was completely biased towards the organisation and had merely been an exercise in riding out the complaint as unfounded. I therefore have no confidence whatsoever in the ability of the IPCC to conduct an impartial assessment of the issues and would appreciate that this is not referred to the IPCC, the force itself or the Professional Standards Department.

 

Hopefully where all other departments, organisations etc., chose the route of least resistance which has been to turn a blind eye, I hope the Humberside Police Authority will find the moral responsibility and the cojones to look seriously into these issues.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

outlawla

 

 

Received (in response to the above) through the door this morning from the Humberside Police Authority's "Member Support Manager"

 

...................

 

 

[outlawla]

Humberside Police Authority

Pacific Exchange

40 High Street

Hull

HU1 1PS

 

20/08/2012

 

Dear Ms Xxxxxx

 

Re: Humberside Police Crime Management Branch Ref: xx/xx

 

It must have taken some skill to concentrate such a quantity of bullxxxx as that which was crammed into the 16 August letter.

 

Please be assured I will be raising my objections to cabinet ministers about organisations which leech public funds such as the IPCC, LGO and evidently the Humberside Police Authority for their incompetence and quite clearly “couldn’t give a xxxx” attitude.

 

During my periods of paid employment I’ve never had the luxury of simply being able to state, that because procedures are laid down in statute, I'm not going to do my job. This today, appears to be the get-out-of-jail-free card that all employees of public authorities play to “DO NOTHING”.

 

I would appreciate an honest explanation as to why so called ombudsman services, independent watchdogs and governing bodies such as the police authority exist. My perception is they are in place at the taxpayer's expense to cover the backs of the police and local authorities to promote an acceptable public image. Something which if was otherwise dealt with by a truly independent, fair, unbiased system would reveal something quite different.

 

It must have been implied, if not specifically stated in my letter, that these statutory complaint systems, are in my opinion a complete sham.

 

There is a worrying aspect to how attempts are made to automate complaints procedures for what can only be assumed are cost cutting purposes. The consequences of this must inevitably be a lowering of standards, not to mention the rejection of thousands of complaints, not fitting rigid qualifying criteria for investigation.

 

It is hiding behind legislation and turning a blind eye to simply state that complaints have by law to be dealt with in a specific way. This confirms procedures have been automated to the point that they no longer serve any useful purpose for the public – functioning only to streamline how quickly submissions are rejected.

 

It is completely absurd to have a complaints system where the governing body dictates to the complainant what they can and cannot raise as a complaint. I would therefore be interested in how such a dysfunctional system, devised for the purpose of burying complaints, came in to being.

 

You won’t have an answer though, it seems nobody is accountable for anything, if it’s not written down in statute or anyone’s jurisdiction, the problem does not exist to the robots, designated the job to fob-off the complainant.

 

Though a dysfunctional system for the public, it is clearly advantageous for the increasingly authoritarian state, and in my opinion has been criminally introduced into all public bodies where an advantage can be gained from burying certain issues.

 

These are allegations of serious failings within publicly funded organisations which are being totally ignored. There is no accountability; everything is conveniently someone else’s jurisdiction.

 

However, it seems all employees are happy taking home their salaries in exchange for the least effort and commitment to the public who are forced to fund them. Evidently no one gives a damn about anything which is not their jurisdiction, nor do they feel obliged to state whose it is.

 

Humberside Police Authority is an authority in name alone. Legislation governing its statutory complaints procedure has made sure its hands are tied and has no autonomy to act in the interest of the public. How is it possible for an organisation to become so robotic that serious criminal allegations are ignored merely because they don’t trigger the correct zeros and ones?

 

Is there no facility within the organisation where staff members or officers can raise their concerns about the flawed system? And, if there is such a resource, does nobody bother to use it?

 

The Complaint

 

Back to the specifics of my 12 August 2012 letter, and why it had been deemed not in connection with the Chief Constable.

 

In my letter I clearly stated in the opening paragraph that the complaint was:

“

about the force's negligence in handling a complaint made for the attention of the Chief Constable

.”

A copy of the letter to the Chief Constable dated 6 May 2012, and the response to it, were both enclosed for reference.

 

I was of the understanding that the responsibility for dealing with complaints against the Chief Constable was the Police Authority’s and it seems you have confirmed this in your August 12 letter:

“

However, the Police Authority is not responsible for dealing with complaints submitted against the Force, unless the complaint is about the conduct of an Officer at the rank of Assistant Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable or the Chief Constable

.”

It seems from reading the Police Authority’s website under a section outlining its role and responsibilities, holding the Chief Constable to account is its core statutory duty:

“

Role and Responsibilities

 

Humberside Police Authority’s core statutory duty is to secure the provision of an efficient and effective police service and to hold the Chief Constable to account for the exercise of his/her functions and those of persons under his/her direction and control on behalf of the public of the Humberside policing area.

”

From the response already received from the Police and the Police Authority I think it understandable to say I’m being fobbed off by both.

 

Consequently I request you make the Chief Executive Xxxx Xxxxx aware of my concerns.

 

In the meantime I will attach all correspondence in an email for his attention.

 

Yours sincerely

Edited August 20, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

Makes you feel reassured that the Local Government Ombudsman tailors its responses to each individual complaint and doesn't just send out generic, one fits all letters.

 

 

 

 

 

Can anyone spot the difference?

Edited August 27, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

Local Government

Ombudsman

 

31 August 2012

 

 

Dear Mr outlawla

 

 

Complaint against North East Lincolnshire Council

 

I write following our letter of 11 June 2012. I am sorry for not writing to you before now but this was because of my heavy workload.

 

As you are dissatisfied with the decision on your complaint the Ombudsman, Mrs Seex, has asked me to review the file on her behalf. I am a Senior Investigator in a different team to Mr D*ck and have had no previous involvement in your complaint. I should stress that my role is to review the file, not to reinvestigate the complaint.

 

I have read all the information on the file very carefully including your letter of 1 May 2012 and your email of 17 June 2012. l am sorry to disappoint you further, as l appreciate how strongly you feel, but I support Mr D*ck's decision to close your complaint. Let me explain.

 

You made an error when paying your Council tax bill. You used the wrong reference number. The Council then sought a Liability Order in June 2011. The Council located the payments you made in error and credited it to your account. The liability order was then quashed and the bailiffs' costs were waived.

 

Mr D*ck decided that the Council was not at fault in taking recovery action by way of a liability order. He also pointed out that you had a responsibility to ensure any payments you made were made out to the correct account. He also told you that the Local Government Ombudsman does not have any jurisdiction to consider the actions of the Magistrates Court. Mr D*ck considered your decision not to give the Council information about the payments you had made. He acknowledged your strong feeling particularly about the use of the bailiffs but he concluded that there was no outstanding injustice to you.

 

You say that Mr D*ck's consideration of your complaint was incompetent and that he was not thorough enough. I disagree. He is correct to say that there is simply no outstanding injustice to you. I acknowledge that it cannot be pleasant to receive a liability order and to have contact from the bailiffs. But the primary cause of these actions was your error in failing to pay the outstanding council tax to the correct account. Mr D*ck competently considered all the papers and arrived at a sound decision that there was no outstanding injustice to you. In this context there was no need for him to consider your complaint further.

 

As you point out the Local Government Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Ombudsman do have the power to conduct joint investigations. However, you have made a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman about the action of the Magistrates Court. You do not say what the outcome of that office's consideration of your complaint is. But if they feel there is fault by the Magistrates Office that can only be remedied by a joint investigation with us they will refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman. However, there is no need for us to do this because we have decided that there is no outstanding injustice that would persuade us to investigate your concerns about the Council.

 

In your section 'Tricks of the Trade' you make a number of comments about the reasons you were contacted by Mr D*ck and you also assume he had prejudged your complaint. There is no evidence on file that support your statements here. Mr D*ck contacted you to hear your side of the story - something the Local Government Ombudsman asks all investigators to do.

 

You say that the Council did not contact you to ask you to provide details of the payments you had made until after the liability order was secured. You say that you had offered to supply the Council with bank statements.

 

Mr D*ck acknowledges your position on these points in paragraph 4.3 of his decision. He could have opted to contact the Council to explore this further but he did not because either way there was no outstanding injustice to you. He acted reasonably here.

 

You give examples of previous cases and reports that we have issued. You suggest they are comparable to yours and question why we sought remedies in those cases and not yours. I disagree that they are so similar to your case. Each case has to be judged on its own merits and an important difference in your case is that you made an erroneous payment.

 

Turning to your allegation that a crime has happened, namely serious fraud. I'm sure you will appreciate that any such allegations should be made to the police.

 

I have included all the information we received from the Council in line with your request of 17 June. I can confirm that Mr D*ck made his decision without the need to make enquiries of the Council.

 

This letter completes the Ombudsman's consideration of your complaint and my decision is final. We will not correspond with you any further on this matter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

A. Leech

Senior Investigator

 

Enc: letters from the Council dated 23 December 2011, 16 January 2012 and 17 January 2012 (Post #72 and #73)

Edited September 3, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

Humberside Police Authority

Pacific Exchange

40 High Street

Hull

HU1 1PS

 

20/08/2012

 

Dear Ms Xxxxxx

 

Re: Humberside Police Crime Management Branch Ref: xx/xx

 

It must have taken some skill to concentrate such a quantity of bullxxxx as that which was crammed into the 16 August letter.

 

Please be assured I will be raising my objections to cabinet ministers about organisations which leech public funds such as the IPCC, LGO and evidently the Humberside Police Authority for their incompetence and quite clearly “couldn’t give a xxxx” attitude.

 

During my periods of paid employment I’ve never had the luxury of simply being able to state, that because procedures are laid down in statute, I'm not going to do my job. This today, appears to be the get-out-of-jail-free card that all employees of public authorities play to “DO NOTHING”.

 

I would appreciate an honest explanation as to why so called ombudsman services, independent watchdogs and governing bodies such as the police authority exist. My perception is they are in place at the taxpayer's expense to cover the backs of the police and local authorities to promote an acceptable public image. Something which if was otherwise dealt with by a truly independent, fair, unbiased system would reveal something quite different.

 

It must have been implied, if not specifically stated in my letter, that these statutory complaint systems, are in my opinion a complete sham.

 

There is a worrying aspect to how attempts are made to automate complaints procedures for what can only be assumed are cost cutting purposes. The consequences of this must inevitably be a lowering of standards, not to mention the rejection of thousands of complaints, not fitting rigid qualifying criteria for investigation.

 

It is hiding behind legislation and turning a blind eye to simply state that complaints have by law to be dealt with in a specific way. This confirms procedures have been automated to the point that they no longer serve any useful purpose for the public – functioning only to streamline how quickly submissions are rejected.

 

It is completely absurd to have a complaints system where the governing body dictates to the complainant what they can and cannot raise as a complaint. I would therefore be interested in how such a dysfunctional system, devised for the purpose of burying complaints, came in to being.

 

You won’t have an answer though, it seems nobody is accountable for anything, if it’s not written down in statute or anyone’s jurisdiction, the problem does not exist to the robots, designated the job to fob-off the complainant.

 

Though a dysfunctional system for the public, it is clearly advantageous for the increasingly authoritarian state, and in my opinion has been criminally introduced into all public bodies where an advantage can be gained from burying certain issues.

 

These are allegations of serious failings within publicly funded organisations which are being totally ignored. There is no accountability; everything is conveniently someone else’s jurisdiction.

 

However, it seems all employees are happy taking home their salaries in exchange for the least effort and commitment to the public who are forced to fund them. Evidently no one gives a damn about anything which is not their jurisdiction, nor do they feel obliged to state whose it is.

 

Humberside Police Authority is an authority in name alone. Legislation governing its statutory complaints procedure has made sure its hands are tied and has no autonomy to act in the interest of the public. How is it possible for an organisation to become so robotic that serious criminal allegations are ignored merely because they don’t trigger the correct zeros and ones?

 

Is there no facility within the organisation where staff members or officers can raise their concerns about the flawed system? And, if there is such a resource, does nobody bother to use it?

 

The Complaint

 

Back to the specifics of my 12 August 2012 letter, and why it had been deemed not in connection with the Chief Constable.

 

In my letter I clearly stated in the opening paragraph that the complaint was:

“

about the force's negligence in handling a complaint made for the attention of the Chief Constable

.”

A copy of the letter to the Chief Constable dated 6 May 2012, and the response to it, were both enclosed for reference.

 

I was of the understanding that the responsibility for dealing with complaints against the Chief Constable was the Police Authority’s and it seems you have confirmed this in your August 12 letter:

“

However, the Police Authority is not responsible for dealing with complaints submitted against the Force, unless the complaint is about the conduct of an Officer at the rank of Assistant Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable or the Chief Constable

.”

It seems from reading the Police Authority’s website under a section outlining its role and responsibilities, holding the Chief Constable to account is its core statutory duty:

“

Role and Responsibilities

 

Humberside Police Authority’s core statutory duty is to secure the provision of an efficient and effective police service and to hold the Chief Constable to account for the exercise of his/her functions and those of persons under his/her direction and control on behalf of the public of the Humberside policing area.

”

From the response already received from the Police and the Police Authority I think it understandable to say I’m being fobbed off by both.

 

Consequently I request you make the Chief Executive Xxxx Xxxxx aware of my concerns.

 

In the meantime I will attach all correspondence in an email for his attention.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Humberside Police Authority Chief Executive's Response

 

 

Edited September 14, 2012 by outlawla

[old bill]

Outlawla,

 

Have you tried dealing with NELC through a legal professional? Local authorities tend to take things a lot more seriously when complaints are submitted through legal professionals.

[outlawla]

So, in his reply the chief exec focussed more on his objection to the strongly expressed opinions than the obvious negligence and cover-ups etc that I've been tackling over the last 3 or 4 years.

 

What does this guy expect! Some kind of love letter, when I'm effectively making allegations that the police force and its Independent Complaints body, and now the police authority are turning a blind eye to, and covering-up the systematic fraud abetted by local authorities in enforcement operations.

 

He's shown himself to be another useful idiot acting for the government to keep the truth suppressed, while taking taxpayer's money for doing so. I don't know if the chiefs of police authorities are on big money, but if so that would really rub salt in....

 

He's also shown himself to be completely ignorant as far as his knowledge of the law is concerned. If he has no idea himself, you would have thought he'd taken advice before putting in writing that a bailiff, thieving, or attempting to thieve from a debtor while enforcing liability orders for local authorities was "not a matter for the police or its governing body and it would be an abuse of their powers for them to become so involved in these circumstances". I wonder if it has dawned on him yet that investigating crime is in fact exactly what the police should be interested in and if he regrets putting this in writing?

 

 

Outlawla,

 

Have you tried dealing with NELC through a legal professional? Local authorities tend to take things a lot more seriously when complaints are submitted through legal professionals.

 

 

I'm going to have to think along those lines old bill. However, I have something up my sleeve which I think I've mentioned before about bringing much more than the bailiff aspect to the attention of a certain office. This is taking some time, as I'm having to rely on certain government departments to confirm some issues. As you'd imagine, these are the slipperiest of all people to deal with.

 

 

EDIT:

 

I have taken the required steps needed to have a legitimate right to complain about the chief constable of Humberside police. This guy is making his own rules up by closing the matter without going through correct procedures.

Edited September 14, 2012 by outlawla

[outlawla]

From: outlawla

Date: 14 Sept 2012

To: chiefexec

Subject: Complaint about Humberside Police crime management branch

 

Dear Mr Xxxxx

 

Re: Complaint about Humberside Police Crime Management Branch

 

I have received your letter this morning and have very serious concerns about what it is you think the role of the police is in connection with organisations and private firms defrauding the public. This is particularly disturbing, in light of you being the chief executive of the Humberside Police Authority.

 

With regards to bailiffs, thieving, or attempting to thieve from a debtor while enforcing liability orders for local authorities, it is completely outrageous that you should state "it is not a matter for the police or its governing body and it would be an abuse of their powers for them to become so involved in these circumstances"

 

If you are completely ignorant of the law I would have thought you'd have taken some advice before putting in writing such an absurd statement.

 

I have had enough experience dealing with people like you who take money off the taxpayer to keep issues buried, to know that you will now likely refuse to communicate any further. However, I'm now making formal accusations that you are defrauding the taxpayer by clearly not acting in their interest. I would like to know if you have the balls to deal with this or take the cowards way out and burry this issue.

 

P.S. I have taken the required steps needed to have a legitimate right to complain about the chief constable of Humberside police. You appear to be making up you own rules up by closing the matter without going through correct procedures.

 

 

Yours sincerely

Edited September 14, 2012 by outlawla

[old bill]

Outlawla,

 

A police authority has nothing to do with the operational policy or day-to-day running of a police force, although a police authority can refer a chief constable's conduct to the Home Secretary. Other than that, they have no statutory powers over operational policing.

 

Your posts exhibit a lot of emotion which is understandable, taking account of the way you have been treated by NELC and their attack dogs. The problem you have come up against, where Humberside Police is concerned, is their lack of knowledge of bailiff law. This is not entirely their fault, but, nevertheless, they should not dismiss bailiff misconduct out of hand.

 

I feel that in the interests of getting this matter sorted out and preventing this protracted matter from affecting your health, which it will do, eventually, you would be best to hand the matter over to a legal professional. In my experience, local authorities and police forces tend to take matters more seriously if an approach is made through a legal professional.

[unclebulgaria67]

State bodies and their agents make mistakes. Individual members of the public would be be charged with criminal offences, for doing similar.

 

The Police and Police authorities are partly funded by council authorties, so they are hardly likely to investigate any wrong doing.

 

You would better off contacting media publications that are likely to support your case. e.g New Statesman. If you took any civil action, you would be up against the state machine. Better to try to embarass the council through publicity, attending public meetings to raise the issue etc.

[outlawla]

A police authority has nothing to do with the operational policy or day-to-day running of a police force, although a police authority can refer a chief constable's conduct to the Home Secretary.......

 

 

This was what I was trying to achieve.

 

I went through the necessary steps by submitting a complaint to the chief constable so I could subsequently go through proper channels at the police authority when the inevitable, unsatisfactory response was given.

 

How can he justify saying this?

"

it is not a matter for the police or its governing body and it would be an abuse of their powers for them to become so involved in these circumstances

"

 

 

[caledfwlch]

This was what I was trying to achieve.

 

I went through the necessary steps by submitting a complaint to the chief constable so I could subsequently go through proper channels at the police authority when the inevitable, unsatisfactory response was given.

 

How can he justify saying this?

"

it is not a matter for the police or its governing body and it would be an abuse of their powers for them to become so involved in these circumstances

"

 

 

 

See if you can get them to confirm in writing that investigating an alledged crime is not a matter for the Police, that is effectively what they are saying, but be nice to get it in more clear wording.

 

You could probably try some sort of civil action against the Police, and there is the possibility of civil prosecution, but I imagine both are not cheap.

[old bill]

If a Police Authority appears to be acting like numpties, you do have the option of pursuing the matter with the Home Secretary, Outlawla. However, I would strongly recommend you do so through a legal professional. When complaints are being raised at that level, the input of a legal professional can be invaluable.

[outlawla]

See if you can get them to confirm in writing that investigating an alledged crime is not a matter for the Police, that is effectively what they are saying, but be nice to get it in more clear wording.

 

You could probably try some sort of civil action against the Police, and there is the possibility of civil prosecution, but I imagine both are not cheap.

 

 

It will be interesting to see what response there is to the email sent in post #189. However, I doubt there will be one as previous emails requesting updates have not been responded to. Maybe then, this will be an opportunity to send another letter detailing the contents of the email, but adding to it, some kind of form devised to function as a signed confession that it is his view "that investigating an alleged crime is not a matter for the Police".

[outlawla]

If a Police Authority appears to be acting like numpties, you do have the option of pursuing the matter with the Home Secretary, Outlawla. However, I would strongly recommend you do so through a legal professional. When complaints are being raised at that level, the input of a legal professional can be invaluable.

 

Will look into it old bill.

 

This is more in connection with police forces rather than authorities, but you get the impression they will most likely fob you off.

 

They work for you Home Department

[outlawla]

Just thought I'd post this to reinforce the old saying, "don't believe everything you hear, especially if it's from the top".

 

The irony of the last paragraph....

 

 

This afternoon, Andrew Penhale, deputy head of fraud at the Crown Prosecution Service, said the amount of money involved was 'staggering'.

 

He said: 'Behind all the technical financial jargon in this case, the question for the jury was whether Kweku Adoboli had acted dishonestly, in causing a loss to the bank of $2.3bn. He did so, by breaking the rules, covering up and lying. In any business context, his actions amounted to fraud, pure and simple.

 

'The amount of money involved was staggering, impacting hugely on the bank but also on their employees, shareholders and investors. This was not a victimless crime.

 

'The CPS Central Fraud Division are pleased to have brought this case so quickly to conclusion, with the trial opening one year to the day after the case was reported to City of London Police. This is a tribute to the hard work and dedication of the whole prosecution team.

 

'People who commit fraud, in any walk of life, should know that the scale and technicality of a case is no barrier to bringing it to justice. At the heart of any complex fraud is a simple notion of dishonesty which is something that we can all understand.'

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235718/UBS-trader-Kweku-Adoboli-facing-years-prison-guilty-UKs-biggest-fraud-losing-Swiss-bank-1-4bn.html

[brassnecked]

Just thought I'd post this to reinforce the old saying, "don't believe everything you hear, especially if it's from the top".

 

The irony of the last paragraph....

 

Ahh but as bailiffs are civil and the debt is owed to "THE MAN" aka council, aka government, the fraud is ignored, as ihn the end justifies the means. In reality these bailiffs and councils are as culpable and guilty as the rogue trader.

[outlawla]

Ahh but as bailiffs are civil and the debt is owed to "THE MAN" aka council, aka government, the fraud is ignored, as ihn the end justifies the means. In reality these bailiffs and councils are as culpable and guilty as the rogue trader.

 

Exactly! The system of justice is an entirely selective one.

[brassnecked]

Exactly! The system of justice is an entirely selective one.

Medieval, and Robber barons to a person the lot of 'em