´óÏó´«Ã½

I am no expert but surely talk of nationalisation at this stage of the game will simply encourage wary investors to get out of the sector leaving the banks even more vulnerable.

It won't help will it? Just look how the media panic helped to bludgeon Northern Rock.

INTANGIBLE ASSETS

Poignant that the demise if integrity, a quality beyond measure, allows us to count money that has no value and trade it in negative quantities. The solution is obvious but the lunatics are running the asylum with much help from accountants and lawyers - or is that tautological?

Just read this:

* The editor of the ´óÏó´«Ã½â€™s Newsnight programme has resigned his position to join Google as head of PR for the UK. Peter Barron has spent 12 years at the ´óÏó´«Ã½2 programme, as well as time at Channel 4 and with Tonight with Trevor McDonald



Just checking if this news is true?

I guess I best google it to find out:)

Yes it is true my boss is joining Google as a public affairs guru :) I will look forward to hassling him for an interview with Sergey and Larry, and over their compliance with Chinese state censorship and generally on information privacy issues.

Actually I keep wondering why Google, which does not produce content, has decided to recruit one of TV's true content visionaries. I'd be interested in the answer if I was a shareholder - or rival!

Thanks for that. I see the topic was raised the day before by Midnight Pantsman but missed his reference as it had initially been referred to the moderators (why?), so I had no idea what his subsequent comment was about.

Nice to have confirmation here at last; these days it's hard to trust much of anything in the news unless it is direct from the horse's mouth.

As we have discussed elsewhere, blog gossip is often of less value than the energy used in the keystrokes.

How would one define such a move from news journalism to PR? Poacher turns gamekeeper? Or vice versa? Surely politics can only beckon more brightly now.

Well, as a kind of shareholder, and one with an interest in well-researched, objective reporting and editorial, I too will await with interest the next content visionary who will be appointed to fill Mr. Barron's shoes, and what he/or she will be doing to maintain the standards we have come to expect from one of the few national news programmes left that can often be relied upon to try and discuss matters that are newsworthy.

On the banks I am probably being very slow here but if there is a public spending shortfall then Gordon has to borrow zillions in the autumn to prop up the financial sector?

If he does, doesn't he have to cut services or raise tax because the country has to service these, presumably very large, additional debts? But you were talking of tax CUTS the other night.

Do the banks pay us back when they are flush?

Probably not. You can see how much the public sector has to learn from the investment banking experts who infest New Labour.

Paul,
Why I support freedom of speech, I also recognise that there ought to be responsibilities within the press. The banks problems have indeed been out in the ether for quite a few months but the widespread dissemination of technical issues which are little understood by the general population does worry me. It’s akin to discussing bombs in a loud voice in the security queue at Heathrow. (Probability of being misheard or misunderstood being very high).

One only has to see the bank bashing on Pesky Peston's blog is get a feel for the mass hysteria that can be generated by one who makes his name by creating a run on a uk bank. All will come to pass if enough people in the pub talk about it, but don't understand it.

I am more worried because I see no Government action demonstrating that the powers do not actually know what to do. Too much discussion (to pass blame) and too little taking responsibility of office.

In simple terms one is not going to make that very expensive purchase today if it is thought that it will be cheaper tomorrow. Flat screen tvs being an exception.

Do the banks deserve all the blame? After all they merely provided what the customer asked. Some of those customers were not as secure as others and the banks were probably remiss in some of their risk checks. Moreover why did the regulator not act? Was it fear that they would annoy the public (previously I could not afford to buy a house, now I can’t get the money to buy a house)? or genuine lack of control in a global market?

Whilst customer greed may have played a strong part in recent years, and that greed may have been stoked by some easy lending by the banks, the lack of regulation then surely does not justify lack of regulation/action now?

In short Nationalisation is but a very small piece of a giant jigsaw. The real problem now is that nobody trusts anyone and nobody wants to pay over the odds for something that might be a distressed sale tomorrow (greed again). Even those who do want to invest (take the risk) cannot get reasonable finance. Cash is king. No investment and the economy stops and the spiral continues ever downward. Then everyone gets hurt.

If you don’t want to talk about the bigger financial picture how about the fact that we are all doomed anyway with a wayward asteroid or the Yellowstone caldera, so a shortage of money and trust is but a small issue.

Just a thought.

Remember the Pension Funds own the majority of Shares in the UK Banks.

Poor old Pensioners !