The spin goes on.
Today we’re being told they can’t name the ten secret investors because of client confidentiality.
Take it slowly, now, so you’ll understand it.
The banks can’t name these people because of their ethical obligations to the clients, and the government is unable to name the ten mystery buyers for the same reasons.
The banks claim to be bound by obligations to their clients â€“ though clearly they feel no similar obligations to this country, and had little hesitation in dragging us all to the brink of bankruptcy.
Very well. Let’s play pretend for a minute. I’m a bank and you’re a rich punter.
Let’s call you Filthy Richie.
Me: Look, Richie, I want you to buy shares in me.
You: Why the fuck should I? I have no collateral.
Me: No bother. You’ll be digging me out of a hole, so I’ll lend you the money and you can use the shares in me as security for three-quarters of the loan.
You: But the shares are fucking worthless, and anyway I’d be using part of you to guarantee another part of you. It makes no sense.
Me: I’ll still take shares in me as security. Richie, you’re in the clear.
You: What about the other quarter of the money I’ll owe you?
Me: You’ll never have to pay it.
You: Why not?
Me: I can’t chase you for it. There’s a big mistake in the deal my people drew up. Their fault. How stupid of them.
Now. Would some bright spark please explain how that would make you a client in any sense the civilised world understands, and how you would be entitled to client confidentiality.