Except, apparently you.

Oh no, I'm sorry, you ARE able to answer them but you just can't be bothered. you know, the sort of person who makes silly-bugger statements and then refuses to back them up because, well, because their brain's simply too big. You'te not GMR are you?

I repeat: His was an award for his efforts in regulation. This would be either for the regulation in place before the crash, which means my point stands, or for after the crash, but wouldn't that be premature especially as it can take some time for policies to be seen to be functioning properly?

Why should I google them when someone with adequate google capability has already done it? Keep up the good work.

You mouthed off, were challenged, and then were unable to back it up.

Given second chance, you said you couldn't be bothered.

Thank you for filling in a few gaps about yourself for our future refernce.

Here's the Torygraphs take on it..

Take one from Fred but give one to Hector

I suspect the those who are responsible for selecting who is to be honoured were well aware of this situation. Rather nice to know that they don't just play to the gallery and dole out honours against what the masses might think. In this case, rather a lot was necessarily done behind the scenes as it was necessary to maintain some scant confidence in the system whilst the corrections took place. He was up against some very powerful and influential individuals. Yes, the economic mess we are in at the moment is very bad, but could have been far worse. Some justification then for recognising his efforts.

I see you found time to Google that

...or better had the department he worked for, and eventually headed, actually done their job! A knighthood for a department seen as failing and being replaced. The knighthood is vulgar. The poor overworked man has had to subsequently 'make do' with a multimillion pound job at Barclays.

As I've said twice already: his was an award for his efforts in regulation. This would be either for the regulation in place before the crash, which means my point stands, or for after the crash, but wouldn't that be premature especially as it can take some time for policies to be seen to be functioning properly?

DP

He may well have been instrumental in closing it down and working up the replacement. Common management tactic in commercial firms, where a group subsidiary starts to fail - send in a new man to put it right or take it out. Huge salaries to us seem wholly unjustified, but that's the market rate. He wouldn't get any respect from the rest of the industry if he was paid less. That's really a separate issue. Reading between the lines, the Treasury and the Bank of England seem quite pleased with him; things are now back on track in process terms at least. A knighthood is then a reasonable response.

Reward for failure, again. He presided over a department that failed to regulate effectively. If it is for subsequent work, then it is too early. My point about the multi million pound job is that he is well rewarded already, and the award just helps to exacerbate the ill feeling amongst many people.

Wasting your time. I think he / she's got you on 'ignore'

He's in the clear then. Thank heavens. I mean it's not as though under his time as regulator two of our biggest banks were given world record fines for knowingly laundering drugs money for the big cartels, and for terrorist financiers in the middle east, or a bank lost it's top chaps because of it's manipulation of the Libor rate is it?

I have sympathy for Andy Capp's view. With small businesses struggling to get affordable credit, or indeed any support from their bank as a result of the credit crunch caused, in part, by poor and naive regulation, to propose the individual concerned for an honour is at the very least insensitive, at worst another case of very poor judgement at the top of Government.

Oh do think things through before posting rubbish. They breached regulations and broke laws. So to use an analogy, when someone commits murder and is caught, it's parliament's fault as there was something wrong with the law?

You really are an insular bunch on here. No wonder it's always the same posters and no one new comes along. And because I went to bed and failed to respond a Telegraph link in 5 minutes, I have someone on ignore?

I think I might have to take a break. Idiot baiting is addictive.

Oh dear, forgot under which identity to login as?

Newres has admitted to being Squelchy (Re posts 27 and 32).

Not too difficult to catch you out again, was it?

Indeed, why not take a break and use the time to become better informed and also to sort out your identity crisis.

Now that was irony. And now I will explain why to the three active posters here and the 12 that read it. You said I was ill informed having just before called me Squelchy and accused me of having multiple identities. But it is actually you that is ill informed because I have never posted on this chat room under any identity than this one although I have previously registered.

Do show where I admitted to being Squelchy. You have a long way to go to catchup with Weavers Walk who is at least able to read and accuratelyish transcribe what he read through Google.

I reckon you would all be a lot more interesting if you debated the way we used to in the pub. Based on our own knowledge and debating skills. Google has uniquely performed the task of making idiots all over the world look moderately intelligent.

Anyway guys, Christmas is over and I have to get back to earning a crust. Not for me a job in the council where I can post and still get paid by the taxpayer alas.

Happy 2013.

Lets look at 'affordable credit'. Arguably, the bank failure was down to what were termed toxic loans. In other words the banks had been lending to people who couldn't pay back. What that actually meant was that they had relaxed their rules and started taking far bigger risks.

So then, after the failures, lesson 1 was reduce risk and stop reckless lending. What happens next? Some small businesses start squeaking that they can't get loans. What that really meant was that their business case doesn't stack up. Same with first time house buyers. At one time mortgage loans were on the basis of 3 times your income, that meant even though it was tight, you were likely to pay back. Now, could you even consider buying a home on an average local income even in Newbury.

Of course, to come out of recession, we need to invest in commercial opportunities but to stop us going back, the risks must be carefully assessed. Recently I've actually helped some small business ventures secure loans and that has generally meant re assessing the business case and making sure the risks are understood and to a degree mitigated.

No business wants lots of red tape and restriction, so the regulatory regimes have to strike a careful balance. Equally, they need to be seen as sound by our international trading partners. That means the honours function ibecomes more than just a personal reward. For both reasons, its justified in this case. He was given an almost impossible task.

newres: you might find that coming on here and calling people idiots for no apparent reason other than they disagree with your less than candid views, will not win you many admirers.

As for anyone else sympathetic to the award bestowed, it would take someone with a very narrow minded point of view to fail to recognise the inappropriateness of awarding high office with knighthoods that have systemic failed the nation in such a profound way. Even if the individual himself was not at fault.

Not sure if this helps or hinders, but since it's one of my posts being quoted, I'll expand on it.

I have p.m'd 'Squelchy' in the recent past with a few links that I thought he / she might find useful. I mentioned 'Newbelly' in one of them. Sadly, I have deleted the reply, but it went something along the lines of = Squelchy seems to spend all day working with idiots, and didn't see why he / she had to put up with them in his / her spare time. I took that to mean that 'Newbelly' had probably been put 'on ignore' and he / she was therefore no longer able to read posts from 'Newbelly'. Hence my observation that Newbelly may be wasting their time trying to chat to them.

That was all, in no way was I saying that anyone here was anybody else. nor should my post be taken to suggest any such thing.