It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Brits Raid 'Dormant' Bank Accounts to Pay for Projects

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
macedoniaonline.eu...


U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron announced plans to use “hundreds of millions of pounds” from dormant bank accounts to fund community projects, while Business Secretary Vince Cable said lenders “ripped off” customers.

Cameron said he will press ahead with a proposal set out in the coalition government’s program to establish a “Big Society Bank” to finance moves by charitable groups and not-for-profit companies to take over jobs currently done by the government.

“These unclaimed assets, alongside the private-sector investment that we will leverage, will mean that the Big Society Bank will over time make available hundreds of millions of pounds of new finance to some of the most dynamic social organizations in our country,” Cameron said in a speech in Liverpool, northwest England, today.


Mr. Cameroon is a moron, handing over government services to private non-profit and charitable groups is a huge step towards the privatization of the national economy of Great Britain which the workers have been fighting decades to build up. Ever since Thatcher, Great Britain has long since lost its ability to truly use the word 'Great' in Great Britain.




posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
3 flags but no responses?

BUMP



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
This is pretty shocking Misoir. What does he mean by "leveraging"? It does reek of privatization which certainly has NOT been in the best interest of most Britons. You're right about Thatcher, she started the whole privatization and union busting attitude that has laid England low.
Good question, where are our British friends? This could have an enormous effect on them. I would be very interested to see what they have to add here.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Misoir

Without any detail please, what links to the UK do you have and why are you so bothered by this ?

To all intents and purposes this looks like a sharing of wealth - something discussed in many other threads on ATS.......

The key wording here surely is 'Charity and Non-profit organisations......... Isn't it the fact that Comapnies and Individuals (wether public or private) desire for profit and FAT salaries has caused us to ARRIVE at where we currently stand !!?

A CHANGE in THinking is surely required ?

Regards

PurpleDOG UK



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Don't worry as I am NOT going to Flag this

Cheers

PurpleDOG UK



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Unless I'm getting something wrong here, how can this possibly be legal? How dormant is dormant? I have a couple of accounts that don't see any action but it doesn't mean that I'm giving the money away.

I really can't believe this.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frakkerface
Unless I'm getting something wrong here, how can this possibly be legal?



What is or isnt 'legal' is of no consequence to government. The concept is entirely fictional. Written and re-written by 'legislators.'

Legality has absolutely no natural value.

No 'law' has ever prevented a crime.

George Stephanopolis was interviewing the guy from Goldline this morning. George was trying to make him sound like a nut for bringing up FDR's confiscation. I dont understand why it's so unpopular to believe that if it happened once it could very well happen again. Laws dont matter. Any on a whim executive order can trump any law. And any investigation after the fact happens after the fact. No act is going to be undone. Property isnt un-confiscated. People arent un-shot. Nobody is risen from the dead.

Laws do not matter. They will not and cannot ever protect you from anything.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 


hi purpledog
regardless of the profit element of a charity, it does not stop those that operate charities to allocate to both themselves and their top salaried crew from taking as MUCH a salary as they can. any profits made return back into the charity. please correct me if i am wrong.

btw misoir
good post. it was inevitable it would come to this. this thing is turning tribal.by this i mean everyone who is now or will be entitled to set up for charitable status will do so. break up the nhs at the same time, possibly compel everyone to work for nothing or lose benefits. there will probably be a spike in the charities startup data both at least 5-6 weeks ago till present as well as beyond. i wonder how many existing companies will change their status?

regards fakedirt



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by fakedirt
reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 


btw misoir
good post. it was inevitable it would come to this. this thing is turning tribal.by this i mean everyone who is now or will be entitled to set up for charitable status will do so. break up the nhs at the same time, possibly compel everyone to work for nothing or lose benefits. there will probably be a spike in the charities startup data both at least 5-6 weeks ago till present as well as beyond. i wonder how many existing companies will change their status?

regards fakedirt


Even in Sweden their government has now allowed Private Health Insurance and it is becoming popular. Don't the Swedes know how America's healthcare is? And they want to go down the same road. Once you start down this path it's nearly impossible to turn around without some huge political/economic fallout.

Sweden's Prime Minister wrote a book not too long ago and said the only thing government should ensure is that no one goes hungry. No welfare, no healthcare, no education; the loser even invited Karl Rove over there to help him with his administration!

Britain is coming to a point where they will either become just like America or they will return to their former glory. And it all comes down to which direction the Labour Party is willing to go, will they return to Old Labour and restore Great Britain or they will continue as New Labour and become America's 51st state. David Cameroon is a monster, probably just as bad as Margaret Thatcher, and you no longer have an honest Left party.

Don't become America! You will lose NHS, your government will start forcing religion, you will be completely owned by corporations and the top 1%, and you will lose any social assistance that is actually left.

[edit on 7/20/2010 by Misoir]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
SO, the government is running out of other people's money.

NO SURPRISE THERE.

Wonder when they will begin the seizure of the private retirement accounts over there in GB.

As for Sweden and the EXALTED Socialist Democratic societies those here at ATS have held up to be their pillars of the SOCIALISTIC UTOPIA, I find it IRONIC those most socialistic, are falling first.

Cannot wait to see the Snake begin to eat its own tail.

Coming soon to a socialist country near you.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
SO, the government is running out of other people's money.

NO SURPRISE THERE.

Wonder when they will begin the seizure of the private retirement accounts over there in GB.

As for Sweden and the EXALTED Socialist Democratic societies those here at ATS have held up to be their pillars of the SOCIALISTIC UTOPIA, I find it IRONIC those most socialistic, are falling first.

Cannot wait to see the Snake begin to eat its own tail.

Coming soon to a socialist country near you.


Yeah those countries really are falling first.


You are either completely ignorant or you have your head up your ass.

Just because a country is a Social democracy does not make it a Utopia you ignorant ape.

And maybe it is just me but if you actually spent your time reading information, not listening to talking points, you would notice that the Nordics and Canada are doing the best! OMG!

Their public debt is relatively low, their unemployment rate is very low, their trade balance is positive, their liberties are very high, their production rate is substantially high, their income is very high, they are politically stable, they are least corrupt and they have the highest standard of living in the world.

But you're right, they are failing first.


Let's look at the most capitalist countries. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, United States, United Kingdom, Ireland and Iceland... So how are they holding up?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Greece, blah, blah, blah, US of A. For your info the US is a socialist democracy also. It is NOT supposed to be, but it is.

And WOW, how many times are you going to use the small socialist countries of my heritage to try and PROVE your socialist ideals.

The ONLY reason they are doing well is because of the OIL supply.

I have proven that in numerous other of YOUR UTOPIAN socialist threads.

Why do you not show me the income of said countries. I am not digging them up again.

By your logic, the Muslim Theological society of Saudi Arabia is a GREAT way to run a country because of their current economic position.

Since everyone here loves to use this saying for scientific proof, CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSAL!

China is doing okay economically so we should adopt a communistic society. IDIOCY!

[edit on 7/20/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
Greece, blah, blah, blah, US of A. For your info the US is a socialist democracy also. It is NOT supposed to be, but it is.

And WOW, how many times are you going to use the small socialist countries of my heritage to try and PROVE your socialist ideals.

The ONLY reason they are doing well is because of the OIL supply.

I have proven that in numerous other of YOUR UTOPIAN socialist threads.

Why do you not show me the income of said countries. I am not digging them up again.

By your logic, the Muslim Theological society of Saudi Arabia is a GREAT way to run a country because of their current economic position.

Since everyone here loves to use this saying for scientific proof, CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSAL!

China is doing okay economically so we should adopt a communistic society. IDIOCY!

[edit on 7/20/2010 by endisnighe]


Drifting... Drifting... Drifting...

What is the point? You will believe your opinion as fact anyway. I won't dig up anything because that is just a waste of time for both of us, me for researching their income and you for reading something you will just ignore anyway.

And quit saying UTOPIA, who the hell ever said a Social democracy is a Utopia!? God damn you people are so freaking stupid.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I read the link but there was no additional information. Not even a name of who wrote it. It is p*** poor journalism or something entirely different.

1. Can the Federal government in the UK actually seize assets from private bank accounts?
2. It was stated before but bears repeating, how dormant is dormant? If I have a savings account stashed away for a rainy day, does that mean they are going to steal it?
3. How do you "fund a non-profit"? One may argue there are start up costs but since the non-profit will fall in-stride on a running government agency, what costs are there?
4. Payroll. So you take taxes and pay government employees. Then we fire them. Seize "dormant" taxpayer dollars. Then we pay non-profit employees. Sounds like the citizen gets it either way.
5. Non-Profit. Do UK government agencies make a profit now? No? So why throw the term non-profit around?

Anywhere in the world, private corporations rarely maintain the same services the old government agency did for the same cost. It's not in the math. Private corporations are in business to make money. Period. Government agencies are not. They may charge fees to cover costs but that is it. Now, if you include profit on top of operating costs, something has to give.

I know I will hear the argument private businesses have lower operating costs because they are better attuned to cost/benefit and are more efficient. That may be true, however, it does not play out in the reality of phasing operations from the government sector to the private sector. The private sector does not see the job as a needed service to citizens. It sees it as revenue. As such, when push comes to shove, all decisions are driven towards a different goal: their bottom line, not the public welfare.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
The money should stay where it is, it doesnt matter that the accounts were dormant, they have no business touching what is not theirs. It seems the government just stole assets from private banks if I read correctly, if the banks are OK with this, something really really fishy is going on. Its not like this money was just paper money sitting in a vault somewhere waiting to be claimed, we all know thats not how it works. The government is scrounging for money, this means there is a problem imo.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Was just watchong coverage of this on bbc, the money is taken from acounts left dorment for 15 years by the way. i think its rediculos (sorry for spelling) cameron is just fobing off his responsibilitys to ordenary people who are strugeling as it is and stealing money to do it just compunds my rage. Its not proper privtesation in theory i'll admit but your right it may become that in practice if charity status is taken advantage of. the goverment services are goverment services for a reson, we dont need to be fourced into trying to pick up the slack, a real big socity would just give the people real control over these services. taxses spread the cost of public services across the entire publoc who uses it, this scheme offers minimal help to small charitys of the few volenters cuts are foircing to take the full brunt of all of socitys costs.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
So basically they are going to take the money from people that have some reserves accumulated over a 15 year period and invest it in risky projects?
Projects that end up going into bankruptcy and leave only the people behind the scenes with profit ?



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


hi misoir
all services are now being eyeballed for backdoor privatisation as we speak (the ones that are left anyway!). with regards to unused bank accounts this idea was mooted by the labour party in their first term 1997? but nothing came of it. almost all the public services have in one shape or another a private element to them. i recently watched mr camerons visit to the usa to meet obama and i noticed a subtle change in his facial expressions. it seems to me obama has put some weight on camerons shoulders. some commentators have likened us to americas lapdogs with good reason as they continue to talk about the special relationship. with cameron stating that we were the junior partner in the second world war. nice gaffe although america when they became involved were the bigger partner. i feel that mr cameron will be guided on his policies in the uk by mr obama. patient record digitisation, benefit assessment systems, foreign policy etc.
i am now convinced we are well and truly broke no thanks to the labour policymakers who in their infinate wisdom attempted to force big brother, id shambles, road tolling, pfi abuse etc. if the coalition decide to go down this route which i suspect they will it will be a one term coalition as i feel they are quite mistrusted. the only person who makes any sense in the coalition at the moment is vince cable.
back to topic there could be many many millions of pounds left unclaimed in these dormant accounts and i would therefore urge anyone who is in posession of one of these accounts to at least deposit a pound or two in order to negate the emptying of the account.
regards fakedirt



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Firstly, "dormant" doesn't mean one that is stashed away. The term "dormant" in banking parlance means they cannot trace the owner after many years of trying. If the bank sends you statements for your account of money stashed away, that isn't a dormant account. Even if the Government take this money, if the owner of said account is traced after, they can claim ALL the money back.

Secondly, I know people like to say stuff like "the UK long since lost its ability to truly use the word 'Great' in Great Britain", as it sounds like a good dig at us, but the word Great is not there to imply superiority it is merely a geographic thing. Of the British Isles, the big Island is known as Great Britain. Using it said fashion to take a swipe just shows your ignorance.

Your just sensationilising a non-issue, to be honest and have displayed a woeful lack of understanding of this issue, just a desire to take a pop at the UK.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Who's taking a swipe at the UK? I love your country and that is what angers me, you were a good country until Thatcher and ever since then you have been declining just like everyone else.

And the use of the word Great in the context I used was just simply a little joke. I know the meaning for the name is due to the Islands that your country is located on.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join