It's not a lie, you eejit.Again they claim that they are acting on legal advice. There is no law in this country that states, the Govt cannot do a deal with senior bondholders. There is no law that states the Govt cannot offer a seperate guarantee to deposit holders.
The law they are referring to, only applies in the case of insolvency and only applies to the financial institutions obligations to its bondholders and depositors, not the state.
The state is a seperate entity. It is about time the media called FF on this lie.
Dead giveaway, isn't it?Me thinks, they protest a bit too much.
It doesn't have to protect all depositors for all their deposits though - nobody else does. And it especially doesn't have to protect depositors who also have loans.It's not a lie, you eejit.
The Government, whether it owns the bank or not has to protect depositors or we will never have a banking system again..
Following on from your "logic" (God forgive me), this is an easy one Sidewinder.Dead giveaway, isn't it?
I mean if somebody accused me of treason I'd either look at them in confusion wondering what on earth they were spouting on about; or burst out laughing at the ridiculousness of such a charge. Or both, maybe.
What any normal person who wasn't remotely guilty of treason would not do when someone merely hints and insinuates at treason is exactly what Hanafin did do - blow the top in faux-aggrieved outrage. Or do what Lendahand does - spout a wall of plausible-sounding smooth faux-sincere waffle denying the charge with a web of illogic and half-truths thatjust leaves the listener confused.
They know alright. They know they are traitors.
Note the way the argument for the blanket guarantee has changed from,Note how Hanafin uses the "how dare you" gambit , when mentioning the "treason" word.
its a classic case of deflection from the topic being discussed.
Yes it does and no one else has been put to the test.It doesn't have to protect all depositors for all their deposits though - nobody else does.
The lie is that the State has a lawful obligation to guarantee bondholders on a par with deposits.It's not a lie, you eejit.
The Government, whether it owns the bank or not has to protect depositors or we will never have a banking system again.
McWilliams talks about America, does he know if there is a difference in law on this between Europe and America? Has he bothered to find out? If he did, he didn't say so and you'd imagine that would be the first point he would make.