Ritchie’s lying again, of course

He also admitted that some might find it equally hard to believe that his salary was paid to a Panamanian company that accounted in Switzerland just for privacy reasons.

His salary was never so paid. His bonus was…..OK, trivial, but it’s a measure of the man’s accuracy.

Then he tells us that tax evasion in Switzerland was not a crime but that the audit commitee of HSBC should have picked up on something that was not a crime.

What?

14 thoughts on “Ritchie’s lying again, of course”

  1. (I’m not apologising for reposting my comment from yesterday)

    Live At The Witch Trials:

    Margaret Hodge in her showboating “questioning” of the HSBC boss has just said “When something goes wrong on your watch in the public sector you resign”.

    I leave it as an exercise for the reader to point out the inaccuracies of this statement.

    It’s still not clear if Mr Gulliver floats or sinks though.

  2. Tim

    he also says here:

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/03/09/margaret-hodge-the-pac-and-hsbc-questions-needing-answering/

    that “there was no way on earth” that it was a reasonable assumption for external auditors to make sure there was no fraud “and as such it was quite unreasonable of her to think that they would report any error of this sort”

    but here:

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/02/10/where-were-hsbcs-auditors/

    he has a go at said same HSBC auditors for not identifying the risk that he has just said there was “no way on earth” they should identify

    no doubt there is some subtle nuance I’m missing in the fact that a fraudulent business model isn’t fraud but fraud suggests a potential fraudulent business model, so its just different because he says it is, ok?

  3. Glendorran,
    She really said that?

    At Westminster, resignation appears to be required when it emerges that an individual, especially ministers and shadow ministers, has done “absolutely nothing wrong”.

  4. @Jack C

    Yup. Said by Hodge, as part of her overseeing the trial by ordeal.

    I also guffawed when she denounced the HSBC lot as incompetent. Seriously. Her of all people making this accusation.

  5. @GlenDorran

    I genuinely couldn’t believe she said that! By her own standards, she should have resigned from office, rather than apologise, once the whole Saville + Islington care home scandal broke. It was on her watch. It may have been in the past, but you know what, she clearly couldn’t give a rat’s ass about that when it comes to others…

  6. So yes, looks like another witch hunt is in progress. And everything else the other commenters have said.

  7. Has someone on here been editing the Wikipedia page on Hodge?

    I didn’t realise that she achieved a third class degree in Government Studies and is also an adherent of homeopathy. Probably appropriate qualifications for her role heading up the witch trials.

  8. @GlenDorran: One of the many Good Things (amongst the many less good) about Wikipedia is you can see what changes were made and (to an extent) by whom.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Hodge&action=history


    (cur | prev) 10:15, 15 January 2015‎ Philip Cross (talk | contribs)‎ . . (31,534 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Undid revision 642521530 by Sw18paul (talk) “third class” is in the source) (undo)

    Another Good Thing is the linking to sources. What is therefore more interesting is not whether someone on here has been editing her page, but why someone with the handle sw18paul felt the need to amend the third-class degree to a first when the evidence is but a click away…

  9. I’m being very dim here, and I don’t have Margaret Hodge’s Third in Government Studies, but exactly *why* are HSBC, Amazon, Google etc being dragged in front of the PAC?

    According to the Parliament website:

    “The Committee of Public Accounts is appointed by the House of Commons to examine “the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted to Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the Committee may think fit” (Standing Order No 148).
    The Committee does not consider the formulation or merits of policy (which fall within the scope of departmental select committees); rather it focuses on value-for-money criteria which are based on economy, effectiveness and efficiency.”

    What has that got to do with how Amazon structures its business?

  10. The HSBC bod should have said he was “taking full responsibility” and then not resign or in fact do anything at all, exactly like a Labour minister.

  11. Rob,

    You left out piously claiming that “important lessons have been learned from these unfortunate events” – which makes everything all right and is even better than ten Hail Marys and twenty Our Fathers for absolving all sins, and means nobody is to blame, nothing needs to change and all can continue as before.

    (I’m in what feels like one of the last corners of the public sector that actually takes responsibility for our work and stands in front of the end-user – warship COs, this morning – to explain and teach it, so that if I’m wrong the survivors will blame *me* first even before the Board of Enquiry. Luckily, so far I’ve been right…)

  12. h

    You’re not missing any subtle nuance – when responding to a comment from either Pellinor or Ironman criticizing one of the ‘Big four’ commenters – I think it was Andrew Dickie (I’ll see if I can find the link later on) Murphy’s use of a rejoinder to the effect that ‘they had no understanding of nuance or subtlety in an argument’ was one of the very first ‘Facepalm’ moments (Of many) I have had reading TRUK .

    That’s why the sadly now on hiatus Murphy Richards had to quit I think – how can you satirize such a lack of self-awareness?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *