Boss Radio

Not the US supreme court, you understand, they're someone else's problem, I'm referring to the newly established UK supreme court.

I never wanted a UK supreme court in the first place. Not only did I not like the name, but I didn't trust the idea either. A bunch of unelected legal experts get to be the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't the law? At least The House of Lords (Who I don't like either) were vaguely in touch with the zeitgeist of the nation (And where on Earth did that word come from and why did I use it in this context? It's the wrong context, even if it's the one most people seem to use it in these days. I must try harder...). What we needed wasn't a new 'supreme' court, it was an elected House of Lords.

But here we are, stuck with them, and what's their first conclusion?

That it's legal for banks to charge us anything that they feel like charging us for going overdrawn without prior arrangement.

Now I'm one of those people that doesn't spend money that he doesn't have, and I'm guessing that I'm lucky to be in this position, but I do nevertheless have some experience of this... erm- experience.

Many years ago I took out a new insurance / savings thingie, but when the time came to hand over the dosh I told the rep that I'd have to send in the cheque in two weeks (The end of the month) as I thought my bank account was less than the value of the cheque until my wages went into it. He said to just give him a back-dated cheque and he'd pay it in when the date came up. This seemed foolproof to me and I handed over the cheque.

He went straight back to work and paid it in. And the bank accepted it. A week later I got a letter informing me that I had gone overdrawn by £35 and was therefore going to be charged £12 for the overdraft facility. I figured I'd ring the bank up and ask them how this had happened, and forgot about it. At the end of the month I received my bank statement and there was the 12 quid, plus another 36 quid interest. So that's a charge of £48 for going overdrawn by £35 for two weeks. I don't have to work out the APR to know that that's quite a lot.

Naturally I contacted the bank and got my money back. I also called the insurance company and cancelled the thingie. It felt like silly pique at the time, but as it happened that particular insurance company folded up its UK arm and fled back to the USA, unable to meet the far too generous terms they'd been offering, so maybe I got lucky.

Just not as lucky as the banks got under the Supreme Court.

Last week the BBC finished it's dramatization of Dickens' Little Dorrit in fine style. As anyone who knows the story is already aware, the grand denouement comes when Mr. Murdle's bank collapses and pretty much everyone in London who has any money to spare promptly goes bankrupt, all except...

Well naturally there is more, but I won't spoil it all for you just in case you should want to read the book at some time and expand your mind. Suffice to say that Murdle was running a Ponzi scheme, paying out dividends to existing investors from money invested by newcomers. Naturally it all falls apart, no one has yet come up with a Ponzi / pyramid scheme that didn't.

Some of the clues that Dickens leaves in all his stories circulate around certain character's names. Some of them are - shall we say? - 'onomatopoeic'.

Fast forward to this week, and meet one Bernard L. Madoff, his surname is apparently pronounced 'made-off', which is precisely what it did with a great wodge of a lot of other people's money. You'd have thought the name would have been a bit of a clue. Another clue might have been that his hedge-fund operation was completely independent of his other business and was to all intents and purposes a one-man operation. Some reports have mentioned his son as a guarantor, and the size of the accounting firm that Okayed his books varies between one and three personnel, although all stories agree that Madoff was their only customer. It's undeniable that the firm ran a hedge fund which was not registered with the SEC until September 2006 and, according to reports, never inspected thereafter.

So why would lots of rich people who are now seriously less-than-rich trust this operation which, when analysed now, gives the distinct impression that it was not only a one-horse operation, but that it wasn't even being operated by the horse? Well maybe this had something to do with it. As a former chairman of the Nasdaq stock exchange Madoff was a big man on Wall Street, not convinced yet? Try this then. His "Thoughtful analysis of how modern regulatory systems make cheating virtually impossible" has been one of the most viewed clips on Youtube in the last few days. How can you not trust a guy who gives lectures on Youtube? He's one of Today's Generation, he's hip to the jive...

Sorry, I drifted away for a second there.

The point is this guy got away with swindling a lot of people for a very long time, and while we can chuckle with glee at some rich toffs suddenly finding themselves in the same position as the rest of us, it's also kinda sad to see some charities have been broken by his shenanigans, and it's those of us who support charities that will have to make up the shortfall.

Barclay's bank are saying that it may be two year's before banks get back to lending money "Normally". They're blaming the world financial crisis, I think they had money invested with MurdleMadoff.

The guy that made that gloomy prediction was Barclay's chief exec John Varley.

Now there's a Dickensian name if I ever heard one.

According to a news report today, the banks aren't lending as much money out because not as many people are putting money in, or the same number of people aren't putting as much money in, or maybe fewer people are finding somewhere else to....

Never mind. The point is, the banks maintain that the credit squeeze is our fault for keeping them cash poor.

Meanwhile, over at the stock exchange...

It doesn't matter which stock exchange, they all closed down (Or should that be 'Closed down down'?) yesterday because we don't trust big business with our hard earned dosh any more (Honesty break. Actually one stock exchange didn't close 'down' at close of play yesterday, but I can't remember which one and anyway, the odds are on my side...).

Meanwhile over on the high street...

Shops are complaining that we're not buying stuff, and when we are buying stuff it's cheaper stuff. We're not buying houses (Can't get the credit y'see) or buying cars (Can't afford the petrol, natch) and we're even sending texts rather than making calls on our mobile 'phones (Certain conditions apply).

So where is all this money going? All nations have a value which they express in currency, therefore the world has a value; I learnt that in school. That currency is somewhere.

Well I just checked and I haven't accidentally won the lottery, so I've not got it. It must be one of you lot. C'mon, 'fess up. Who's got it?

I think we should be told.