The recent Occupy Wall Street protests (and their Occupy Sydney and Occupy Melbourne cousins) have aimed their message at the income disparity between the 1% richest and the rest of the country. But what happens when you expand that and look at the 1% richest of the entire world? Some really interesting numbers emerge….
In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. In Australia, the top 3% of households earn more than $250,000 per week, according to the ABS. How much do you need to earn to be among the top 1% of the world?
That was the finding World Bank economist Branko Milanovic presented in his 2010 book The Haves and the Have-Nots. Going down the distribution ladder may be just as surprising. To be in the top half of the globe, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. For the top 20%, it’s $5,000 per year.[…]
It means Australians we consider poor are among some of the world’s most well-off. As Milanovic notes, “the poorest [5%] of Americans are better off than more than two-thirds of the world population.” Furthermore, “only about 3 percent of the Indian population have incomes higher than the bottom (the very poorest) U.S. percentile.”
In short, most of those protesting in the Occupy Wall Street movement would be considered wealthy — perhaps extraordinarily wealthy — by much of the world. Many of those protesting the 1% are, ironically, the 1%.
So to any Occupy folks, in the unlikely event any happen to be be reading this, perhaps you should pack up the tent and go re-erect it in your own gardens.* Not only will you be more representative by protesting against yourselves but no one will mind if you don’t stay in the tent all night or use the bird bath as a lavatory.
UPDATE – Very belated recognition of a comment from a few weeks ago, this. Rational Anarchist made a very similar point on In Masho veritas? and referenced Tim Worstall writing for Forbes. Unfortunately RA’s comment got sucked into the ID spam trap and I only just noticed today. Sorry, RA.
* 99% of people probably do not have 3G for a poor protestor’s internet capable smartphone or a handy Starbucks providing a free wifi signal for their ≈$2,000 MacBook Pro and so could not be reading this from local equivalent of Wall Street, or the steps of St Paul’s, or City Square, or Martin Place etc etc. Just a thought, that’s all.
In the wake of Nicolas Sarkozy and Barry Ohbuggerit being caught at the G20 slagging off the Prime Minister of Israel behind his back (“I can’t stand him, he’s a liar.” “How do you think I feel? I have to deal with him every day.” – really, lads, that’s quality diplomacy there) The Age this morning has a little collection of other instances of politicians’ mouths digging big holes over an open mic.
There may be no true windows into the souls of politicians, but perhaps the inadvertently open microphone is an aural equivalent – the briefest of glimpses of what lies beneath the polished veneer of stock phrases and party lines.
[Nicolas Sarkozy’s and Barack Obama’s exchange] is up there with the best of past open-mic gaffes. It is reminiscent of former British prime minister John Major referring to his Eurosceptic cabinet colleagues in 1993 as “bastards” in a post-interview chat with an TV news reporter. There is also George Bush Jr’s open-mic aside to Dick Cheney, referring to a prominent New York Times reporter in 2000 as a “major league asshole”.
Those cases somehow said less about the intended targets than the speakers. Major and Bush had gone out of their way to cultivate an image of politeness and fair play, and for a moment the curtain was swept aside. Similarly, Bush’s open-mic conversation with Tony Blair at the G8 summit in Russia (“Yo Blair. How are you doing?”) said as much about his casual lack of respect for foreign leaders as it did about Blair’s obsequiousness around the American leader.
I don’t know, I just get the feeling there’s a really good one missing there. Now, who could it have been? Oh yeah, I remember.
P.S. As an aside the article also joins in with bagging Netanyahu.
On balance, Sarko’s aside does more damage to Netanyahu. After all, he came to power as the most pro-Israel French president in decades and is clearly losing patience. To call someone a liar is no profanity (although MPs are not permitted to apply it to each other in parliament), but is all the more cutting because of it, especially with another world leader nodding in agreement. It reinforces Netanyahu’s image at home as an opportunist who is losing Israel friends abroad.
That may be true, I really wouldn’t know. But I’m not at all sure it doesn’t damage both Obama and especially Sarkozy, whose mouth seems to be very busy lately, at least as much or more than it does Netanyahu.
Via Watts Up With That.
Okay, this is not as bad as the 1010 mob’s gleeful explosive execution of anyone expressing ambivalence toward warble gloaming or that aborted video with hundreds and hundreds of airliners zooming towards a New York with smoke curling up from the World Trade Centre, but it’s still pretty nasty. “You, you evil sceptics,” goes the message, “You’ll get it first.” Not quite sure how that works – how can the climate tell who believed and us Untermenschen who weren’t convinced? Maybe it’s the same kind of magic by which the climate can tell difference between the evil CO2 emitted by a power station or your breath and the benign and harmless CO2 that’s puffed out from the blowholes of whales and dolphins to feed their dear friends, the trees. Or maybe the climate is relying on the warble gloaming believers to muck and help with a set of matches. I’ve no idea, but somehow or other we’re first in line for death despite the usual exhortations to cut down on our selfish energy use because poor people in developing nations are first in line for death. Consistency? Meh.
And so at this point I want to bring up my intermittently maintained list of warble gloaming dates for your diary, because a few weeks ago I noticed an addition spotted by The Filthy Engineer, who notes that in two-thirds of the spirit of reduce, reuse, recycle this has been reused and recycled since 2007.
Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth’s remaining resources.
Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.
“Promises” does it? Then with less than two months ’til the start of 2012 we should see some signs of it already, shouldn’t we? And “literally burn-up”? Seriously? Actual fields actually on actual fire? 4.5 billion of the world’s 7 billion people dead (which still wouldn’t be enough to satisfy the most extreme eco-psychos, such as this fucktroon)? As much as I’m prepared to believe that many warble gloaming catastrophists do actually believe what they claim when someone comes out with ridiculously over the top scare claims like this I suspect that even they don’t believe it. It’s the old tactic suggested years ago by the late Dr Stephen Schneider of offering up scary scenarios to get attention even if they’re vanishingly unlikely. I’ve no idea whether to blame overzealous PR of the kind Dr Schneider once suggested or journalistic license, but I suspect there’s probably only one thing that’s literally going to burn up.
Being generous and giving them ’til the end of next year the updated list now looks like this:
- Probably should have happened by now, or failing that should be possible to observe a very large change in that direction – New York’s West Side Highway impassable due to being underwater – Dr. James Hansen (1988/89 interview)
- Probably should have happened around 2005 ± 1 yr – British children will not know snow in their own country – Dr David Viner (Independent, Mar 2000)
- “Imminently” – loss of world’s coral reefs – David Attenborough in July 2009 (‘world’s tropical reefs face ‘imminent destruction’ unless CO2 levels are slashed’)
- By 2010 – 50 million refugees climate refugees (UN Environment Program – currently no link for UNEP site but Watts Up With That has details and evidence of claim)
- Between 2010 and 2015, probably earlier – ice free Arctic – Louis Fortier, director of ArcticNet, speaking to Canada.com in 2007
- 2012 – fields on fire and approximately two thirds of the entire planet’s population dead
- Late 2013 – ice free Arctic – Al Gore (North Pole will be ice free in five years’)
- 2014 – the whole world and everything fucked up beyond repair – WWF.
- Dec 2016 – the whole world and everything all fucked up beyond repair – the Prince of Wails and the 100 months mob
- Dec 2016 – loss of ‘the levers of control’ for the climate – the Prince of Fails… again.
- Late 2019 – ice free Arctic – Pen Hadow (ten years to Arctic ice loss)
- Late 2019 – the whole world and everything fucked up beyond repair – UK Met Office.
- Late 2029 – loss of Great Barrier Reef – marine scientist Charlie Veron (‘global warming will destroy the World Heritage site within just 20 years’)
- By approximately 2040 – ice free arctic yet again – NSIDC director Mark Serreze
Warble gloaming – I refuse to use the term climate change when climate has always been changing since the planet’s ancient beginnings – warble gloaming might not need you to believe in it, but warble gloaming catastrophists very much do need you and everyone else to believe. Because they’re all out of a job otherwise.
… first-time protestor, Roy Hobbs, insisted: “I’m here because I’m sick and tired of all the greed that stops me from getting what I want.
“That’s why I’ve come up with a plan that will solve everything. It involves dividing all the money in the world equally and then waiting to see what happens next.”
You know, I really believer that is the plan. I really, really do.
… and then what, you clueless bunch of fucknuts? Going to throw America’s captains of industry from the roofs of their own buildings, are you? Should be pretty fucking entertaining given the US has a national debt on the order of fifteen trillion dollars. Now, what’s Mandarin for, “Nice one, you fucking idiots”?
… means that the only comment I really have time to make on the above headline is “Are you fucking serious or have you been doing lines of mercury?” Not that Cameron is not a complete twat and his government almost as big a bunch of disappointing and feckless wankers as, well, as the Labour governments of the previous 13 years, but for one thing the government isn’t actually cutting police numbers. Seems to me that if forces want to spend their budgets on expensive or irrelevant bullshit rather than police officers then their numbers, or lack thereof, is a problem of their own making. Just an idea this, but they could start with multiplying the number of officers they’d like by the salaries they’d need to pay and then subtracting that number from the budget before spunking money away on other stuff. It’s a thought, that’s all.
And for another thing the Cobbleition hasn’t made any cuts. This is getting really fucking tedious to have to keep saying this, but cuts are badly needed and the Cobbleition has failed to cut a penny off of overall public spending, and in fact they’ve managed to spend even more. Yes, they have been more profligate than even the crazed fuckwits who preceded them, and only those crazed fuckwits and their equally crazed and fuckwitted followers could possibly imagine that a government that spends more than the last one has cut a fucking thing. The only point at which the concept of spending less enters into it is that they are spending less than the profligate cocksocket Brown would have spent if he’d managed to win the election. That’s it, and it does not qualify as a cut any more than saying I’ll take out a loan to buy a Ferrari next year and then changing my mind is saving money.<
I’d suggest to Yvette Cooper that she goes home and asks around her family to see if someone can explain it to her, but since her family has got Ed Balls in it that’s probably a waste of time.
Not having a dig at our American cousins here, but I’ve always felt flag veneration is more their thing what with their national anthem being about it and with every other person you meet prepared to tell you that it’s illegal to set fire to it (which apparently it isn’t). Maybe some of my fellow Brits feel much the same for the Union Jack, especially those who know it’s real name is the Union Flag, but here in Oz most people I’ve come across seem much less attached to the Australian Flag. There are those republican types who dislike the constant reminder of Britain’s influence provided by the Union Flag in the top left quarter, and there are those who say that it doesn’t represent the aborigines and Torres Strait islanders who were here first. There are those who think the Southern Cross bit has been hijacked by bogans anyway. And there are those to whom it’s just the flag and apart from maybe waving one on Australia Day or watching it being lowered to half mast on ANZAC Day they probably don’t think about it often.*
I didn’t realise there were a group that venerated it in a similar fashion to the Americans and ‘Old Glory’ or that this group was more commonly known as opposition MPs, but apparently it’s so because they’re angry about a scene in an ABC satirical comedy called At Home With Julia, featuring Julia Gillard impersonator Amanda Bishop (you’ve seen her on this blog before). In this scene, to be broadcast this evening unless the ABC have chickened out and pulled it, Bishop’s Julia Gillard dances the horizontal tango with the First Bloke, Tim Mathieson, as played by Phil Lloyd. On the floor of the Prime Minister’s office. Under a duvet sized Australian flag. And the Liberal Party and their allies have gone apeshit.
COALITION MPs have attacked a controversial TV satire on Julia Gillard as demeaning and suggested ABC funding should be reviewed.
Liberal MP Teresa Gambaro also expressed disgust with At Home with Julia, suggesting to the party room that the national broadcaster’s funding should be reviewed.
I’d agree, but not for that reason. Where I’m from many people complain about the TV licence forcing people who don’t watch BBC programmes to pay for the BBC anyway, but since it’s funded out of general taxation people pay for the ABC even if they haven’t got a television. Review away, but review the principle of making people pay for a service they don’t necessarily use rather than use it as a stick to beat them with because you find some of their content objectionable. Once again, this is liberalism in name only – the Australian Liberal Party seems to be as conservative as they come.
… Nationals MP John Forrest [urged] the return of tasteful comedy shows such as the 1970s series Are You Being Served.
Mr Forrest told colleagues the satirical take on Ms Gillard’s private life demeaned the office of prime minister, after learning tomorrow’s episode features on-air prime minister Amanda Bishop and actor Phil Lloyd, playing Tim Mathieson, naked on her office floor under an Australian flag.
“Having sex in the prime minister’s office under the Australian flag is the last straw for me,” Mr Forrest reportedly told MPs.
So, is this sticking up for Julia Gillard or disappointment that you won’t get to see Amanda Bishop’s arse, John? Apparently, neither. It’s the flaaaaag.
“It’s nothing to do with Julia Gillard. I’m not trying to defend her. It’s the office of prime minister and it’s not even funny.
“The old English traditional shows like Are You Being Served – they were funny, but this isn’t.”
John, they weren’t funny. You found them funny. Lots of other people also find them funny. Other people don’t. I’ve been for a look on YouTube to refresh my memory, and I found it to be a repetitive series of jokes mostly involving the ambiguous availability of an unambiguously camp salesman in a menswear department and the pussy of the ancient woman with a blue rinse who works opposite (feline kind, but – oh, my sides – never referred to as a cat). This may have been bleeding edge comedy in the 1970s when it began, and to be honest I did think the I’m free/pussy gags were funny the first time, but it felt like the show really didn’t have much else. Blackadder or Yes Minister it ain’t, but if John Forrest is amused by it then he’s welcome to buy it on DVD. I suspect the ABC, despite all the things for which it could be criticised, has a better grasp of what audiences in 2011 want. In fact if ratings are any guide what they want is actually on Channel 7 (and much of it is shit if you ask me) but the ABC seem to be doing an okay job of treading the middle ground, and if it makes John Forrest feel better they are still buying second hand stuff from Britain.
“And to desecrate the flag dishonours what my dad did.”
I don’t know what your dad did, John, but was it anything to do with fighting to prevent dictatorial types attempting to control other people’s lives? I’m only asking.
Or, bearing in mind the religious nut element of Australian politics, is it just the thought of Julia Gillard having sex that’s upsetting people? Newsflash, prudes: the woman is 50 in a couple of weeks – she’s probably not a virgin, and having had a stable relationship with the same guy for some years she probably enjoys it when he gives her a nice hot fuck as an alternative to a cup of Milo at bedtime. I wouldn’t want to see it on my TV either – in a weird kind of way that has to do with her job and personality it’d be like seeing your parents do it – but I can live with it being referred to on TV. And if not I know what to do about it, as does one Liberal who does actually act up to the name and understands what choice means.
But Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop said if people didn’t like the show they could change channels.
She said former prime minister John Howard had been lampooned for years by comedy shows.
And Julia Gillard herself? To her credit also, she’s calmly said she won’t be watching (fair enough – I can’t even look at myself making a speech on someone else’s wedding video) and other than that has no commented the whole thing. And while I haven’t got a lot of time for her that attitude as raised my opinion of her a smidgeon.
Americans seem to venerate their flag because they think it stands for freedom, representing as it does the original 13 colonies which gained independence from Britain as well as the 50 states of today. Brits and Aussies not so much because their flags are more hybrids of other flags, and in the case of Australia independence was granted at least as much as it was won. So let’s leave the flag veneration to people that not only understand it but, understand also that what a flag stands for is rather more important than the flag itself. Because I think that if something’s symbolic of being free to do only as you’re told I’m not sure it’s worth venerating in the first place, as illustrated by a couple of my favourite American libertarians.
* Personally I’m happy with whatever flag Australia choose to have and don’t mind what people choose to tattoo on themselves, so I suppose that puts me in the last group.
Is it just me or does this sound like the worst porn in the universe?*
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, no stranger to attention-grabbing campaigns featuring nude women, plans to launch a pornography website in the name of animal rights.
The non-profit organisation, whose controversial campaigns draw criticism from women’s rights groups, said it hopes to raise awareness of veganism through a mix of pornography and graphic footage of animal suffering.
What the fuck is that going to look like?
Never mind all the jumping up and down about degradation of women – if they’re not being dragged into the porn studio then women who choose to have sex on camera for money is a non-issue as far as I’m concerned. But I do think it suggests that PETA have got more money than they know what to do with because I can’t imagine anybody gave them a loan for this. Seriously, PETA, by mixing porn and images of animal cruelty you’re going to have two problems. First you’ll attract the the most deeply depraved, sick deviant fucks who’ll actually get off on that sort of thing, which sounds rather counter-productive from your perspective. Second, you’ll be responsible for preventing more erections than the combined efforts of every local council planning office on the planet, which doesn’t seem likely to produce much in the way of repeat business. Oh, and if it’s vegan pornography the leather fetishists won’t watch it in the first place.
Really, PETA, you’ve jumped the cruelly caged and ruthlessly exploited shark this time.
* In time that might really fuck up some search results.
Veteran Channel 4 newsborg Jon Snow blogs on the eeeevil bankers, and specifically asks why they haven’t been arrested, and by extension I imagine charged, tried, found guilty, purged, flayed, subjected to the Pear of Anguish and possibly also the Banana of Discomfort and the whole Fruit Salad of Much Inconvenience, and finally hung, drawn, quartered and buried in five limed graves each. But that may just be the impression I get.
|Click for linky|
The publication of the Vickers report into British banking reform sparks the question why the UK has so far failed to prosecute a single individual for his or her misdeeds during the financial meltdown of 2008.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that maybe no actual crime has been committed. Negligence, probably yes. Gross stupidity, almost indubitably. Financial irresponsibility and incompetence of such breathtaking degree that it’s comparable with what some governments spunk away every week, for sure. And some of that may be tortious, but is there evidence that an actual offence has been committed and is there enough of it to make a successful prosecution likely? Because if the answer to both is no, Jon, there’s your reason why.
We were told at the time that the banking regulator, the FSA, had started a ‘major investigation’. Last night on Channel 4 News when I pressed the City Minister, Mark Hoban, he referred constantly to the FSA’s involvement. But where is the Serious Fraud Office? No sign of much happening on that front.
Well, Jon, do you have evidence of a serious fraud? And if so have you brought it to the attention of the SFO? Because if not have you considered the possibility that they looked and didn’t actually find one?
Yet investigators on both sides of the Atlantic have had no doubt that criminality, subterfuge, and downright dishonesty accompanied many of the ingredients that brought about the crash.
“No doubt of criminality”? Well, many people are in no doubt that a damn sight more parliamentarians were feeding of the taxpayers’ backs via dodgy expenses claims than the half dozen or so who’ve been found guilty and gaoled, and that far more than that deserved to have gone to prison in disgrace – possibly even some who didn’t even have the decency to stand down as MPs and have, thanks to seats in which tribal electorates would vote in a priapic chimpanzee if it was eating the appropriate colour rosette, even kept their seats – but lacking doubt is still meaningless if you also lack evidence. I don’t think that varies much on either side of the Atlantic.
The convenient fall-guy was the Ponzi magician, Bernie Madoff who was quickly jailed for thieving billions with his criminal scheme.
Quite irrelevant and only a fall guy in the minds of those who don’t understand that he had square root of bugger all to do with it, which is something Jon Snow brings up himself in the very next sentence.
But Madoff had nothing to do with bringing down the banks.
So why fucking mention him then? You might as well bring up Dick Turpin.
But his jailing served to suggest that a high profile scalp had been secured.
As I said, only in the minds of people credulous enough to think he had anything to do with it. His was a genuine fraud that had been going on for years, possibly since the 70s, and he could as easily have been caught, convicted and forgotten before the GFC began. About eight years before if the US authorities had listened to a guy named Harry Markopolos, who in 1999 realised that Madoff’s numbers didn’t add up after looking at them for about five minutes and reckoned he knew it was fraud four hours later. And incidentally, a fraud that’s not all that unlike National Insurance Contributions in that all the money coming in was going straight out to pay earlier ‘investors’, the quotes being necessary because little money and possibly not a single cent was ever actually invested. This is, of course, quite illegal when it’s not governments doing it, and if you don’t believe me try setting up a health insurance and pension scheme on exactly the same business model as NICs and see what it gets you. About 150 years if Bernie Madoff’s case is any guide.
Anyway, the point is that Madoff’s Ponzi scheme could not only have been stopped earlier had the SEC heeded Markopolos’ regular warnings from 1999 rather than ignored them until it imploded of it’s own accord, but was also as incidental to the GFC as the Enron scandal. It happened at around the same time, and that’s about it. In fact far from contributing to the GFC the effects of the GFC made it harder for Madoff to keep all those plates spinning and probably brought about an early end to the scam. If, as Jon Snow says, Madoff’s arrest and imprisonment suggested a high profile scalp had been collected then it was because the media failed in their duty to make it crystal clear what the significance actually was, i.e. none at all.
Last year, the then New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo produced a laundry list of institutions and individuals who were being investigated for potential prosecution. That work too has slowed.
Slowed, Jon, or just uncovered too little evidence of any actual indictable offences? You’re the journo – why don’t you go find out which?
In one month, hundreds of rioters and looters have been prosecuted and punished by the English courts, often for offences with a value of under fifty pounds. Yet the threat to the wellbeing of UKplc was far greater from the bankers than from any number of more arrestable rioters.
Yes, but as I’ve mentioned once or twice, stupidity, negligence and incompetence are not necessarily crimes. Rioting and looting, on the other hand, most definitely are. If you can’t find an actual offence and make a case then nobody goes to prison, see? And if you believe that every single looter and rioter will be punished you’re dreaming, because again they’ll have got only the ones with good evidence against them.
There is a strong impression abroad that the UK doesn’t want to prosecute anyone for the banking crisis, a crisis that has affected every tax payer in the Kingdom.
Look, the only reason it’s affected every taxpayer is because the Prime Mentalist of the day bailed the bastards out with taxpayers’ money. Had the meddling prick been able to restrain his urge to interfere the bad banks would have failed, affecting just staff, shareholders and people with money in them (less the compensation of up to £30K or so each account holder would have got from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme). Instead him and his badger faced sock puppet tried to fill in the holes with taxpayers’ money – that was their decision and nobody else’s. Yes, the banks came and begged to be bailed out, but Brown and Darling could and should have said no.
Soon enough the statute of limitations will kick in to ensure that no-one will ever be prosecuted for their role.
Oh, yes, that’ll be that famous statute of limitations that Asil Nadir so successfully used to avoid prosecution by kicking back in Cyprus for 17 years until he was untoucha… no, wait, actually the SFO arrested him as soon as he got off the plane, didn’t they? Still, Jon, how were you supposed to know about that? Apart from the fact you fucking reported on it on Channel Four news.
So tell us, Jon, precisely what statute of limitations are you talking about? I’m no lawyer so I’m willing to be corrected on this, but I was under the impression that the UK doesn’t actually have a statute of limitations. Not for criminal offences anyway, though as I keep saying, Jon Snow has mentioned precisely zero offences that have definitely been committed and a total of absolutely none laws that have been broken. But if it turns out otherwise, Jon, well, 17 years wasn’t long enough to protect Asil Nadir from arrest so you’re probably complaining about it just a smidgeon early.
However, there are time limitations on bringing a civil cases, and while I keep repeating that stupidity, negligence and incompetence aren’t generally crimes they may of course be tortious, and if that’s so then there is a ticking clock against which anyone who’s suffered a financial loss because of those overconfident cocksockets who bought up all those toxic assets without looking sufficiently carefully at what it actually was they were getting can sue the bastards. Not sure if it’s possible to sue someone into prison, as the oh so self-righteous Snow seems to wish, but for all my defence of them against Snow’s tirade I’m no fan of the likes of Fred the Shred – if I recall I called him a smarmy arsehole and expressed hope that he’d fall down the stairs and land, against all probability, on his balls – and would happily see them sued for every penny they’ve got. Which, when I wrote that, Fred Goodwin was, even if it was for the unusual offence of hubris and in an American court “where the courts are more flexible and less expensive” rather than a British one, making any limitations in Britain rather irrelevant.
But Jon Snow’s still not happy, and like that mad caretaker out of Harry Potter, shambling around screaming about his cat, he clearly wants to see some punishment.
Then we can all breathe easy – no banker will ever go to jail, and we can stop asking the nightly question, ‘why not?’
Because, Jon, as I keep explaining and as much as it pains me, you can’t send someone to jail unless you can actually prove they’ve committed a crime. It’s this thing we have in civilised countries called ‘the law’, and the idea is that ‘the law’ is extra extra careful about things like evidence and proving the case so as not to send innocent people off to prison all the time. It’s not that way to protect the world’s Fred Goodwins, it’s to protect you and me all the rest of us. Jon Snow is coming across a bit like Thomas More’s wife and son-in-law in A Man for All Seasons.
They’re eeevil bankers who are greedy, stupid and negligent.
So now you’d give the bankers the benefit of law?
And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
A twenty-first century More might have put it like this: “If you’re so keen to bang people up that you’re prepared to shortcut things, Roper, then we’re all in fucking trouble.”