ONCE again the big banks are fined for "irregular practices" which seem to becoming all too regular ("RBS hit by fine after foreign currency rigged", The Herald, May 21).
When is someone going to be prosecuted for what is criminal activity? When are directors going to be disbarred for failing in their supervisory function?
It is apparent that the law is deficient in such cases and requires changing. How about the registrar of companies taking a proactive view regarding directors' responsibilities? Or change the law to oblige auditors to report wrongdoings to the prosecuting authorities rather than leaving it to the directors?
It would appear that in practice that, in banking at least, directors turn a blind eye to wrongdoing by staff as long as the profits roll in, then raise (false?) cries of horror when their juniors are caught out.
It is time for change. Why should shareholders and customers carry the cost of wrongdoing by directors and staff? Those who break the rules should face the penalties and if needs be, stripped of any personal assets as punishment, so that there is negative reward for their wrongs.
Drew Reid,
31, Bruce Crescent,
Carronshore.
YOUR editorial on banks being fined for misconduct ("Path of virtue eludes far too many banks", The Herald, May 21) further tickles my curiosity the matter of imposing such enormous financial penalties on these financial organisations. Questions such as, to whom do these fines go, isn't it the bank customers who end up paying the penalties, and what's the difference anyway if when such big financial organisations get into serious difficulties, the state bails them out anyway? I am sure there are other questions could be added here.
Maybe when it comes to such matters as fines, how about that other complementary part of the phrase that usually accompanies such verdicts in court when it comes to decision time - a custodial sentence?
Maybe it would save a lot of big money and a lot of big questions simply, as in Iceland, to impose custodial sentences on the bank miscreants - and I won't bother applying a question mark here.
Ian Johnstone,
84 Forman Drive,
Peterhead.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article