- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Extracts from Paul Moore's whistleblower statement.

3.22 As referred to in section 2 above, on my unfair dismissal a
person was appointed as Group Risk Director who was an ex sales
manager who had no experience of risk management or compliance.
I have already referred to this in some more detail in section 2
above. This was a personal appointment of James Crosby and some
might question whether this fulfilled his fiduciary duties as a
Director under Company Law or Principle 2 and 3 of the FSA's
Principles for Business set out above.

3.23 My concerns on this appointment were reported to the FSA
but despite the clarity of their guidance on assessing fit and
properness (see section 2 above) they permitted the individual
concerned to become an Approved Person. It is extraordinary in
my view that the FSA permitted this, when this role is so
important to the fulfilment of their statutory objectives. Maybe
they felt constrained as James Crosby was a non executive
director of the FSA at the time?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Gordon Brown is unlikely to explain why Sir James Crosby was
allowed to wear the hat of a director and regulator at the FSA
at the same time as the FSA were supposed to be investigating
his interaction with Paul Moore in a body under FSA regulation.

This is a bit more than "A Question of Hats" and we can judge
that to be so obviously wrong that it should never have happened
at all, and it warrants more than just one resignation.

Beyond scapegoats and bankers, I'm still more interested in why
the FSA was hindered from as far back as 2002 as I discussed in
my previous posts:-

A scandal long overdue to happen

Political pressure on the FSA regulators

I'll repeat just part of my previous articles here.

As far back as 7 years ago, on Tuesday, 26 February, 2002, 08:49
GMT the BBC published this article entitled "A scandal waiting
to happen?" in which Sir Howard Davies, then chairman of UK
regulator the Financial Services Authority, was quoted warning
about the perils of dealing with toxic financial instruments.
During a speech on insurance regulation, Sir Howard remarked:

"One investment banker recently described synthetic CDOs to me
as 'the most toxic element of the financial markets today'. When
an investment banker talks of toxicity, a regulator is bound to
take a heightened interest."

A year later this inconvenient regulator with "a heightened
interest" was getting in the way of this new way of pumping up
the money supply via the backdoor, and had often been reported
warning of the asset bubble in property in the UK. So, in true
Yes Minister fashion, Sir Howard Davies was shunted off to a new
job at the London School of Economics.

Who was responsible for that? Not Sir Humphrey Appleby!

Why did Sir Howard Davies not pursue his heightened interest and
stop the toxic bubble before it caused so much damage?

Was it the start of the political interference at the FSA?