Diamond In the Rough

By DeusExMacintosh

Bob Diamond quits as Barclays CEO

Barclays chief executive Bob Diamond has resigned with immediate effect.

The move comes less than a week after the bank was fined for trying to manipulate inter-bank lending rates, sparking a government inquiry and calls for criminal investigations.

Mr Diamond said he was stepping down because the external pressure on the bank risked “damaging the franchise”.

BBC business editor Robert Peston said the Barclays boss was encouraged to go by the Bank of England and the FSA.

“They were unable to force him out,” our correspondent says, “because the recent FSA investigation into how Barclays attempted to rig the important Libor interest rates did not find him personally culpable.”

“However, as a regulated institution, it was impossible for Barclays’ board to ignore the revealed wishes of the two most powerful regulators in the City.”

Earlier, Lord Turner described the outrage at the bank’s actions.

“The cynical greed of traders asking their colleagues to falsify their Libor submissions so that they could make bigger profits – has justifiably shocked and angered people, in particular when we are facing hard economic times provoked by the financial crisis,” he told the Financial Services Authority’s annual meeting…

Chairman Marcus Agius, who had announced his own resignation on Monday, will now take over the running of Barclays until a new chief executive is appointed.

The bank refused to comment on reports that chief operating officer Jerry del Missier, one of the executives to give up his bonus after the Libor fine was announced, was also planning to step down.

Mr Diamond will still appear before MPs on the Treasury Committee on Wednesday to answer questions about the Libor affair.

BBC News

49 Comments

  1. Posted July 3, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    Well said DEM.

    I wonder if disgorgement is warranted and available – the resignations are probably the attempt to quieten the calls for real action, as punishment and deterrent.

    Anyway, by rights everyone involved who knew and didn’t blow the whistle, top to bottom … Well, they should all be prevented from any position of trust in the finance industry for years, if not forever. (i wouldn’t trust them with the till of a “do you want fries with that job”).

    By rights, it would need to be a very big bike rack!

    I really, /really/ hope somebody tracks how many, of the whole trading floor and up to the top, ‘fess up, how many made to walk the plank, and what they are all doing in 1,2 and 5 years time. If any decent significant proportion of them have similar jobs, that would suggest the whole sector is rotten.

    That something so cut-and-dried wrong, so easily explained to a layman, would mean the chances of more sophisticated and harder-to-explain to layman, but nonetheless reprehensible and illegal behaviour, approach 100% – but who would dare push for finding out the true extent of all the illegalities? Who’d dare push for checks that similar unconscionable conduct isn’t found in other big banks?

    It’s not “too big to fail”, it’s too powerful to be investigated – there is not just diminished risk of failure which creates the moral hazard, it’s that governments don’t want to find out all the shonkiness, so shonkiness is encouraged.

  2. Posted July 4, 2012 at 4:49 am | Permalink

    Jeremy Warner, not afraid to use the “F” word in The Telegraph

    No amount of regulation will ever completely get rid of bad, irresponsible and dishonest behaviour in finance. But if the right incentives and penalties are put in place, it can be made to work much more effectively than it has been. Fraud is a serious criminal offence in any other business. Why is it that there seems to be some doubt about this in banking? What’s happened to the zero tolerance of abusive behaviour you see in other industries?

    If this were a pharmaceutical company, it would by now have been stripped of its licenses, closed down and its officials had up for endangering the public.

  3. kvd
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 5:41 am | Permalink

    Another cutting observation DEM. And for the record I completely agree with [email protected]’s comments as to the ‘too big to investigate’. This resignation was the one I was referring to yesterday when I suggested Lorenzo had used the wrong picture for his post; they need a revolving door in foyer.

    Something sticks in my mind from the last couple of days: there was commentary that people were fearful of the damage to Barclays through the loss of Diamond – seems Barclays is now a ‘black box’ operation, and he’s considered the only one who knows how it works… – my response to that was to think that if there was any one, single, solitary reason for him to be removed, then this was it.

  4. kvd
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 8:40 am | Permalink

    “Mr Tucker stated the level of calls he was receiving from Whitehall were ‘senior’ and that while he was certain we did not need advice, that it did not always need to be the case that we appeared as high as we have recently.

    – or, in other words, deniable plausibility 😉

  5. JC
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    BBC business editor Robert Peston said the Barclays boss was encouraged to go by the Bank of England and the FSA.
    “They were unable to force him out,” our correspondent says, “because the recent FSA investigation into how Barclays attempted to rig the important Libor interest rates did not find him personally culpable.”

    Fabulous news. So the regulators didn’t find the CEO in any way directly responsible but were able to get him fired without the shareholders needing to agree.

    Nice fascist states being setting up. We’ve really come a long way.

  6. kvd
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    “However, as a regulated institution, it was impossible for Barclays’ board to ignore the revealed wishes of the two most powerful regulators in the City.”

    Same article, next paragraph. Just as we see the reports of “misunderstandings” and “potential mis-reporting” applied to these things we see “revealed wishes” as euphemism for “get out of our system – NOW”.

    Anyway, good to see the BBC on the job; who gave them such privileged access – or is it just biased hearsay, such as anything reported by our ABC is condemned for?

  7. Posted July 4, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    This is just getting worse and worse, up to and including serious regulatory capture.

  8. kvd
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Not to worry SL. JC just sees it as a “witch hunt” – ignoring most everyone else’s opinion that there are indeed occasionally witches abroad; in dark places, in need of light.

  9. Posted July 4, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    Yes, but if the manipulation came about in part thanks to interventions by ‘senior figures in Whitehall’ and the Bank of England, it may be that the regulation model is broken and JC’s argument that there should be little or no regulation but no taxpayer white knight riding to the rescue when a bank falls over is paradoxically strengthened.

    Of course this is all wild speculation on my part, and we will have to wait and see how the chips fall (and what comes out of Parliament’s Treasury Committee). In the meantime I shall have to read Adapt.

  10. kvd
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    JC’s argument that there should be little or no regulation but no taxpayer white knight riding to the rescue when a bank falls over

    I missed that bit of the discussion; must have been buried deep down in one of the other threads. If I’d seen it, I probably would just have asked for a definition of “bank”.

  11. JC
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Fraud is a serious criminal offence in any other business. Why is it that there seems to be some doubt about this in banking? What’s happened to the zero tolerance of abusive behaviour you see in other industries?

    Can someone explain eggsactly where the fraud has occurred here? Lets go through this again. LIBOR is the London Interbank offered rate that banks lend, or are supposed to lend to prime borrowers. It’s a bit of a joke because the banks don’t lend to prime borrowers at LIBOR anymore as far as I know. So this is a published lending rate. There is no reason to expect to know how banks derive their LIBOR rate in the same way i don’t expect the TV store to tell me how much money they are making on the sale.

    If people choose to reference the rate as a benchmark, then it’s really up to them.

    Where is the fraud. Now there may very well be fraud if the banks contractually undertook that LIBOR is determined this way or that way. I don’t know and haven’t read much about it, because I see it as grandstanding by the regulators and the government.

    But where is the fraud people speak about?

    Secondly, i find it reprehensible that regulators have demanded the firing of a CEO when they themselves found he wasn’t responsible for any of the accusations. The regulators now own the bank?

    Bob Diamond was pushing heavily against regulatory interference in banking and I believe that this is a case of the regulators and their buddies in government taking the guy out with drama queening. Nice system.

    No matter how many regulations are put in place banks will continue to fail as they have always done unless we move away from fractional banking and I really don’t think that’s a very good idea.

    You want to promote financialization in an economy, or at least don’t do anything to impede it. It helps raise living standards, as it is better able to match those that need capital with those that have it.

    JC just sees it as a “witch hunt” – ignoring most everyone else’s opinion that there are indeed occasionally witches abroad; in dark places, in need of light.

    No witches, KVD. Just people that believe in them.

  12. kvd
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    Several comments over the past few days seem to suggest that Jeremy Warner of The Daily Telegraph is worth listening to. I also read him, but have marked him down as basically a ‘chicken little – the sky is falling’ commentator. Nevertheless, here’s Jeremy today, regarding witches:

    There is no defence against what Barclays has been accused of, which strays way beyond the incompetence, hubris and recklessness of the banking crisis into outright deception, falsification and fraud. No chief executive, however lacking in personal culpability, can hope to survive such a scandal.

    Again, I think he’s over the top. But this time, not by very much.

  13. kvd
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    Most important is the existential question that has haunted this industry since the banking crisis began – what useful social purpose do investment banking goliaths such as Barclays Capital serve, and how do you change them so that they are not just money-making machines for themselves, but also fulfil their proper role in financing trade, business and households on acceptable terms?

    I may possibly have been a little too hasty in forming my opinion of Jeremy. I guess time will tell.

  14. Posted July 4, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    This is beginning to smell like a police minister nudging/winking a police commissioner to turn a blind eye and pass on nudges/winks to gangsters taking each other out. It’s not the rules, it’s the people involved. I really wonder if the nudging/winking to Barclays started at Whitehall, or whether Whitehall merely passed them on. What’s the bet there’ll be a full inquiry … with a budget barely enough to cover an anorexic’s lunch money for a week.

  15. JC
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    ….what useful social purpose do investment banking goliaths such as Barclays Capital serve, and how do you change them so that they are not just money-making machines for themselves, but also fulfil their proper role in financing trade, business and households on acceptable terms?

    KVD

    What useful economic purpose does Jeremy provide writing junk like that?

    The fact the remains that if the bank makes a return for its shareholders then it’s useful. It’s not this statist’s role to question how capital is allocated. I’d bet barclays makes a better return in equity than his employer at the moment.

  16. Posted July 4, 2012 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    JC, my understanding is that the fraud was in false submissions. LIBOR is based on estimates submitted by the banks each day rather than their actual lending figures/rates. The banks falsified their submissions to deliberately manipulate the overnight rate for financial gain. That’s market rigging isn’t it? A bit like making a false bid for David Jones in order to speculate on the share price?

  17. Posted July 4, 2012 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    JC: The social purpose, regulations, and trustworthiness is required payment for the privileges granted by the state above and beyond that granted to standard businesses, just like lawyers and doctors have privileges and controls that architects have.

    As for the GFC, a lot of that was caused by ratings “agencies” that acted unprofessionally at least, and corruptly at worst … The huge influence those corporations have over governments may relate to the way those ratings companies haven’t been hauled over the coals properly for the damage the unprofessional/corrupt conduct.

    Thought bubble (not really thought through yet): Perhaps, like professionals require insurance to operate, banks should have insurance cover, probably unlimited liability (like Mal Fraser lost his shirt with Lloyds), and let the insurers who have to cough up assess the risk with due diligence, set a premium, and if the financiers can’t pay, they can’t operate. That’s a market-oriented component, perhaps … But who insures the insurers?

  18. JC
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    JC: The social purpose, regulations, and trustworthiness is required payment for the privileges granted by the state above and beyond that granted to standard businesses, just like lawyers and doctors have privileges and controls that architects have.

    Then don’t treat anyone differently. Easy. No one should have privileges.

    As for the GFC, a lot of that was caused by ratings “agencies” that acted unprofessionally at least, and corruptly at worst … The huge influence those corporations have over governments may relate to the way those ratings companies haven’t been hauled over the coals properly for the damage the unprofessional/corrupt conduct.

    How do you know they acted corruptly. The buyers of those securities weren’t mom and pop by the way, but seasoned professionals and these sorts of investors get little protection compared to mom and pop for a good reason. They are pros and should know what they are buying.

    Thought bubble (not really thought through yet): Perhaps, like professionals require insurance to operate, banks should have insurance cover, probably unlimited liability (like Mal Fraser lost his shirt with Lloyds), and let the insurers who have to cough up assess the risk with due diligence, set a premium, and if the financiers can’t pay, they can’t operate. That’s a market-oriented component, perhaps … But who insures the insurers?

    That’s a big problem. However that sort of thing wouldn’t occur in a free banking environment where there would be banks operating as bankers to banks and offer a range of services.

    You have to understand that if a bank goes bust it doesn’t mean that all their loans have gone bad. It means that a portion of the loans etc have lost value over and above the tangible equity or close to that, so it doesn’t mean that depositors would lose their money.

    The problem in juggling all that is to also consider that it would be a much less leveraged world and would likely resemble something much different with a lot less lending.

  19. JC
    Posted July 4, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    Deux

    Market rigging as in what? Banks also post mortgage lending rates each day. Why do you care how the rate was derived.

    We also now hear that the government was in on the racket when they thought it suited them. Wow!

  20. Posted July 5, 2012 at 1:40 am | Permalink

    The not-so-free market in action… =8-(

    I care JC, because the rate was manipulated for the private advantage of certain financial players. When individuals act on or manipulate private but market-effecting information for personal profit it usually gets called insider trading.

  21. kvd
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 4:22 am | Permalink

    The buyers of those securities weren’t mom and pop by the way, but seasoned professionals and these sorts of investors get little protection compared to mom and pop for a good reason. They are pros and should know what they are buying.

    I’ve got other stuff to do, but if you search for this string “wingecarribee shire junk bonds” you will see many mentions of my local shire council’s attempt to get recompense for dodgy AAA rated junk bonds sold to it by Lehman (now bankrupt) back in the day. If the Shire fails (which seems pretty likely) I guess it will be the local ratepayers who will suffer.

    That would be those people being derided as “mom and pop” in the above snippet.

  22. JC
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    Then take it up with the rating agencies, KVD. They did after all rate the bonds triple A.

    Perhaps they ought to be doing their own analysis then instead.

  23. Posted July 5, 2012 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    [email protected] Shires have pretty limited resources, that’s why folk using rating agencies.

    But we are back to the reliability of information.

  24. JC
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    Lorenzo

    WTF is a Sydney based council doing buying mortgage backed secs? There are numerous alternative open to these people to invest their surpluses. They could have gone to an investment adviser, they could have done all sorts of things. But no, they decide to put the money into a bunch of securities they had absoltuely no hope understanding and then blame other people.

    You seem to infer that people knew these securities were fraudulent, but lets be clear that’s your opinion only. There are several court cases pending at the moment that will clear up the matter over time.

    There’s a basic rule that any investor ought to follow. If you can’t explain an investment in say a security or even a business in a short para then stay away as you don’t understand what is going on.

    As an aside the banks are making recompense to unseasoned investors like these councils, or at least settling some of the claims.

    It’s very simplistic to argue fraud in cases like this. However it’s not that easy.

  25. JC
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    LE

    Sure, however there’s also one small point in all this. What the hell is a council/shire doing with a surplus in the first place?

    Why were these galoots running around with surplus money when all they’re expected to do is make sure they have enough money coming in to take the trash on Tuesdays, the oldsters have their subsidized care come in and clean the house and the park lawns are mowed on time in the summer?

    I mean if they have a surplus the best thing to do ought to be to send it back to the poor suffering rate payers which is where they would find the good rate of return and wouldn’t have to worry about (to them) likely incomprehensible securities.

    Am I being insensitive on this one? 🙂

  26. JC
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    This is a stark reminder about the fools paradise some of idiots on the right too incredibly are doing when they’re calling for a sovereign wealth fund. This is a mini version of that crap.

  27. kvd
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    JC misses (more probably just usefully ignores) the reason I gave the reference to that shire council: as a simple refutation of his throwaway “The buyers of those securities weren’t mom and pop by the way”. The other unstated thing is that if such products were meant to be a zero sum game only between the so-called “pros” then how come it’s the taxpayers of the world who are picking up the losing bets?

    As to [email protected], I guess in a neat world the ratepayers would pay their rates in convenient 1 week payments, nicely matching the wages and purchases for the week – not in a lump sum or two which must be doled out over a year. And also, I guess JC never heard of councils having to set aside for capital works? The innocence of the man to the real world about him is quite terrifying.

  28. Posted July 5, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    JC is such a gadfly, KVD.

    I think we have to learn not to take him seriously.

  29. JC
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    JC misses (more probably just usefully ignores) the reason I gave the reference to that shire council: as a simple refutation of his throwaway “The buyers of those securities weren’t mom and pop by the way”.

    It’s not a refutation in the slightest possible way. Nearly all this crap was sold to seasoned investors. Of course there was leakage as the sale to those galoots at the council shows. It surprises me that you weren’t able to figure this out.

    The other unstated thing is that if such products were meant to be a zero sum game only between the so-called “pros” then how come it’s the taxpayers of the world who are picking up the losing bets?

    Oh so acquiring bonds in now a zero sum game is it? You really don’t know much about that business other than what you have gleaned from whacky sites it seems.

    As to [email protected], I guess in a neat world the ratepayers would pay their rates in convenient 1 week payments, nicely matching the wages and purchases for the week – not in a lump sum or two which must be doled out over a year.

    These securities had 5, 10, 15, 20 year maturities, Are you seriously suggesting the buyers were acquiring securities with those sorts of maturities mismatch to annual disbursements? If you’re not, as I don’t really think you are, as you don’t seem to be aware of it, then you really don’t have much idea .

    And also, I guess JC never heard of councils having to set aside for capital works?

    Yep they sure do. However from what I recall in my public finance units, state governments instruct local government to invest capital works projects in a very specific way and also how these funds can be accumulated and it isn’t by sticking them into mortgage backed securities. In fact from memory although it may have changed since then, these surpluses had to be re-invested with state governments. Furthermore a large number of these projects are funded annually. That’s what i recall when i wasn’t yawning and falling asleep through this unit. I wasn’t my best mark either.

    The fmoney we’re talking it seems were funds that were over and above these sorts of requirements. Hence the galoots seeming desire to try and become international hedge fund managers.

    The innocence of the man to the real world about him is quite terrifying.

    I’m not a Hi-Alan-the-disillusioned -lib like you seem.

    Marcellous

    JC is such a gadfly, KVD.

    Nice sneering response, Marcellous. You must really, really miss LP where those sorts of comments passed for high level intellectual discourse.

  30. Tim Quilty
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    However from what I recall in my public finance units, state governments instruct local government to invest capital works projects in a very specific way and also how these funds can be accumulated and it isn’t by sticking them into mortgage backed securities.

    I believe the legislation was changed to allow them to invest in anything with a AAA rating. Clearly someone started marketing them to local councils in NSW, because a lot of councils lost a lot of money on them.

    I worked on a local government audit at the time where the council CFO was furious we were making him write down the values of these investments. Not sure it went down too well with the councilors either. Or the ratepayers…

  31. JC
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Hi Tim

    I’m not sure people realize that triple A doesn’t mean triple A across products lines. Triple A in the muni market can’t be equated to Triple A for sovereign debt. They don’t cross over products. I recall for instance that segregated brokerage funds in the US could only be invested in federal/ national government sovereign debt.

    Those idiots at that Shire really were creative, as they would also had a currency swap done in order to access US dollars. Amazing. They really thought they were hitting the big leagues.

  32. kvd
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Thanks [email protected] – I do realise that, but it’s just fun to observe one in the flesh – carefully, obliquely responding to almost-but-not-quite-the-point, and just occasionally giving ground. I must say I do like the technique of splitting up his opponent’s response, then filling in the gaps with more gap-filler, making any reasoned response almost impossible if one were to attempt a similar point by point response. But let me have a go…

    Hi JC – you really don’t understand much of which you spout do you? Never mind. I’m here to help.

    It’s not a refutation in the slightest possible way. Nearly all this crap was sold to seasoned investors. Of course there was leakage

    Thanks for acknowledging my point. So “mom and pop” are just ‘leakage’ now?

    These securities had 5, 10, 15, 20 year maturities, Are you seriously suggesting the buyers were acquiring securities with those sorts of maturities mismatch to annual disbursements?

    As with any security they were sold as tradeable. If you don’t understand this quite basic point then I guess the last decade must have passed in some sort of blur for you. I thought you were involved in the markets in some way?

    However from what I recall in my public finance units, state governments instruct local government to invest capital works projects in a very specific way and also how these funds can be accumulated and it isn’t by sticking them into mortgage backed securities

    So, based upon your hazy recollection, you are now clearly stating that quite a number of councils just all of a sudden decided to completely bypass what you state as absolute truth, and go their own way with their investments? I think you might want to do a bit more fact checking. Which is to politely say maybe you could occasionally check yours fact before posting.

    But I see [email protected] has already set you to rights on this point. Nice of you to directly accept his explanation! Except – oh noes! – I see you actually didn’t; instead you launch off onto yet another tangent about the actual meaning of AAA, then top it off with a lecture about a currency swap!

    JC, you really are a foolish person. Or as marcellous said – a gadfly.

  33. Mel
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    kvd @33:

    “JC, you really are a foolish person. Or as marcellous said – a gadfly.”

    I was thinking more along the lines of psychotic pineapple.

  34. kvd
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    Good grief! Thanks Mel.

  35. JC
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for acknowledging my point. So “mom and pop” are just ‘leakage’ now?

    Stop the morality plays KVD, although I recognize that’s pretty much all you have to go with after those platitudes posing as policy the other day.

    Yes, mom and pop sales of MBS were a tiny fraction. Look it up, if you have a problem. You really are clutching at straws if you consider what i said to be a concession in any way when it’s self evident that we were talking about the purchase made by a shire which in itself suggests it wasn’t 100%

    Tim didn’t refute any of what i said. The discussion currently revolves around whether this investment was caused by the council/shire having more funds than they required for their operating account. It appears by all accounts that they did.

    You’re argument, that they were matching future annual expenditure with these bonds is perhaps the stupidest comment I’ve seen in a long time, as it suggests you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. All silly as those people were I don’t think they were that stupid with duration risk.

    I’m not going off on a tangent by describing the significance of triple A. It was a way of explaining that one needs to be careful about risk, as triple A doesn’t mean what a lot of people think it means. It was a pretty relevant thing to raise, especially for someone like you, who seems to get his information and morality positions from whacky sites.

    JC, you really are a foolish person. Or as marcellous said – a gadfly.

    Weren’t you trying to control my speech only yesterday KVD with that superficial, transparent demand of yours. Now look at you. I had you pegged from the very beginning that you’re really a “Hi-Alan- the-disillusioned -lib” and so far all you’ve done is keep re-affirming it.

  36. JC
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    KVD

    You really seem to have a problem with people disagreeing with you on fundamental issues. You really need to find a way to calm down or avoid those discussions that raise your blood pressure.

    You think a nanny state with regulations up the ying yang, rivers running with chocolate, Bob Brown on the radio singing folk songs and the kids singing in the streets is the ideal world. I tend to think, leaving people alone and not having meddling annoying nannies is a far better place. Just accept that there actually are people who disagree with you’ll be far happier. Promise.

  37. Mel
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    JC @37:

    ” I tend to think, leaving people alone and not having meddling annoying nannies is a far better place. Just accept that there actually are people who disagree with you’ll be far happier.”

    That’s not exactly true, is it, Joey? Here’s one of the dozens of examples of you stalking people contained in my dog eared Joey dirt file:

    “One last thing,, it’s 1.44 in the morning, what the hell are you [Tim Lambert] doing still up, hanging around websites rather than having a good night’s sleep and ensuring our kids are not going to be taught by a dopey, sleepy hungry teacher in the morning? I trade for a living and self- employed so I need to be up at this ungodly hour. What’s your excuse: is reading up on the latest greenpeace gangbang giving you orgasmic experiences, which you will write about during university hours?”

    The thread also details you stalking John Quiggin and even contacting his employer!

  38. JC
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    That’s not exactly true, is it, Joey? Here’s one of the dozens of examples of you stalking people contained in my dog eared Joey dirt file:

    Steve Munn (is Mel), honestly, you’re the only one that cares. It’s when I first found out about Blogs.

    What I find amusing is that you don’t have any self reflection on the things you did at other sites to the point where you were told that if you ever showed up again there would be a court order against. Recall Catallaxy?

    Recall how you’d show up under aliases and for some reason you thought we couldn’t tell and then notify the owner you were there got kicks Lol

    Recall how you’d excuse you behavior by pleading the site owner to show mercy on you because you’d changed you’re medication? The groveling over the medication was simply pathetic. Recall how I got you once to apologize for you behavior under pressure and overcome with emotion you did?

    And of course it still bugs you because you’re always, always mentioning Catallaxy.

    That was only a couple of years ago too.

  39. JC
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    Moderator…

    I don’t think the slander about stalking that Steve Munn (Mel) is making about people should allowed.

    He basically ruins every thread whenever he has an issue with his medication levels it seems.

  40. Mel
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    Lol.

  41. JC
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    I’m surprised it’s only LOL. Normally by now you would be calling people’s spouses sl.ts and other assorted names. Remember at Catallaxy Steve Munn.

    Remember all the peddo accusations to the point where people were seriously concerned about this obsession of yours? Ummmm Steve. Remember?

  42. Posted July 5, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Permalink

    lol.

  43. JC
    Posted July 5, 2012 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

    Not me Steve Munn. Go ahead and ask him.

    Steve Munn, Mel

    You’re still very ill and need help. You have called people’s spouse’s sluts and whores at various websites (Catallaxy being one). These are people you have not known, even on the web. You have called people’s kids disgusting names; again these are people you never have been acquainted with on the web. You have obsessed about pedophilia accusing others of being interested. You have made many other vile claims and accusations to the point where the owners of Catallaxy (which is why you’re obsessing about the site even now) were about to obtain a court order to prevent from returning. Laughably, you have claimed that lack of appropriate medication has made you post some of these things. In short you are pathetic and truly vile. .

  44. Mel
    Posted July 6, 2012 at 2:31 am | Permalink

    Wow, Joey, you don’t seem very happy 🙂

  45. Posted July 6, 2012 at 6:49 am | Permalink

    Look, I am aware that there is some serious history here, which I really don’t want reanimated on this blog. One of the reasons why we founded skepticlawyer when and how we did is due to that history. Weathergirl (remember her?) was once in the Greens and used her contacts to stalk Mel at home (phonenumbers, addresses etc); this was at about the same time she was trying to make my life miserable and drop LP right in the crap. This was also at the same time that allegations were flying left and right between Tim Lambert, JC, Tim Blair and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. It was petty, juvenile and unfunny.

    I formed the view then (one I still hold now) that people who pull this kind of stunt repeatedly are basically children requiring supervision. One wonders what the woman from Meanjin was thinking when she commissioned further writing from weathergirl.

    Mel learnt his lesson and has, by and large, been a responsible commenter here for a number of years. For his part, JC has also been a valued commenter and occasional guest poster (likewise, for a number of years).

    So the crap has to stop. People may have thought that behaving like that (ringing people at work, sending them dog crap in the post etc) was the right way to go 10 or 15 years ago… but not any more. The days of the unregulated internet are over. These days, the rozzers will be around to make your life really difficult if you keep it up. So the important things are: behave civilly and leave historical crap well alone.

  46. Posted July 6, 2012 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    What LE and SL said.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*