WELCOME BACK MARTHA. . . Yeah, I know you don't know me, but I'm building a SOTM website, so I know you because you used to be a regular there, you have some GREAT classics, this one is no exception. I don't really know the band, but your word play was good just like your work in the past. Good Job

Many thanks for the kind remarks. If u dont know Millie Jackson try Live and Uncensored which is where this song comes from . ...You're in 4 a treat!!

I saw "Oh Darling" and immediately though of the Beatles tune... but tell me, what do you think the Chancellor should have done?

Covert operations and the Market Abuse Directive Sep 26 2007 Helen Parry "In exceptional circumstances, there may be a need for an operation which goes beyond the Bank's published framework for operations in the money market. Such a support operation is expected to happen very rarely and would normally only be undertaken in the case of a genuine threat to the stability of the financial system to avoid a serious disturbance in the UK economy." This is the legal framework on which any support operation by the Bank in its role of lender of last resort currently rests. It is contained in a memorandum of understanding agreed between the Treasury, the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England. When discussing the nature of the role of the lender of last resort at a meeting in Japan in 1995, former Bank of England governor and doyen of central bankers, Eddie George, proposed five basic principles: Aim for a commercial solution if possible. Ensure that losses fall first on the shareholders and any benefits accrue to the Central Bank. Provide liquidity but do not support an insolvent bank. Ensure a clear exit. Keep the fact of support secret. Secrecy and the issuer's duty to disclose Mervyn King, the current governor of the Bank of England, indicated in his response to the Treasury Select Committee last week that the first of these principles was problematic in the Northern Rock case because of the effect on our law of the Takeover Directive, and that the fifth was impossible because of the effect of the Market Abuse Directive. "The Bank would have preferred to have acted covertly as lender as last resort, to have lent to Northern Rock without publishing it. As a result of the Market Abuse Directive we were unable to carry that out." The Disclosure and Transparency Rules Sourcebook of the FSA Handbook, which implemented the relevant part of the Market Abuse Directive, provides that an issuer must notify a Regulatory Information Service as soon as possible of any inside information which directly concerns the issuer unless an exception applies. Charlie McCreevy's spokesman for the European Commission, Oliver Drewes, has indicated that an exception does apply: "We had no contact with the British authorities on this, so it could be that the problem lies with the British interpretation of this in UK law. Article 6 of the directive states that 'an issuer [such as Northern Rock] may under his own responsibility delay the public disclosure of inside information [such as support from the Bank of England] . . . such as not to prejudice his legitimate interests provided that such omission would not be likely to mislead the public and provided that the issuer is able to ensure the confidentiality of that information.' Legitimate interests include 'the event that the financial viability of the issuer is in grave and imminent danger.' " A spokesman for the Bank of England is reported to have insisted that the European Commission was wrong and that the directive does mandate such disclosure. He indicated that he was "absolutely confident we are right," noting that the advice had come from lawyers of all three signatories to the MoU. What are legitimate interests? The disclosure rules, echoing the words of the directive, provide that delay is possible to protect an issuer's legitimate interests and that legitimate interests may, in particular, relate to the following non-exhaustive circumstances: "negotiations in course, or related elements where the outcome or normal pattern of those negotiations would be likely to be affected by public disclosure. In particular, in the event that the financial viability of the issuer is in grave and imminent danger, although not within the scope of the applicable insolvency law, public disclosure of information may be delayed for a limited period where such a public disclosure would seriously jeopardise the interest of existing and potential shareholders by undermining the conclusion of specific negotiations designed to ensure the long term financial recovery of the issuer." (DTR 2.5.3R). The specific reference to the fact that the list is non-exhaustive may be what Charlie McCreevy's spokesman was referring to when he remarked that the directive "would have given enough flexibility to delay information by the issuer." Exceptions to the exception There are further exceptions to the exception, however, which provide that an issuer: may not delay public disclosure of the fact that it is in financial difficulty or of its worsening financial condition and is limited to the fact or substance of the negotiations to deal with such a situation. an issuer cannot delay disclosure of inside information on the basis that its position in subsequent negotiations to deal with the situation will be jeopardised by the disclosure of its financial condition. It seems reasonably clear from these paragraphs that a discrete covert cash infusion could have been achieved as any such negotiations, prima facie at least would not be restricted by these exceptions. Leaks, rumours and the confidentiality proviso That conclusion, however, is based on the fact that a covert operation was in train, it does not address the impact of a leak. If, as has been claimed, the fact of the operation had been leaked to the BBC on the eve of a projected profits warning, then another provision of the disclosure rules would have kicked in — the part which addresses the issue of dealing with rumours. The rules state that where press speculation or a market rumour is largely accurate and the information underlying the rumour is inside information — both of which appear to have been the case in this example — it is likely that the issuer can no longer delay disclosure as it may no longer be able to ensure the confidentiality of the inside information. As the rules make clear, delay is only possible "provided that the issuer is able to ensure the confidentiality of that information" (DTR 2.5.1R). If an issuer cannot ensure confidentiality it must disclose the inside information in accordance with the rule, as soon as possible. The FSA's view at the time of the implementation of the directive was that the new Disclosure Regime was very similar to the previous regime of the Listing Rules Part 9 and the Guidance on the Dissemination on Price Sensitive Information, the only possible change being in the fact that it was formerly clear that the duty to disclose following a leak that contained information that was substantially true only arose if there had been a breach of confidence but not otherwise. Now the duty to disclose arises if there is a danger that a breach of confidentiality might occur. The FSA expressed concern in the policy document PS 05/3 that this admittedly subtle change of tense "could encourage rumour-mongering, with the intention of provoking issuers to make announcements." Maybe it has ...

So are you saying that you believe that the state of Northern Rock was leaked by someone with inside information with the intention of triggering the events we saw, knowing that once the information was in the public domain it would lead to a Bank of England bail-out?

not quite ..... the rescue was going on quietly then it was leaked to Peston on 10 o clock news they were scheduled to issue a profits warningt the next day and had to come clean if it had been kept confidential they could have done it without announcing it .. but I dont know enough of the facts I have an email from the Commission in Brussels giving their view after the annoucement the trickle turned into a flood.....but Brussels seems pretty miffed about London blaming them.... if ur interested!! if u still have my email I cant find urs ...I will pass it to u I dont want to put it into the public domain...