That might be a convenient justification, but I doubt the tax payers in the county think that £10 million is not really that much....

Of course not, for an individual. Wiltshire has approx. 450,000 inhabitants. £10 million divided by 455,000 comes out at £22 each. A veritable fortune.

That's not accounting for how long it took the Authority to put away that £10 million either. Even if it was done in one fell swoop it's a mere 3% of the county's annual budget (even smaller now that the county has gone unitary). Small beans when you consider how much banks are now required to hold in reserve.

again i repeat
why should the Icelandic taxpayer have to pay for the failure of a 'private' bank

if the risk takers want their money returned, sue the bank and/or its investors/shareholders …

I agree. I think here, the first 15.000€ for each customer of a bank are covered by the government, the rest is your own look-out.

the problem here is that the Govt. paid out to all private investors of this and other Icelandic banks
now the Govt. want refunding the only losers are the public bodies such as councils that invested (against Govt/BoE advice) which was not covered nor has been paid/refunded to them

so the public purse is short by two fold, pay out to private investors/savers and councils unable to recoup their investment losses

again it buggers the question 'why' was tax payers money invested overseas instead of being invested (as a reserve) at home or more importantly used for the services it was collected for in the first place …

and to add a bit of spice to this
can anyone show on any 'local council' audits that remit the amount of taxpayers funds invested overseas, anywhere
that's any funds invested overseas, as i bloody well can't, find any reference to overseas investments on any audit report, thus far …

Why is public money necessarily going to be any safer in a British bank than a foreign one? I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone that many British banks were at risk of bankruptcy.

Any money just held in reserve loses value through the effect of inflation.

its insured by the UK Govt. that's why …

Technically, if one part of government covers the losses of another part of government then actually it's not covered. The UK tax payer still pays it all.

If it was to be covered by a foreign government, then the UK would win and they would lose. I can't see it happening and I don't believe it would be right.

Personally, I think we should do away with funny money and go back to using gold. Of course, the transition would be unbelievably painful...

To the tune of about £50,000 - similar to the protection given in every other EU member state.

Also, the UK government won't restore lost Local Authority funds. Even if they did, the taxpayer still loses out?

a reserve 'public body' fund held by the BoE is fully covered …

Even so taxpayers are still losing out.

tell me have the taxpayer lost out by bad overseas uninsured investments
investment of taxpayers money that could have been used for the services that it was first intended for

i don't pay tax to the local council for them to indulge in overseas investment accounts
i pay them this tax to provide services to the community at a local level

if these leeches wish a pension then these leeches can pay for that pension themselves
and that applies to 'all' public sector workers, they wish a pension then they pay for it yourselves, not the taxpayer
nor use taxpayers money invested in overseas accounts to fund that pension …

If you don't like the fact that councils are required by HMG to hold funds in reserve I suggest you take the matter up with your MP.

As for public sector pensions, civil servants DO pay contributions. They get good pensions because it's supposed to make up for the fact that they get a [LIFTED] salary!

1929 public finance act
all reserve or other public funds held by the BoE are guaranteed

my MP already has that information at their disposal

but investing in high risk overseas investment accounts seems to have a greater attraction
an attraction that the local taxpayer may find a burden when the next council tax bill arrives …

and just to add a bit more fuel to the fire …


even the EU can not agree with us …