Andrew Bailey is referred to in this FT piece as though he has some sort of track record preventing fraud.
He doesn’t.
For some reason, “comments have not been enabled for this article”
Bailey was asked about lessons learned from the London Capital & Finance scandal.
The scandal itself is barely mentioned in the article.
Instead it focuses on the following carefully selected comments from Bailey in reply to the committee’s questions.
“The online world is not subject to the same legal duties as the more traditional media,” Bailey, a former head of the Financial Conduct Authority, said in a letter to the House of Commons Treasury select committee, published on Friday.
“There is consequently no adequate shared responsibility with online service providers and consumers are at much greater risk.”
Bailey said in the letter the problem “could be tackled” through the online harms bill, currently progressing through parliament, which puts an onus on online companies to keep their users safe.
However, this does not currently include harm from financial investment fraud. But Bailey added there was “strong resistance” in other parts of the “official sector” to extending this legislation to financial services and this was “a serious problem”.
Even though the original Select Committee letter mentions Maxwellisation and the other serious differences between Bailey and the former Court of Appeal judge Dame Elizabeth Gloster none make it into the article.
I wonder why.
The small business owners who have been defrauded by banks like Nat West via Interest Rate Hedging Products will be particularly unimpressed with Bailey’s fake sincerity about using the Online Harms Bill to protect online fraud victims.
Here are Dame Gloster’s comments. They are scathing.
This is the Work and Pensions Select Committee Report, as signposted by Josephine Cumbo
