One of the �Pinks� rang me yesterday and asked if I would be attending this �second round�. I told them I would not. I was asked why. My response was as follows:

1. I don�t really relish being part of a whinging session again.
2. If you have ever watched a politician being interviewed on TV you will know that they never answer a question. They merely harangue along the lines of their pre prepared position.
3. What has all this actually achieved thus far? What did the MPs debate achieve? Absolutely nothing at all � apart from the usual large amount of hot air and possibly lowering the dignity and esteem of IFAs.


You only have to look at the web cast from the first event and see Mark Garnier's response to part of my question. (Concerning the various new divisions of advice).

What a magnificent example of political disingenuousness!

"The FSA is a Statutory Regulator and we can't be interfering in what they do" (Not necessarily a verbatim quote � but that was the gist of it).

Indeed! So why were you at this meeting in the first place? Odd that you can put pressure on when you see some kind of electoral advantage or a publicity dividend, but are prepared to reverse your logic when you feel inclined!

Has it not occurred to anyone that if Financial Advice as an entity is fudged then there is no point in arguing about any of the rest, Independence will just get buried and all the other considerations will become totally irrelevant?

As I have said before this could be the greatest act of subterfuge since the Trojan Horse.

Both Mr Garnier and Ms Baldwin have banking backgrounds and being for commission and against exams and ignoring the issue of simplified, basic and restricted is exactly what the banks want. How great that they may achieve this for the banks through IFAs rather than having the banks themselves showing their hand. You could all end up being the biggest mugs since Chamberlain.

Harry Katz   09/02/2011   09:10

I really must take issue with you Harry as I think you are wrong on this. I was at the event too but did not get called by the "Pinks'.

In my view it was not a whinging session, they did answer questions, and would have answered a lot more if you had simply asked a question instead of wasting limited and valuable time making lengthy statements and not getting to the point.

I think that the event has achieved a lot and I for one am looking forward to the next one, Derek has got a great panel together again and I see Gareth Fatchett is coming too. I am sure Mark Garnier will have a lot to tell us if what the press is saying is anything to go by.

cortesin   10/02/2011   17:33

Dear Cortesin

(Why you chose to be anonymous is best known to you)

To answer your points:

I�m afraid we�ll have to disagree. The webcast I believe proves my two points. That is was a whinging session and that my question quite plainly was avoided. That I had to start with a preamble was in my opinion necessary as I found myself in a minority of one and wanted to make it plain that some of the views expressed at the meeting were not universal. Indeed I also recall that others rambled rather worse, but of course as they were reflecting the majority view, were treated more benignly.

I say again the Garnier and his team could be the greatest Trojan Horse since Odysseus. Think about it � the banks want to retain commission, they don�t want to have to drag Wane and Tracey through level four and they certainly will be advantaged by all the new divisions.

That this second meeting now has those who have already milked the gullible and those who�s decisions have already been backed up by the courts is to my mind hardly conducive to anything like a positive outcome. Your (and others) faith in Parliament and its Members is to be kind touching and to be honest naive.

Harry Katz   11/02/2011   09:30

Harry I was there and your were the biggest whinger there!

You wasted so much valuable question time.

Best stay away as you say you are whinging minority.

Mystery Shopper for IFAs   17/02/2011   16:42

Ah another anonymous hero of the Luddites. One who would appear to have certain problems with some of his clients (or ex clients) and the FOS. If you are going to complain about regulation it looks better if it comes from a �clean� background.

I�m afraid you also need to look up the definition of Whinge (New Oxford Dictionary).

You and your ilk are the complainers. My views (which according to all the latest research) are by no means unique don�t really involve complaining at all.

It is very unfortunate that those in your camp who at least put forward cogent and literate argument (even though I may disagree) have to be lumbered with what one can only liken to the BNP of financial services.

Harry Katz   18/02/2011   09:19