Barclays

[Syd]

 

Oh, well done Jamie >:-) >:-)

[CliveH]

Not a good time to be in banking - as if we had any doubts!!!!!!!!

 

......................................................................

 

HSBC faces $1bn fine in anti-money laundering control breach

 

12 Jul 2012 | 07:35

 

Natalie Kenway Investment week

Categories: Regulation | US

Topics: Hsbc | Money laundering | Regulatory fees | Us

 

HSBC has revealed it faces a hefty fine - estimated at $1bn by analysts - from US regulators for failing to have the right anti money laundering controls in place from 2004 until 2010.

 

 

Stuart Gulliver, chief executive, wrote a memo to staff saying he could not reassure regulators the bank did not facilitate the financing of terrorism and other criminal activities, the FT reported.

 

 

"Between 2004 and 2010, our anti-money laundering controls should have been stronger and more effective, and we failed to spot and deal with unacceptable behaviour," Gulliver wrote.

 

The bank faces the US Senate's investigative panel on 17 July.

 

HSBC follows Barclays, which was fined £290m by US and UK regulators for the manipulating of LIBOR, and RBS is reportedly facing a fine of £1.5bn if it's traders are found to have carried out similar wrongdoing.

 

ING, the Dutch bank, agreed to settle $619m with US authorities following accusations it was helping Iranian and Cuban companies move substantial sums through the US financial system.

 

Barclays, Credit Suisse and Lloyds have all been fined by the US in the past for breaches relating to money laundering breaches.

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Diamond to be grilled by US politicians

 

12 Jul 2012 | 07:42

IFA Online

Categories: Regulation | Regulation | Economics / Markets

Topics: Barclays | Us | Federal reserve

 

Former boss of Barclays Bob Diamond could be called to Congress to face questions from US politicians, the Guardian reports.

 

 

Sources told the paper Diamond is likely to be called to Washington to answer questions about the LIBOR-fixing scandal.

 

It said two powerful committees, the Senate banking committee and the House of Representatives financial services committee, are both considering calling Diamond to testify.

 

Sources close to both said they were in the initial stages of gathering evidence and were 'almost certain' to call on Diamond after the summer recess.

 

The report added the banking committee would question Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner on the scandal before the August break.

 

Meanwhile, The Times reports Barclays is likely to appoint Sir Michael Rake as its new chairman within weeks. He is currently deputy chairman.

 

It is thought the bank will approach the Financial Services Authority (FSA) for approval on his suitability shortly. The report said some of the bank's largest shareholders had already give "tacit approval" to the appointment.

 

.................................................

 

Interesting as in the US, as I understand it, such committees can lead onto legal action.

 

 

 

[nowtelse2do]

Syd - 2012-07-12 9:40 AM

 

 

Oh, well done Jamie >:-) >:-)

 

JAMIE.!! I think you'd better duck Syd :D

 

Dave

[Colin Leake]

Syd - 2012-07-10 11:37 AM

 

 

Oh what a shame, diamond bob is only getting a £2million payoff.

How on earth is he going to manage on such a paltry sum.

 

Anyone want to set up a kitty to help him out until he gets his next lucrative job

 

That should go some way to paying his legal fees that are sure to follow!

[laimeduck]

nowtelse2do - 2012-07-12 3:20 PM

 

Syd - 2012-07-12 9:40 AM

 

 

Oh, well done Jamie >:-) >:-)

 

JAMIE.!! I think you'd better duck Syd :D

 

Dave

 

I've been called a lot of things in my time, but Jamie? *-)

[nowtelse2do]

Could have been worse Jerry :-D ,,,,,,,,, He could have finished it of with Vine :D

 

Dave

[Dave225]

I think as Brian has said, we all have different opinions, which is good in as such as it makes us all think, I hope. I also suspect many of us cringe at many of the things that are happening in our world today and genuinely wonder how they are allowed to happen. But on the other side the vast majority of the population of the UK seems to think ';it is all someone elses's fault' and turn the other cheek.. That has undoubtedly been a result of the imposition of the 'nanny state' where individual thought is no longer allowed. 1984 has arrived but a few years later than estimated. Will the population fight back and regain their control? That is indeed a question. How far do they need to be pushed before rebellion sets in?? Answers on a postcard please.

 

Anyway, enough of the dark thoughts.

 

The bottom line is nobody trusts a banker anymore, nobody trusts a doctor anymore and as for politicians......I rest my case. So, it is back to basics whatever they are......

[LordThornber]

Just yet another good opportunity for fortune favouring the brave.

 

Fill yer boots with Barclays shares, they're probably nudging if not breached their NAV.

 

Martyn

[Syd]

 

 

Barclays Says Sorry As Profit Plunge Of 71%

 

 

 

http://news.sky.com/story/965723/barclays-says-sorry-as-profit-plunge-of-71-percent

 

Barclays are hanging on to £283.17 of our money and have been doing so for some three/four years now because while they have written admitting that it is our money, admitted that we have correctly completed all the neccessary forms they have now lost those forms and so cannot release the money.

After a couple of very sarcastic letters from us and the intervention from the banking ombudsman they have finally closed the account and sent us a cheque for the ballance.

Typical of the high intelegence of todays Barclays staff they have sent the cheque made out to the account that they have just closed *-) *-)

 

Now another REALLY sarcastic letter has gone off to them pointing out that we would like them to give us our money back before any further criminal activities committed by their bank comes to light and they are heavily fined again and suddenly find themselves unable to meet their obligations :D :D

 

Quiet honestly I am really enjoying myself and all over a paltry £283.17.

[CliveH]

Nice one Syd.

 

You do wonder about the intelligence of some tho - well you have to given the example you cite a cheque being written to an account now closed by same bank!

 

We had exactly the same with Nat West who wrote to us as executors of MiL's estate saying that they had closed he account and here was the balance made payable to?

 

You guessed it!

 

The account they had just closed. 8-)

[BGD]

Looks like it's just about the right moment to swoop in and buy a wad of Barclays shares.

[Brian Kirby]

Dave225 - 2012-07-12 7:49 PM

 

I think as Brian has said, we all have different opinions, which is good in as such as it makes us all think, I hope. I also suspect many of us cringe at many of the things that are happening in our world today and genuinely wonder how they are allowed to happen. But on the other side the vast majority of the population of the UK seems to think ';it is all someone elses's fault' and turn the other cheek.. That has undoubtedly been a result of the imposition of the 'nanny state' where individual thought is no longer allowed. 1984 has arrived but a few years later than estimated. Will the population fight back and regain their control? That is indeed a question. How far do they need to be pushed before rebellion sets in?? Answers on a postcard please.

 

Anyway, enough of the dark thoughts.

 

The bottom line is nobody trusts a banker anymore, nobody trusts a doctor anymore and as for politicians......I rest my case. So, it is back to basics whatever they are......

I was prompted by this to read back, and in retrospect I did rather dwell on the negatives of Thatcher's term in office. I seem to have given some the idea my instincts lie somewhere to the left of Lenin, so with apologies to all...........................:-)

 

Of course good was also done: it is very rare indeed that no good comes from any administration of any colour. Maybe the "Rotten parliament"?

 

However, to quote Shakespeare:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;

The evil that men do lives after them,

The good is oft interred with their bones,.................

 

It is inevitably a matter of opinion where the acceptable balance lies between the good and the bad. My opinion of that particular government is that for all the good that was done - and I fervently agree that the excesses of the unions had to be dealt with - the methods used were unduly harsh and destructive, and that those ends could have been achieved in a less divisive, and more constructive way.

 

To that extent, I continue to see the long shadow of that administration in a number of areas. I think education was ill served. I think cabinet government began its decline. I think the civil service became politicised to its, and our, detriment. I think the police never really recovered from the confrontations with the miners, which I think lie at the root of some of their recent, widely criticised, tactics. I think the big bang has eventually been shown to be what it appeared it might be. I think our relationship with Europe has never recovered from where she left it. I think her apparent conviction that we are not good at making things led to the adoption of a "financial services = easy money" mentality, which has largely got us where we are today.

 

I freely and fully accept that there are benefits on the other side of the balance sheet, and I am perhaps unduly "glass half empty" in my recollections: but on balance I just think we collectively paid too high a price for those benefits.

 

Unfortunately, Blair learnt too well at her politically opposite knee. He more or less completed the destruction of cabinet government. He did little to remedy education. He revelled in the politicised civil service. He failed to fix the police. He failed to see the dangers in our over-reliance on financial services. He let the casino rip, instead of imposing robust control. He did little to resurrect manufacturing, lauding those whose greatest claim to fame was that they bought cheap abroad and sold dear at home. In retrospect, the real red lights should have come on over the Dome, that crass waste of time, money, and effort that would, IMO, far better have been dropped than pursued without vision or purpose.

 

See, negative again! That half empty glass again! :-) So yes, I do plead guilty to seeing more the downside than the upside of governments - mainly I suppose, because it is the downsides that have had the most direct impacts on our lives. The upsides, I just tend to note with satisfaction, and move on.

 

The real enemy, in both cases was, I think, a near total lack of effective opposition in parliament. Both were elected with excessive majorities, and with oppositions that were almost completely dysfunctional, meaning both could pretty much do as they chose, without fear of being seriously challenged. But then, whose fault was that? After all, we, fools that we are, elect the lot of them. :-S

[Guest pelmetman]

I agree with all that Brian, and just watching the BBC Olympics propaganda unit it full flow (with my cheapo satellite)......... I fear we are going have an even larger financial hangover after the games to pick up *-).............Now you can see why thick blokes like me are selling up and heading for the hill's :D

 

This recession/depression will probably mirror Japan's in its longevity as there's still a lot of European doo doo to hit the fan 8-)

 

But hey!.............lets look on the bright side I'm at the Ukulele festival (lol) (lol) (lol)

[CliveH]

Trouble is Brian - that I believe you make the mistake that so many do when looking at what Thatcher did - you look at it in isolation.

 

The UK was coming out of another financial balls up by a Labour Government such that we had to go to the IMF and get a bail out. Labour and the Unions had beggared (a u could work better there) the country and whilst I believe with the benefit of hindsight that some of what she did was wrong, Overall what she did was vastly more beneficial to the average man in the Street than what went before.

 

She believed the UK could not make good products because the Unions did not allow it. Brittish Leyland and Red Robbo - classic examples!! So destroy the absolute power of the Unions and look what you get.

 

Briliant cars made in Swindon (Honda) and Sunderland (Nissan) and do not forget the huge success that Jaguar Land Rover has now become. You're not telling me that these companies would come here if Thatcher had not got rid of the "cancer" and made building stuff here viable.

 

As for the tired old repetition of Thatcher turning to the Financial Services sector - well she did very little in reality - the City of London was a Financial Centre LONG before Thatcher came on the scene.

 

With or without her - London still transacts about 70% of all worldwide financial transactions - that has been true for some time. If you want to see where the rot set in - look at when Blair and Brown came on the scene.

 

The problem we have now is that Cameron has but a mere fraction of Thatchers ability. And so unlike when we needed a strong person to sort out the bad apples in UK manufacturing Thatcher was there and did it - we have no one to sort out the bad apples in UK Banking (which is not the be all and end all of Financial Services in the UK - far from it) All this Government does in print money making us all poorer as a result - but not only that!! - they give this printed money to the banks who sit on it.

 

Barmy!

 

But even more barmy is to look back at what one person did without looking at the overall context of why she did it.

 

 

[Syd]

 

Despite there being people on here saying that now is the time to "fill your boots with Barclays" I would say that now is most definately NOT the time to "fill your boots with Barclays" because soon they are going to have to raise some serious money from somewhere and where will they go for it.

Back to their arab friends and if they do then you can expect a serious dilution in the value of your stock.

The Arabs do not give money away for nothing.

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2012-07-28 10:06 AM

 

Trouble is Brian - that I believe you make the mistake that so many do when looking at what Thatcher did - you look at it in isolation.

I don't think I do, Clive, I think I see it in the round - I was there too, don't forget! :-) The outcome on here is perforce distilled down to the "Executive Summary". Maybe 45% positive, 55% negative.

 

The UK was coming out of another financial balls up by a Labour Government such that we had to go to the IMF and get a bail out. Labour and the Unions had beggared (a u could work better there) the country and whilst I believe with the benefit of hindsight that some of what she did was wrong, Overall what she did was vastly more beneficial to the average man in the Street than what went before.

With the first part, I entirely agree. On the part regarding the man in the street, I disagree, because some of those men in the street are still, even now, living with the consequences. The legacy was hers: that it was not subsequently corrected is the fault of others.

 

She believed the UK could not make good products because the Unions did not allow it. Brittish Leyland and Red Robbo - classic examples!! So destroy the absolute power of the Unions and look what you get.

 

Briliant cars made in Swindon (Honda) and Sunderland (Nissan) and do not forget the huge success that Jaguar Land Rover has now become. You're not telling me that these companies would come here if Thatcher had not got rid of the "cancer" and made building stuff here viable.

But that belief, as later demonstrated by by the likes of Honda, was misplaced. The onslaught on the perversity of the unions was, in effect, largely brought about by destroying the industries, rather than by tackling union excesses directly. Unfortunately, it is far easier to destroy that to build, and I don't think she ever fully understood that. Destroy the industry, and others quickly seize its markets. I think she believed industry would quickly recover, not appreciating that, having shouted its shortcomings from the rooftops others would believe what she said, and that rejuvenating industries requires huge injections of time and capital which, in consequence, would not be forthcoming. The UK car industry squandered its good pre-war reputation by producing and exporting poor products post war - largely through poor employment practise and short sighted management - long before Red Robbo & Co came on the scene, and had already sowed the seeds of its own destruction. Red Robbo became the bête noir, but in reality he was just another bad product of the Rootes/Nuffield stables. So yes, the Hondas came because the Robbos were squashed, but also because the UK government subsidised them to come, and because we had joined the "Common Market" and looked a good place to build, and export, cars from. Bear in mind also that much of what we now produce is still "kit assembly", with many of the high value parts still being imported. My own take is that the rot set in from the top, and merely bred the rot at the bottom. IMO, it is superior managements that now build superior cars, not superior (or absent) unions.

 

As for the tired old repetition of Thatcher turning to the Financial Services sector - well she did very little in reality - the City of London was a Financial Centre LONG before Thatcher came on the scene.

 

With or without her - London still transacts about 70% of all worldwide financial transactions - that has been true for some time. If you want to see where the rot set in - look at when Blair and Brown came on the scene.

But what she did introduce was the "big bang", was it not, which gave the banks the incentive to merge clearing and merchant functions, so that the merchant banks gained access to the clearer's deposits. That removed the first brick from the wall, unfortunately from its foundations. I'll happily agree that Blair/Brown removed a few more, but from rather higher up the wall. But that first brick was, IMO, the fundamental flaw.

 

The problem we have now is that Cameron has but a mere fraction of Thatchers ability. And so unlike when we needed a strong person to sort out the bad apples in UK manufacturing Thatcher was there and did it - we have no one to sort out the bad apples in UK Banking (which is not the be all and end all of Financial Services in the UK - far from it) All this Government does in print money making us all poorer as a result - but not only that!! - they give this printed money to the banks who sit on it.

I think it is too soon to judge their respective abilities. Cameron is still a beginner, she had far greater parliamentary experience, but made plenty of mistakes. As PM she also had a huge majority, and a dysfunctional opposition, so had much more room to manoeuvre. That, in part, IMO, was her downfall. In her case, I think, her total conviction that she was right, stemmed from never having tasted defeat. Look at her reaction when, eventually, she did. I don't agree about this strong person. Both Blair and Thatcher persuade me they are inevitably flawed, and need others to restrain and correct them. It is a bit like wishing for a benign dictator: has there even been one? :-)

 

But even more barmy is to look back at what one person did without looking at the overall context of why she did it.

 

I agree context is all, with the proviso that the whole context is taken into account. My conclusion is that, on balance, and taking account of context, her administration left us with more problems than it solved. So too did Blair's.

 

I think the problem we now face is of such magnitude that no administration, however "strong", of whatever complexion, would be able simply to solve it. There is no clear consensus among economists what is the "right" course to adopt, they veer between saying cut more and cut less, and print more and print less. The only thing on which they all seem to agree is that the ultimate solution has to be growth, but that they don't know how best to promote it. Meanwhile, the economic ground shifts beneath our feet. So, we are left with chaotic responses to chaotic events. This is not, IMO, a time for dogma, but for pragmatism. Grand schemes are out of the window, and we are left to duck and dive, and bob and weave, as best we can. Interesting times!

[Dave225]

As I have stated in my own Posts I am of similar persuasion to Clive on this one. Many of the things blamed on Thatcher, she did not do. Many positive things she did do, were ignored. She made mistakes of course but which PM has not done that? Many people have chosen to believe what they think is the whole truth but is only a small part, and that has been carefully edited by both media and politicians. I know my own country thinks she was the 'she devil' yet she poured more money into Scotland than had the previous Labour Government. Did not do any good, some parts of this part of the UK would cheerfully vote for a 3 legged dog just as long as it has a red rosette on its ear. Yes, the miners committed suicide because Scargill told them the best time to go on strike was at the start of summer just after the power stations had been fully stocked with coal and chose to ignore that the Poles were happy to sell coal delivered at a cheaper price as it kept their miners in work.. So much for socialist brother hood. Smart man that Scargill. The shipyards stopped building ships, mainly due to the countries of the Far East producing them much cheaper. As Brian can remember people in Britain stopped buying British products through choice. Everybody wanted a Japanese TV or radio and then started buying Japanese cars, usually because they were more reliable. Our motorcycle industry 'died' because of a desire for Japanese, German and Italian bikes. We had an aero industry but all Governments mucked that up by cancelling project after project and then finally were killed off by the sheer size of Boeing. The 747 has been a landmark in that industry, whether you like it or not.

 

However, one thing I learned as a small 'global traveller' was that if I did not adapt, I did not survive.

 

I would also be very curious to know how Brian feels the UK would look like today if Thatcher had not won the 1979 election?

[Brian Kirby]

Dave225 - 2012-07-29 4:31 PM..................I would also be very curious to know how Brian feels the UK would look like today if Thatcher had not won the 1979 election?

That's easy, worse than it now is, because it was either her or Labour! That was never my point. That she was all that was on offer, does not mean she is beyond criticism merely because it was her, or worse! She was a remarkable life-force, if nothing else, and much of what she achieved was beneficial. But, as I have said before, I think we paid too high a price for those benefits. Just a little bit of subtlety would have enabled us, IMO, to get those same benefits at less downside cost. Had we done that we should, IMO, be far better off today than we are. Same applies to Blair. They were both untrammelled, both needed to be constructively challenged, and neither was. But that is all history now. The future is all we can manage. We are where we are.

[CliveH]

She was certainly a product of the times. The support for her strong stance against the unions - who were destroying the economy, demanding ever more money for producing crap products.

 

I have no problem then and I have no problem now in identifying greed and sloath and saying enough is enough!

 

As I say - the issue is now that we have a similar problem - a group of workers taking the pi$$ (monetary sign particularly appropriate here :-S ) but whereas we had Labour giving in to them and then Thatcher coming along and saying enough is enough, now we have had Labour causing the problem (again!) but this time we have Cameron et al saying

 

"Oh dear!! - you are too big to fail, so how much more money would you like us to print?"

 

This strategy puts off the day of reckonning for the Banks whilst destroying peoples lives as each day "the £ in your pocket" is worth less and less.

 

Thatcher was wrong on a number of things - but no-one can doubt the fact that we have mere shadows of her ability occupying No 10 now.

[Dave225]

Clive,

 

Be careful, there are many who would have you put in the Ducking Stool for those comments. Certainly, a mouthwashing is on the cards.

 

I fully accept that many things Thatcher did were not always the best. After all we Scots paid the Poll Tax a year before the English, which did her no favours up here. But then again, my countrypeople, who voted en masse against her, queued up to buy their Council Houses, and are still doing it although the new Administration wants to stop it. It is curious because those against the idea argue that it removes Council stock from those who need it. However, experience has shown that those who bought their Council Houses have tended to stay in them, merely paying a mortgage instead of a rent, and in turn have improved the houses no end. So, the availabilty has not changed that much except on death the family gets the house, or as is more likely it gets sold to pay the Care Home Fees the Council will not pay. Heads up and Tails down methinks.

 

However, I do not accept the view that she was the 'she devil' and destroyed Britain. Many others were far more effective at that objective. It just seems convenient for certain parts of society to claim that, to cover their own 'sins'. She faced a set of circumstances and did what she felt was the best way to resolve them. Of course she must have done something right to win 3 elections, which considering the current electoral model is quite heavily biased towards Labour means an awful lot of Labour supporters approved of what she was doing. Ironically her 'downfall' was in part due to her objections to the way Europe was moving towards a superstate which did not go down well with the 'wets' in her party. Now she would have the support of 80% of the country for that policy.

[CliveH]

Totally agree with your assessment Dave. And whilst i would agree that it was the poll tax that started her downward trend, I would also say two things:

 

a) She was by that time pumped up with her own abilities/importance - not helped by the fact that the then US President (Reagan) held her in such esteme that her ego swelled.

 

b) The Poll tax was for many of us - a far better and more fair local tax. The introduction of the Poll tax was dreadful mainly because of a) as she would not listen to anyone.

 

On this point Brian is also right in that she was, towards the end more of a dictator rather than being the head of a Cabinet. The fact that she was against the evolution of the single currency in Europe in more ways than one underlines the fact that whilst with hindsight we can all see the flaws of the individual - we can also see the hard fact that she could see the debacle from back then..

 

As for what some would have us believe - well there is the truth and there is spin. Most people can tell one from the other. :-S And some always have an agenda that demonises her despite the obvious abilities she had.

 

Compared to Blair/Brown who spun and lied us into a War with dodgy dossiers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Compared to Brown/Balls who took us all down the road of "banks too big to fail" and a "super regulator that could not regulate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

To lay all of todays ills on one person because she stood for something some people did not like is an example of being disingenuous that, frankly, is the best I have seen. Amazing hubris!!

[Colin Leake]

I've just had a problem with Barclays. I can get into the on line banking on my lap top but for some reason when I use the App on the iPad, which is what I normally do because it's quicker, the welcome screen with our details comes on but blanks off after two seconds for some reason. No problem I thought I'll get on to their help line. 30 minutes later after being kept hanging on I gave up. Later using another phone number I cheated and eventually got on to their experts. Well when I say experts what I mean is an Indian in a call center working to a script made worse by the fact we were both having difficulty understanding each other. We went round in circles and 30 minutes later we had got nowhere so I gave up and rang off.

 

I'll solve the problem or may be with a bit of luck it will even sort itself out. I'll probably delete the app and start from the Banks web site to set the App up from scratch again. They have been mucking about improving the banking site so may be that will work.

 

Out of interest has anyone else encountered the same problem when using an iPad to access this site? All my other apps are working fine including those for other banks and building societies we use so the problem does seem to be specific to Barclays.

 

My main complaint is not that the problem has occurred but that because of the foreign scripted web site it has simply to proved to be impossible to get an answer as to what is going on never mind finding out if and when the problem will be sorted.

[CliveH]

I have no expertise in these matters - but did select a bank that assured me it provided telephone numbers to its branches in the UK and did not use call centres either here in the UK or elswhere.

 

The bank that ticked all those boxes?

 

RBS

 

8-)

 

Their service is crap now and I have several issues with them. But they do not use out of UK call centres as far as I am aware. I can still call my branch direct.

 

As someone who is in Financial Services as an IFA - we advise clients NOT to use providers that use call centres in other parts of the world. We have had reports of Prudential clients having policies surrendered and the first thing the client knew was that the contributions were no longer being collected.

 

You should also be aware that the Data Protection Act only applies within the UK and to a certain extent the EU boundaries. For that reason, about 5 years ago we all stopped using providers that processed bank details and/or medical details in overseas call centres.

 

All the major providers soon realised that this was a cost cutting measure too far because suddenly having no new business was a bit of a shock.

 

However, the Banks have never had a product of any sort that is remotely attractive compared to others when compared to the Whole of the Market, so they were not affected as they never appeared at the top of the list in the comparrison charts.

 

They continued to push substandard crappy products direct to those clients who sadly for them "trusted" the banks and were happy to have their details vulnerable to people outside of the UK who were not subject to our consumer protection laws.

 

My advice Colin?

 

Chose a better Bank.

 

(And no - I would not recommend any of the big 4 - and certainly not RBS)

[colin]

CliveH - 2012-07-09 1:34 PM

 

Destruction of the TSR2 plans – Still LOTS of questions about that debacle! – especially as the Russians produced a Fighter that was remarkably similar just a few years later!!!

 

 

If you want to blame someone as to why the TSR2 never went into production, then blame Mountbatton.