Ha Claig - that Big Boy reference reminded me that one of my ex-colleagues thought he knew who that was when the story was breaking until we discovered there's a lot of traders who go by the name Big Boy! Apparently a lot of the analysts etc call their traders Big Boy as you might say OK Boss.
yes I agree all the banks were doing it because of the collapse of the wholesale credit market so by underreporting their rates to ensure cheaper access to interbank credit for their own bank, the gross effect was LIBOR fixing because other banks were doing the same thing for their own gain. However, I wasn't aware there is talk that the banks agreed and set this up in order to reduce LIBOR (for a start it shafted other areas of banks - LLoyds has a big mortgage division as does Natwest/RBS and Barclays) - but individual actions in order to keep hold of bonuses in what was proving to be a very difficult market to navigate, I don't think that is a conspiracy, although there must have been 'conspiracies' within banks between the people who would have noticed the reporting was wrong.
How many people does it take to make a conspiracy? Only two really innit so if I believe that there was covering up within the banks I suppose I must believe in at least one conspiracy per LIBOR-fixing bank! Is someone who suspects wrongdoing guilty of conspiring if they don't report? I guess if they have a duty to report then yes, I'd have to agree with you, even if they have no involvement with the actions so you might be right about BoE and FSA as well if it's been evidenced that they knew it was going on and did nothing. I'm afraid I haven't kept up to date but on what I first read when it broke I didn't think ooh conspiracy, I thought yet more greedy fuckers fiddling the financial markets for their own personal gain and fuck what happens to the rest of us as a result!
The ritualist aspect seems to be what freaks a lot of poeple out but that doesn't really bother me. I get that people take comfort from ritual (it apparently appeals to a particular 'religious' part of the brain that also lights up when thinking OCD thoughts so rituals are fundamentally comforting for all humans) and all religions have rituals, but all those religions have a common aim, purpose and belief focusing on worshipping the same god they as a community have always worshipped which is where I thought some of the value to the individual came from - that their God wants them to wash their hands three times, do a jig and fall over, share a cup and a very unappetising wafer, the nature of the ritual is irrelevant, and in doing so it makes them happy because they are obeying their God.
But I'm still not clear as to whether the freemasons have that since if there is no requirement to believe in the same supreme being, or even a deity at all and everyone doing the rituals are doing the same ritual but to different gods or not even gods and none of these gods have ever commanded that they go forth and be a freemason or asked for special freemason rituals to be performed in their honour - is the level of comfort taken diminished for an individual? Why would people like performing rituals which don't mean anything personally to them apart from the fact that it gives them a sense of belonging and acceptance. Maybe it is that simple - a hobby for people who really dig rituals, lack a sense of power or belonging otherwise in their life and FM gives them heirarchy and acceptance and fun fancy rituals. So people join because they are theatrical and flamboyant, but can't abide Am-Dram, and missed out on being a priest or their religion just doesn't do things quite as a fun and fancy and they take comfort from the rituals. I thought the Pope through the ages had been quite clear he was not a fan of the freemasons but there seem to be plenty of RC freemasons so maybe I've got that wrong.
Are they modest and quiet about their charitable donations and work and don't want to shout about it? Or do they build websites dedicated to demonstrating how much charitable work they do or have their photos taken for the local paper handing over cheques to charities? Is the value of their charitable work diminished by the majority going to causes established by masons or run by masons or to individuals who are only eligible because they meet the masonic criteria or is it only right that they should mostly look after their own as a lot of religious charities do?
Maybe it's just all three: a social club, political/lobbying organisation and a form of religion. Scientology operates on the same kind of lines but it's a lot more expensive and you can only buy your way to the top so FM is definitely more egalitarian in that sense. I'd be interested to know if Grand Masters have ever included working class chaps without a title and not having risen in rank through the armed forces or had any previous connections with the Masons apart form their own service because that would suggest a level of meritocracy I am not giving them credit for.
If anyone can join then it's not a race (although terrible terrible problems in the US with racially segregated lodges - some US lodges won't even recognise the original Prince Hall lodge which was the first lodge established by an African American and is recognised by UGLE which is sad). The only thing I now know from this thread is that any professional networking is strictly frowned upon but I don't know what the consequences would be for a freemason from his lodge if s/he were found to be doing that.
One thing that strikes me from this thread is what differentiates scientology from freemasonry? How would people feel if a large number of scientologists were rumoured to be working in the criminal justice system and a number of crimes where victims alleged the involvement of scientologists ran aground when investigated by other scientologists and then the reports idenitfying the accused were locked down by the government (who also had a number of scientologists in their ranks).
I guess if non-scientologists weren't allowed to know who was a scientologist nothing could ever be investigated. Would people get pissed about that or accept it as ok? And if, further the scientologists considered it an enfringement of their human rights and civil liberties to be required to declare their allegiance when holding public office and asserted it as such would that be ok too? As a religion I assume we would have to be ok with that because they would have the protection under the ECHR that religions do. If freemasonry is a religion I can see why they would be protected under the ECHR too. But no freemason I have talked to has ever asserted it is a religion and have actually been at great pains to say otherwise. All very confusing and contradictory really. They've also been very keen to point out it has no political affiliations.