It is well known that I have an interesting relationship with the Oxford Centre for Business Taxation, based in the Said Business School at that university.
I noted this in the Red Box email from the Times this morning:
They might say that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Given what we know of the ethical standards and practices of Barclays over the past decade being blacklisted by them must take some doing. Interesting that they should also blacklist his foundation. I’d have thought that has some implications for the Business School – surely!? Then again, probably not.
Probably not
‘Tory Backer’.
What can you say?
Will the Tories still take his shilling even when one of our Banks refuses to deal with him?
Let’s see shall we?
Am not sure what this has to do with Mike Devereux, Judith Freedman and co, with whom your real antagonism lies.
You are trying imply something nudge nudge – otherwise, what is the point of the post?
The issue is as noted in the article
The last line of the article before paywall comes in:
‘Said accused the bank of irresponsible and irrational conduct’
you couldn’t make it up!
(I’m not paying to read further-wouldn’t give The Times a bent farthing).
Oxford University clearly has no moral compass when it comes to its choice of financial backers, past and present.
This money grabbing, tainted institution still dares classify itself as an elite institution – it says as much about the state of any self proclaimed elites as it does of those who happily take their money.
The LSE learned that lesson taking money from the Gaddafi’s, much closer public scrutiny of the funding of all these “educational” institutions is essential if we are to avoid the corporate indoctrination movement taking over all higher education.
PS – thoroughly enjoying The Night Manager on the beeb!
Rhodes
In a word
Is the banking blacklist as sophisticated as th US’s no-fly list?
Not sure…
You couldn’t possibly comment as you know absolutely nothing about Wafic Said. I doubt very much he has anything to do with the people that you seem to have an issue about. Being dropped by a bank these days in nothing to shout about, it is happening to lots of very decent and honest people. The problem is with the banks and not the people. It would nice for you to acknowledge the huge charitable work that Mr. Said has done over the years for the hundreds of disadvantaged children in the world, trying to give them a better life.
I’m sorry to say that I would expect more of you.
I think I have some idea
And I am not interested in further apologies from you
Pecunia non olet. It is better that tainted money is put to good ends, than not. Or do you disagree?
Moral relativism
Now there’s an interesting idea
And was this a good end?
How do you know?
Depends on whose definition of “good ends” is applied.
Apparently the liberal intervention towards good ends in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, following on from similar previous interventions towards good ends in places like Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran, Chile et al, stretch the meaning of success beyond parady.
They guy was an arms dealer wasn’t he? So he earns money from destruction then saves lives from its effect – sound like bloodstained money to me.
@ Andrew
Of course, the origin of the phrase “pecunia non olet” derives from the sensibilities of Titus and Domitian, the nouveuax riches and ennobled by “force majeure” sons of the bourgeois Emperor Vespasian, who had seized the imperial throne by force of arms and murder.
In his keenness to raise taxes, the Emperor Vespasian had put a tax on the public loos in Rome (the origin, in other words, of “spending a penny”, and also the reason why the pissoirs in Paris are called Vespasiennes – cultural people, the French, even when relieving themselves!)
Well, when his prissy sons (one of whom Titus, burned the Temple in the Jerusalem, while the other, Domitian, was as mad as a box of frogs, and probably poisoned his brother so he could become Emperor) complained about this tax “not being nice”, Vespasian asked for a coin collected from such a tax, took a good sniff at it, and said “Pecunia non olet” or “Money doesn’t smell”.
Given the background to the story. I would suggest that the little bon mot isn’t the greatest argument in the armoury, for while money honestly paid into the concierge at a Parisian loo is as good as any other money honestly exchanged, money derived from the arms trade still bears Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damned spot”, however well it may be used.
There’s another maxim – ex turpe causa, non oritur actio” – you cannot litigate an evil suit, and the same is true of tainted money.
What is the relationship between the Said Business School, the Centre for Business Taxation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies: are they all funded by “former Arms Dealer/Philanthropist” Wafic Said?
OCBT is in the Said School
It is not funded directly by Said
There are links between OCBT and IFS, but am not aware IFS has ever had Said funding
he’s planning to sue barclay’s according to the telegraph.
laugh! I nearly bought a television licence!
Interesting