<http://schema.org/transcript>
"They're sending it at these most egregious act. You get very close control it and clearly fraud he's a criminal offense. Most of what we've seen any -- frankly it is not for or. And and is Mossad has said it's very often the case of individuals who don't really understand the product of the selling. But they told by that bank shift this product it's good for people everybody should have PPI everybody should have this form of protection. So but most of what we're looking at these actually design structuring banks that creates the wrong now comes from the control. So. I think you should that be criminal sanctions -- -- -- the most egregious and most of bases just about designing structures that allow. People who themselves on this ever necessarily as financially -- -- as they need to but he acting inappropriately towards the cost was Robinson. You do what they're told to be the biggest problem we -- over the last ten years is that the FSA's -- of -- pitiful I mean I remember -- of half a million pounds of PP IT eleven billion pounds in the selling the cut to pay about. I mean that was just a cost of business that was written off with a with a -- -- not. So you you got about a criminal sanctions be full. I think not probably pushing it's a bit but let's be honest in PPI that was sales staff is simply lied to customers. Now lying is fraud uniqueness it's compulsory it was obvious to -- the problem I think we're below when and we don't want junior -- after being missed incentive to go to check out. But what we perhaps -- as the people who designed to -- those things being struck off. From looking in financial services that we've we've might not need to go the entire credit not criminal like we could. Moved to the very detailed rule base but the final two days. The rules people get ground rules. Not my favorite recent example was I had -- -- And east and bomb that has got -- the licensing rules by not sending alcohol. What it says he's being himself he's being Max and you get a street preacher and give him and now the equivalent of that is what people do. In the financial services industry prescriptive rules can be got round. So what we have very much trying to engage with the terms of the most senior level one now comes what's a good -- what's a good result. And if we can achieve that and the test will be in the year two years' time whether we had. I think that's affects around comes in this constantly wanting more more detailed rules. So is not just that seemed to point and not today's if you were regulated not. You're located guy but just ball looks still it. Is that effectively what you're saying it's an outcome of the outcome is wrong. Talk about how -- you -- -- the language and ideas slightly different language. But but that is what judgment based regulations -- and that's the discussion we would have with the --"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/09/05/fix-bankers-incentives-dont-threaten-jai?videoId=237498167&videoChannel=117754>