Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
-
- Posts: 1934
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
Note phrases including (my italics):
The Times of London has alleged that
Authorities in Singapore recently uncovered what they believe to be such an operation
It has been widely reported here
Singapore authorities have alleged that
The Times of London has alleged that
Authorities in Singapore recently uncovered what they believe to be such an operation
It has been widely reported here
Singapore authorities have alleged that
-
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
What a pity that he refused to be extradited to Singapore, where he could have established his innocence.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:45 amNote phrases including (my italics):
The Times of London has alleged that
Authorities in Singapore recently uncovered what they believe to be such an operation
It has been widely reported here
Singapore authorities have alleged that
It has been obvious that Slater was a fraudster who enriched himself at the expense of others. Insider dealing may have been legal when he first indulged in the practice, but it was made illegal for the good reason that it was ripping off those without inside knowledge. I'm staggered that anyone would care to defend such an obvious crook.
From The Routledge Companion to Business History...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 1934
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
I'm sure that, if Gerald were accused by a regime with a legal system about which he had definite reservations, he would think twice before rushing off to that country to stand trial there. As to the "Routledge Companion to Business History", this was published only after Slater's death when it was safe from being hauled into the courts for defamation. There's no lack of people prepared to vilify others after, but only after, their deaths.Gerard Killoran wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 4:05 pmWhat a pity that he refused to be extradited to Singapore, where he could have established his innocence.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:45 amNote phrases including (my italics):
The Times of London has alleged that
Authorities in Singapore recently uncovered what they believe to be such an operation
It has been widely reported here
Singapore authorities have alleged that
It has been obvious that Slater was a fraudster who enriched himself at the expense of others. Insider dealing may have been legal when he first indulged in the practice, but it was made illegal for the good reason that it was ripping off those without inside knowledge. I'm staggered that anyone would care to defend such an obvious crook.
From The Routledge Companion to Business History...
The Routledge Companion to Business History.png
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
"Vilify" is good, obviously, but in fact we all know that Slater had many many critics while he was still alive.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:21 pmThere's no lack of people prepared to vilify others after, but only after, their deaths.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
1. It's Gerard, not Gerald.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:21 pm
I'm sure that, if Gerald were accused by a regime with a legal system about which he had definite reservations, he would think twice before rushing off to that country to stand trial there. As to the "Routledge Companion to Business History", this was published only after Slater's death when it was safe from being hauled into the courts for defamation. There's no lack of people prepared to vilify others after, but only after, their deaths.
2. If you don't like the legal system of a country, don't do dodgy business deals in it.
3. There are plenty of rich crooks who used the libel courts to prevent disclosure of their criminality during their lifetime. Robert Maxwell is just one who comes to mind. Others, like Jim Slater could rely on their mates in the Tory Party and the establishment. Any idea why Boris Johnson hasn't been prosecuted for his criminal activity?
-
- Posts: 1934
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
Apologies, Gerard, there was no intention of mis-spelling your name. However, your reference to the "libel courts" isn't appropriate here - the threat of defamation proceedings may deter free speech, as in Maxwell's case, but it's no defence at all to a criminal prosecution. The hard facts are, and you may think this wrong, that Jim Slater was never prosecuted while either a Tory or a Socialist government was in power.Gerard Killoran wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 9:59 am1. It's Gerard, not Gerald.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 7:21 pm
I'm sure that, if Gerald were accused by a regime with a legal system about which he had definite reservations, he would think twice before rushing off to that country to stand trial there. As to the "Routledge Companion to Business History", this was published only after Slater's death when it was safe from being hauled into the courts for defamation. There's no lack of people prepared to vilify others after, but only after, their deaths.
2. If you don't like the legal system of a country, don't do dodgy business deals in it.
3. There are plenty of rich crooks who used the libel courts to prevent disclosure of their criminality during their lifetime. Robert Maxwell is just one who comes to mind. Others, like Jim Slater could rely on their mates in the Tory Party and the establishment. Any idea why Boris Johnson hasn't been prosecuted for his criminal activity?
Does this prove that he wasn't a criminal? No, because lots of criminals escape justice. But equally there's an "innocent until proven guilty maxim", of which I assume you're aware, so there's equally no proof in the other direction. You are perfectly entitled to believe what you believe - but others are entitled to disagree.
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
Some people may also be aware that this is a maxim governing legal procedure rather than historical enquiryRoger Lancaster wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:21 amBut equally there's an "innocent until proven guilty maxim", of which I assume you're aware
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 1934
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
The problem with "historical enquiry" is that it judges yesterday's events by today's standards. Since 1969, when capital punishment was abolished in the UK, the law has not permitted executions. Previously, the death penalty often applied to murderers despite the fact that, although legal, many people found it morally repulsive. Are you seriously suggesting (and this is something of a rhetorical question as it's of little significance for chess) that we should apply 2021 standards and argue that those responsible for capital punishment in the 1950's are themselves murderers? From a purely logical viewpoint, I can't make any distinction between this and a retrospective judgment on Jim Slater.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:55 amSome people may also be aware that this is a maxim governing legal procedure rather than historical enquiryRoger Lancaster wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:21 amBut equally there's an "innocent until proven guilty maxim", of which I assume you're aware
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
No it doesn't, as almost any professional historian could tell you.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:09 amThe problem with "historical enquiry" is that it judges yesterday's events by today's standards.
Awesome, Roger. A magnificent exercise in logic and proportion. Chapeau.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:09 amAre you seriously suggesting (and this is something of a rhetorical question as it's of little significance for chess) that we should apply 2021 standards and argue that those responsible for capital punishment in the 1950's are themselves murderers? From a purely logical viewpoint, I can't make any distinction between this and a retrospective judgment on Jim Slater.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
Asset stripping, insider dealing and running a bank so badly that cost us over 100 million pounds to bail it out. These were events judged at the time to be less than honest. As for 'innocent until proven guilty',
I suppose you can prove anything with facts.
This is why Private Eye gave Slater the nickname, Changi Jim.Interesting it certainly is. In 1979 Slater, the 1970s deal maestro, Midas man and founder of the boom-to-busted Slater Walker empire, fell ignominiously to earth when he was convicted under Section 54 of the Companies Act 1948.
He was charged on 15 counts; all related to loans made to affiliated companies for buying stock in the Slater Walker group. He was fined £15 on each charge.
In truth, Slater had already fallen three years before in 1975 when he resigned as chairman of Slater Walker in the wake of the Spydar affair, an investigation into dealings in a Far East Slater Walker company which resulted in Richard Tarling, a colleague, ending up in Changi jail in Singapore.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/276 ... later.html
I suppose you can prove anything with facts.
-
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
Singapore's view of Changi Jim's activities...
From Third World to First: The Singapore Story, 1965–2000
Lee Kuan Yew
published 2000 pp73-4
From Third World to First: The Singapore Story, 1965–2000
Lee Kuan Yew
published 2000 pp73-4
In the 1970s, we had a brush against a big name in the city of London. In March 1972, Jim Slater, a highly regarded British investor who specialized in asset stripping, came to see me in Singapore. When Ted Heath became prime minister, the press reported that he had placed his assets and stockholdings with Jim Slater to manage in a blind trust. Therefore, Slater had strong credentials. I had met him a year earlier at a 10 Downing Street dinner hosted by Ted Heath. I welcomed Slater's participation in our stock market.
Later, in 1975, Sui Sen, then our finance minister, told me that Slater Walker Securities had engaged in manipulating the shares of Haw Par Brothers International, a public-listed company in Singapore. They had been siphoning off the assets of Haw Par and its subsidiaries illegally for the benefit of certain directors and themselves, conduct which amounted to criminal breach of trust: They were cheating the shareholders of Haw Par and the other companies. Investigation into a big name in the London Stock Exchange, if not justified, would give us a bad reputation. Should he proceed against Jim Slater? I decided that we had to if we were to maintain our standing as a well-managed stock exchange
The investigation revealed a conspiracy to systematically strip off the Haw Par assets, and this was only the tip of a much larger and wider swindle. Slater Walker's criminal activities extended from Singapore to Malaysia, Hong Kong, and London, the final repository of the loot. They had used Haw Par subsidiaries in Hong Kong to purchase listed shares in Hong Kong then sold them to Spydar Securities, which was wholly owned by Slater Walker executives who shared these ill-gotten profits. The men responsible were Jim Slater, Richard Tarling, the chairman of Haw Par, and Ogilvy Watson, the managing director. Watson had returned to Britain before fleeing to Belgium with whom we did not have an extradition treaty. Slater and Tarling were resident in London. We sought the extradition of Tarling and Slater, but the British establishment did not extradite Slater. Instead, in 1979, after a three-year struggle through the London courts, the British home secretary ordered Tarling's extradition on only 5 of the 17 charges, the 5 carrying the lowest penalties. Tarling was prosecuted and sent to jail for six months on each of three charges of willful nondisclosure of material facts in Haw Par's 1972 consolidated profit and loss account. Years later, after he had ceased to be governor of the Bank of England, Gordon Richardson mumbled his regrets to me in my office that he could not help Singapore bring Slater to justice.
-
- Posts: 10431
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
Not to chess players in my experience
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
This is how Changi Jim ripped off the company that made the famous Crittal windows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittall_Windows
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittall_Windows
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- Posts: 1934
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
Gerard, Section 54 of the Companies Act 1948 is nothing to do with asset-stripping. The gravity of these offences can be inferred from the size of the fines, £15 on each count.Gerard Killoran wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 11:17 amAsset stripping, insider dealing and running a bank so badly that cost us over 100 million pounds to bail it out. These were events judged at the time to be less than honest. As for 'innocent until proven guilty',
This is why Private Eye gave Slater the nickname, Changi Jim.Interesting it certainly is. In 1979 Slater, the 1970s deal maestro, Midas man and founder of the boom-to-busted Slater Walker empire, fell ignominiously to earth when he was convicted under Section 54 of the Companies Act 1948.
He was charged on 15 counts; all related to loans made to affiliated companies for buying stock in the Slater Walker group. He was fined £15 on each charge.
In truth, Slater had already fallen three years before in 1975 when he resigned as chairman of Slater Walker in the wake of the Spydar affair, an investigation into dealings in a Far East Slater Walker company which resulted in Richard Tarling, a colleague, ending up in Changi jail in Singapore.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/276 ... later.html
I suppose you can prove anything with facts.
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Remembering Jim Slater (13-iii-1929 18-xi-2015)
He didn't say it wasRoger Lancaster wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:16 pmSection 54 of the Companies Act 1948 is nothing to do with asset-stripping.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com