Purple, at no time did I suggest Swiss banks were whiter than white. Bronte, nor did I suggest that document shredding didn't take place. It would be great if that's what we were debating here; it would be possible to debate the issue rationally. I have never contested that Swiss banks had and have serious questions to answer and it would be interesting to debate them. The problem is that debates in general and this one in particular become unproductive unless everyone sticks to the context of the real world. That's what I've been pressing for.
What I have asked for repeatedly is for you to provide any supporting evidence for some of the incredible claims both of you have made. Is that so unreasonable? To ask for a reputable reference or link to back up some very contentious claims? For example, you could start with: Switzerland has and continues to finance genocide, has and continues to finance terrorism and constituted some inexplicable vital link in the reprocessing of Jew's teeth which was vital to Nazi war efforts and extended the war as a result.
I've no problem debating the real failings of Swiss banks, my problem is with some of the outlandish claims being made here. For example, I'd happily discuss the real changes which have occurred in Swiss banking as a result of 9-11.
And Bronte, I don't really get the relevance of McCourt's Limerick. Some things are plausible and some are not. There's nothing particularly implausible about McCourt's story; poverty to some degree or another is universal. Neither is there anything implausible about Swiss banks being caught shredding documents. However, for example: a moon made of cheese or FF being able to rescue the economy or Swiss banks providing a vital link in the processing of Nazi confiscated Jew's teeth are, to me, to a greater or lesser degree implausible and I'd need evidence to consider them.
In agreement with Purple, I too am tiring of this debate. I've presented links and referenced real reports but facts and the like seem to be of little interest. Horses to water and all that. Sadly if you stubbornly refuse to drink from the pure clean fountain of truth and reason, there is little more I can do. Ok. that's a pretty weak attempt to lighten the tone. I realise that I also am somewhat emotionally compromised when it comes to Switzerland and, like casiopea, am particularly stung by the "morally repulsive" jibe which is what caused me to wade in here. The only grace is that at least the incorrect claims regarding Swiss welfare entitlement and immigration policy seem to have been quietly abandoned and the only pillar remaining to support this slur is the actions of the Swiss banks. I have tried to ignore the sting and reason about the Swiss banks - using facts, references and the like but I'm finding it draining as we enter an endless cycle of: an incredible claim concerning behaviour of Swiss banks is made (often juxtaposed with some entirely reasonably statement of fact), the claim is challenged by a request to provide evidence, a new incredible claim is made, and repeat.
Swiss banking is one thing but it is difficult to explain the impact of a jibe like "the Swiss are morally repugnant". For example, it may be possible, if you try hard, to ignore an accidentally overheard-in-public racist comment "all blacks are whatever" said by a stranger but you can imagine how much more hearing something like that would sting if you were married to or were best friends with a black person or worse again if you were in the company of a black person? Substitute "all the English", "all the Muslims", "all the Micks", or whatever if that mental image doesn't do it for you. It's probably easy enough to repeat slurs against groups with whom you have little real contact. It stings when you hear slurs against a group with whom you have friends and ties. When the basis for the slur seems to be mainly innuendo and misrepresentations, then it stings even more.
What I have asked for repeatedly is for you to provide any supporting evidence for some of the incredible claims both of you have made. Is that so unreasonable? To ask for a reputable reference or link to back up some very contentious claims? For example, you could start with: Switzerland has and continues to finance genocide, has and continues to finance terrorism and constituted some inexplicable vital link in the reprocessing of Jew's teeth which was vital to Nazi war efforts and extended the war as a result.
I've no problem debating the real failings of Swiss banks, my problem is with some of the outlandish claims being made here. For example, I'd happily discuss the real changes which have occurred in Swiss banking as a result of 9-11.
And Bronte, I don't really get the relevance of McCourt's Limerick. Some things are plausible and some are not. There's nothing particularly implausible about McCourt's story; poverty to some degree or another is universal. Neither is there anything implausible about Swiss banks being caught shredding documents. However, for example: a moon made of cheese or FF being able to rescue the economy or Swiss banks providing a vital link in the processing of Nazi confiscated Jew's teeth are, to me, to a greater or lesser degree implausible and I'd need evidence to consider them.
In agreement with Purple, I too am tiring of this debate. I've presented links and referenced real reports but facts and the like seem to be of little interest. Horses to water and all that. Sadly if you stubbornly refuse to drink from the pure clean fountain of truth and reason, there is little more I can do. Ok. that's a pretty weak attempt to lighten the tone. I realise that I also am somewhat emotionally compromised when it comes to Switzerland and, like casiopea, am particularly stung by the "morally repulsive" jibe which is what caused me to wade in here. The only grace is that at least the incorrect claims regarding Swiss welfare entitlement and immigration policy seem to have been quietly abandoned and the only pillar remaining to support this slur is the actions of the Swiss banks. I have tried to ignore the sting and reason about the Swiss banks - using facts, references and the like but I'm finding it draining as we enter an endless cycle of: an incredible claim concerning behaviour of Swiss banks is made (often juxtaposed with some entirely reasonably statement of fact), the claim is challenged by a request to provide evidence, a new incredible claim is made, and repeat.
Swiss banking is one thing but it is difficult to explain the impact of a jibe like "the Swiss are morally repugnant". For example, it may be possible, if you try hard, to ignore an accidentally overheard-in-public racist comment "all blacks are whatever" said by a stranger but you can imagine how much more hearing something like that would sting if you were married to or were best friends with a black person or worse again if you were in the company of a black person? Substitute "all the English", "all the Muslims", "all the Micks", or whatever if that mental image doesn't do it for you. It's probably easy enough to repeat slurs against groups with whom you have little real contact. It stings when you hear slurs against a group with whom you have friends and ties. When the basis for the slur seems to be mainly innuendo and misrepresentations, then it stings even more.