SNEAKY LAW CHANGE DOES NOT CANCEL MY ARGUMENT

In my legal argument as to why most financial contracts are null and void I made use of the FSMA 2000 Section 4 which gives the FSA some responsibility in educating the general public about the financial system.

4 Public awareness
(1)The public awareness objective is: promoting public understanding of the financial system.
(2)It includes, in particular—
(a)promoting awareness of the benefits and risks associated with different kinds of investment or other financial dealing; and
(b)the provision of appropriate information and advice.
(3)“The financial system” has the same meaning as in section 3

[source : FSMA 2000 Section 4]

There is a very hasty attempt to replace the FSA with the Financial Conduct Authority and the relevant law change is underway in the form of the Financial Services Bill.

The government is today warned against pushing through its plans to abolish the Financial Services Authority (FSA) as it emerges that the Treasury will struggle to complete its radical overhaul of the regulatory system until 2013.

Despite the government's pledge to have three new bodies regulating the financial sector by 2012, the Guardian understands it is becoming clear that the required legislation will take longer to pass through parliament.

[source : Radical plans to replace Financial Services Authority fall behind schedule, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/02/fsa-replacement-watchdogs-delayed, 03/02/2011]

Curiously there is no explicit reference to a Public Awareness responsibility for the new FCA in this new Financial Services Bill. Is this an attempt to anull my legal argument?

Perhaps. Perhaps. Perhaps.

However, in the Financial Services Bill there is still a "consumer protection" objective similar to the FSMA 2000.

1C The consumer protection objective
(1) The consumer protection objective is: securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers.
(2) In considering what degree of protection for consumers may be appropriate, the FCA must have regard to—
(a) the differing degrees of risk involved in different kinds of investment or other transaction;
(b) the differing degrees of experience and expertise that different consumers may have;
(c) the needs that consumers may have for the timely provision of information and advice that is accurate and fit for purpose;
(d) the general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions;
(e) the general principle that those providing regulated financial services should be expected to provide consumers with a level of care that is appropriate having regard to the degree of risk involved in relation to the investment or other transaction and the capabilities of the consumers in question;
(f) any information which the consumer financial education body has provided to the FCA in the exercise of the consumer financial education function;
(g) any information which the scheme operator of the ombudsman scheme has provided to the FCA pursuant to section 232A.

[source : Financial Services Bill 2012 Section 5]

But what does this section (f) mean?

(f) any information which the consumer financial education body has provided to the FCA in the exercise of the consumer financial education function;

The "consumer financial education body" is in reference to the Money Advice Centre, which is the Public Awareness function of the crrent FSA. So in this clause there is an implicit responsibility of the FCA for public awareness. It is not as explicit as the FSMA 2000, but it is still there. And the fact that this function has been demoted from explicit to implicit tells you something, doesn't it?

THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW HOW THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM WORKS!

This sneaky attempt has actually strengthened my argument!

My argument still stands, and is even strengthened by this sneaky deliberate attempt to not give the FCA an explicit responsibility to educate the public on the financial system. The whole financial system is designed to unjustly enrich a cabal of fascist, satanist, warmongering, kiddie-fiddling megalomaniacs intent on installing a global dictatorship that has yet to decide whether to exterminate 90%, 95% or 98% of us.

No amount of sneaky law changes can hide that fact.