Talk:Bank of England/Archive 1

Archive 1

50p coin

The introduction date of 1969 strikes me as peculiar: the 50p came in just after decimalisation in 1972. The original idea was Tony Benn's, dating from around this time. Jel 08:20 October 2006 (UTC)

Er no. Decimalisation was 15 February 1971. The 5p and 10p coins were exact equivalents of the old 1/- and 2/- coins, and were released in 1968 to get people familiar with them. The 50p coin was the exact equivalent of the 10/- note and was released in October 1969. I know, 'cos I was there! -- Arwel (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest contribution

I notice that the "Functions of the bank" section has just been substantially expanded by anonymous editor 217.33.207.242, which a "whois" reveals is an address allocated to the Bank itself! I'm gratified that this editor didn't feel the need to delete any of the existing content, so despite recent criticisms of Wikipedia's accuracy, obviously there's nothing too objectionable here. :) -- Arwel (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No mention of Sir John Soane?

Maybe a few words would be in order about how one of England's greatest architects, Sir John Soane, designed a HUGE complex for the Bank of England headquarters, how his desgin was an architectural masterpiece, and how it got demolished for no particulalry good reason during the Bank's expansion during WWI. Blahm 14:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Bank of Britain?

If it's the UK's central bank, then I think that there should be a note explaining why it didn't become the "Bank of Great Britain" and "The Bank of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" in the 1707 and 1800 acts of Union respectively. Does anyone know why this is the case? Thanks Lofty 17:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bank of Scotland is historically Scotland's national reserve, and was established by an act of the Parliament of Scotland in 1695, the year after the BoE, (which incidentally was founded by a Scotsman). However, post the 1707 Act of Union, all fiscal, economic blah matters were centralised on the BoE. Similarly the Bank of Ireland was established before the 1800 Act of Union in 1783. The BoS still to this day, has the power, along with other banks in Scotland and Northern Ireland to print its own money, the bank of Ireland however, along with other financial houses based in the Republic deal with Euros rather than Sterling now. Prior to the various acts of union, the BoE acted as a clearing bank much like its counterparts and only in the 19th c. did it drop private clients to concentrate on the economy of the Empire. Interestingly enough there are one or two private account holders left with the BoE, as the accounts are passed down heriditarily. Brendandh 02:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Centrist views

"There is a notion -- widely believed in the mainstream media -- that while there is propaganda of the left and propaganda of the right, there is no such thing as propaganda of the center. In this view, the center doesn't produce propaganda, it produces straight news. Mainstream journalists typically explain: "We don't tilt left, we don't tilt right. We're straight down the middle of the road. We're dead center."

When mainstream journalists tell me during debates that "our news doesn't reflect bias of the left or the right," I ask them if they therefore admit to reflecting bias of the center. Journalists react as if I've uttered an absurdity: "Bias of the center! What's that?"

It is a strange concept to many in the media. They can accept that conservatism or rightism is an ideology that carries with it certain values and opinions, beliefs about the past, goals for the future. They can accept that leftism carries with it values, opinions, beliefs. But being in the center -- being a centrist -- is somehow not having an ideology at all. Somehow centrism is not an "ism" carrying with it values, opinions and beliefs."

But instead of belaboring the point that the centrist media are currently tilting rightward, I'd like to address some elements of centrist news propaganda that are somewhat constant.

Centrist Cliches

If, for simplicity's sake, we define the left as seeking substantial social reform toward a more equitable distribution of wealth and power, and we define the right as seeking to undo social reform and regulation toward a free marketplace that allows wide disparities in wealth and power, then we can define the political center as seeking to preserve the status quo, tinkering with the system only very prudently to work out what are seen as minor glitches, problems or inequities.

How do these three positions play out journalistically? Unlike left-wing or right-wing publications which are often on the attack, centrist propaganda emphasizes system-supporting news, frequently speaking in euphemisms. If scandals come to light, centrist propaganda often focuses less on the scandal than on how well "the system works" in fixing it. (This was the editorial drumbeat in the papers of record following both Watergate and Iran-Contra.) When it comes to foreign policy, centrist propaganda sometimes questions this or that tactic, but it never doubts that the goal of policy is anything other than promoting democracy, peace and human rights. Other countries may subvert, destabilize or support terrorism. The U.S. just wages peace.

If propaganda from the center only emphasized the upbeat, pointing so much to silver linings that it never acknowledged the existence of clouds, there'd be a credibility problem. The public wouldn't believe such bland, euphemistic reporting. So, in selective cases, centrist propaganda does talk tough about government tyrants -- especially if they're foreign tyrants or U.S. officials already deposed. (J. Edgar Hoover was one such tyrant, whose 50-year reign at the FBI was rigorously scrutinized by the mainstream media only after he was dead and buried.) And centrist propaganda can take a tough look at a social problem -- especially if it's deemed fixed or on its way to being fixed.

Another hallmark of centrist propaganda is to affirm, no matter what the evidence, that U.S. foreign policy is geared toward promoting democracy. Journalists are not unaware that the U.S. helped overthrow democratic governments, for example, in Guatemala in '54, (Iran in '53), Brazil in '64, Chile in '73 -- but these cases are considered ancient history, no longer relevant. (In centrist ideology, since the system is constantly fixing and renewing itself, U.S. abuses -- even against democracy -- become distant past overnight.)

Mainstream journalists respond to such criticism by explaining that articles for the daily press are not history texts and cannot include everything. That's true, but centrist propaganda finds space for certain histories and not others. Many if not most of the reports on Hungary's transition from Communism traced human rights abuses to the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956. By contrast, reports on Guatemala's current human rights situation rarely traced events to the U.S.-sponsored coup of 1954.

Good Guys Caught Between Left and Right

Besides consistently promoting peace and democracy overseas, according to centrist propaganda, the U.S. also consistently supports the good guys abroad. Not surprisingly, the good guys are always "centrists" on the political spectrum. At least that's what the media make them out to be. And there's another media cliche one hears about our good guys, the centrists: They are perpetually hemmed in by the bad guys of left and right.

For years, as El Salvador's armed forces and allied death squads murdered thousands of civilians, media pundits told us that massive U.S. aid to Salvador's military was needed to bolster "centrists" such as Jose Napoleon Duarte. In the media mantra of the time, Duarte was "hemmed in by death squads on the right and guerrillas on the left." In using that cliche, centrist media chose to promote a dubious State Department line, while ignoring groups such as Americas Watch and Amnesty International that had documented that the security forces of the Duarte government worked hand in glove with the death squads.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nunamiut (talk • contribs) 12:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Useful Links

Federal Reserve

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Federal_Reserve_System

Andrew Jackson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nunamiut (talk • contribs) 12:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Dollar Premium

I should welcome a Wikipedia entry on the dollar premium. This was the premium which (at least) UK-resident private investors had to pay to purchase non-sterling quoted securities. The level of the premium was determined by supply and demand, since the amount of foreign currency available was finite.

The premium must have disappeared automatically when UK exchange controls were abolished in 1979. I do not know when it began. My guesses would be 1931, 1965, start of World War II, and 1949.

Iain Smith 81.193.50.15 08:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

£20 Note - Criticism of Design

"The design of the note has not only been controversial in its choice of Scottish figure, but has been described as ugly and aesthetically unpleasing.[citation needed] Interestingly, the banknote has a striking resemblance to that of the Euro."

I've not heard, seen, or read any descriptions of the note as ugly. I like it and so do my friends. And it doesn't really look like a euro note other than having a similar hologram. Perhaps these bits should be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.86.181 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

See Talk:Banknotes of the pound sterling#New £20 Note. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Bank independence

I removed the following section:

This was considered an astute move for several reasons:

• It removed the politically controversial responsibility from the government.
• It was very popular with the City of London, showing a sign of the new government's desire for a strong economy.
• Economic theories on time inconsistency developed by Nobel laureates Edward C. Prescott and Finn E. Kydland, along with empirical experience from New Zealand and elsewhere, suggested that independent central banks could be more successful at reducing inflation without prompting unemployment.

Following the announcement the FTSE 100 Index leapt rapidly and the pound reached its highest level against the Deutsche Mark since Sterling's exit from the ERM.

On the basis that it is somewhat P.O.V., it doesn't cite sources, and it doesn't say who considered the move astute. The comment on the FTSE may is either P.O.V. or it's irrelevant.

I've also removed the 'no sources' tag. - Crosbiesmith 08:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Chief Cashiers of the Bank of England

I have moved the list of Governors to the Governor of the Bank of England article. There's no point in keeping the 'Chief Cashiers of the Bank of England' list. Only two of the links work and the cashiers are not terribly notable. I will removed the list in the absence of objections. - Crosbiesmith 07:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree: remove but leave a link to the Governor page. Jlhughes 09:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I added some citations to the changes in target section because there weren't any. Also, somebody said that the current CPI target is 2.5% - it's actually 2.0% so I changes it and added ref to BoE website stats.--InternationalRockSuperstar 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Temple of Mithras

I'm concerned that the following passage may be rather misleading:

"The Bank was originally constructed above the ancient Temple of Mithras, London at Walbrook, dating to the founding of Londinium in antiquity by Roman garrisons. Mithras was, among other things, considered the god of contracts, a fitting association for the Bank."

The passage may be interpreted as implying that the Bank's location was deliberately chosen for an associaton with Mithras, or perhaps that the builders knew of the Mithraeum's location. However, according to the Temple of Mithras page, the temple remains were not discovered until 1954. If the Temple's location was not known at the time of the Bank's construction, then the Mithraic association seems little more than a coincidence. Unless a more concrete relationship can be shown, may I suggest that this passage be removed, or perhaps re-categorized as a piece of trivia? 83.67.34.95 12:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Branches

Does it still have 8 branches? The old branch buildings I know in Manchester and Birmingham are now in commercial use. Arwel 01:36 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

They are not called 'Branches' anymore but 'Agencies' and the branch manager was called the Agent. The problem with branches was they gave the impression that it was a retail bank, which function stopped in the mid 1980s. The Agency operates from a suite of offices in a city and collects financial information. Liverpool and Southampton had 'Branches' but like those you mention they also became Agencies. 79.72.81.131 (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S

Bank of "England"

Is the use of the term "England" in the bank's name (rather than "United Kingdom") anything other than a historical artifact? Does the Bank have a different legal status outside of England (or, I suppose, outside of England and Wales?) --Jfruh (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"England" usage is an artifact, the BoE is the UK central bank and the concept of what a central bank is and does is something that the BoE became over the course of its history. Just like the rest of the British constitution it evolved and still evolves, the most recent significanr change was to give it the power to set interest rates within the rule of keeping inflation to a certain figure rather than let the Chancellor/ Treasury set the rate in relation to political pressures or rather caprice. It has the same legal status throughout the area governed by the common purse of the UK. All retail banks have to make certain deposits with it. It is "the lender of last resort" (eg Northern Rock). Banks in Scotland, Nthn Ireland and the other small territories in the British Isles have rights to issue 'bank notes' but these must be related to the BoE's note issue rules; only the BoE has a licence to print money not backed by anything other than its own rule. 79.72.81.131 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S

Not enough emphasis on the fractional reserve system?

The Bank of England loans more money than it has in reserves. This is actually a very important system of banking that has been replicated worldwide due to its "success" in manipulating economies via steady currency debasement (cyclic inflation/deflation). Why is it not mentioned as the system the BoE uses? This is probably the most important aspect of the Bank of England, is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.40.3 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 31 October 2007

This unsigned comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the descriptive term "fractional reserve system" or what is meant by 'reserves' in this context. 79.72.81.131 (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Tony S

Perhaps you could explain his misunderstanding?

Are you saying the Bank of England did not create a fractional reserve system of banking? I just thought it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, since the banking system of the UK is built upon that system of credit supply, and the Bank of England is the monopoly supplier of that credit.

(194.221.40.3 (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

The BoE is not the monopoly supplier of credit. Private banks can create credit whenever they want provided they stay within capital requirements etc. The BoE does have a monopoly on the issue of banknotes but that is a different matter. Most of what we consider to be money is in fact credit. 92.40.234.248 (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Even more than that, the BoE only has a monopoly on the issue of banknotes within England and Wales.

But yes, credit stems from banks making loans.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 08:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the creator of this section has completely misunderstood fractional reserve banking. This is not an "invention" but a natural consequence of most forms of banking around the world. Comecial banks do have to maintain a ratio of loans to reserve with or without regulation to the contrary in order to maintain the confidence of liquidity providers. It was the collapse of confidence of liquidity providers that led to the collapse of the commercial bank Northern Rock and which in turn led to the collapse of confidence by ordinary depositors. That happened in spite of Northern Rock operating within the fractional reserve rules as they effectively operated in the UK. But the fact that the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the EB and other central banks do not themselves have to worry about fractional reserves does mean that the supply of credit can be expanded by central banks, almost at will. This is currently preventing a complete collapse of the financial system (or more accurately a complete shrinking of credit availabilty as would be expected by a factor known as the credit multiplier as a result of the losses made by the banks (as a result of losses which reduced their reserves significantly as a result of bad practise such as sub-prime lending and the purchase of securities secured by such loans).--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Banknote reproductions

Susan Gent, Notes Reproduction Officer at the Bank of England says there is no permission to reproduce banknotes here in wikipedia. If anybody has image the want to post then they can get permission needed online from http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/ or by completing the attached application form. garryq 22:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I applied for permission and was granted for a period of 1 year. I've only added images of the £10 and £20 notes, but will add the other current notes if anyone thinks it is worthwhile. Wangi 09:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Does this mean that the permission has now expired? Ollie 02:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The current source notes on [[Image:Bank Of England10.gif]] for the £10 note reads:

"Permission granted by Bank of England for display on Wikipedia for a period of 12 months, ending 29 July 2006. Ref: FCA/9292A. Extended 31 July 2006 for a further 12 months, till 31 July 2007. Permission granted by Bank of England for display on Wikipedia for 12 months from 30 January 2008, until 29 January 2009. Ref: FCA/9292B. Permission also applies for any Series F notes in circulation in this period." -- Arwel Parry _(talk) 22:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And it has now been extended (ref. FCA/9292C) to early February 2010. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Before the 1946 nationalisation?

Before the 1946 nationalisation of the Bank of England who did the bank pay dividends to ? Who were the majority shareholders in the bank of england before 1946? Can anyone recommend any archives that could shed light on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.254.118 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 Protests

When a section first appeared in the article about the 2009 protests, I slapped a "recentism" tag on it, because the protests seemed relatively trivial compared to the centuries' long history of the bank. Since then the section has been removed, put back (with tag), etc. I've taken the WP:BOLD decision to remove the section, as it really doesn't seem worth mentioning in all but a footnote. Incidentally, when I removed the section, the "recentism" tag seemed to have disappeared, but none of the issues such a tag raises appeared to have been addressed. Thoughts?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Founder

Isn't the Bank of England founded by William (Willem) III of Orange?? Or shouldn't he at least be mentioned in (the introduction of) the article?? Source (among others) Lisa Jardine, Going Dutch: How England Plundered Holland's Glory (Harper 2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.37.150 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The article states The bank was founded by the Scotsman William Paterson in 1694, I haven't read yet if this was during the reign of William III of Orange. --Nunamiut (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Issue of currency

In 1844, the Rothschild inspired desire to take complete control of Britain came true with the Bank Charter Act. This gave the Bank of England the monopoly on the production of Sterling, and control of Britain’s money supply. In Northern Ireland and Scotland, where to this day commercial banks are allowed to print their own money, they must have one Bank of England note in reserve for every note of their own that they issue. Would someone like to correct the first paragraph! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me. What is it that's wrong with the first paragraph? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bank has a monopoly on the issue of banknotes in England and Wales, although not in Scotland or Northern Ireland. For all intents and purposes they also issue Northern Ireland and Scotland notes, by the fact that they must have one Bank of England note in reserve for every note of their own that they issue. This is quite an important fact!--88.106.172.215 (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling issue

Would the author please examine the use of "it's" in the quote from the MacMillan report? Used three times, it should either be "its" or tagged as [sic] if correctly quoted. LilHelpa (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked the source - they should be 'its' - and now they are :) TheSmuel (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bank of England Nominees Limited - BOEN

In 1977, the Bank set up a wholly owned subsidiary called BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES LIMITED, (BOEN), a private limited company, no. 1307478, with 2 of its 100 £1 shares issued. According to its Memorandum & Articles of Association, its objectives are;- “To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them….”

Bank of England Nominees Limited was granted an exemption by Edmund Dell, Secretary of State for Trade, from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 , because, “it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders.” The Bank of England is also protected by it's Royal Charter status, and the Official Secrets Act. Would someone like to add this in somewhere! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This link is relevant: [1] Calum (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Questionable citation

Citation 5 (on the monopoly of banknote issue) simple reads

"These are the rules of big business. They have superseded the teachings of our parents and are reducible to a simple maxim: Get a monopoly; let Society work for you: and remember that the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant, franchise, subsidy or tax exemption is worth more than a Kimberly or Comstock lode, since it does not require any labor, either mental or physical, lot its exploitation" Fredrick C Howe, Confessions of a Monopolist (Chicago: Public Publishing, 1906), p. 157."

Aside from being a blatant POV violation that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the Bank of England it doesn't link to anything. Can somebody improve this? --Simpsons contributor (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Floor Collapse

In 1968, after lots of gold was transported to london, the floor actually collapsed! [2] Chendy (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical book

Historical book: Andreas Michael Andreades — History of the Bank of England (1924). Vugluskr (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

In reference to Mattrix's edit and the description "The changes in 1997 did not result in the Bank being "a privately held corporation". I've made the intro more accurate but it could still be phrased better." This has not made the intro more accurate, as your edit gives the impression that the Bank is still nationalised, when it is not, and what is a corporation when it has been devolved independance from nationalisation - a "privately held" one. Sources from the BBC and the Bank's own website confirmed that the bank is no longer nationalised, that it doesn't take it's monitary orders directly from the government (one of the sources this user also removed). I will undo these edits until I see some RS to the contrary can prove otherwise from the Bank and BBC sources. The one problem that I have with the intro is that I an unsure the term "corporation" is most fitting and feel a better word can be used for the Bank's status as an entity.Killdec (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

First line of this cited webpage from the BoE site:[3] "As a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, and with a significant public policy role, the Bank is accountable to Parliament." That establishes 1) It is not a private corporation, 2) it is wholly owned by the government, 3) it is accountable to Parliament. Have changed introduction to reflect this. LK (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy with that then- thanks for clearing it up, your changes are an improvement on Mattrix's and my own edits to be fair.Killdec (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. And there was me thinking they'd actually state it on their website. Why don't you try submitting a freedom of information request, asking who owns stock in Bank of England Nominees Limited, and why there is private ownership there? Do you edit wikipedia articles on Hitler using Nazi propaganda as your sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.188.53.70 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Goodwin's Law, you lose. LK (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Though falling for Goodwin's Law, his/her point does remind me of the WP terms on Autobiographical material, which states: "Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles. Avoiding such editing keeps Wikipedia neutral and helps avoid pushing a particular point of view...They are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positive about themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts...They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is yourself, then readers cannot verify it." Could this not be applicable to the BoE official website being the primary source of the introduction of the BoE article? Without making any accusations could that webpage not have been designed by the BoE as a source for Wikipedia? It is an undeniable possibility that there is a potential conflict of interest with the source. Killdec (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The common-sense approach has not yet failed me: trust the Bank on things it ought to be able to get right, but, if in doubt, find another source. The more sources, the better, but sometimes the only source is the Bank. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I can't really complain as it's what I asked for in the first place! Though I don't want to sound paranoid, I would sleep easier if someone could hunt down some supporting material from an external source — just to make the intro wikitight. There seems to be a lot of dispute over the status of the bank, so yes a few concrete sources would be good to set things straight. Killdec (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

History Section

The first two paragraphs seem problematical. The first, with no source, says England was trying to "reagain" its status as a global power. I did not think it was one at any earlier date. The second sources a TV programme that ties Britain's economic success to the Naval build up at the turn of the 17th to 18th century. But Britain had already heavily industrialised by that point, as Pincus documents in his book "1688." In my experience, TV programmes are not the best sources for historical facts! GeneCallahan (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that more sources would definitely be a plus, and that the sentence you mentioned can be improved: what do you think of rewording the sentence like this: "England had no choice but to build a powerful navy if it was to become the dominant global power."? КĐ^♥ 14:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Scottish invention?

I reverted a good faith edit that removed the article from the category "Scottish inventions"; this on the basis that the bank was established by a Scot: "The bank was founded by the Scotsman William Paterson in 1694". Does this truly qualify as "an invention", however? I could perhaps see an argument if the BoE was the world's first central bank, but otherwise I'm in two minds... I'd welcome other editors' thoughts on the matter. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Charles Montagu, 1st Earl of Halifax, devised the BofE based on an idea by William Paterson, so say its a Scottish invention seems to be pushing it Bevo74 (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible pic

Painting of the bank cia 1800:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/a-view-of-the-old-bank-of-england-london-c-1800-50279

©Geni 13:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Interest and inflation rates

I am wondering: who, exactly, sets interest rates? And what does 'target inflation rate' mean? Is the target a target range? Or a single, precise figure? How often is the bank 'on target'? Laurel Bush 16:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

The Bank of England does. Note however that the Bank of England is a private institution, therefore the interest rates of this country are not set by government or by fiscal policy, but by a private organisation which has its own profit as its bottom line. Nice, huh?

Here's how it works. The government, a long long time ago, probably in the late 1600s - early 1700s, gave sole permission for printing money to the Bank of England. Basically the government asks the Bank of England for money, for whatever purposes it has in mind, which the Bank issues at a certain interest rate (set by itself). We the taxpayers then pay our taxes, council tax, VAT, window tax, swamp duty, air tax, water tax, you name it, everything that the government can tax, which money is then used to pay the interest (and if we're REALLY lucky, the principal too) on the governments loans from the Bank of England. So when governments insist on more tax, it isn't because they don't have enough money but rather it is because they have borrowed too much and they can't meet the repayments; this begs the question who gave them the authority to carry on spending in our names, but I won't get into that!

Inflation is basically when there is too much money in circulation and therefore what there is is effectively devalued. Remember that inflation only exists when the money-issuers (in this case the Bank of England) issue too much money; this begs the question of course that if they issued too much, did they issue too much deliberately, or are they just incompetent?! Let's leave out the incompetent - I think it's fairly safe to assume that people in that position are rarely incompetent! Therefore, that only leaves the suspicion that inflation is a mechanism of fiscal control used by Central Banks the world over.

Inflation is something that has only existed in modern times, when gold & silver standards were abolished (by the Central Banks!) for that very reason. It's all about control. As much as people think that the Bank of England (and every other Central Bank) is there to look after a countrys finances, they really aren't. If that were the case, we wouldn't be talking about private institutions who answer to shareholders. They are there to make a profit, and if that means bankrupting entire countries (as has happened, numerous times), then that's just tough for those at the bottom of the pile who habitually lose out.

Theoretically, inflation targeting is all about accounting and how the value of money changes from year to year. If a government sets a policy that is going to cost x amount if the 3 years it will take to implement, it helps to have an idea of what the real cost of that policy is, when inflation is taken into account. And if inflation can be controlled and taken into account, those types of accounting practices are made easier. Basically, when they set an inlation target they are betting on exactly how much further your money will have been devalued (by themselves!) in a given time period. How often they are on target is difficult to say; remember that we are effectively talking about people rigging the deck here. They know how much money they are issuing, therefore they know how much it is worth in real terms at all times, therefore they know exactly what rate inflation is running at at any given time. You could therefore extend that to mean that inflation only ever exists at the behest of the Central Bank (the Bank of England in the UKs case), and therefore it is totally irrelevant whether or not they are on target. Does it really matter to you whether inflation over the whole year ran at 2.15%, or at 2.2%? You can't do anything about it, and you can't avoid using your money, so you just have to take it on the chin.

The inequities of the world banking system are without a doubt responsible for more death, destruction and misery on this planet than anything else, with the possible exception of the mosquito, and one doesn't have to dig very far at all to see how glaringly corrupt the whole thing is. The fact that the Bank of England is a private institution should be enough to get every working man in the country on the streets in minutes; what is even more amazing is that so few are aware of these facts, and that there are even those who will argue tooth and nail that the Bank of England is a first-class democratic institution ran by perfect gentlemen with no regard for themselves. What becomes even more incredible is when one finds out that not only is the Bank of England a PRIVATE institution ultimately, but that it has in actual fact been controlled by one family since 1815. The same family which effectively controls the US Federal Reserve. Lucky family....!!!

Incidentally, JFK was assassinated soon after announcing plans to remove the US Federal Rserve from the American money-issuing system under Executive Order 11110 in order to get the US budget deficit under control. Suffice to say, this was not a popular idea among the real rulers of the country. Coincidentally, Abraham Lincoln was trying to do exactly the same a hundred years before. At no other times have any similar suggestions been made about who issues money in America...

Err, i think your argument falls down in the first paragrpah you are approximately 60 years out of date, the bank of england was nationalised in 1946, as such it is part of the government.

Here is a link to a copy of the 1946 Act, http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/legislation/1946act.pdf

And here is a link to all the key legislation from 1694 onwards http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/legislation/legis.htm

If you wish to believe that, then that is your right. The Bank of England SAYS it was nationalised - but then, the Federal Reserve purports to be part of the US Government. It is not. The Bank of England started out as a private institution for which there was a share floatation; check the history books. If it started out life as a private, for-profit institution, why one day should it nationalise itself? And more to the point, why would it expect us to BELIEVE it had nationalised itself. Key legislation? Don't make me laugh out loud!! Would that include anything about the initial floatation by any chance - which was never even paid in full? Get that, would you?! A private corporation which owns the whole country - and the full price was never even paid! Come on now, open your eyes and look around you. The government SAYS there is a War on Terror - but all there REALLY is is a war on liberty and dissent. The US government says its only philosphy is democracy - and both you and I know nothing could be further from the truth. So why would you believe the word of the very institutions who are BEHIND our lying governments?!

"There is something behind the throne greater than the King himself." Sir William Pitt, speaking to the House of Lords in 1770

"The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough money to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they OUGHT to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money." Sir Josiah Stamp, former Director of the Bank of England

Firstly, check out this documentary: The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control Of America at http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1339460790371560078&q=money+masters

Secondly, watch also the new US movie America: From Freedom To Fascism here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198

Thirdly read this, then check into some INDEPENDENTLY written history (as opposed to history written by those who would benefit from it): http://reactor-core.org/money-changers.html

Or, you could try this: http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html. Don't forget to do your own research though, won't you?!

Now. Care to carry on fighting the Bank Of England's corner???

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.122.22 (talk • contribs)

You are an idiot. If the Bank of England is a private institution - who are the shareholders? It didn't "nationalise itself" if was nationalised by the Socialist Labour Government of Clement Attlee Jooler 11:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks do nothing except discredit the attacker.

And I take it you haven't watched The Money Masters then?

Part 1: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947&q=money+masters

Part 2: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2665915773877500927&q=money+masters

Ah no, why should you, you've read a couple of pages on Wikipedia so you're an expert on the subject...! But I'M the idiot....???!!!

Nationalising the Bank of England in 1946, which might seem at first sight to be a far reaching measure, made no difference in practice. Yes, the state did acquire all the shares in the Bank of England - they now belong to the Treasury and are held in trust by the Treasury Solicitor.

However, the government had no money to pay for the shares, so instead of receiving money for their shares, the shareholders were issued with government stocks. Although the state now received the operating profits of the bank, this was offset by the fact that the government now had to pay interest on the new stocks it had issued to pay for the shares. Therefore, "nationalising" the Bank Of England made no practical difference whatsoever and was in effect nothing more than a paper exercise to give the illusion of legitimacy.

"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." Nathan Rothschild, 1819.

It is suspected by serious economists that the Rothschild family control around 55% of all the world's wealth, and they are rumoured to be worth in excess of $400 TRILLION. Yes, it makes a mockery of Bill Gates $45 Billion. What power to be ON the rich lists. What incredible power to be THAT wealthy and yet appear on none... The latter part of the 19th Century was known as The Age of the Rothschilds. Even in the early 1800s they were known as "The World's Bankers", and it was also said in that time that "the wealth of the Rothschilds constitutes the bankruptcy of nations". It is strongly suspected that they control the US Federal Reserve via their control of a majority of the banks that make up the Federal Reserve System. It is also suspected that, because they control the wealth of at least the UK, the USA, France, Germany and Russia, they have overall control of the European Central Bank and the World Bank.

It is also alleged that there are around a dozen family bloodlines (including the Rothschilds) that control around 95% of all the world's wealth. You don't have to look very far past Google to see that this is very probably true.

Still, I wouldn't worry - the Labour Party of Clement Attlee will save you!! :-S

"From the time I took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer I began to learn that the State held, in the face of the Bank and the City, an essentially false position as to finance. The Government was not to be the substantive power, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned." Gladstone.

"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes. Governments do not govern but the hidden hand." Disraeli.

Of the Versailles Peace Conference after the First World War: "The international bankers swept statesmen, journalists, and jurists all on one side and issued their orders with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs." Lloyd George.

"The issue which has swept down the centuries, and which will have to be fought sooner or later, is the People versus the Banks." Lord Acton in 1875.

"I set to work to read the Act of Parliament by which the Bank of England was created and I soon began to perceive that the fate of the kingdom must finally turn upon what should be done with regard to the accursed thing called the National Debt. I saw how it had beggared and degraded the country... The scheme, the crafty, the cunning, the deep scheme, has from its ominous birth been breeding usurers of every description, feeding and fattening on the vitals of the country, till it has produced what the world never saw before - starvation in the midst of abundance." William Cobbett.

"The nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International Banks and Multinational Corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state." Zbigniew Brezinski, Secretary and founder member with David Rockefeller, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, of the Trilateral Commission which links the hidden leaders of Europe, America and Japan.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is mroe sophisticated and prepared to march towards world government. The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries..." David Rockefeller, in an address to the Council on Foreign Relations June 1991.

And last but not least...

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Goethe.

If the cap firs, wear it... ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.122.223 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

To the brainwashed,

Dear sirs, I doubt that by literally quoting the whole of Zeitgeist - the movie you can have an informed opinion about the central bank of England. There is literally not one bit of information you have provided which is of your own research and to much disappointment you have transferred banking facts of America and applied them to the Bank of England, which really is quite short sighted, but then I suppose you think 9/11 was a conspiracy also. How terribly predictable. You hav quoted many of Britains finest theorists and failed to put them into context, just like your friend Mr. zeitgeist, for example

"There is something behind the throne greater than the King himself." Sir William Pitt

That quote could have been about the power of the publics voting or the power of money over men in high positions, not necessarily a banking conspiracy. You also use the example of JFK being shot when he announced reforms in America, you could then I suppose blame Coca Cola for the shooting of Martin Luthor King Jr, as he was shot after encouraging people to strike from the factories as they were being underpaid and badly mistreated. All of these are possible I suppose, yet we are discussing the Bank of England and there have been no assassination attempts on Gordon Brown, despite many bad decisions he's made during his reign as Chancellor of the Excheq. It is incredibly attractive to many young people to believe that there is some underlying conspiracy to many bad things that happen in the world, mainly because it makes you look smarter than people you meet who may not be aware of the conspiracies you are consistently promoting. My answer to you and all the people who quote and misinterpret events throughout history is this, if you think that for one second large organizations, whether they be governments, banks, Mi5, you are very much dreaming that they are organized enough to create such elaborate plans and then to conceal them. Do you know how difficult it is to keep people quiet? Do something useful with your time, get into politics, change the world in a more constructive way.

And yes, you are really quite a bit of a fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.13.106 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To the utterly pathetic and lacking attempt of a rebuttal above... I, and many others who actually give a shit about this country, would like to see proof that the Bank of England's true shareholders are the British government/treasury, and that ultimately the British public own the Bank of England and that its operations are run in the interests of the British people. Why are they so secretive? Where's the oversight? They supply the nation's credit for goodness sake. It is perhaps the most influencial institution in our country, since the economy would be dead without credit supply. Therefore, PROOF must be provided that this most important institution is owned by the interests of the British people as opposed to private, for profit stakeholders. It's the difference between wealth being unnecessarily taken out of our economy by capital interests or purchasing power being enriched by public creditors.

A lot of you self-proclaimed "experts" don't seem to understand the significance of the difference between a PUBLIC credit system and a PRIVATE credit system.

Thanks. (194.221.40.3 (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

Well said. And to the "debunker" above: what is Zeitgeist? Sorry, I've researched this subject for over 20 years. Just because something is not commonly known today does not mean it did not happen. It was common knowledge throughout the 18th & 19th Century that the Rothschild family owned most of everything - so much so in fact that it was known as the Age of the Rothschilds among historians. Try doing some independent research all of your own and you'll soon see that the "conspiracy theories" about the BoE being privately owned are in fact rooted in historical fact - history which was not so long ago common knowledge. I could give you a list of reading matter to educate yourself but why bother? Your mind is already closed to anything which does not come from an establisment mouthpiece.

For your edification: the "nationalisation" of the BoE was nothing more than a paper exercise to hide the truth that it is privately owned & controlled, just like the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, the European Central Bank and all the rest of the world's central banks apart from Iran, Sudan, Cuba, North Korea and Libya. 6 & 7 on that list were, respectively, Iraq and Afghanistan. The nationalisation consisted of giving the BoE's (unnamed) private shareholders shares in the Treasury, which would theoretically mean that the government owns the BoE. However. There is such a thing as a National Debt. This debt is owed to the BoE. Therefore, the BoE will only be truly owned & controlled by the Government when the National Debt is paid off; until then the reverse is true - that the Treasury (and therefore the United Kingdom) is owned by the Bank OF England and its private, unnamed owners. At the very least, check out the Nationalisation Act for yourself and you will see that until 1948 the BoE freely admitted it was privately owned (although it does not name the owners). Are you really so naive as to think that the private owners of a money-creation machine would willingly relinquish control of that money-making machine, when it would be far more realistic for them to simply buy off the people who wish to take control with money created (like all the rest) out of thin air? If I was one of those private owners, guess which option I'd go for... ;-D

The above paragraph is verifiably factually wrong in almost every aspect, but principally:

1. The UK national debt is not owed to the Bank of England. The national debt is financed by the Debt Management Office (not even a part of the BoE) selling bonds at auction. The buyers are pension funds, private and institutional investors, banks, other nations, etc. It is the bondholders to whom the national debt is owed. Suggest you investigate dmo.gov.uk.

2. The nationalisation of the BoE did not consist of "giving the BoE's (unnamed) private shareholders shares in the Treasury". You have misunderstood the terminology used in the act. They were given "Government Stock". Government Stock is a term for fixed-rate interest-bearing bonds, also known as Gilts, as above. Anybody can buy them - they pay you 5% a year (or whatever) until they mature or you sell them, and confer no special influence over anything. In short, the shareholders were not paid in cash because the Government didn't have the cash, so they were paid in Gilts. And with that, they gave up any influence over the Bank or the Government. Suggest you reread the Bank of England Act 1946.

3. The "(unnamed) private shareholders". Read the Hansard account of the nationalisation debate in the House of Commons in 1945 led by Attlee's chancellor Dalton. The names were not secret... at the time they would have been on the (public) register of shareholders. What would you expect to find? The debate reveals that there were 17,000 shareholders with an average holding of £850. So the BoE had a broadly similar investor profile to any other UK plc of the time. Suggest you read the nationalisation debate in Hansard.

81.147.183.98 (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Bait Al Mal

This passage is full of lies my friends because it says it's the second oldest bank in the world , however that's far from reality , in fact the first proper bank was established in the 7th century during the regin of Islamic caliphate by the famous muslim caliphate 'Omar' . Perhaps you should have done some research before writing anything and I would like to see the correction done please, in bait almal all of the countries assets and excess wealth was held in , in addition to the 'zakat' and 'khiraj' money that was paid by Muslims meaning (tax for the poor , and tax for the people) and it was the duty of bait al mal to distribute both zakat and khsran in addition to salaries paid to soldiers in the islamic army Pls do amend this , best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.151.170 (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Succeeded By

I've changed the infobox. The infobox stated that the Bank of England was succeeded by the Currency Commission in the Republic of Ireland. That isn't true. After the creation of the Irish Free State as an independent country, it set up it's own structures and banks and passed the Currency Act 1927 to establish the Currency Commission. There is no mention in the act of succeeding the Bank of England. --HighKing (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street

Does the nickname 'The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street' refer to the bank itself or the ghost that is said to reside there of Sarah Whitehead? I think nowadays it refers to the bank, but originally it refered to the ghost. I could be wrong. VenomousConcept (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

See [4] " The nickname the "The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street" first appeared in print as the caption "Political Ravishment or The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street in danger" to a cartoon published in 1797 by James Gillray. It depicts William Pitt the Younger, the Prime Minister of the day, pretending to woo the Bank, which is personified by an elderly lady wearing a dress of £1 notes seated on a chest of gold." Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Another seemingly reliable source for this says, "There was indeed an old lady…Sarah Whitehead was her name."[5] followed by considerably more information that probably belongs over at Sarah Whitehead. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added a brief explanation and a link. Looks like some material for the other article can be added to flesh that out. I'll add the sources as "Further reading" or "External links" there until someone gets around to citing them. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

covers a floor space greater than that of the second-tallest building in the City, Tower 42

Yeah, but we need to know how big tower-42 is. Better just to say how big the vault's floor-space is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Bank Of England now owns 33% of all UK government debt (May 2012)

Reported on the BBC "Today" radio program (date 10/05/2012), by Simon Jack The bank of England now owns a third of all government debt due to it's quantitative easing program of buying Gilts. So one government entity owns a third of the country's government debt. This is surely worthy of a mention in the main page. The snake eating it's own tail! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Who controls the Bank of England

This question bothers many people including me. Is the Bank of England really in control of the government or in private hands? Please, people when you give an opinion, back your answer by a source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.204.137.18 (talk • contribs). on 14 May 2006.

The Bank of England, like the US Federal Reserve, is not a government institution at all but essentially a private bank. While it is mentioned on it's own homepage that the Bank was "nationalised" in 1946, the truth of this is far from certain.(Warning; See BELOW--Tom (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

It is suspected that the real controllers of the Bank of England have been the Rothschild family since Nathan Rothschild instigated a stock market crash (and then bought up all the dumped stock) on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. "The Money Changers" by Patrick Carmack is one source, this can be found at http://reactor-core.org/money-changers.html.

Additional information can be found in the following. Have fun :oD

Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies - John Robison - 1798

The Life of Napolean - Sir Walter Scott - 1827

Coningsby - Benjamin Disraeli - 1844

The Rothschilds, Financial Rulers Of Nations - John Reeves - 1887

Secrets Of The Federal Reserve - Eustace Mullins - 1952

The Rothschilds - Frederic Morton - 1962

The Hidden Tyranny - Benjamin Freedman - 1971

None Dare Call It Conspiracy - Gary Allen - 1972

Wall Street And The Rise Of Hitler - Anthony C. Sutton - 1976

Two Rothschilds And The Land Of Israel - Simon Schama - 1978

Descent Into Slavery - Des Griffin - 1994

Bloodlines Of The Illuminati - Fritz Springmeier - 1995

(Warning: The person who added above that the Bank of England could still be in private hands has not provided any evidence for this. The Bank of England was indeed nationalized and there is no evidence at all to supprt the claim that it is still in private hands... certainly the link does not support that claim. --Tom (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

There is no evidence to suggest the other way either! Any attempt to find who the directors are, or owners, are met with a blank! All wars have started from the inception of the Federal Reserve, which IS a private bank, it was even the instigator of the American War of Independence!

(Copyright violation removed.)

Also take into consideration what the British press said of Lincoln, when he tried to escape the clutches; "If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, becomes entrenched, then that Government will issue it’s own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on it’s commerce. It will become prosperous to a degree which is without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will migrate to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe". -- The London Times responding to Lincoln's decision to issue government Greenbacks to finance the Civil War, rather than agree to private banker's loans at 30% interest.

Something we, in the UK, should consider NOW!

How many US Presidents have been assassinated, trying to reclaim their monetary control? I believe Kennedy was assassinated for the same thing, he signed Executive Order 11110! To nationalise the Bank of America.

The British government went to war with Hitler, because........"When the Weimar Republic collapsed economically, it opened the door for the National Socialists to take power. Their first financial move was to issue their own state currency which was not borrowed from private central bankers. Freed from having to pay interest on the money in circulation, Germany blossomed and quickly began to rebuild its industry. The media called it "The German Miracle". TIME magazine lionized Hitler for the amazing improvement in life for the German people and the explosion of German industry, and even named him TIME Magazine's “Man Of The Year” in 1938.

Churchill made several statements on the fact, non more honest than this; "Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn't profit any more. ...We butchered the wrong pig". - Winston Churchill (The Second World War - Bern, 1960). The 'RIGHT PIG' would have been the bankers! How does one explain this statement, to all those who lost love ones? "The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended to, prevented this war from breaking out without firing one shot, but we didn't want to". - Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.158.139 (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

(In response to above comment by Tom) The only reference in support of the claim that the bank is publicly owned is the official site of the Bank of England. If you want to write the word 'Warning', it would be better placed in front of the article's opening paragraph where this claim is made and not on a discussion page where people are naturally skeptical due to the distinct lack of real evidence on this matter. -Pete, March 3rd, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.220.136 (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

On the crash of 1815: Wikipedia on Rothschild Poldebol (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am confused as to the following:

The first paragraph states the the bank is "state owned."

Then under the "History" section, the following is stated:

"In 1946, shortly after the end of Norman's tenure, the bank was nationalised and remains to this day government owned."

And then:

"In May 1997 The Governor and Company of the Bank of England regained their independence from Nationalisation and operate within the United Kingdom with autonomy from Government but under charter to it."

This being said, all the research I have just done in the past 15 minuites (see below) shows that the Bank of England is a quasi-public entity similar to the Federal Reserve; a private entity with private operational control under various legal restrictions. These appear to be major errors on this page and I hope someone can correct them for I am not well versed/experienced in Wiki editing nor do I have an advanced economics background as to properly organizing this information in valid terms.

1997: Brown sets Bank of England free

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/6/newsid_3806000/3806313.stm

Similar to the Federal Reserve? How, the US Federal Reserve is a well established private company....nothing "quasi" about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.67.214 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Bank of England is the central bank of the United Kingdom. Sometimes known as the 'Old Lady' of Threadneedle Street, the Bank was founded in 1694, nationalised on 1 March 1946, and gained independence in 1997."

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrthompsond (talk • contribs) 08:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

1. The "nationalisation" of the BoE was nothing more than a paper exercise to hide the truth that it is privately owned & controlled, just like the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, the European Central Bank and all the rest of the world's central banks apart from Iran, Sudan, Cuba, North Korea and Libya. 6 & 7 on that list were, respectively, Iraq and Afghanistan. The nationalisation consisted of giving the BoE's (unnamed) private shareholders shares in the Treasury, which would theoretically mean that the government owns the BoE. However. There is such a thing as a National Debt. This debt is owed to the BoE. Therefore, the BoE will only be truly owned & controlled by the Government when the National Debt is paid off; until then the reverse is true - that the Treasury (and therefore the United Kingdom) is owned by the Bank OF England and its private, unnamed owners.
2. "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough money to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they OUGHT to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money." - Sir Josiah Stamp (1880 - 1941), former Director of the Bank of England (1928) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.233.160.78 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If the bank charter act 1844 is still legal then the banks ownership has not changed. The main observable proof of the banks ownership is the national Debt. If the bank was nationalized there would be no national debt as there would be no loan requirements due the the government/state issuing the currency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisbriandoyle (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

“In fact this is precisely the logic on which the Bank of England—the first successful modern central bank—was originally founded. In 1694, a consortium of English bankers made a loan of £1,200,000 to the king. In return they received a royal monopoly on the issuance of banknotes. What this meant in practice was they had the right to advance IOUs for a portion of the money the king now owed them to any inhabitant of the kingdom willing to borrow from them, or willing to deposit their own money in the bank—in effect, to circulate or "monetize" the newly created royal debt. This was a great deal for the bankers (they got to charge the king 8 percent annual interest for the original loan and simultaneously charge interest on the same money to the clients who borrowed it) , but it only worked as long as the original loan remained outstanding. To this day, this loan has never been paid back. It cannot be. If it ever were, the entire monetary system of Great Britain would cease to exist.”

In other words, whoever provided the original seed loan to the BoE did not profit from the loan itself but from the "right to monetize" debt incurred by the State. It really is not about any control of BoE in terms of policies but more about ownership of all subsequent money (or, portion of it) up to today. When UK Government nationalized BoE it was for the purpose of Government deciding the monetary policy (e.g. keeping target inflation) rather than cancelling the original loan from 1694. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newcomer ts (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

References

£50 note

Can anyone provide any background to the (re)introduction of the £50 note in 1981? As it stands, it doesn't appear to serve much purpose, as it is so little used - so it makes me wonder why they bothered. ATMs don't issue them, and many (most?) shops refuse to accept them. 217.155.20.163 20:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bank of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120211185350/http://www.bankofengland.co.uk:80/publications/fsr/ to http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/fsr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bank of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120816061109/http://exclusiveeconomy.com:80/2011/03/worlds-top-gold-reserves-by-countries/ to http://exclusiveeconomy.com/2011/03/worlds-top-gold-reserves-by-countries/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Royal charter

Royal Charters are granted by the sovereign, not parliament. The claim that "The Royal Charter was granted on 27 July through the passage of the Tonnage Act 1694" seems unlikely.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bank of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090708200732/https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm to http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.bbc.co.uk.news-channel.org/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/2010/wk2/feature_sea.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/history.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/yieldcurve/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203101708/http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/financialstability/mou.pdf to http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/financialstability/mou.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071205183225/http://homepage.ntlworld.com:80/trev.rh/Notes/treasury.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/trev.rh/Notes/treasury.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Brexit

Hi all, I just wondered if people thought that the Bank of England's reports concerning Brexit are worth including in this article. I am thinking in particular of report such as those found here and here. Jono1011 (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ninth oldest bank?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_banks_in_continuous_operation

The linked article under "world's eigth-oldest bank" lists the Bank of England in the ninth position. Coutts is also said to be the "the eighth oldest bank in the world." and links to the same article. Could this be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.95.3 (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Bank governors

The only governors mentioned until the 21st century section are Sir John Houblon and Montagu Norman. Currently the 21st century section mentions Mark Carney and Mervyn King, the latter though only as Carney's predecessor. If mentioned it should be in his own right in the 20th century section.

From the Bank of England Act Schedule 1 https://d353ahjsg66ro4.cloudfront.net/ukpga/1998/11/schedule/1/paragraph/1#reference-key-5364fc626ccb8e50cd15813dcfbb798f it appears the term-change only happened in 2013 so his 5-year team isn't atypical. I'm not sure Carney having been the first governor not to be a UK citizen at the time of his appointment (if true) justifies his inclusion in this article. If justified the following would be better than the current wording (assuming he was the first non-Uk citizen):

"Carney, a Canadian and the first Governor not to be a UK citizen, has since been granted citizenship. He served an initial five-year term which at Government request was extended to 2019, then again to 2020.".

It seems logical that the paragraph starting "In 2009 a request made" should precede mention of Carney. Mcljlm (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

Add citation in History/18th century to support N. Pevsner quote. Citation is Bradley, Simon, and Pevsner, Nikolaus, (1997) Buildings of England: London 1 The City of London, Penguin Books, ISBN 0-14-071092-2, p. 276. Same reference is used for the same statement in John Soane/Success at last/Bank of England (note 75). ET1282 (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ET1282, done. Thank you for your contribution! --rchard2scout (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is it not called the Bank of the United Kingdom?

I think there should be an explanation of why it is called the Bank of England, rather than the Bank of the United Kingdom. Considering it is the central bank of the United Kingdom and just England. Personally I find it offensive that the national central Bank of the UK should be named after only one of the four nations. This is surely offensive to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and even Cornwall.

There is an explanation which you can read under "Founding"; to paraphrase it: the Bank of England was founded in 1694 in the Kingdom of England (the UK was founded in 1707) as a private institution that then evolved to take on the responsibilities of a central bank. It was then nationalised in 1946 by Clement Attlee, but the name wasn't changed to reflect the fact it was no owned by the government of the UK. I don't know how you can possibly be offended by it, nor do I understand why it's problem anyway; it is the way it is for historical reasons and causes no issues. Alssa1 (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Court of Directors

• What I think should be changed (include citations):
• Bradley Fried Chairman of Court. Managing Partner of Grovepoint Capital LLP
• Mark Carney Governor
• Benjamin Broadbent Deputy Governor, Monetary Policy
• Sir Jon Cunliffe Deputy Governor, Financial Stability
• Sam Woods Deputy Governor, Prudential Regulation & Chief Executive of the Prudential Regulation Authority
• Sir David Ramsden Deputy Governor, Markets and Banking
• Anne Glover Chief Executive and Co-Founder of Amadeus Capital Partners
• Diana Noble Non-Executive Director
• Diana 'Dido' Harding Member of the House of Lords
• Dave Prentis General Secretary of UNISON
• Don Robert Chairman, Experian plc
• Dorothy Thompson Chair of Tullow Oil plc,
• Ron Kalifa Board Director of Worldpay and Chairman of Network International
• Frances O'Grady General Secretary of the British Trades Union Congress
• Hanneke Smits CEO of Newton Investment Management

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO

• Bradley Fried Chairman of Court. Managing Partner of Grovepoint Capital LLP
• Andrew Bailey Governor
• Ben Broadbent Deputy Governor, Monetary Policy
• Sir Jon Cunliffe Deputy Governor, Financial Stability
• Sam Woods Deputy Governor, Prudential Regulation & Chief Executive of the Prudential Regulation Authority
• Sir David Ramsden Deputy Governor, Markets and Banking
• Anne Glover Non-Executive Director
• Diana Noble Non-Executive Director
• Diana 'Dido' Harding Non-Executive Director and Deputy Chair of Court
• Dorothy Thompson Non-Executive Director, Senior Independent Director
• Ron Kalifa Non-Executive Director
• Frances O'Grady Non-Executive Director

• Why it should be changed:

The correct members of Court are listed on the Bank of England website https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/people/court-of-directors Boecentralbank (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Bank rate is wrong

Just wanted to flag the Bank rate is now 0.25% :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:F4D1:AF00:C469:1DAC:F533:35BB (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Alssa1 (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022

Interest rate 50% 62.64.207.235 (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• 0.50% Tb7868 (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. casualdejekyll 14:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022 (2)

Interest rate 0.50% 62.64.207.235 (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. casualdejekyll 14:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Base Rate given is incorrect - has been 1.25% since June.

Base Rate given is incorrect - has been 1.25% since June. Cannot edit as semi-protected, but a fairly large error. 82.68.74.185 (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy-summary-and-minutes/2022/june-2022

Confirmed as per this source TomRa93 (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

Change Interest Base Rate from 1% to 1.75%. Source: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/database/Bank-Rate.asp 2A00:23C7:C007:D401:94BA:1EF:8DCC:AD69 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done, with a different source (to maintain consistency with the previous one). PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Current Bank Rate change from 1.75% to 2.25%

The Bank Rate is currently listed at 1.75%, but should be 2.25%. I'd edit, but the page is in partial-protected mode

Source: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/ KeepDoingTheThing (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@KeepDoingTheThing: Quite right. I've updated the article. Thanks. JBW (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

John Houblon £50 note

The last clause in Paragraph 5 of subheading 'Founding' ('...John Houblon (who is depicted on the current £50 note)') should be changed to ' who was depicted on the previous £50 note'; the previous banknote has been phased out and replaced with one depicting Alan Turing. 81.78.57.248 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Done, but I changed it to "a previous" since there was the Boulton & Watt note in between. Thanks for spotting it! the wub "?!" 17:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Pound Sterling value 1943

What is the value of 1£ sterling 1943 corresponding to today? £20, £30?

Your reply will be grately appreciated.

Capt. E. Hammarstrom eh@terramarinfo.se— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.77.74 (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2005 (UTC)

See this Parliamentary research paper. The index value of the Pound in 1943 was 24.8, in 1998 592.3, so £1 in 1943 would have been worth £23.88 in 1998. Since then, inflation has been about 2% a year. -- Arwel 15:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hologram on the £50

I've removed the section about a hologram on the £50 note because it doesn't have one. It has a silver foil rose, that's all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.95.249 (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Slavery and the Bank of England

Why is there no mention of this in the article? Has it ben removed? There is a great deal of research detailing the bank's investment in numerous slave plantations, even owning some directly. I think the omission here is borderline criminal.--Cuthbert Bargepole (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

If you are familiar with the research then you could be the ideal person to add it to the article. DuncanHill (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)