The World That We Live in Essay Example for Free

The World That We Live in Essay Not long ago the law of the jungle prevailed â€Å"kill or be killed†. Barbarism was at its heinous best. Darwin’s theory of â€Å"survival of the fittest† was apt for those times. The smaller animals were at the mercy of the bigger ones and the latter were at the mercy of the biggest and so on. Evolution continued and finally we are today at a position of being called the ultramodern man who has lots and lots of knowledge and education, robots and gadgets to assist him. He has every comfort that one can think of ! He can traverse the longest of distances in minutes, view matches and ceremonies being conducted thousands of kilometres away in his bedroom and so on because the list seems endless. But I have a serious concern†¦.i sometimes wonder whether we are still in the same precarious situation as our ancestors were? Is there any similarity between those times and the era that we live in? And my answer would unfortunately be â€Å"yes†. I have come to the conclusion after long hours of brainstorming and analysis. There is ample proof of this in our daily newspapers and television’s breaking news! How else do you justify the acts of crime and violence in the name of sex, caste, religion, panchs, fatwas, state, country, political parties etc. Hooliganism in any form for any cause should not be tolerated but it is being given wings to fly in our present day society. Everyday we have some slogans by our leaders (religious and political) which vent venom at somebody else and we are misguided. Everyday a son kills his parents or a girl is tortured for dowry. Everyday we find a minister being charged of fund misappropriation worth many crores. Everyday there are stories of gang war and shootouts for â€Å"supari†. We are living in a very dangerous era where this ugly problem is gathering tremendous momentum as it is sliding downhill and is threatening to wipe out the very progress made by man since existence. Hence I am very scared as a child. My fear is will man destroy himself? Will this world come to an end because of man’s inner insecurity and his own undoing? What is the need to develop nuclear warfare? What is the need to spread religious hatred and communal disharmony? Can’t we live in peace and harmony with a sense of eternal brotherhood? I pray god almighty to make every human sane enough to understand the motto of life and to lead it peacefully with love for others. Life is precious. We have made enough progress and we are making too. So let us not destroy ourselves,  rather live together and make this world a better place to live in.

Censorship of the Internet is Wrong :: Argumentative Persuasive Essays

Censorship of the Internet is Wrong       The Internet can be a very disturbing and adult medium. There are parts of the Internet that should not be viewed by children. Explicit information can be found which is intended for an adult audience but children who have access to the Internet have become exposed to this material. The question at hand is who is responsible for preventing these children from viewing this material. Censoring the entire Internet would be one capable option. Though this option would be effective but it wouldn't be practical. Censoring the Internet would limit what adults could view and communicate. Owners of Internet servers should know of the possible information and people that can be found in this medium. Having the access to the vast information available on the Internet, a responsibility is needed. Censorship of the Internet is not needed as a whole, but the reasons for censorship are understandable. These reasons though, should be the responsibility of the individual user, not the gov ernment. Relying on the government is not the answer.    Prevention of children viewing and having access to elicit material can be achieved without banning the material from the Internet. I fully believe in censorship of the Internet: Censorship by the parents for their children. All is needed is responsibility by the parents of the children. If you are a parent willing to provide your child access to the Internet, then you need to take precaution. Most parents would prevent their child from looking at the adult section in a movie store, which in many cases they can get access to, then why would they allow their children access to such material on the internet?    The Internet is something that most of us must buy access to and which we then choose to surf on our own. And does the government really have the right to tell parents what books and magazines they can let their children read at home or what television programs or motion pictures they should let their children watch? (Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, L.L.P.)    It is the parent's responsibility to limit the access of the Internet for their children. There are many options, which can prevent children from the access to the illicit material, which can be found through the Internet.

McDonald’s and the McCafe Coffee Initiative Essay

Looking at McDonald’s Canada from a resource-based view (please refer to the appendix), I believe that McCafà © will succeed in Canada. McDonald’s has a plethora of valuable resources in its disposal. Among them, arguably the most important is brand equity. The â€Å"Golden Arches† are instantly recognizable to just about everyone in the planet, and that level of brand awareness will play a big part in McCafà ©Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s entry to Canada. Furthermore, McDonald’s, being a major player in the fast-food industry in Canada, has a considerable amount of cash and infrastructure. This ensures that McDonald’s will have the means to market and distribute McCafà ©Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s products respectively. Another valuable resource that McDonald’s has access to is its large network of competent franchisees. A large percentage of the McCafà ©s in Canada will be add-ons to currently existing McDonald’s restaurants. Therefore, McDonald’s can be assured that the management of the McCafà © initiative in the individual restaurants will meet the high standards that the corporation already imposes on their franchisees. Finally, McDonald’s already has a solid reputation in Canada for their fast-food service. A sound marketing strategy can help transfer this positive reputation to the McCafà © brand. McDonald’s faces stiff competition from several firms in the Canadian retail coffee industry. However, the McCafà © concept will carve out a unique competitive advantage for McDonald’s, setting it apart from its competitors. McCafà © combines the speedy service of Tim Horton’s with the comfortable atmosphere and sophisticated image of Starbucks. McDonald’s blends the â€Å"best of both worlds† and has the potential to take market share from both types of competitors. It will be in a different league all by itself. The major factor detracting from McCafà ©Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s success is McDonald’s poor reputation for coffee in Canada, as seen in the SWOT analysis (please refer to the  appendix). It is important to note that despite McDonald’s poor reputation for coffee, the coffee itself is made from premium ingredients (100% pure Arabica beans). For McDonald’s to succeed with the McCafà © initiative, reversing this negative image is absolutely crucial. Furthermore, coffee is a staple in modern Canadian breakfasts, so having a strong brand of coffee on the menu can help revitalize McDonald’s breakfast sales. McDonald’s poor reputation for coffee can very well be the reason for its recent loss of market share in the breakfast industry. Thankfully, the market for retail coffee in Canada is experiencing significant growth, so if McCafà © becomes popular, it can make a sizeable contribution to the company’s profits. McDonald’s must find a way to change the negative image of its coffee by using the resources available to the firm. In order to change the negative perception of its coffee in Canada, I recommend that McDonald’s give away free samples of the coffee for a limited time. Although McDonald’s will initially make no revenue from the coffee, it will give Canadian coffee consumers a convincing incentive to try it out and potentially â€Å"switch sides†. With the large number of store locations that McDonald’s has in Canada already, the free coffee will see wide-scale distribution, meaning that a large percentage of the nation’s population will be able to taste the coffee and judge it accordingly. Marketing this campaign is absolutely essential to its success. McDonald’s has used television advertisements to great effect in the past, and it should be no different for this campaign. Word-of-mouth communication will inevitably take place and more people will get a chance to taste the coffee. With all that being said, McDonald’s must implement measures to prevent customers from taking advantage of the free coffee. For example, it can limit the free coffee to the small cup size and implement a one-cup-per-customer rule. Furthermore, McDonald’s must set a precise time period for the campaign. Customers shouldn’t come into McDonald’s expecting free coffee after the campaign is over. Proper use of McDonald’s brand equity, cash and infrastructure is the key to the success of McCafà © in Canada. Although the McDonald’s brand is well known, it is important to note that the McCafà © brand is just beginning to grow in Canada. For this reason, I recommend that all McCafà © locations start off as extensions of existing McDonald’s restaurants rather than stand-alone restaurants. Once the McCafà © brand becomes popular enough in its own right  (likely after the free coffee campaign mentioned in the paragraph above), stand-alone McCafà ©s can be established. As of right now, taking the stand-alone route is much too risky. Finally, I recommend that all McDonald’s locations which will take on the McCafà © extension receive an upgrade to its interior design. Since McCafà © will be acting as a pseudo-competitor to sophisticated coffee retailers like Starbucks, design changes must be made to reflect the transformation. For example, bright colours like red and yellow must be replaced with warm, inviting colours like cream and mocha. Moreover, some of the standard four-seat tables should be replaced with sofas and loveseats. The addition of soft, contemporary music in the restaurant would also help in conveying the image of an upper-class coffeehouse. With my given recommendations, I strongly believe that McCafà © will be successful in Canada. If you have any questions regarding my report, please feel free to contact me. Regards, Sanger (Sung-Young) Yoo Appendices Resource Based View of McDonald’s Canada ResourceValuable?Rare?Inimitable?Substitutable? Tangible Assets CashXX Number of store locationsXX Strong managementX Strong franchiseesXX Existing product lineXX Global presence (121 countries)XX Intangible Assets Good reputation in fast-foodXX Depth of supply chainXX Brand equityXX Customer loyaltyXX Organizational Capacity Fast customer serviceX Product developmentXX Consistency of qualityX Appeal to all agesX SWOT Analysis of McDonald’s Canada (Regarding McCafà ©) StrengthsWeaknesses -Powerful supplier â€Å"partners† including Coca-Cola, Disney and Nestlà © -Good quality coffee (100% Arabica-brewed coffee) -Combines affordable coffee with sophisticated environment-Bad reputation for coffee -Declining market share in breakfast sales OpportunitiesThreats -Potential merger with another company (similar to Starbucks and Chapters) -Explosive growth in retail coffee consumption in Canada (Growing market for McCafà ©)-High levels of competition

The Financial Services and Markets Act Impacts - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 11 Words: 3198 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Research paper Did you like this example? â€Å"A single regulator presents opportunities for developing a rational and coherent regulatory system Thus, in anticipation of the reforming legislation, the FSA is establishing, under a unified management structure, a single regulatory regime covering the full range of its regulatory functions including: â€Å"one-stop† authorisation for the full range of financial businesses, one rule book and one system of monitoring, investigation and discipline. Single complaints handling and Ombudsman system is also being set up as well as a single Financial Services Compensation Scheme. In this way duplications and inconsistencies can be avoided and regulatory gaps filled. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Financial Services and Markets Act: Impacts" essay for you Create order This gives rise to a number of benefits.† Lomnicka, E, ‘Reforming UK Financial Services Regulation. The Creation of a Single Regulator’ (1999) JBL, Sep pp 480-489 .In light of the above statement, critically assess the impact of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 upon the financial services industry. Introduction This paper will assess the impact of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). The following relevant factors will be discussed. First, the situation before the FSMA 2000 was introduced will be investigated, namely the Financial Services Act 1986 which the new legislation has replaced. This paper will look at the problems associated with the act to determine whether the FSMA has effectively addressed the criticisms levelled at the previous system. Secondly, the creation of a single regulatory body the FSA, a simplified authorisation process, the compensation scheme and ombudsman mechanisms under the FSMA will be examined. Thi rdly, the FSMA 2000 will be critically debated. This paper concludes the new legislation has ushered in much needed reform in the sector. It is to be welcomed for the protective consumer stance it has taken, in creating a financial regulatory framework. The 1986 Financial Services Act The FSMA was passed by parliament to address the maligned 1986 FSA, which had regulated the UK investment business sector. The fundamental problem with FSA 86, was the aim to give effect to ‘self regulation within a statutory framework.[1] The FSA 86 led to what has been characterised as a two-tier[2] system of regulatory control. This caused problems concerning enforcement of rules under the FSA 86 act. The act supported self regulation, through the sole top tier regulator [3] SIB (Securities Investment Board) and second tier entities such as SROs (Self Regulating Bodies), Recognised Investment Exchanges (RIEs), and the Recognised Professional Bodies (RPB). SIB set the overall framework fo r detailed standards of regulation and initiated policy objectives. This led to confusion and uncertainty, as MacNeil, argues the structural complexity of the system created an environment where financial institutions can be subject to the jurisdiction of a number of different regulators and different approaches to regulation.[4] Criticisms of the two -tier system were voiced in the Gower report, arguing firms involved in different forms of investment business would need authorisation and be subject to both boards. This was shared by the industry, believing the need to address two regulating bodies, issuing different rules, would increase costs in attaining statutory compliance for business activity. The varied investment activity, coupled with multiple regulatory bodies operating within the FSA framework, was not an efficient way to monitor the industry. Thus, the structural complexity of the regulatory legislation was an important reason behind the introduction of the FSMA 2000. Complexity of Rule-Making under FSA 1986 Secondly, FSA 86 resulted in intricate rule making. For example, there were separate rule books maintained by SROs and SIB respectively. SROs rules were described as unduly legalistic and lacking in coherence.[5] The New Settlement was an attempt to rectify the problem by implementing new measures under the Companies Act 1989 to restructure the rules and establish consistency. The shifts [6] in the rule making process under FSA 86, serves to illustrate the uncertainty created by inefficient rule making by the financial regulatory bodies. Thus, the legislative two -tier structure of the FSA 86 gave rise to, unclear rules and guidelines, issued by the different bodies, hindering the efficiency of financial regulation in the UK. The problem of Enforcement under FSA 86 combined with high profile financial scandals Thirdly, enforcement of breaches under the old act was criticised. This was exacerbated within the context of a number of p ublic financial scandals, which severely dented public confidence in the financial services industry and the regulation of it. The collapse of BCCI, Barings Bank, the misselling of pensions and the Maxwell pension scandal resulted in the role of regulation carried out under FSA 86 being brought into question. Confusion was created by overlapping regulatory jurisdictions of SIB and SROs, leading to difficulty identifying separate roles for the two bodies enforcing rules under the FSA. For example, the Large report investigated the role of the regulatory body SIB, after the theft of customer assets from the Maxwell Pension Fund. The report identified a number of problems with the FSA regime, such as a lack of clarity of the legislation, self regulation which served the interests of those employed within the industry to the detriment of customers, and the need for better leadership and transparency in the regulatory system. Furthermore, the example of Barings bank highlighted the pr oblems with inadequate co-ordination between regulators.[7] MacNeil argues the collapse of Barings represented the lack of co operation between the Bank of England and the SFA in exercising regulatory control. Critics argued this demonstrated the inexperience of regulators failing to get to grips with a system where the regulatory rules were constantly being developed by the competing regulating bodies.[8] Such events severely weakened the effectiveness of the regulatory model under the FSA ’86 and prompted calls for legislative reform to ensure the prevention of similar situations. The impact of FSMA 2000 – the Financial Service Authority as a single regulator The FSMA 2000 was brought in to reform the expensive two tier system of the FSA 86. It has made a number of substantial changes for the protection of the consumer, involved in investment activities. The act, perhaps most importantly, establishes a single regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to monitor the UK financial services industry. This is significant, as the move towards a single regulator is an explicit attempt to create a coherent, simplified framework for rule making and regulation. SROs are abolished in order to eradicate the complex and inefficient two tier system, helping to avoid unclear overlaps of different regulatory jurisdictions concerning authorised activity. Rules and guidance formulation under FSMA 2000 The move to a single regulatory body has lead to a considerable simplification of rules and guidance accompanying the new legislation. MacNeil claims the changes in rule making represent a new phase under the act.[9] The handbook of rules and guidance is a restructuring and ‘rationalisation’ of the previous cumbersome rules under FSA 86. Most of the proceeding rules will be transferred from the old act. A separation of elements will be applied to the formulation of rules under FSMA, to make the process understandable and manageable. Thus the reform represents a complete system of financial regulation[10]. This argues MacNeil will separate the substantive regulatory standards from regulatory processes, via the new building block structured [11] guidelines formulated by the FSA. Six general categories of standards have been created, dealing with high level standards, business standards, regulatory processes such as authorisation and rules governing redress, which will guide the complaints procedures. The change is having a positive impact on the industry, allowing for a coherent framework as the rules, principles and codes of conduct are visible and accessible. The FSA is legally obliged to formulate rules on authorisation for the purpose of protecting the interests of persons who use or derive rights from regulated services. It can be suggested, the rule making powers, are wider in scope than in section 48 FSA 86. The new rules are applicable to any authorised activity and person. It is not simply limited to th e conduct of business rules[12] argues MacNeil. For example, SRO and RPB members were responsible for producing their own unique rules for members, which gave rise to uncertainty in a complex system of regulation. The impact on the financial services industry is to consciously minimise the disorder generated by the structural weakness of the FSA 86. MacNeil believes the 2000 act has made a real attempt to overcome some of the failings of the FSA regime. This can be seen in the reform of authorisation procedures and the introduction of consumer orientated measures such as the Ombudsman and Compensation scheme. Accountability of the FSA regulatory authority to parliament The FSA has been given a wide range powers under the legislation. The issue of the FSAs accountability to parliament has been questioned by Mistry. The author raises concerns for the impact of FSMA on the industry, with an extremely powerful regulator at the helm: certain parts of the FSMA have destroyed the dir ect lines of parliamentary control[13] moving away from the delegation model of regulation. However it is countered, that this point is insubstantial, as appropriate measures are in place to ensure the FSA is still held accountable under legislation. The new system of accountability is restructured into five areas, parliamentary control, and corporate governance, statutory objectives of FSMA, grievances and judicial review. In regard to parliamentary control, the FSA may have greater powers, but there is a clear distinction of duties and responsibility between the treasury and FSA. For example, the power of patronage in Schedule 1 para 2 (3) ensures parliamentary scrutiny of the corporate structure of the FSA will continue. The treasury still retains important qualifying powers, such as launching a statutory investigation into the FSA in the aftermath of a serious financial sector failure.[14] Under corporate governance rules, the FSA must be advised by a Practitioner and Consumer P anel, and hold an annual general meeting, suggesting the regulating body will be subject to internal checks and balances within the system. This will benefit the public and protect their interests as institutions involved cannot pass the buck unlike in the previous regime. The reform of the Authorisation process under the FSMA 2000 The act simplifies the processes of authorising regulated activity in section 31 FSMA. Ryder argues the new act provides a single route[15] to gain authorisation from the FSA to operate within the investment industry. Authorisation can be gained through four methods. First, via notification in conjunction with the relevant single market directive in an EEA member state (known as Passport Rights in schedule 3 FSMA.) Second, authorisation can be granted in accordance with schedule 4 of the FSMA, with EU Treaty Rights. Thirdly, via the exercise of rights under EC directives relating to investment undertakings to the market, including collected investme nt schemes or product authorisation of certain open ended investment companies.[16] Finally a person may be grand fathered under section 426-7 FSMA, where authorisation is granted to a range of persons in different sectors with previous permission under FSA 86. Section 19 (1) clarifies the regulatory scope in the context of granting authorisation, ‘everyone is prohibited from carrying out a regulated activity in the UK unless authorised.[17] Mistry claims this demonstrates a higher degree of regulatory control of those involved in a regulated financial activity, and must conform to the conditions in s. 31 (1). Thus, anyone who fails this requirement and still engages in regulated activity will be prohibited and subject to liabilities under section 24 (1). This suggests tighter control in regulating the services industry to ensure the minimisation of risk facing consumers soliciting advice about investment from authorised firms. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme and the role of the Ombudsman The creation of a single compensation scheme under Part XV section 213 states that (1) The Authority must by rules establish a scheme for compensating persons in cases where relevant persons are unable, to satisfy claims against them.[18] It can be suggested the creation of the scheme is in recognition of previous financial scandals where customers have been ill advised, suffering substantially with the investment of their money. Mistry argues, the compensation will be made available to those who have suffered a loss due to the inability of an authorised person to meet its liabilities[19] which will renew public confidence in the regulatory framework under FSMA. In addition, an Ombudsman is created under Part XV, as a compulsory scheme aiming to rectify disagreements between financial firms and clients. Section 226 (3) states â€Å"compulsory jurisdiction rules will apply.[20] The body can award fair compensation and order the respondent to rect ify the matter taking the necessary steps.[21] It can be claimed the measures do have a beneficial impact on the financial services industry in the UK. It demonstrates a regulatory system with clearly stated standards to supervise responsibly, a complex range of financial investment activity and disputes. In its statutory role to protect the consumer, the FSA will be obliged to ensure greater co- operation between government and law agencies for handling complaints. Such a unified structure will offer greater simplicity and ease of access to the consumer[22] in response to dealing with the harm of financial loss. The significance of the FSMA statutory objectives It is argued the importance of these measures must be seen within the context of the FSMA statutory objectives. Steward, argues they underlie the radical new form of regulation untried in a comparable financial industry.[23] The innovative aspect of the act was the imposition of statutory objectives clearly legislating for the role of the FSA as a regulating body under Part I. The four main objectives are to (1) maintain market confidence, (2) promote public awareness of financial services, (3) reduce financial crime and (4) protect consumers. It is stated under section 5. (1) The protection of consumers objective is: securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers. 2) In considering what degree of protection may be appropriate, the Authority must regard (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 in relation to different kinds of regulated activity; (c) the needs that consumers may have for advice and accurate information; and (d) the general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions. The four factors sets out the degree of protection the FSA considers appropriate attempting to strike a balance between the expectation consumers have, and the level of responsibility they must accept for their own actions.[24] It can be claimed the requirement is a proactive step to empower the regulator, to protect the consumer in risky financial investment business. Thus, the compensation scheme and Ombudsman are tools to help create a consumer orientated regulatory environment, addressing financial harm arising from disputed authorised activity. The schemes fulfil other objectives outlined in Part I, to secure market confidence, ensuring a stable economy and raising public awareness of the financial services industry. Finally, the statutory objective to raise public awareness is an important development which has had a key affect on the financial industry. For the first time argues Steward, the financial regulator is legally obliged to educate the public in matters of financial services. Raising the level of public information will increase public confidence, with the knowledge that t hey have legal options for redress, in light of potential financial risk occurring. This legislative safety net will ensure public confidence in financial services will be retained, a necessary factor in sustaining a healthy competitive market economy, encouraging new customers to invest in financial products. Conclusion The reform of the FMSA brings about much needed change to the financial regulation in the UK. In this papers view it is a simplification to argue Stewards line that the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is a radical piece of legislation. Mistry and MacNeil are more cautious about the act, recognising it as significant, but ultimately still implementing previous substantive rules of the FSA 86 which have been consolidated in the new regime. MacNeil questions whether the elegant design in itself can make a significant contribution to the quality of regulation.[25] The simplification of procedural rules, such as authorisation, provide an efficient route for managing the wide range of regulated financial activity and those involved with it. A real substantial change is the move to a single financial regulator with the statutory objectives to protect and educate the consumer in a complex finance industry. This has created an open, transparent structure, with access to remedies such as the restructured complaints scheme and Ombudsman. This represents an indisputable reform of the FSA ‘86, which systematically failed in its regulatory duty to prevent financial criminal activity and maintain consumer confidence. Bibliography Financial Services Authority (2000), In or Out ? Financial Exclusion: a literature and research review, London: Financial Services Authority. FSA The FSA’s approach to the regulation of e-commerce, FSA (2001), Financial Services Regulation: Making the Two Tier System Work (SIB, May 1993) The Financial Service and Markets Act – What happens next? FSA/PN/080/2000, 19 June 2000. Vaas, J. (1998). A guide to the provision of financial service education for consumers. FSA, London: FSA. Broome, N and Evans R, 2005 The FSA: whose tune is it dancing to and how is the FSA accountable to the financial services industry ? Journal of Business Law August/September 26(8/9) 199-204. Lomnicka. E., 2000. â€Å"Making the Financial Services Authority Accountable†. The Journal of Business Law January p65-81. MacNeil, I. (1999), â€Å"The Future for Financial Regulation: The Financial Services and Markets Bill†, MLR, 62(5), 725-743. McGuinness, K and Rogers. P,. â€Å"The Financial Services and Markets Bill†, Business Law Review February 1999. Mistry H, 2001, The Loss of Direct Parliamentary Control. Does that mean a Financial Services Regulator Without Accountability, The Company Lawyer 22 (8) pp246-248. Ryder, N. (1999), â€Å"Fear Strikes Again†, Bus. L.R., 20 (8/9), 206-210 Ryder, N. (2000), â€Å"The Financial Ser vices and Markets Act†, Bus, L.R., 21 (11), 253-256 Steward, E. (2001), â€Å"The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse – the Financial Services Authority and its Stautory Objectives† Bus. L.R. 2001 22(11), 258-261 https://www.sharingpensions.co.uk/fsma.htm Blair. C, Research Paper 99/68, 24th June 1999, Financial Services and Markets Bill, https://www.parliament.uk 1 Footnotes [1]p. 726, MacNeil, I. (1999), â€Å"The Future for Financial Regulation: The Financial Services and Markets Bill†, MLR, 62(5), 725-743. [2]Financial Services Regulation: Making the Two Tier System Work (SIB, May 1993) [3]p.8 , Blair. C, Research Paper 99/68, 24th June 1999, Financial Services and Markets Bill, https://www.parliament.uk [4]p.728 Ibid [5] p.731 Ibid [6] Ibid [7]p. 728 Ibid [8] p. 739, MacNeil, I. (1999), â€Å"The Future for Financial Regulation: The Financial Services and Markets Bill†, MLR, 62(5), 725-743. [9] p. 732, MacNeil, I. (1999), â€Å"The Future for Financial Regulation: The Financial Services and Markets Bill†, MLR, 62(5), 725-743. [10]P.735 Ibid [11]Ibid [12]p.732 Ibid [13]p. 246, Mistry H, 2001, The Loss of Direct Parliamentary Control. Does that mean a Financial Services Regulator Without Accountability, The Company Lawyer 22 (8) pp246-248. [14]Ibid [15]Ryder, N. (2000), â€Å"The Financi al Services and Markets Act†, Bus, L.R., 21 (11), 253-256 [16]p.255, Ibid [17]p. 246, Mistry H, 2001, The Loss of Direct Parliamentary Control. Does that mean a Financial Services Regulator Without Accountability, The Company Lawyer 22 (8) pp246-248. [18]https://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00008r.htm#213 [19] p. 255, Ryder, N. (2000), â€Å"The Financial Services and Markets Act†, Bus, L.R., 21 (11), 253-256 [20]https://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00008s.htm [21]p. 255, Ryder, N. (2000), â€Å"The Financial Services and Markets Act†, Bus, L.R., 21 (11), 253-256 [22]p. 254,Mistry H, 2001, The Loss of Direct Parliamentary Control. Does that mean a Financial Services Regulator Without Accountability, The Company Lawyer 22 (8) pp246-248. [23]Steward, E. (2001), â€Å"The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse – the Financial Services Authority and its Statutory Objectives† Bus. L.R. 2001 22(11), 258-261 [24]p. 260, Ibid [25]p. 735