Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjs_ac | Hacker News Reader

> The decision to close the markets and offer traders compensation was made by the Corporation's Court of Common Council.

> The Corporation will now have to file a Private Bill in Parliament as it seeks to absolve itself of the legal responsibility of running the markets.

The Corporation in this case is the Corporation of the City of London, which is the local government authority for the City of London, which is only the part of London that is within the walls of Roman Londinium. The Parliamentary Bill may very well not pass, in which case the Corporation may be in something of a pickle.

View on HN

> the local government authority for the City of London, which is only the part of London that is within the walls of Roman Londinium

Also known as the most efficient and high volume money laundering machine ever devised by man. Do a deep dive into russian oligarch money and the City of London, from reputable journalism sources, and you won't like what you find.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/03/28/how-putins-oli...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/14/nearly...

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/02/04/...

The City of London (aka the Square Mile) is literally a world unto itself. Even the Mayor of London is not the mayor of the City of London.

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

Separate police force too.

And in elections, corporations have a vote. Corporation votes vastly outnumber human resident votes.

Though they're outnumbered in large part because almost nobody lives in City of London.

That seems incorrect. The mayor is the mayor of Greater London which includes the City of London, although the City also has a Lord Mayor, as London boroughs have elected or ceremonial mayors. In other words, the City has its own mayor in the sense that other parts of London have their own sub-governments, although with a few differences such as policing and city status.

> The mayor is scrutinised by the London Assembly and, supported by their Mayoral Cabinet, directs the entirety of London, including the City of London (for which there is also the Lord Mayor of the City of London)

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

> In 1965 the county was abolished and replaced by Greater London, a two-tier administrative area governed by the Greater London Council, thirty-two London boroughs, and the City of London Corporation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London

Appreciate the clarification!

I recommend the book Treasure Islands by Nicholas Shaxson. It covers offshore tax havens and the central role played by the City in facilitating capital flight and tax avoidance. Chapter 12 is devoted entirely to the City of London Corporation.

Haven't read it for a while but I do recall the word "strange" appearing a lot.

They even have their own mission to the EU so they don't have to rely on the UK government to discuss matters that matter to the City of London https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/supporting-businesses/global...

Think of it as a vertical, focused embassy

I'm not sure that much is down to the old City of London as opposed to London as a whole. Most of the property buying mentioned in those articles is in Kensington and Chelsea. Even the Guardian says City of London but when they quote the guy with quotation marks it's "40% of that money comes through London and overseas territories and crown dependencies".

British papers tend to mix up City of London as in the old city and city of London as in the general financial services including Canary Wharf etc. Bit like how 'Wall Street' doesn't always mean that exact street.

Why meet your legal obligations if you have a chance of deleting the obligations instead? Absolute chancers.

Why stop there? Why not revoke the City’s charter altogether?

The City of London isn't legally reliant on a charter. It draws existence from 'Time Immemorial'.

Specifically it exists because it existed before 1189

This is a good and subtle point of law -- The City of London is a corporation "by prescription".

But while it was created by neither statue nor royal charter, I doubt the parliament could not end it if it so decided....

That's why the City has the Remembrancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Remembrancer taking care of the City's business in the Parliament.

The King-in-Parliament can abrogate common law.

> The Parliamentary Bill may very well not pass, in which case the Corporation may be in something of a pickle.

I think it's highly unlikely that it would fail.

True, but it would definitely be funny.

FTFY

> The Parliamentary Bill may very well not pass, in which case the Corporation may be in something of a pickled herring.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com