Bob Diamond

[Mediocre Pundit]

So, Bob Diamond, the unacceptable face of banking, the head of Barclay's Casino Banking department (gambling with all us good honest taxpayers money) is their new CEO. I'm sure Vince Cable would be turning in his grave if he was dead. An outrage to the great British public. What do you all think?

 

(Yes, this thread is dedicated to you, my bank-bashing jaggy comrades. You know who you are...)

[Blackpool Jags]

So, Bob Diamond, the unacceptable face of banking, the head of Barclay's Casino Banking department (gambling with all us good honest taxpayers money) is their new CEO. I'm sure Vince Cable would be turning in his grave if he was dead. An outrage to the great British public. What do you all think?

 

(Yes, this thread is dedicated to you, my bank-bashing jaggy comrades. You know who you are...)

 

Yes, yes. I know.

 

I agree with your take on BD. There, I said it.

 

Not so much an outrage, imo, just par for the course.

[honved]

So, Bob Diamond, the unacceptable face of banking, the head of Barclay's Casino Banking department (gambling with all us good honest taxpayers money) is their new CEO. I'm sure Vince Cable would be turning in his grave if he was dead. An outrage to the great British public. What do you all think?

 

(Yes, this thread is dedicated to you, my bank-bashing jaggy comrades. You know who you are...)

 

Maybe he likes fitba and has a few mill to squander in a futile gesture? Got his number?

[B.C.G. JAG]

Was writing moany letters to my bank today about some of their charges which are disproportionately high for vulnerable customers. I agree with Blackpool Jags here, nothing really surprises me about the behaviour of the banks.

Edited September 8, 2010 by B.C.G. JAG

[Mediocre Pundit]

We should listen to Vince Cable and break the banks up. And ban bonuses. And raise the tax on them. I know it was only a few of them that needed a bail out but they're all the same really. We should milk them for all they're worth and give the money to the poor so they don't have to work for a living.

[Mediocre Pundit]

Was writing moany letters to my bank today about some of their charges which are disproportionately high for vulnerable customers.

They charge vulnerable customers just because they're vulnerable? That's shocking. How do they class vulnerability, and are the charges tiered depending on vulnerableness?

 

Or do you mean they charge people who abusing the service they provide and cost the bank money? People who act outwith the terms and conditions that they agree to when opening an account. Because that's even worse. How dare they. I say banks should reward people who go over their limits and spend what they can't afford by giving them a pat on the back and waiving the debt that they rack up. They can afford to do this if they cut bonuses to evil bankers.

[Blackpool Jags]

I say banks should reward people who go over their limits and spend what they can't afford by giving them a pat on the back and waiving the debt that they rack up.

 

Showing my ignorance here, but isn't that exactly the premise upon which the banks' speculators operate, eg when snapping up toxic debt from their American couterparts?

[B.C.G. JAG]

They charge vulnerable customers just because they're vulnerable? That's shocking. How do they class vulnerability, and are the charges tiered depending on vulnerableness?

 

Or do you mean they charge people who abusing the service they provide and cost the bank money? People who act outwith the terms and conditions that they agree to when opening an account. Because that's even worse. How dare they. I say banks should reward people who go over their limits and spend what they can't afford by giving them a pat on the back and waiving the debt that they rack up. They can afford to do this if they cut bonuses to evil bankers.

 

I mean that they charge £24 to transfer money from one UK account to another. That's if you ask the bank to do it for you - you can do this for free online, and indeed we're all used to relatively inexpensive electronic transfers whenever we use chip and pin or use paypal to purchase something. My point is that this charge then penalises the elderly who are not familiar with computers nevermind online banking, or how about people with learning disabilities or the visually impaired? How can they justify charging a skint pensioner £24 to tranfer £5?