Wednesday, 25 November 2009

BBC Newsflash- Banks Win the OFT Case




In what can only be described as the fit up of the year, the 'Supreme Court' has awarded the Banks victory over the OFT.

Only a few months ago the banks were largely seen as having given up by Legal Circles in this long running case. So there we have it the Courts have given British Banks 'Carte Blanche' to charge what they like in penalties. Because of the monopoly situation, you have nowhere else to go, as they all charge the same. If they screw up, Uncle Mervyn will give them £61Bn of your money on the quiet.

The Banks case seems to rest squarely on the fact they cannot afford to pay.

No Appeal allowed.

People power nil Banks & the State win every time.

OH UPDATE: This is it. This is the straw that will break the camels back. Expect RIOTS. Close to a million people have just been told to shut the fuck up and pay up thousands each to bankers already wallowing in taxpayers cash.

In a three-day appeal in the House of Lords in June, the banks argued they would receive a "deluge of litigation" if the decision was made against them.


UPDATE 2: State can now take any amount of money from your bank account without a court order

85 comments:

banned said...

Don't owe them anything myself but it still sucks. Perhaps now they will stop their scary marketing promising us that they will be charging to use cashpoint machines.

Stop Common Purpose said...

Crooks.

bofl said...

i too do not owe them anything.their charges are a disgrace!

there is something that you can do about it though......don't go overdrawn!

if you haven't got the money-DON'T SPEND IT!!!!!!!!!

on the other hand i wonder if they can be forced to re-imburse me for the free use of my current account balance that they have had for the last 30 years?

or does the law support only the rich and powerful?

SumoKing said...

Simply put, the UK regs were intended to give effect to the Unfair terms in concumer contracts Directive. Both the Directive and the Regs should be read to give that effect. You can't reconcile Article 7 with a decision that does not allow the OFT to investigate.

Also some of what they have said may well cause a collapse in consumer regulation in the UK elsewhere.

That is fucking ridiculous.

Off to Europe they go to get a bollocking from the ECJ.

caesers wife said...

mm banks threatened £250 charge per cash point transaction , seemed pretty obvious me luds would er make the right decision for gordy !

Guthrum said...

Off to Europe they go to get a bollocking from the ECJ.


Nope- no appeal allowed to the ECJ

Guthrum said...

This is a crock of shit-

I have helped students and relatively cash poor people fight there banks, when going overdrawn by £6 has resulted in a £800 bill for charges and interest.

Let me tell you- in France and the rest of Europe you get at least two days notification as to what is going to come out of your account- here its a roll of the dice because they will not introduce this technology.

Cheques take three days to clear- utter bullshit. Only in the UK.

What is so sad is that not one person will protest about this, Oh well mustn't grumble

Old Holborn said...

"What is so sad is that not one person will protest about this, Oh well mustn't grumble"

Watch me.

Lord Phillips, Jewish Freemason
Lord Walker - Cambridge luvvy
Lord Hale - Cambridge Luvvy
Lord Mance- ex FSA, Lloyds
Lord Neuberger - Jewish, ex Rothschilds Bank.

I am Sick said...

This is and we are, governed by a regime of classical corporatist fascist`s, where profits are privatised and debts socialised. Just as the bastards are actively abandoning ( discrediting ) democracy and capitalism as economic and political principle`s, they are working as tireless allies for the post democratic, fascist / corporatist order.

They are all scum.

will cobbett said...

Don't go overdrawn, it's quite simple and millions of us manage not to everyday. If the banks had lost they would simply have charged everyone for having an account, all because some people are too incompetent to manage their finances and think they are 'victims'.

Anonymous said...

"okay, there ya go chaps, back to the bar for a quaff of porto, what!! what!!"

Don't forget your secret fucking handshakes, you cunts!

This is not the end of it, it only means the OFT can't rule on it. So who's going to be the first to get an court order to FORCE the banks to disclose the actual costs involved when going overdrawn?

Old Holborn said...

Will, that'll be the same banks that needed a trillion pounds of my money to stay in business this year eh? The same banks that got secret loans from the bank of england?

Now fuck off.

Old Holborn said...

Werewolves win right to bite off your head

bofl said...

why aren't the banks being investigated for fraudulent acounting?

they kept telling us that they were in a strong position-nothing to worry about-no bad positions in mortgage backed bonds.........

yet when bradford and bingley were in trouble they refused prospective buyers to be able to look at the books!!!!!

anyone smell a rat?

rbs kept saying they were fine.......hbos..even lloyds.........yet we now see that they were lying!!!!!!!

hbos lied and guess who brokered(look it up judges) the deal for lloyds to buy hbos?
yep.the liar in chief.......that devout christian and saviour of the world.....

billions and billions of £.....thousands of job losses.and secret loans.........what a crock!!!!!

bofl said...

more lies......

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article6930555.ece

ps why is it that the french can cap credit card interest at 5% ...yet we let the credit card co's charge whatever they like?

is that the socialist equality thing i keep hearing about?

will cobbett said...

Old H, should have let them sort their own mess out, let them go under if they were fucked,its all the same tho, the banks spend money they dont have, their customers spend money they dont have and then everyone one wonders why we are in the shit.

Ron Broxted said...

OH are you saying this ruling is a Jewish conspiracy? As a Jewish Muslim and Black brother by choice I must protest. Yours sincerely, Sir Charles Fitz Nicely Begbie KMG.

I am Stan said...

Don`t spend what you aint got,try to deal in cash /exchange/trade as much as possible,

If your banks etc offer you overdrafts n credit cards say NOOOOOOOOOO! GET YE BEHIND ME SATAN.

A banks only purpose is to profit from us.

Anonymous said...

Lets not forget that this hearing was only to decide whether the OFT would be allowed to investigate whether or not the banks charges were fair. It was not to decide whether or not they are actually fair

The supreme court has decided that they can't.

That is not good.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12.46

You're right. This is not good - and very, very dangerous.

Think This said...

So let me get this straight. Your upset that a quango hasn't been allowed to interfere in a market?

WTF! Surely we should celebrate the fact that the government isn't sticking its hands into private buisnesses and telling them what they can do.

I thought this was a libertarian blog - not a socialist 'bash the bankers' bonanza!

Old Holborn said...

right, let me repost this bit

"So there we have it the Courts have given British Banks 'Carte Blanche' to charge what they like in penalties. Because of the monopoly situation, you have nowhere else to go, as they all charge the same"

Penny dropped yet?

Kingbingo said...

OH old chum, I like your whole anti-state approach, and you’re right on that. But let’s not go to ridiculous extremes and complain about any large grouping as automatically evil.

Banks are a bloody business, they have every right to set out their terms and you have every right to sign up or not as you see fit. So should they be charging responsible people like me, who have the fricking savvy not to go overdrawn and actually rub two brain cells together when planning their finances. Or should they be charging feckless twats who rush out and buy shit they don’t need, and then get overdrawn. If you don’t like it, work smarter or harder and earn more so that you outgoings match your income, or if you can’t be arsed cut your outgoings to match your income, and while you’re at it stick your unjustified sense of entitlement up your slack fat arse.

I also wanted to pick up on this; OH Holborn says: “Will, that'll be the same banks that needed a trillion pounds of my money to stay in business this year eh? The same banks that got secret loans from the bank of england?

Now fuck off.”

Bollocks did they ‘need’ that money, our socialist twat government offered it to them, what did you expect them to say? HSBC and Barclays needed nothing, nor would Lloyds if Gorgon hadn’t lent on them to buy HBOS. What would have happened if the government had not offered any money. Well HBOS would have sold itself for somewhere between £1 and the billions Lloyds paid anyway. RBS should have been nationalised. The equity holders wiped out, most of the bond holders wiped out and the depositors protected to a limited extent. Even if they lost 10% of anything over the first £30k, it would remind people that you’re supposed to be a little choosy when it comes to using a bank. As it was the crap banks got money while equity and bond holders sailed through, it is actually their job to hold the management to account. Not government regulators.

Bristol Dave said...

KingBingo:

Banks are a bloody business, they have every right to set out their terms and you have every right to sign up or not

Bollocks.

They have every right to set out their terms, but what choice do we have? It's nigh-on impossible to function in modern society without a bank account. We have no choice but to sign up to their terms, regardless of whether we agree with them or not.

Brain before typing next time, please.

Bristol Dave said...

Think This:

WTF! Surely we should celebrate the fact that the government isn't sticking its hands into private buisnesses and telling them what they can do.

True, but I'd wager that the government had something to do with the outcome of this trial. The banks lost in two cases before this one, then suddenly they win? I reckon the government are fearful of what could happen to the banks and therefore to the economy if millions of people reclaimed their charges.

Guthrum said...

So who's going to be the first to get an court order to FORCE the banks to disclose the actual costs involved when going overdrawn?

The OFT did, £1.25 to administer the overdraft the other £38.75 was pure profit. I have help a lot of people get there money back, how can going £5 overdrawn turn into £800 in six weeks ??

As a Libertarian I should say take you business elswhere, where the other three cartel banks, two of which are owned by the State.

This judgement has overturned TWO previous Court Decisions, are all the other Judges, deficient in their knowledge of the Law, or did these bastards just keep going until they found a judge that would find in their favour, because the State owns half the Banks.

It stinks ! This is not capitalism this State Socialism at its very worst.

Anonymous said...

Will Cobbett got it right if you are too fucking ignorant to read the terms and conditions you deserve to be shafted by the banks. I fail to see why I should fund other people's incompetence by paying a monthly fee. You don't like it? Then keep your money under your mattress.

Bristol Dave said...

I fail to see why I should fund other people's incompetence by paying a monthly fee.

On the other hand, why should the poorer members of society (who are far more likely to be hit with charges) fund free banking for the rich, as is currently the case?

Kingbingo said...

Bristol Dave, that’s a good socialist argument for sure. In order to advance the common good government must interfere in arrangements between private firms and private individuals. Why stop there, why not have government interfere in all areas of private and commercial interaction?

Allow me to explain. If you cannot trust yourself not to spend more than you earn the answer is simple. Get yourself a basic bank account, the precise name varies from bank to bank, but these are accounts that you can have your salary paid into, but you do not have a cheque book or debit/credit cards, you can only withdraw cash from a cashpoint each day. Problem solved no danger of every going overdrawn. Use a shop with paypoint to pay your utility bills, or get coin operated meters fitted, use shops to buy stuff cash. Thus you can ‘function in a modern society’

If however you want to be treated like a big boy, and get given a cheque book or debit/credit card then you have been given responsibility, so don’t act irresponsibility with your money. I do not want government interfering in my affairs, or arrangements I have with my bank. I don’t frequent what is primarily an anti-government blog then go wailing to government the first time I discover I can’t trust myself to act responsibly and expect some quango to make it all better.

Field Marshall Watkins said...

Even if you keep your nose clean of debt, you'll still be shafted. Remember, the govt will happily throw your money at the banks when they ask for it. Without your permission.

If they are private businesses they can charge what they wish. In which case they shouldn't be getting any fucking money from the govt. As Guthrum said, State Socialism.

The banks fuck up, you cough up. You fuck up, you cough up.

SumoKing said...

Off to Europe they go to get a bollocking from the ECJ.


Nope- no appeal allowed to the ECJ
************************************

As I understand it you ask for leave to appeal from the court hearing the case but you also request leave from the court you are seeking to appeal to

so ECJ says yes appeal to us and off you go

Kingbingo said...

“If they are private businesses they can charge what they wish. In which case they shouldn't be getting any fucking money from the govt.”

Quite true Field Marshall Watkins. But because a socialist government used socialist measures that does not mean that libertarians should then demand further socialist measure in order to right a perceived wrong. That’s classic statist creep. Create a new layer of government justified by the failings of the last layer. Its disgraceful such an argument should be proposed on a libertarian blog.

Government interfering to give banks our money=WRONG, Government interfering to alter their terms and conditions to suit the feckless customers=WRONG

Old Holborn said...

KingBingo.

You can watch me here, amongst 20,000 of the enemy pleading for banks that can't pay their way to be left to fail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l-OrfD_GVw

The role of the State is to protect the borders and uphold the law. Using a supreme court if necessary. It just failed.

The State owns the banks and has just told the banks to carry on fleecing the people. Look at it as indirect taxation if you wish. Profits will be boosted by not having to repay "theft" and the proceeds will soon be supporting asylum seekers, lesbian drop in centres, new global warming research (sic) instead of in YOUR pockets. The State has just taken another £2.9 BILLION off the poorest people in the land. 1.2 million people ae not happy.

You WILL read about vandalised high street banks in the next week. Quite rightly so.

Simon said...

As I noted on my blog:

After the Supreme Court overturned previous rulings on unfair bank charges, Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive Stephen Hester, told a Scottish Parliament committee that: "We should understand there is not a free lunch here, that banks have certain costs of doing business and if you don't get paid those costs in one way then you have to find them in another way."

I take it the irony was lost on him.

Anonymous said...

Give them the rope they so dearly deserve and they will hang themselves in agony.

GM

Anonymous said...

If banking is such a bonanza, why hasn't everyone opened a bank? Answer: because the regulatory barriers to entry to the market are too high, so the incumbents can do what they like, knowing they'll never face competition.

Why are there such barriers? Answer: Because the banks lobbied for them so that they could protect their cartel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Bristol Dave said...

KingBingo:

You seem to have a fairly basic misunderstanding about how banks work.

The charges people are complaining about are mainly from UNAUTHORISED overdrafts - this is where there hasn't been enough funds in the account but yet the bank has made the payment anyway, and taken the account holder into an unauthorised overdraft. The bank has done this, rather than just refusing to make the payment, because they know they can make a profit from the charge they will put on the account holder. Banks do this on ALL bank accounts, from the most pikey account given to a Somalian immigrant where you don't even get given a debit card, all the way up to the gold-plated ones. Using the even most basic account cannot prevent this from happening.

It could be argued that you should always have enough money in the account to cover any charges or debits going out, and I would agree, but banks hardly make this easy for the average person - taking debits out before crediting payments, sitting on standing orders and cheques instead of clearing it instantly, the most fucking appalling update times for running balance and account changes, etc.

Having an objection to the way the banks do this isn't "socialist", you fucking cretin, it's just showing them up for the cunts that they are, especially since our government is funding them so heavily.

Kingbingo said...

OH, Allow me to deconstruct, I think your otherwise sound libertarian instincts have done a back flip and ended up facing the wrong way, i.e. towards more not less state interference.

Firstly I don’t doubt your sound on no government money for banks. But just as giving government money to banks does not then justify Tony bastard Woodley demanding government money for the car industry it does not justify interference here either.

“The role of the State is to protect the borders and uphold the law” I would say to defend its peoples and boarders and to uphold property rights and legal contracts, which are a necessary pre-requisite to a free market. But we are close enough.

“The State owns the banks and has just told the banks to carry on fleecing the people.” The state owns 85% of RBS, 43% of Lloyds and bugger all of all the rest.

“Look at it as indirect taxation if you wish” I cannot, because the relationship is hardly as simple. And besides, the preceded stands regardless who who happens to be in control at the time. Again, this is not to say that giving the banks money is right, merely that it does not excuse yet more socialism.

“Profits will be boosted by not having to repay "theft"” Hardly, if feckless customer X signs up to an account with bank Y on the understanding that X will not go overdrawn then when X does so and the terms of that arrangement require X to pay Y a fee, then fine. Y did not have to accept the agreement on day one. Y could have opened a basic account as I described above. Y could have honoured their agreement. Y did none of those things, they wanted the responsibility to get a cheque book and debit/credit card and then abused that responsibility.
They should no more be given a get out clause after they behave irresponsibly then 17 year old slags should get given a house when they act irresponsibly and get knocked up.

“the proceeds will soon be supporting asylum seekers, lesbian drop in centres, new global warming research (sic) instead of in YOUR pockets.” No, firstly the 85% of RBS and 43% of Lloyds will be getting benefit from some of that true. But in my whole life I have paid about £12 in overdraft fee’s, because I did not spend more than I had, if I needed to for short periods, I arranged a agreed overdraft or loan. I have also never owned a credit card. I will get nothing, because I behaved responsibly. I don’t fancy the bank earning their profits from current account fee’s instead of milking the irresponsible ones. If they switched that model I would switch to a bank that offered the lowest account fee’s for my main account and maybe open a small account with every major bank now blighted by the interference of the state and go overdrawn on all of them, why not, free money, and socialism has seen fit to insure that I can be irresponsible with impunity. The unintended consequence of the ruling if it went the other way.

“You WILL read about vandalised high street banks in the next week. Quite rightly so” pissy irresponsible people vandalising banks is just as wrong as a bank vandalising my house. When welfare scum stop getting free money should they vandalise stuff? Just because people who can’t control their finances, but who insist they should be allowed cheque books and debit/credit cards are denied the human right to be irresponsible, with out consequences they should get no rights to vandalism.

Anonymous said...

Bristol Dave posts a comment, directed at KingBingo at 15:29, and KingBingo writes a reply over a page long within two minutes, at 15:31?

Is this just the I/OPS department talking to itself again?

JuliaM said...

"there is something that you can do about it though......don't go overdrawn!

if you haven't got the money-DON'T SPEND IT!!!!!!!!!"


Spot on!

Anonymous said...

So, if I have £x in my account, Mr Banker says "tell me if you want more, & I'll lend it to you".

He also tells me beforehand "If you take more but don't give me notice, I'll charge you £y.

If I then take more without giving prior notice, why should I complain if he implements the charge he said he would?

Kingbingo said...

Bristol Dave, make all the ad hominem attacks you like, while it would be easy to respond in kind, I shall assume your a thoughtful individual and shall treat you as such. Even thought you have made a number of mistakes, even accusing me of misunderstandings you yourself made.

“The charges people are complaining about are mainly from UNAUTHORISED overdrafts” I know

“Banks do this on ALL bank accounts, from the most pikey account given to a Somalian immigrant where you don't even get given a debit card, all the way up to the gold-plated ones. Using the even most basic account cannot prevent this from happening.” Simply untrue. I did a 5 second google search found this: https://www.cardonebanking.com/info/yourquestions.aspx all banks offer a variation on a theme of that. I think you are confusing a standard current account with a really ‘basic’ account, where you cannot set up standing orders or DD’s. Indeed, I had said no debit cards, the page I linked uses a pre-paid mastercard. A perfect account if you can’t manage your money, ALL BANKS OFFER THEM.I suggest you have a good read of the link I provided, maybe pop into your local high street bank and ask if they offer the same. Then if you’re feeling big, come back and apologize to me. You simply cannot go overdrawn on them, its structured as to be impossible.

“It could be argued that you should always have enough money in the account to cover any charges or debits going out, and I would agree,” cool

“but banks hardly make this easy for the average person - taking debits out before crediting payments, sitting on standing orders and cheques instead of clearing it instantly, the most fucking appalling update times for running balance and account changes, etc.” Its a shame life is not easy thats true. But the banks are a business and are going to choose how they wish to charge their customers. If in a free market you don’t like it, CHOOSE an alternative. Choice is the most important freedom we have. You cannot use government intervention to stop people making bad choices, well you can, but government choices are worse.

“Having an objection to the way the banks do this isn't "socialist"” No it isn’t. BUT, It is the moment you start calling for government to intervene in a contract between a private business and a private individual when the private individual choose to enter into the contract.

“you fucking cretin” meh!

“it's just showing them up for the cunts that they are, especially since our government is funding them so heavily.” Please understand. Creating more and more layers of government is bad, even if you are doing it to correct the problems of the last. Just because the government made one mistake, does not justify more.

bofl said...

if you go overdrawn without ok-ing it first you will be penalised......i don't think that is unfair.but what is unfair is the additional charge....ie another 40 quid.then 35 for a letter etc........all of this behaviour is extortion........

how can the law condone this?

it really is legalised robbery......
so why doesnt our socialist govt stop it?

the banks have had s free ride for years.ie not paying interest on current accounts......isn't it odd that they can take up to a week to clear a cheque yet they know exactly how much money they have every night to put on overnight deposit( in the interbank lending market)?

then they have invented more scams like 'arrangement' fees!!!!

ffs! the market is so much of a cartel that they can charge you maybe £1500 for this......how much work is involved? perhaps 1/2 an hour? on a branch managers salary that equates to about a fiver!!!!

Bristol Dave said...

No it isn’t. BUT, It is the moment you start calling for government to intervene in a contract between a private business and a private individual when the private individual choose to enter into the contract.

Where did I call for this? In fact I stated at 14:15 that I suspect the government had a say in the outcome of this current case, which is why the banks won.

All I've really said is that the banks are a bunch of cunts. And they are.

Anonymous said...

Certain people have lost sight of where this all started.

The ball started with PRIVATE individuals, bringing PRIVATE actions against the banks - so why are people saying 'why should government interfere'?

We were doing quite well thank you, the government/ OFT has just pulled the fucking rug from underneath everyone who was fighting to get the charges back.

Cunts

And for the ones who say live within your means - fuck right off. You obviously are the wankers who fucking earn too much at the expense of everyone else.

get a brain - what about the engineer who earned nearly 20 grand, got made redundant and had to live on minimum wage? NO amount of cutting outgoings would work.

Stop assuming everybody is a grasping credit hungry fuckwit

defender said...

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
"British banks win 'stunning' victory in landmark ruling on overdraft fees", says The Daily Telegraph, amongst the many media sources to comment on the ruling by our "Supreme" Court.

HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays and Lloyds are among seven lenders who had asked the Court to halt a challenge to their fees brought by the Office of Fair Trading, but there is more to the ruling than meets the eye.

According to the judgement handed down, the issue depended "on the correct interpretation (in its European context) and application of Regulation 6(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 SI 1999/2083."

However, we then see that: "The 1999 Regulations were made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 in order to transpose into national law Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts."

The "victory” then, is one for EU law – which completely goes against the grain of expectations. As for the "Supreme" court, all it was doing was interpreting the diktats of our masters in Brussels. But, as always, in none of the MSM accounts does one see any reference to this.

The Times rails that the "decision is bad for consumers and competition" but it does not tell us why it was made. The invisible "elephant in the room", as always, is positively thriving.

Thus we get Money Mail assistant editor James Coney lamenting "If OFT can't decide bank charges are unfair, who can?" The answer, of course, is "the EU stoopid". But we are not allowed to know this.

Anonymous said...

Kingbingo:

Yep, that account you link to is a really winner, isn't it?

£12.50 per month
£30 set up
interest paid? no
DD? no

so, if you're in the unfortunate position to actually need this account, it's gonna cost you - big time

no dd? higher bills (no dd discounts)
£12.50 is actually likely to be lot of money if you're in need of this account.
ditto with the set up fee (30 quid)

so, forget that - that's totally useless......

Bristol Dave said...

And for the ones who say live within your means - fuck right off. You obviously are the wankers who fucking earn too much at the expense of everyone else.

get a brain - what about the engineer who earned nearly 20 grand, got made redundant and had to live on minimum wage? NO amount of cutting outgoings would work.

Stop assuming everybody is a grasping credit hungry fuckwit


^^^^^ THIS

Anonymous said...

OK let me see if this helps. I have a basic bank account in Canada. In order for there to be no fee I have to maintain a bank balance of $4000 otherwise I have to pay $12 a month. I have to pay for my cheques. I have to pay to use another banks ATM. If I want to cash a cheque in a rival bank I have to pay $5. You people bleating about this judgement should be grateful. If it had gone the other way I suspect you would also be the same schmucks whining about unfair bank fees. Cry me a fucking river.

Anonymous said...

What did one expect from the Supreme Court, occupied by banking chums.How much do the people of this nation want to swallow from the crooks who run Britain.If they dont have mass protest soon,they deserve to be the robotic spineless slaves they seem to be.The service given by banks is
a disgrace and I might add I have never been in debt in my life.In fact,if there was anything owing it was for being sold dud Endowments.dodgy insurance policies and now low interest rates.A bit like their handling complaints,a marked lack of interest!!

Anonymous said...

I went bakrupty 10 years past. Best thing that every happened to me & family. Zero credit, but Im not seeking any.

Live within your means.

Remember the days before mobile phones....

RavingMad said...

1 you're a diamond OH

2. fuck the banks

Rogerborg said...

@Guthrum: "Expect RIOTS"

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha. You're a treasure. Do you write your own material, or buy it in?

thelunaticarms said...

To all those who say "don't have, don't spend" - it isn't the fact they charge us it is the fact they can charge us what they please.

Also, if you have no money for food, what then? Should the poor just find some corner to die in so not to affect your cushy life?

Fuck the banks. And fuck all the inconsiderate bastards who think that we can all get by on a £1 a day.

They say the Banks would lose £2.6bn - that would mean we would gain £2.6bn to spend on the REAL economy, not the spreadsheet economy.

A good day for Wall St. A bad day for the high street.

Time to bring out the balaclavas, me thinks.

Old Holborn said...

Let me think

The deepest depression since records began, millions unemployed, economy ruined, our grandchildren in debt was the result of ....remind me?

Anonymous said...

BrizzleDave wrote earlier:

On the other hand, why should the poorer members of society (who are far more likely to be hit with charges) fund free banking for the rich, as is currently the case?

Life is shit and then you die Dave.

Live beyond your means and pay a penalty.

Simples.

Old Holborn said...

Anon,

Remind us of the penalties paid by Northern Rock, HBOS, Lloyds etc for pissing a trillion quid up the wall?

Bill Pritchard said...

I take it all you people moaning about this ruling would have no complaints if the next time you went to the ATM all you got was a message saying "Sorry, the bank was a bit short this week so we borrowed yours for a while, hope this isn't inconvenient?" What's the difference between an unauthorised overdraft and theft?

Field Marshall Watkins said...

City minister refuses to rule out more secret loans to stricken banks

If they get this, can we (the taxpayer) charge them an extortionate 'admin' fee?

Kingbingo said...

OH said: "The deepest depression since records began, millions unemployed, economy ruined, our grandchildren in debt was the result of ....remind me?"

Systemic weakness in our economy and taxation system. Coupled with a decade of massive government overspending and a loss of control over monetary policy. That lead to massive asset price inflation & public sector cost inflation, again, lead by government.

Most banks actually acted more or less rationally, they are a business that operate like all business, you know, buy low sell high. They buy money cheap (deposit saving and wholesale markets) and sell expensive (loans). Given that there was asset price inflation they still have to operate and margin difference remains. If you want more details read this from the the right wing IEA: http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=book&ID=453 clisk full download.

DO NOT sallow the leftie bullshit that the crash was caused by evil gambling banks, tosh.

It was government mal-manipulation of the rules under which markets operated.

Governments should not interfere in money, that should be left to free market entirely.

Bristol Dave said...

What's the difference between an unauthorised overdraft and theft?

A lot. Theft has intent. I reckon most of the time, the person with the unauthorised overdraft would have prefered NOT to have the money, then they could have stayed in credit, and not been hit with a charge, even if they had a payment refused.

Instead of refusing it, a bank will let the payment go through, fully knowing the person doesn't have the cash in their account to cover it. purely because they know they can make a profit on the charges they can hammer the person with. If it was against the law for the bank to make a profit on these charges, they'd simply refuse the payment. Then both bank and customer would be better off. But they don't, because they know they can make more cash by fucking the customer over.

Bearing in mind the above, with unauthorised overdrafts the bank is hardly doing people a fucking favour now, is it?

Old Holborn said...

Not that the US banks sold toxic mortgages to any black man in a string vest they could find then. Not that the UK banks bought the toxic debt then.

Remind me how much the Coop bank needed? Not a fucking penny. Barclays? Sod that, we'll find backers in the middle east.

The banks SHOULD have failed. What I cannot accept is that the Govt has decided (via their Supreme Court) that they shouldn't pay back what they stole. And it was theft.

Bristol Dave said...

It was government mal-manipulation of the rules under which markets operated.

Definitely a large contributing factor, but the banks are hardly blameless in all this.

After all, packaging up worthless debts as "investment vehicles" and gambling them for more than they're worth whilst giving them falsely inflated credit ratings, and then going cap in hand to the government for billions of taxpayers cash when they finally admitted they'd fucked up is hardly a shining example of business practice.

Guthrum said...

For those a bit confused

A State Monopoly of four banks is not capitalism.

Capitalism rewards risk with Profit

Failure is rewarded with bankruptcy.

The Banks played the casino with your money, no risk.

They also created fiat money at no risk

They failed yet were not rewarded with bankruptcy, because they were bailed out with your money and given a fresh set of chips to sit at the Casino table.

I am on the side of the dum schmucks paying for this State Capitalism. You and me.

One million people who had the balls to file charges against the banks have been pissed on by the 'supremes'

If Gordon Brown wants 'Class Actions' I will give it to him,

Suing HMG for the loss of my hard earned pension.

So cut the shit about 'not going overdrawn' morality and Justice are on our side not the Bankers and Government appointed 'Supremes'

Old Holborn said...

I think what the "righteous" are saying when they criticise people for being overdrawn is "don't you dare rattle your chains, slave"

85% of our income is taxed. We are 15% away from being total and utter slaves. The "supreme court" reminded us today that the remaining 15% is up for grabs, especially when the State now owns the banks.

I really, really have had enough now.

Bank Robber said...

I have on occasion been whacked with £40+ charges for going overdraw for a couple of pounds after my pay was delayed, yet my DD's went out on time.

The cunts could have either let it slide, knowing I had money coming, or just refuse the DD and leave me to sort it out.

Have you seen the joke interests rates you get for a current account? Not just now, but in general? If you ask me, I have already paid to OD every now and again by them stiffing me with that.

Fuck the banks. And as someone said once: 'you find out who really owns your house when you owe money'.

This is all of course moot, as the pound will be worth fuck all soon anyhow. No gold. No manufacturing base. Massive balance of exports against small imports. Our only proper industry is international finance, which can be moved in a heartbeat once the taxes get too high.

The last time we were in this much shit, it took a big fuck-off war to sort it out.

Kingbingo said...

OH: "Not that the US banks sold toxic mortgages to any black man in a string vest they could find then."

Check out the Community Reinvestment act that Carter signed in 1977, and the various updates since.

The banks were forced to make sub-prime loans, by law. I shit you not.

Then government has the temerity to say banks caused the crash.

All in the study I linked.

Old Holborn said...

We come a little closer

Want to own your house, nigger? Sign here and vote for Obama, y'all

It worked

bofl said...

personally i see the problem being a complete lack of accountability...

the boe and fsa are a joke!
when i worked in trading the fsa was known as the sfa!

if anyone came in from them they were viewed as a complete joke.and still are......

when we have ego maniac morons like brown and blair in charge who know sfa about banking then it is no surprise that the banks run rings round them........the investment banks are always looking for avenues to exploit........it is what they get paid for......

but how can it be policed when the twerps doing the 'regulating' have no idea what is going on?????


the banks bought tons of shite debt-dressed up as AAA.......without actually understanding what they were actually buying......and while the going was good nobody questioned it........just like barings and poor nick leeson........

EVERY boom in history has been followed by a bust.yet they never fucking learn!
so we have a bank sector thinking it is invincible coupled with berks like the labour party who just cant stop wasting money to buy votes.and now we are seeing the results......

the banks should have been allowed to fold........or do as barclays did.find outside funding.......if i remember rightly they had to pay 12% and 8% for their money..yet they still went ahead because they thought they could make a profit...

so they basically said up yours uk and are now mainly a foreign owned bank.........

in the world of finance investors buy up or into 'distressed' companies........these companies are split up/injected with capital etc........there is a huge market daily in this business.....if barclays could find several suitors then surely hbos and rbs would have been viewed as companies with potential as well as intangibles?


summary: the country is a lunatic asylum ran by people who know nothing but are driven by money or power or both.........

the fact that they know sfa seems not to matter!

Anonymous said...

OH I am surprisingly in aggreement with you althought I am myself a 48 year old Gay Irish Jewish Cockney Muslim as well as being a Red Indian/negro in my mind who also supports the Real IRA hates the filth and people who beat me up when I am cottaging. The real truth behind all this shit is the Chinese who kept lending the Americans money to keep buying their shit. Personally I own fuck all, live off the state and keep on the move so as to avoid being captured by the lizards from outer space who are really running the world. Our day will come, and lesser men will follow me for I am Spartacus. To the barricades I am the way.

Lady Virginia Droit de Seigneur said...

Easy answer - go in and ask for your savings in cash - NOW!!!

UK PLC = criminal gov said...

read this

UK jails schizophrenic for refusal to decrypt files

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/24/ripa_jfl/page4.html
24th November 2009 11:36

Prove you are innocent or get locked up.

Alessandro Machi said...

Wow, you guys better wake up. Unacceptable.

OVER ONE THOUSANDS LETTERS OF FEAR AND LOATHING AGAINST CHASE BANK IN LESS THAN 3 MONTHS AT CONSUMER AFFAIRS DOT ORG.

VOTE FOR THE CONSUMER RIGHT TO OPT OUT WHEN A BANK CHANGES TERMS AFTER AN AGREEMENT IS ALREADY IN PLACE.

Chase Bank SUED FOR FREEZING HOME EQUITY LINES.

CONSUMERS to lose 100 MILLION to 1 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH BECAUSE OF CHASE BANK'S RAISE IN THE MONTHLY MINIMUM PAYMENT ON LOW INTEREST CREDIT CARDS.

The Cat Who Ate Chase Bank.com

Daily-PROTEST.com

ROBOTS AGAINST CHASE.com

BLOGGERS AGAINST CHASE BANK.com

CREDIT CARD COMPANIES ME FIRST AGENDA IS CAUSING SOME STATES SERIOUS FINANCIAL LOSSES.

ChangeinTerms.com

Jamie Dimon's Competence Called into Question by John Kay.

stant said...

Theres been a lot of stuff on the radio about the banks needing to make money, there have been comments along the lines of "low interest rates" being a problem for them. I want to remind all the readers about fractional lending again. My bank borrows my money which I deposit and pays me a low interest rate - some accounts are 0.1%, many deposit accounts are currently 2 percent or so. But they lend 10 times the sum I have deposited and at interest rates from 3 or 4% up to the high teens. So they earn 4% on ten times my deposit. Say I bank £1000 and get 2%. I get £20 back before Gordo taxes it, but they get £400 back on interest when they lend the money on.

These are frankly obscene margins. It escapes me how a return of £380 for a cost of £20 is anything short of usury.

Pity them not, they earn too much.

JuliaM said...

"And for the ones who say live within your means - fuck right off. You obviously are the wankers who fucking earn too much at the expense of everyone else."

Well, obviously. That must be the reason, mustn't it?

/sarc

JuliaM said...

"I think what the "righteous" are saying when they criticise people for being overdrawn is "don't you dare rattle your chains, slave"..."

OH, you are falling into the same trap as 'anon' up there.

I'm not sitting in a mansion here, and I've not got a Ferarri in the drive, or a boat moored somewhere. There's more Next and Windsmoor in my wardrobe than Dolce and Gabbana.

I've never been overdrawn or paid bank charges. And yes, I do live within my means. Most people do. What's wrong with that?

bofl is right; lack of accountability has indeed been the problem behind most of our current woes.

Kingbingo said...

stant said...
“Theres been a lot of stuff on the radio about the banks needing to make money, there have been comments along the lines of "low interest rates" being a problem for them.”

Why not step back and ask why government sets interest rates at all. Why not let the free market set rates. If it did rates would be a lot higher, as the demand for money would be priced against the supply of money. Now certainly I acknowledge that the Asian influences on the wholesale money markets and have perverted that market somewhat. Yet regardless, this artificially low rates are destroying savings for the elderly and those retiring and are keeping unsound businesses trading to say nothing of helping maintain completely unrealistic house prices.

A booming economy is like a being high, you can avoid the cold turkey by keep abusing, but you’re going to have to go turkey at some point. The longer you put off the pain the worse it is going to be. In our case misaligning the economy systemically for best part of a decade. Public spending needs to be savaged, and we sure as shit don’t need so many phone accessory shops and what not.

Anonymous said...

Right!!! JuliaM "there is something that you can do about it though......don't go overdrawn!

if you haven't got the money-DON'T SPEND IT!!!!!!!!!"

What if I have no fucking savings because the cost of surviving drains every penny of my wages.. and.. something happens at home like the washer breaks, car needs mot.. etc.. fucking bankers.. they make billions off us every day, just investing our money.

GM

Anonymous said...

Fucking hell... why can't the banks and the government see that they are almost forcing our hand. Gone are the days when your wages were paid into your hand. We are OBLIGED to get them paid into a bank account.. ergo the problem.. Bank offers an overdraft.. you steer clear until an emergency and then,.. hey lets dip into the overdraft, thats what its there for... over time you dip into it more and more and find it harder and harder to pay it back until.. hey.. I just went 1.25 over my overdraft limit and they are charging me a squillion quid. Banks are ruthless, evil and corrupt, they run hand in hand with the government, although to be honest, its the banks that run the governments - (kingpin, argue this one if you DARE!)

Fucking banks.. they know what they are doing.. force people into debt.. milk them dry. bastards

I am Stan said...

@OH-Want to own your house, nigger? Sign here and vote for Obama, y'all.


Holby...The desire to own your own home and improve your lot in life crosses all racial lines and black people I believe have as much desire to home ownership as anyone else.

It is as an indisputable and reprehensible fact that in the hands of the mortgage lending industry, sub-prime loans became predatory loans--a faulty product that was ruthlessly hawked even though financial institutions were aware of its defects.

Even a surface check of the demographics shows that, in city after city, a solid majority of sub-prime loan recipients were black and hispanic people from the lower end of the wealth spectrum ie they were conned by predatory finacial sharks and the knock on effects became one,thats ONE of the factors in the Global melt down.

You seem to be trying to pin all the blame on er! the ¨nigger¨.....which is very simplistic and lazy way at looking at things...but I guess the poorest are always the easy ones to blame eh! Holby.

JuliaM said...

"What if I have no fucking savings because the cost of surviving drains every penny of my wages.. and.. something happens at home like the washer breaks, car needs mot.. etc"

If you have no savings, then you are living beyond your means. You are in a job that pays too low a wage for you to keep up with your insurance/repairs budget.

And remember that insurance doesn't cover everything. I just had to fork out for a tree brought down in high winds. £200+ of unexpected payout.

So, the new dress I'd planned for the Christmas party will be last years instead. What a lot of people will do is say 'Oh, well, I'll have it anyway'.

And car MOTs are regular occurrences, aren't they? Tend to come round at the same time each year? Not exactly an unforeseen emergency.

geewiz said...

"Banks are a bloody business, they have every right to set out their terms and you have every right to sign up or not as you see fit"

Glad you view a contract or terms that can be changed on a whim as acceptable. What about when they start charging for not using a card or account enough, without telling you? That is just one of a raft of new "terms" looking to be introduced.

But, they wouldn't, would they? naaaah they are honest and held to account by the law......

"there is something that you can do about it though......don't go overdrawn"

Fuck off civil servants. Easy to point fingers while sucking on the public teat, with a job and pension for life.

black hole sunset said...

@Banks are a bloody business, they have every right to set out their terms and you have every right to sign up or not as you see fit

The the UK retail banking sector constitutes a de facto cartel, hence the OFTs involvement.

The majority of the retail banking sector also, as has been demonstrated quite recently, to our considerable loss, benefits from implict state guarantee of, at the very least, customer deposits and, in practice, most or all of their associated business.

K McEgan said...

I have always found that waving a sawn-off pump action shotgun around in the banking hall is the best way of negotiating for extra finance when things get a little bit tight as regards cash flow and and extra income stream.
It is even easier these days because plod is far too busy arresting innocent members of the public for heinous offences such as dressing up as a giant baby at human rights demonstrations or being too tall.
Eat your heart out Jack Regan!

PCSO Gladys Savage QPM said...

K McEgan aka Ron Broxted John Steed and others. On a scale of cuntishness you are totally off the fucking scale. Holding up banks! You couldn't even hold your soiled nappy up when I nicked you. You just stood there screaming and crying like a big girl and cupping your miniscule accorn size knob in your hand. Bank robber, hard man? Pull the other one your poor little bunny. lol

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails