A tale of barclays... one honest man in a company full of lies

savagej

Bump for BM.

You have gone rather silent on this issue, I know I have yet to prove racism in the terms you appear to be looking for it but you also appear to be ignoring the pertient issue, as to Barlcays behaviour in some African countries.

Can we by you silence infer that you condone the behaviour that is listed in the two links posted in this thread on the topic?

Morn

savagej wrote: »

No it is not, being racist does not just mean giving preferential treatment to white people over black people, it goes the other way around as well and other ways around.

Barclays did not inhert the nickname "BoerclaysBank" in South Africa for no reason and I do not have to prove anything to you or give you a history lesson.

As I said just keep on beleiving what you do, because if you realised the truth your mind might not allow you to accept it anyway.

I will perhaps get bashed here for sticking up for BM but I feel its a little unfair to lay into him in the way that has become the norm in this thread.

BM has in the first instance tried to answer the questions posed and has done so in (as far as I'm concerned) appropriate and informative way.

All this other stuff about Barclays bank/racism etc is at best irrelevant as times change and many practices which used to be considered acceptable are now no longer considered so.

I am not saying that Racism et al do not occur or exist in the present day (as doing so would be naive and stupid) however expecting the BM to apologise for Barclays as a whole is pointless as it would not necessarily reflect the feelings of the bank and besides he does not work for the South African arm.

Not really sure how this discussion ended up here to be honest.

Just my thoughts so let the bashing begin.

savagej

I was just trying to get his opinion as he sticks up for the organisation so vehemently.

I do not beleive he could or will answer for the company, this is because Barclays probably know who he is (or could find out) and one word out of place i.e. saying I find the manner in which the bank operated in Africa abhorent (because any right thinking member of our society would beleive it to be so) will find him in a queue in the local Jobcentre.

I was simply attempting to educate the gentleman as to the actions undertaken by the bank in the past, which he appears by his own response not to beleive were reprehensible or even occured.

He in my opinion is being very selective in what he reads in the links that have been posted.

However, I have nothing against him personally, I just think if someone takes his position then they should "take it all the way" so to speak and not be selective in their comments.

krisskross

savagej wrote: »

I was just trying to get his opinion as he sticks up for the organisation so vehemently.

I do not beleive his could or will answer for the company, this is because Barclays probably know who he is (or could find out) and one word out of place i.e. saying I find the manner in which the bank operated in Africa abhorent (because an right thinking member of our society would beleive it to be so) will find him in a queue in the local Jobcentre.

I was simply attempting to educate the gentleman as to the actions undertaken by the bank in the past, which he appears by his own response not to beleive were reprehensible or even occured.

He in my opinion is being very selective in what he reads in the links that have been posted.

However, I have nothing against him personally, I just think if someone takes his position then they should "take it all the way" so to speak and not be selective in their comments.

I think the forum will probably lose the advice of someone who actually knows what he is talking about but then that will be nothing new. It appears to be across the boards that a poster is attacked for the policies of the company they work for even though the poster has no input. BM has to be selective, just because he works for a company does not mean he agrees with or approves of every single one of their policies.

never-in-doubt

I think most of the people on here will agree that BM is a great asset, but true to form he is very selective and whenever you see the name Barclays, you can be sure he will post something thus our argument that he is selective.

It would be a crying shame to see him go, but then I also agree that a lot of the helpful posters are being alienated/attacked and it will only be a matter of time before we decide to go elsewhere!

will-in-estoril

MSE was set up as the consumer's champion. By its very nature it is 100% transparent and not beholden to anyone or any company. This very independence sets it apart.

Posters offer advice and have opinions; this is what makes a forum so interesting.

MSE additionally has registered representatives of companies, which is consistent with its transparent nature.

The issue that I and others have is when waters become muddied. Using a company's name as one's pseudonym immediately associates that person with that company. There is obviously a desire to be so associated, otherwise the name would not be used.

If the poster then uses a disclaimer, disassociating themselves from any official line of that company then already mixed messages are being sent out. Why use the name in the first place??!!

Finally, if there is then a blanket defence of that company in whatever circumstances, or endorsement of products, all transparency is lost and the forum becomes devalued, not enriched.

I would like to see an MSE rule change which prevents members from using company names, except in the circumstances I outlined in paragraph 3.

Inactive

will-in-estoril wrote: »

I would like to see an MSE rule change which prevents members from using company names, except in the circumstances I outlined in paragraph 3.

100% agree Will, summed it up nicely.;):T

savagej

Indeed, I also agree.

I think BM's name should not be BM and he should be free to voice his personal opinion, without fear of retaliation by his employer, or as you said he should be the voice of the company toeing the line which he can't really do as it would require being passed by the legal dept. everytime he wanted to post something.

Joe_Bloggs

I would like to point out that I do not represent the Joe Bloggs Clothing company.
I hope this is not treated as a mixed message.
J_B.

never-in-doubt

Joe_Bloggs wrote: »

I would like to point out that I do not represent the Joe Bloggs Clothing company.
I hope this is not treated as a mixed message.
J_B.

Is Joe Bloggs clothing? LOL - I thought it was what you named an unknown male (Jane Doe / Joe Bloggs)...... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

NO - I am not blonde either :rotfl: