'F*** Barclays – brilliantly terrible graffiti' blog discussion

cactusdust

I personally don't see the issue. The word has to be taken into context for a child to understand it and use it- unless of course your child has an understanding of it already.


Martin owns this website- he therefore has full control over its content. As far as I see it, he calls the shots.. anyone that takes issue with this has every right to leave at their will. Double standards can apply with no consequence.

chocsessential

They could have made their point without using a swear word.

Norman_Castle

There is no swearing in the forum

There is now.There is a link to your photograph at the start of this thread.

Yet the picture did not appear in the forum it appeared on the main site with in the blog. There as the content is bespoke and much more controllable provided only by the team we judge on a case by case basis.

The forum,main site and blog are read as one.Censoring forum users individually would be an impossible task,but you should censor yourself to a standard equal to what you expect from others.

cactusdust

Norman_Castle wrote: »

There is now.There is a link to your photograph at the start of this thread.
The forum,main site and blog are read as one.Censoring forum users individually would be an impossible task,but you should censor yourself to a standard equal to what you expect from others.

So you're saying you've never set double standards ever?

sabretoothtigger

Paul_Herring wrote: »

However Barclays certainly benefited from other banks which did take the 'public shilling.'

Consider, if none of the banks had been 'bailed out,' would Barclays survived?

It could be definitely argued they would have benefited far more without any bailouts

I think the main one they used was liquidity and very short term loans provided by Bank of England.
Im not sure if thats a bail out or the normal business of BOE to provide stable currency

Lehmans was due to be bought by Barclays before it collapsed but it was blocked. They actually gained more by buying only the good assets afterwards.
If hbos assets were left in the same way the customers would most likely be favouring barclays more. Since customers saving with a bank is a vital source of cash funding, yes they would have benefited overall I think

As it was anyway, in 2008 autumn Barclays received alot of money from Bradford Bingley and other perceived failures


Its been assumed that bail outs were the solution, what if it caused the problem


This thread demonstrates, you cant save people from themselves. People will create a problem where there isnt one if you let them

The thread and blog title make it clearly obvious and if its offensive, you knew that before even clicking on it

Queen-Bee_2

For goodness sake, can't we have a chortle sometimes without the intervention of the morality police?

If you don't like it, move to another thread!!!

I think it was both opportunistic and amusing, though I'd like to know what the motive was behind the 'art'!

Paul_Varjak

I bet if I write !!!! BARCLAYS my post will be automatically moderated. Yet it is OK to !!!! in a photo and publish it here?

Paul_Herring

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

It could be definitely argued they would have benefited far more without any bailouts

I think the main one they used was liquidity and very short term loans provided by Bank of England.

Not quite, it was foreign sovereign wealth funds.

Paul_Herring

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

I bet if I write !!!! BARCLAYS my post will be automatically moderated. Yet it is OK to !!!! in a photo and publish it here?

As has already been pointed out, it wasn't posted to the forums.

whosforachat

I do not understand why some people have a problem with swearing. What is wrong with it?