supreme court rant

Alpine_Star

davidgmmafan wrote: »

The banks HAVE lowered thier charges on the whole.

This is what I thought but in fact figures published by the OFT only yesterday show that revenue from charges has been largely consistent for the 3 years since 2006.

2006 - £2.6b
2007 - £2.48b
2008 - £2.76b
2009 - £2.52

And what is more total revenue for the PCA market has risen from £8b in 2006 to £9b in 2009 http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/OFT1275.pdf

Fiddlestick

Alpine_Star wrote: »

This is what I thought but in fact figures published by the OFT only yesterday show that revenue from charges has been largely consistent for the 3 years since 2006.

2006 - £2.6b
2007 - £2.48b
2008 - £2.76b
2009 - £2.52

And how do you know that at the same time as reducing their charges, more people aren't actually in financial difficulty and racking up said charges?

pingchris

Fiddlestick wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that there were multiple UNSC resolutions approving military action and ignoring the fact that the government went for and won a Parliamentary vote approving action... then yes, I suppose that's the government doing "as they please whenever they wish".

another mug punter,and i suppose the leader of the labour party ed milliband saying going to war was wrong does nothing for you,why was it wrong ? you may ask,because the closest thing iraq had to weapons of mass destruction was a smelly fart,and that was the basis we went to war,weaopons of mass destruction,there arent any,there never was any,that was the excuse the bliar muppets gave to go to war.they lie to get there aim,lie lie lie lie lie,thats what there good at,thats what bankers are good at,they want money and power and to hell with the people of britain.we could all eat bread and water for all they care as long as there bonus money rolls into the bank accounts,and that very bonus money is bank charges,and the oft the supreme court did nothing to stop them.
i will not comment any longer on this thread as discussing it with some of you is a waste of time and effort,so keep your blinkers on,and keep running.

Alpine_Star

Fiddlestick wrote: »

And how do you know that at the same time as reducing their charges, more people aren't actually in financial difficulty and racking up said charges?

I don't. My point is that lower headline charges don't seem to equate to an overall reduction in consumer detriment.

To a degree you might be right but I think it's more to do the trend over the last few years has moved away from a single fee for an unauthorised transaction of say £30 to 2 or 3 lower charges which in total aren't any less. In other words lower fees but more of them.

Fiddlestick

pingchris wrote: »

that very bonus money is bank charges,and the oft the supreme court did nothing to stop them.

No, not it's not.

Retail banking is completely separate from investment banking.

The fact that you are comparing the two just shows your ignorance of the subject.

zppp

pingchris wrote: »

i will not comment any longer on this thread as discussing it with some of you is a waste of time and effort,so keep your blinkers on,and keep running.

I see who woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

You wll be sorely missed (;))