800,000% overdrafts

lanza

mmmm there would be one major problem with this plan. If people migrated their minor affairs to credit unions ex bank staff would try to get jobs there.

That brings us back to the original point.. We need an online naming and shaming system (with photos).. If anybody on the list is found working in a credit union we threaten to close our accounts down with that union.

The criteria for being on the list is to be a manager or anybody with the authority who ever refused to refund a bank charge. Seeing as the charges are all illegal morally and these peoples jobs (as far as i know) are not commission or position dependent on them enforcing charges, then they deny these refunds with willful conscience and collusion. There is no need to ever be overdrawn or charged for it with electronic systems, so the whole thing is a scam these staff collude with, and know full well its wrong. Its only been all over the press for 7 years now.


Would require a bit of concerted organization to put all this into place, but i suppose once its setup it does not require a lot of maintenance. However we dont want a kangaroo system, so for somebody to be named and shamed on this online bankers database we should have rules.

i.e. A start is something like at least 6 people with verifiable facebook and google+ profiles that will provide evidence that they were refused a refund by a particular bank staff. There would need to be moderators with some kind of means to check that this is all legitimate in case there are fraudulent name and shame cases put together.

samjef11_2

lanza wrote: »

Its not just what you say, will make no difference. Even government regulations make no difference. It makes them worse !!

The mad thing is what a great business opportunity right now for somebody to open an honest bank. What is it most of us need them for. Paying in our wages, Direct debits out and buying groceries etc.

There is no need to be overdrawn and charged. The electronic system is quite capable of refusing a transaction if you dont have funds.

If one organization setup and promised no charges, and operated on a 0.3% on transactions or a monthly fee for people with large transactions there would basically be a run on every high street bank in the UK as people closed their accounts. The banks would be devastated. The majority of their customers are just getting by and using it as very basic service, like email for money basically.

Its mind boggling no businessman has tried this. The dragons den wouldnt even knock this one back. I guess there is red tape of some kind that makes it impossible. i.e. maybe the direct debit system is in cahoots with the cartel.

So what is your point here not being rude though?

samjef11_2

lanza wrote: »

mmmm there would be one major problem with this plan. If people migrated their minor affairs to credit unions ex bank staff would try to get jobs there.

That brings us back to the original point.. We need an online naming and shaming system (with photos).. If anybody on the list is found working in a credit union we threaten to close our accounts down with that union.

The criteria for being on the list is to be a manager or anybody with the authority who ever refused to refund a bank charge. Seeing as the charges are all illegal morally and these peoples jobs (as far as i know) are not commission or position dependent on them enforcing charges, then they deny these refunds with willful conscience and collusion. There is no need to ever be overdrawn or charged for it with electronic systems, so the whole thing is a scam these staff collude with, and know full well its wrong. Its only been all over the press for 7 years now.


Would require a bit of concerted organization to put all this into place, but i suppose once its setup it does not require a lot of maintenance. However we dont want a kangaroo system, so for somebody to be named and shamed on this online bankers database we should have rules.

i.e. A start is something like at least 6 people with verifiable facebook and google+ profiles that will provide evidence that they were refused a refund by a particular bank staff. There would need to be moderators with some kind of means to check that this is all legitimate in case there are fraudulent name and shame cases put together.

This not a good idea the moderators and forum staff are far to busy and naming and shaming is like being the media press.

samjef11_2

Oh and moderators please lock this thread as people are going off-topic and the thread poster has not replied so best to lock it.

lanza

samjef11 wrote: »

Oh and moderators please lock this thread as people are going off-topic and the thread poster has not replied so best to lock it.

you have to PM a mod to lock a thread, or press one of the report buttons...seeing as you have been here a good while i would have thought you know this procedure.

do you know if you forget the slightest procedures with your bank They charge nearly a million %. its true. all over the papers this weekend.

well, dont worry about it.. relax and have a beer...:beer: I think i know the procedure to have this thread closed anyway or i can go and find out from a mod how to get that done.

lanza

well the report button just took me to email.

If anybody knows who the right moderator is to ask to close this thread, send them a PM thanks. I kind of reached my conclusion and came up with what i think are original ideas, so my bit is done. The only other contributers here appear to be those rub salt in the wound types. Although their strategy is interesting, there aren't any particularly intelligent versions of that theme happening here. So yeh, unless anybody else has anything interesting to say about this topic perhaps best idea is to lock it, and give room for other topics to be heard.

lanza

samjef11 wrote: »

This not a good idea the moderators and forum staff are far to busy and naming and shaming is like being the media press.

I was thinking a separate web platform for that. This one has enough on its hands and the platform needs to be more complex than PHP to prevent a kangaroo system from emerging. It would really have to copy the basic structure of court procedure, except also allow for not proven verdicts. And the jury process would need to be open so people can decide for themselves if the banker in question got a fair hearing or not.

The last thing i want is a Kangaroo system. I have seen just how stressed some of these banker staff are at having to deal with this, and would do as much as possible to prevent them being wrongly libelled.

We are looking for clear cut examples of the hitler types basically. Do you want them infiltrating credit unions ? These sociopathic types are hunters who just move around to where ever the financial action is. The idea is to have them named with their photos and list of crimes online so that they can never get another job in financial institution where they have some degree of power over vulnerable people.

Also such a site needs to be hosted on a server in some of the few anti-libel EU states, otherwise it can be shut down.

lanza

samjef11 wrote: »

This not a good idea the moderators and forum staff are far to busy and naming and shaming is like being the media press.

So whats your solution. youve seen whats going on in the economic system. they get caught and end up paying themselves higher bonuses and doing even better than before.

The system we have does not work. The internet can, as long as we transpose copies of our legal system on to it. The last thing i want is one of those tabloid press sites with kangaroo justice.

The idea here is to bring morality and fair justice where it is deficient. Not make the situation more deficient in that area. Why not. Do you think we cannot achieve that on the internet ? look what CAG managed to do.

yes its weird our higher institutions are not providing justice, but its because they are too easily infiltrated by their own red tape. The internet is open territory without many laws so at least its a route in. But at the same time that lack of regulation, means ultra responsibility to prevent a wild west and lynch mob mentality.

Easy solution, just make online copies of our justice system. We spent thousands of years developing them, so the hard work has already been done.

opinions4u

lanza wrote: »

If one organization setup and promised no charges, and operated on a 0.3% on transactions or a monthly fee for people with large transactions there would basically be a run on every high street bank in the UK as people closed their accounts.

No there wouldn't.

I'm not walking about from an account that pays me £60 a year for it.

Others won't walk away from their accounts that pay them 5% or 3% interest.

And what incentive is there for the majority who never go overdrawn and earn 0% interest to go to this new enterprise of yours?

You appear to have come up with the brilliant concept of a basic bank account. Guess what. I don't want one.

As for those who rely on their overdrafts, why would they want such an account?

So whats your solution. youve seen whats going on in the economic system. they get caught and end up paying themselves higher bonuses and doing even better than before.

So which high street banks have paid their staff bigger bonuses?

yes its weird our higher institutions are not providing justice, but its because they are too easily infiltrated by their own red tape. The internet is open territory without many laws so at least its a route in. But at the same time that lack of regulation, means ultra responsibility to prevent a wild west and lynch mob mentality.

Easy solution, just make online copies of our justice system. We spent thousands of years developing them, so the hard work has already been done.

I suspect you are certifiable.

lanza

opinions4u wrote: »

I suspect you are certifiable.

there is no need to suspect. I have spent several weeks in mental hospital after i received my first bank charges bill. however I may have had a pre-disposing mental condition prior to that, and the bank had nothing to do with my breakdown. In that sense i suspect then you are entirely correct.


Next interesting comment please.