'We lost everything gambling on shares'

Luz

hope you have something to say to this ,Just look they lost the case with ombudsman ,but their adjudicator got a top job at barclays wealth .Google DAVID ATKINS AT BARCLAYS WEALTH ,AND YOU WILL FIND THE CORRUPTED ADJUDICATOR , WHO MADE A CARRIER OUT OF THEIR MISERY ,.Now ask yourselfs if they were wrong why did barclays needed to corrupt the adjudicator ? and remenber next time you need the ombudsman what mite happen .....

Luz

No apart that , not to lose the case they corrupted the adjudicator DAVID ATKINS GOOLE HIM ON BARCALYS WEALTH IS THERE WORKING TOP JOB out of their case ,so who was right then if barclays had done nothing wrong why the adjudicator gave them a 3 days notice ,went and is employed by barclays . Considering is only job was at the ombudsman after leaving university only for 3 years ,is now on a top job at barclays wealth ,.Is something corrupting an adjudicator .

Archi_Bald

Luz wrote: »

hope you have something to say to this ,Just look they lost the case with ombudsman ,but their adjudicator got a top job at barclays wealth .Google DAVID ATKINS AT BARCLAYS WEALTH ,AND YOU WILL FIND THE CORRUPTED ADJUDICATOR , WHO MADE A CARRIER OUT OF THEIR MISERY ,.Now ask yourselfs if they were wrong why did barclays needed to corrupt the adjudicator ? and remenber next time you need the ombudsman what mite happen .....

Luz wrote: »

No apart that , not to lose the case they corrupted the adjudicator DAVID ATKINS GOOLE HIM ON BARCALYS WEALTH IS THERE WORKING TOP JOB out of their case ,so who was right then if barclays had done nothing wrong why the adjudicator gave them a 3 days notice ,went and is employed by barclays . Considering is only job was at the ombudsman after leaving university only for 3 years ,is now on a top job at barclays wealth ,.Is something corrupting an adjudicator .

Those are potentially libelous allegations.

InvestInPoker

Luz wrote: »

..

ffacoffipawb

Luz wrote: »

Just look they lost the case with ombudsman

If these morons wanted to gamble on shares they should not expect to be bailed out if it goes wrong.


A good sensible decision by the Ombudsman. The simpletons should have stuck with their simple little passbook accounts really.

JohnRo

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

If these morons wanted to gamble on shares they should not expect to be bailed out if it goes wrong.

A good sensible decision by the Ombudsman. The simpletons should have stuck with their simple little passbook accounts really.

You're surely talking about barclays now, right?

Gadfium

Luz wrote: »

The main point of the article was to worn others not to get involved in the same situation .

Someone who just wants to start invest some money ,or get a grasp on the markets ,has to be treated as such ,not be given an account like this a MARGIN account .They will have to ask what are their experience ,then give the account in accordance with their experience . NOT open an account by saying nothing to worry this is the same what they had on paper ,on paper always paid, and their bank account would have to back up the purchase otherwise they would not buy anything .

What happened to people being responsible for their own actions? Give me a scenario where the State tries to intervene in all aspects of life "to protect yourself from yourself" and one where there are the freedoms to go about your business as you wish, and I know which one I will choose every time. Even if that means that some numpties get burned.

Gadfium

Luz wrote: »

Considering is only job was at the ombudsman after leaving university only for 3 years ,is now on a top job at barclays wealth .

Your research skills are sadly lacking (but, hey, never let the truth stand in the way of a good story, eh? ).
Atkins held two roles in different companies from leaving the ombudsman's office to his current role in Barclays. No doubt you'll now claim that this was all part of the cover-up so the move to Barclays wasn't *too* suspicious....

From his LinkedIn profile:
Senior Review OfficerBarclays Wealth and Investment Management
January 2015 – Present (5 months)Senior review officer
Barclays Wealth and Investment Management
January 2015 – Present (5 months)

Investment Suitability Reviewer
EY
February 2014 – October 2014 (9 months)AngelContracting with EY working on a large scale review of a well known high net worth bank conducting a Section 166 past business review of advice including hedge funds, private equity, discretionary managed portfolios, structured products and pension transfers. Since August 2014 I have been in a small team acting as the skilled person for a pilot Section 166 review of investment retail clients including the suitability review of OEIC’s, with-profit funds and structured products/deposits.


Investment Claims Assessor
Deloitte
July 2013 – February 2014 (8 months)EpsomI contracted with Deloitte dealing with investment claims for the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. I was predominantly focused on stockbroking and portfolio assessment claims.

Financial Ombudsman Service
September 2009 – July 2013 (3 years 11 months)Docklands

Glen_Clark

Gadfium wrote: »

What happened to people being responsible for their own actions? Give me a scenario where the State tries to intervene in all aspects of life "to protect yourself from yourself" and one where there are the freedoms to go about your business as you wish, and I know which one I will choose every time. Even if that means that some numpties get burned.

That sounds like you would legalise hard drugs, for example?

Gadfium

Glen_Clark wrote: »

That sounds like you would legalise hard drugs, for example?

No, that would be your conclusion.
That argument is a reductio ad absurdum as you are drastically extrapolating to a completely unrelated situation.