'We lost everything gambling on shares'

ffacoffipawb

le_loup wrote: »

Is there an echo in here?

No, just a c0ckwomble.

Thrugelmir

Barclays has better uses of it's time than to respond to all the rants it receives I suspect.

Luz

masonic wrote: »

I guess Barclays (quite rightly) doesn't see this as worth the effort to complain about. The companies that have complained have tended to do so when the negative comments at least look credibl

Luz

masonic wrote: »

I guess Barclays (quite rightly) doesn't see this as worth the effort to complain about. The companies that have complained have tended to do so when the negative comments at least look credible.

Or maybe they are taking part on it ...I wonder ..

Luz

Luz wrote: »

masonic wrote: »

I guess Barclays (quite rightly) doesn't see this as worth the effort to complain about. The companies that have complained have tended to do so when the negative comments at least look credibl

LOL .Sometimes is better and pays off to just let go .Like that, plonkers who don't know anything about what went on, still side with them, and most of all they are extremely busy with FCA , FRAUD OFFICE ,ALL OF THAT.

masonic

If I'm reading your incoherent ramblings correctly, then yes, leaving you to carry on posting your nonsense is pretty much guaranteed to make anyone who reads this thread side with them.

bigadaj

masonic wrote: »

I guess Barclays (quite rightly) doesn't see this as worth the effort to complain about. The companies that have complained have tended to do so when the negative comments at least look credible.

It's more the naming of individuals I was thinking about, rather than the corporate bodies.

atush

bigadaj wrote: »

Given the recent sites sensitivities to potential for libel and slander I find it interesting that this thread has been allowed to run by the forum team.

Totes agree.

I got told off much much less than this rambling incoherent slanderfest.

colsten

Who is Mr Atkins ?

Anything to do with the Atkins diet?

broke4good

I see that you like to make jokes and ridiculise people but did not make a single comment about the message that other posts try to deliver.
Do you think that it is normal for a platform which allow to trade on margin to be given to any clients and allow to run from 2008 to 2013, then moved to the high risks investment?
This platform had no mention in the terms and conditions about the ATI feature. IT was a simple share dealing account on execution ONLY. Orders should only be executed if the clients has deposited money in the account. Otherwise it is a leveraged account.
Did you know that the platform activity and events during the FOS case were reported to the FCA and SFO from March 2013 to February 2014?