Santander 123 rate to be cut to 1.5%

YorkshireBoy

metrobus wrote: »

T&Cs do not refer to the situation.

Yes they do.

joe134

eskbanker wrote: »

But that's my point, your comment that I was responding to was specifically that "Bob Diamond, Fred the Shred et.al should be behind bars now". Neither of the two you named were associated with HSBC or Santander by the way, and for that matter neither employed Tom Hayes....

And yes, all the fines you refer to are a matter of public record but (a) they don't necessarily signify illegal activity as such and (b) for any that did, it's not as simple as jailing an entire chain of command up to the top of a company, the law doesn't work like that. Are you suggesting that, say, the CEO of Tesco should be jailed if a checkout person has their fingers in the till?

As I say, I'm not trying to defend an industry here, just offering a counter-argument to the viewpoint that a whole raft of CEOs should be jailed as a result of actions by others within their organisations (or even other organisations!).

Well if you do have evidence thre the CPS would be delighted to hear from you...

.

Bob and Fred were involved in Barclays and RBS.

1;;Bob Diamond; Bob Diamond’s resignation as CEO of Barclays, announced Monday at 11:51 PM London time, was practically inevitable given the rising furor over the LIBOR scandal from politicians and regulators. The British authorities were already bashing its banks for allegedly excessive pay and “casino-style” risk taking, and planning new rules far more draconian than U.S. reforms — including a proposal to “ring-fence” the retail business by separating it from investment banking.
Bob Diamond;;He walked away with millions in Golden Handshake

.
Fred the Shred;
“That created the risk of recklessness and there was a culture of economic violence – meaning that the leadership changed to an overtly aggressive and macho management style. Failures in that leadership were a factor in what became the collapse of RBS.” In the wake of the collapse, Mr Goodwin was stripped of his knighthood after presiding over the biggest loss in UK corporate history.

He also walked away with a Golden Handshake.

The CPS didn't have proof, because no one looked into them deep enough, but I'm sure they could if they wanted to., like you, they turned a blind eye.
Too much at stake for other CEO's of other banks
No Banker, CEO, to my knowledge has ever gone to jail.

I Did say in MY opinion they should be banged up, but you obviously , as I said, would defend them to the hilt.

Rob a bank, you get jail;
Try and defraud a bank, you get jail.
Banks close your accounts, don't have to give a reason.
Lie to them, CIFAS, possibly jail
etc
practically bring one down, you get rewarded.
If it wasn't for our tax money, RBS would have fallen.
Lloyds too, and he's just been rewarded again..
The list is endless .
They were only doing their job.
Just the way we do Business.
Same as Mr Shifty,BHS, (digressing)
Perhaps if you were directly involved, and lost, you would be of a different opinion.
You cannot defend, the indefensible, but, by golly, you.et.al certainly do your best.

Seem we are at an impasse.again, which I predicted.
Nowt so blind as them that won't see.
I will let this thread get back to it's original agenda.

Consumerist

And on that note, I have made the jump to Co-operative while the £150 incentive is still available - well, I've pulled the rip cord but still waiting for the parachute to open - and that should offset the interest lost by jumping early.

The problem now is that I will need to open a standard current account with Santander because I have a regular/monthly saver which can only be added to and withdrawn from a Santander current account. Talk about entrapment ! :rotfl:

eskbanker

joe134 wrote: »

you obviously , as I said, would defend them to the hilt.

[...]

You cannot defend, the indefensible, but, by golly, you.et.al certainly do your best.

I think the one thing we are agreed on is that this diversion is becoming futile but once again let me just take issue with your unfounded assertion that anyone who disagrees with a basher is therefore defending bank(er)s - I was just trying to educate you on some basic points of common law and logic, as those of the "string 'em up" persuasion don't seem to pay much attention to niceties like these!

joe134

eskbanker wrote: »

I think the one thing we are agreed on is that this diversion is becoming futile but once again let me just take issue with your unfounded assertion that anyone who disagrees with a basher is therefore defending bank(er)s - I was just trying to educate you on some basic points of common law and logic, as those of the "string 'em up" persuasion don't seem to pay much attention to niceties like these!

nothing wrong with education, but,too old of a cat to be chased by a kitten.
I've given enough facts;You only gave obfuscation of them.
there is a big difference between common law and criminal law.
in my eyes they fall into the latter, in yours the former.

nuff said
agree to disagree:beer:

IanManc

joe134 wrote: »

there is a big difference between common law and criminal law.

This statement is rubbish.

For example, all murders in England and Wales are charged contrary to common law.

Some common law relates to civil matters and some criminal, but common law is still real, enforceable and current law. "Common law" simply means that the source of the law is other than statute, secondary legislation etc.

harz99

Consumerist wrote: »

And on that note, I have made the jump to Co-operative while the £150 incentive is still available - well, I've pulled the rip cord but still waiting for the parachute to open - and that should offset the interest lost by jumping early.

The problem now is that I will need to open a standard current account with Santander because I have a regular/monthly saver which can only be added to and withdrawn from a Santander current account. Talk about entrapment ! :rotfl:

Done the same with my 123 after almost emptying it into 2+% FR accounts. It's a pain having to open the account and then call to do the switch though.


As wife and I had 3 123s between us, we've just switched our regular saver payments to come out of the joint account rather than our individual ones.

Kernel_Sanders

adindas wrote: »

But this is not a math test.

Nick_C wrote: »

Well actually it is a maths test.

Yeah, dead right; I don't like Americanisms either

adindas

karlie88 wrote: »

As said previously, it refers to both cashback and interest rates.

Quite surprised people didn't realise it was for both...

Back a few years ago, when Santander123 was launched it is was advertised as such that in 123 the 3% is part of the product name such as shown in this picture. The people have subscribed to this product / services based on this. Now Santander will change the interest to 1.5% in November 2016. People are certainly free to leave or to stay voting on their own feet with this change taking place which based on this thread and other posts some people have decided to do so. But this is not the issue, the issue here is the product name which is linked to the interest rate.

No doubt that Santander legal team must have looked into this issue. But looking from other perspective, I wonder, If Santander could still use the branded product Santander 123 without breaching the rule of Standard Advertisement Agency or it is still a grey area and therefore widely open to legal challenge ??

bigadaj

Well you could start an account called the 8/9/10 account, but no one would force you to pay 10% interest.