Can I do this?

[Deleted User]

and as for letting the banks make the rules and holding them up as a beacon to follow, well just look round at the mess they have got us in to.

Herbalus

ValiantSon wrote: »

What a tedious (and wrong) pedant you are turning out to be.



Except you wouldn't, because as you yourself stated, your credit history is wiped off after 6 years, so by the time the Cifas marker was removed you would no longer have that previous history to fall back on.

I've lost interest in discussing anything with you as you are so desperate to score points. Intelligent discussion interests me, but petty point scoring doesn't. Good luck with your life.

I must say I applaud your persistence and clarity in explanation; even though it looks at times like your effort has no effect.

(No offence intended for those with opposite views).

Herbalus

Deleted_User wrote: »

Retreat? Never. Get bored? Often.

In the same way Emily Wilding Davison threw herself in front of the Kings Horse because she believed what the establishment (majority) ruled was right was IN FACT wrong, I believe in this case I'm right. I might not carry the majority with me but I bet I'm not alone. I take some small comfort, if not the £200 switching bonus, that Pythagoras and Aristotle knew the world was round when the rest of the world took it as flat as A FACT.

Sorry, you lost me. I see you were responding to drama, but the tragic death of a feminist (regardless of effect) is not the same level as a business deciding on own terms it does not wish to offer a product. Equating these seems odd at best.

Internet you are a strange beast.

[Deleted User]

Herbalus wrote: »

Sorry, you lost me. I see you were responding to drama, but the tragic death of a feminist (regardless of effect) is not the same level as a business deciding on own terms it does not wish to offer a product. Equating these seems odd at best.

Internet you are a strange beast.

When our dear Emily was denied the right to vote, she was given reasons (more like excuses), none of which turned out to be of any validity but nevertheless, reasons.

HSBC say "Switch, pay in £1750 a month, move two direct debits or Standing Orders. I meet all this criteria but the computer says no. All I'm asking is, why?

This for me is a game. I need the £200 for one reason and one reason only, to win the game. I got all the other switching bonus but have been denied this one. Bit like starting a game of chess but not being allowed a queen. I cant win and I'm not even entitled to know why. Annoying but hardly life changing.

We move on.

Herbalus

Again, your struggle to win the game is nothing like the struggle for women to achieve equality.

stehouk

My opinion is they should at least explain why they've declined an application so at least i may be able to rectify the problem, but it is my opinion and i am entitled to it and i am not trying to force it on anyone else.

mgdavid

Deleted_User wrote: »

and as for letting the banks make the rules and holding them up as a beacon to follow, well just look round at the mess they have got us in to.

You may be in a mess - I'm certainly not.

[Deleted User]

mgdavid wrote: »

You may be in a mess - I'm certainly not.

Spoken like a true.....

I'll let readers make their own minds up.

[Deleted User]

stehouk wrote: »

My opinion is they should at least explain why they've declined an application so at least i may be able to rectify the problem, but it is my opinion and i am entitled to it and i am not trying to force it on anyone else.

You're right of course, unless they've turned you down because of your colour, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. We will never know though will we, not as long as banks can hide behind this non-disclosure malarkey.

[Deleted User]

Herbalus wrote: »

Again, your struggle to win the game is nothing like the struggle for women to achieve equality.

No !!!! Sherlock.

Nobody is claiming the struggles are on the same level, but it's still on a level, its a principle at stake.