Help Get the Bank Charges song to number 1!

maddriver

trubster wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint further martin, but you only made 39 in the "Hit40uk" charts...

http://www.hit40uk.com/chart/

I now see why its best to listen to the "OFFICIAL" radio 1 charts... lol

Weird, generally you can switch from one station to the other (Radio 1 and local station playing hit 40) and hear the same song, just dealyed slighty cos local station has ads to fit in.

I always assumed they both played the same chart and wondered why they both claimed to play the number 1 record first.

Edna_Bucket_2

wes88 wrote: »

reminds me of a bad That's Life sketch....

... no content at all ... in fact, you'd think it had all been a bit of a laugh. Might as well call it "Its a funny old world" or something for all the point of it.

Sad thing is, I love the original(s) of this song .. but that is basically an advert for MSE more than about a very serious issue for many.

Just what the debate needed ... not!!!

Hey, that's a bit of an insult to the sainted Esther! She'd have done a far better spoof of the song! :rotfl: :rotfl:

No seriously - which original(s)? Who did it first - the Crickets, Hank Williams, the big "O", or numerous others listed that I don't know of?

Has to be the Clash for me of course!

Edna_Bucket_2

Jennikay wrote: »

I'm sure the charts are fixed.

I guess some would argue that MSE too tried to "fix" the charts with this song, bearing in mind it has no artistic merit and is just a campaign thing (or a MSE advert if you think like wes88) and heightened the chances of success when the charts are in a lull after the Xmas frenzy. However that's all the record comapnies do anyway with all the PR they do for their offerings.

The whole thing often looks suspect, I agree.

agnes_2

Edna_Bucket wrote: »

Err, would that be all the hordes of people who have pushed the various consumer groups into pushing the OFT to this point, rather a bit before someone penned a little ditty about it?

The OFT should not have required pushing by various consumer groups to this point, in truth, the banks should have been brought to book long long ago over illegal charges. No claimant is objecting to paying a penalty which is a fair and true cost of going overdrawn, prov-en to be no more than £2.50, had it even been £5, but why should they subsidize the running costs of free banking by paying a disproportionate figure of £35 per charge.
Would I be right in assuming you are not a claimant?

IvanOpinion

Agnes wrote: »

The OFT should not have required pushing by various consumer groups to this point, in truth, the banks should have been brought to book long long ago over illegal charges.

Point 1, at this point of time they are not illegal (that is part of what the case is about).

No claimant is objecting to paying a penalty which is a fair and true cost of going overdrawn,

Point 2, some are

prov-en to be no more than £2.50

Point 3, that is media hype based on a low end cost ... I have posted several times that I was once involved in a project (and know of others) that sent unsolicited, unrequested letters (but legally required) that cost upwards of £60 per customer ... so at the other end of the market maybe companies should be allowed to charge whateve they feel like as long as they can justify it.

but why should they subsidize the running costs of free banking

Point 4 that's a myth, banks can make money on an account operated in a responsible manner.

by paying a disproportionate figure of £35 per charge.

Point 5, I agree it is disproportionate ... I can only think some people are very very stupid for agreeing to pay it in the first place .. not to worry actually incur them.

Would I be right in assuming you are not a claimant?

Would I be right in assuming that you are a claimant and therefore have a vested interest in the outcome?

Ivan

Oystar

New photos of Martin and Oystar taken today outside the royal courts of injustice? We'll have to wait and see...

http://www.rexfeatures.com/set/723574

JDPower

Oystar wrote: »

New photos of Martin and Oystar taken today outside the royal courts of injustice? We'll have to wait and see...

http://www.rexfeatures.com/set/723574

Wow, looks like a great protest :rolleyes:

whitewing

Right, I am coming on here to say a very big SORRY to Martin as I am one of the guilty people who didn't buy the song, despite the fact that this site has changed my life and I have got a bank charges refund on hold with the Ombudsman pending the outcome of the court case.

I thought the song was midly amusing, wouldn't buy it normally but would have made the effort for this cause. Except that I didn't do it initially because I thought I had plenty of time. And then I just forgot really. I've seen the threads and email mentions quite a few times but not realised that it was this week, and got so used to seeing it that I just skimmed over it. It's no excuse really. but if an email dedicated purely to this had been sent recently, then I may have remembered. But I was busy with the new year challenges and just got info overload. I do feel bad that I didn't make the effort because I think it's important to show my support, and I also do feel that the whole court thing is a farce/set up anyway, which makes it even more important to show support. So, sorry once again. Maybe a second wave of enthusiasm could push it up the charts?

Edna_Bucket_2

Agnes wrote: »

The OFT should not have required pushing by various consumer groups to this point...

My personal experience of the OFT over many years is that they always need pushing! :rolleyes:

half the time it's like pushing water uphill too...

Edna_Bucket_2

Oystar wrote: »

New photos of Martin and Oystar taken today outside the royal courts of injustice? We'll have to wait and see...

http://www.rexfeatures.com/set/723574

Time to come clean Dan - how many mates have you played a gag on by leaving that horse's head in their bed while they were sleeping, so they woke up next to it???