Stupid Banker

[caddyman]

Yesterday we heard that the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of banks charging for overdrafts. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is considering its position in the light of the judgement and deciding how to proceed, if at all.

The problem is, of course, that it’s not the concept of charges for overdrafts that most people are against; it’s manifestly unfair charges for overdrafts. The Times discusses the issue here.


...but it's their cartoonist, Peter Brookes, who gets it absolutely spot on.

How much of our money was used to bail these b******s out, again?

Comments

[jfs.livejournal.com]

They didn't rule in favour of the banks; in fact they expressly said that they were not ruling on the level of the charges.

The ruling said that the OFT couldn't use the bit of legislation that they wanted to to pursue the claim because the charges didn't fall under that bit of legislation.

They specifically said that a claim under a different bit of legislation would still be possible.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

I should read this stuff more closely before I post about it.

Still, the cartoon hits the spot.

[fencingsculptor.livejournal.com]

What struck me about this story was the apparent underlying threat from the Banking sector, that were they to loose the High Court case, that bank customers could be charged up to £2.50 a time for using a cashpoint.

Normally I wuold have dismissed such a statement out-of-hand as media sensationalism, but having heard it on BBC Radio 4 I was quite alarmed....!

Frankly, as a taxpayer and a RBS customer, I'm getting rather tired of paying to bail out utter bankers.

[colonel-maxim.livejournal.com]

I agree entirely, except that as far as I am concerned, the b******s are the sods who run up voluntary unauthorised overdrafts. They know it will cost them a chunk of money so my suggestion is spend less. I want my free-ish banking.