Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

coolchris

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About coolchris

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. OK, I agree that this can be going around in circles, but let me just point something out: there is NO racism involved whatsoever.Words implanted like that can give readers false perceptions, and yet again bend the actual situation. The power of words and their interpretations, is at the heart of the situation, and this is so well played out here as well. I would like comments from others if that is possible, but thank you for your time anyway emmzzi.
  2. The policy is basically not to bring the company into disrepute.The PICTURE can be seen as brining the company into disrepute, but the comment was for the sentiment the picture depicted, what it alluded to. From what I can gather it seems these types of "disciplinary's" are based on Napoleonic law in that one is guilty until proven innocent. It is also a matter of interpretation and putting words out of context to match a "managers" way of thinking. And also does not the disciplinary committee have a conflict of interest if they are attached to the company?
  3. Sorry, but how does failing to report a picture condone it? So in that context: everyone who works for the company who saw the picture is, in effect , also guilty. Thought crimes are not part of law just yet! If this was a court of law this would be an absolute joke and thrown out. And I also did NOT say that I am the supposed writer of the comment!
  4. Im not saying that the picture was not seen, if you have read what I have written. There is no question of a "I did not see it" defence whatsoever. Read my last post to fully understand the situation please.
  5. There is a union rep, however the basis of the charge seems to be that the comment condones the taking of the picture. This is clearly not the case as the comment refers to the sentiment of the picture, not the taking of the picture itself. There seems to me to be 2 elements to this: 1. the physical taking of the picture in the workplace 2. the sentiment of the photo. The powers that be say the comment condones the taking of the picture, whereas the comment is clearly agreeing with the sentiment, nothing more, nothing less. It seems there is a very weak case on their part and they are trying to use the comments/words out of context to fit their agenda. The works policy is bringing the company into disrepute. The comments, as stated, do not mention the company whatsoever or are about anyone that works there. The happen to be under a photo that was tagged by the originator of the photo as being taken at workplace. Please note what I pointed out: 2 elements. First element: photo taking - yes that is punishable by hearing. 2: sentiment of the photo, wherein company not mentioned in any way, or anyone from company; merely agreeing with the sentiment of the photo and its implications.
  6. Hi. The one taking the photograph and the one who commented. Sorry it is a little hard to follow, but its difficult to word in such away as to not divulge any names/facts etc, that a search might reveal. I need to keep this as general as possible. thanks.
  7. Sorry, the comment is relating not to a person , but to the sentiment of the photograph. The argument is solely based on the fact that the photo was taken within the workplace and tagged as said workplace. The photo was deemed inappropriate but does not contain a person, just objects.
  8. A comment was posted on facebook regarding a photo that was taken in the work place. The photo was tagged as the workplace and a comment by the originator of the photo was in relation to a recent UK commemoration. A comment by another work colleague was left about the sentiment of the posting, does not imply or mention the workplace name whatsoever; however a disiplinary hearing is to take place that argues the comment brings the company into disrepute, even though, as stated, the 5 worded comment does not mention or imply work place whatsoever. Are they justified to bring about disciplinary proceeding on these grounds? Yes, agreed on the originator of the photo, but the colleagues comment, I feel, should not be taken this far. Am I correct? Have I missed something? Any help appreciated. Thanks.
  9. That FSA document: these parts I DO NOT agree on. They KNEW exactly what they were doing, and I truely believe that deep down the FSA knows this as well: The extent to which the breach was deliberate or reckless 6.6. The FSA has not determined that Swift deliberately or recklessly contravened regulatory requirements. The size, financial resources and other circumstances of the Firm 6.7. There is no evidence to suggest that Swift is unable to pay the financial penalty. The amount of benefit gained or loss avoided as a result of the breaches 6.8. The FSA has not determined that Swift deliberately set out to accrue additional profits or avoid a loss through the way in which it operated its systems and controls and 14 processes.
  10. Hi. I want to clarify a matter. A halifax bank account that went into arrears and overdraft due to outrageous, never ending charges was passed to an "inhouse" debt collector and they claim that my dispute is not so as it the debt is an overdraft and is not covered by section 77-79 of the consumer credit act 1974, which refers to credit agreements. Overdrafts are covered in section 74. That section, she says, does not apply to an overdraft of a current account anyway (?), as it is exempt from the requirements of part V of the act that there will be no documented agreement. So what angle of attack do I now take with this. The bank complaints section have passed from the Inhouse collection - Blair Oliver and Scott to outside agency - Fairfax solicitors, although I have heard nothing from them whatsoever and the bank complaints say I must contact them within 6 MONTHS!!! FROM 12 JULY 2011. .....thats wierd I thought. So anyway, should I just wait until the outside people contact me or are they correct and I cannot fight my dispute as they claim there is none? Any advice on this matter please would be greatfully received.
  11. Hi all . We have just received the annual statement and ALWAYS, every annual "statement" they put Amount of credit for Loan, Broker Fee, Admin Fee. So am I right in thinking that every time we make a payment, they are charging interest on the Broker fee and admin fee as well, and not just the loan amount? So that would be 3 seperate, extortionate interest rates. Taking the raw figures from the statement, it works out roughly 62% is taken from our monthly DD with interest....2/3 of the payment pays the interest and only 1/3 off for the loan. Basically what they have said is £5000 credit for loan, £625 for broker fee and £150 for admin fee. Why quote this annually on the statement if they are not charging interest on fees? Thanks.
  12. [EDIT] I find your bile quite offensive. If your intention is to somehow undermine the work of this site, then unfortunatly you are sadly wasting your time. Sadly being the operative word, loser.
  13. Unfortunatly they dont give a monkeys. It seems that you will have to pay the OD back in some form or another. I could not pay back the full grand of my OD, so I had to wait until it went to their collections department before they were willing to accept MY terms of repayment...5 quid a week!! Thats just how these greedy bstards work.
  14. Just a point of interest of mine: Can anyone please tell me that when you ask for anything from Swift, call Swift, Email Swift..any communication with them whatsoever; that you have received a demand for a fee to handle that communication (plus interest)??? If so, then have you actually contested this? Have you seen how much this will increase your balance over time as they add interest to this? Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...