boycott a bank TODAY!

[rdm2006]

Consumers United against Ruthless Bankers

 

(Curb - anything that restrains or controls; a restraint; check).

 

Banks have been found to be involved in the following:-

• Money Laundering

• Tax evasion

• Aggressive sales (PPI)

• Extortionate charges

• Disproportionate Bonuses

 

 

The government has not “rained in” these bankers even though it promised to do so.

Why not do it ourselves, choose the worst offender of the above and boycott them; It worked with a certain coffee shop and their payment of taxes.

 

If enough people do it, they will be brought to their knees and other banks will have to mend their ways or suffer the same fate.

 

Choosing the (partial) state owned banks would not make sense as we would not get the taxpayers money back so we could choose these banks to move to Thus making them profitable enough to return the taxpayers investment.

 

The switching system is much improved now so it would be fairly easy to do.

 

We could send a letter to the bank to say: -

 

Dear unscrupulous banker

You will notice that my account has been closed and moved to another bank. I have, for a long time, considered that money laundering, tax evasion, aggressive sales techniques (i.e. PPI miss-selling) and (let’s not forget) your extortionate charges and bonuses (regardless of their legality) are immoral and unethical. I will, therefore, no longer do business with you until your bank changes its ways.

I may also choose not to do business with organisations which bank with you, hopefully they (in turn) will also refuse to do business with you.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

A member of CURB (Consumers United against Ruthless Bankers)

 

 

 

We could also send a letter to our local MP’s stating: -

 

Dear sir/madam

The government has failed to adhere to its manifesto in resolving the ruthless actions of bankers. Instead allowing them launder monies in other countries, evade (and assist others to evade) taxation, aggressively “sell” (PPI and other similar products), apply extortionate charges (on those who can least afford it) and grant their bosses rich rewards.

Therefore, as a united body the “Consumers United against Ruthless Bankers” (CURB) has chosen to boycott such banks and deny this or any other government the opportunity to “prop up” such organisations who choose not to mend their ways

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

A Member of CURB

 

and CURB could be part of the consumer action group

Edited March 14, 2013 by rdm2006

[citizenB]

This happened in the US in 2011,

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/bank-transfer-day-40000-join-credit-unions_n_1083744.html

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/11/02/americans-closing-bank-accounts-moving-money-to-credit-unions

 

40,000 customers transferred their money to Credit Unions and it would appear this is still happening.

[rdm2006]

Looks like it works then

[citizenB]

This took place on November 5th, 2011- In the USA

 

Move Your Money Activists Prepare For Bank Transfer Day On Nov. 5

[rdm2006]

We should have a bank transfer day

[citizenB]

I think it would need to be co - ordinated properly. Twitter and FB would get the message shifting pretty quickly - but you would need to rely on people "acting" rather than just saying it is a good idea and doing nothing.

[rdm2006]

If MP's talk about it in parliament it will get lots of coverage

[rdm2006]

Put it on cags facebook page and we could all share it

[citizenB]

Well it is already on the CAG twitter feed, so you might want to continue retweeting it

[citizenB]

It is now on the CAG FB page as well.

[rdm2006]

oh don't you think we should check with BF first.

[citizenB]

Consumers United against Ruthless Bankers

 

 

 

Choosing the (partial) state owned banks would not make sense as we would not get the taxpayers money back so we could choose these banks to move to Thus making them profitable enough to return the taxpayers investment.

 

The switching system is much improved now so it would be fairly easy to do.

 

 

 

Having read your first post again.. are you proposing that we change TO those banks owned by the tax payer ?

 

I kind of think that those banks are not the best to recommend !!

 

I think the main problem would be what bank to switch to.

[rdm2006]

I agree - they are all bad but if we avoid those we lose our own (taxpayers) investment and lets face it if they see one of the bigger, more stable ones go down they will soon change don't you think

[caro]

I keep meaning to change to a building society. At least they are owned by the members.

[Conniff]

I think the sentiment is wonderful, the hard part is getting the British people to do it. We don't have a very good record when it comes to protests and boycotts.

 

We seem to stand and shout a lot, but when it comes to getting off our backsides we leave it to someone else. The trouble is, there is no someone else.

[rdm2006]

It worked with a certain coffee shop so someone must have taken part in that.

[citizenB]

I think the sentiment is wonderful, the hard part is getting the British people to do it. We don't have a very good record when it comes to protests and boycotts.

 

We seem to stand and shout a lot, but when it comes to getting off our backsides we leave it to someone else. The trouble is, there is no someone else.

 

Agreed there is a certain apathy in the British people when it comes to complaining !!

 

I think this needs to be thought through properly. A lot of people have recently set up parachute accounts where they had problems with their original banks - so they might find changing difficult.

 

Anyone who is now entering a BR programme will no longer be able to set up an account with the Co-op and I believe B/shark and one other have also stopped offering accounts to those in BR.

 

A lot of people would have already moved from the banks that tax payers partially owned, because they were the worst for customer service and bank charges.

[rdm2006]

Perhaps cag could put it out as an announcement then it will be put across ALL forums and even talk to other sites like martin lewis to make a joint effort - martin would probably be able to get it on TV.

 

Just a thought

[rdm2006]

 

A lot of people would have already moved from the banks that tax payers partially owned, because they were the worst for customer service and bank charges.

 

I used to be with HSBC and am now with RBS and I have to say at least with RBS I am able to speak to a person who can understand me when I need to.

 

Also if you have had a bad experience with one of those two you can always move to the other - or a credit union.

 

I just feel that boycotting these two would be cutting off your nose to spite your face as so much taxpayers money would be lost, this and the reason above are my only reasons

[nomorecrooks]

@rdm2006: you left out a few minor infractions by HSBC:

 

 

• admitted wilful violation of the trading with the enemy act (Saudi terrorists, Iran & Sudan);
  
• admitted wilful money landering for the murderous mexican drug cartels.
  

I am so offended by HSBC, than any organisation would intentionally assist known terrorists and violent drugs gangs is beyond the pale. This is no longer about simple greed, HSBC is an admitted terrorist organisation which intentionally is attemting to put us all in harms way for a few pieces of silver.

 

If there is any consolation: I imagine that HSBC officers are now afraid that the Israeli secret service might well kill them if they persist in knowingly assisting the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program. If our western Governments can't imprision these criminals who have admitted their guilt then perhaps all we can hope for is that Mossad will deal with them via violence

 

I can say that if the Iranians develop nuclear weapons as a result of HSBC's assistance then I hope they have acquired sufficent gold to live alone someplace far far away.

 

****!

[rdm2006]

if i still had an account with them i would move it to any other bank