Off-topic chat. May contain offensive language or images.
User avatar
By dimtimjim
#425819
Now there is a good game..... "If I were DevilsDuck I would __________" (Fill in the blank)

No prize on offer.
User avatar
By dimtimjim
#425867
DevilsDuck wrote: foots.....he doesn't count


Which must make his job as a banker more challenging...
User avatar
By Yudster
#425872
As I understand it, Foots' job is less being a banker, more telling bad bankers off.
User avatar
By dimtimjim
#425879
Yudster wrote: telling bad bankers off.


Really? That'll take a ruddy long time!
User avatar
By foot-loose
#425916
Yudster wrote:As I understand it, Foots' job is less being a banker, more telling bad bankers off.

My job is making 100% sure the Bank has done everything correctly, properly and fairly from a customers point of view.
User avatar
By Yudster
#425938
You told me you tell them off.
User avatar
By dimtimjim
#425939
foot-loose wrote: My job is making 100% sure the Bank has done everything correctly, properly and fairly from a customers point of view.


Really? Well I can tell you they 100% don't....! More work to do Foots!
User avatar
By dimtimjim
#425952
Ha! My sister is on the front cover of one of the 'womans weekly' magazines! How bizarre!

Apparently her and her fella used the money to get HD tv and blu-ray player set up!
User avatar
By dimtimjim
#425954
No, no, you misread, womans weekly, not mans wankly.
User avatar
By foot-loose
#426051
Yudster wrote:You told me you tell them off.

Well, yes and no. I dont normally "tell them off". If I am talking to someone and they are being a pillock then I will explain my opinion and give them the oppertunity to resolve the issue. Generally though, I tell their boss how they * up and tell their boss to make sure it doesn't happen again.

dimtimjim wrote:
foot-loose wrote: My job is making 100% sure the Bank has done everything correctly, properly and fairly from a customers point of view.


Really? Well I can tell you they 100% don't....! More work to do Foots!

I agree that there is a lot of work still to do, especially with how the bank relates to its customers. I disagree that banks get it wrong 100% of the time. As I said - my job is to decide whether the bank has got it right or if it has * it up. My perspective has got to be customer focused - if there is an element of doubt over which side is right, I won't side with the bank. If the bank * up as much as you, and the press say we do, I would know about it and agree with you.

There is a significant difference between the bank getting it wrong and the customer agreeing with a decision the bank has made. There is also a difference between what the press says has happened and what actually happened.

If anyone wants to discuss anything specific - hit the PM button.
User avatar
By Boboff
#426056
It's almost like there are two sides to the story!

I do know one thing, with the FSCS putting the limit up to £85k, the banks can never expect again to be bailed out, this government will let them fail.

Which is how it should be in my eyes.

The fact that the "bail out" will lead to a decent gain eventually, is something the press will gloss over I feel.

When bankers get big bonuses they buy nice houses and kitchens with the 40% they get after the government has taxed the arse of them, which stimulates the housing market and the economy as a whole, so whats the biggie?

I do struggle to see though why they should get a bonus if returns for shareholders are poor, they should be rewarded for performance not attendance. Although I have no proof they are not, except Bill Turnble told me it was true, and as you know, he is a *.
User avatar
By foot-loose
#426084
boboff wrote:It's almost like there are two sides to the story!

I do know one thing, with the FSCS putting the limit up to £85k, the banks can never expect again to be bailed out, this government will let them fail.

Which is how it should be in my eyes.

If the government hadn't bailed them out, we would have been significantly more * than we are now. I agree that there should be enough controls in place that mean we cannot end up in that situation again although I dunno if that is possible.

boboff wrote:The fact that the "bail out" will lead to a decent gain eventually, is something the press will gloss over I feel.

It's almost like the press have their own agenda!
User avatar
By dimtimjim
#426165
bmstinton93 wrote: I'm A Villa Fan today!


there is never any reason to stoop that low.....
User avatar
By catherine
#426170
boboff wrote:It's almost like there are two sides to the story!

I do know one thing, with the FSCS putting the limit up to £85k, the banks can never expect again to be bailed out, this government will let them fail.

Which is how it should be in my eyes.

The fact that the "bail out" will lead to a decent gain eventually, is something the press will gloss over I feel.

When bankers get big bonuses they buy nice houses and kitchens with the 40% they get after the government has taxed the arse of them, which stimulates the housing market and the economy as a whole, so whats the biggie?

I do struggle to see though why they should get a bonus if returns for shareholders are poor, they should be rewarded for performance not attendance. Although I have no proof they are not, except Bill Turnble told me it was true, and as you know, he is a *.


Did you watch this morning?
  • 1
  • 368
  • 369
  • 370
  • 371
  • 372
  • 632

Show is up, and platinum: https://archive.org/dow[…]