Hilary's Bush

[Craig Lamson]

How about a cite for that, complete with a transcript so we can see context.

Try here, full transcript. It is from his radio show.

Dead Link Stephen,

But no problem I've seen the Media Matter "account" of the program. Not a great source IMO.

Even if we take Media Matters matters at face value, we can see the Dawn got good parts of this very wrong.

And taken in context, the comments by Limbaugh were spot on. He was simply telling this reported that he was going to investigate the reporter, in hte same manner the reporter was going to investigate Limbaugh. Now unless you think its fair game for one reporter to do deep investigation on another, and not ok for the second reporter to do the same in return, Limbaugh had it right.

And as it applies to the point that there is "no freedom of thought in America" well it appeers that statemnt too is pure hogwash.

I guess what Dawn seems to want is freedom of thought for her side but not for anyone else.

[Ron Ecker]

A case in point in the UK, with which I am familiar and have campaigned, is the terribly excessive bank changes unlawfully charged to a customers account for a routine electronic bounce of a payment. Charges of £30.00 and higher are typical. The costs of automated computer bouncing of payments is mere pence.

Sounds very similar to bank charges for late credit card payments here in the U.S. If your monthly payment is an hour late, you get hit with a $30 to $40 late fee. I wonder if it really costs the bank that much more to bill you for next month if you're late than it does if you're on time. (Does it cost the bank $30 to hit you with an automatic $30 charge on your next statement?)

[Guest David Guyatt]

A case in point in the UK, with which I am familiar and have campaigned, is the terribly excessive bank changes unlawfully charged to a customers account for a routine electronic bounce of a payment. Charges of £30.00 and higher are typical. The costs of automated computer bouncing of payments is mere pence.

Sounds very similar to bank charges for late credit card payments here in the U.S. If your monthly payment is an hour late, you get hit with a $30 to $40 late fee. I wonder if it really costs the bank that much more to bill you for next month if you're late than it does if you're on time. (Does it cost the bank $30 to hit you with an automatic $30 charge on your next statement?)

Ron, a UK bank employee who whistlebew earlier this year on the subject provided in-house bank documentation showing that the cost of automated bounces was in the region of 10 pence an item. Manual intervention to bounce cost around £2.00. The rest is unlawful profit.

I cannot imagine the US is any different because they have been much further ahead in using automation that the UK banking industry. What I don't know is if in the US such profiteering masquerading as charges is unlawful or not. It most certainly is unlawful here, which is why over 100,000 people have successfully sued all the UK banks and won and had all their charges, sometimes ranging up to tens of thousands of pounds repaid, plus annual interest of 8% going back years. In fact none of the banks ever presented a defence in court, allowing the judges, in every case, to rule against them and order repayment as above.

However, as the courts were getting overwhelmed with small claim actions, and judges began yelping for the government to intervene and the government, therefore, pressured its yawning watchdog to take action. The result of this will be made public shortly. But I am convinced that there has been a deal cut and the government will modify the law to ensure that a charge of between £8-12 per item bounced, has already been negotiated in secret. This is only my best guess but it is drawn from various hints made over previous months. Most people do not wish to believe this will happen, but the picture of reality is that the government wouldn't ever consider demanding the banks to repay £22 billion. Afterall, a sizeable chunk of that sum has already hit the government coffers through taxation on annual profits.

Legal thievery, I believe it is called.

Other people regard it as the democratic process. Ha!

David

[Craig Lamson]

A case in point in the UK, with which I am familiar and have campaigned, is the terribly excessive bank changes unlawfully charged to a customers account for a routine electronic bounce of a payment. Charges of £30.00 and higher are typical. The costs of automated computer bouncing of payments is mere pence.

Sounds very similar to bank charges for late credit card payments here in the U.S. If your monthly payment is an hour late, you get hit with a $30 to $40 late fee. I wonder if it really costs the bank that much more to bill you for next month if you're late than it does if you're on time. (Does it cost the bank $30 to hit you with an automatic $30 charge on your next statement?)

Ron, a UK bank employee who whistlebew earlier this year on the subject provided in-house bank documentation showing that the cost of automated bounces was in the region of 10 pence an item. Manual intervention to bounce cost around £2.00. The rest is unlawful profit.

I cannot imagine the US is any different because they have been much further ahead in using automation that the UK banking industry. What I don't know is if in the US such profiteering masquerading as charges is unlawful or not. It most certainly is unlawful here, which is why over 100,000 people have successfully sued all the UK banks and won and had all their charges, sometimes ranging up to tens of thousands of pounds repaid, plus annual interest of 8% going back years. In fact none of the banks ever presented a defence in court, allowing the judges, in every case, to rule against them and order repayment as above.

However, as the courts were getting overwhelmed with small claim actions, and judges began yelping for the government to intervene and the government, therefore, pressured its yawning watchdog to take action. The result of this will be made public shortly. But I am convinced that there has been a deal cut and the government will modify the law to ensure that a charge of between £8-12 per item bounced, has already been negotiated in secret. This is only my best guess but it is drawn from various hints made over previous months. Most people do not wish to believe this will happen, but the picture of reality is that the government wouldn't ever consider demanding the banks to repay £22 billion. Afterall, a sizeable chunk of that sum has already hit the government coffers through taxation on annual profits.

Legal thievery, I believe it is called.

Other people regard it as the democratic process. Ha!

David

Two ways to NEVER pay any big bank fees...

1. Be responsible....don't overdraw, don't pay late, don't exceed your credit limit. All very simple. If you somehow DO find a late payment (slow mails etc.) call the CC company. IF you have a clean history they generally will remove the charge.

2. Vote with your feet. If you don't like the terms don't agree and go somewhere else. We bank with a credit union and the terms are very fair indeed.

Edited October 25, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Guest David Guyatt]

When you come to think of it, Peter, the readyteller system is far cheaper for the banks to run than employing staff. It was, therefore, brought in for the conveneince of bottom line -- and thousands of staff were sacked as a result.

It's your money and they're charging you to withdraw it or use it.

No one could have imagined this thirty years ago.

David

[John Simkin]

I wonder how many visitors to this thread thought it was about another subject?

[Guest David Guyatt]

In reading back over posts in this thread, I see we have ranged quite far and wide. From the original post of about Hilary getting assistance from a Bush man, then on to Obama, then onwards with political correctness and remembrances about not standing up when the national anthem was played in cinemas (that was naughty of you John Simkins – I did the same, too), then on to issues of respect in the UK or USA, then a repetition about Obama, then a brief discussion about similarities on how citizens of the UK and USA are treated. Then moving forward to blood sports, for pity’s sake, followed by more on unrepresentative government (one of my favourite gripes, I’m afraid), followed by a brief illustration of this in the banking sector (another of my favourite gripes). Which is where we presently rest.

All part of a days play in the Education Forum.

Maybe to round it off, I should start on about how major sporting events are completely rigged -- thanks to a consortium of TV bosses eager to increase ratings and advertising revenue, and the gambling industry that massively benefits from match and event fixing…

Maybe we should rename the thread to just "Hilary" and use that name as a cipher to mean anything we please (she seems to…).

David

Edited October 26, 2007 by David Guyatt

[Steve Ulman]

Maybe we should rename the thread to just "Hilary" and use that name as a cipher to mean anything we please (she seems to…).

David

Thank you - I needed that this morning.

Back towards the semi-original point - evidently, several of Obama's donors are youngsters - some even still in diapers. (too bad I can't find the article right now) The way around donor caps for those with money is to donate under your kid's name - standard practice but the Obama camp got caught.

BANKS!!! Don't you just love how they charge you fees to use services that save them money - ATM fees, electronic bill pay monthly fee, fee to get an electronic copy of a past statement, etc. Not sure which is worse - the banks for charging the fees or John Q. Public for paying them with out a whimper.