Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
I'm not disputing that, but it wasn't my point either.
Not when a former leader quit the party because of this, and not when the party has associated itself with historical revisionists and a policy of deporting immigrants. It is in fact among the most radical far right parties in Europe to have meaningful support.
All my point was that you put ‘far right’ as though you disagree that’s what they are. That’s basically it.I'm not disputing that, but it wasn't my point either.
Works far more the other way. Anything even vaguely left of centre is rabid far left. 'Wokerati' etc. Things like the BBC are biased leftist propaganda but stuff like GB News is balanced and 'telling it how it is'It isn't relevant. Anything that isn't left is 'far-right'. It's more or less lost its meaning. It is odd that this is the only nugget you've taken out of the post.
He thinks that the country cares more about balancing the books than anything else. Except with the winter fuel raid he is robbing Peter to pay VolodymyrI wonder if Starmer has told him that he ”doesn’t need lectures from the likes of him” yet.
It sounds like Starmer will not brook any dissent and is cracking down on MPs who want a debate. He is starting to look like a bit of a bully.
Guess the onus will always be with the victim,no responsibility banking sector, create a market, electronic, make fraud more accessibleLord knows why this is a good idea
Mmm, must be a Reeves booster from the Banking sector, no doubt!!Lord knows why this is a good idea
Regulatory speaking, the UK is the most robust when it comes to compulsory refunding for scam and fraud victims, as well as the most comprehensive Ombudsman service, in Europe. Banks MUST refund unauthorised transactions (fraud), with a very limited scope to decline, and soon banks MUST refund victims of scams (Authorised Push Payment - APP - scams), with a limited scope to decline. The UK is the first country in Europe to introduce mandatory refunding for scam victims, and banks have previously signed up to the Lending Standards Board Contingent Reimbursement Model voluntarily to refund victims of scams.Guess the onus will always be with the victim,no responsibility banking sector, create a market, electronic, make fraud more accessiblecheck , absolve yourself of responsibility check , jobs a good un.
And you all laugh when I tell you your mad to go along with this, don't/won't see it?
It’s good for victims. But I’ve got to ask why it’s the banks fault if you transfer all your cash to a Nigerian man claiming to be a hot girl from Willenhall.
If the banks systems fail then fair enough, but I can’t even pay my cleaner without Barclays asking me if I’m sure it’s not a scam.
Hmm... I work in banking, and have done for a good few years.
Some of these scams are far, far more sophisticated than that, and I can tell you now that banks don't always make it easy to recover funds that people have been conned out of.
From where I'm sitting, there's joint responsibility here. Banks have made a lot of money by moving things online, by automating and removing customer facing staff.
Personally speaking, I think it's inherent on them to share the risks as well as the benefits, and I don't see any obvious reason for reducing the threshold for fraud compensation.
Gets pressure to the right place then won't, internet and phone providers beware, tighten your act up?It’s good for victims. But I’ve got to ask why it’s the banks fault if you transfer all your cash to a Nigerian man claiming to be a hot girl from Willenhall.
If the banks systems fail then fair enough, but I can’t even pay my cleaner without Barclays asking me if I’m sure it’s not a scam.
But how is this an online banking issue? Surely they could just as easily be telling them to withdraw cash from the local branch?
Or is this specifically when someone has been phished or something and is giving away their authentication details?
As I say if the bank has failed their end of the bargain in some way then fair enough, but you can’t stop people being socially engineered or just plain credulous. I think recovering payments is one thing, compensation is another.
But how is this an online banking issue? Surely they could just as easily be telling them to withdraw cash from the local branch?
Or is this specifically when someone has been phished or something and is giving away their authentication details?
As I say if the bank has failed their end of the bargain in some way then fair enough, but you can’t stop people being socially engineered or just plain credulous. I think recovering payments is one thing, compensation is another.
Must have been some big promises from pensioners around productivity improvements to get an above inflation raise!The Treasury expects the new full state pension to be boosted above inflation by more than £400 a year in cash terms.
Must have been some big promises from pensioners around productivity improvements to get an above inflation raise!
What's this from Dave?
It is not that straight forward. The starting point of regulation for fraud (unauthorised transactions) is the bank MUST refund the victim, as per Payment Services Regulations 2017, the starting point of regulation very soon will be the same for authorised push payment scams (authorised transactions).But how is this an online banking issue? Surely they could just as easily be telling them to withdraw cash from the local branch?
Or is this specifically when someone has been phished or something and is giving away their authentication details?
As I say if the bank has failed their end of the bargain in some way then fair enough, but you can’t stop people being socially engineered or just plain credulous. I think recovering payments is one thing, compensation is another.
But how is this an online banking issue? Surely they could just as easily be telling them to withdraw cash from the local branch?
Or is this specifically when someone has been phished or something and is giving away their authentication details?
As I say if the bank has failed their end of the bargain in some way then fair enough, but you can’t stop people being socially engineered or just plain credulous. I think recovering payments is one thing, compensation is another.
It is not that straight forward. The starting point of regulation for fraud (unauthorised transactions) is the bank MUST refund the victim, as per Payment Services Regulations 2017, the starting point of regulation very soon will be the same for authorised push payment scams (authorised transactions).
Of course the banks need to strike the right balance between risk exposure to fraud and scams and accessibility to banking services for customers, and with this comes the risk of a rise in customer service complaints or potentially fraud and scams, if swaying too far one way.
As it stands, the banks will be bearing a huge amount of responsibility for fraud and scams, and as I noted above, the regulator is being the strictest in Europe when it comes to fraud and scams reimbursements. Also, this isn't compensation, it is actually refunding the customer in full for the scam, even if the bank is potentially not at fault. I'm not sure how I feel about the change in the upper threshold, but it would not impact the vast majority of scam claims.
As for the change of banking, this has been primarily customer behaviour driven, with the pandemic sending it into hyper-speed and challenger banks such as our very own principle sponsor, has caused traditional high street banks to switch their focus to keep with the market - remember Blockbuster? And I speak as someone who unfortunately lost their job because of the dramatic switch away from branch-based banking, as I worked in fraud for that area of the bank.
It is not that straight forward. The starting point of regulation for fraud (unauthorised transactions) is the bank MUST refund the victim, as per Payment Services Regulations 2017, the starting point of regulation very soon will be the same for authorised push payment scams (authorised transactions).
Of course the banks need to strike the right balance between risk exposure to fraud and scams and accessibility to banking services for customers, and with this comes the risk of a rise in customer service complaints or potentially fraud and scams, if swaying too far one way.
As it stands, the banks will be bearing a huge amount of responsibility for fraud and scams, and as I noted above, the regulator is being the strictest in Europe when it comes to fraud and scams reimbursements. Also, this isn't compensation, it is actually refunding the customer in full for the scam, even if the bank is potentially not at fault. I'm not sure how I feel about the change in the upper threshold, but it would not impact the vast majority of scam claims.
As for the change of banking, this has been primarily customer behaviour driven, with the pandemic sending it into hyper-speed and challenger banks such as our very own principle sponsor, has caused traditional high street banks to switch their focus to keep with the market - remember Blockbuster? And I speak as someone who unfortunately lost their job because of the dramatic switch away from branch-based banking, as I worked in fraud for that area of the bank.
Correct. Twice the productivity improvements promised by train drivers and junior doctors for less than half the percentage increase.Must have been some big promises from pensioners around productivity improvements to get an above inflation raise!
And on a slightly different note, thoughts on why austerity (from a new, New Labour government no less), is a really bad idea. This genuinely depresses me...
I believed Starmer and Reeves were too smart to repeat austerity. It appears I was wrong | David Blanchflower
New governments usually come into power offering hope and a break with the past. This one is squandering the opportunity for a fresh start, says David Blanchflowerwww.theguardian.com
I think there’s some chicken and egg going on there. Bank closures forcing a change in customer behaviours.It is not that straight forward. The starting point of regulation for fraud (unauthorised transactions) is the bank MUST refund the victim, as per Payment Services Regulations 2017, the starting point of regulation very soon will be the same for authorised push payment scams (authorised transactions).
Of course the banks need to strike the right balance between risk exposure to fraud and scams and accessibility to banking services for customers, and with this comes the risk of a rise in customer service complaints or potentially fraud and scams, if swaying too far one way.
As it stands, the banks will be bearing a huge amount of responsibility for fraud and scams, and as I noted above, the regulator is being the strictest in Europe when it comes to fraud and scams reimbursements. Also, this isn't compensation, it is actually refunding the customer in full for the scam, even if the bank is potentially not at fault. I'm not sure how I feel about the change in the upper threshold, but it would not impact the vast majority of scam claims.
As for the change of banking, this has been primarily customer behaviour driven, with the pandemic sending it into hyper-speed and challenger banks such as our very own principle sponsor, has caused traditional high street banks to switch their focus to keep with the market - remember Blockbuster? And I speak as someone who unfortunately lost their job because of the dramatic switch away from branch-based banking, as I worked in fraud for that area of the bank.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?