Do you want to discuss boring politics? (56 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing that, but it wasn't my point either.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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'

Take the USA. Lots of Republicans saying Harris and the Dem's would ruin the country with their far left politics. The dems are centre right in any meaningful analysis. The fact the Republicans see themselves as moderate right tells you how far right things have gone.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Interesting really, Labour MPs in the marginal seats have got to work quite hard to justify themselves whereas dickheads like the aforementioned Lucy Powell do not

 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
I 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.
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
MalcSB said:
I 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.
Click to expand...
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 Volodymyr
 
S

Skybluekyle

Well-Known Member
wingy said:
Guess the onus will always be with the victim,no responsibility banking sector, create a market, electronic, make fraud more accessible ✔️ check , 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?
Click to expand...
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.

If claims are rejected, and a complaint renders the same response from the business, the complaint can be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) free of charge for the consumer, and if an Ombudsman provides a decision that the consumer accepts, this becomes legally binding to the business, providing a free alternative to a court. The UK is unfortunately a hotbed of fraud and scams, but it does more than pretty much everywhere else in compelling banks to refund victims.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
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.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
What I don’t understand is that banks make it so hard for ordinary people to open a bank account and yet it is so easy for fraudsters to do so.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
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.
Click to expand...
Gets pressure to the right place then won't, internet and phone providers beware, tighten your act up?
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like banks reject culpability, they are just seeking to limit their liability.
 
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Credit card companies often flag up unusual transactions. If a customer is transferring large amounts of money to an account which is linked to Nigeria it’s pretty clearly a scam and the customer has been exploited - the technology should exist to block the payment
 
B

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
It already exists with gambling transactions but I’d support banks allowing customers to prevent themselves from transactions with other companies they have a problem overspending with.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
The Treasury expects the new full state pension to be boosted above inflation by more than £400 a year in cash terms.
Click to expand...
Must have been some big promises from pensioners around productivity improvements to get an above inflation raise!
 
S

Skybluekyle

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
shmmeee said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are dozens if not hundreds of different types of fraud out there, all related to on-line rather than over the counter transactions. Google "bank won't repay fraud", and you'll get a feel for it and for where people feel justifiably wronged.

I've been on both sides of the Ombudsman/FCA, making complaints and dealing with them, and I'm afraid banks (despite most of the people I've worked with being scrupulously honest and decent), will try pretty hard to wriggle out of stuff where they can. Hence regulation.

There's no justification I can see for these proposals to be watered down.
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Skybluekyle said:
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.
Click to expand...

It’s the “even if the bank isn’t at fault” but I’m stuck on. I wonder what else could be done really once you’ve put the limits and warnings you have on transfers to new accounts. Bank accounts have more security than ever, but scammers are more international more sophisticated and more connected than ever too. Would like to see more from the less established fintech firms like Amazon gift cards, PayPal, Venmo and the like that a lot of these scammers seem to be using. For the the banks are doing a good job of ensuring authorisation takes place and warning of potential scams as well as limiting what can be done.
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Skybluekyle said:
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.
Click to expand...

High street banks were closing in their droves before the pandemic, they have inadvertently helped to create the conditions for new entry from the challengers.
 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
chiefdave said:
Must have been some big promises from pensioners around productivity improvements to get an above inflation raise!
Click to expand...
Correct. Twice the productivity improvements promised by train drivers and junior doctors for less than half the percentage increase.
 
duffer

duffer

Well-Known Member
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
Why no interest cut this or have I missed,carry on BOE kill the economy before it recovers you bastard's!!
 
shmmeee

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
duffer said:
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...

www.theguardian.com

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 Blanchflower
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

Rachael Reeves unveils her economic strategy to the PLP

 
MalcSB

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Skybluekyle said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think there’s some chicken and egg going on there. Bank closures forcing a change in customer behaviours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 51 (members: 0, guests: 51)
Top