Lloyds Banking Share Discussion Threads

[gotnorolex] 27/10/2024 09:32

A lawyer was opening the door of his BMW, when suddenly a car came along and struck the door, ripping it completely off the hinges.

When police arrived at the scene, the lawyer was complaining bitterly about the damage to his precious BMW.

"Officer, look what they've done to my car!" he whined.

"You lawyers are so materialistic, it's incredible!" retorted the officer, "You're so concerned about your stupid BMW that you didn't even notice your left arm has been ripped off".

Upon hearing this the lawyers eyes shoot wide open as he jolts his head towards the left shoulder, only to find that his arm was indeed completely missing.

"Oh my god!", replied the lawyer, "Where's my Rolex!"

[careful] 27/10/2024 09:06

What a can of worms if people overcharged are entitled to compensation.
A willing buyer and a willing seller, buyer beware and all of those principles.

Sometimes we overpay for things, it happens a lot, a feature of the markets.
We can happily book a holiday and find that those sitting next to us booked later and got a better price.

How do those early Tesla drivers feel after they had bought a car then Elon slashes the prices.

Hard to believe this case will win, but it depends upon our faith in the legal system. The high court could give a huge financial gift to their own profession by making the banks pay. They will be tempted.

As the old story goes, if a thief tries to steal your Rolex watch, fight hard to keep it.
But if he sues you for it, hand it over and be thankful you got off so lightly.

[xxxxxy] 27/10/2024 08:49

John RedwoodDividing the country into public sector good and private sector bad damages society. It means government runs out of money as better off people and companies go elsewhere or work and invest less.Dividing the country into public sector good and private sector bad damages society. It means government runs out of money as better off people and companies go elsewhere or work and invest less.

[smithie6] 27/10/2024 08:48

legal cases for car finance commission.

What do people think ?

I think the court decision is wrong & will be overturned on appeal at the higher court.

When you buy a car imo the dealer has no duty to the buyer, the buyer knows that the dealer will try to sell at the maximum price he can get & that the buyer will try to get the lowest price he can get.

And the interest rate on the financing is all clearly stated in the purchase contract .....the client has the choice whether or not to agree to the deal. The client will surely also have looked at other car makes & models & have got prices from other dealers.

The buyer also has the option to pay cash for a car & avoid paying interest on a loan from/via the dealer.

It is not, for example, the dealer's duty to for example tell the client
- 'if you go to the dealer XYZ outside of the city they will give you a slightly cheaper price because they pay much less in rent & rates than we do'

- ' it would be cheaper for you to get the finance from bank STQ because their interest rate is currently 1% cheaper than ours'

- 'it would be better for you to buy the same car but as a used car, if 3 years old it is 40% cheaper, but we don't sell any used cars, you should go to dealer QTW'

------

Sometimes it seems like the western world has gone mad.
Will the courts next impose a 10% surcharge on "past" car financing deals to fund slaving compensation ?!!

[aceuk] 27/10/2024 08:44

Do you actually know people who obcess about privacy?

I don't know anybody in my ordinary circle. The only people I do know who obsess about privacy are employed by the health service, the local council, etc. e.g. it is often impossible to have a conversation at my local Brain Injury Service because as soon as I mention another patient who I know/we know/they know it is clam up time regardless of discussion/conversation subject. Sometimes it makes it utterly impossible to have an understanding or overview of what is actually going on or indeed help, none of us exists in splendid isolation.

[utrickytrees] 27/10/2024 08:39

Hope you not in a urban/ suburban location Scruff? Interestingly 90% of inner city bee keepers hang up their hats after only a couple of years. Evidently bees like foxes quickly become urbanised and favour sugars found in fizzy drinks & spilt beer rather than the slim pickings from urban gardens pollinators leading to swarms of feral bees with mental health issues. It's thought sourcing bees with superior ethics from monasterys is an effective way of mitigating against urbanisation.

[scruff1] 27/10/2024 08:01

BP to we locals Tricky and it's British Protection. Politicians are barred as its not something they do very well at all..Been thinking. Looking at the state of London are we not owed huge amounts of reparations by black and Asian nations?

[utrickytrees] 27/10/2024 07:17

Hahaha.....the fkin Jocks have only gone & got themselves a Spanish national footballl coach...hilarious! Who is Pedro Martinez Losa anyway....looks a bit of a dosser?

[utrickytrees] 27/10/2024 07:09

Looking forward to trying the vegan pork pies in the Peveril of the peak & Britons protection this afternoon Scruff.

[utrickytrees] 27/10/2024 07:01

NHS management would rather firefight than address the real issues. Doctors at my local hospital are now being asked to take their annual leave 9 days every 3 months but night shifts are exempt! Compound this with draconian facilities too few doctors & way too many patients and its no surprise Doctors are leaving in their droves. Wes Streeting is saying all the right things in terms of pay and conditions but on first impression you'd have to say his CV doesn't fill you with much confidence that he's the man to transform the NHS into an organisation capable of coping with a growing population an aging population & the world's leading health tourism destination.

[jugears] 26/10/2024 20:40

Better late than never smurphy!

[gotnorolex] 26/10/2024 19:55

Just came across this from the Guardian "Could a binge drinker be taken seriously as health secretary"? Well it turns out he's a beer golloper on nights out!

[utrickytrees] 26/10/2024 19:28

Wes the pearly queen.

[gotnorolex] 26/10/2024 19:23

Confirmed, injections for the obese! and on the other had considering TSG status for Pie and Mash shops in Streeting's constituency and Clacton, home of beer swigging, nicotine fingered Farage!

[stonedyou] 26/10/2024 19:11

Ukraine accelerates fleeing from Selidovo to save remaining troops — security services

"They come out in groups along the roads that are subjected to shelling, losing significant numbers of people there," the source said

DONETSK, October 25. /TASS/. The Ukrainian armed forces continue their attempts to withdraw from Selidovo in the Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk) area, losing large numbers of troops, a source in the security services told TASS.

"The enemy does not cease the attempts to save the remnants of the military personnel of the Selidovo formation, ramping up the pace of fleeing from the city. They come out in groups along the roads that are subjected to shelling, losing significant numbers of people there," the source said.

On October 21, the security services told TASS that the Ukrainian grouping in Selidivo in the Krasnoarmeysk area had become blocked, as all roads leading out of the city were under the full fire control of the Russian army.

[smurfy2001] 26/10/2024 18:59

Close Brothers and Lloyds crash on car finance ruling

[utrickytrees] 26/10/2024 18:33

I'm always a bit nervous of politicians who are younger than me & mincy Wes is firmly in this bracket. When I think what I was like when I was his age it's impossible not to come to the conclusion that we're being presided over by bunch of chancers

[joestalin] 26/10/2024 17:21

From Migration Watch:-

It’s a common belief that Britain has a tough time sending illegal immigrants back home while other European countries do it effortlessly. Kemi Badenoch insists that countries in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are managing to deport up to 70% of illegal migrants. Badenoch believes that leaving the ECHR isn’t a 'silver bullet' and argues that the real issues lie in a lack of political will among politicians and, to a lesser extent, within officialdom. There’s some truth in this. The problem is, while the ECHR and Human Rights Act (and other legislation), which embeds the former in UK law, remain in place, whatever other countries may do, our politicians and courts will always shy away from going against the Convention.

On the Continent, things are, to a certain extent, different: France, Germany, and Sweden - some of the more successful deporters who are also signatories of the ECHR - aren’t even managing to return half of their illegal immigrants. Britain isn’t alone in finding it nigh on impossible to detain and remove quickly those who arrive illegally. Every European country faces the same issues, all bound by the same legal shackles. Having said that, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that there are countries such as Greece that simply turn back boat-loads of migrants trying to enter the country from Turkey. While Poland has said it intends to suspend the right of new illegal arrivals to claim asylum. They know full well that this will go down badly in Brussels, but they don’t care, they’ve had enough. It seems, where there’s a will there’s a way. What chance ex-Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Keir Starmer, having the courage or will of Donald Tusk, his Polish counterpart, to do the same?

It won’t of course be plain sailing for Poland or any other state taking a similar path. Take Italy, for example, only last week, Italian judges ruled that the first 16 (Bangladeshi and Egyptian) migrants sent for processing in Albania had to be returned to Italy because their countries of origin were deemed unsafe (remember that one?) and therefore they could not be returned there in the event of their applications being rejected. Prime Minister Meloni’s government is fighting back with legislation that will make clear it is for the legislature and ministers to decide on whether a country is safe, not judges.

Whatever happens in Italy, Poland or other European country, more and more states are now concluding that international treaties, like the European Convention of Human Rights, designed to deal with the problems Europe faced in the aftermath of WW II, are no longer fit for purpose. Moreover, such treaties were never intended to become immigration routes. Indeed, the 1951 Refugee Convention made clear it was not a vehicle for immigration. Together with its 1968 protocol and the ECHR, the Conventions have now not only been turned into just that but have also thrown open the borders by making it almost impossible for countries to detain and remove those who violate their borders.

There were good reasons for the inclusion of the principle of “non-refoulement' — ensuring that people wouldn’t be sent back to face inhumane treatment in the Soviet Gulags. Bangladesh and Egypt may be tough places for many to live but Gulag-riddled they are not.

The glaring problem we now face is that of left-leaning political elites, activists, lawyers and judges using the ECHR to block the removal of illegal economic migrants, including those who pass through safe countries to reach the UK and the rest of Europe.

Robert Jenrick has called the ECHR a "criminals' charter". He’s right. It has failed to protect the freedoms of law-abiding British citizens while effectively safeguarding the rights of tens of thousands of migrants making their way here illegally and illegal overstayers.

The fact that the ECHR is now deeply woven into British law matters because, while ministers can technically ignore rulings from international courts due to parliamentary sovereignty, they cannot simply disregard domestic law. To do so would put them in contempt of court. The HRA has been particularly problematic. Introduced by Tony Blair in 1998, the HRA had two main goals: (a) to show the world that the UK respected human rights and (b) to smooth things over with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg by bringing those rights into British law. Whatever the motivation for the enactment of the legislation, in practice it lowered the bar for proving the likelihood of someone facing inhumane treatment if returned to their country of origin to barely above ground-level. Hence the flood of legal cases and industrial scale human rights litigation.

While it might be tempting to think that denouncing the ECHR is the priority, repealing the HRA is arguably even more critical. Yet for any real change to happen, we at Migration Watch believe that rolling back both is absolutely essential.

The fact is, we don’t need the ECHR or HRA to protect rights (as Lord Sumption has pointed out). Many of the rights it lists were part of British law long before the convention even existed. We can guarantee rights through our own laws, shaped by the democratic will of the British people over generations. Ironically, our own judges sometimes enforce the ECHR more strictly than the European courts do!

So, what to do? Get rid of the HRA entirely, make necessary changes to related legislation, and return to Britain’s traditional approach – with Parliament setting rights and the courts supporting that mandate, not overruling it.