That's Brexit for you. Gonna bring out the worst in the greedy companies.Just the very start of it.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
That's Brexit for you. Gonna bring out the worst in the greedy companies.Just the very start of it.
studio150
Well-known member
They probably could, but why should they pay staff to sit around waiting for customers to come in, and when does it is probably a pensioner wanting a 30 minute chat for something that should only take minutes. In all honesty how often do you go into your local bank branch to use the counter service or to discuss financial matters with a member of the staff.
While I prefer to use an inside cash point as opposed to one on the pavement, I can;t recall the last time I made use of the counter service or discussed anything with staff, which would mean at least several years ago. I expect many are in the same position so the need for branch on every High Street is an outdated model.
I've had to use them a fair bit in the last couple of years to be honest. They insisted I go to a branch to set up a car loan (even though I applied for it online); to set up a bank account for my daughter; and to provide the required documents for a mortgage. All three were different banks. Whenever I do go to a bank there seems to be a queue
nicko31
Well-known member
I'm afraid, priorities in PLC's work in the following order...
Shareholders
Customers
Staff
Lloyds are entering choppy waters and they're carrying too much weight
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
I didn't realise that Lloyds put customers ahead of staff. I'm surprised they still have anyone working for them.
[tweet]758945641502380033[/tweet]
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
If I can manage to cheer up someone afflicted with some of the worse symptoms of PBMD* I may consider opening a string of clinics to help alleviate the suffering from this ongoing epidemic.
If you insist on providing such a rich vein of material it would be rude not to satirise it!
*Post Brexit Melancholy Depression
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
The hilarious exchanges between myself and Lincoln Imp referenced the leave strategy 'at the moment' which is emphasising the positive .. for many good reasons.
I'm a bit like the guy who just voted for this country to have the same status as the vast majority of countries around the world, an independent nation state. The fact you consider this to be in anyway comparable to suicide speaks volumes for your mindset.
Perhaps you would like to pre book a slot at the PBMD clinic? (coming soon to a location near you)
No it isn't. It's Lloyds putting profit before anything else. No change there.
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
Perhaps you could look to secure EU social fund money to take this new venture further?
Oh lordy, what's got you upset now?
I'm fully aware absolutely nothing bad whatsoever has, is or will happen because of Brexit. The elite minds of NSC have stated Brexit is a good thing and if they say it's Tuesday, it's Tuesday.
JC Footy Genius
Bringer of TRUTH
- Jun 9, 2015
- 10,568
Perhaps you could look to secure EU social fund money to take this new venture further?
Good idea .. hope it's not too late Perhaps applying to HMG for some of that £350 million a week EU membership fee (soon to be returned) could be an alternative although as we know that's pre designated for the NHS.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Haven't been on here for a good while, so this might have been discussed already, but the following is Stephen Hawkings' response to Brexit:
Our attitude towards wealth played a crucial role in Brexit. We need a rethink
Stephen Hawking
Does money matter? Does wealth make us rich any more? These might seem like odd questions for a physicist to try to answer, but Britain’s referendum decision is a reminder that everything is connected and that if we wish to understand the fundamental nature of the universe, we’d be very foolish to ignore the role that wealth does and doesn’t play in our society.
I argued during the referendum campaign that it would be a mistake for Britain to leave the European Union. I’m sad about the result, but if I’ve learned one lesson in my life it is to make the best of the hand you are dealt. Now we must learn to live outside the EU, but in order to manage that successfully we need to understand why British people made the choice that they did. I believe that wealth, the way we understand it and the way we share it, played a crucial role in their decision. As the prime minister, Theresa May, said in her first week in office: “We need to reform the economy to allow more people to share in the country’s prosperity.”
We all know that money is important. One of the reasons I believed it would be wrong to leave the EU was related to grants. British science needs all the money it can get, and one important source of such funding has for many years been the European commission. Without these grants, much important work would not and could not have happened. There is already some evidence of British scientists being frozen out of European projects, and we need the government to tackle this issue as soon possible.
Money is also important because it is liberating for individuals. I have spoken in the past about my concern that government spending cuts in the UK will diminish support for disabled students, support that helped me during my career. In my case, of course, money has helped not only make my career possible but has also literally kept me alive.
On one occasion while in Switzerland early on in my career, I developed pneumonia, and my college at Cambridge, Gonville and Caius, arranged to have me flown back to the UK for treatment. Without their money I might not have survived to do all the thinking that I’ve managed since then. Cash can set individuals free, just as poverty can certainly trap them and limit their potential, to their own detriment and that of the human race.
Paying for my care as a severely disabled man, and my work, is crucial; the acquisition of possessions is not.
So I would be the last person to decry the significance of money. However, although wealth has played an important practical role in my life, I have of course had a different relationship with it to most people. Paying for my care as a severely disabled man, and my work, is crucial; the acquisition of possessions is not. I don’t know what I would do with a racehorse, or indeed a Ferrari, even if I could afford one. So I have come to see money as a facilitator, as a means to an end – whether it is for ideas, or health, or security – but never as an end in itself.
Interestingly this attitude, for a long time seen as the predictable eccentricity of a Cambridge academic, is now more widely shared. People are starting to question the value of pure wealth. Is knowledge or experience more important than money? Can possessions stand in the way of fulfilment? Can we truly own anything, or are we just transient custodians?
These questions are leading to a shift in behaviour which, in turn, is inspiring some groundbreaking new enterprises and ideas. These are termed “cathedral projects”, the modern equivalent of the grand church buildings, constructed as part of humanity’s attempt to bridge heaven and Earth. These ideas are started by one generation with the hope a future generation will take up these challenges.
I hope and believe that people will embrace more of this cathedral thinking for the future, as they have done in the past, because we are in perilous times. Our planet and the human race face multiple challenges. These challenges are global and serious – climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans. Such pressing issues will require us to collaborate, all of us, with a shared vision and cooperative endeavour to ensure that humanity can survive. We will need to adapt, rethink, refocus and change some of our fundamental assumptions about what we mean by wealth, by possessions, by mine and yours. Just like children, we will have to learn to share.
If we fail then the forces that contributed to Brexit, the envy and isolationism not just in the UK but around the world that spring from not sharing, of cultures driven by a narrow definition of wealth and a failure to divide it more fairly, both within nations and across national borders, will strengthen. If that were to happen, I would not be optimistic about the long-term outlook for our species.
But we can and will succeed. Humans are endlessly resourceful, optimistic and adaptable. We must broaden our definition of wealth to include knowledge, natural resources, and human capacity, and at the same time learn to share each of those more fairly. If we do this, then there is no limit to what humans can achieve together.
Our attitude towards wealth played a crucial role in Brexit. We need a rethink
Stephen Hawking
Does money matter? Does wealth make us rich any more? These might seem like odd questions for a physicist to try to answer, but Britain’s referendum decision is a reminder that everything is connected and that if we wish to understand the fundamental nature of the universe, we’d be very foolish to ignore the role that wealth does and doesn’t play in our society.
I argued during the referendum campaign that it would be a mistake for Britain to leave the European Union. I’m sad about the result, but if I’ve learned one lesson in my life it is to make the best of the hand you are dealt. Now we must learn to live outside the EU, but in order to manage that successfully we need to understand why British people made the choice that they did. I believe that wealth, the way we understand it and the way we share it, played a crucial role in their decision. As the prime minister, Theresa May, said in her first week in office: “We need to reform the economy to allow more people to share in the country’s prosperity.”
We all know that money is important. One of the reasons I believed it would be wrong to leave the EU was related to grants. British science needs all the money it can get, and one important source of such funding has for many years been the European commission. Without these grants, much important work would not and could not have happened. There is already some evidence of British scientists being frozen out of European projects, and we need the government to tackle this issue as soon possible.
Money is also important because it is liberating for individuals. I have spoken in the past about my concern that government spending cuts in the UK will diminish support for disabled students, support that helped me during my career. In my case, of course, money has helped not only make my career possible but has also literally kept me alive.
On one occasion while in Switzerland early on in my career, I developed pneumonia, and my college at Cambridge, Gonville and Caius, arranged to have me flown back to the UK for treatment. Without their money I might not have survived to do all the thinking that I’ve managed since then. Cash can set individuals free, just as poverty can certainly trap them and limit their potential, to their own detriment and that of the human race.
Paying for my care as a severely disabled man, and my work, is crucial; the acquisition of possessions is not.
So I would be the last person to decry the significance of money. However, although wealth has played an important practical role in my life, I have of course had a different relationship with it to most people. Paying for my care as a severely disabled man, and my work, is crucial; the acquisition of possessions is not. I don’t know what I would do with a racehorse, or indeed a Ferrari, even if I could afford one. So I have come to see money as a facilitator, as a means to an end – whether it is for ideas, or health, or security – but never as an end in itself.
Interestingly this attitude, for a long time seen as the predictable eccentricity of a Cambridge academic, is now more widely shared. People are starting to question the value of pure wealth. Is knowledge or experience more important than money? Can possessions stand in the way of fulfilment? Can we truly own anything, or are we just transient custodians?
These questions are leading to a shift in behaviour which, in turn, is inspiring some groundbreaking new enterprises and ideas. These are termed “cathedral projects”, the modern equivalent of the grand church buildings, constructed as part of humanity’s attempt to bridge heaven and Earth. These ideas are started by one generation with the hope a future generation will take up these challenges.
I hope and believe that people will embrace more of this cathedral thinking for the future, as they have done in the past, because we are in perilous times. Our planet and the human race face multiple challenges. These challenges are global and serious – climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans. Such pressing issues will require us to collaborate, all of us, with a shared vision and cooperative endeavour to ensure that humanity can survive. We will need to adapt, rethink, refocus and change some of our fundamental assumptions about what we mean by wealth, by possessions, by mine and yours. Just like children, we will have to learn to share.
If we fail then the forces that contributed to Brexit, the envy and isolationism not just in the UK but around the world that spring from not sharing, of cultures driven by a narrow definition of wealth and a failure to divide it more fairly, both within nations and across national borders, will strengthen. If that were to happen, I would not be optimistic about the long-term outlook for our species.
But we can and will succeed. Humans are endlessly resourceful, optimistic and adaptable. We must broaden our definition of wealth to include knowledge, natural resources, and human capacity, and at the same time learn to share each of those more fairly. If we do this, then there is no limit to what humans can achieve together.
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
Good idea .. hope it's not too late Perhaps applying to HMG for some of that £350 million a week EU membership fee (soon to be returned) could be an alternative although as we know that's pre designated for the NHS.
The £350 million a week doesn't include the rebate though and the money back such as The EU social fund to help enterprising entrepreneurial people such as yourself start a new venture, such as 'JC's PBMD clinics'.
Obviously you'll need to set up a business account, so I'd suggest going to one of the many branches of Lloyds Bank to do this.
Nothing at all. I was merely pointing out the error of your post.
....... it's Friday.
nicko31
Well-known member
Quite, they are just doing what all the other banks are doing, if you don't change you don't survive. The only time I ever go to the bank is to pay in a cheque and this could be done in a pre-paid envelope in a supermarket. The one other time was to see a mortgage advisor, I'd be happy if he came to my house
nicko31
Well-known member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36922496
Good time for cheeky bids if you're a first time buyer, volumes way down round here
Good time for cheeky bids if you're a first time buyer, volumes way down round here
Two Professors
Two Mad Professors
Still over 2000 branches of Lloyds Bank-just imagine how big and successful it would be if it wasn't run by idiots (economists and business graduates)
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
Still over 2000 branches of Lloyds Bank-just imagine how big and successful it would be if it wasn't run by idiots (economists and business graduates)
So long as it's not run by experts, it won't be a total disaster.
SUA Seagull
Well-known member
It would appear that the job cut decision was indeed taken pre-Brexit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36911896
The bank confirmed that the decision to make further cuts was taken before the EU referendum on 23 June.
Interestingly, not all media reports have picked up on this rather important clarification.