What on earth were we thinking in imagining the Supreme Court would rule in our favour against the banks?
In one of the least surprising results since Mugabe won the Zimbabwean presidency, the banks now get away with paying back the phenomenal amounts they've prised out of our hands over the last six or eight years.
The real irony is that over the past couple of years, since we have been awaiting the outcome of our mass class action, we have handed more over via the government bailout than we ever did under penalty charges.
The thing about the exhorbitant charges was that a lot of the time, at least for those of us who lurch from month to month trying to keep up with the tax rises that have stealthily and steadily eaten away at our disposable incomes, those charges begat others.
This was because when the money went in at the end of the month, paying the charges lumped on meant going under again at some point in the next month and so the cycle goes.
Not that the ultimate custodians of our legal system would be able to comprehend that from their comfortable vantage points.
Their comments, that it was reasonable to charge us for going overdrawn or bouncing standing orders, may or may not be true but the level of charge outweighed the inconvenience to them.
The amounts we were defaulting on were chicken feed compared to the amounts they were gambling and losing themselves. Yet once more we will pick up the tab - for both misdemeanours.
Anyone with any sense will systematically remove their business from banks and give it to their local credit unions, as I have done.
Why anyone would still see banks with any reverence at all is completely beyond me.
We may have indirectly become trustees via the Government's bail-out, but to think we would ever directly benefit from that arrangement was a forlorn and unrealistic hope, as highlighted today.
When we reject the banks, as we will many MPs this coming year, they will change their tunes - but not before.
0 comments:
Post a Comment