Member Info for Birdsong

Caretune, I thought it may be wise for President Trump to drop remote controlled mines into the strait, then instead of Iran having full control, the US would have equal 'say' in what passes and what doesn't.

These mines could be detonated using remote gps after magnetically being released so as to explode outside the strait, or IF wanting to end Iranian oil revenue within such, but either way President Trump would be equally controlling what leaves not just Iran.

Fairly cheap and easy thing to do. And with the US gaining from increasing oil prices, what has the US to lose.

IF indeed the US can't prevent Iran controlling the strait, then if I were the President I would leave but destroy everything before doing so, knowing that I, my family were living in comfort forevermore, and would use the increase in oil prices to my advantage being an exporter to counteract much of the inflation damage which world higher poo prices will inevitably bring to the States.

Not perfect but otherwise the option now is..?

..been prudent enough to know not to upset HMG, and who have put enough aside to fund HMG's lap dog, the FCA's wishes, will as CHID said, many times on here that it will be the Government who get what it wants to happen, not the shareholders.

Whilst no share holder wishes to accept an unpalatable outcome, HMG will always get what suits it best by pressuring or pleasing the large banks CEO's to accept, then the minnow banks have no choice but to follow suit.

The FCA has consultation with the banks, to gauge how far they could 'push' their desired outcome before the banks would fight them in court.

The FCA know that for banks to reject this plan will be a very costly affair, and if banks won and the blanket redress was scrapped imagine the cost of expensive legal bods having to peruse individual cases, and with an FCA time limit to ensure that the poor victims received their due rewards as quickly as possible, otherwise the banks would face a fine as well as the cost of refunding and paying multiple extra legal costly staffing, and of course the bad publicity that they could well do without.

HMG wanted another PPI type flood of money to the fund the UK weak economy, ( and as a bonus to sweeten millions of potential future voters) would have been more than happy to see the full CoA judgement take billions from banks, BUT was informed that IF the ruling stuck, then the damage to the UK financial world would be so damaging, even HMG tried to step in to prevent such occurring.

That high level interference was rightfully 'shown' to be not allowed by the Supreme court, BUT the message to that court, of what the Governments wishes were, was loud and clear.

Hence their 'better than what could have been' ruling.

BUT HMG still wished to have billions placed in the hands of the masses, so long of course as it wasn't coming from them upsetting taxpayers, and if just 'greedy' bank shareholders so much the better to the baying masses of 'entitled' hands.

So their lapdog the FCA devised a plan to do just that, and despite it breaking the rules, as with President Trump doing likewise in what some say is an illegal war, WHO is going to stop them?

Answer no large bank CEO, as they know HMG can tax them more, effect their bonus scheme and in truth are often friends of theirs so as it will only be the shareholders who fund this, bank CEO's will look after their best interests, not yours or mine.

Whilst a few vocal shareholders may threaten to sue, take action, sell a few shares in protest, none of it will phase HMG, the bank CEO's or the FCA, for they make, break, twist the rules, whilst YOU merely have to follow what they dictate.

Of course this post won't be liked, and of course knots rays of hope well researched postings will understandably be welcomed, be watch and see whether CHID was right all along, whilst none of you will ever be big enough to admit it on here, but maybe privately to yourselves.

Fordm

I don't trust any our own Governments we have had recently either, and since the world becomes their oyster in which to live, work, play and retire, I feel they have little care for the electorate who they are supposed to be looking after, BUT I also doubt that many of the worlds Governments are any better and some worse.

But I had even less trust in the EU, for the fact that the people had no choice of who controlled such and the UK was one of few contributors to raise the lives of others whilst our own nation was visibly going down hill with roads crumbling, NHS delays, to to smaller obvious things like pubic toilets, libraires care homes being closed down due to lack of funds, yet when travelling to EU countries their roads were FAR better there were children's play areas all new in the most remote places and dental and health care there seemed to be getting better whilst ours went downwards.

Also I come from poor working class area, and I know for a fact that many people who are classed as poor are dishonest and swindle all they can, and I know many wealthy people who do exactly the same, but not so obvious.

I have deduced that most all humans look out for themselves first and their loved ones, family and friends, and will take ANY opportunity to make the best out of any situation wherever they can. That is being human. And only when they are alright will they then usually help others in need. I guess it is an in built survival technique. See it in animals in Winter, fight over a pile of bread thrown to them, and by time they have fought, rooks or seagulls have ate the lot.

Agree war makes wealth for some, as I said with the US gaining from both WW's but my point being would not Iran, India, Africa IF it were in the position to do so? I think they would too.

Trump will be living in luxury homes fully heated, drive massive cars, fly wherever he and his loved ones want, WITH, or Without this war, whether oil is $40 or $4000 a barrel, so doubt he would start a war to save a few dollars at the pump or when the lecky bill is stuck behind the clock not paid.

As for the pedo reason, THAT will still follow him when this ends, and whilst disgusting if true, then I think you will find plenty more young girls FORCED not paid to do similar in Iran with older men NOT of their choice.

I can't write anymore on this subject as share BB's are not for this but thank you for replying and no hard feelings to you or your thoughts as I just a working person who trusts very few but has a lot for me of BP shares and am unsure of a lot atm.

Nihar, I gave my opinion yesterday @16;21. As unpalatable and as legally flawed as it no doubt is, I still think that is what will happen. HOPE I am wrong, but hope is not always enough.

A threatened dog will either go back at you, or roll over. I think the latter for reasons given and dissed yesterday. Chid was right all along imo, as all about funding the wider economy, FCA almost said so in their ' needing to pay out quickly to help fund hard pressed households ' OR words to that effect. But HMG feared the CoA ruling would drag in too many claims for other issues ruining the trust in the UK for investing etc, but STILL wanted to fund the high street. Hence we are where we are.

ONLY hope I see was wisely pointed out on here by a poster saying 'perhaps' that is why there are two tiers in the FCA proposal, and the older claims MAY just be quashed, but doubt that will happen, but depending on what the bigger banks do, whether they fight it and annoy HMG who may hit them harder or roll over imo, will be the decider, and should the FCA be taken to court then perhaps the older claims may be quashed. I am not that optimistic are you

Fordm

You make some valid points and clearly most of us only know what we hear but few of us just tune into either far left, or far right media streams and try to get a balanced view as is possible when there is so much conflicting news out there.

My mind as yours no doubt does, takes info and comes up with some sort of conclusion, but we can never be 100% certain of anything.

As you righty say about half the populace dislike our current Gov, but we can vote them out, and sure, get the same rubbish back in with another lot, but we have to accept the democratic choice of the masses otherwise we would soon have dictators as in Iran, where the only way to change leadership is to kill the rulers, which is barbaric and creates a life of fear, mistrust and abuse for ALL the citizens afraid to speak out against those 'in power'.

Also whilst you blame the US for many ills, they have been the main providers of aid to the starving, to disaster zones, and have helped this country, albeit late and at cost in 2 WW's.

IF the USA, and for that matter the UK is oh so horrible, how come people risk life and limb to get here and to the USA, risking their children's lives to do so illegally?

How come these same people are often coming from the lands ruled by non democratic elected leaders IF it is so wonderful there?

Some months back I had a taxi and the driver was from Iran, and was showing me, a stranger the vile pictures of people on his phone killed in his country.

I have NO time for people coming here illegally as the fact that endless in the true sense of the word means such will ruin this country and bring with it the fighting old score issues with it, but IF I were them, then of course I would try to come here, BUT they too must see the REASONS I don't want them here. It is personal, it is called survival and looking after your own first. Ironically they and I both want that, but whilst one betters their life, ones diminishes.

A deep complex subject that can't ever be dealt with on a share bb. I doubt we will ever agree but my guess is neither of us are as extreme as the other thinks.

... the uneasy cheering the end of the war has not yet crept onto this bb. For I fear this is a false dawn, and despite President Trump having more than one face, he is not the type to be prepared to lose either. So feel a ground invasion with other ME nations will occur as an Easter present for Iran.

Just a guess and hope despite the no doubt months of boasting from President Trump, it pays off handsomely for him and all the soldiers sent there and all innocent people.

Perhaps President Trump would be wise to do as I wondered from early days, to fill the strait with USA mines, which can be remotely detonated then the USA can decide what passes as well as Iran. Dog in a manger type thing.. IF you are going to be hated and a target forever just as well be in some control of the situation to even a lesser degree rather than know your enemy will be charging a toll and making money from ships which pass through. As the President said, the USA don't need that oil, and the scarcity makes USA oil more valuable too, so counteracts the world price rises to US citizens somewhat.

Add the fact that the USA is deemed to be the safest place to be in a WW then the dollar rises as people buy such, so, as with the last WW the US will come out with better living standards and as President Trump said, we can buy oil from them, but at what price, for he never said he would make the world great, just America.

I can't imagine President Trump will wish to lose face, despite him having more than one, so doubt this is over, and feel the rally is based on false hope and expect he is planning with other ME countries to invade and then hope that many Iranians unhappy with the current leadership will then, and only then have the weapons and guts to revolt.

A huge gamble which I hope he can pull off without too many decent people loses on both sides. But war is war, so expect it will be painful for all.

Let's hope BP doesn't slap solar panels on the sunny sides of the pyramids, and just sticks to gas extraction. Great to know that gas from far afield has no truck with the green lobby, but anything near to home seems to be a major threat to the entire worlds heat regulation, despite it not adding the greenhouse gases emitted from the long journey to transport it here, be it oil, gas or coal.

See BP down in US atm, so maybe the highs are over, until President Trump sends in the boys to try to end this war and the lose of life grows sadly higher with each passing day, adding to the determination of those not at risk to keep sending in ever more in the vain hope of somehow avenging the deaths of those who went before. That is what war is, until something breaks. Terrible waste of lives and human achievement to at best get back to where it all started. Yet with at the very best, maybe less future risk of one less nation with Nukes, which, if such had, I would guess would have been used as a threat at the very least by now.

Harmonica, I read but of course that does not mean it is true, that the journalist was said to be a spy. Now, would be first to quote "they would say that, wouldn't they" but of course we will never know.

It is clear to me, that in war intelligence gets things wrong, hi tech weaponry malfunctions from human or tech issues, BUT if that is not enough for the haters of America to even consider when the girls were so tragically killed, they ought to ask themselves two questions at least.

One being Why would America use a weapon to deliberately kill innocent people let alone children? And whilst considering their answer, remember even IF the USA are that evil, then what possible 'good' would doing such achieve to them? The bad publicity the shame, would do them no favours at all, as it rightly hasn't.

Secondly, the USA often kill their own men, or allies with what is wrongly called 'Friendly fire' so even your assumption that weapons are perfect, or the person operating the weapons are perfect often in a tense battlefield PROVES that accidents DO, and WILL happen. This isn't a movie this is the horrible facts of war.

I won't answer to rude offensive posters, but realise that in times of deep emotion that war brings to both sides, that emotions run high, but to put my post in the same bracket as Epstein would be akin to me calling that poster an IRG supporter just for giving an alternative viewpoint.

When people can't even discuss events without becoming vile, then we can see how easily years of such one group against another can erupt all too easily into warfare.

Typing a few words is easy to misunderstand the full meaning of what you mean and maybe I failed a little there. I don't like to report anyone, otherwise views are bland if we all have to be forced to sing from the same hymn sheet.

Glad some can still disagree without hate, so thank you for that.

Still holding fully BP, had for decade or even two now, but ave quite high as pre the deepwater fiasco, but in profit so tempting but unsure where to invest in volatile world, but when hasn't it been?

And a truly caring society would not build a school close to an IRG base, knowing the volatility of the situation in the M.E with Israel, unless of course they assumed innocent young people make for a better human shield and far reaching and long lasting potential propaganda should the unthinkable occur.

It clearly wasn't in America or Israel's intentions to harm innocent people, let alone children, but of course the woke media never let such horrific accidents drop from our screens whilst only showing the briefest coverage on barbaric action carried out by others, even on their own people.

War in real life is very different from modern movies where only the bad gets killed. IF only, the world might then gain from warfare. But the evil on both sides normally survive and it was refreshing to see that at least a few didn't this time, but sadly the innocent are in greater numbers and will always gain more casualties than the well hidden evil.

Most of us have children and hate the thought of such paying the price for what adults do, but those adults were all children once, and it is sad that every generation somehow brainwashes enough of the next to become vile, when once they just accepted one another happily.

Hope the pain, killing and fear for all, including soldiers as men feel pain too, ends soon. But I hope some good comes out of this for the people of Iran and the US and the free world, otherwise all been for nothing.

...stating that Lloyds CEO has rolled over to the whims of the FCA will arrive?

Friday will be good to add to the weekend holding fear drop we usually experience now.

Re: "What if the lenders don't want bend over backwards to accept poorly documented claims from 2007-2014?"

Don't YOU think that the FCA have heard what the lenders did and didn't want, and have calculated that the lenders should they fail to agree and fight this in the courts, will end up paying out huge sums for professional staff to then have to deal with each individual case one by one, AND against a FCA imposed time limit or then pay out further fines to the poor 'victims'.

The CEO's and board members won't foot the bill, the shareholders will, either by lower than would be share price or lower than would be divs, or less buybacks etc.

The board and CEO's of large banks find it in THEIR interest to do what HMG wants and do what their lapdog tells them to do, otherwise HMG can impose draconian measure which WILL effect the CEO and board, not just some moaning shareholders.

So they will roll over, as they did with PPI; HMG will get more cash spent on takeaways, nail bars, bars and other essentials on high street shops, And HMG will gain a little more favour by the public than IF they had persuaded the courts there were few cases to answer and to pay out too.

The Government who make the rules will get what they want, insomuch as they are funding the wider economy but IMPORTANTLY without the courts ruling spreading to other, otherwise deemed potential mis-selling, as THAT would have cost the UK economy MORE than it bled the shareholders dry, hence we are where we are, as predicted by CHID a long while ago now.

Live and learn, that you as a shareholder are last on the interests and care of the minds of the companies you are invested in, unless it is more advantageous to keep you sweet if say doing a rights issue etc.

Remember also, that once shares have been issued by a company to INITIAL investors, and in time they then sell them on to you , you are not giving your hard earned to the company, for they have already sold them way back, so then the company gain nothing from your purchases of shares anymore, and show only enough regard and payout to holders of such if holding material amounts to vote etc. Minnows in a huge pond.

So when the big banks gracefully accept the deal, so will all imo.

Jam, must agree that Sir K has let down the U.S badly, and whilst this war will end as much as it ever will or can in the M.E, any future wars where the UK are involved in, will be without help from the USA, no matter who is the POTUS then. So lets hope a few suicide bombers or knife maniac attacks less now is worth millions dying in a future conflict without the USA.

A gutless knighted twit, who allows in the illegal worlds fighting factions, drops the two cap child limit which harmed few traditional British familes, and should any future war occur do you think increased numbers of young fit males entering the country in maternity wards will equate to increased numbers of soldiers 'willing' to fight for 'their' country?

The residents in the UK, should another war start, will not have the solidarity of the last wars population back home now, and life for those here will be as unpleasant and unsafe as those fighting on the front line All because of the politicians who have let this country down so badly over the last few decades. Whilst of course they, themselves will all have planned their escape to N.Z or other safe places on the globe for themselves and their loved ones.

Lti, see you have sold some BP. and I know you are wise, or better informed or lucky, as you announce your buys and sells and I should have listened to you when you sold iii, Lloyds and now BP, but holding and hoping, but think it will plunge as is the norm, must be nice to gain something before Trump disembarks or Rach taxes any profits on BP to fund the worlds never ending increasing victims of war for the UK to treat, house and fund. Yet despite it not being anything to do with us but the burden will fall on the poor not the wealthy here.

CHID was correct also when saying HMG only tried to interfere in the court case when they realised that the fallout to the wider financial markets from the CoA ruling would have caused lasting damage to the UK as an investing safe haven.

They, HMG, would have been perfectly happy to allow the DCA car claims to have taken more, but realised that the fall out of such a ruling would then spread to other financial products sold and as such would cost the UK economy, not 'fund' it, hence there attempted interference, blocked by the S.C but no small doubt 'listened very carefully too' .

Chid saw it all and said it all, against a tide of abuse, never once resorting to such, as knowing you are right is more than enough satisfaction I presume.

Anyway read this: (Last para most telling, that the final cost is not certain, but imo, won't be as low as hoped for.

LEGAL CHALLENGE RISK

In an attempt to insulate the plan from time-consuming court cases challenging the length of the redress package, the FCA has split it into two time periods. ​One will cover April 2007 to March 2014, and the other from April 2014 to November 2024.

Under its final scheme, the FCA said 12.1 million purchase agreements were eligible for ‌redress, fewer than under its original proposals, which were criticised for being so broad that they would compensate motorists who had not been treated unfairly.

As a result, it raised the expected average payout to around 830 pounds from 700 pounds per vehicle loan agreement. The FCA wants payouts to start this year.

The lower headline number ⁠rests in ⁠part on the FCA's move to reduce its estimate of the proportion of eligible consumers likely to take ‌part in the scheme to 75% from 85% in October.

Had the regulator not revised that assumption down, the overall cost would be little changed from the figure banks were presented with ​last year.

Asked about the adjustment, Rathi said ​it was "based on feedback". "Those numbers are estimates," he said. "Ultimately, the cost will depend on the actual level of ‌take-up."

.....ironically from April the 1st, by forcing G.P's to no longer be able to refer a patient to see a consultant at hospitals, without the consultant discussing such with the G.P, all costly and time consuming and all to 'put off' doctors who are concerned about patients who are borderline concerns to 'wait and see', causing more stress and deaths so Labour can brag about lower hospital waiting times.

As I say when people on here quote figures and stats, it means nothing unless you dig deeper into the 'reasons' why patient numbers are falling, or less people are jailed, it is more often than not, due to less patients being able to 'see' a higher level professional and in the latter, the courts being pressured to give anything 'but' prison sentences.

YET the main reason we have this GROWING problem is because every time more people decide to live here and start huge familes, a new hospital or prison does not magically appear, nor a house, or of course a plot of land to build it on, and perhaps IF the arrivals were all billionaires and funded the UK instead of sapping it's wealth, then it would only be the increased pressure on our beautiful disappearing countryside, it's wonderful wildlife, and our over crowded roads, towns and cities, are limited water supplies, our failing sewerage systems, which would be the problems to deal with, but as it is we have that issue AND have to pay for others to have a better quality of life whilst watching our own diminish.

The NHS could well do without the huge costs of treating stab victims, gunshot injuries, acid attacks, huge cost from rape victims suffering years of mental health issues. Foster homes full of unwanted, the public paying more when shopping due to huge increases in shoplifting, often blatantly.

Until a party who understands why the UK's suffering is growing try ignoring data and look around at the common denominator.

I dread to think what the next generations lives will be like, but my dread, is eased by the fact that they are too naive to see that there acceptance of the unacceptable is a massive part of the problem, so as will happen perhaps they deserve what they will reap.

Shame as a once lovely country ruined by weak politicians and an even weaker naive public imo.

Lloyds is pressured to help house what HMG can't fund itself and bank taxes fund the rising costs when they can't be met by HMG, so we are all effected to some degree.

Already posted this on CBG where they do discuss this in more depth:

Chid said many times that HMG were using their lap dog the FCA to fund the wider flagging UK economy by ensuring that millions of DCA 'victims' would be getting a wedge of cash to spend and boost the rundown high streets of the UK to keep the tills pinging a little longer.

He or she also said that the other reason that HMG would allow or encourage such is the fact that 'British' public, the majority of whom see it as 'just' rich bankers and greedy shareholders money are all potential voters and with Labour so unpopular a double gain for HMG to grease the palms of the 'impoverished' masses.

As CHID said, it is the GOVERNMENT who make the rules, and by putting pressure by using the carrot or the stick to get what they want, NOT the whinging shareholders. The CEO's of large banks know that to NOT do as HMG wishes can adversely effect their bonuses, further bank taxes and other perks, so will be treading a very thin tightrope.

Whilst rules will have been bent and broken, and a few shareholders will point those out after wasting hours in doing so, with likely some threating private court action, the end result will be what is 'best' for HMG NOT you or I.

Chid said many times that HMG were using their lap dog the FCA to fund the wider flagging UK economy by ensuring that millions of DCA 'victims' would be getting a wedge of cash to spend and boost the rundown high streets of the UK to keep the tills pinging a little longer.

He or she also said that the other reason that HMG would allow or encourage such is the fact that 'British' public, the majority of whom see it as 'just' rich bankers and greedy shareholders money are all potential voters and with Labour so unpopular a double gain for HMG to grease the palms of the impoverished masses.

As CHID said, it is the GOVERNMENT who make the rules, and by putting pressure by using the carrot or the stick to get what they want, NOT the whinging shareholders. The CEO's of large banks know that to NOT do as HMG wishes can adversely effect their bonuses, further bank taxes and other perks, so will be treading a very thin tightrope.

Whilst rules will have been bent and broken, and a few shareholders will point those out after wasting hours in doing so, with likely some threating private court action, the end result will be what is 'best' for HMG NOT you or I.

Gerry, my issue with buybacks is, that say they buy back shares today and thus the 'saving' of 9% is made on each share bought, it would clearly take TEN YEARS to see a gain on the money spent on buybacks even a this high yield.

Surely there is better uses for a company to use capital on? It seems lazy investing of money and I hear is beneficial to board directors more than shareholders oft times.

IF like Lloyds I had had larger divs' than lots of buybacks, the money is mine to do as I wish, as it is, all the so called 'increase' in the shareprice is wiped out in a few short hours or days, and despite many insisting ' it would have been much lower without the buybacks' I am not convinced it would.

Also, say the board were going to allocate 1m to shareholders for divs in any year, then what is to stop them allocating less, DUE to the fewer shares in the market so the dividend does not 'rise' in reality to the lesser amount of shares in issue, as the board could easily just 'use' the saved money for more personal indulgences.

A bird in the hand....

Didn't some wise poster on here say HMG needs to fund the growing disgruntled feckless in our society more than appeasing a handful of faceless, greedy bank shareholders?

Remember who told all that everything is going to be alright. Munch on that

...Terms of redress end of this month. Lloyds other issues don't just vanish because 'there's a war on you know'

Shadow banking, new challenger banks licenced in the UK a potential threat to dinosaurs of old, and the coming risk of world recession, with the US now not going to do us any deals or favours, nor will our ex besties the EU, IF they ever were or did. Countless more impoverished, and mentally and physically damaged needy to gain asylum and given time, add to the growing volatile mix for future mini wars here within the UK. So plenty to think about for the future, if, or when this US, Iran skirmish is quelled for a short while.