The question you need to ask is what factors cause the price rise in crude in the commodity markets. That is the key question. Personally, I do not have an awful lot of faith in the Home Improvement and Decoration Project Prices including Conservatory Costs graph (no disrespect implied to you ajwt2). Political factors, economic factors, supply and demand and derivative trading (i.e., financial market gambling strategies) are amongst the things that influence the price of crude. In other words outside infleunces can be and are brought to bear. Shoestring

Do you ever have downtime Interestrateripoff? Or are you on a crusade to win most boring poster of the year award? Talk about bombard a subject to death... Shoestring

Allow me to interrupt this thread with a few factual, and therefore realistic, observations: Interest income is the heart of the banking industry's profit engine. It will never be allowed to be used to reduce the accrued debt of the nation. Never. The use of higher interest is designed to force the public and business into reducing their borrowings. Nothing more. Besides that, the global derivatives overhang is well above $600 trillion -- that's right folks, trillion, not billion. More filthy lucre than anyone can possibly shake a stick at. And now to the point. Every nation on this planet (bar, I suspect an eensy-weensy insignificant guave encrusted atoll or two dotted in the middle of the Pacific) have a national debt. In other words, everyone owes money to someone else. There is no net creditor. WE are ALL in hock to the banks. And this is why: "In addition to these far reaching goals, the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frquent private meetings and conferences." Page 324 - Carroll Quigley's TRAGEDY & HOPE Those who didn't pick up the most important word in the foregoing sentence are invited to read it again. That word is "feudalist". (See Wikipedia entry for a definition: Feudalist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In this system you are either a Lord, a vassal or a fief. You and I are "vassals". Now that you understand your right "station" in life, you will begin to understand why you must be in debt and pay interest of that debt. Shoestring

Fantasy Charges wrote: " IT SEems in the usa you can get damages for things wrongly added to your credit report" Quite right too. If some one either by accident or design defames someone -- or inhibts their ability to live and earn an income, they should be subject to heavy damages. But banks and businesses over here, by virtue of the golden get-out-of-jail-card successive governemts have bestowed upon them, can engage in unlawful (and sometimes criminal) activity without care or consideration of the consequences. Shoestring

Oh mailman, what a pity I have been absent and could not attend to your self illusions in a more timely and detailed way. Life is sometimes cruel, don't you think... As I read the pages of this thread on my return, I also noticed another poster state that "I don't believe in conspiracies" -- which really made my morning. I'm going to be chuckling about that all day long. Cor blimey, chum, they really 'ave your mind in their pocket don't they. Speaking from personal experience I can categorically state that conspiracy is to business what chocolate is to a sweet shop. One could not exist without the other. Conspiring occurs at all levels of business. In-house conspiring to foster self promotion, conspriing to remove competition, conspiring to unlevel the playing fields, conspiring to win an important order -- it goes on and on and on. Only the naive are blind to it. In your case, willfully so, I suspect. And, of course, the City of London, being a self governing geographical enclave -- that even the Queen requires permission to formally enter -- has its own police force as distinct from the Metropolitan police. It has its own Mayor and assembly (known as the Corporation of London) which must **** off Ken no end, I should think. It has lots of joyful institutions that are not that well known about, in fact. Joyful and powerful and connected. Especially the latter two. For those with a memory, they might remember the morning back in the Nineties when former PM John Major awoke with a start from his prolonged fantasy dream of being the prime minister, to be met with astonishing news that the City of London police had thrown a cordon sanitaire (armed) around the "Square Mile" to protect it from IRA bombs. Major hadn't been consulted about the move and his permission was not sought. Imagine that. Naturally, the Brennan case was held in a City of London court. No surprises allowed, you see. So mailman, it's back to your comics and cuddly toys myopia. Shoestring

In other words...a government printing office publication: "How To Staunch The Banks Bleeding - A Step By Step Guide to OFT A & E Good Practise" Shoestring

Note the timing of all this, as I said above. The Judge decides to hand down his judgement on 30th July --- two business days after Parliament recesses for the summer hols. First rule of the political done deal is get the uncompromising political perceptions out of the way. That is why the OFT also announced their test case with the agreement of the banks yesterday, when all the Westminster children were excitedly packing their buckets and spades and exercising their hands so they can brush sand out of their jam sandwiches without getting wrist strain. As I have said maybe a half a dozen times in this long thread, the sums of money involved - billions and billions - are not going to be left to some geriatric dribbling judge to rule on. Me, being of sound cynical mind, would suggest that someone here, makes a diary note to check on Tom's career in three or four years time. If he's doing badly then he was an honest boy and bravo to him. What he did took guts. If, however, he's doing ever so well -- well, then it was all a fix from the very beginning. And Tom is not the hero boy but the villian. But no one will be that patient, will they. It'll all be forgotten about in about... five days time. Such is life in the world of big business. No quarter is left exposed for too long. Shoestring

Clearly, the OFT already know the result of Brennan's law case. He doesn't. But the banks do. Nice bit of justice that. For the multiplicity of naysayers who do not yet understand how the world really works, just ponder that the timing of this OFT announcement is too precise for it to be otherwise. This also means that a deal has already been cut between the banks and OFT, and the test case they are proposing is to validate that in the public eye. I particularly liked the OFT Q & A page linked to the press release, that contained such jewels as this: Quote The banks have undertaken to co-operate with the OFT in its conduct of the UTCCRs investigation and expeditiously to provide documents and information sought by the OFT in so far as practicable. If, in the light of the investigation, the OFT decides that the charges are unfair and, as a result, requires the Banks to do anything which they are not prepared to undertake to do in connection with the charges, then the OFT may amend its court documents so as to include a claim for a court ruling that the charges are unfair and for appropriate relief against the banks, such as a declaration or an undertaking to the Court or a final injunction or enforcement order. All the Parties are committed to progressing the court proceedings speedily and have agreed to seek a trial as soon as reasonably practicable. A timetable for the exchange of court documents has been agreed to help achieve this. The parties have agreed that each party is to pay its own costs of the court action. Uquote Very cosy and doubtless an amicable agreement that has been hammered out in between large bowls of excellent Cognac and hand-dipping into the Cuban humidor. But the point to focus on particularly, I think, is the second bullet point. This demonstartes that the OFT have the proof they already need to force the issue, and are slyly threatening to use it if any bank (or banks) fall shy of the pre nuptials agreement currently in place. And then we should focus our beady liuttle eyes on another gem. Quote 4. What will the test case cover? In assessing whether the charges are consistent with the UTCCRs: The first step is to assess whether the charges are subject to the test of unfairness, The second step is then to consider whether the amount of the charges is unfair. Unquote Which means, is you don't understand sly-speak, is that the amount the banks will be able to charge in the future, by law, has already been agreed in principle. Will this be the £12.00 per item discussed earlier in this thread, or something close to it? Let's face it, even if they only charge £8.00 per item, they and their international shareholders (the really important dudes in all this, btw) will still be quids in by, what, a multiple of 8x true cost? Maybe even a lot higher if the actual cost to process bounces is in the pence as has also been suggested earlier in this thread (and elsewhere). Let's not be unreasonable and say that the actual cost to the banks is 10p. nd for that they can charge you £8.00. You do the maths on the leverage ratio. Ceeeeegars all round. And lots of bottles of vintage Dom Perignon to wash down that Cuban smoke. And, while you're at we'll have several silver platters of smoked salmon sandwiches please... and some bliney's heaped that that god awful black fish roe which they call caviar (from Tehran, naturally). Not being a betting man, I'm willing to bet that the Judge in the brennan case will call upon the OFT to establish the principal of what is a fair charge in law. If this suspicion is correct -- and that is the impression I got during the trial from reading some of the reports when the judge was vigorously nodding his head about the banks submission that this is a case for the OFT to resolve. This also solves the clogging up of the lower courts with thousands of cases of individuals claiming back the money that has been scammed from them over the past decade. And, as we know, these lower courts have been screaming for a remedy so they can get back to their nice afternoon naps, and then dip their Nice biscuits into their nice cups of nice tea, before wending their weary way home for the day to have their weary brows padded by a damp cloth by their other half. Such a relief. And to think that you thought justice was being served. Welcome to the real world. Shoestring

Be wary of putting any money into an annuity unless you absolutely have to. Figures I've run on Excel SS show that pension funds plan to keep about 40% of the overall cash pot which they use to offset payouts made to long life customers. The normal annuity is set for 21 years for a man and 24 yrars for a female (as I recall), after normal retirement age. In other words men are expected not to live past 86 years and women 89 years (if the 65 pensionable age cutoff is used across the board). The 40% includes their heafty charges and commissions and God only knows what else. Basically YOU are paying THEIR pension when you take out an annuity and the bosses insist on guaranteed schemes or invest the funds themselves into a pension plan over which they have complete control. Be cautious. Shoestring

On a more cynical approach, the Judge is waiting for the banks to tell him how to rule to minimise their future losses...

Someone is meddling with the records to make it look right. Have you ever thought to conduct a background on the company in question? It seems to me that something mighty fishy is going on and its about that company. Shoestring

Let's hope it doesn't come to that. BUT, as is becoming clear to any number of people on this board, the law is not applied equally as is professed. Good luck Shoestring

It seems evident to me that the baliffs do not wish to serve this warrant. My guess is, as I said before, is exactly because it is against a big company. Can you go back to court and have a warrant issued against the baliffs for failure in their statutory duty? What the law on this? If it is possible, I would reccomend doing so. These people must learn that the law applies to them as well as the ordinary person. Shoestring

I wonder who the large solvent company is? Being of suspicious and cynical mind it has occured to me before now whether the whole baliff system actually operates on all levels and that large, solvent companies are not served in the manner you or I would be. Clearly, my bias is showing here, but in order to assuage my doubts about this prospect can anyone else here recite an example of where a large, solvent company has been succesfully served by a small individual claimant? Just a thought. Shoestring

I had to look up CPR to see what it meant - originally I thought it must stand for "Crown Protection Racket". How wrong can one be... :->