The Not So Co-Operative Bank.

Yesterday the Chief Executive of the 84% publicly owned RBS Bank joked about his £9 million salary and restated the justification for continuing the practice of huge bonuses to 'keep the best people' working in the banking business. The same day I opened a letter from my bank, the misleadingly named Co-Operative Bank, which is NOT a co-operative it is a PLC. This was their final response to my complaint about their excessive charges following the judgement by the Law Lords, which found in their favour.
This batch printed letter explained in a long-winded way that they would not be refunding any charges despite having accepted that mine was a case of hardship and that any further action would have to be through the Financial Services Ombudsman. I have already been told by them that it is up to the bank.
One might have thought that one bank, particularly one that puts on a show of having some ethical policy rather than simply being a machine for making money out of other peoples money, would make some attempt to regain some credibility and show an understanding of the fact that their practices have clearly been proven to be unfair and punitive. The ruling from the Supreme Court did not compel any changes but again one might have thought that they would attempt to generate some goodwill by acting without compulsion and address some cases.
But no, no its business as usual in the UK. Only Santander, a Spanish bank and one subject to much tighter legislation under Spanish law, are moving towards a fairer position. Meanwhile the UK banks banded together to fight any suggestion that they have been fleecing customers for years and years and will continue to do so unless compelled to change.
I draw attention to the Co-Operative Bank's position, which was one of the six that fought the case through the courts, no doubt at considerable expense. While some parts of the Co-Operative group are, I believe, something like a true co-operative, the bank is not. Therefore how is it able to go under this name ? All of its advertising material implies that it is different from other banks but never makes it clear that it remains a private shareholders company and it certainly behaves like one when it comes to its practices and policy on charges.

THE JOB SEARCHING ADVICE INDUSTRY.

I recently had a so-called one-to-one advice session with a job search advisor. He was from a private company contracted to the DWP somewhat absurdly and grandiosely called 'Global Solutions Services UK Ltd.'
This consisted of being berated for 45 minutes for not doing enough ' job searching.' The individual concerned told me that he used to spend eight hours a day every day ' job searching' sending off speculative CV's and contacting people about non-existant vacancies. I was also told to wear a suit, despite the fact that this was done over the phone, so I could have been wearing a suit for all he knew. Quite why wearing a suit when sending off e-mails should increase your chances was not explained. I think he was suggesting that 'job searching' should be seen as a job. Yes, well, it is'nt and the job that this chap ended up with is not, I submit, a real job. He is being paid to berate and worry people who are already in a very difficult and vunerable situation due to the inadequacy and conditionality of the benefit system.
If jobs in the sector that one is best qualified to apply for have been reduced to a fraction of their pre-collapse level then no matter how many speculative CV's one sends off you are no more likely to be offered a paid position and simply pestering people is quite likely to annoy them. I once phoned an architects practice after having an interview to confirm my interest and was criticised by the agency and the practice for doing so.
This is simply the ' get on your bike ' patronising simplification dressed up in new clothes, ' put on your suit ' if you like, and adds insult to the already injurious and woefully insufficient level of unemployment benefit in this country.
Instead of paying private companies like this which do not create any real jobs except for themselves in this fantasy ' advice-world ' these funds could better go direct to the unemployed who are struggling to survive on £64 a week and not about to buy a speculative suit when there is a gas bill to pay.
It makes me very, very angry.