Ha
Ignorance is bliss!
A couple of points:
The banks didn't WIN anything, only the gullible believe their spin on a case that was to determine the OFT's 'Locus standi', quite rightly, the court decided that they didn't - because, from the outset it was obvious that they didn't and anyone with half a brain would have seen that. Sadly, it seems that either there is no-one at the OFT with a brain, or the incorrect law was chosen deliberately.
Secondly, have a look at the T&Cs of your account. Anything changed recently? Like the amount they charge for bounced direct debits? Yes, that's right, you'll notice that it's less than 10% of what it used to be a few months ago.
The aim of the campaign was exactly that, so who won what?
Thirdly, do you pay tax? If you do, then you too are one of the stupid people who are subsidising them. Even more so if you have an account with any of them. Most pay way, way under the rate of inflation, so in effect, you're subsidising yourself.
Fourthly, you advocating the practice of theft from those that can least afford it, for instance, one woman in Scotland was in a car accident. It left her paralyzed from the waist down. She'd paid tax all her life, and was now in a position where she needed benefit. The payment went in late, her direct debits bounced (meaning she hadn't borrowed a penny from the bank) she was charged all but 4 quid of her benefits, leaving her and her child to eat dry cornflakes for a fortnight. In my (slightly less dramatic) case, I was lied to by an employer and was paid two weeks after the date I had changed all my direct debits to, I tried to move money from another account to cover it, but was told that would take 3 days. They took 400 quid in charges through no fault of my own. My employer wasn't culpable as penalties in contracts are unlawful, and even if they were, to sue my employer would have meant I wouldn't be working there for very long would I?
I'm unsure how that makes either of us stupid. I have several thousand cases similar, if not worse, than those, but you don't want to hear that.
So, by 'having your account subsidised by stupid people' you advocate, nah, actively endorse this kind of behaviour in a supposedly grown-up country.
You sir, are a Daily Mail reader, and I claim my five pounds.
(dchurch bah, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 8:01, 1 reply)

This reads like someone drunk.
Are you saying I read the Daily Mail and am stupid because I pay tax?

It's just that I'm happy to pay tax, as I like, live in society and stuff.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 10:40, closed)

I'm
saying that anyone who wants to be subsidised by those less fortunate than themselves are Daily Mail readers.
...and that all tax payers are subsidising banks.
(dchurch bah, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 13:35, closed)

That all tax payers are subsidising banks isn't news, and it's a good thing we are - now they're turning a profit again the nation is reaping that.
That one is subsidised by those less fortunate - what does "subsidised" and "fortunate" mean in this case?

Only, those less well off than me who also pay tax subsidise the services available to me (emergency etc).

As for fortune - well - I earn more than some, and I work bloody hard for it. I wouldn't call that fortune, I'd call it bloody hard work.

So if I have more disposable than someone with a lower paid job - well - good for me.

I don't see how any of this affects my choice of newspaper.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 16 Nov 2010, 9:33, closed)