If you cannot separate the two issues the management then good luck to you.

Good stuff the knight, it just depends where you settle this.

There is a connection, but they are totally separate issues.

I was the Director of Communications at a Spanish multinational financial services company.

Ok,ta for the response.

That was a joke David - I worked in what they used to call Industrial Relations for about 20 years and then moved into Arbitration.

Wool pullover…..ffs…..David knew ….

The Management,

No, I do not expect or want any compensation. Believe me, the £50 they MIGHT offer means nothing to me. I did not ask for any cash in my complaint either, I only suggested it for the reason below.

I am now 65 and have learned through business, and much else, that nowadays nothing will focus the mind of an organization more if they think compensation might come into play.

If they apologize for their heavy-handiness that will be fine by me, but I believe the best way of extracting apologies from any business is if that business has had to consider whether they should pay compensation or not.

Also, I do not understand why on earth you are seeking to somehow defend what Santander have done? Are you a contrarian or just having a bit of a giggle on here? Whatever it is, I generally find that those who argue in the face of inescapable stupidity are the first to then start crying foul if such stupidity affects them!!

Regarding banks, three points here to highlight that it might not just be 'gambling' where they're involved in the 'crossfire':

1. When the truckers in Canada were protesting against the covid tyranny, they had their bank accounts frozen, and it didn't end there either, as those who had donated to the crowdfunding page set up to support the truckers, had their bank accounts frozen too.

2. In this country Nigel Farage was told by Coutts that his business wasn't wanted, they claimed at the time because he didn't have enough in his account, but was it because they didn't like his politics? Iirc, he had issues regarding opening an account with other banks too.

Fkn hell, George banging on about f*cking covid again; and Farage, f*ck that c u next Tuesday.

Nowt to do with us ordinary Brits?

3. Then let me remind you of the 'punishment' that may be dished out to those who refuse conscription / National Service, should it be brought in.

For WWW1, 'conscientious objectors' were shot.
WWW2: COs were sent to prison.

But what did Rishi Sunak last year say could befall the modern day CO, regarding refusing 'National Service'?

Yes, their bank accounts could be frozen / closed.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rishi-sunak-general-election-national-service-b2566249.html

And a shocking topical omission there regarding what's being brought in regarding spying on the bank accounts of people on welfare benefits.

And that's just for starters, where will that end up?

They have sent you an e-mail containing nothing more than some information. You have a relationship with them i.e. by your own admission you bank with them, so they have your bank records/statements etc and presumably you haven't opted out of them sending you communications.

You can delete it without reading it, read it and then delete it or read it and then act upon it.

It's not that different form them sending you some information or advice about how to avoid getting scammed or them sending you an e-mail offering you a car loan - when if their software was more advanced they could quite easily see you have say an £85k balance in your savings account - pointless them sending it to you because you have no interest in the information provided. Would you take massive offence or just delete it knowing it was a (poorly targeted) "blanket" communication?

Have they done anything wrong? Probably not. Will they apologise for sending you some information you didn't want? Probably yes, if only to pacify you.

I just sincerely hope you haven't got a Tesco Clubcard!

Is there a bigger agenda (that is maybe more sinister) coming over the hill? Almost certainly! Are the banks part of the cause? No. They've just got caught in the crossfire between an asleep at the wheel regulator and some businesses that are out of control and have been behaving in a predatory manner. The banks will (i'd imagine very reluctantly and sadly with the full blessing of the Information Commissioners Office) get forced into being part of a half baked solution.

If you still think you got the e-mail because your bank is "woke" and not because predatory on-line bookmakers got out of control, then you might as well go and become an investigative reporter for the Racing Post!

We got off lightly with his latest post.

7 paragraphs, 306 words but just the six parentheses.

"predatory on-line bookmakers got out of control"   Why does Knight have a problem if this true ? You say the banks acted very reluctantly. Why not refuse to send emails to people where there is no evidence whatsoever of any problem ?

Will the bank be fined or closed down if it doesn't send emails to customers with the profile of The Knight ? ( just a couple of 3 figure deposits & a profit )

But if it's laddies and h ILLS for example you me and the banks know they are not scammers or criminals.  They are high street names that have been around for 60 years.  Poor comparison by you there.

I get at least a dozen emails from them each month. Anything from mortgages to house insurance. Anybody depositing with a bookies or maybe swiping their card in a bookies will more than likely get the email. It will presumably done on an algorithm.

Most people will just think ‘feck off, it’s my money’ and carry on regardless. It may even hit home with some on how much they are losing and maybe reduce that in future.

t2r - you've only counted the "dashes" and the "brackets" imo. Commas are also parentheses imo.

For 10 extra free spins - maybe you could mention that to Foyleswar so that his excellent write-ups don't make my eyes bleed!

Well, a resolution this afternoon. 

Santander complaints people called me at around 2pm and we discussed why the gambling email had so annoyed me. After listening to their fully-expected tripe about 'keeping our customers safe' I was then pleased to here an admission that 'in hindsight, the email would have been more effective had it been better targeted'. (It drives me mad BTW how many others want to keep me safe - unless it costs them to do so, of course!!)

Also, they 'understood' my concerns about how they were picking up my 'gambling activity' from my account and could reassure me that 'automated software was doing the analysis and not a team on individuals'.

This was all almost exactly what I thought they would say.

Of course, they do maintain their right 'to keep their customers safe' - as the young lady said about five times, and could not comment how, in 2008 and in a number of other instances since, banks all around the globe paid absolutely no attention whatsoever to keeping their customers safe (or anyone else) when they became involved in debt swaps etc. etc. etc!

Lastly, they also offered me a very small sum in compensation but I declined it and asked they send it to the guide dogs for the blind.

As for 'The Management', get over yourself son.

So you now admit they might apologize but only to 'pacify me'. No winning a debate with you is there? After all, you even prepare the ground for a 'defeat' before the verdict on something has been passed! Anyway, at least it appears I am valuable enough to my bankers to have them pacify me!!

Lastly, I didn't fully read why the £650 an hour as lecturer was mentioned and certainly cannot be bothered to find it now.

But if that hourly rate was the claim of yourself - The Management - best of luck to you. But please do advise me on whom would pay you that because going my your arguments on this thread, I am pretty bl**dy sure I could earn twice as much doing the same thing - I'd ever pay you a percentage for putting me onto such lucrative work and then you could spend even more time on here with your rather spurious and obnoxious arguments!!! ROFLMO - I think that is the right anagram!!

£650 appears to be the ramblings of the illiterate Scottish "pro-punter" - possibly his losses for the week so far?

I'll have to get back to you about the rest another time. I'm sorry to report that I had a bit of a serious personal crisis this morning. I received an e-mail from my bank containing some information that I don't feel is entirely relevant to me - It has outraged me, so I'm gonna be busy for a few days reporting it to the police, MI5 and the CIA.

Guide Dogs for the Blind? - seems very appropriate!

Arbitration….Einstein…..the norm can be £650 per hour for a decent…..