Page 3 of 3

Re: Fund raising

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:13 pm
by NEILL THE NOTORIOUS
News --- this morning --"We are very sorry , would you like us to keep your support at the present level ?"

-------- No. The bank has, already been informed in writing. !!!

Re: Fund raising

Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 8:16 pm
by Chris Blewett
sejintenej wrote:
Chris Blewett wrote:
J.R. wrote:I've always been against direct-debit for the very reason they can almost play with your money to their hearts content.

Bring back the good old standing-order, I say ! :axe:

Interesting points; was the so-called "guarantee" physically signed on behalf of the power company as is required by the Statute of Frauds 1677 section 4? If not then the bit of paper is not enforceable. I am not totally sure (I would have to examine internal papers at the guarantor) but it is highly likely that the "guarantee" would need to bear the guarantor's corporate seal instead of simple signatures supported by a formal resolution of the company board authorising the signatories to sign. Going back in time, Gordon B "guaranteed" that certain bank deposits would be repaid or covered but did any creditor receive that in writing and signed?
Why cant anything be simple - is it because we deal nowadays with machines rather than 'gentlemen'???
:?

Re: Fund raising

Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 9:30 am
by jhopgood
Chris Blewett wrote: Why cant anything be simple - is it because we deal nowadays with machines rather than 'gentlemen'???
:?
Wow, long time since a banker has been called a "gentleman"!

Re: Fund raising

Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 4:13 pm
by J.R.
A more apt description being 'merchant banker'.

(Good old cockney rhyming slang )

Re: Fund raising

Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 7:02 pm
by sejintenej
J.R. wrote:A more apt description being 'merchant banker'.

(Good old cockney rhyming slang )
A "gentleman" was a person of independent means (or so I was taught when I first joined one of the big five). It did not, of itself, make them honourable though the vast majority that I came across in the fifties and sixties definitely were. They were the type who would commit the western equivalent of seppuku if found wanting as the father of my own presenting governor demonstrated. He had been involved in the collapse of an insurance company and "did time". On coming out he went to Paris and thence to Havana where he died having had no correspondence nor contact with his family. Indeed his daughter disowned him and a wealthy businessman disowned his daughter when she married (late in her twenties) the distant nephew of the "criminal". In our time there was the Minister who lied in the Commons and left to work in the East End. Oh, how I wish those erks in public life - MPs, false expenses claimants, company directors, civil servants, common criminals and public figures could be gentlemen of that ilk. Compare that with Blair's crony who made three comebacks when he should have disappeared after the first offence against Westminster rules; there are few "gentlemen" any longer.

(Much of this info courtesy of the CH Office and thanks to them)

As for merchant banks - been there, done that but they didn't hand out tee shirts - I got out before the TSB got them..

Re: Fund raising

Posted: Mon May 02, 2011 8:42 pm
by Chris Blewett
jhopgood wrote:
Chris Blewett wrote: Why cant anything be simple - is it because we deal nowadays with machines rather than 'gentlemen'???
:?
Wow, long time since a banker has been called a "gentleman"!
Well....one was always brought up to be polite.....even to those who don't deserve it!!!!

(I don't always manage it though!)
:) :)

Re: Fund raising

Posted: Tue May 03, 2011 3:52 pm
by NEILL THE NOTORIOUS
I agree, one must always be polite -------- as with the young man who asked for my wallet ---

I replied "I don't think so" .

How did we get on to this thread in "Fundraising" ? --- although I assume "Mugging" qualifies ! :lol: