22nd October, 2017:
Publisher delays iss 3, 2017 because of damaging business behaviour of rank bad faith by Barclays Bank Plc in letters dated 16th August 2017.
Next issue includes work by Helen Gavaghan, photo of Antarctica by Martin Redfern, and book review by Astronomer, Ferdinando Patat. It will be published ASAP.
During a witnessed exchange on 13th October, 2017 with a London-based Barclays' executive complaints' team manager I refused a non-specific apology, because that apology made no effort to put right what Barclays has done wrong. There are no words to express how wrong and abusive is the action by Barclays against my accounts, demonstrably and provably in perfect good standing for 11 years in every way -- I have all the records. I went to the FSO, and have refused FSO findings as nothing but rubber stamping in the face of abuse by Barclays. The FSO has told me this means that the FSO findings are not legally binding.
Barclays Bank Plc does not deserve to have made the billion-plus profit it reported this quarter, especially since it has: given me incorrrect interest rate info; only acknowledged on my fourth call that I was telling them that AmEx, TSB and NatWest were telling me I was a victim of ID theft (Barclays paid proper recompense for that error); missed transactions off my accounts; told me the British pound is not sterling, and were quite abusive in trying to make me accept the British pound is not sterling; shown no understanding of limitations and dangers of Pingit in a world of international banking, trade and mobile telecoms; and left it to me to draw to their attention an incorrect currency conversion. I had thought all these disputes and others had been solved amicably. Seemingly not. I posit their abusive closure of my accounts in consistent good standing may be an attempt: to influence a civil judicial process I have instigated, and/or is an effort to prevent annulment of a bankruptcy order, something for which on the grounds of full repayment with Court determined interest I could petition a Court for, because my discharge from bankruptcy is without restriction orders or undertaking against me. So I have kept 11 years of banking in good standing, so that Barclays' inexcusable abuse of my accounts cannot derail repayment to other banks. I further am quite certain that apportioning overheads within a single sole tradership is entirely legitimate, and consider there are a lot of half wits who seek to make evidence to suite some Pendle witch hunting, ill-educated idiocy of their own.
Or Barclays could be seeking to undermine an effort to prevent my legal exploration of whether had PPI paid out when in 2005 I made a claim and sought to make a claim (I have since received recompense for PPI missold to me by banks other than Barclays, and that was paid by me and the Official Receiver into my estate in bankruptcy) bankruptcy could have been avoided. Do the PPI sellers have partial liability? In my case medical abuse and misdiagnosis in 2004 followed by five-plus months consequential debilitation and inability to earn in the first half of 2005 was the main, but not sole, cause of the bankruptcy in 2006. I was, and am, self employed, and the self employed do not get sick pay.
I have now made alternate personal and business banking arrangements. Two months of business productivity destroyed by Barclays. Helen Gavaghan.