22nd October, 2017:
Publisher delays iss 3, 2017 until late October because of inexcusable business behaviour of rank bad faith by Barclays Bank Plc in letters dated 16th August 2017.
Next issue includes work by Helen Gavaghan, photographs of Antarctica by Martin Redfern, and a book review by Astronomer, Ferdinando Patat.
During a witnessed exchange on the afternoon of 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 matters right, and was oblivious to damage done by Barclays.
I have now made alternative personal and business banking arrangements. I neither wanted nor needed an alternative to Barclays. Two months of my business and productivity have been destroyed by Barclays at a critical time. Did Barclays want to cast doubt on my good name, infuence a current civil judicial process which I have instigated, derail annulment of bankruptcy, destroy Science, People & Politics, prevent its timely publication, or pander to those who locally in mid 2014 made malicious false accusations at the local doctors' surgery with apparent intent to make evidence to suit themselves? No bank should ever be allowed to get away with what Barclays has just done to me, my business and, by extension, to my colloegaues and their committment to our business. Barclays has made a total nonsense of every issue we have resolved during the past 11 years. So blatantly abusive and damaging were these acts by Barclays that I am left with no choice but to query discrimination, and I am alarmed to discover that the Financial Services Ombdudsamn is actually totally ineffective, and genuinely not even remotely independent, but happily will accept unwritten terms and conditions in the sector as being of more relevance than are actual terms and conditions. Astonishingly the FSO did not investigate my complaint about what Barclays actually did, but, rather, investigated what the Bank could in general terms do -- which would seem to be to close down anyone's account whenever they want, and without giving specifics relating to section subclauses, and thus the basis of their action. Which means nothing gets investigated of any use to anyone, and non abusive customers in good standing (like me) and suppliers (like Barclays, which makes a very big profit) are left not knowing what the hell is going on. Unless there is deliberate intent to provoke and give incorrect information to customers, simply because there is institutional discrimination. Helen Gavaghan.