Support the online petition to Lloyds Banking Group

[rbr 1,247]

boss is there any way the messages can be removed as it is infested with ****s just now , and some are pretty stupid , bordering on offensive

[calscot 0]

To be honest I think it's very poorly worded.

[boss 0]

boss is there any way the messages can be removed as it is infested with ****s just now , and some are pretty stupid , bordering on offensive

 

Offensive posts are being deleted when spotted.

 

Timothy will soon get bored - but they are still contributing to the overall numbers even when their posts are deleted. They aren't very bright.

[boss 0]

To be honest I think it's very poorly worded.

 

Go on then, the floor is yours .....

[craig 5,195]

I agree with cal even though I signed it.

 

I would have preferred that it stayed away from mud-slinging. The statement "We appeal to your commercial good sense (to the extent that such still exists within your discredited, 43% state-owned company)", to me is mud slinging and is more likely to have a "fuck them" resopnse from lloyds.

 

I prefer the dignified, professional, business-like approach. The same effect could have been had by saying something along the lines of "Rangers supporters form part of the 43% stake in your institutaion that is owned by the UK taxpayer - that ownership being required due to what appears to have been bad commercial awareness of the management team of the Lloyds group".

 

Same effect, less antagonistic.

[Zappa 0]

I agree with cal even though I signed it.

 

I would have preferred that it stayed away from mud-slinging. The statement "We appeal to your commercial good sense (to the extent that such still exists within your discredited, 43% state-owned company)", to me is mud slinging and is more likely to have a "fuck them" resopnse from lloyds.

 

I prefer the dignified, professional, business-like approach. The same effect could have been had by saying something along the lines of "Rangers supporters form part of the 43% stake in your institutaion that is owned by the UK taxpayer - that ownership being required due to what appears to have been bad commercial awareness of the management team of the Lloyds group".

 

Same effect, less antagonistic.

Have to agree. It shouldn't stray from appealing to them into antagonizing them.

[bmck 117]

I don't think the substance of what is said is really that important. Companies don't care about anything other than how many people sign something criticising them.

[biggordy 0]

I've signed but it's not helped by the clowns who choose to post stupid messages as well.

I would think personal mail to the Bank HQ would be better.

[andy steel 0]

I have signed as well. Hope it makes some difference.

[calscot 0]

I agree with cal even though I signed it.

 

I would have preferred that it stayed away from mud-slinging. The statement "We appeal to your commercial good sense (to the extent that such still exists within your discredited, 43% state-owned company)", to me is mud slinging and is more likely to have a "fuck them" resopnse from lloyds.

 

That's the bit that grates the most with me.

 

I prefer the dignified, professional, business-like approach. The same effect could have been had by saying something along the lines of "Rangers supporters form part of the 43% stake in your institutaion that is owned by the UK taxpayer - that ownership being required due to what appears to have been bad commercial awareness of the management team of the Lloyds group".

 

Same effect, less antagonistic.

 

To be honest I don't see the need to disparage them beyond what they are doing now. I rather it sticked to the point and encouraged good business sense rather than accusations of bad business sense.

 

I think it should focus how it is far better long term business sense to keep a club like Rangers competitive on the pitch and also better not to antagonise the emotions of many of their customers by threatening to put the club into administration.

 

It would make better business sense to be flexible in the facilitating a take-over rather than being obstructive and immovable, which not only could result in them getting less of their money back but will alienate hundreds of thousands of customers/potential customers.

 

 

Sticking to the point and keeping it well reasoned would have a lot more impact.