You made the mistake again, there is no destruction of evidence but destruction of possible evidence. This is terrible wording. Although I get your point: it obviously look like she was hiding something, but careful with wording and logic ...

It is negligible because it is spread across a large number of people, the argument still stands that you pay for fraudsters.

Read and educate yourself, you are the one without facts here.

About why Barclays was pushing the submissions lower:

Source

About what index is used for variable mortgages (*hint* it is not LIBOR):

What is the Bank of England Rate

Link

The comment I replied to is just a random mix of poorly used facts to bash against banking without understanding and jumping from imprecise facts to incorrect conclusions.

Ah I see what you mean, it is still wrong but in a different way ... You have to pay for insurance premium, if frauds increases the premium is higher. On pure expectations the premiums of insurance are higher than if you were bearing the cost, the insurance offsets risks by pooling risk together and charging a small premium.

The saddest part is how he got modded up. Shows the ability of some people to follow a conversation. It wouldn't be so sad if he wasn't talking about politics. Sometimes I wonder if this kind of person deserve to express their opinion.

So what's your point ? Are you saying it is okay ? You are really weird and amoral.

LIBOR is set by the LIBOR panel. The central bank is actually deciding of the central bank rate and this is not directly influenced by LIBOR. Banks will set the spread to charge you. What you said above in point 1) is quite wrong. As someone else pointed out, during the crisis the banks were manipulating LIBOR down not up. I think you should get a bit more information before to talk about stuff you do not understand.

You seem to think that the big guy always win: in the U.S. it may be more true. But you forgot a big factor here: nobody will go in court to enforce such an agreement pointlessly: if you go to the court over a warehouse worker, and the jury goes against you because they find the agreement abusive, then you set a precedent which will weaken your position the next time you need to enfore such an agreement.

Therfore contrarily to what you said the small guy with a lesser job has actually not much to be scared of in reality.

You seem to forgot the most basic truth of the justice system: it is up to the accusers to prove that she is guilty not up to her to prove she is innocent.

You make a confusion here, smart and honest is not the same thing.

Are you serious ? The BBC forgave him on so many occasions and could not do it on this one. Your statement is totally wrong.

Telephone and electricity wires cost money to run as well. We mandated that the utilities provide service to all and they used to simply spread the cost over the entire customer base. As long as you're profitable in the large it doesn't really matter if each customer turns a profit. However, if a company is not required to do so, they will, of course, focus only on profitable customers.

We chose to subsidize services that were viewed as vital, such as phone and electricity. Cable TV is not a necessity but internet access may be.

The difference is that their jokes are not attacking any minority group or ethnicity. Making penis jokes is infantile but it is a stretch to say that it is sexist. This is the difference. What's next ? I'll get offer ended at the colour RED so I will ask them to change their logo.

I feel like that it is borderline in this case, it is not a commercial product but an open source project, you may not agree but shouldn't they be able to run their own project how they want ?

Does this infringe some kind of law in the US ?

I use an Acer S7-392 for a light laptop for programming on the go if that helps. Got a refurbished model with a slight crack for cheap. I chose this because my previous MBP was not running Windows very efficiently, the hardware is quite optimised for MacOSX.