Or the more universal rule:
The problem with a PIN lock on the Monzo app is that there will be always something that someone will disagree with and it will turn into an endless debate.
4 Likes
Good point Jolin, Any discussion can turn into an endless debate when there are two or more solid arguments and no one is willing to give up or accept the opposite viewpoint.
Examples from this community;
- Apple Pay
- App security
- Pulse
- Android Parity
…
3 Likes
That’s because some people are wrong. 
Fair, but I think the key is we all need to be respectful. I don’t think it’s wrong at all to mention politics because let’s put it this way. If Tom Blomsfield came out tomorrow and said he was endorsing Donald Trump, I’d be seriously reconsidering my banking. The comments in the Metro Bank thread have me seriously reconsidering my use of Metro Bank! I haven’t closed my account… yet, but they’re very concerning.
These are a real and important part of these products. It isn’t all about the numbers, if it was - no one would use Monzo, frankly. Some things are more than the sum of their parts, and values and ethics are a part of that.
2 Likes
Of course, totally agree with the whole of your post actually. Just to refer back to OP I don’t think he intended to be disrespectful at all. It’s just political and point of view difference which should be totally respected but discussions should always be polite, shouldn’t turn into PM’s Q&A
1 Like
Definitely, I couldn’t disagree more with many of his opinions, but I totally respect his right to share them. Just as I’d want to know to avoid the Trump supporting bank, others may want to choose it 
Why can’t we all love one another regardless of views?
4 Likes
Reminds me of this;
Can’t we give ourselves one more chance
Why can’t we give love that one more chance
Why can’t we give love give love give love give love
Give love give love give love give love give love
'Cause love’s such an old fashioned word
And love dares you to care for
2 Likes
Why can’t we just use the best bank regardless of the political views of one or two of their staff?
If we use consumer pressure and boycotts to try to impose our personal political views on bank staff, that might force bankers to keep their sincerely-held beliefs private, but will it give us the best banking?
And what if our personal political views don’t deserve the moral pedestal we’ve put them on? How then can we justify pressing them on others via violent force? (I believe it is a violent act to organise a boycott or shame/mob individuals based on their legitimate political alignment).
Instead, shouldn’t we use consumer pressure to force banks to deliver the best banking service to consumers?
1 Like
Now come on. I’ve supported your right to say anything until now. But it is not in any way violent to choose not to support a company that you don’t agree with their morals, and to do so is an insult to every victim of violence there has been.
4 Likes
I didn’t say “morals” in that context. This is what I said:
…
We can. No one is preventing anyone else from choosing whichever banking service they want, for whatever reason they want.
Fair enough, if that is your view. It’s not mine. I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to express the view that one will choose to not do business with with a company for whatever moral, political, or business reason. If others agree with that stance, then they can choose to do the same.
I haven’t banked with Barclays ever since they were involved in supporting the apartheid regime in South Africa, for instance. I also haven’t shopped at Curry’s since an employee lied to me in 1976. (I’m quite good at grudges).
Absolutely. Unless one is of the opinion that it is a violent act to organise consumer pressure to encourage a business to change its business practices, of course. Then you definitely shouldn’t.
5 Likes
I’m going to close this now as I think we’re going down a bit of a rabbit hole… Feel free to continue the various discussions here in related threads 
5 Likes