That’s the key point. Have you ever read the small print of anything else? That stuff covers every eventuality because that’s what lawyers do. But the subtitle of the article is:
Digital bank’s overdraft offer criticised as ‘beyond the pale’
So apparently some clause in the small print of 70,000 words is an “offer”. It’s not an offer. Quite the opposite: Tom said on TV, on the blog, on his twitter, that it’s a dumb idea and people shouldn’t do it. But it appears that The Times, or perhaps just this journalist, has an agenda to push their paternalistic viewpoint on everyone else through misleading reporting.