Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
None of that supports the argument that the document was "filled with biased nonsense" which is the point I was contesting with Nomad.
I've previously posted and discussed the section that referred to inclusivity and Purpose.
I agree that they should have been upfront with him. It looks like they gambled this approach would land better.
|
I think we’re way beyond the optics of this now though. Yesterday I was leaning towards old-fashioned upper class snobbery as the reason for wanting to get rid of Farage, the sort of person a snooty-nosed upper class twit might snort at and call an ‘odious little oik’ or somesuch. It now looks very much as if the fault line lies between the socially conservative and socially liberal views that divide this country (those on one side shout ‘woke’ at the other, the others shout back ‘gammon’).
‘Inclusivity and purpose’ isn’t about Farage’s connection with Trump, Putin or Brexit per se, but the social views Coutts believe are driving him. Alarm bells should be ringing here for all of us, because there is now an entirely plausible claim that the bank tried to bin him for his association with certain social/political causes. If that’s the case we need to be thinking long and hard about the extent to which we allow major corporations to police the socio-political views of the population.
---------- Post added at 12:32 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
Could it not equally be considered that they weighed up the merits of retaining him despite not meeting their criteria?
The final payment on his mortgage is the point where he no longer met the criteria. It doesn’t need to be a pretext for anything - it’s the exact moment it’s appropriate to bin him under their own rules .
|
Except that there is clearly a lot of flexibility over how the ‘rules’ are applied once you have a foot in the door, and there is no evidence that his finances flagged up on any automatic system designed to draw attention to accounts that no longer met those rules.
They were *looking* for reasons to bin him, and while their own rules on investment/borrowing were actually adequate reasons for doing so, they were not the reasons that drove the process, nor were they the ones that sealed his fate.