The Bank of Farage

Sorry, that should have been Oborne, not Osborne - darn autocorrect

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

He may have "victory", but he doesn’t have a Coutts Bank account…

Whether or not he still has a Coutts account,was NEVER the issue. it was the WHY. How much of the 40 pages was spent discussing financial eligibility?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Whether or not he still has a Coutts account,was NEVER the issue. it was the WHY. How much of the 40 pages was spent discussing financial eligibility?

Has it been published in full anywhere? Or are we relying on excerpts c/o Farage?

40 pages would amount to thousands, if not the low tens of thousands, depending on formatting. I’ve only read a few paragraphs as an excerpt - a few hundred words in total max.

Equally a straightforward fact, yes or no, wouldn’t need many words regardless of the weighting it is given in the decision making process.

[Mr K]

Don't think one man's bank account is the biggest issue facing the country atm, though some media outlets and political parties would have you believe it is.

Same with the Schofield or Huw Edwards stories.Absolutely meaningless in the grand scale of things. All to divert from the real issues facing people, and to divert from crapshow UK plc..

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What about the "but one centred around inclusivity and Purpose" bit? In other words having "unauthorised" opinions.

No idea what they mean by "Purpose" but it may be explained in the dossier.

Presumably by "inclusivity" they feel that Coutts' association with Farage may deter some people banking with them and they've decided that the potential profit from those people outweighs the potential profit from retaining Farage. That's the private banking business for you. It's not about unauthorised opinions as I'm sure banks won't be aware of most customers' opinions. But if you're a public figure who courts controversy and offends sections of the population then you may not be a good fit for a traditional private bank.[/QUOTE]

With all this supposed banking confidentiality, who, that would be deterred from banking with Coutts, would know that Farage banked with them?

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

Don't think one man's bank account is the biggest issue facing the country atm, though some media outlets and political parties would have you believe it is.

Same with the Schofield or Huw Edwards stories.Absolutely meaningless in the grand scale of things. All to divert from the real issues facing people, and to divert from crapshow UK plc..

The Coutts stuff is part of "crapshow UK". All this woke shit, diversity pretence, inclusivity hypocrisy that is pandemicing through the UK, is killing us.

[jfman]

Farage of course is a key component of “crapshow UK”. Instead of taking the hint that there’s financial red flags setting off all around the banking sector, and that he’s fell below the criteria for Coutts, he’s taken to social media to conscript the gullible to his cause rather than accept an account with NatWest.

I don’t know how complex Nige’s financial life is, but plenty of people make do in pleb banks without incident.

One wonders how many years that one famous policy will exempt him from the norms and standards everyone else has to adhere to. Johnson’s luck ran out at 6, although there were brazen instances of lying and breaking the law.

Originally Posted by jfman

Has it been published in full anywhere? Or are we relying on excerpts c/o Farage?

40 pages would amount to thousands, if not the low tens of thousands, depending on formatting. I’ve only read a few paragraphs as an excerpt - a few hundred words in total max.

Equally a straightforward fact, yes or no, wouldn’t need many words regardless of the weighting it is given in the decision making process.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/n...obia-zhvgdpscn

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...farage-dossier

---------- Post added at 20:52 ---------- Previous post was at 20:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

No idea what they mean by "Purpose" but it may be explained in the dossier.

With all this supposed banking confidentiality, who, that would be deterred from banking with Coutts, would know that Farage banked with them?

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:15 ----------



The Coutts stuff is part of "crapshow UK". All this woke shit, diversity pretence, inclusivity hypocrisy that is pandemicing through the UK, is killing us.

And all the Culture War crap and faux-outrage that goes alongside it ....

And look now we are no longer looking at Boris and his wayward phone.��

[jonbxx]

That apology is a wonderful corporate statement. ‘We’re sorry for using hurty words, anyway, about your Nat West account’. Nothing has changed really.

Important lesson about communication in the work environment though - never put anything in writing you don’t want the public to see

[jfman]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

That apology is a wonderful corporate statement. ‘We’re sorry for using hurty words, anyway, about your Nat West account’. Nothing has changed really.

Important lesson about communication in the work environment though - never put anything in writing you don’t want the public to see

I thought it was magnificent myself.

As I stated earlier, the risk to their reputation of him “going public” has clearly been identified and managed by a mitigation strategy of a faux apology.

If they really weren’t prepared to do that, they’d have had a quiet chat with him, gave him what he wanted and given him his moment in the sun.

The state broadcaster are certainly out to bat for Farage in their coverage.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

That apology is a wonderful corporate statement. ‘We’re sorry for using hurty words, anyway, about your Nat West account’. Nothing has changed really.

Important lesson about communication in the work environment though - never put anything in writing you don’t want the public to see

Agreed. A words-cost-nothing approach. Dame Alison Rose didn't get to the top by u-turning to people unnecessarily, however big their public image.

I expect many banks are sending emails to staff about their client research reminding them that their clients may request a copy.

From Anrew Neil’s Tw*tter this morning:

One of ironies of the Coutts/Farage stramash has been the Left resorting to the argument that Coutts is a private company and should be able to take whatever clients it likes. Talk about Farage derangement syndrome.
The second irony relates to why they are wrong, thanks, Mr Farage take note, to EU rules.
The Financial Conduct Authority, City watchdog for conduct of banks, points to relevant legislation which forbids discrimination: Regulation 18 of the Payment Accounts Regulations 2019 – one of the EU retained laws from 2015 – which states:
“A credit institution must not discriminate against consumers legally resident in the United Kingdom by reason of their nationality or place of residence or by reason of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation when those consumers apply for or access a payment account.”
Which is why, despite the apology to NF, Alison Rose’s job is still on the line.

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/16...56-Kgau3lzowJw

[jfman]

Sounds more like Andrew Neil derangement syndrome.

Hope he has his sun cream for that heatwave in the south of France.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

From Anrew Neil’s Tw*tter this morning:



https://twitter.com/afneil/status/16...56-Kgau3lzowJw

The irony is that that Coutts, being a private company, does take whatever clients it likes

Originally Posted by ianch99

The irony is that that Coutts, being a private company, does take whatever clients it likes

Actually the banking regulations give a fairly broad range of reasons they can’t use when deciding what clients they like (ironically, they are EU-wide reg’s that were written wholesale into UK law during Brexit). The question continues to be whether in reality they used permissible or non-permissible reasons. Farage’s subject access request revealed a pile of discussion which can be taken to mean they had non-permissible reasons for wanting rid of him and only then went looking for legitimate ones to use as cover. Their ongoing problem is that while they do have legitimate commercial rules about who they do business with, those rules are not rigidly enforced by any stretch of the imagination, especially on those who have been long-term customers and may simply not be as rich as they once were. That makes it all the harder for them to plausibly claim they’re leaning on legitimate reasons.