This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Coutts VS Nigel Farage
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 Matov  25 Jul 23 10.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
The latest from Alison Rose. How can she possibly remain in her position having divulged details about a customer to a newspaper. If she has an account with Coutts or Nat West, the least she should do is close down her own account as she is damaging to the reputation of the bank. Edited by georgenorman (25 Jul 2023 6.40pm) She cannot remain in position. She HAS to resign. The longer she remains in situ, the more damage being done. Would be very surprised if she still has her job by this time tomorrow.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 25 Jul 23 10.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by palace99
Can't believe this is still a story and has made front page news. Originally i thought the spin was that 'man of the people' Farage had a Coutts account, something 99% plus of the population are unable to obtain. If this is a freedom of speech argument then surely every organisation can refuse business if they choose to do so. This happens every day e.g. a restaurant turning customers way if they 'look' dodgy or a pub barring outspoken customers etc. Didn't a publican throw Starmer out of his pub a year or so ago telling him he wasn't welcome? Where were the freedom of speech brigade then? If you can't see the difference between being thrown out of a pub and having your bank account closed, then there isn't much more to say on that. Which part of this all happening because of his political views don't you understand? If you and other leftist types can't see how dangerous that is, then there is little hope for the future.
|
|
HKOwen  Hong Kong 25 Jul 23 11.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
In law, a Publican can refuse service to anybody they want and tell them to leave their premises. In law, a bank cannot divulge a customer's financial position to a third party unless obliged to by a court order or authorised by the customer. This woman has broken the law by any definition.
As I recall Starmer followed by a camera went into a pub without seeking prior permission to film. The publican was anti lockdown which Starmer was full on to make more severe
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
| Tunbridge Tunbridge Wells 25 Jul 23 11.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
She has to resign immediately just like Dorries, oh wait......
|
|
| HKOwen Hong Kong 26 Jul 23 4.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by palace99
Can't believe this is still a story and has made front page news. Originally i thought the spin was that 'man of the people' Farage had a Coutts account, something 99% plus of the population are unable to obtain. If this is a freedom of speech argument then surely every organisation can refuse business if they choose to do so. This happens every day e.g. a restaurant turning customers way if they 'look' dodgy or a pub barring outspoken customers etc. Didn't a publican throw Starmer out of his pub a year or so ago telling him he wasn't welcome? Where were the freedom of speech brigade then? What an extraordinary view of the events.
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 26 Jul 23 6.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by HKOwen
Gone, consequences of her own making. Her hubris and arrogance have bought her down. Now, what about the other 10,000 de-banked Natwest customers? Coutts reputation is also gone and will forever be remembered for the bank that cancelled right wing voters and supporters of right wing policies. Expect a name change in the next few years. Cancel culture, which for years has been the go to for many to avoid discussion is slowly being found out to be the wrong way. People power prevails.
|
|
| georgenorman 26 Jul 23 8.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Wisbelch has gone quite on this thread!
|
|
| Spiderman Horsham 26 Jul 23 8.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by HKOwen
What an extraordinary view of the events. Yes, very bizarre. If people cannot see how dangerous this sort of action is, heaven help us! Can you imagine the furore from the left if BLM had been refused access to the banking system
|
|
| Matov 26 Jul 23 8.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Wisbelch has gone quite on this thread! One of the things that made me realise this was not going end well for the bank was how, almost from the minute the story broke, was how Left-wing voices with at least a modicum of reason, realised how wrong this was. Obviously not the morons, but the ones who at least try and play the game properly. With the horrendous breaking of confidentiality beyond the pale. Only question now is why it took this woman so long to resign. Should have gone the second it came out what she had done.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| georgenorman 26 Jul 23 9.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As I said before this event has provided Farage a huge propaganda opportunity which he is continuing to milk. Something which is not in the public interest! There is a great deal of misreporting going on as a consequence of the claims being made by him, which the government are reinforcing by their own response. Which suggests to me that their fear of Farage remains alive and well. Let’s be clear. Farage was not “debanked” because of his political views, despite all the claims to the contrary by him which seemed to have been swallowed by so many and regurgitated as fact. He was “debanked” because someone holding those views was seen as a business threat as a consequence of the way other customers, and potential customers, could perceive them. Some might say, there’s no difference, but there is and it’s a very important one. It’s not the bank’s view of him that was considered. I doubt they have a view. It’s the view of their customers which was. The reason for the “debanking” was solely to do with potential reputational damage. I have no doubt that Coutts have held accounts for some seriously unpleasant people in the past and done nothing about them. That though was then. This is now, and times, standards and responses have all evolved. That the CEO has had to resign is a completely separate issue, although once again I somehow doubt that will be accepted. She handled this very badly and had no alternative. Misleading the BBC and forcing them to apologise was embarrassing enough but breaking client confidentiality was beyond that. Trust between a bank and their client is paramount and must never be broken. She has caused immense damage to Nat West and the whole financial services industry. Her behaviour is though nothing to do with the underlying principle that banks can make their own decisions, for their own reasons, on who they accept and retain, as customers. Banks are not public utilities to which we all have a right of access. It could come to pass that the government, through the FCA, will require banks to give a notice period prior to closure, with an explanation of why it is happening and for there to be the opportunity to appeal. They could also require the high street banks to provide a basic facility to everyone who requests one. Something that must remain in credit to function and has charges for every transaction. All of which makes sense. What does not is the way Farage’s claims about being “debanked” for his political views have just been accepted, with little or no question. Farage was clearly 'debanked' because of his political views. It's nonsense to suggest it was just to do with the bank's reputation. Their account holders wouldn't give two figs for Farage having an account and the public in general just think Coutts is for rich b*****ds anyway. The Coutts boss should resign too.
|
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 26 Jul 23 9.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As I said before this event has provided Farage a huge propaganda opportunity which he is continuing to milk. Something which is not in the public interest! There is a great deal of misreporting going on as a consequence of the claims being made by him, which the government are reinforcing by their own response. Which suggests to me that their fear of Farage remains alive and well. Let’s be clear. Farage was not “debanked” because of his political views, despite all the claims to the contrary by him which seemed to have been swallowed by so many and regurgitated as fact. He was “debanked” because someone holding those views was seen as a business threat as a consequence of the way other customers, and potential customers, could perceive them. Some might say, there’s no difference, but there is and it’s a very important one. It’s not the bank’s view of him that was considered. I doubt they have a view. It’s the view of their customers which was. The reason for the “debanking” was solely to do with potential reputational damage. I have no doubt that Coutts have held accounts for some seriously unpleasant people in the past and done nothing about them. That though was then. This is now, and times, standards and responses have all evolved. That the CEO has had to resign is a completely separate issue, although once again I somehow doubt that will be accepted. She handled this very badly and had no alternative. Misleading the BBC and forcing them to apologise was embarrassing enough but breaking client confidentiality was beyond that. Trust between a bank and their client is paramount and must never be broken. She has caused immense damage to Nat West and the whole financial services industry. Her behaviour is though nothing to do with the underlying principle that banks can make their own decisions, for their own reasons, on who they accept and retain, as customers. Banks are not public utilities to which we all have a right of access. It could come to pass that the government, through the FCA, will require banks to give a notice period prior to closure, with an explanation of why it is happening and for there to be the opportunity to appeal. They could also require the high street banks to provide a basic facility to everyone who requests one. Something that must remain in credit to function and has charges for every transaction. All of which makes sense. What does not is the way Farage’s claims about being “debanked” for his political views have just been accepted, with little or no question. I spent my career working in banking and during my time I saw all sorts of activity relating to famous people. We all signed a confidentiality clause. What I am amazed about is that the CEO and the board could think she should hang onto her job. If that had happened then it would have been a green light for more junior staff to reveal details about other famous people. At any employment tribunal the lawyers would argue that said person should not have been sacked as the CEO did the very same thing. This is not whistle blowing illegal activities but disclosing someone's legal business. Why on earth she disclosed in the first place and then thought she could ride out the storm just shows how arrogant she and the other seniors are.
One more point |
|
| silvertop Portishead 26 Jul 23 9.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
A Farage win. And all down to one of the biggest own-goals by the Establishment in a long time. And it ain't over yet. Talk of a massive group action by others who have been 'de-banked'. The Nat-West is now very much in play. Since 2020, the law only requires banks to provide base level service - money in, money out. If any de-banked customers were offered that, or they were de-banked before the law came in force, I fear their case may not get off the ground.
|
|
| Spiderman Horsham 26 Jul 23 10.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As I said before this event has provided Farage a huge propaganda opportunity which he is continuing to milk. Something which is not in the public interest! There is a great deal of misreporting going on as a consequence of the claims being made by him, which the government are reinforcing by their own response. Which suggests to me that their fear of Farage remains alive and well. Let’s be clear. Farage was not “debanked” because of his political views, despite all the claims to the contrary by him which seemed to have been swallowed by so many and regurgitated as fact. He was “debanked” because someone holding those views was seen as a business threat as a consequence of the way other customers, and potential customers, could perceive them. Some might say, there’s no difference, but there is and it’s a very important one. It’s not the bank’s view of him that was considered. I doubt they have a view. It’s the view of their customers which was. The reason for the “debanking” was solely to do with potential reputational damage. I have no doubt that Coutts have held accounts for some seriously unpleasant people in the past and done nothing about them. That though was then. This is now, and times, standards and responses have all evolved. That the CEO has had to resign is a completely separate issue, although once again I somehow doubt that will be accepted. She handled this very badly and had no alternative. Misleading the BBC and forcing them to apologise was embarrassing enough but breaking client confidentiality was beyond that. Trust between a bank and their client is paramount and must never be broken. She has caused immense damage to Nat West and the whole financial services industry. Her behaviour is though nothing to do with the underlying principle that banks can make their own decisions, for their own reasons, on who they accept and retain, as customers. Banks are not public utilities to which we all have a right of access. It could come to pass that the government, through the FCA, will require banks to give a notice period prior to closure, with an explanation of why it is happening and for there to be the opportunity to appeal. They could also require the high street banks to provide a basic facility to everyone who requests one. Something that must remain in credit to function and has charges for every transaction. All of which makes sense. What does not is the way Farage’s claims about being “debanked” for his political views have just been accepted, with little or no question. Your 4th paragraph suggests he was de banked due to his political views, no? You say it was the banks perception of what their customers opinion about Farage is, did they ask them all for their views? Of course not. How has Farages political views changed since he started banking there? Initially you were taken in by the lack of funds excuse, not true apparently.You seem to be making this into an anti-Farage thread. If the bank had no broken confidentiality he would not been able Edited by Spiderman (26 Jul 2023 10.06am) Edited by Spiderman (26 Jul 2023 10.12am)
|
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 26 Jul 23 10.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As I said before this event has provided Farage a huge propaganda opportunity which he is continuing to milk. Something which is not in the public interest! There is a great deal of misreporting going on as a consequence of the claims being made by him, which the government are reinforcing by their own response. Which suggests to me that their fear of Farage remains alive and well. Let’s be clear. Farage was not “debanked” because of his political views, despite all the claims to the contrary by him which seemed to have been swallowed by so many and regurgitated as fact. He was “debanked” because someone holding those views was seen as a business threat as a consequence of the way other customers, and potential customers, could perceive them. Some might say, there’s no difference, but there is and it’s a very important one. It’s not the bank’s view of him that was considered. I doubt they have a view. It’s the view of their customers which was. The reason for the “debanking” was solely to do with potential reputational damage. I have no doubt that Coutts have held accounts for some seriously unpleasant people in the past and done nothing about them. That though was then. This is now, and times, standards and responses have all evolved. That the CEO has had to resign is a completely separate issue, although once again I somehow doubt that will be accepted. She handled this very badly and had no alternative. Misleading the BBC and forcing them to apologise was embarrassing enough but breaking client confidentiality was beyond that. Trust between a bank and their client is paramount and must never be broken. She has caused immense damage to Nat West and the whole financial services industry. Her behaviour is though nothing to do with the underlying principle that banks can make their own decisions, for their own reasons, on who they accept and retain, as customers. Banks are not public utilities to which we all have a right of access. It could come to pass that the government, through the FCA, will require banks to give a notice period prior to closure, with an explanation of why it is happening and for there to be the opportunity to appeal. They could also require the high street banks to provide a basic facility to everyone who requests one. Something that must remain in credit to function and has charges for every transaction. All of which makes sense. What does not is the way Farage’s claims about being “debanked” for his political views have just been accepted, with little or no question. The ravings of a delusional. It is quite clear what has happened here, and the entire board of this bank has to resign. You think democracy and freedom of speech is not in the public interest?
|
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.