This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
 cryrst  The garden of England 28 Jul 23 9.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
LOL Gina Miller to have her account closed. Still no matter she's only a Remainer after all so it doesn't count. It’s slightly different as it’s a political party account. If it ever was an official political party then it’s correct within the banks rules but if it isn’t or wasn’t then it’s as wrong as the NF scenario.
|
|
Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 28 Jul 23 10.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by NEILLO
I’ve said it before on here but I’ll say it again . NF hasn’t changed since Coutts on boarded him as a client. Who knew that he banked with them until some not so bright spark decided he was no longer desirable as a customer ? Farage’s status works both ways. His status attracted the attention of Coutts and it also enabled him to bring it into the public domain . Aided and abetted by a gossip of a CEO and a lack of pragmatism by a newly woke concern that in reality cares for nothing other than it’s share price. No, Coutts changed. That’ their.right. That you don’t approve is irrelevant. They probably don’t expect you to be a client.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 28 Jul 23 10.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Look, if you go everywhere carrying a fiery cross of course your insurance premium will be affected. Especially for third party, fire and theft. Edited by Mapletree (27 Jul 2023 11.27pm) What about a hammer and sickle? I thought Marxism was all about equality. I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before.
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Jul 23 10.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
What hypocrisy? You are so predictable. When I wrote that I expected you to jump on it. Farage is hypocritical in too many ways to list them all, but in none you would either recognise or accept. His whole ethos is hypocritical. He claims to be protecting the common man, when really he is interested in promoting his own politics. In the recent event he has used his private life for public purposes.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Jul 23 10.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
It’s slightly different as it’s a political party account. If it ever was an official political party then it’s correct within the banks rules but if it isn’t or wasn’t then it’s as wrong as the NF scenario. Same reasoning though. The bank has decided that its reputation is at risk by continuing to serve the client so has removed the risk. Their ball. Their game.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 28 Jul 23 10.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No, Coutts changed. That’ their.right. That you don’t approve is irrelevant. They probably don’t expect you to be a client. Are you still bleating? 'Reputational risk' is an excuse to dump people who the liberal elite don't like. It's that simple. Banking rules were never intended for that. It is that simple. Suck it up and accept that you are on the wrong side of this argument.
|
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 28 Jul 23 10.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
You are so predictable. When I wrote that I expected you to jump on it. Farage is hypocritical in too many ways to list them all, but in none you would either recognise or accept. His whole ethos is hypocritical. He claims to be protecting the common man, when really he is interested in promoting his own politics. In the recent event he has used his private life for public purposes. Pot calling kettle alert!
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Jul 23 10.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Are you still bleating? 'Reputational risk' is an excuse to dump people who the liberal elite don't like. It's that simple. Banking rules were never intended for that. It is that simple. Suck it up and accept that you are on the wrong side of this argument. You managed to get “liberal elite” and “globalist” into that reply but it doesn’t meet your normal standards! You have missed out “immigrants”, “lefties” and “white”! Reputation risk is exactly what it says it is. If banks can close accounts associated with the likes of both Farage and Gina Miller even you must be able to realise it has nothing to do with any particular type of politics. Just an exposure to politics.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Teddy Eagle  28 Jul 23 10.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Same reasoning though. The bank has decided that its reputation is at risk by continuing to serve the client so has removed the risk. Their ball. Their game. But why don't Nat West consider him a reputational risk since they've offered to take his account back?
|
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 28 Jul 23 10.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
You managed to get “liberal elite” and “globalist” into that reply but it doesn’t meet your normal standards! You have missed out “immigrants”, “lefties” and “white”! Reputation risk is exactly what it says it is. If banks can close accounts associated with the likes of both Farage and Gina Miller even you must be able to realise it has nothing to do with any particular type of politics. Just an exposure to politics. Let me be clear. No one should be having bank accounts closed based on politics.
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Jul 23 10.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
But why don't Nat West consider him a reputational risk since they've offered to take his account back? I imagine that they would have offered a standard NatWest account when advising the closure of the Coutts account. Thus protecting his money, continuing to offer service but without the connections that the Coutts one suggests.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Jul 23 11.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Let me be clear. No one should be having bank accounts closed based on politics. Says who? It’s for the bank to decide their commercial policies. If they decide that someone with a publicly known controversial political view constitutes a commercial risk to them as a client then that’s their decision. It’s not the owners of the bank having any personal objections to someone’s politics. They might be great admirers. It’s a hard headed professional appraisal. This isn’t like those cake bakers refusing service because of personal views. This is like those cake bakers having only evangelical Christians who object to gay marriage as clients, who decide that to offer service to a gay married couple would hurt their reputation.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Jul 23 11.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eagleman13
Although this happened a few years ago, it shows that the NatWest Group were already closing accounts for quite a while. They clearly had reasons to do so. Do you seriously think they should not be able to react to them? They gave 60 days notice. Plenty of time to make alternative arrangements. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (28 Jul 2023 11.06am)
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Teddy Eagle 28 Jul 23 11.11am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I imagine that they would have offered a standard NatWest account when advising the closure of the Coutts account. Thus protecting his money, continuing to offer service but without the connections that the Coutts one suggests. Doesn't answer the question though and he only moved to Coutts at Nat West's urging.
|
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 28 Jul 23 11.19am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Doesn't answer the question though and he only moved to Coutts at Nat West's urging. Back in the Eighties I worked with Coutts around the time Nat West bought them. My contact explained that NW had done this as they wanted to push some of their more lucrative clients onto Coutts books as this would be more profitable.
One more point |
|
| eaglesdare 28 Jul 23 11.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Says who? It’s for the bank to decide their commercial policies. If they decide that someone with a publicly known controversial political view constitutes a commercial risk to them as a client then that’s their decision. It’s not the owners of the bank having any personal objections to someone’s politics. They might be great admirers. It’s a hard headed professional appraisal. This isn’t like those cake bakers refusing service because of personal views. This is like those cake bakers having only evangelical Christians who object to gay marriage as clients, who decide that to offer service to a gay married couple would hurt their reputation. You have controversial political opinions. It would be inappropriate for a board moderator to ban you from sharing your views....or stop you from using a bank.
|
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 28 Jul 23 11.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Says who? It’s for the bank to decide their commercial policies. If they decide that someone with a publicly known controversial political view constitutes a commercial risk to them as a client then that’s their decision. It’s not the owners of the bank having any personal objections to someone’s politics. They might be great admirers. It’s a hard headed professional appraisal. This isn’t like those cake bakers refusing service because of personal views. This is like those cake bakers having only evangelical Christians who object to gay marriage as clients, who decide that to offer service to a gay married couple would hurt their reputation.
What kind of society will we have if we just cancel the bank accounts of people we don't like. Get a grip.
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 28 Jul 23 12.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
You have controversial political opinions. It would be inappropriate for a board moderator to ban you from sharing your views....or stop you from using a bank. They might be different to those of a caucus here who themselves hold views regarded as controversial by the wider population, but they aren't elsewhere. They are what at least one poster derogatorily describes as those of a "normie"! What the site and its moderators do is up to them. It's their ball. Their game. So far they have obviously decided their reputation isn't being damaged by my, or your, presence here. Other opinions may exist.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.