Coutts VS Nigel Farage

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Page 33 of 48 < 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 >

georgenorman 01 Aug 23 1.40pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle If only arguing with you was possible! All I ever do in trying to respond to your insult laden invectives is to patiently try to point out your errors of fact. Your posts are largely self-important exercises in mental cheating, as Orwell said: "In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane " [1984]

georgenorman

01 Aug 23 1.40pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

If only arguing with you was possible!

All I ever do in trying to respond to your insult laden invectives is to patiently try to point out your errors of fact.

Your posts are largely self-important exercises in mental cheating, as Orwell said: "In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane " [1984]

Mattconrov 01 Aug 23 1.49pm
Originally posted by georgenorman Your posts are largely self-important exercises in mental cheating, as Orwell said: "In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane " [1984] Nailed that one mate. " You're not laughing now are you". Nigel Farage 2016.

Mattconrov

01 Aug 23 1.49pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

Nailed that one mate.

" You're not laughing now are you". Nigel Farage 2016.

NE14T 01 Aug 23 1.53pm
Wisbech That’s a ridiculous line to tread. Closing the accounts of Farage and Corbyn because you take issue with their politics. Thanks goodness you don’t run a bank you would cause chaos, uncertainty and division. The beatings will stop when morale improves.

NE14T

01 Aug 23 1.53pm

Wisbech

That’s a ridiculous line to tread. Closing the accounts of Farage and Corbyn because you take issue with their politics. Thanks goodness you don’t run a bank you would cause chaos, uncertainty and division.

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

Matov 01 Aug 23 1.58pm
So Farage has not only claimed two scalps but is getting his bank account back AND potential compensation. Is there any end to the winning for him on this? Not only game, set and match but at this rate, potentially having the entire tournament renamed in his honour. And it's not even over yet. LOL. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Matov

01 Aug 23 1.58pm

So Farage has not only claimed two scalps but is getting his bank account back AND potential compensation.

Is there any end to the winning for him on this?

Not only game, set and match but at this rate, potentially having the entire tournament renamed in his honour.

And it's not even over yet.

LOL.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

NE14T 01 Aug 23 3.07pm
The government should insist all UK banks review their risk and reputation exit decisions over the last 2 years and provide details of how many decision were influenced by politics. PEP exits where there are genuine bribery & corruption concerns excluded. The beatings will stop when morale improves.

NE14T

01 Aug 23 3.07pm

The government should insist all UK banks review their risk and reputation exit decisions over the last 2 years and provide details of how many decision were influenced by politics. PEP exits where there are genuine bribery & corruption concerns excluded.

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 01 Aug 23 3.15pm
Originally posted by NE14T The government should insist all UK banks review their risk and reputation exit decisions over the last 2 years and provide details of how many decision were influenced by politics. PEP exits where there are genuine bribery & corruption concerns excluded. I don't know how that would work in practice although I get where you're coming from. Alternatively, anyone that has had their accounts closed and are considered or think they have been classified as a PEP can go the same route as Farage and demand to see their personal files. Old, Ungifted and White

NEILLO

Shoreham-by-Sea 01 Aug 23 3.15pm

Originally posted by NE14T

I don't know how that would work in practice although I get where you're coming from.

Alternatively, anyone that has had their accounts closed and are considered or think they have been classified as a PEP can go the same route as Farage and demand to see their personal files.

Old, Ungifted and White

palace_in_frogland In a broken dream 01 Aug 23 3.18pm
Originally posted by georgenorman It's like arguing with a parrot with tourette's syndrome. Who’s a pretty f4cking boy then?

palace_in_frogland

In a broken dream 01 Aug 23 3.18pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

It's like arguing with a parrot with tourette's syndrome.

Who’s a pretty f4cking boy then?

NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 01 Aug 23 3.35pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle That may be true, and may well be seen in hindsight as a badly thought through policy. Doesn’t change their right to do it. Banks are allowed to be stupid. I have never disputed their right to set their own risk policies. The question is, how effective are they ? Are they truly fit for purpose ? In this instance, what was the associated risk - again reputational - with closing Farage's account ? I'd say it was as high as it's been proven to be. The pragmatic approach would have been to acknowledge and accept the risk of having Farage as a client gffv v internally without taking any further action. It looks like Coutts blindly followed their newly Woke direction without considering the potential consequences. And I know that you do not buy into the ' opinion ' bit, but someone in Coutts, almost certainly Farage's RM, was of the opinion that Farage represented a risk. Almost certainly as a result of ongoing due diligence through ' adverse media ' reports. I very much doubt if this was a unanimous view as in my experience there are usually various opinions put forward when classifying risks and the subsequent actions to be taken. I'd be interested in hearing views from Badger and HK Owen on this as I believe their experience closely matches mine. Edited by NEILLO (01 Aug 2023 3.39pm) Old, Ungifted and White

NEILLO

Shoreham-by-Sea 01 Aug 23 3.35pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That may be true, and may well be seen in hindsight as a badly thought through policy.

Doesn’t change their right to do it. Banks are allowed to be stupid.

I have never disputed their right to set their own risk policies. The question is, how effective are they ? Are they truly fit for purpose ?

In this instance, what was the associated risk - again reputational - with closing Farage's account ? I'd say it was as high as it's been proven to be. The pragmatic approach would have been to acknowledge and accept the risk of having Farage as a client gffv v internally without taking any further action. It looks like Coutts blindly followed their newly Woke direction without considering the potential consequences.

And I know that you do not buy into the ' opinion ' bit, but someone in Coutts, almost certainly Farage's RM, was of the opinion that Farage represented a risk. Almost certainly as a result of ongoing due diligence through ' adverse media ' reports. I very much doubt if this was a unanimous view as in my experience there are usually various opinions put forward when classifying risks and the subsequent actions to be taken.

I'd be interested in hearing views from Badger and HK Owen on this as I believe their experience closely matches mine.

Edited by NEILLO (01 Aug 2023 3.39pm)

Old, Ungifted and White

Teddy Eagle 01 Aug 23 4.08pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle There’s no arguing that this has been a PR disaster but that doesn’t change the facts. Banks are allowed to have PR disasters. If he was regarded as a threat to their reputation last month then why isn't he now?

Teddy Eagle

01 Aug 23 4.08pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

There’s no arguing that this has been a PR disaster but that doesn’t change the facts. Banks are allowed to have PR disasters.

If he was regarded as a threat to their reputation last month then why isn't he now?

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 01 Aug 23 4.15pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Having thought about this it appears to me that people here, as it seems do the media and indeed the government are getting confused over what causes something and what is the reason for it? Although often used interchangeably there is actually an important difference so this isn’t just semantics. Cause is the direct effect, whilst the reason is the more nuanced motivation that lies behind it. [Link] I wondered how long it would be before you raised the Jewish issue, because going to Israel you'd obviously be the expert on such things. I disengage, I turn the page.

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 01 Aug 23 4.15pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Having thought about this it appears to me that people here, as it seems do the media and indeed the government are getting confused over what causes something and what is the reason for it?

Although often used interchangeably there is actually an important difference so this isn’t just semantics.

Cause is the direct effect, whilst the reason is the more nuanced motivation that lies behind it.

[Link]

I wondered how long it would be before you raised the Jewish issue, because going to Israel you'd obviously be the expert on such things.

I disengage, I turn the page.

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Aug 23 4.42pm
Originally posted by georgenorman Your posts are largely self-important exercises in mental cheating, as Orwell said: "In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane " [1984] You and Orwell should get a room. Though you would probably suit Orville better. Both being equally childish. 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 01 Aug 23 4.42pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

You and Orwell should get a room.

Though you would probably suit Orville better. Both being equally childish.

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 01 Aug 23 4.44pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle If he was regarded as a threat to their reputation last month then why isn't he now? I am sure he is regarded as a much bigger threat now, but for entirely different reasons demanding a different response. 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 01 Aug 23 4.44pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

If he was regarded as a threat to their reputation last month then why isn't he now?

I am sure he is regarded as a much bigger threat now, but for entirely different reasons demanding a different response.

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 01 Aug 23 4.51pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I am sure he is regarded as a much bigger threat now, but for entirely different reasons demanding a different response. And that response is to reinstate his account. At least he can boost his balance with the compensation they'll be paying him.

Teddy Eagle

01 Aug 23 4.51pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am sure he is regarded as a much bigger threat now, but for entirely different reasons demanding a different response.

And that response is to reinstate his account. At least he can boost his balance with the compensation they'll be paying him.

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Aug 23 4.52pm
Originally posted by NE14T Wisbech That’s a ridiculous line to tread. Closing the accounts of Farage and Corbyn because you take issue with their politics. Thanks goodness you don’t run a bank you would cause chaos, uncertainty and division. They wouldn't though be closed because of their politics. Have you not been following the thread to understand why? Both are PEPs with controversial views, albeit very different. Banks are obliged to pay special attention to such people because of the risk of them being compromised by corruption. That costs a lot of time and effort, which means they don't earn money from them, unless they hold mega bucks. Alongside that is the risk to their reputation for offering service to a controversial character. It's not the bank taking issue with anyone's politics. It's them protecting their bottom line. 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 01 Aug 23 4.52pm

Originally posted by NE14T

Wisbech

They wouldn't though be closed because of their politics. Have you not been following the thread to understand why?

Both are PEPs with controversial views, albeit very different. Banks are obliged to pay special attention to such people because of the risk of them being compromised by corruption. That costs a lot of time and effort, which means they don't earn money from them, unless they hold mega bucks. Alongside that is the risk to their reputation for offering service to a controversial character. It's not the bank taking issue with anyone's politics. It's them protecting their bottom line.

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.

NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 01 Aug 23 4.53pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I am sure he is regarded as a much bigger threat now, but for entirely different reasons demanding a different response. That's not answering the question. Forget the ''different reasons '' - what has changed in him now being an acceptable client versus a few weeks back when he wasn't ? Old, Ungifted and White

NEILLO

Shoreham-by-Sea 01 Aug 23 4.53pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am sure he is regarded as a much bigger threat now, but for entirely different reasons demanding a different response.

That's not answering the question.

Forget the ''different reasons '' - what has changed in him now being an acceptable client versus a few weeks back when he wasn't ?

Old, Ungifted and White

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Aug 23 4.54pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle And that response is to reinstate his account. At least he can boost his balance with the compensation they'll be paying him. A response dictated by exactly the same considerations as when they dropped him. The PR damage to their bottom line is now greater if they don't reinstate him. It's all about the money. 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 01 Aug 23 4.54pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

And that response is to reinstate his account. At least he can boost his balance with the compensation they'll be paying him.

A response dictated by exactly the same considerations as when they dropped him.

The PR damage to their bottom line is now greater if they don't reinstate him. It's all about the money.

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 01 Aug 23 4.56pm
Originally posted by NE14T The government should insist all UK banks review their risk and reputation exit decisions over the last 2 years and provide details of how many decision were influenced by politics. PEP exits where there are genuine bribery & corruption concerns excluded. That would be all of them excluded then, for they are obliged to monitor them all. 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 01 Aug 23 4.56pm

Originally posted by NE14T

That would be all of them excluded then, for they are obliged to monitor them all.

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.

NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 01 Aug 23 4.57pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle They wouldn't though be closed because of their politics. Have you not been following the thread to understand why? Both are PEPs with controversial views, albeit very different. Banks are obliged to pay special attention to such people because of the risk of them being compromised by corruption. That costs a lot of time and effort, which means they don't earn money from them, unless they hold mega bucks. Alongside that is the risk to their reputation for offering service to a controversial character. It's not the bank taking issue with anyone's politics. It's them protecting their bottom line. Which of course is a Coutts requirement. And of course they closed it because of his politics / views. Everyone can see that apart from you. Old, Ungifted and White

NEILLO

Shoreham-by-Sea 01 Aug 23 4.57pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

They wouldn't though be closed because of their politics. Have you not been following the thread to understand why?

Both are PEPs with controversial views, albeit very different. Banks are obliged to pay special attention to such people because of the risk of them being compromised by corruption. That costs a lot of time and effort, which means they don't earn money from them, unless they hold mega bucks. Alongside that is the risk to their reputation for offering service to a controversial character. It's not the bank taking issue with anyone's politics. It's them protecting their bottom line.

Which of course is a Coutts requirement.

And of course they closed it because of his politics / views. Everyone can see that apart from you.

Old, Ungifted and White

Teddy Eagle 01 Aug 23 4.59pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle A response dictated by exactly the same considerations as when they dropped him. The PR damage to their bottom line is now greater if they don't reinstate him. It's all about the money. Brilliant. So now all he needs to do is outrage a few folk and get his account stopped then make a fuss and get it back with another load of compo. Rinse and repeat.

Teddy Eagle

01 Aug 23 4.59pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

A response dictated by exactly the same considerations as when they dropped him.

The PR damage to their bottom line is now greater if they don't reinstate him. It's all about the money.

Brilliant. So now all he needs to do is outrage a few folk and get his account stopped then make a fuss and get it back with another load of compo. Rinse and repeat.

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Aug 23 5.00pm
Originally posted by NEILLO I have never disputed their right to set their own risk policies. The question is, how effective are they ? Are they truly fit for purpose ? In this instance, what was the associated risk - again reputational - with closing Farage's account ? I'd say it was as high as it's been proven to be. The pragmatic approach would have been to acknowledge and accept the risk of having Farage as a client gffv v internally without taking any further action. It looks like Coutts blindly followed their newly Woke direction without considering the potential consequences. And I know that you do not buy into the ' opinion ' bit, but someone in Coutts, almost certainly Farage's RM, was of the opinion that Farage represented a risk. Almost certainly as a result of ongoing due diligence through ' adverse media ' reports. I very much doubt if this was a unanimous view as in my experience there are usually various opinions put forward when classifying risks and the subsequent actions to be taken. I'd be interested in hearing views from Badger and HK Owen on this as I believe their experience closely matches mine. Edited by NEILLO (01 Aug 2023 3.39pm) We have got somewhere. You acknowledge this is their right. What you then raise may well be true. That's for the bank itself, and the regulator to determine. I have never argued this was a big foul up. Only that businesses have the right to foul up. 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 01 Aug 23 5.00pm

Originally posted by NEILLO

I have never disputed their right to set their own risk policies. The question is, how effective are they ? Are they truly fit for purpose ?

I'd be interested in hearing views from Badger and HK Owen on this as I believe their experience closely matches mine.

Edited by NEILLO (01 Aug 2023 3.39pm)

We have got somewhere. You acknowledge this is their right.

What you then raise may well be true. That's for the bank itself, and the regulator to determine.

I have never argued this was a big foul up. Only that businesses have the right to foul up.

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.

Page 33 of 48 < 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Coutts VS Nigel Farage

Site Map