This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
  georgenorman  22 Jul 23 10.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by NEILLO
One of the roles I held in my career was COO of Wealth Management / Private Clients for a global bank. Beneficial ownership was always one of the biggest issue for banks when onboarding new clients, particularly where Trust funds are involved. As regulation and governance has increased so has the need for KYC refresh / periodic reviews. The Farage issue has no bearing on that at all. It's now become part of ongoing Compliance activity - or at least it should. Banks continue to be penalised for lax AML controls. When it comes to Farage v Coutts, Farage was correct in his assumption that he was being debanked for his political views. So Coutts were happy enough to take his money in the first place and have painted themselves into a corner by their actions. They are in the wrong and they know it. The wider picture is this ; Coutts, owned by Nat West - the renamed RBS Group. It's difficult to offer much positive comment on this organisation given its unsavoury recent history. I know there was a view in the City that promoting Alison Rose to CEO was part of a charm offensive to demonstrate what an inclusive, diverse institution they now are. But something at the core remains rotten, and Rose may well not survive this and a number of other issues that have surfaced. I tried to open an account with Nat West some years ago and found them so inefficient and incompetent, I went elsewhere.
|
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 22 Jul 23 12.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
38% owned by taxpayer. King of the one liners back again Not strictly true. NatWest Group is.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 22 Jul 23 1.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by NEILLO
Badger, was that an American bank that had the whistle It was Citigroup, there have been so many scandals they have been involved in over the years, I don't remember how it came out but it wouldn't surprise me. My brother was an auditor the pressure his dept was under when they failed a department was ferocious. Partly this was because when a dept failed an audit all bonuses and pay rises were scrapped, partly it was just ego.
One more point |
|
| JRW2 Dulwich 22 Jul 23 2.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
I won't insult you intelligence by suggesting that you actually believe in what you have said here. A very good put-down, but I think you owe a royalty payment to the American writer, William Buckley.
|
|
| georgenorman 22 Jul 23 2.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JRW2
A very good put-down, but I think you owe a royalty payment to the American writer, William Buckley. Indeed - I thought most people would have realised that!
|
|
| Spiderman Horsham 22 Jul 23 2.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
King of the one liners back again Not strictly true. NatWest Group is. Who own Coutts. There you are another one liner!
|
|
| JRW2 Dulwich 22 Jul 23 3.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Indeed - I thought most people would have realised that! Really? I'm tempted to say "I won't insult...."
|
|
| Spiderman Horsham 22 Jul 23 3.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JRW2
A very good put-down, but I think you owe a royalty payment to the American writer, William Buckley. Didn’t he play for Brighton?
|
|
| YT Oxford 22 Jul 23 4.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
And you have only just recognised that? It started a long time ago. I appreciate that you can't stop yourself from always demonstrating your superiority, however, I was referring specifically to politically-driven bank account closures and not to society in general. No doubt you are aware of hundreds of previous account closures to come back and hit me with.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 22 Jul 23 6.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
I appreciate that you can't stop yourself from always demonstrating your superiority, however, I was referring specifically to politically-driven bank account closures and not to society in general. No doubt you are aware of hundreds of previous account closures to come back and hit me with. Thanks for noticing. Do you have to be so tiresome?
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Jul 23 10.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by robdave2k
But therein is the point. You checked him out and interviewed him. In your words he “needed a fresh start - and you helped” That’s very benevolent of you, but under your terms you wouldn’t have been able to say no if you established he was no threat, and secondly had the money. You wouldn’t have been able to choose to help, you would have had no choice. That's untrue. Almost always these days when a vacancy occurs there are a number of suitable clients available and a choice has to be made. It would be the same if a cake baker could only make 10 cakes a week but had 50 people wanting them.
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 22 Jul 23 10.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
It wasn't 'tested' because it is absolute nonsesne. I'm not arguing against myself, my position on both cases is that businesses and organisations and individuals should be able to do or not do business with whoever they like.
The number of times I have read outrage in these threads about how people should be free to say whatever they like and that nobody has the right to stop them because it offends them. If you went into a shop which supplies T-shirts and offers to print designs or messages on them, paid them their price and then wrote down your message as "Brighton are a bunch of w-nkers" would you accept the store owner giving you your money back because he is a Brighton supporter? Or tell him that freedom of speech is a precious right and it's his job to do what he is contracted to do? You have bought the shirt. He has offered to print it. Your shirt. Your words. His job.
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 22 Jul 23 10.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by NEILLO
One of the roles I held in my career was COO of Wealth Management / Private Clients for a global bank. Beneficial ownership was always one of the biggest issue for banks when onboarding new clients, particularly where Trust funds are involved. As regulation and governance has increased so has the need for KYC refresh / periodic reviews. The Farage issue has no bearing on that at all. It's now become part of ongoing Compliance activity - or at least it should. Banks continue to be penalised for lax AML controls. When it comes to Farage v Coutts, Farage was correct in his assumption that he was being debanked for his political views. So Coutts were happy enough to take his money in the first place and have painted themselves into a corner by their actions. They are in the wrong and they know it. The wider picture is this ; Coutts, owned by Nat West - the renamed RBS Group. It's difficult to offer much positive comment on this organisation given its unsavoury recent history. I know there was a view in the City that promoting Alison Rose to CEO was part of a charm offensive to demonstrate what an inclusive, diverse institution they now are. But something at the core remains rotten, and Rose may well not survive this and a number of other issues that have surfaced. I defer to your greater knowledge of Nat West/Coutts and what might happen to their CEO. The negative publicity surrounding this cannot have done them any favours so who-ever orchestrated it and handled it must be under great pressure. That said I still believe they had the right to act as they did, even if they handled it badly. Deciding to "debank" someone like Farage, because of potential reputational damage, is just a hard-headed commercial decision. That doing it so carelessly has caused more damage than not doing so doesn't change that.
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. |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 23 Jul 23 6.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I defer to your greater knowledge of Nat West/Coutts and what might happen to their CEO. The negative publicity surrounding this cannot have done them any favours so who-ever orchestrated it and handled it must be under great pressure. That said I still believe they had the right to act as they did, even if they handled it badly. Deciding to "debank" someone like Farage, because of potential reputational damage, is just a hard-headed commercial decision. That doing it so carelessly has caused more damage than not doing so doesn't change that. I would ask why a bank would actually need to give a s*** about the politics of someone like NF. It would never affect the business as the other account holders are using it as ‘a bank’. This was a vanity decision which some there thought would get them a pat on the back and well done for your stand against that nasty nazi. Well as you are seeing elsewhere with the green bollox and push back on it, money is the driver of life and no one would have closed their account if NF was or wasn’t an account holder. The left or far left if it fits and the out there climate groups are an insidious lot who are determined to portray anyone who doesn’t agree with them as the enemy who need wasting. Well atm the rest of us are fed up and slowly the worm is turning. Coutts fell into their trap !
|
|
| georgenorman 23 Jul 23 6.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The number of times I have read outrage in these threads about how people should be free to say whatever they like and that nobody has the right to stop them because it offends them. If you went into a shop which supplies T-shirts and offers to print designs or messages on them, paid them their price and then wrote down your message as "Brighton are a bunch of w-nkers" would you accept the store owner giving you your money back because he is a Brighton supporter? Or tell him that freedom of speech is a precious right and it's his job to do what he is contracted to do? You have bought the shirt. He has offered to print it. Your shirt. Your words. His job. For a start, there is no outrage in my post. I wouldn't care much about my custom being refused, I would probably find it amusing. I would simply find someone else who would accept the work and tell others to avoid the shop that turns down custom. Edited by georgenorman (23 Jul 2023 6.49am)
|
|
| georgenorman 23 Jul 23 6.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
duplicate Edited by georgenorman (23 Jul 2023 6.43am)
|
|
| georgenorman 23 Jul 23 6.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
another duplicate! Edited by georgenorman (23 Jul 2023 6.47am)
|
|
| Spiderman Horsham 23 Jul 23 6.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That's untrue. Almost always these days when a vacancy occurs there are a number of suitable clients available and a choice has to be made. It would be the same if a cake baker could only make 10 cakes a week but had 50 people wanting them. Serious question, Out of all the suitable candidates, how do you choose? Say 1 is transgender, 1 is gay, 1 is Muslim, 1 is from ethnic minority and several are natives of Cornwall. Surely by not accepting some of these, you can be accused of discrimination? The baker in your scenario may not choose the gay or transgender customer to have the cakes, could he be sued?
|
|
| YT Oxford 23 Jul 23 7.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
I would ask why a bank would actually need to give a s*** about the politics of someone like NF. It would never affect the business as the other account holders are using it as ‘a bank’. This was a vanity decision which some there thought would get them a pat on the back and well done for your stand against that nasty nazi. Well as you are seeing elsewhere with the green bollox and push back on it, money is the driver of life and no one would have closed their account if NF was or wasn’t an account holder. The left or far left if it fits and the out there climate groups are an insidious lot who are determined to portray anyone who doesn’t agree with them as the enemy who need wasting. Well atm the rest of us are fed up and slowly the worm is turning. Coutts fell into their trap !
I'm happy to be such a worm. Where I live, the local Facebook noticeboard is bombarded by posts from a handful of annoying 'climate action' zealots. They got the parish council to declare a 'climate emergency' (in our village; population less than 2,000) and they are always banging on about enforcement of existing 'green' laws and campaigning for new laws to be introduced. One of them runs a shop where all the stock is said to be "sustainably sourced". It's BS, of course, because you could pick out virtually any item in the shop and drive massive holes through the sustainability claim. And it's a hobby in any case, funded by the hubby's high-flying (literally) job. Anyway, she advertised for a new member of staff to work in the shop, and in the list of requirements for the role she included "must be physically active". So I dobbed her in to The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which agreed that the phrase was unlawful unless it could be "objectively justified". To cut an already long story short, she couldn't justify it, so had to re-advertise the post (already filled by then) and post a retraction wherever the advert had been displayed, including on Facebook. I do love a good petard-hoisting!
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.