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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 41 of 48 < 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 >

NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 05 Aug 23 10.50am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle In that nobody died, that’s true, but it was never the case in the bakery case. That was always about exposing discrimination. There was no discrimination involved with Farage. He wasn’t debanked for his opinions. He was debanked because those opinions were controversial. If they were controversial left wing opinions he would have been equally at risk. Of course, Farage claims otherwise and people like you buy his spinning so there’s little chance of you seeing that. He was debanked for his '' controversial '' opinions. Yes, they could equally have been left wing. Controversial that is in Coutts opinion - they were not are are not seen as controversial by a good percentage of the population. And that's what enables the Discrimination card. Old, Ungifted and White

NEILLO

Shoreham-by-Sea 05 Aug 23 10.50am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

In that nobody died, that’s true, but it was never the case in the bakery case. That was always about exposing discrimination.

There was no discrimination involved with Farage. He wasn’t debanked for his opinions. He was debanked because those opinions were controversial. If they were controversial left wing opinions he would have been equally at risk.

Of course, Farage claims otherwise and people like you buy his spinning so there’s little chance of you seeing that.

He was debanked for his '' controversial '' opinions. Yes, they could equally have been left wing.

Controversial that is in Coutts opinion - they were not are are not seen as controversial by a good percentage of the population. And that's what enables the Discrimination card.

Old, Ungifted and White

NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 05 Aug 23 10.56am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I have no idea who it is or what their views on Brexit might be. I do know that an enquiry into the closure of bank accounts by someone appointed by the FCA won’t be looking at Brexit but will have clear terms of reference and be expected to do their job objectively and professionally. Casting aspersions on them before they have even started has echoes from the USA. The scope of the FCA should be looking to see that customers that were exited were treated fairly and that there were sound business justification for having their accounts closed. It could possibly find account closures made by banks that suspect their clients ( rightly or wrongly ) are involved in criminal activities of some kind. In those instances the banks report the suspicious activities to the authorities but do not tell the clients as that would be tipping them off. Old, Ungifted and White

NEILLO

Shoreham-by-Sea 05 Aug 23 10.56am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I have no idea who it is or what their views on Brexit might be.

I do know that an enquiry into the closure of bank accounts by someone appointed by the FCA won’t be looking at Brexit but will have clear terms of reference and be expected to do their job objectively and professionally.

Casting aspersions on them before they have even started has echoes from the USA.

The scope of the FCA should be looking to see that customers that were exited were treated fairly and that there were sound business justification for having their accounts closed.

It could possibly find account closures made by banks that suspect their clients ( rightly or wrongly ) are involved in criminal activities of some kind. In those instances the banks report the suspicious activities to the authorities but do not tell the clients as that would be tipping them off.

Old, Ungifted and White

HKOwen Hong Kong 05 Aug 23 11.09am
The cause of Farage being de-banked by Coutts was a decision by an internal committee. The reason was senior managers at Coutts and Natwest want to be able to control the thinking and behaviour of customers, moral arbiters and virtue signallers . Simple as that 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.

HKOwen

Hong Kong 05 Aug 23 11.09am

The cause of Farage being de-banked by Coutts was a decision by an internal committee.

The reason was senior managers at Coutts and Natwest want to be able to control the thinking and behaviour of customers, moral arbiters and virtue signallers .

Simple as that

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.

HKOwen Hong Kong 05 Aug 23 11.11am
Originally posted by NEILLO Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I expect many families do have just one account and for any in joint names only the PEP would lose access, thus preserving the ability to function. That’s just a presumption though. Even if the account was closed it would surely be a simple matter for the non PEP part of the family to transfer everything to a new account in their name with the notice given? How could money be lost? They aren’t raiding the account. They are closing it. Wrong again. PEPS also include family members. Here's the definition ; This definition is extended to include family members and known close associates of a PEP. These are commonly called RCAs – Relatives or Close Associates and the rules that apply to PEPs apply also to RCAs. Family members include spouses, partners, parent, sibling, child, partner, or spouse of the child The lack of knowledge is not very surprising. No doubt you will get a mea culpa for the erroneous post 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.

HKOwen

Hong Kong 05 Aug 23 11.11am

Originally posted by NEILLO

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I expect many families do have just one account and for any in joint names only the PEP would lose access, thus preserving the ability to function. That’s just a presumption though. Even if the account was closed it would surely be a simple matter for the non PEP part of the family to transfer everything to a new account in their name with the notice given?

How could money be lost? They aren’t raiding the account. They are closing it.

Wrong again.
PEPS also include family members. Here's the definition ;

This definition is extended to include family members and known close associates of a PEP. These are commonly called RCAs – Relatives or Close Associates and the rules that apply to PEPs apply also to RCAs. Family members include spouses, partners, parent, sibling, child, partner, or spouse of the child

The lack of knowledge is not very surprising. No doubt you will get a mea culpa for the erroneous post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 05 Aug 23 11.26am
Originally posted by NEILLO You didn't read my post on this subject then, because you are totally wrong. I read your post about your personal experiences. Did you notice my "if"? 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 05 Aug 23 11.26am

Originally posted by NEILLO

You didn't read my post on this subject then, because you are totally wrong.

I read your post about your personal experiences. Did you notice my "if"?

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 05 Aug 23 11.28am
Originally posted by cryrst Unlike you then ! On whom do you think I have cast aspersions? Any comments I have made are about things in plain view. 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 05 Aug 23 11.28am

Originally posted by cryrst

Unlike you then !

On whom do you think I have cast aspersions?

Any comments I have made are about things in plain view.

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 05 Aug 23 11.35am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle In an article about debanking with the headline "UK banks are closing more than 1000 accounts a day" and subhead "data shows a big jump in customers being debanked", isn't it clear who's closing them? No. That could be a typical deliberately misleading headline. When I was a boy the Express had a front page headline which read "Boy falls off 200 ft cliff and survives". What it didn't say was he had climbed 20 feet up from the bottom! Sells newspapers. I only knew the truth because that boy lived opposite me. 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 05 Aug 23 11.35am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

In an article about debanking with the headline "UK banks are closing more than 1000 accounts a day" and subhead "data shows a big jump in customers being debanked", isn't it clear who's closing them?

No. That could be a typical deliberately misleading headline. When I was a boy the Express had a front page headline which read "Boy falls off 200 ft cliff and survives". What it didn't say was he had climbed 20 feet up from the bottom! Sells newspapers. I only knew the truth because that boy lived opposite me.

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 05 Aug 23 11.40am
Originally posted by NEILLO Wrong again. PEPS also include family members. Here's the definition ; This definition is extended to include family members and known close associates of a PEP. These are commonly called RCAs – Relatives or Close Associates and the rules that apply to PEPs apply also to RCAs. Family members include spouses, partners, parent, sibling, child, partner, or spouse of the child Fair enough. I stand corrected. Would that automatically mean all the RCA accounts would also be closed alongside the main PEP one? Or could they be left in place? 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 05 Aug 23 11.40am

Originally posted by NEILLO

Wrong again.
PEPS also include family members. Here's the definition ;

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

Would that automatically mean all the RCA accounts would also be closed alongside the main PEP one? Or could they be left in place?

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 05 Aug 23 11.41am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle No. That could be a typical deliberately misleading headline. When I was a boy the Express had a front page headline which read "Boy falls off 200 ft cliff and survives". What it didn't say was he had climbed 20 feet up from the bottom! Sells newspapers. I only knew the truth because that boy lived opposite me. De-banking, also known within the banking industry as de-risking, is the closure of people or organizations' bank accounts by banks What's your definition?

Teddy Eagle

05 Aug 23 11.41am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

De-banking, also known within the banking industry as de-risking, is the closure of people or organizations' bank accounts by banks

What's your definition?

NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 05 Aug 23 11.50am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle No. That could be a typical deliberately misleading headline. When I was a boy the Express had a front page headline which read "Boy falls off 200 ft cliff and survives". What it didn't say was he had climbed 20 feet up from the bottom! Sells newspapers. I only knew the truth because that boy lived opposite me. Or not. That's hardly a stand up argument, more of a reflection of your particular stance on this subject. Old, Ungifted and White

NEILLO

Shoreham-by-Sea 05 Aug 23 11.50am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

No. That could be a typical deliberately misleading headline. When I was a boy the Express had a front page headline which read "Boy falls off 200 ft cliff and survives". What it didn't say was he had climbed 20 feet up from the bottom! Sells newspapers. I only knew the truth because that boy lived opposite me.

Or not.

That's hardly a stand up argument, more of a reflection of your particular stance on this subject.

Old, Ungifted and White

NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 05 Aug 23 11.54am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Fair enough. I stand corrected. Would that automatically mean all the RCA accounts would also be closed alongside the main PEP one? Or could they be left in place? I've no direct experience of that scenario. I can see an argument for closing the RCA's accounts as well, but I suspect that would depend on how big a risk they are considered to be. Old, Ungifted and White

NEILLO

Shoreham-by-Sea 05 Aug 23 11.54am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

Would that automatically mean all the RCA accounts would also be closed alongside the main PEP one? Or could they be left in place?

I've no direct experience of that scenario.

I can see an argument for closing the RCA's accounts as well, but I suspect that would depend on how big a risk they are considered to be.

Old, Ungifted and White

Teddy Eagle 05 Aug 23 11.56am
Originally posted by NEILLO Or not. That's hardly a stand up argument, more of a reflection of your particular stance on this subject. Or it could be the Guardian sticking up for their poster boy Farage as usual.

Teddy Eagle

05 Aug 23 11.56am

Originally posted by NEILLO

Or not.

That's hardly a stand up argument, more of a reflection of your particular stance on this subject.

Or it could be the Guardian sticking up for their poster boy Farage as usual.

Badger11 Beckenham 05 Aug 23 12.03pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Fair enough. I stand corrected. Would that automatically mean all the RCA accounts would also be closed alongside the main PEP one? Or could they be left in place? Several MPs have complained that their family members have been unable to open accounts or get mortgages because the MP was a PEP. Talk about sins of the father. Banks have an incredibly privileged position, they know that they will be backed by the taxpayer and yet they pay scant attention to their public obligations e.g. closing account and branches. If they want to be able to so what they like then fine the government should tell them they will no longer be supported when (and I mean when not if) they get into trouble. One more point

Badger11

Beckenham 05 Aug 23 12.03pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

Would that automatically mean all the RCA accounts would also be closed alongside the main PEP one? Or could they be left in place?

Several MPs have complained that their family members have been unable to open accounts or get mortgages because the MP was a PEP.

Talk about sins of the father.

Banks have an incredibly privileged position, they know that they will be backed by the taxpayer and yet they pay scant attention to their public obligations e.g. closing account and branches.

If they want to be able to so what they like then fine the government should tell them they will no longer be supported when (and I mean when not if) they get into trouble.

One more point

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 05 Aug 23 12.10pm
Originally posted by NEILLO He was debanked for his '' controversial '' opinions. Yes, they could equally have been left wing. Controversial that is in Coutts opinion - they were not are are not seen as controversial by a good percentage of the population. And that's what enables the Discrimination card. Surely though it's Coutts decision and not that of any "good percentage of the population". The latter can feel upset and decide they want nothing more to do with Coutts if they wish. That's their decision, which could make Coutts own look very foolish, but still their's to make, so long as they don't discriminate between different types of controversial opinions. Which you acknowledge they don't. 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 05 Aug 23 12.10pm

Originally posted by NEILLO

He was debanked for his '' controversial '' opinions. Yes, they could equally have been left wing.

Controversial that is in Coutts opinion - they were not are are not seen as controversial by a good percentage of the population. And that's what enables the Discrimination card.

Surely though it's Coutts decision and not that of any "good percentage of the population". The latter can feel upset and decide they want nothing more to do with Coutts if they wish. That's their decision, which could make Coutts own look very foolish, but still their's to make, so long as they don't discriminate between different types of controversial opinions. Which you acknowledge they don't.

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 05 Aug 23 12.13pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle De-banking, also known within the banking industry as de-risking, is the closure of people or organizations' bank accounts by banks What's your definition? De-risking seems perfectly accurate to me. 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 05 Aug 23 12.13pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

De-banking, also known within the banking industry as de-risking, is the closure of people or organizations' bank accounts by banks

What's your definition?

De-risking seems perfectly accurate to me.

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 05 Aug 23 12.14pm
Originally posted by NEILLO Or not. That's hardly a stand up argument, more of a reflection of your particular stance on this subject. No doubt an enquiry will reveal the actual numbers. 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 05 Aug 23 12.14pm

Originally posted by NEILLO

Or not.

That's hardly a stand up argument, more of a reflection of your particular stance on this subject.

No doubt an enquiry will reveal the actual numbers.

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 05 Aug 23 12.16pm
Originally posted by NEILLO I've no direct experience of that scenario. I can see an argument for closing the RCA's accounts as well, but I suspect that would depend on how big a risk they are considered to be. Makes sense and is what I would have anticipated too. 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 05 Aug 23 12.16pm

Originally posted by NEILLO

I've no direct experience of that scenario.

I can see an argument for closing the RCA's accounts as well, but I suspect that would depend on how big a risk they are considered to be.

Makes sense and is what I would have anticipated too.

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 05 Aug 23 12.23pm
Originally posted by Badger11 Several MPs have complained that their family members have been unable to open accounts or get mortgages because the MP was a PEP. Talk about sins of the father. Banks have an incredibly privileged position, they know that they will be backed by the taxpayer and yet they pay scant attention to their public obligations e.g. closing account and branches. If they want to be able to so what they like then fine the government should tell them they will no longer be supported when (and I mean when not if) they get into trouble. They don't have public obligations. Their obligations are to their shareholders. Do you want to nationalise the banking industry? You write as though you are a "lefty"! The government has put these burdens on the banks, and now some MPs complain about the consequences! I doubt that the support that was given was to protect the shareholders but was done to protect the country from the impact of bank failures. 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 05 Aug 23 12.23pm

Originally posted by Badger11

Several MPs have complained that their family members have been unable to open accounts or get mortgages because the MP was a PEP.

Talk about sins of the father.

Banks have an incredibly privileged position, they know that they will be backed by the taxpayer and yet they pay scant attention to their public obligations e.g. closing account and branches.

If they want to be able to so what they like then fine the government should tell them they will no longer be supported when (and I mean when not if) they get into trouble.

They don't have public obligations. Their obligations are to their shareholders. Do you want to nationalise the banking industry?

You write as though you are a "lefty"!

The government has put these burdens on the banks, and now some MPs complain about the consequences!

I doubt that the support that was given was to protect the shareholders but was done to protect the country from the impact of bank failures.

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 05 Aug 23 12.25pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle De-risking seems perfectly accurate to me. And the end result is the same but in either case it's the bank making the decision.

Teddy Eagle

05 Aug 23 12.25pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

De-risking seems perfectly accurate to me.

And the end result is the same but in either case it's the bank making the decision.

NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 05 Aug 23 12.36pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Surely though it's Coutts decision and not that of any "good percentage of the population". The latter can feel upset and decide they want nothing more to do with Coutts if they wish. That's their decision, which could make Coutts own look very foolish, but still their's to make, so long as they don't discriminate between different types of controversial opinions. Which you acknowledge they don't. My point was that Coutts viewed the opinions, which are not considered controversial by a percentage of the public, to be controversial - yes, it's their decision and one not a view shared by everybody. Old, Ungifted and White

NEILLO

Shoreham-by-Sea 05 Aug 23 12.36pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

My point was that Coutts viewed the opinions, which are not considered controversial by a percentage of the public, to be controversial - yes, it's their decision and one not a view shared by everybody.

Old, Ungifted and White

Page 41 of 48 < 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Coutts VS Nigel Farage

Site Map