It's political and unprecedented.

If you look at any president's actions you could bring them up on charges if you chose to......Indeed, if Trump wins you're going to see a lot of charges and heads rolling in power bases and they know it.

The fact that these cases have been designed to be ongoing while he'd be campaigning is one hell of a stretch to regard as a coincidence.

It's naked and as I've said, makes America look like a banana republic with air conditioning.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Aug 2023 7.04am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I'm certain that the charges against Trump are purely for political purposes, whether he is actually guilty of them or not.
I'm also certain that any of us could be charged with something if someone tried hard enough to dig something up.

Donald Trump is a super wealthy businessman and former President. I'd be amazed if you couldn't charge any man like him with a number of things. I'd like to have a look in the closets of the people instigating all this.

[quote=Tim Gypsy Hill '64;3814683]

That's a bit too 'Ministry of Truth' for me. I can't accept that an opinion, whether controversial or otherwise, is not an opinion. Maybe I should volunteer to be taken to room 101...

I really don’t see why. I wasn’t talking about holding any opinion, whether controversial or even plain daft. I was talking about understanding a nuanced and quite subtle difference between two words and the motivations that each implies.

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.

I didn’t suggest it is expensive. I suggested that the costs involved for a highly exposed PEP could be a factor in a bank’s reasoning. Who knows, other than the bank itself, what in 2023, they regard as relevant.

Nobody here knows what the elements were that resulted in Coutts deciding to review Farage’s account status, whether this was treated in the standard way or whether his high public profile meant he was given a different level of attention. I respect the fact that you, and others, have more experience of banking practice than myself and find the descriptions interesting and informative. These alone though cannot tell the whole story, which none of us actually know. What we do know, and have agreed on, is that whatever happened, whether stupid, irritating or appearing to be unfair, it was the bank’s decision to make it.

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.

This isn't what happened though. The facts of this are in the public domain now. The bank used the excuse of a possible, future balance under their threshold to close Farage's account. Farage was suspicious. The bank then told the BBC that they were closing Farage's account because they don't like him/ his views/ he's a risk. I believe it was reported but I didn't particularly follow it. Farage got that information.
He's now been milking it - but as I say, the facts aren't as hard or nuanced as is being made out.
Mostly incompetence mixed with virtue signalling that backfired in a spectacular fashion. There's no real argument or debate to be had. It's not a battle of opinions.

Red and Blue Army!

Didn't you ;

'' Firstly, if an account holder is a PEP whose public status is such that their account requires a lot more costly oversight than the income it generates, then closing it is considered.''

''Surely the cost of monitoring someone as high profile as Farage with significantly controversial and divisive opinions and with rumours of funding from Russia around him, even if unsubstantiated, would be significant and not comparable to an average PEP. ''

I was discussing the matter with a friend that has direct experience of working at Coutts ( unlike me ).

He was of the same opinion as me ; this was someone within the Coutts organisation trying to make themselves look good by flagging Farage as a reputational risk. Not necessarily as a result of an account review. We could both be wrong , I look forward to the report when published.

Edited by NEILLO (07 Aug 2023 12.59pm)

Old, Ungifted and White

Thankfully the posts from people who actually have knowledge of this topic have derailed the uninformed train

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.

They are the facts in the document revealed by Farage. They aren’t, and cannot be, the facts that lie behind them. It’s confusing cause and reason again.

The BBC were misled by the CEO who later claimed she was too and lost her job. That’s a huge internal mess for Coutts but nothing to do with the reasons that lie behind their decision.

Those could well be regarded as virtue signaling by some, but the truth is no one actually knows and in any event it was their decision alone.

So you are right. There is no argument. Coutts were inept and it backfired on them but they had the right to do it.

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.

How many words are you going to waste trying to spin this?

Everyone knows why Farage was targeted. You included.

Find a hobby.

I don’t need to re-read.

If I deem something as costing too much / more than it’s worth then in my book that’s expensive. You’re splitting hairs, I assume because you have found to be totally incorrect and uninformed about how PEP accounts are monitored.

We established quite some time ago now that Coutts had the right to make their decision. Continued repetition of that is superfluous

Old, Ungifted and White