This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Coutts VS Nigel Farage
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 26 Jul 23 3.01pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
So have you got evidence to back up this theory that other customers may have been offended by NF having a bank account with coutts or any other banks within their brand. You know just to clarify your perception that this was a genuine decision needed by coutts from a business position to protect their reputation ! Why would I have evidence? I don't work for Coutts let alone was involved in their review. I don't suppose they have any evidence either! They don't need it. If the judgement of those responsible for this kind of assessment is that there was a sufficiently high risk of reputational damage to justify closing his account that's the only criterion that matters. It's their account. Not his. They can do whatever is deemed in their best interests. They don't have to produce evidence or justify it to anyone else.
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. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 georgenorman 26 Jul 23 3.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
This comment demonstrates just how effective Farage is at spreading his odious propaganda. It never ceases to amaze me how easily people fall for it. As Farage is clearly demonstrating every hour or every day at the moment the last thing this has done has impacted his freedom of speech. Nor anyone's democratic rights. He has used the stupidity of a bank's handling of a delicate decision to spread untrue ideas into the minds of those who are willing believers of conspiracy theories. What has he said that is 'odious propaganda'?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Jul 23 3.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
You ignored my post from the BBC, the Chairman issued that statement. Are you now saying that PR firms issue statements on behalf of clients without their approval. If you are correct and I was a board member I would be livid that something was issued in my name with out any consultation and I would go public. Until proven otherwise I am taken the Chairman's statement at face value that yesterday the board fully supported the CEO until latter in the day when err it didn't. As for contacting the board I believe there is a thing called the telephone. Edited by Badger11 (26 Jul 2023 2.57pm) I didn't ignore it. I haven't noticed it. I am merely speculating. The Chairman must have approved it, but who knows where all the Board are. Some could be on the other side of the world and in "do not disturb" situations, or otherwise uncontactable. It was all done in a great rush. Unwisely no doubt and in a way that could have consequences. Pausing for thought normally pays dividends.
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. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  26 Jul 23 3.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Why would I have evidence? I don't work for Coutts let alone was involved in their review. I don't suppose they have any evidence either! They don't need it. If the judgement of those responsible for this kind of assessment is that there was a sufficiently high risk of reputational damage to justify closing his account that's the only criterion that matters. It's their account. Not his. They can do whatever is deemed in their best interests. They don't have to produce evidence or justify it to anyone else. If they deemed this situation to be in their best interest then the decisions they take on investing their customers' millions might come into question.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Jul 23 3.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
What has he said that is 'odious propaganda'? It would take a book to answer that. Starting with Brexit and continuing up to this. His whole stance over this event is manufactured outrage designed to achieve a political advantage. That's propaganda. His freedom of speech hasn't been affected. No money has been lost. No doubt he has several other bank accounts and credit cards, so his ability to live, trade and enjoy life hasn't been diminished in any way. It's 100% bs which he is using as propaganda to further himself. That's the mark of an odious man.
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. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 26 Jul 23 3.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Why would I have evidence? I don't work for Coutts let alone was involved in their review. I don't suppose they have any evidence either! They don't need it. If the judgement of those responsible for this kind of assessment is that there was a sufficiently high risk of reputational damage to justify closing his account that's the only criterion that matters. It's their account. Not his. They can do whatever is deemed in their best interests. They don't have to produce evidence or justify it to anyone else. Yes they do. They are a part of Nat West, and they were bailed out with tax payers money. You talk about reputations. They have destroyed theirs by allowing people with screwball ideologies to decide who can bank with them based on politics. Organisations using their power to manipulate thought and persecute 'wrong think' has gone too far and needs reigning in. As you have proven time and time again, you only approve of political freedom and democracy when it agrees with your warped mindset.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 26 Jul 23 3.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It would take a book to answer that. Starting with Brexit and continuing up to this. His whole stance over this event is manufactured outrage designed to achieve a political advantage. That's propaganda. His freedom of speech hasn't been affected. No money has been lost. No doubt he has several other bank accounts and credit cards, so his ability to live, trade and enjoy life hasn't been diminished in any way. It's 100% bs which he is using as propaganda to further himself. That's the mark of an odious man. There is nothing manufactured about his 'outrage'. He has been measured and calm in exposing the lies of Coutts, Nat West and the BBC.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 26 Jul 23 3.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I didn't ignore it. I haven't noticed it. I am merely speculating. The Chairman must have approved it, but who knows where all the Board are. Some could be on the other side of the world and in "do not disturb" situations, or otherwise uncontactable. It was all done in a great rush. Unwisely no doubt and in a way that could have consequences. Pausing for thought normally pays dividends. This scandal has been going on over a week. If the board members have not been talking to each other about their position and whether the CEO had done anything wrong then they are even more useless than most of us think. They are paid a great deal of money to make big decisions but sometimes those decisions such as this are easy.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 26 Jul 23 3.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It would take a book to answer that. Starting with Brexit and continuing up to this. His whole stance over this event is manufactured outrage designed to achieve a political advantage. That's propaganda. His freedom of speech hasn't been affected. No money has been lost. No doubt he has several other bank accounts and credit cards, so his ability to live, trade and enjoy life hasn't been diminished in any way. It's 100% bs which he is using as propaganda to further himself. That's the mark of an odious man. I rest my case. You really are losing any semblance of clear thinking here, due to your contempt fir the person it involves. Manufactured outrage!, His personal details were given by the CEO to a journalist, possibly with the full knowledge it would be made public. Totally against all client confidentiality. Anyone would be outraged. Of course I’m not surprised you mention Brexit, I believe you have even managed to get Trump into this thread in another post
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 26 Jul 23 3.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I didn't ignore it. I haven't noticed it. I am merely speculating. The Chairman must have approved it, but who knows where all the Board are. Some could be on the other side of the world and in "do not disturb" situations, or otherwise uncontactable. It was all done in a great rush. Unwisely no doubt and in a way that could have consequences. Pausing for thought normally pays dividends. They will all have mobile phones, we don’t rely on jungle drums anymore
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 26 Jul 23 3.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
This comment demonstrates just how effective Farage is at spreading his odious propaganda. It never ceases to amaze me how easily people fall for it. As Farage is clearly demonstrating every hour or every day at the moment the last thing this has done has impacted his freedom of speech. Nor anyone's democratic rights. He has used the stupidity of a bank's handling of a delicate decision to spread untrue ideas into the minds of those who are willing believers of conspiracy theories. A fine example of someone who seems to be malfunctioning at the thought of Nigel Farage being right.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Jul 23 4.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Yes they do. They are a part of Nat West, and they were bailed out with tax payers money. You talk about reputations. They have destroyed theirs by allowing people with screwball ideologies to decide who can bank with them based on politics. Organisations using their power to manipulate thought and persecute 'wrong think' has gone too far and needs reigning in. As you have proven time and time again, you only approve of political freedom and democracy when it agrees with your warped mindset. That Nat West are currently partially publically owned makes no difference at all, other than this nonsense will make it more difficult for the government to sell the remaining shares. We don't possess a right to look into the operating policies of a bank. The government might, as a shareholder via questions at the AGM, but not us as individuals. No one argues that the bank has shot itself in both feet in the way they have handled this, but the decisions, and any changes, are theirs alone to make. That you, and others, continue to believe that this has involved a bank "using their power to manipulate thought and persecute 'wrong think'", just demonstrates completely "wrong think" itself. It's nothing of the sort. It's a commercial organisation deciding how they want to operate. You believe in freedom, yet seem determined to restrict it. Your attitude is much more socialist than mine!
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. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.