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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 37 of 80 < 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 >

Hrolf The Ganger 29 Jul 23 12.32pm
Originally posted by Mapletree 72.3 72.3% of people in the street? Have you seen the streets these days? I doubt that figures on Brexit have much credibility. I seem to recall that the poles said that we were remaining. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Jul 2023 1.56pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

29 Jul 23 12.32pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Mapletree

72.3

72.3% of people in the street? Have you seen the streets these days?
I doubt that figures on Brexit have much credibility.

I seem to recall that the poles said that we were remaining.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Jul 2023 1.56pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 29 Jul 23 1.06pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Once again, why won't Nat West suffer the same reputational damage by holding his account? I can only speculate that their assessment would centre around the type of customers Coutts serves and those of the high street brand, NatWest. 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

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 29 Jul 23 1.06pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Once again, why won't Nat West suffer the same reputational damage by holding his account?

I can only speculate that their assessment would centre around the type of customers Coutts serves and those of the high street brand, NatWest.

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

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 29 Jul 23 1.15pm
Originally posted by georgenorman You can spurt as much squid ink as you like, it doesn’t change the fact that you have not described how Farage was hypocritical in relation to the Coutts affair. There is only one fact in the above. Which is that unfortunately, you don't know what you are talking about. If you haven't worked it out by now, you never will. As anything else I could say would rival you for rudeness I will leave it there. 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

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 29 Jul 23 1.15pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

You can spurt as much squid ink as you like, it doesn’t change the fact that you have not described how Farage was hypocritical in relation to the Coutts affair.

There is only one fact in the above. Which is that unfortunately, you don't know what you are talking about. If you haven't worked it out by now, you never will.

As anything else I could say would rival you for rudeness I will leave it there.

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

HKOwen Hong Kong 29 Jul 23 1.27pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I just double-checked. There wasn't a single word about the subject of the thread. Not one! It was in response to a comment of mine but was entirely criticising me and not addressing the content of the comment in any way at all. It was 100% ad hominem, something you are very frequently guilty of. It seems you just cannot help yourself. Maybe you need to find some help elsewhere? For the umpteenth time in this thread, Farage was not debanked because Coutts has an opinion on his views. That they described those views in the internal document that was acquired and circulated by Farage doesn't change that fact. Farage has spun it that way, for his own reasons, but it isn't true. Describing him as they did was simply part of the process of constructing the rationale for why an association with him could lead to reputational damage. Perhaps that's too subtle a difference for some to understand, but it is the vital difference between what Farage suggests, and the truth. Millions of citizens may well agree with Farage. There are after all 60 million of us. Many more millions don't and for that, I give a hearty sigh of relief. I ask again. What does find some help mean? You seem to be implying I am mentally ill. " You need help A phrase often used in an attempt to convince someone to seek out psychiatric care or psychological treatment. An expression of concern for someone with a mental illness that drastically reduces their quality of life. Personally I find such a post to be abusive. Edited by HKOwen (29 Jul 2023 1.34pm) 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.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 29 Jul 23 1.27pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I just double-checked. There wasn't a single word about the subject of the thread. Not one! It was in response to a comment of mine but was entirely criticising me and not addressing the content of the comment in any way at all.

It was 100% ad hominem, something you are very frequently guilty of. It seems you just cannot help yourself. Maybe you need to find some help elsewhere?

For the umpteenth time in this thread, Farage was not debanked because Coutts has an opinion on his views. That they described those views in the internal document that was acquired and circulated by Farage doesn't change that fact. Farage has spun it that way, for his own reasons, but it isn't true.

Describing him as they did was simply part of the process of constructing the rationale for why an association with him could lead to reputational damage.

Perhaps that's too subtle a difference for some to understand, but it is the vital difference between what Farage suggests, and the truth.

Millions of citizens may well agree with Farage. There are after all 60 million of us. Many more millions don't and for that, I give a hearty sigh of relief.

I ask again. What does find some help mean? You seem to be implying I am mentally ill.

" You need help
A phrase often used in an attempt to convince someone to seek out psychiatric care or psychological treatment. An expression of concern for someone with a mental illness that drastically reduces their quality of life.

Personally I find such a post to be abusive.

Edited by HKOwen (29 Jul 2023 1.34pm)

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 29 Jul 23 1.32pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I can only speculate that their assessment would centre around the type of customers Coutts serves and those of the high street brand, NatWest. Yes, those who are content that their bank was fined £8.75m for breaching money laundering regulations but draw the line at someone with whose opinion they disagree.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

29 Jul 23 1.32pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I can only speculate that their assessment would centre around the type of customers Coutts serves and those of the high street brand, NatWest.

Yes, those who are content that their bank was fined £8.75m for breaching money laundering regulations but draw the line at someone with whose opinion they disagree.

Alert a moderator to this post

mezzer Main Stand, Block F, Row 20 seat 1... 29 Jul 23 1.38pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I think you are being pedantic over the use of a phrase. That people are arguing about freedom of speech being a concern doesn't mean the argument has any merit. As I said previously it is spurious. It's clearly untrue as the past week has demonstrated. That what Farage says is at the base of what has happened does not mean his ability to say it has been negatively impacted. If anything it has been amplified. It's no more true than if someone argued that Harry Kane plays for Palace. The arguing would exist, but not the argument. I expressed my opinion about the government's intervention in my previous comment. I think it's regrettable and politically motivated. What Sunak said is obviously true, but what is also true is that this isn't what has happened to Farage. He hasn't lost his account because of his views. It was removed by the bank because of their concerns about being associated with them. That's their decision. No one should be forced to be friends with someone they don't choose to be. This is no different. I have thought that Sunak, and particularly Hunt, have been doing a good job given the appalling mess they inherited from Johnson and Truss. Not enough to save them at the next GE but enough to allow the Tories to survive and recover when a complete wipeout looked possible. Their fawning to Farage indicates just how much the Tories still fear him, and that is seriously unhealthy. This makes no sense. He didn't lose his account because of his views but because the bank had concerns about being associated with them? So if he didn't hold the views he does, the bank wouldn't have to worry about being associated with them so it is clearly his views that has led to the closure of his account. Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry.
Alert a moderator to this post

mezzer

Main Stand, Block F, Row 20 seat 1... 29 Jul 23 1.38pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I think you are being pedantic over the use of a phrase. That people are arguing about freedom of speech being a concern doesn't mean the argument has any merit. As I said previously it is spurious. It's clearly untrue as the past week has demonstrated. That what Farage says is at the base of what has happened does not mean his ability to say it has been negatively impacted. If anything it has been amplified.

It's no more true than if someone argued that Harry Kane plays for Palace. The arguing would exist, but not the argument.

I expressed my opinion about the government's intervention in my previous comment. I think it's regrettable and politically motivated. What Sunak said is obviously true, but what is also true is that this isn't what has happened to Farage. He hasn't lost his account because of his views. It was removed by the bank because of their concerns about being associated with them. That's their decision. No one should be forced to be friends with someone they don't choose to be. This is no different.

I have thought that Sunak, and particularly Hunt, have been doing a good job given the appalling mess they inherited from Johnson and Truss. Not enough to save them at the next GE but enough to allow the Tories to survive and recover when a complete wipeout looked possible. Their fawning to Farage indicates just how much the Tories still fear him, and that is seriously unhealthy.

This makes no sense. He didn't lose his account because of his views but because the bank had concerns about being associated with them?
So if he didn't hold the views he does, the bank wouldn't have to worry about being associated with them so it is clearly his views that has led to the closure of his account.

Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry.

Alert a moderator to this post

NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 29 Jul 23 1.43pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I think you are being pedantic over the use of a phrase. That people are arguing about freedom of speech being a concern doesn't mean the argument has any merit. As I said previously it is spurious. It's clearly untrue as the past week has demonstrated. That what Farage says is at the base of what has happened does not mean his ability to say it has been negatively impacted. If anything it has been amplified. It's no more true than if someone argued that Harry Kane plays for Palace. The arguing would exist, but not the argument. I expressed my opinion about the government's intervention in my previous comment. I think it's regrettable and politically motivated. What Sunak said is obviously true, but what is also true is that this isn't what has happened to Farage. He hasn't lost his account because of his views. It was removed by the bank because of their concerns about being associated with them. That's their decision. No one should be forced to be friends with someone they don't choose to be. This is no different. I have thought that Sunak, and particularly Hunt, have been doing a good job given the appalling mess they inherited from Johnson and Truss. Not enough to save them at the next GE but enough to allow the Tories to survive and recover when a complete wipeout looked possible. Their fawning to Farage indicates just how much the Tories still fear him, and that is seriously unhealthy. I think you’re the one being pedantic actually. And contradicting yourself. First you say there is no freedom of speech argument , but that’s only your opinion. Now you say there is an argument but is has no merit. I perfectly understand what the newly woke Coutts did what they did and so do the politicians . They are supporting Farage because they are also PEPS and it could happen to them. Nobody is forcing Coutts to be “ friends “ with Farage. Until Coutts enabled him who knew or cared that NF banked with them ? They should focus on deterring actual criminals, the money launderers, terrorist organisation etc because failing to results not only in reputational damage but financial penalties. My guess is that the next Risk Review that Coutts carry out is one that looks at whether the policy that has created this mess is fit for purpose. Old, Ungifted and White
Alert a moderator to this post

NEILLO

Shoreham-by-Sea 29 Jul 23 1.43pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It's no more true than if someone argued that Harry Kane plays for Palace. The arguing would exist, but not the argument.

I think you’re the one being pedantic actually. And contradicting yourself.

First you say there is no freedom of speech argument , but that’s only your opinion.

Now you say there is an argument but is has no merit.

I perfectly understand what the newly woke Coutts did what they did and so do the politicians . They are supporting Farage because they are also PEPS and it could happen to them.

Nobody is forcing Coutts to be “ friends “ with Farage. Until Coutts enabled him who knew or cared that NF banked with them ? They should focus on deterring actual criminals, the money launderers, terrorist organisation etc because failing to results not only in reputational damage but financial penalties.

My guess is that the next Risk Review that Coutts carry out is one that looks at whether the policy that has created this mess is fit for purpose.

Old, Ungifted and White

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 29 Jul 23 1.46pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle This is from Wiki. After submitting a subject access request in July, Farage published a 40-page internal document from the bank, which contained minutes from a meeting of the bank's Wealth Reputational Risk Committee on 17 November 2022, describing Farage as a "disingenuous grifter" who promoted "xenophobic, chauvinistic and racist views", and said his "views were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation", with "risk factors including... controversial public statements which were felt to conflict with the bank’s purpose" It did, and that is not in dispute. It was careless to minute such remarks and an apology has been given for the language used. Read them very carefully again though and perhaps you will see that whilst they are describing his perceived character they aren't the reason for his debanking. The reason for his debanking is not of themselves Farage's views. It is their impact on the bank's position and purpose. They are not saying that Farage cannot hold and speak about such views, but that they don't feel it's wise for them to be connected to him. Now some will regard that as just semantics but it isn't. It's a fundamental right that people can decide for themselves who they associate with, on whatever basis they want. If you dislike me, for whatever reason, no one else can force you to associate yourself with me. A commercial business is no different unless they have some kind of legal compulsion, which I expect would be vigorously resisted if there was any attempt to introduce one. 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

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 29 Jul 23 1.46pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

This is from Wiki.

After submitting a subject access request in July, Farage published a 40-page internal document from the bank, which contained minutes from a meeting of the bank's Wealth Reputational Risk Committee on 17 November 2022, describing Farage as a "disingenuous grifter" who promoted "xenophobic, chauvinistic and racist views", and said his "views were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation", with "risk factors including... controversial public statements which were felt to conflict with the bank’s purpose"

It did, and that is not in dispute. It was careless to minute such remarks and an apology has been given for the language used.

Read them very carefully again though and perhaps you will see that whilst they are describing his perceived character they aren't the reason for his debanking.

The reason for his debanking is not of themselves Farage's views. It is their impact on the bank's position and purpose.

They are not saying that Farage cannot hold and speak about such views, but that they don't feel it's wise for them to be connected to him.

Now some will regard that as just semantics but it isn't.

It's a fundamental right that people can decide for themselves who they associate with, on whatever basis they want. If you dislike me, for whatever reason, no one else can force you to associate yourself with me.

A commercial business is no different unless they have some kind of legal compulsion, which I expect would be vigorously resisted if there was any attempt to introduce one.

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

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 29 Jul 23 1.52pm
Originally posted by HKOwen I ask again. What does find some help mean? You seem to be implying I am mentally ill. " You need help A phrase often used in an attempt to convince someone to seek out psychiatric care or psychological treatment. An expression of concern for someone with a mental illness that drastically reduces their quality of life. Personally I find such a post to be abusive. Edited by HKOwen (29 Jul 2023 1.34pm) As you seem incapable of responding to the content of my comments, but constantly seek to attack my character, maybe someone else could help you to find a way to concentrate on the subject under review. Who that might be is not for me to suggest. I don't know you. I only know what you write here. 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

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 29 Jul 23 1.52pm

Originally posted by HKOwen

I ask again. What does find some help mean? You seem to be implying I am mentally ill.

Personally I find such a post to be abusive.

Edited by HKOwen (29 Jul 2023 1.34pm)

As you seem incapable of responding to the content of my comments, but constantly seek to attack my character, maybe someone else could help you to find a way to concentrate on the subject under review.

Who that might be is not for me to suggest. I don't know you. I only know what you write here.

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

Stirlingsays 29 Jul 23 1.56pm
It's amusing how you find people who support vast chunks of the left all of a sudden pick and choose what they like from libertarian thinking when it suits them. In reality Banks, in fact the whole financial industry was bailed by the taxpayer at massive generational cost.....A cost the taxpayer will likely not actually recover from in our lifetimes....with lockdowns and wars normies just don't get it....we are fecked. Anyway banks are only private companies in name as in practice they are not allowed to fail. Importantly they are not divorced from regulation and in a society where globalisation has decided that cash will be phrased out it's unacceptable for banks to have power to exclude bank accounts unless someone is actually breaking the law. These banks have been abusing a law that wasn't intended for this use. The law will now have to be changed to stop unethical practices like this. Certain people will find their wings will be clipped. Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Jul 2023 1.58pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

29 Jul 23 1.56pm

It's amusing how you find people who support vast chunks of the left all of a sudden pick and choose what they like from libertarian thinking when it suits them.

In reality Banks, in fact the whole financial industry was bailed by the taxpayer at massive generational cost.....A cost the taxpayer will likely not actually recover from in our lifetimes....with lockdowns and wars normies just don't get it....we are fecked.

Anyway banks are only private companies in name as in practice they are not allowed to fail.

Importantly they are not divorced from regulation and in a society where globalisation has decided that cash will be phrased out it's unacceptable for banks to have power to exclude bank accounts unless someone is actually breaking the law.

These banks have been abusing a law that wasn't intended for this use.

The law will now have to be changed to stop unethical practices like this. Certain people will find their wings will be clipped.

Edited by Stirlingsays (29 Jul 2023 1.58pm)

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

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 29 Jul 23 2.04pm
Originally posted by NEILLO I think you’re the one being pedantic actually. And contradicting yourself. First you say there is no freedom of speech argument , but that’s only your opinion. Now you say there is an argument but is has no merit. I perfectly understand what the newly woke Coutts did what they did and so do the politicians . They are supporting Farage because they are also PEPS and it could happen to them. Nobody is forcing Coutts to be “ friends “ with Farage. Until Coutts enabled him who knew or cared that NF banked with them ? They should focus on deterring actual criminals, the money launderers, terrorist organisation etc because failing to results not only in reputational damage but financial penalties. My guess is that the next Risk Review that Coutts carry out is one that looks at whether the policy that has created this mess is fit for purpose. No, what I said is that whilst there is arguing, there is no substance to the argument being pontificated by Farage and his supporters. His freedom of speech has demonstrably and unarguably not been negatively affected by this. Coutts should be, and are, free to make whatever decision they believe to be right. Unless you believe they should be nationalised or regulated as a public utility. I don't think the financial sector would be too enthusiastic about the latter. I have little doubt they try to exclude all the criminals you describe. That's irrelevant to also looking at other perceived risks. I also think though that there will be many more heads rolling as they sort out the mess. I am though doing my best to help NatWest. I have just opened a cash ISA with them as their interest rates are now the market leader. That I agree with their position on Farage is beside the point. 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

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 29 Jul 23 2.04pm

Originally posted by NEILLO

I think you’re the one being pedantic actually. And contradicting yourself.

First you say there is no freedom of speech argument , but that’s only your opinion.

Now you say there is an argument but is has no merit.

I perfectly understand what the newly woke Coutts did what they did and so do the politicians . They are supporting Farage because they are also PEPS and it could happen to them.

My guess is that the next Risk Review that Coutts carry out is one that looks at whether the policy that has created this mess is fit for purpose.

No, what I said is that whilst there is arguing, there is no substance to the argument being pontificated by Farage and his supporters. His freedom of speech has demonstrably and unarguably not been negatively affected by this.

Coutts should be, and are, free to make whatever decision they believe to be right. Unless you believe they should be nationalised or regulated as a public utility. I don't think the financial sector would be too enthusiastic about the latter.

I have little doubt they try to exclude all the criminals you describe. That's irrelevant to also looking at other perceived risks.

I also think though that there will be many more heads rolling as they sort out the mess.

I am though doing my best to help NatWest. I have just opened a cash ISA with them as their interest rates are now the market leader.

That I agree with their position on Farage is beside the point.

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

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 29 Jul 23 2.09pm
Originally posted by mezzer This makes no sense. He didn't lose his account because of his views but because the bank had concerns about being associated with them? So if he didn't hold the views he does, the bank wouldn't have to worry about being associated with them so it is clearly his views that has led to the closure of his account. That's for him to decide. If holding a Coutts account was felt by Farage to be so essential he couldn't live without it, he could stop being a PEP and retire to grow vegetables. He has choices. So does the bank. 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

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 29 Jul 23 2.09pm

Originally posted by mezzer

That's for him to decide. If holding a Coutts account was felt by Farage to be so essential he couldn't live without it, he could stop being a PEP and retire to grow vegetables.

He has choices. So does the bank.

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

Page 37 of 80 < 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Coutts VS Nigel Farage

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors