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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 52 of 80 < 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 >

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Aug 23 9.27am
Originally posted by Matov My once every 6 month(ish) expression of my utter puzzlement as to why so many of you bright and erudite people waste a single moment engaging with this village idiot? May I express my utter puzzlement that anyone could use “bright and erudite” as a description here. It made me smile though. 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 01 Aug 23 9.27am

Originally posted by Matov

My once every 6 month(ish) expression of my utter puzzlement as to why so many of you bright and erudite people waste a single moment engaging with this village idiot?

May I express my utter puzzlement that anyone could use “bright and erudite” as a description here. It made me smile though.

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 01 Aug 23 9.29am
Originally posted by NEILLO Correct. I’m not wasting any more of my time on you No doubt people will draw their own conclusions from that. As I do. 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 01 Aug 23 9.29am

Originally posted by NEILLO

Correct.

I’m not wasting any more of my time on you

No doubt people will draw their own conclusions from that. As I do.

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

NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 01 Aug 23 9.31am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle No doubt people will draw their own conclusions from that. As I do. Well, how am I going to sleep at night now...I'll let you remain in ignorance although I don't think you need my help in that matter Old, Ungifted and White
Alert a moderator to this post

NEILLO

Shoreham-by-Sea 01 Aug 23 9.31am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

No doubt people will draw their own conclusions from that. As I do.

Well, how am I going to sleep at night now...I'll let you remain in ignorance although I don't think you need my help in that matter

Old, Ungifted and White

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 01 Aug 23 9.42am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Not the Board. I was referring to those who sit on the committees making the assessments. Ok, lets settle on those in Coutts who made the decision to dump Farage. My original comment still applies.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

01 Aug 23 9.42am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Not the Board. I was referring to those who sit on the committees making the assessments.

Ok, lets settle on those in Coutts who made the decision to dump Farage. My original comment still applies.

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 01 Aug 23 9.45am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Coutts stand accused of that, here and in the court of public opinion. I think it’s incorrect and whilst their behaviour and responses have been terrible the original motivation was not. Ashers did though do it. Defined discrimination is unlawful. That something slips through a definition doesn’t mean it’s not discrimination. That's just hair-splitting waffle (your usual modus operandi). We have courts of law that determine whether a law has been broken. Ashers were found to have broken no law, they clearly did not discriminate, Coutts clearly did.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

01 Aug 23 9.45am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Coutts stand accused of that, here and in the court of public opinion. I think it’s incorrect and whilst their behaviour and responses have been terrible the original motivation was not.

Ashers did though do it.

Defined discrimination is unlawful. That something slips through a definition doesn’t mean it’s not discrimination.

That's just hair-splitting waffle (your usual modus operandi).

We have courts of law that determine whether a law has been broken. Ashers were found to have broken no law, they clearly did not discriminate, Coutts clearly did.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 01 Aug 23 10.24am
This is from the Guardian who are hardly fans of Farage. Mention of reputational damage is conspicuous by it's absence. You don’t have to be a semiotician to see that the bank, with a background in offshore tax avoidance, was guilty of virtue-signalling when it closed his account because of his political beliefs. That error was compounded by Rose briefing a BBC journalist with false information about Farage.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

01 Aug 23 10.24am

This is from the Guardian who are hardly fans of Farage.
Mention of reputational damage is conspicuous by it's absence.

You don’t have to be a semiotician to see that the bank, with a background in offshore tax avoidance, was guilty of virtue-signalling when it closed his account because of his political beliefs. That error was compounded by Rose briefing a BBC journalist with false information about Farage.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Aug 23 10.31am
Originally posted by georgenorman Ok, lets settle on those in Coutts who made the decision to dump Farage. My original comment still applies. You can settle all you wish. What’s obvious is that detail is unimportant for you, whilst detail is often the difference between fact and fiction. When you get an idea in your mind about anything no amount of reasoning has any chance of breaking through. 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 01 Aug 23 10.31am

Originally posted by georgenorman

Ok, lets settle on those in Coutts who made the decision to dump Farage. My original comment still applies.

You can settle all you wish. What’s obvious is that detail is unimportant for you, whilst detail is often the difference between fact and fiction. When you get an idea in your mind about anything no amount of reasoning has any chance of breaking through.

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 01 Aug 23 10.42am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle This is from the Guardian who are hardly fans of Farage. Mention of reputational damage is conspicuous by it's absence. You don’t have to be a semiotician to see that the bank, with a background in offshore tax avoidance, was guilty of virtue-signalling when it closed his account because of his political beliefs. That error was compounded by Rose briefing a BBC journalist with false information about Farage. I have also read the Guardian’s reporting on this and noted that they, along with all the MSM, are taking this line. I wonder though if it will last and whether some quiet reflection produces a more objective approach. That Coutts were “virtual-signalling” is undoubtedly true. As is that Farage’s political beliefs lie at the base of the reasoning. What is not being explained at all is the mid-way step of why these things matter to the bank. Which isn’t because they disapprove of them for their politics but disapprove of them because of the potential impact on their bottom line. 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 01 Aug 23 10.42am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

This is from the Guardian who are hardly fans of Farage.
Mention of reputational damage is conspicuous by it's absence.

I have also read the Guardian’s reporting on this and noted that they, along with all the MSM, are taking this line.

I wonder though if it will last and whether some quiet reflection produces a more objective approach.

That Coutts were “virtual-signalling” is undoubtedly true. As is that Farage’s political beliefs lie at the base of the reasoning. What is not being explained at all is the mid-way step of why these things matter to the bank. Which isn’t because they disapprove of them for their politics but disapprove of them because of the potential impact on their bottom line.

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 01 Aug 23 10.45am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I have also read the Guardian’s reporting on this and noted that they, along with all the MSM, are taking this line. I wonder though if it will last and whether some quiet reflection produces a more objective approach. That Coutts were “virtual-signalling” is undoubtedly true. As is that Farage’s political beliefs lie at the base of the reasoning. What is not being explained at all is the mid-way step of why these things matter to the bank. Which isn’t because they disapprove of them for their politics but disapprove of them because of the potential impact on their bottom line. Then why have they offered to reinstate his account(s)?
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

01 Aug 23 10.45am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I have also read the Guardian’s reporting on this and noted that they, along with all the MSM, are taking this line.

I wonder though if it will last and whether some quiet reflection produces a more objective approach.

Then why have they offered to reinstate his account(s)?

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 01 Aug 23 10.46am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle You can settle all you wish. What’s obvious is that detail is unimportant for you, whilst detail is often the difference between fact and fiction. When you get an idea in your mind about anything no amount of reasoning has any chance of breaking through. “...however much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing, as it were, behind your back".” [Orwell, Facing Unpleasant Facts: Narrative Essays]
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

01 Aug 23 10.46am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

“...however much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing, as it were, behind your back".” [Orwell, Facing Unpleasant Facts: Narrative Essays]

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Aug 23 10.48am
Originally posted by georgenorman That's just hair-splitting waffle (your usual modus operandi). We have courts of law that determine whether a law has been broken. Ashers were found to have broken no law, they clearly did not discriminate, Coutts clearly did. What you regard as “waffle” is far from that. It’s detail and as I have tried to explain that’s important. I would so enjoy being a barrister in front of a learned Judge with you as my opponent over issues like this. I would win every time. Doing so here is a waste of time. 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 01 Aug 23 10.48am

Originally posted by georgenorman

That's just hair-splitting waffle (your usual modus operandi).

We have courts of law that determine whether a law has been broken. Ashers were found to have broken no law, they clearly did not discriminate, Coutts clearly did.

What you regard as “waffle” is far from that. It’s detail and as I have tried to explain that’s important. I would so enjoy being a barrister in front of a learned Judge with you as my opponent over issues like this. I would win every time.

Doing so here is a waste of time.

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 01 Aug 23 10.50am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Then why have they offered to reinstate his account(s)? PR scrambling! 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 01 Aug 23 10.50am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Then why have they offered to reinstate his account(s)?

PR scrambling!

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 52 of 80 < 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Coutts VS Nigel Farage

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors