This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
 ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 02 Aug 23 4.45pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
There are more posts in this thread than votes Farage got in elections.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 02 Aug 23 5.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Clearly, the law needs changing. This kind of business practice does not serve the common good. That's another issue which can be thrashed out in Parliament if they decide it needs to be and you can do as much agitating from the sidelines as anyone else. Right now they are free to take their own decisions, which is the simple point that has been made by me throughout this saga. A point that normally people with your political outlook would be supporting to the hilt. It's normally the "lefties" who seek more state control, not those on the right. If the law did change I guess the banks would demand that either the current requirements to scrutinise PEPs very closely be removed, which most certainly not be in the public interest, or that they are compensated for being asked to do so. Which would cost the taxpayer and not be a vote winner. So I doubt it will happen and will quietly fade away once the fuss dies down.
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 02 Aug 23 6.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
There are more posts in this thread than votes Farage got in elections. Made me smile but it does point up the fact that these days politicians can still have a lot of influence without ever holding office. Farage is doing a Trump. Using TV to promote his political outlook and himself. Thank goodness we don't elect a President!
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 02 Aug 23 6.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That's another issue which can be thrashed out in Parliament if they decide it needs to be and you can do as much agitating from the sidelines as anyone else. Right now they are free to take their own decisions, which is the simple point that has been made by me throughout this saga. A point that normally people with your political outlook would be supporting to the hilt. It's normally the "lefties" who seek more state control, not those on the right. If the law did change I guess the banks would demand that either the current requirements to scrutinise PEPs very closely be removed, which most certainly not be in the public interest, or that they are compensated for being asked to do so. Which would cost the taxpayer and not be a vote winner. So I doubt it will happen and will quietly fade away once the fuss dies down. Speculation. The current rules were never intended for vetting based on political persuasion.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 02 Aug 23 6.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
How do they produce a watertight document proving they would suffer reputational damage by association with an account holder? It's not the inference itself which would need to be watertight but the reasoning on why possible reputational damage would impact the bottom line and therefore not a risk the bank could accept
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  02 Aug 23 6.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It's not the inference itself which would need to be watertight but the reasoning on why possible reputational damage would impact the bottom line and therefore not a risk the bank could accept That might work with arms dealers or drug smugglers but not with a political figure with whose opinions many people agree.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 02 Aug 23 6.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Speculation. The current rules were never intended for vetting based on political persuasion. They aren't being applied for vetting political persuasion. You are again confusing what causes something with the reason for it. His political views may be the basic cause of this, but they aren't the reason. If they had no impact on the need to supervise his account more strenuously then they would be ignored, just as yours and mine are. Alongside that is the marketing stance that the bank has adopted which has resulted in them deciding that their reputation might suffer by association with him. I doubt though that the latter consideration played a significant role in the decision to close the account. More likely with his mortgage ending and a lack of substantial deposits, the costs of running his account outweighed the returns. Bottom line! Like every business.
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 02 Aug 23 6.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
That might work with arms dealers or drug smugglers but not with a political figure with whose opinions many people agree. It would though probably only be a minor part of any document. Much more likely it would focus on the financial implications of the supervision necessary to maintain an account for a PEP, when his value to them had significantly decreased. It would make sure this was explained rationally and in detail, so that should it be obtained by the client no accusation of political targeting could stick. That Coutts was sloppy in this is beyond question and I bet an urgent review of procedures has taken 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. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 02 Aug 23 6.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
They aren't being applied for vetting political persuasion. You are again confusing what causes something with the reason for it. His political views may be the basic cause of this, but they aren't the reason. If they had no impact on the need to supervise his account more strenuously then they would be ignored, just as yours and mine are. Alongside that is the marketing stance that the bank has adopted which has resulted in them deciding that their reputation might suffer by association with him. I doubt though that the latter consideration played a significant role in the decision to close the account. More likely with his mortgage ending and a lack of substantial deposits, the costs of running his account outweighed the returns. Bottom line! Like every business. Just consider the highlighted sentence again. It totally contradicts itself. Did you forget that Farage obtained an internal report that confirmed that he was targeted because of his opinions and that the CEO told lies to a reporter about his financial status? Are you going to continue to play dumb or just concede now?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 02 Aug 23 6.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
They aren't being applied for vetting political persuasion. You are again confusing what causes something with the reason for it. His political views may be the basic cause of this, but they aren't the reason. If they had no impact on the need to supervise his account more strenuously then they would be ignored, just as yours and mine are. Alongside that is the marketing stance that the bank has adopted which has resulted in them deciding that their reputation might suffer by association with him. I doubt though that the latter consideration played a significant role in the decision to close the account. More likely with his mortgage ending and a lack of substantial deposits, the costs of running his account outweighed the returns. Bottom line! Like every business. The bilge that you come out with.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 02 Aug 23 6.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
They aren't being applied for vetting political persuasion. You are again confusing what causes something with the reason for it. His political views may be the basic cause of this, but they aren't the reason. If they had no impact on the need to supervise his account more strenuously then they would be ignored, just as yours and mine are. Alongside that is the marketing stance that the bank has adopted which has resulted in them deciding that their reputation might suffer by association with him. I doubt though that the latter consideration played a significant role in the decision to close the account. More likely with his mortgage ending and a lack of substantial deposits, the costs of running his account outweighed the returns. Bottom line! Like every business. No. If Farage had fallen below the thresholds required ( which for a time he did ) then Coutts could have exited him without a fuss. Although even then, the Relationship Managers should be talking to their clients to ascertain if they intended funding the account to restore it sufficiently. As for monitoring his now funded account, his political views would - in my experience - not require any additional monitoring. You said it yourself, NF hasn't changed, it's Coutts. Obviously, I can't speak for all Coutts clients, but it bothers me not that they have Farage on their books. And much as I used to despise Jeremy Corbyn, that wouldn't have bothered me either. In fact I would find some irony in that. All I want from my bank is to provide the level of service expected and to protect my interests in the most effective way. I don't care if they are environmentally friendly, carbon neutral etc etc. To me that's all Virtue Signalling BS and not a reason for me selecting to have an account with them
Old, Ungifted and White |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 02 Aug 23 7.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It would though probably only be a minor part of any document. Much more likely it would focus on the financial implications of the supervision necessary to maintain an account for a PEP, when his value to them had significantly decreased. It would make sure this was explained rationally and in detail, so that should it be obtained by the client no accusation of political targeting could stick. That Coutts was sloppy in this is beyond question and I bet an urgent review of procedures has taken place. So it's no longer a question of reputational damage as has been maintained for several days.
|
|
| 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.