Seemingly trivial things that annoy you
Comments
-
Right, I'm glad you articulated this, and this is part of the risk they're talking about.Pross said:As a Natwest customer I don't want to be associated with Farage
That and the risk he'll kick off and go public, which is exactly what did happen.
Genuinely, why would any private bank go near him after this?0 -
rick_chasey said:
Right, I'm glad you articulated this, and this is part of the risk they're talking about.Pross said:As a Natwest customer I don't want to be associated with Farage
That and the risk he'll kick off and go public, which is exactly what did happen.
Genuinely, why would any private bank go near him after this?
Of course, the thing is that if he'd just accepted the offer quietly, no-one would have been any the wiser. It would serve him right if now they said "In light of the negative publicity, we have decided that we cannot risk further damage to our reputation by being associated with Mr Farage, and have therefore withdrawn our offer".0 -
What is the actual benefit of private banking other than flaunting how wealthy you are with a Coutts bank card? I'm guessing the charges are pretty eye-watering for the privilege. I can understand those really high end Swiss accounts where you can call your personal account manager 24 hours a day and move your millions around the world but I can't see Farage having ever been in that league and I'm guessing Coutts wouldn't be the place for you to send money transfers from dodgy Russian oligarchs paying you to subvert the democracy of a nation if you were that way inclined.1
-
Combo of wealth management (which offers access to more sophisticated investment options), tax and estate planning etc, insurance etc all together under one roof.Pross said:What is the actual benefit of private banking other than flaunting how wealthy you are with a Coutts bank card? I'm guessing the charges are pretty eye-watering for the privilege. I can understand those really high end Swiss accounts where you can call your personal account manager 24 hours a day and move your millions around the world but I can't see Farage having ever been in that league and I'm guessing Coutts wouldn't be the place for you to send money transfers from dodgy Russian oligarchs paying you to subvert the democracy of a nation if you were that way inclined.
You need a lot of money to make it worthwhile.0 -
I'd assume someone answers the phone when you call them and they are nice to you. £900 a year.Pross said:What is the actual benefit of private banking other than flaunting how wealthy you are with a Coutts bank card? I'm guessing the charges are pretty eye-watering for the privilege. I can understand those really high end Swiss accounts where you can call your personal account manager 24 hours a day and move your millions around the world but I can't see Farage having ever been in that league and I'm guessing Coutts wouldn't be the place for you to send money transfers from dodgy Russian oligarchs paying you to subvert the democracy of a nation if you were that way inclined.
0 -
It's all relative. If you have complex wealth planning needs then £900 is good value. If you earn below £50k (arbitrary salary at which child benefit is still claimable) then perhaps not.
0 -
Given that she was paid several million a year as CEO, she's considerably worse off now. A high price to pay, don't you think?pangolin said:
The definition of "woke" has shifted right a long way if you just have to disagree with Farage to fit the bill.Stevo_666 said:I'm no fan of Farage but this was totally avoidable by Coutts and their now former CEO, who is now discovering the meaning of 'go woke, go broke' on a rather personal level.
Also suspect she's not quite broke
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Now imagine the reaction on here in a different scenario where it was a progressive type being 'de-banked' by a hardline social conservative bank. Taken from Pango's favourite news outlet in case he feels the need to point this out
https://telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/07/25/woke-banks-scandal-hypocrisy/
In case it's paywalled:
"Imagine banks were cancelling the accounts of progressive politicians. How do we think the Left would react?
Some physicists believe that there may be any number of alternate universes. Let’s take them at their word, and imagine a universe that is like our own, except in one small but crucial respect.
All the top banks have been ideologically captured by hardline social conservatives – and they’re now cancelling the accounts of leading progressives.
A subject access request reveals that, in this alternate universe, Jeremy Corbyn has had his bank account cancelled for opposing the monarchy. The alternate Keir Starmer has had his bank account cancelled for claiming that some women have penises. The alternate Alastair Campbell has had his bank account cancelled for his relentless attacks on Brexit. Meanwhile, other well-known progressives have been de-banked for campaigning against the Illegal Migration Bill, praising Just Stop Oil, wearing pronoun badges, criticising Israel, and kneeling for Black Lives Matter.
In each case, documents show that the members of the banks’ reputational risk committees were unanimous. These clients’ outspoken progressive views did not align with the banks’ values. So they had to go.
How do we suppose progressive commentators are responding to these decisions, in this topsy-turvy alternate world? Perhaps they’re airily insisting that such stories can’t possibly be true, that their favourite politicians have simply made them all up, and that their favourite newspapers are cynically exploiting the opportunity to whip up an anti-Tory culture war. Or perhaps the progressives are conceding that the stories are indeed true, but then calmly explaining that it’s nothing to worry about – because banks are perfectly entitled to make their own decisions, and if they don’t agree with a particular client’s views, they’ve got every right to kick him or her out.
It’s certainly possible that the alternate world’s progressives are responding like that. On the whole, though, I suspect it’s probably more likely that they’re furiously rioting in the streets in protest at this shocking assault on their freedom of speech, demanding the immediate removal of the unaccountable fanatics behind this chilling plot to impose their own ideological beliefs upon the rest of the country, and warning everyone that Western society is on the brink of descending into full-blown fascism."
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Telegraph readers have too much time on their hands if they can bother to read through that twaddle.2
-
It is basically the same as a shop, and custom can be refused for almost any reason (the exceptions being received, gender etc)
Rhe unwritten rule seems to be we dpnt care who you are, will take your money if you are discrete.
In this case, he failed the loudmouth idiot test. I don't think it's about politics.0 -
Farage does seem to actually make sense on this subject based on his BBC interview.1
-
He’s very selective in his reading of the actual document.TheBigBean said:Farage does seem to actually make sense on this subject based on his BBC interview.
The “political” reason, if you want to call it that, very much reads like a third or fourth order of importance to the decision.
0 -
I didn't think woke meant breaching client confidentiality, but whatever. He's still too poor for Coutts and too proud for NatWest.Stevo_666 said:I'm no fan of Farage but this was totally avoidable by Coutts and their now former CEO, who is now discovering the meaning of 'go woke, go broke' on a rather personal level.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Especially as he doesn't have enough money.rick_chasey said:
Right, I'm glad you articulated this, and this is part of the risk they're talking about.Pross said:As a Natwest customer I don't want to be associated with Farage
That and the risk he'll kick off and go public, which is exactly what did happen.
Genuinely, why would any private bank go near him after this?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I suspect being outed as not being rich enough was his biggest issue although it will help with his 'man of the people' image.0
-
The conversation though about the right to a bank account is finally starting to happen. This is a good thing not least because the government has tried to outsource a lot of crime prevention to banks.
0 -
I'm loving the implication in that Telegraph article that the banks are being run by a bunch of Lefties who want to cancel people for being right of centre in their politics.0
-
Bank accounts do indeed get closed all the time if you fail to meet the criteria. Never mind bank accounts, 'progressive politicians' were regularly surveilled by the security services while in office.Stevo_666 said:Now imagine the reaction on here in a different scenario where it was a progressive type being 'de-banked' by a hardline social conservative bank. Taken from Pango's favourite news outlet in case he feels the need to point this out
https://telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/07/25/woke-banks-scandal-hypocrisy/
In case it's paywalled:
"Imagine banks were cancelling the accounts of progressive politicians. How do we think the Left would react?
Some physicists believe that there may be any number of alternate universes. Let’s take them at their word, and imagine a universe that is like our own, except in one small but crucial respect.
All the top banks have been ideologically captured by hardline social conservatives – and they’re now cancelling the accounts of leading progressives.
A subject access request reveals that, in this alternate universe, Jeremy Corbyn has had his bank account cancelled for opposing the monarchy. The alternate Keir Starmer has had his bank account cancelled for claiming that some women have penises. The alternate Alastair Campbell has had his bank account cancelled for his relentless attacks on Brexit. Meanwhile, other well-known progressives have been de-banked for campaigning against the Illegal Migration Bill, praising Just Stop Oil, wearing pronoun badges, criticising Israel, and kneeling for Black Lives Matter.
In each case, documents show that the members of the banks’ reputational risk committees were unanimous. These clients’ outspoken progressive views did not align with the banks’ values. So they had to go.
How do we suppose progressive commentators are responding to these decisions, in this topsy-turvy alternate world? Perhaps they’re airily insisting that such stories can’t possibly be true, that their favourite politicians have simply made them all up, and that their favourite newspapers are cynically exploiting the opportunity to whip up an anti-Tory culture war. Or perhaps the progressives are conceding that the stories are indeed true, but then calmly explaining that it’s nothing to worry about – because banks are perfectly entitled to make their own decisions, and if they don’t agree with a particular client’s views, they’ve got every right to kick him or her out.
It’s certainly possible that the alternate world’s progressives are responding like that. On the whole, though, I suspect it’s probably more likely that they’re furiously rioting in the streets in protest at this shocking assault on their freedom of speech, demanding the immediate removal of the unaccountable fanatics behind this chilling plot to impose their own ideological beliefs upon the rest of the country, and warning everyone that Western society is on the brink of descending into full-blown fascism."
Can't believe you're actually taken in by the 'free speech' guff.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Our corporate account has been frozen twice which potentially meant staff couldn't be paid. This would have had knock on consequences for them. Both times were due to sheer incompetence of the bank.0
-
The right to a bank account is already law in the UK though just banks don't have to offer anything above the basic current account facilities. I actually chose the most basic account when I moved to Natwest, I didn't want an overdraft facility or any of those insurances etc. most banks charge you a monthly fee for and you usually forget you have available. It's done everything I need for nearly a decade now.TheBigBean said:The conversation though about the right to a bank account is finally starting to happen. This is a good thing not least because the government has tried to outsource a lot of crime prevention to banks.
0 -
A spot of humour about leftie hypocrisy which made me smile, so worth a readshirley_basso said:Telegraph readers have too much time on their hands if they can bother to read through that twaddle.
No surprise you didn't like it Shirley "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It made me smile and that's what matters. Also no surprise that you didn't like itrjsterry said:
Bank accounts do indeed get closed all the time if you fail to meet the criteria. Never mind bank accounts, 'progressive politicians' were regularly surveilled by the security services while in office.Stevo_666 said:Now imagine the reaction on here in a different scenario where it was a progressive type being 'de-banked' by a hardline social conservative bank. Taken from Pango's favourite news outlet in case he feels the need to point this out
https://telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/07/25/woke-banks-scandal-hypocrisy/
In case it's paywalled:
"Imagine banks were cancelling the accounts of progressive politicians. How do we think the Left would react?
Some physicists believe that there may be any number of alternate universes. Let’s take them at their word, and imagine a universe that is like our own, except in one small but crucial respect.
All the top banks have been ideologically captured by hardline social conservatives – and they’re now cancelling the accounts of leading progressives.
A subject access request reveals that, in this alternate universe, Jeremy Corbyn has had his bank account cancelled for opposing the monarchy. The alternate Keir Starmer has had his bank account cancelled for claiming that some women have penises. The alternate Alastair Campbell has had his bank account cancelled for his relentless attacks on Brexit. Meanwhile, other well-known progressives have been de-banked for campaigning against the Illegal Migration Bill, praising Just Stop Oil, wearing pronoun badges, criticising Israel, and kneeling for Black Lives Matter.
In each case, documents show that the members of the banks’ reputational risk committees were unanimous. These clients’ outspoken progressive views did not align with the banks’ values. So they had to go.
How do we suppose progressive commentators are responding to these decisions, in this topsy-turvy alternate world? Perhaps they’re airily insisting that such stories can’t possibly be true, that their favourite politicians have simply made them all up, and that their favourite newspapers are cynically exploiting the opportunity to whip up an anti-Tory culture war. Or perhaps the progressives are conceding that the stories are indeed true, but then calmly explaining that it’s nothing to worry about – because banks are perfectly entitled to make their own decisions, and if they don’t agree with a particular client’s views, they’ve got every right to kick him or her out.
It’s certainly possible that the alternate world’s progressives are responding like that. On the whole, though, I suspect it’s probably more likely that they’re furiously rioting in the streets in protest at this shocking assault on their freedom of speech, demanding the immediate removal of the unaccountable fanatics behind this chilling plot to impose their own ideological beliefs upon the rest of the country, and warning everyone that Western society is on the brink of descending into full-blown fascism."
Can't believe you're actually taken in by the 'free speech' guff. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not if they are unsatisfied with KYC.Pross said:
The right to a bank account is already law in the UK though just banks don't have to offer anything above the basic current account facilities. I actually chose the most basic account when I moved to Natwest, I didn't want an overdraft facility or any of those insurances etc. most banks charge you a monthly fee for and you usually forget you have available. It's done everything I need for nearly a decade now.TheBigBean said:The conversation though about the right to a bank account is finally starting to happen. This is a good thing not least because the government has tried to outsource a lot of crime prevention to banks.
0 -
Although it also cheers me up to hear the government complaining about banks implementing laws the government put in place.0
-
I don't believe him, so don't know if it's true they got rid of him because they think he's a cunt (which would be wrong), or if he didn't have enough money to bank with them and they decided he was too much of a cunt to waive the rules for (which would be fine).
Either way, the ceo discussing his affairs with the press is correctly a resigning offence.0 -
It is quite clever of Farage, as this is a vehicle to import anti-ESG movement we see in America.
0 -
Continuing the twitter quoting theme, this sums it quite well.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
But it was about the 4th order reason, which reads like a throwaway comment about reputation risk, which as we can see was bang on justified?Stevo_666 said:Continuing the twitter quoting theme, this sums it quite well.
0 -
The main tweet you can see says it. Not sure what a 4th order reason is, but then only real reputational risk Coutts and Natwest brought about was by doing what they did. And it's more than a risk now, as their reputation and share price is somewhat damaged.rick_chasey said:
But it was about the 4th order reason, which reads like a throwaway comment about reputation risk, which as we can see was bang on justified?Stevo_666 said:Continuing the twitter quoting theme, this sums it quite well.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
