Seemingly trivial things that annoy you
Comments
-
Low bar to clear if that's what you call humour.Stevo_666 said:
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 
This is more the sort of extreme right wing commetary to elicit a chuckle from me. So much to unpick!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-663096370 -
As in, the 4th most salient reason for why they were binning it off.Stevo_666 said:
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.
The case went as follows in importance.
1) no longer at the threshold for the account being commercially profitable for the bank
2) Unlikely to be so in the future
3) Carries some risk associated with politicians in general, plus some such as links to Russians which have not been fully denied.
4) oh and by the way, we're trying to court a more socially responsible cleint base and people like Farage put them off.
So, because some junior wrote 4), it's all blown up. The commentators are baying for the blood of an otherwise capable CEO who seems to have steadied the RBS ship, which, let's face it, was a absolute basket case. It's a real waste.
Banks in the UK are not Swiss - they are not bound by secrecy; they are entitled to defend themselves.0 -
Frances Coppola (she who challenged Farridge on TV) agrees that the CEO had to go for breaching confidentiality. But she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights.
0 -
Has anyone argued their actions in closing his accounts were illegal?briantrumpet said:Frances Coppola (she who challenged Farridge on TV) agrees that the CEO had to go for breaching confidentiality. But she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights.
0 -
Seems to definitely be going ahead. Apparently, I can queue up for my ticket every game which will be lots of fun.TheBigBean said:The rampant march of technology. My season ticket card sits in my wallet and works very well. From next season it's all going digital and the only options are Google Pay and Apple Pay. I don't have or want either. How did two companies end up controlling everything?
I wonder how long it will be until it is impossible to go to any event without Google or Apple.0 -
I don't think they are?TheBigBean said:
Has anyone argued their actions in closing his accounts were illegal?briantrumpet said:Frances Coppola (she who challenged Farridge on TV) agrees that the CEO had to go for breaching confidentiality. But she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights.
0 -
They're not hence "she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights." is hardly ground breaking.rick_chasey said:
I don't think they are?TheBigBean said:
Has anyone argued their actions in closing his accounts were illegal?briantrumpet said:Frances Coppola (she who challenged Farridge on TV) agrees that the CEO had to go for breaching confidentiality. But she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights.
0 -
TheBigBean said:
They're not hence "she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights." is hardly ground breaking.rick_chasey said:
I don't think they are?TheBigBean said:
Has anyone argued their actions in closing his accounts were illegal?briantrumpet said:Frances Coppola (she who challenged Farridge on TV) agrees that the CEO had to go for breaching confidentiality. But she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights.
If they are well within their rights, and everyone agrees they haven't broken any laws or regulations, what's all the fuss about then?0 -
Should they have the right to do it is the question and not whether they currently do.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
They're not hence "she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights." is hardly ground breaking.rick_chasey said:
I don't think they are?TheBigBean said:
Has anyone argued their actions in closing his accounts were illegal?briantrumpet said:Frances Coppola (she who challenged Farridge on TV) agrees that the CEO had to go for breaching confidentiality. But she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights.
If they are well within their rights, and everyone agrees they haven't broken any laws or regulations, what's all the fuss about then?0 -
I feel like a subset of people reading this story will conclude the events were;rick_chasey said:
As in, the 4th most salient reason for why they were binning it off.Stevo_666 said:
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.
The case went as follows in importance.
1) no longer at the threshold for the account being commercially profitable for the bank
2) Unlikely to be so in the future
3) Carries some risk associated with politicians in general, plus some such as links to Russians which have not been fully denied.
4) oh and by the way, we're trying to court a more socially responsible cleint base and people like Farage put them off.
So, because some junior wrote 4), it's all blown up. The commentators are baying for the blood of an otherwise capable CEO who seems to have steadied the RBS ship, which, let's face it, was a absolute basket case. It's a real waste.
Banks in the UK are not Swiss - they are not bound by secrecy; they are entitled to defend themselves.
Farage gets his bank account cancelled because of his forthright views
CEO then resigns because this was the wrong thing to do.
The other subset will view the story as
Farage gets his account cancelled because he's not wealthy enough.
The CEO then resigns because they've been a bit loose lipped.
0 -
Yes, and the latter is more accurate.Jezyboy said:
I feel like a subset of people reading this story will conclude the events were;rick_chasey said:
As in, the 4th most salient reason for why they were binning it off.Stevo_666 said:
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.
The case went as follows in importance.
1) no longer at the threshold for the account being commercially profitable for the bank
2) Unlikely to be so in the future
3) Carries some risk associated with politicians in general, plus some such as links to Russians which have not been fully denied.
4) oh and by the way, we're trying to court a more socially responsible cleint base and people like Farage put them off.
So, because some junior wrote 4), it's all blown up. The commentators are baying for the blood of an otherwise capable CEO who seems to have steadied the RBS ship, which, let's face it, was a absolute basket case. It's a real waste.
Banks in the UK are not Swiss - they are not bound by secrecy; they are entitled to defend themselves.
Farage gets his bank account cancelled because of his forthright views
CEO then resigns because this was the wrong thing to do.
The other subset will view the story as
Farage gets his account cancelled because he's not wealthy enough.
The CEO then resigns because they've been a bit loose lipped.
Private Banking, Coutts included, is an industry which does not remotely have a stellar record when it comes to very willingly banking really awful people.
So to think that they would actually not bank someone because of their politics is pretty mad from that perspective.
What Farage is trying to do, and succeeding, is importing the Anti-ESG movement from the US into the UK; the idea that major institutions, especially financial ones, have been captured by the liberal elite because they do things like "responsible investment" and have DEI policies, and are actually harming the world by doing so.0 -
Now he is saying more heads should roll at NatWest.
Is there nothing else going on in the world that is newsworthy?0 -
He should really stick to being a professional victim on telly. Writing is not really his thing.Stevo_666 said:
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.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think he has a legitimate point. The board made the mistake of backing a CEO in an untenable position.First.Aspect said:Now he is saying more heads should roll at NatWest.
Is there nothing else going on in the world that is newsworthy?0 -
There's talk of amending legislation to prevent a repeat. Obviously, this is the government talking so nothing will actually happen.TheBigBean said:
They're not hence "she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights." is hardly ground breaking.rick_chasey said:
I don't think they are?TheBigBean said:
Has anyone argued their actions in closing his accounts were illegal?briantrumpet said:Frances Coppola (she who challenged Farridge on TV) agrees that the CEO had to go for breaching confidentiality. But she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
What, enforce the terms of their contract with Farage? Absolutely.TheBigBean said:
Should they have the right to do it is the question and not whether they currently do.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
They're not hence "she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights." is hardly ground breaking.rick_chasey said:
I don't think they are?TheBigBean said:
Has anyone argued their actions in closing his accounts were illegal?briantrumpet said:Frances Coppola (she who challenged Farridge on TV) agrees that the CEO had to go for breaching confidentiality. But she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights.
If they are well within their rights, and everyone agrees they haven't broken any laws or regulations, what's all the fuss about then?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If the boards of football clubs resigned every time after a manager with the "full backing of the board" resigned, the world would run out of people to sit on the boards of football clubs.TheBigBean said:
I think he has a legitimate point. The board made the mistake of backing a CEO in an untenable position.First.Aspect said:Now he is saying more heads should roll at NatWest.
Is there nothing else going on in the world that is newsworthy?0 -
It would be nice to think not, but I fear that there is.First.Aspect said:Now he is saying more heads should roll at NatWest.
Is there nothing else going on in the world that is newsworthy?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
That everyone is giving this berk exactly what he wants in talking about him. Aaaaaggghhhh, even I'm doing it now!1
-
Back when the rules were changed, a tonne of sex workers and other higher risk customers basically lost the ability to be banked, so if this makes a change to that, it's probably no bad thing.rjsterry said:
What, enforce the terms of their contract with Farage? Absolutely.TheBigBean said:
Should they have the right to do it is the question and not whether they currently do.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
They're not hence "she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights." is hardly ground breaking.rick_chasey said:
I don't think they are?TheBigBean said:
Has anyone argued their actions in closing his accounts were illegal?briantrumpet said:Frances Coppola (she who challenged Farridge on TV) agrees that the CEO had to go for breaching confidentiality. But she's resolute that Coutts themselves were well within their rights.
If they are well within their rights, and everyone agrees they haven't broken any laws or regulations, what's all the fuss about then?0 -
That's slightly different, because in football the full backing of the board is the equivalent of a P45.Jezyboy said:
If the boards of football clubs resigned every time after a manager with the "full backing of the board" resigned, the world would run out of people to sit on the boards of football clubs.TheBigBean said:
I think he has a legitimate point. The board made the mistake of backing a CEO in an untenable position.First.Aspect said:Now he is saying more heads should roll at NatWest.
Is there nothing else going on in the world that is newsworthy?0 -
Tashman said:
That everyone is giving this berk exactly what he wants in talking about him. Aaaaaggghhhh, even I'm doing it now!
One of the better bits of rhyming slang.
And yes, he knows that this will keep him in the public eye and keep his platform, which is what he craves.0 -
Sack them all.TheBigBean said:
I think he has a legitimate point. The board made the mistake of backing a CEO in an untenable position.First.Aspect said:Now he is saying more heads should roll at NatWest.
Is there nothing else going on in the world that is newsworthy?
Does the same apply to the cabinet?0 -
I'm expecting the public to sack them at the earliest opportunity.First.Aspect said:
Sack them all.TheBigBean said:
I think he has a legitimate point. The board made the mistake of backing a CEO in an untenable position.First.Aspect said:Now he is saying more heads should roll at NatWest.
Is there nothing else going on in the world that is newsworthy?
Does the same apply to the cabinet?0 -
That order of importance is according to who? I'm sure someone trying to deferent Coutts would claim it was that, rather conveniently.rick_chasey said:
As in, the 4th most salient reason for why they were binning it off.Stevo_666 said:
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.
The case went as follows in importance.
1) no longer at the threshold for the account being commercially profitable for the bank
2) Unlikely to be so in the future
3) Carries some risk associated with politicians in general, plus some such as links to Russians which have not been fully denied.
4) oh and by the way, we're trying to court a more socially responsible cleint base and people like Farage put them off.
So, because some junior wrote 4), it's all blown up. The commentators are baying for the blood of an otherwise capable CEO who seems to have steadied the RBS ship, which, let's face it, was a absolute basket case. It's a real waste.
Banks in the UK are not Swiss - they are not bound by secrecy; they are entitled to defend themselves."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The document in question, have you not read it?Stevo_666 said:
That order of importance is according to who? I'm sure someone trying to deferent Coutts would claim it was that, rather conveniently.rick_chasey said:
As in, the 4th most salient reason for why they were binning it off.Stevo_666 said:
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.
The case went as follows in importance.
1) no longer at the threshold for the account being commercially profitable for the bank
2) Unlikely to be so in the future
3) Carries some risk associated with politicians in general, plus some such as links to Russians which have not been fully denied.
4) oh and by the way, we're trying to court a more socially responsible cleint base and people like Farage put them off.
So, because some junior wrote 4), it's all blown up. The commentators are baying for the blood of an otherwise capable CEO who seems to have steadied the RBS ship, which, let's face it, was a absolute basket case. It's a real waste.
Banks in the UK are not Swiss - they are not bound by secrecy; they are entitled to defend themselves.
It's not rocket science. It spells it all out. Farage keeps referring to page 10 so I went and read it, and it's one throwaway line below all the commercial reasons.
It's an "and oh, by the way", and it reads like that.
More broadly, I am really struggling with the idea that the private banking industry actually cares about customer politics or indeed their backgrounds.
Plenty of war criminals have been banked in London.
Do you actually think if you hold Farage political views you're at risk of losing your account at a bank?0 -
First.Aspect said:
Sack them all.TheBigBean said:
I think he has a legitimate point. The board made the mistake of backing a CEO in an untenable position.First.Aspect said:Now he is saying more heads should roll at NatWest.
Is there nothing else going on in the world that is newsworthy?
Does the same apply to the cabinet?
Only the ones who backed the mendacious Johnson or incompetent Truss at some point, or have backed or proposed legislation that has been found to be illegal.
Does that leave anyone?0 -
Say what you like about the tvvat but he always seems to get the media to dance to his tune. The reason we ended up with Brexit is arguably because he managed to convince Cameron that he was far more relevant to people than he actually was. He's a PR genius.First.Aspect said:Now he is saying more heads should roll at NatWest.
Is there nothing else going on in the world that is newsworthy?0 -
I dunno, a scandal that has wiped an estimated £850m off the market value of NatWest seems quite newsworthy to me.First.Aspect said:Now he is saying more heads should roll at NatWest.
Is there nothing else going on in the world that is newsworthy?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not content with shaving %s off UK GDP with Brexit and claiming he never made a case it wouldn't cost Britain, he's now picking off any company that is part owned by the state.Stevo_666 said:
I dunno, a scandal that has wiped an estimated £850m off the market value of NatWest seems quite newsworthy to me.First.Aspect said:Now he is saying more heads should roll at NatWest.
Is there nothing else going on in the world that is newsworthy?
He's not very constructive is he? The nerve to play the victim. Honestly.0
