Seemingly trivial things that annoy you
Comments
-
why can't people see this rather than going back on the woke leftie trail?shirley_basso said:
He did not put a gun to her head and force her to disclose why NatWest closed his account.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but come on, this was started by Farage doing something pretty weird, and has ended up putting her in this position, right?shirley_basso said:
No it is not irrelevant. It's a no comment statement every day of the week.rick_chasey said:
It's irrelevant. I get that the CEO is ultimately on the hook for anything the firm does, but running the bank successfully to profitability rates higher in my worthiness of the job than having to deal with Farage getting a load of pensioners exercised.pangolin said:
I thought the accepted version of events was that she told a BBC reporter that the main reason they closed his account was because of funds.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).
That doesn't sound like she maybe made an error.
Farage is just articulating a political vibe on the right and it just so happens the opportunity he found was with Coutts and Natwest.
She got caught up in his politics and her career has suffered. She's collateral.
"We do not discuss the confidential nature of our clients and their accounts with us"
NOT
"He's too poor to bank with us."
It's a shame she's gone but surely anyone can see that's an extremely stupid comment
My point is Farage is making politics out of something and because it's about the firm she runs, she's ended up in the firing line.
It's collateral political damage.
She put herself in this position and frankly to do something so utterly stupid makes me wonder how she was made CEO.
Often the way to make these things blow over is to repeat 'no comment' and disappear.
Now NatWest and more importantly, Coutts' customers have serious and genuine confidentiality concens.
she made a serious error of judgement and so did the Board in backing her
3 -
Can't deny this was spot on from the dossier:
- Reputational Risk if we exit: It is very likely that the client would “go public” if we exited him.0 -
I think it's more that his boss was betting against NatWest share prices.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Why did Farage go public with it?surrey_commuter said:
why can't people see this rather than going back on the woke leftie trail?
she made a serious error of judgement and so did the Board in backing her
And what is his, and the press' reaction to this?
It's all about right-wing no longer feeling that institutions instinctively lean their way like they used to.
Modern right wingers feel like they're the counter cultural people, and that even the most establishment places like Coutts aren't immune from that left capture.
The rest; that the natwest ceo said the wrong thing or whatever, that's just tactical stuff.
That's why the story caught alight in the first place; Farage has his finger on that pulse.
That's why people like Andrew Neil, who's been banging on about this forever, felt they had to leave the BBC and go to places like GB news; they feel out of step with the institutions that, for their entire life up till that point, naturally were broadly in step.
Andrew Neil is really instructive on this. He's sitting there screaming going " SEE, THEY'RE ALL WOKE, JUST LIKE WE SAID."
If you understand that that's what the right wing think, then a lot of their politics makes more sense.
it's why they moan about the civil service functions, or protest about BlackRock or Coutts or whoever it is next.
If the political divide is largely on age and level of education; left being working age and/or educated, right being retired and/or uneducated, then it is easy to see how they feel institutions are run by people who don't agree with their politics. They're working age and usually pretty well educated.
if none of the above is true or relevant, it doesn't even enter the headlines; Farage just shouts into the twitter void and the CEO of NatWest doesn't feel obliged to respond.
0 -
The Coutts CEO isn't the one that leaked to the BBC though.Pross said:
I don't think it was unreasonable for them to close the account, they're within their rights as a private business to pick and choose their clients. Publicly discussing the reasons was wrong though and that seems to be why she's gone. It was stupid as she could have made her point without making specific reference to Farage such as saying we have rules for all customers on the funds they need to deposit with us.Jezyboy said:I'm trivially intrigued (but this is the Coutts thread now so let's not cross threads). By the Coutts CEO resignation, surely this suggests the whole thing was a ghastly mistake, and Farage will be undebanked any time now.
0 -
Love the idea that banks shouldn't keep files on their customers 🤪Stevo_666 said:
And compounded by Foutts compiling a dossier on Farage to assess his 'values' which then got out and has caused them a lot of damage. Top management are also ultimately accountable for that.shirley_basso said:
He did not put a gun to her head and force her to disclose why NatWest closed his account.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but come on, this was started by Farage doing something pretty weird, and has ended up putting her in this position, right?shirley_basso said:
No it is not irrelevant. It's a no comment statement every day of the week.rick_chasey said:
It's irrelevant. I get that the CEO is ultimately on the hook for anything the firm does, but running the bank successfully to profitability rates higher in my worthiness of the job than having to deal with Farage getting a load of pensioners exercised.pangolin said:
I thought the accepted version of events was that she told a BBC reporter that the main reason they closed his account was because of funds.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).
That doesn't sound like she maybe made an error.
Farage is just articulating a political vibe on the right and it just so happens the opportunity he found was with Coutts and Natwest.
She got caught up in his politics and her career has suffered. She's collateral.
"We do not discuss the confidential nature of our clients and their accounts with us"
NOT
"He's too poor to bank with us."
It's a shame she's gone but surely anyone can see that's an extremely stupid comment
My point is Farage is making politics out of something and because it's about the firm she runs, she's ended up in the firing line.
It's collateral political damage.
She put herself in this position and frankly to do something so utterly stupid makes me wonder how she was made CEO.
Often the way to make these things blow over is to repeat 'no comment' and disappear.
Now NatWest and more importantly, Coutts' customers have serious and genuine confidentiality concens.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
The reason NW put for closing his account (albeit quite low down the list) is literally not legal, as far as I understand it.
But hey, let's hope it all blows up in the chinless wonder's face and he gets embroiled in an insider trading scandal.0 -
-
I made the comment above that Farage and Gina Miller may be united.rick_chasey said:0 -
By people, I think you mean Rick and the board. Everyone else is pretty clear on it.surrey_commuter said:
why can't people see this rather than going back on the woke leftie trail?shirley_basso said:
He did not put a gun to her head and force her to disclose why NatWest closed his account.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but come on, this was started by Farage doing something pretty weird, and has ended up putting her in this position, right?shirley_basso said:
No it is not irrelevant. It's a no comment statement every day of the week.rick_chasey said:
It's irrelevant. I get that the CEO is ultimately on the hook for anything the firm does, but running the bank successfully to profitability rates higher in my worthiness of the job than having to deal with Farage getting a load of pensioners exercised.pangolin said:
I thought the accepted version of events was that she told a BBC reporter that the main reason they closed his account was because of funds.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).
That doesn't sound like she maybe made an error.
Farage is just articulating a political vibe on the right and it just so happens the opportunity he found was with Coutts and Natwest.
She got caught up in his politics and her career has suffered. She's collateral.
"We do not discuss the confidential nature of our clients and their accounts with us"
NOT
"He's too poor to bank with us."
It's a shame she's gone but surely anyone can see that's an extremely stupid comment
My point is Farage is making politics out of something and because it's about the firm she runs, she's ended up in the firing line.
It's collateral political damage.
She put herself in this position and frankly to do something so utterly stupid makes me wonder how she was made CEO.
Often the way to make these things blow over is to repeat 'no comment' and disappear.
Now NatWest and more importantly, Coutts' customers have serious and genuine confidentiality concens.
she made a serious error of judgement and so did the Board in backing her1 -
That's a bit different if they just won't open accounts for any political parties. The Coutts dossier specifically says that Farage wouldn't be considered a politician anymore. They just didn't want him once he had no money because he's too much of a trouble maker who's always in the news.0
-
Why did it capture the interest of the public, when millions of others get debanked all the time?TheBigBean said:
By people, I think you mean Rick and the board. Everyone else is pretty clear on it.surrey_commuter said:
why can't people see this rather than going back on the woke leftie trail?shirley_basso said:
He did not put a gun to her head and force her to disclose why NatWest closed his account.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but come on, this was started by Farage doing something pretty weird, and has ended up putting her in this position, right?shirley_basso said:
No it is not irrelevant. It's a no comment statement every day of the week.rick_chasey said:
It's irrelevant. I get that the CEO is ultimately on the hook for anything the firm does, but running the bank successfully to profitability rates higher in my worthiness of the job than having to deal with Farage getting a load of pensioners exercised.pangolin said:
I thought the accepted version of events was that she told a BBC reporter that the main reason they closed his account was because of funds.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).
That doesn't sound like she maybe made an error.
Farage is just articulating a political vibe on the right and it just so happens the opportunity he found was with Coutts and Natwest.
She got caught up in his politics and her career has suffered. She's collateral.
"We do not discuss the confidential nature of our clients and their accounts with us"
NOT
"He's too poor to bank with us."
It's a shame she's gone but surely anyone can see that's an extremely stupid comment
My point is Farage is making politics out of something and because it's about the firm she runs, she's ended up in the firing line.
It's collateral political damage.
She put herself in this position and frankly to do something so utterly stupid makes me wonder how she was made CEO.
Often the way to make these things blow over is to repeat 'no comment' and disappear.
Now NatWest and more importantly, Coutts' customers have serious and genuine confidentiality concens.
she made a serious error of judgement and so did the Board in backing her0 -
So what does it all mean. Is the ‘woke movement’ anti Gina Miller? now?
FWIW I think the 2 stories are different issues and to try and tie them up is a bit silly.0 -
You've nicely reconfirmed the point SC was making.rick_chasey said:
Why did it capture the interest of the public, when millions of others get debanked all the time?TheBigBean said:
By people, I think you mean Rick and the board. Everyone else is pretty clear on it.surrey_commuter said:
why can't people see this rather than going back on the woke leftie trail?shirley_basso said:
He did not put a gun to her head and force her to disclose why NatWest closed his account.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but come on, this was started by Farage doing something pretty weird, and has ended up putting her in this position, right?shirley_basso said:
No it is not irrelevant. It's a no comment statement every day of the week.rick_chasey said:
It's irrelevant. I get that the CEO is ultimately on the hook for anything the firm does, but running the bank successfully to profitability rates higher in my worthiness of the job than having to deal with Farage getting a load of pensioners exercised.pangolin said:
I thought the accepted version of events was that she told a BBC reporter that the main reason they closed his account was because of funds.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).
That doesn't sound like she maybe made an error.
Farage is just articulating a political vibe on the right and it just so happens the opportunity he found was with Coutts and Natwest.
She got caught up in his politics and her career has suffered. She's collateral.
"We do not discuss the confidential nature of our clients and their accounts with us"
NOT
"He's too poor to bank with us."
It's a shame she's gone but surely anyone can see that's an extremely stupid comment
My point is Farage is making politics out of something and because it's about the firm she runs, she's ended up in the firing line.
It's collateral political damage.
She put herself in this position and frankly to do something so utterly stupid makes me wonder how she was made CEO.
Often the way to make these things blow over is to repeat 'no comment' and disappear.
Now NatWest and more importantly, Coutts' customers have serious and genuine confidentiality concens.
she made a serious error of judgement and so did the Board in backing her0 -
About their lawfully held political views? Why would a bank need that unless its being right on and judgmental?rjsterry said:
Love the idea that banks shouldn't keep files on their customers 🤪Stevo_666 said:
And compounded by Foutts compiling a dossier on Farage to assess his 'values' which then got out and has caused them a lot of damage. Top management are also ultimately accountable for that.shirley_basso said:
He did not put a gun to her head and force her to disclose why NatWest closed his account.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but come on, this was started by Farage doing something pretty weird, and has ended up putting her in this position, right?shirley_basso said:
No it is not irrelevant. It's a no comment statement every day of the week.rick_chasey said:
It's irrelevant. I get that the CEO is ultimately on the hook for anything the firm does, but running the bank successfully to profitability rates higher in my worthiness of the job than having to deal with Farage getting a load of pensioners exercised.pangolin said:
I thought the accepted version of events was that she told a BBC reporter that the main reason they closed his account was because of funds.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).
That doesn't sound like she maybe made an error.
Farage is just articulating a political vibe on the right and it just so happens the opportunity he found was with Coutts and Natwest.
She got caught up in his politics and her career has suffered. She's collateral.
"We do not discuss the confidential nature of our clients and their accounts with us"
NOT
"He's too poor to bank with us."
It's a shame she's gone but surely anyone can see that's an extremely stupid comment
My point is Farage is making politics out of something and because it's about the firm she runs, she's ended up in the firing line.
It's collateral political damage.
She put herself in this position and frankly to do something so utterly stupid makes me wonder how she was made CEO.
Often the way to make these things blow over is to repeat 'no comment' and disappear.
Now NatWest and more importantly, Coutts' customers have serious and genuine confidentiality concens."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You'll have to explain this to me as I don't understand.TheBigBean said:
You've nicely reconfirmed the point SC was making.rick_chasey said:
Why did it capture the interest of the public, when millions of others get debanked all the time?TheBigBean said:
By people, I think you mean Rick and the board. Everyone else is pretty clear on it.surrey_commuter said:
why can't people see this rather than going back on the woke leftie trail?shirley_basso said:
He did not put a gun to her head and force her to disclose why NatWest closed his account.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but come on, this was started by Farage doing something pretty weird, and has ended up putting her in this position, right?shirley_basso said:
No it is not irrelevant. It's a no comment statement every day of the week.rick_chasey said:
It's irrelevant. I get that the CEO is ultimately on the hook for anything the firm does, but running the bank successfully to profitability rates higher in my worthiness of the job than having to deal with Farage getting a load of pensioners exercised.pangolin said:
I thought the accepted version of events was that she told a BBC reporter that the main reason they closed his account was because of funds.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).
That doesn't sound like she maybe made an error.
Farage is just articulating a political vibe on the right and it just so happens the opportunity he found was with Coutts and Natwest.
She got caught up in his politics and her career has suffered. She's collateral.
"We do not discuss the confidential nature of our clients and their accounts with us"
NOT
"He's too poor to bank with us."
It's a shame she's gone but surely anyone can see that's an extremely stupid comment
My point is Farage is making politics out of something and because it's about the firm she runs, she's ended up in the firing line.
It's collateral political damage.
She put herself in this position and frankly to do something so utterly stupid makes me wonder how she was made CEO.
Often the way to make these things blow over is to repeat 'no comment' and disappear.
Now NatWest and more importantly, Coutts' customers have serious and genuine confidentiality concens.
she made a serious error of judgement and so did the Board in backing her0 -
Yeah pretty silly of them to identify Farage and his views as a risk.Stevo_666 said:
About their lawfully held political views? Why would a bank need that unless its being right on and judgmental?rjsterry said:
Love the idea that banks shouldn't keep files on their customers 🤪Stevo_666 said:
And compounded by Foutts compiling a dossier on Farage to assess his 'values' which then got out and has caused them a lot of damage. Top management are also ultimately accountable for that.shirley_basso said:
He did not put a gun to her head and force her to disclose why NatWest closed his account.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but come on, this was started by Farage doing something pretty weird, and has ended up putting her in this position, right?shirley_basso said:
No it is not irrelevant. It's a no comment statement every day of the week.rick_chasey said:
It's irrelevant. I get that the CEO is ultimately on the hook for anything the firm does, but running the bank successfully to profitability rates higher in my worthiness of the job than having to deal with Farage getting a load of pensioners exercised.pangolin said:
I thought the accepted version of events was that she told a BBC reporter that the main reason they closed his account was because of funds.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).
That doesn't sound like she maybe made an error.
Farage is just articulating a political vibe on the right and it just so happens the opportunity he found was with Coutts and Natwest.
She got caught up in his politics and her career has suffered. She's collateral.
"We do not discuss the confidential nature of our clients and their accounts with us"
NOT
"He's too poor to bank with us."
It's a shame she's gone but surely anyone can see that's an extremely stupid comment
My point is Farage is making politics out of something and because it's about the firm she runs, she's ended up in the firing line.
It's collateral political damage.
She put herself in this position and frankly to do something so utterly stupid makes me wonder how she was made CEO.
Often the way to make these things blow over is to repeat 'no comment' and disappear.
Now NatWest and more importantly, Coutts' customers have serious and genuine confidentiality concens.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Before this blew up, who here knew that Farage was a Coutts customer?kingstongraham said:That's a bit different if they just won't open accounts for any political parties. The Coutts dossier specifically says that Farage wouldn't be considered a politician anymore. They just didn't want him once he had no money because he's too much of a trouble maker who's always in the news.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
To add to my question above; given the confidentiality, if they hadn't exited him then it would not be public knowledge that he was a Coutts customer so however newsworthy and unpalatable he is seen to be, its not a reputational issue for the bank to have him as a client.kingstongraham said:Can't deny this was spot on from the dossier:
- Reputational Risk if we exit: It is very likely that the client would “go public” if we exited him.
I don't remember seeing anything in the news associating Farage with Coutts until they tried to exit him."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
rick_chasey said:
You'll have to explain this to me as I don't understand.TheBigBean said:
You've nicely reconfirmed the point SC was making.rick_chasey said:
Why did it capture the interest of the public, when millions of others get debanked all the time?TheBigBean said:
By people, I think you mean Rick and the board. Everyone else is pretty clear on it.surrey_commuter said:
why can't people see this rather than going back on the woke leftie trail?shirley_basso said:
He did not put a gun to her head and force her to disclose why NatWest closed his account.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but come on, this was started by Farage doing something pretty weird, and has ended up putting her in this position, right?shirley_basso said:
No it is not irrelevant. It's a no comment statement every day of the week.rick_chasey said:
It's irrelevant. I get that the CEO is ultimately on the hook for anything the firm does, but running the bank successfully to profitability rates higher in my worthiness of the job than having to deal with Farage getting a load of pensioners exercised.pangolin said:
I thought the accepted version of events was that she told a BBC reporter that the main reason they closed his account was because of funds.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).
That doesn't sound like she maybe made an error.
Farage is just articulating a political vibe on the right and it just so happens the opportunity he found was with Coutts and Natwest.
She got caught up in his politics and her career has suffered. She's collateral.
"We do not discuss the confidential nature of our clients and their accounts with us"
NOT
"He's too poor to bank with us."
It's a shame she's gone but surely anyone can see that's an extremely stupid comment
My point is Farage is making politics out of something and because it's about the firm she runs, she's ended up in the firing line.
It's collateral political damage.
She put herself in this position and frankly to do something so utterly stupid makes me wonder how she was made CEO.
Often the way to make these things blow over is to repeat 'no comment' and disappear.
Now NatWest and more importantly, Coutts' customers have serious and genuine confidentiality concens.
she made a serious error of judgement and so did the Board in backing hershe made a serious error of judgement and so did the Board in backing her
This means that the Dame Alison Rose made a serious error of judgement by disclosing confidential information.why can't people see this rather than going back on the woke leftie trail?
This means that people (in this case you) can't accept the above error of judgement without going back to Farage, debanking, who he is etc.
2 -
In what way?pangolin said:
Yeah pretty silly of them to identify Farage and his views as a risk.Stevo_666 said:
About their lawfully held political views? Why would a bank need that unless its being right on and judgmental?rjsterry said:
Love the idea that banks shouldn't keep files on their customers 🤪Stevo_666 said:
And compounded by Foutts compiling a dossier on Farage to assess his 'values' which then got out and has caused them a lot of damage. Top management are also ultimately accountable for that.shirley_basso said:
He did not put a gun to her head and force her to disclose why NatWest closed his account.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but come on, this was started by Farage doing something pretty weird, and has ended up putting her in this position, right?shirley_basso said:
No it is not irrelevant. It's a no comment statement every day of the week.rick_chasey said:
It's irrelevant. I get that the CEO is ultimately on the hook for anything the firm does, but running the bank successfully to profitability rates higher in my worthiness of the job than having to deal with Farage getting a load of pensioners exercised.pangolin said:
I thought the accepted version of events was that she told a BBC reporter that the main reason they closed his account was because of funds.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).
That doesn't sound like she maybe made an error.
Farage is just articulating a political vibe on the right and it just so happens the opportunity he found was with Coutts and Natwest.
She got caught up in his politics and her career has suffered. She's collateral.
"We do not discuss the confidential nature of our clients and their accounts with us"
NOT
"He's too poor to bank with us."
It's a shame she's gone but surely anyone can see that's an extremely stupid comment
My point is Farage is making politics out of something and because it's about the firm she runs, she's ended up in the firing line.
It's collateral political damage.
She put herself in this position and frankly to do something so utterly stupid makes me wonder how she was made CEO.
Often the way to make these things blow over is to repeat 'no comment' and disappear.
Now NatWest and more importantly, Coutts' customers have serious and genuine confidentiality concens."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The dossier says that he had made it public knowledge, so I assume he had.Stevo_666 said:
To add to my question above; given the confidentiality, if they hadn't exited him then it would not be public knowledge that he was a Coutts customer so however newsworthy and unpalatable he is seen to be, its not a reputational issue for the bank to have him as a client.kingstongraham said:Can't deny this was spot on from the dossier:
- Reputational Risk if we exit: It is very likely that the client would “go public” if we exited him.
I don't remember seeing anything in the news associating Farage with Coutts until they tried to exit him.
I don't honestly see why anyone would care who he banks with.0 -
Which risk do you disagree with?Stevo_666 said:
In what way?pangolin said:
Yeah pretty silly of them to identify Farage and his views as a risk.Stevo_666 said:
About their lawfully held political views? Why would a bank need that unless its being right on and judgmental?rjsterry said:
Love the idea that banks shouldn't keep files on their customers 🤪Stevo_666 said:
And compounded by Foutts compiling a dossier on Farage to assess his 'values' which then got out and has caused them a lot of damage. Top management are also ultimately accountable for that.shirley_basso said:
He did not put a gun to her head and force her to disclose why NatWest closed his account.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but come on, this was started by Farage doing something pretty weird, and has ended up putting her in this position, right?shirley_basso said:
No it is not irrelevant. It's a no comment statement every day of the week.rick_chasey said:
It's irrelevant. I get that the CEO is ultimately on the hook for anything the firm does, but running the bank successfully to profitability rates higher in my worthiness of the job than having to deal with Farage getting a load of pensioners exercised.pangolin said:
I thought the accepted version of events was that she told a BBC reporter that the main reason they closed his account was because of funds.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).
That doesn't sound like she maybe made an error.
Farage is just articulating a political vibe on the right and it just so happens the opportunity he found was with Coutts and Natwest.
She got caught up in his politics and her career has suffered. She's collateral.
"We do not discuss the confidential nature of our clients and their accounts with us"
NOT
"He's too poor to bank with us."
It's a shame she's gone but surely anyone can see that's an extremely stupid comment
My point is Farage is making politics out of something and because it's about the firm she runs, she's ended up in the firing line.
It's collateral political damage.
She put herself in this position and frankly to do something so utterly stupid makes me wonder how she was made CEO.
Often the way to make these things blow over is to repeat 'no comment' and disappear.
Now NatWest and more importantly, Coutts' customers have serious and genuine confidentiality concens.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
That’s not really what I’m talking about. I’m talking about stuff that happened *before* all of that. For what I’m talking about what NatWest did or didn’t do is irrelevant.TheBigBean said:rick_chasey said:
You'll have to explain this to me as I don't understand.TheBigBean said:
You've nicely reconfirmed the point SC was making.rick_chasey said:
Why did it capture the interest of the public, when millions of others get debanked all the time?TheBigBean said:
By people, I think you mean Rick and the board. Everyone else is pretty clear on it.surrey_commuter said:
why can't people see this rather than going back on the woke leftie trail?shirley_basso said:
He did not put a gun to her head and force her to disclose why NatWest closed his account.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but come on, this was started by Farage doing something pretty weird, and has ended up putting her in this position, right?shirley_basso said:
No it is not irrelevant. It's a no comment statement every day of the week.rick_chasey said:
It's irrelevant. I get that the CEO is ultimately on the hook for anything the firm does, but running the bank successfully to profitability rates higher in my worthiness of the job than having to deal with Farage getting a load of pensioners exercised.pangolin said:
I thought the accepted version of events was that she told a BBC reporter that the main reason they closed his account was because of funds.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).
That doesn't sound like she maybe made an error.
Farage is just articulating a political vibe on the right and it just so happens the opportunity he found was with Coutts and Natwest.
She got caught up in his politics and her career has suffered. She's collateral.
"We do not discuss the confidential nature of our clients and their accounts with us"
NOT
"He's too poor to bank with us."
It's a shame she's gone but surely anyone can see that's an extremely stupid comment
My point is Farage is making politics out of something and because it's about the firm she runs, she's ended up in the firing line.
It's collateral political damage.
She put herself in this position and frankly to do something so utterly stupid makes me wonder how she was made CEO.
Often the way to make these things blow over is to repeat 'no comment' and disappear.
Now NatWest and more importantly, Coutts' customers have serious and genuine confidentiality concens.
she made a serious error of judgement and so did the Board in backing hershe made a serious error of judgement and so did the Board in backing her
This means that the Dame Alison Rose made a serious error of judgement by disclosing confidential information.why can't people see this rather than going back on the woke leftie trail?
This means that people (in this case you) can't accept the above error of judgement without going back to Farage, debanking, who he is etc.
NatWest only felt obliged to answer (wrongly or not) because it got coverage to begin with.
So why did it get coverage in the first place? The wokey vibe thing was already the fuel and Farage lit it. That’s my point.0 -
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Agree with you there. Even if it was public knowledge but it was just business as usual with him as a client, it would not be an issue. It was the debanking that caused the problem.kingstongraham said:
The dossier says that he had made it public knowledge, so I assume he had.Stevo_666 said:
To add to my question above; given the confidentiality, if they hadn't exited him then it would not be public knowledge that he was a Coutts customer so however newsworthy and unpalatable he is seen to be, its not a reputational issue for the bank to have him as a client.kingstongraham said:Can't deny this was spot on from the dossier:
- Reputational Risk if we exit: It is very likely that the client would “go public” if we exited him.
I don't remember seeing anything in the news associating Farage with Coutts until they tried to exit him.
I don't honestly see why anyone would care who he banks with."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
As KG has said above, who cares who someone banks with with? It was the action of debanking him that caused the reputational damage, not having him as an on-going client.pangolin said:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I disagree. It was discussing any details of a customer with the press that caused the problem.Stevo_666 said:
Agree with you there. Even if it was public knowledge but it was just business as usual with him as a client, it would not be an issue. It was the debanking that caused the problem.kingstongraham said:
The dossier says that he had made it public knowledge, so I assume he had.Stevo_666 said:
To add to my question above; given the confidentiality, if they hadn't exited him then it would not be public knowledge that he was a Coutts customer so however newsworthy and unpalatable he is seen to be, its not a reputational issue for the bank to have him as a client.kingstongraham said:Can't deny this was spot on from the dossier:
- Reputational Risk if we exit: It is very likely that the client would “go public” if we exited him.
I don't remember seeing anything in the news associating Farage with Coutts until they tried to exit him.
I don't honestly see why anyone would care who he banks with.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Monzo has explained their reasons, make of it what you will:rick_chasey said:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/28/gina-millers-political-party-bank-account-to-be-shut-monzo/
Quote:
A spokeswoman for Monzo told the BBC: “Like lots of banks, we do not accept any political parties as Monzo Business customers in the same way that we don’t currently accept trusts, clubs and a range of other organisations.
“In this case, the account wasn’t originally categorised as a political party.
“After this was identified and corrected, the customer was given notice that the account would be closed. We recognise that this experience will have been frustrating for the customer and we’re sorry for that.”
On the face it they screwed up in their initial categorisation, but if they are fibbing and it is because they don't like her political views, then they deserve the same treatment as Coutts."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
rjsterry said:
Love the idea that banks shouldn't keep files on their customers 🤪Stevo_666 said:
And compounded by Foutts compiling a dossier on Farage to assess his 'values' which then got out and has caused them a lot of damage. Top management are also ultimately accountable for that.shirley_basso said:
He did not put a gun to her head and force her to disclose why NatWest closed his account.rick_chasey said:
Sure, but come on, this was started by Farage doing something pretty weird, and has ended up putting her in this position, right?shirley_basso said:
No it is not irrelevant. It's a no comment statement every day of the week.rick_chasey said:
It's irrelevant. I get that the CEO is ultimately on the hook for anything the firm does, but running the bank successfully to profitability rates higher in my worthiness of the job than having to deal with Farage getting a load of pensioners exercised.pangolin said:
I thought the accepted version of events was that she told a BBC reporter that the main reason they closed his account was because of funds.rick_chasey said:
That's sort of irrelevant. The point I'm making is Farage made the fuss for political reasons, not for banking reasons.surrey_commuter said:
so you would be happy with your bank manager discussing your finances with the local rag?rick_chasey said:
Yeah I think the consensus was Alison was a good leader for the firm.Jezyboy said:Apparently NatWest profits have soared...
I guess any war, real or rhetorical, has collateral casualties and her career is one of them.
I don't have much of a problem with closing his acct but she needed to go for a breach of condidentiality. I would also say that every board member who backed the decision to keep her should go.
He's trying to articulate that the establishment and institutions are no longer naturally rightward leaning and instead have been captured by the 'woke' left.
Ms Rose ended up getting caught in the process of doing that; maybe she made an error, maybe she didn't.
But let's face it, she wasn't put in as CEO to have to fend off politicians making political points out of their own bank account (or lack of).
That doesn't sound like she maybe made an error.
Farage is just articulating a political vibe on the right and it just so happens the opportunity he found was with Coutts and Natwest.
She got caught up in his politics and her career has suffered. She's collateral.
"We do not discuss the confidential nature of our clients and their accounts with us"
NOT
"He's too poor to bank with us."
It's a shame she's gone but surely anyone can see that's an extremely stupid comment
My point is Farage is making politics out of something and because it's about the firm she runs, she's ended up in the firing line.
It's collateral political damage.
She put herself in this position and frankly to do something so utterly stupid makes me wonder how she was made CEO.
Often the way to make these things blow over is to repeat 'no comment' and disappear.
Now NatWest and more importantly, Coutts' customers have serious and genuine confidentiality concens.
I've lost the plot on how it got into the public domain... didn't Farage ask for it, and then it got 'leaked' to the Mail?
If that's how it happened, I can only assume that he (or one of his many press supporters) assumed or hoped they could spin the reputational stuff strongly enough that people would overlook the bit saying he wasn't making them enough money.0
