Seemingly trivial things that annoy you
Comments
-
That clearly was a big issue, but it would not have happened if they hadn't been debanking him. Rose told the journo why they were doing it, so reasonable to assume that the breach of confidentiality would not have otherwise taken place. Which takes us back to my point above...pangolin said:
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."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Keep pulling that logic thread. If he wasn't, to sum up the three risks they highlight, a bell-end - they would not have closed his account.Stevo_666 said:
That clearly was a big issue, but it would not have happened if they hadn't been debanking him. Rose told the journo why they were doing it, so reasonable to assume that the breach of confidentiality would not have otherwise taken place. Which takes us back to my point above...pangolin said:
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.
People get their accounts closed all the time. That is not an issue. The debate is on whether you think their reasons are legitimate. The doc seems fairly balanced to me.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
This argument is bonkers Stevo. Breach of confidentiality is not ok. It is not ok in its own right, not because of whatever confidentiality got breached.Stevo_666 said:
That clearly was a big issue, but it would not have happened if they hadn't been debanking him. Rose told the journo why they were doing it, so reasonable to assume that the breach of confidentiality would not have otherwise taken place. Which takes us back to my point above...pangolin said:
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 -
It is what surrey-commuter was talking about though which has relevance in a discussion about the "point SC was making".rick_chasey said:
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 -
I don't give a hoot who he banks with, but I'm unlikely to open a Coutts account in the near or even distant future, so my opinion on the matter doesn't really matter.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.
0 -
I know you are not this naive. Not sure why you are pretending to be. Has f*** all to do with 'woke', whatever today's definition is.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.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
That's not strictly true - the dossier does say this: "The Committee did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."rjsterry said:
I know you are not this naive. Not sure why you are pretending to be. Has f*** all to do with 'woke', whatever today's definition is.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.
Once he wasn't rich enough, those views (and the negative press surrounding the frogman) were the reason they didn't want him.0 -
And if you don't enjoy a bank claiming to be an "inclusive organisation" while kicking someone out because they don't have £1million , you've a hard heart.0
-
It's just any views that the bank consider risky. The same as being, say, a strong advocate of Irish republicanism over most of the last 150 years. I suspect Just Stop Oil find a few banks are sniffy about their custom. It's just a shock to Nigel that he's found himself on the other side of the line for once.kingstongraham said:
That's not strictly true - the dossier does say this: "The Committee did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."rjsterry said:
I know you are not this naive. Not sure why you are pretending to be. Has f*** all to do with 'woke', whatever today's definition is.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.
Once he wasn't rich enough, those views (and the negative press surrounding the frogman) were the reason they didn't want him.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Coop have a "premium" meal deal that's £5.50.
A small drink, soggy wrap and tiny snack is neither a meal, nor a good deal at over 5 quid!0 -
Starc gone for 7 - Smith running out of support fast.
Aus 185 - 7 and still 98 behindWilier Izoard XP0 -
So what the committee said wasn't true? His views were not at odds with the bank's position?rjsterry said:
It's just any views that the bank consider risky. The same as being, say, a strong advocate of Irish republicanism over most of the last 150 years. I suspect Just Stop Oil find a few banks are sniffy about their custom. It's just a shock to Nigel that he's found himself on the other side of the line for once.kingstongraham said:
That's not strictly true - the dossier does say this: "The Committee did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."rjsterry said:
I know you are not this naive. Not sure why you are pretending to be. Has f*** all to do with 'woke', whatever today's definition is.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.
Once he wasn't rich enough, those views (and the negative press surrounding the frogman) were the reason they didn't want him.0 -
They may well have been. What's not true is that this is some new phenomenon. Outspoken people at the edges of the political mainstream have always found themselves refused service for slightly confected reasons.kingstongraham said:
So what the committee said wasn't true? His views were not at odds with the bank's position?rjsterry said:
It's just any views that the bank consider risky. The same as being, say, a strong advocate of Irish republicanism over most of the last 150 years. I suspect Just Stop Oil find a few banks are sniffy about their custom. It's just a shock to Nigel that he's found himself on the other side of the line for once.kingstongraham said:
That's not strictly true - the dossier does say this: "The Committee did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."rjsterry said:
I know you are not this naive. Not sure why you are pretending to be. Has f*** all to do with 'woke', whatever today's definition is.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.
Once he wasn't rich enough, those views (and the negative press surrounding the frogman) were the reason they didn't want him.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You havent answered why they would need that type of info. Have another go.rjsterry said:
I know you are not this naive. Not sure why you are pretending to be. Has f*** all to do with 'woke', whatever today's definition is.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 -
Seems you have misunderstood me.pangolin said:
This argument is bonkers Stevo. Breach of confidentiality is not ok. It is not ok in its own right, not because of whatever confidentiality got breached.Stevo_666 said:
That clearly was a big issue, but it would not have happened if they hadn't been debanking him. Rose told the journo why they were doing it, so reasonable to assume that the breach of confidentiality would not have otherwise taken place. Which takes us back to my point above...pangolin said:
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.
To be clear, I'm agreeing with you that breach of condidentiality is not OK.
However, if Rose thought that Farage is a bellend but was taking no action with regard to his status as a client of the bank, she would have had nothing to mention to the BBC journo. Hence an unacceptable breach would not have happened. Clear now?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If being a bellend is enough for banks to close your account, some people in Cake Stop would be having a few financial problems. Careful what you wish forpangolin said:
Keep pulling that logic thread. If he wasn't, to sum up the three risks they highlight, a bell-end - they would not have closed his account.Stevo_666 said:
That clearly was a big issue, but it would not have happened if they hadn't been debanking him. Rose told the journo why they were doing it, so reasonable to assume that the breach of confidentiality would not have otherwise taken place. Which takes us back to my point above...pangolin said:
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.
People get their accounts closed all the time. That is not an issue. The debate is on whether you think their reasons are legitimate. The doc seems fairly balanced to me.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Have you read the doc Stevo? It seems fairly balanced.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Stevo, just stop using your alterego likebot. Shakes head, moves on.0
-
Know your client.Stevo_666 said:
You havent answered why they would need that type of info. Have another go.rjsterry said:
I know you are not this naive. Not sure why you are pretending to be. Has f*** all to do with 'woke', whatever today's definition is.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.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If you really think that shortfall is a duplicate account of mine, report it to the mods. If not, stop spouting shyte. Your move leftie boy.orraloon said:Stevo, just stop using your alterego likebot. Shakes head, moves on.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
rjsterry said:
Know your client.Stevo_666 said:
You havent answered why they would need that type of info. Have another go.rjsterry said:
I know you are not this naive. Not sure why you are pretending to be. Has f*** all to do with 'woke', whatever today's definition is.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 defect that they have compiled this sort of info on a client is part of the issue. Can you really not see that?pangolin said:Have you read the doc Stevo? It seems fairly balanced.
Put aside for a minute that the subject of that report is someone you detest."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So... no then?Stevo_666 said:
The defect that they have compiled this sort of info on a client is part of the issue. Can you really not see that?pangolin said:Have you read the doc Stevo? It seems fairly balanced.
Put aside for a minute that the subject of that report is someone you detest.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
It's pretty normal.
I don't think there's anything damning or unusual in there.
NF is a PEP so comes with a higher degree of risk so a specific file would have been made to approve his account. The fact he's an odious loudmouth creates additional, reputational risk which is quite matter-of-factly covered in the report.
Like accountancy firms auditing arms manufacturers and gambling companies - it's all legal but comes with reputational risk so the powers that be will want a reasonable justification for taking on that business.
If imagine Coutts have something similar on King Charles although potentially downgraded the loudmouth risk bit since he was upgraded from prince to king as he's all bit disappeared from public view.
Unsure what's so hard for you to grasp?0 -
This. Totally.shirley_basso said:It's pretty normal.
I don't think there's anything damning or unusual in there.
NF is a PEP so comes with a higher degree of risk so a specific file would have been made to approve his account. The fact he's an odious loudmouth creates additional, reputational risk which is quite matter-of-factly covered in the report.
Like accountancy firms auditing arms manufacturers and gambling companies - it's all legal but comes with reputational risk so the powers that be will want a reasonable justification for taking on that business.
If imagine Coutts have something similar on King Charles although potentially downgraded the loudmouth risk bit since he was upgraded from prince to king as he's all bit disappeared from public view.
Unsure what's so hard for you to grasp?
I see as a bit like being banned from a pub for being a loud mouth racist that doesn’t have enough money to buy a pint.1 -
Never mind, it's pretty clear that sort of thing is not needed. Banks need enough info on their clients to run a banking service. That doesn't include legitimate political viewpoints of their clients,even if they don't happen to agree with thempangolin said:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
A poor analogy as the customers of a bank are not in the same place as, and interacting with, other clients as the customers in a pub will do.secretsqirrel said:
This. Totally.shirley_basso said:It's pretty normal.
I don't think there's anything damning or unusual in there.
NF is a PEP so comes with a higher degree of risk so a specific file would have been made to approve his account. The fact he's an odious loudmouth creates additional, reputational risk which is quite matter-of-factly covered in the report.
Like accountancy firms auditing arms manufacturers and gambling companies - it's all legal but comes with reputational risk so the powers that be will want a reasonable justification for taking on that business.
If imagine Coutts have something similar on King Charles although potentially downgraded the loudmouth risk bit since he was upgraded from prince to king as he's all bit disappeared from public view.
Unsure what's so hard for you to grasp?
I see as a bit like being banned from a pub for being a loud mouth racist that doesn’t have enough money to buy a pint.
If it was simply a case of not being able to afford what's on offèr then it would never have been a big issue."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not sure how making judgments such as the client is seen as a xenophobe and a grifter are relevant to a risk assessment. And if they are stupid enough to write that down that they can't really complain when they get found out.shirley_basso said:It's pretty normal.
I don't think there's anything damning or unusual in there.
NF is a PEP so comes with a higher degree of risk so a specific file would have been made to approve his account. The fact he's an odious loudmouth creates additional, reputational risk which is quite matter-of-factly covered in the report.
Like accountancy firms auditing arms manufacturers and gambling companies - it's all legal but comes with reputational risk so the powers that be will want a reasonable justification for taking on that business.
If imagine Coutts have something similar on King Charles although potentially downgraded the loudmouth risk bit since he was upgraded from prince to king as he's all bit disappeared from public view.
Unsure what's so hard for you to grasp?
If it is case of assessing whether the client is engaged in illegal activities then that's a different matter but the report clearly went beyond this into moreal judgments. And they are paying the price for it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Have you read the dossier yet?Stevo_666 said:
Never mind, it's pretty clear that sort of thing is not needed. Banks need enough info on their clients to run a banking service. That doesn't include legitimate political viewpoints of their clients,even if they don't happen to agree with thempangolin said:0 -
Enough to make my own conclusions.kingstongraham said:
Have you read the dossier yet?Stevo_666 said:
Never mind, it's pretty clear that sort of thing is not needed. Banks need enough info on their clients to run a banking service. That doesn't include legitimate political viewpoints of their clients,even if they don't happen to agree with thempangolin said:
Have you?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
