Seemingly trivial things that annoy you
Comments
-
Yep.Stevo_666 said:
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?
They linked to it from The Telegraph so you've no excuse for not reading it.0 -
Good for you.kingstongraham said:
YepStevo_666 said:
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 -
Especially if they are politically exposed.Stevo_666 said: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.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You really think financial institutions aren't routinely keeping files on all their politically prominent clients?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:1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo_666 said:
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? 1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Stevo_666 said:
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?
Maybe if you read the other bits too, you might reach a different conclusion.0 -
He’s read enough to ‘wind up the Lefties’ why would he need more than that? It’s the only reason he posts on here.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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?
Maybe if you read the other bits too, you might reach a different conclusion.0 -
He's read the bits the telegraph cherry picked- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Pross said:
He’s read enough to ‘wind up the Lefties’ why would he need more than that? It’s the only reason he posts on here.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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?
Maybe if you read the other bits too, you might reach a different conclusion.
Well, I suppose since 'winding up the lefties' is all the the Tory Party has got left as a concrete policy, it's understandable.0 -
Can someone give a little non bias synopsis?0
-
No. They are paying the price for the breach of confidentiality.Stevo_666 said:
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.
Unsure but not surprised how you seem incapable of understanding this.0 -
Oh FFS, now Andrew Neil is upset that banks are making more money since interest rates went up. Apparently it's a scandal that businesses are creating wealth for their shareholders.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
On a different subject - BBC coverage of the few sports they have left. I’ve got he triathlon on and so far they’ve interviewed a couple of people who are apparently celebs that did the amateur event and a father and son who took part (the son sounded about as ambivalent as you can get about the experience despite several invitations to tell everyone how great it was).
I can’t work out if they do it as they have so little live sport they feel the need to pad it out or because they no longer do enough live sport and have forgotten how to cover it.0 -
Fear he's caught the same brainrot as Neil Oliver.Pross said:
Bloody left wing socialists for you.rjsterry said:Oh FFS, now Andrew Neil is upset that banks are making more money since interest rates went up. Apparently it's a scandal that businesses are creating wealth for their shareholders.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
How do you know what bits I have or haven't read?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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?
Maybe if you read the other bits too, you might reach a different conclusion.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It sounds like our resident centre lefties have run out of arguments and are trying to have a little dig now. What's new?focuszing723 said:Can someone give a little non bias synopsis?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Combined with some totally unnecessary judgmental points that were written about him, which aggravated the situation. Why do you think Farage received an apology for the inappropriate comments?shirley_basso said:
No. They are paying the price for the breach of confidentiality.Stevo_666 said:
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.
Unsure but not surprised how you seem incapable of understanding this.
Surprised you can't grasp this simple point."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'm sure that are but there are limits, as Natwest and Coutts have found out yo their cost. See also above re the apology to Farage.rjsterry said:
You really think financial institutions aren't routinely keeping files on all their politically prominent clients?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:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
How do you know what bits I have or haven't read?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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?
Maybe if you read the other bits too, you might reach a different conclusion.
I've no idea, but you admitted you hadn't read all of it, which seems odd if you want to want to persuade others of your point of view, and given how exercised you seem to be about Farage's treatment. You'd not get away with that approach in an undergraduate seminar: if you consider counter-arguments and evidence that doesn't fit with your theory, you'll be able to be more persuasive, if you've got a solid case to argue.
OTOH, if you just want your biases confirmed, carry on.
0 -
This isn't an undergrad seminar, and just assuming things won't get you top marks anyway.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
How do you know what bits I have or haven't read?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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?
Maybe if you read the other bits too, you might reach a different conclusion.
I've no idea, but you admitted you hadn't read all of it, which seems odd if you want to want to persuade others of your point of view, and given how exercised you seem to be about Farage's treatment. You'd not get away with that approach in an undergraduate seminar: if you consider counter-arguments and evidence that doesn't fit with your theory, you'll be able to be more persuasive, if you've got a solid case to argue.
OTOH, if you just want your biases confirmed, carry on."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
WHERE IS MY SYNOPSIS?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
How do you know what bits I have or haven't read?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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?
Maybe if you read the other bits too, you might reach a different conclusion.
I've no idea, but you admitted you hadn't read all of it, which seems odd if you want to want to persuade others of your point of view, and given how exercised you seem to be about Farage's treatment. You'd not get away with that approach in an undergraduate seminar: if you consider counter-arguments and evidence that doesn't fit with your theory, you'll be able to be more persuasive, if you've got a solid case to argue.
OTOH, if you just want your biases confirmed, carry on.0 -
As Brian and a few others have read the whole report diligently I'm sure they will be along shortly to do just that and look clever in the process.focuszing723 said:
WHERE IS MY SYNOPSIS?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
How do you know what bits I have or haven't read?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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?
Maybe if you read the other bits too, you might reach a different conclusion.
I've no idea, but you admitted you hadn't read all of it, which seems odd if you want to want to persuade others of your point of view, and given how exercised you seem to be about Farage's treatment. You'd not get away with that approach in an undergraduate seminar: if you consider counter-arguments and evidence that doesn't fit with your theory, you'll be able to be more persuasive, if you've got a solid case to argue.
OTOH, if you just want your biases confirmed, carry on."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
As Brian and a few others have read the whole report diligently I'm sure they will be along shortly to do just that and look clever in the process.focuszing723 said:
WHERE IS MY SYNOPSIS?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
How do you know what bits I have or haven't read?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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?
Maybe if you read the other bits too, you might reach a different conclusion.
I've no idea, but you admitted you hadn't read all of it, which seems odd if you want to want to persuade others of your point of view, and given how exercised you seem to be about Farage's treatment. You'd not get away with that approach in an undergraduate seminar: if you consider counter-arguments and evidence that doesn't fit with your theory, you'll be able to be more persuasive, if you've got a solid case to argue.
OTOH, if you just want your biases confirmed, carry on.
Please do quote me where I've said I've read the whole report.0 -
focuszing723 said:
WHERE IS MY SYNOPSIS?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
How do you know what bits I have or haven't read?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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?
Maybe if you read the other bits too, you might reach a different conclusion.
I've no idea, but you admitted you hadn't read all of it, which seems odd if you want to want to persuade others of your point of view, and given how exercised you seem to be about Farage's treatment. You'd not get away with that approach in an undergraduate seminar: if you consider counter-arguments and evidence that doesn't fit with your theory, you'll be able to be more persuasive, if you've got a solid case to argue.
OTOH, if you just want your biases confirmed, carry on.
As I'm not claiming to have read the report, either partially or in depth, I've no idea if this is an accurate summary.
https://news.sky.com/story/key-points-from-coutts-dossier-on-nigel-farage-129240780 -
I thought it was OK to make assumptions?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
As Brian and a few others have read the whole report diligently I'm sure they will be along shortly to do just that and look clever in the process.focuszing723 said:
WHERE IS MY SYNOPSIS?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
How do you know what bits I have or haven't read?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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?
Maybe if you read the other bits too, you might reach a different conclusion.
I've no idea, but you admitted you hadn't read all of it, which seems odd if you want to want to persuade others of your point of view, and given how exercised you seem to be about Farage's treatment. You'd not get away with that approach in an undergraduate seminar: if you consider counter-arguments and evidence that doesn't fit with your theory, you'll be able to be more persuasive, if you've got a solid case to argue.
OTOH, if you just want your biases confirmed, carry on.
Please do quote me where I've said I've read the whole report."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yes, I'd say so.briantrumpet said:focuszing723 said:
WHERE IS MY SYNOPSIS?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
How do you know what bits I have or haven't read?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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?
Maybe if you read the other bits too, you might reach a different conclusion.
I've no idea, but you admitted you hadn't read all of it, which seems odd if you want to want to persuade others of your point of view, and given how exercised you seem to be about Farage's treatment. You'd not get away with that approach in an undergraduate seminar: if you consider counter-arguments and evidence that doesn't fit with your theory, you'll be able to be more persuasive, if you've got a solid case to argue.
OTOH, if you just want your biases confirmed, carry on.
As I'm not claiming to have read the report, either partially or in depth, I've no idea if this is an accurate summary.
https://news.sky.com/story/key-points-from-coutts-dossier-on-nigel-farage-129240780 -
Cheers,briantrumpet said:focuszing723 said:
WHERE IS MY SYNOPSIS?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
How do you know what bits I have or haven't read?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
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?
Maybe if you read the other bits too, you might reach a different conclusion.
I've no idea, but you admitted you hadn't read all of it, which seems odd if you want to want to persuade others of your point of view, and given how exercised you seem to be about Farage's treatment. You'd not get away with that approach in an undergraduate seminar: if you consider counter-arguments and evidence that doesn't fit with your theory, you'll be able to be more persuasive, if you've got a solid case to argue.
OTOH, if you just want your biases confirmed, carry on.
As I'm not claiming to have read the report, either partially or in depth, I've no idea if this is an accurate summary.
https://news.sky.com/story/key-points-from-coutts-dossier-on-nigel-farage-12924078
See that's the problem it's a bit like religion the vast majority of people taint it with their own perspective anyway.
It would be interesting to ask strains of AI and get their opinion.
All I know is you can't have banks being picky about people with different stances, otherwise where does it end? They weren't picky about default swaps!0 -
And not picky enough about funding the superstar Muskrat?0
-
Oi, I will have a crack at you about posh fish eggs n' camper vans if you're not careful!orraloon said:And not picky enough about funding the superstar Muskrat?
0
