Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Have you read the doc Stevo? It seems fairly balanced.

The defect that they have compiled this sort of info on a client is part of the issue. Can you really not see that?

Put aside for a minute that the subject of that report is someone you detest.

So... no then?

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 them

You really think financial institutions aren't routinely keeping files on all their politically prominent clients?

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.

That's not why anyone stood down. That was clearly the breach of confidentiality.

If part of your business relies on your public reputation, then clearly the actions of your more outspoken clients is relevant. I don't see anything wrong with them taking note of his expressed political views - they are in the public domain after all. I don't see a problem with that and if I was, say, a prominent pro-ULEZ campaigner I would expect my bank to note that. I would probably also choose a bank likely to be sympathetic. I wouldn't set myself up as anti-establishment and then have my account at the one of the most establishment banks there is.

The way they have recorded that information doesn't pass the 'imagine someone reading it out in public' test but it seems to be fairly accurate. Given they identified in advance that he was likely to make a fuss if his account was closed, you'd think they would have been more careful about how they downgraded him. And to then feed half truths to a journalist was spectacularly stupid. Lots of learning points for that team.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

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.

Bloody left wing socialists for you.

Fear he's caught the same brainrot as Neil Oliver.

He’s had it in for banks since the crash. Has been banging that drum for a decade.

I tended to agree with him on the fact not enough bankers ended up in prison.

But he’s a really good example of what I’ve been banging on about the last few days on anxiety around institutions no longer naturally leaning right.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

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.

Bloody left wing socialists for you.

Fear he's caught the same brainrot as Neil Oliver.

He’s had it in for banks since the crash. Has been banging that drum for a decade.

I tended to agree with him on the fact not enough bankers ended up in prison.

But he’s a really good example of what I’ve been banging on about the last few days on anxiety around institutions no longer naturally leaning right.

Normally it's other people being excluded from things. It's just come as a shock to these fossils that they're now outside the line as they had got used to being inside.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

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.

Bloody left wing socialists for you.

Fear he's caught the same brainrot as Neil Oliver.

He’s had it in for banks since the crash. Has been banging that drum for a decade.

I tended to agree with him on the fact not enough bankers ended up in prison.

But he’s a really good example of what I’ve been banging on about the last few days on anxiety around institutions no longer naturally leaning right.

Normally it's other people being excluded from things. It's just come as a shock to these fossils that they're now outside the line as they had got used to being inside.

Yes absolutely.

But I do think there is a grain of truth in that shift; those institutions don’t necessarily lean rightwards in the modern way anymore.

And I think it is largely because the split nowadays is by age and education. Those running these institutions are now pretty likely to be labour voters or at least share values with the modern centre left.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Have you read the doc Stevo? It seems fairly balanced.

The defect that they have compiled this sort of info on a client is part of the issue. Can you really not see that?

Put aside for a minute that the subject of that report is someone you detest.

So... no then?

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 them

You really think financial institutions aren't routinely keeping files on all their politically prominent clients?

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.

That's not why anyone stood down. That was clearly the breach of confidentiality.

If part of your business relies on your public reputation, then clearly the actions of your more outspoken clients is relevant. I don't see anything wrong with them taking note of his expressed political views - they are in the public domain after all. I don't see a problem with that and if I was, say, a prominent pro-ULEZ campaigner I would expect my bank to note that. I would probably also choose a bank likely to be sympathetic. I wouldn't set myself up as anti-establishment and then have my account at the one of the most establishment banks there is.

The way they have recorded that information doesn't pass the 'imagine someone reading it out in public' test but it seems to be fairly accurate. Given they identified in advance that he was likely to make a fuss if his account was closed, you'd think they would have been more careful about how they downgraded him. And to then feed half truths to a journalist was spectacularly stupid. Lots of learning points for that team.

I didn't say it was the main reason why they stood down: breach of confidentiality alone would have been enough. But it clearly caused them damage.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

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.

Bloody left wing socialists for you.

Fear he's caught the same brainrot as Neil Oliver.

He’s had it in for banks since the crash. Has been banging that drum for a decade.

I tended to agree with him on the fact not enough bankers ended up in prison.

But he’s a really good example of what I’ve been banging on about the last few days on anxiety around institutions no longer naturally leaning right.

Normally it's other people being excluded from things. It's just come as a shock to these fossils that they're now outside the line as they had got used to being inside.

Yes absolutely.

But I do think there is a grain of truth in that shift; those institutions don’t necessarily lean rightwards in the modern way anymore.

And I think it is largely because the split nowadays is by age and education. Those running these institutions are now pretty likely to be labour voters or at least share values with the modern centre left.

So? Things change. That's the trouble with clinging to the past: your doomed to be left behind.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Have you read the doc Stevo? It seems fairly balanced.

The defect that they have compiled this sort of info on a client is part of the issue. Can you really not see that?

Put aside for a minute that the subject of that report is someone you detest.

So... no then?

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 them

You really think financial institutions aren't routinely keeping files on all their politically prominent clients?

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.

That's not why anyone stood down. That was clearly the breach of confidentiality.

If part of your business relies on your public reputation, then clearly the actions of your more outspoken clients is relevant. I don't see anything wrong with them taking note of his expressed political views - they are in the public domain after all. I don't see a problem with that and if I was, say, a prominent pro-ULEZ campaigner I would expect my bank to note that. I would probably also choose a bank likely to be sympathetic. I wouldn't set myself up as anti-establishment and then have my account at the one of the most establishment banks there is.

The way they have recorded that information doesn't pass the 'imagine someone reading it out in public' test but it seems to be fairly accurate. Given they identified in advance that he was likely to make a fuss if his account was closed, you'd think they would have been more careful about how they downgraded him. And to then feed half truths to a journalist was spectacularly stupid. Lots of learning points for that team.

I didn't say it was the main reason why they stood down: breach of confidentiality alone would have been enough. But it clearly caused them damage.

It's embarrassing for it all to come out in public but let's not kid ourselves that banks and others aren't making similar judgements about their clients clients as they have always done.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

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.

Bloody left wing socialists for you.

Fear he's caught the same brainrot as Neil Oliver.

He’s had it in for banks since the crash. Has been banging that drum for a decade.

I tended to agree with him on the fact not enough bankers ended up in prison.

But he’s a really good example of what I’ve been banging on about the last few days on anxiety around institutions no longer naturally leaning right.

Normally it's other people being excluded from things. It's just come as a shock to these fossils that they're now outside the line as they had got used to being inside.

Yes absolutely.

But I do think there is a grain of truth in that shift; those institutions don’t necessarily lean rightwards in the modern way anymore.

And I think it is largely because the split nowadays is by age and education. Those running these institutions are now pretty likely to be labour voters or at least share values with the modern centre left.

So? Things change. That's the trouble with clinging to the past: your doomed to be left behind.

Well that's what's driving whole swathes of the right-wing side of the debate, especially the reactionary side, which has always been there.

If you want to understand what's driving the behaviour and the rhetoric, I would suggest this loss of the institutions is right there.

it's what's behind the BBC attacks, it's what's behind the civil service attacks, it's what's behind this Farage thing, it's what was ultimately underpinning Trump's message, including January 6th, the lot.

If you've had your entire life as institutions being a sort of small c conservative constant, naturally on your side, I can't imagine how discombobulating and frightening it is when they're no longer on your side, especially if your life has been pretty long.

I'm hardly a sympathetic person, but you should surely be able to see that. Lots of people don't like that.

i think a lot of the anti-woke stuff actually boils down to that. It's the discomfort that the institutions that govern every day life are no longer their natural ally.


--

Anyway, the grifters in the government are seeing this Farage thing as an opportunity to change the rules to make it easier to grift if you're a politician. Good work everyone.

rick_chasey

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12352115/The-Mail-Sundays-Woke-List-2023-reveals-male-police-chief-wore-menopause-vest-BBC-presenter-said-Lionesses-white.html

Here's a wonderful example of the above from yesterday.

Top of the list: Archbishop of Canterbury (the church obviously being a naturally conservative institution)

Then we have Liz Jolly, Chief Librarian of the British Library, and Sharon Heal, Director of the Museums, leaders of important cultural and historical institutions.

Then we have the BBC's highest paid star, Linekar.

A few more obvious targets, but the CEO of ITV is listed too, Alison Rose, obviously (coutts, that well known progressive institution, right?), a pair of Rozzers (ah the police, naturally conservative, right?) and they even have some Civil servants.

That's what this is really all about.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

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.

Bloody left wing socialists for you.

Fear he's caught the same brainrot as Neil Oliver.

He’s had it in for banks since the crash. Has been banging that drum for a decade.

I tended to agree with him on the fact not enough bankers ended up in prison.

But he’s a really good example of what I’ve been banging on about the last few days on anxiety around institutions no longer naturally leaning right.

Normally it's other people being excluded from things. It's just come as a shock to these fossils that they're now outside the line as they had got used to being inside.

Yes absolutely.

But I do think there is a grain of truth in that shift; those institutions don’t necessarily lean rightwards in the modern way anymore.

And I think it is largely because the split nowadays is by age and education. Those running these institutions are now pretty likely to be labour voters or at least share values with the modern centre left.

So? Things change. That's the trouble with clinging to the past: your doomed to be left behind.

Well that's what's driving whole swathes of the right-wing side of the debate, especially the reactionary side, which has always been there.

If you want to understand what's driving the behaviour and the rhetoric, I would suggest this loss of the institutions is right there.

it's what's behind the BBC attacks, it's what's behind the civil service attacks, it's what's behind this Farage thing, it's what was ultimately underpinning Trump's message, including January 6th, the lot.

If you've had your entire life as institutions being a sort of small c conservative constant, naturally on your side, I can't imagine how discombobulating and frightening it is when they're no longer on your side, especially if your life has been pretty long.

I'm hardly a sympathetic person, but you should surely be able to see that. Lots of people don't like that.

i think a lot of the anti-woke stuff actually boils down to that. It's the discomfort that the institutions that govern every day life are no longer their natural ally.


--

Anyway, the grifters in the government are seeing this Farage thing as an opportunity to change the rules to make it easier to grift if you're a politician. Good work everyone.

You've definitely got a new hobby horse.

rick_chasey

Yeah. It clicked the other day listening to some American pro-Trump think tanks.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

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.

Bloody left wing socialists for you.

Fear he's caught the same brainrot as Neil Oliver.

He’s had it in for banks since the crash. Has been banging that drum for a decade.

I tended to agree with him on the fact not enough bankers ended up in prison.

But he’s a really good example of what I’ve been banging on about the last few days on anxiety around institutions no longer naturally leaning right.

Normally it's other people being excluded from things. It's just come as a shock to these fossils that they're now outside the line as they had got used to being inside.

Yes absolutely.

But I do think there is a grain of truth in that shift; those institutions don’t necessarily lean rightwards in the modern way anymore.

And I think it is largely because the split nowadays is by age and education. Those running these institutions are now pretty likely to be labour voters or at least share values with the modern centre left.

So? Things change. That's the trouble with clinging to the past: your doomed to be left behind.

Well that's what's driving whole swathes of the right-wing side of the debate, especially the reactionary side, which has always been there.

If you want to understand what's driving the behaviour and the rhetoric, I would suggest this loss of the institutions is right there.

it's what's behind the BBC attacks, it's what's behind the civil service attacks, it's what's behind this Farage thing, it's what was ultimately underpinning Trump's message, including January 6th, the lot.

If you've had your entire life as institutions being a sort of small c conservative constant, naturally on your side, I can't imagine how discombobulating and frightening it is when they're no longer on your side, especially if your life has been pretty long.

I'm hardly a sympathetic person, but you should surely be able to see that. Lots of people don't like that.

i think a lot of the anti-woke stuff actually boils down to that. It's the discomfort that the institutions that govern every day life are no longer their natural ally.


--

Anyway, the grifters in the government are seeing this Farage thing as an opportunity to change the rules to make it easier to grift if you're a politician. Good work everyone.

I can see it. I just don't think it's a valid complaint. There's plenty of it about in my professional sphere as well. Trad bores complaining that (almost) nobody builds Palladian manor houses any more.

focuszing723

If you've had your entire life as institutions being a sort of small c conservative constant, naturally on your side, I can't imagine how discombobulating and frightening it is when they're no longer on your side, especially if your life has been pretty long.

Hang on though, what about the seventies? It went pretty damn left wing then, the Unions were in charge.

rick_chasey

focuszing723 said:

If you've had your entire life as institutions being a sort of small c conservative constant, naturally on your side, I can't imagine how discombobulating and frightening it is when they're no longer on your side, especially if your life has been pretty long.

Hang on though, what about the seventies? It went pretty damn left wing then, the Unions were in charge.

I'll contend a lot of institutions then still weren't (like the BBC, BoE, the church, etc)

secretsqirrel

focuszing723 said:

If you've had your entire life as institutions being a sort of small c conservative constant, naturally on your side, I can't imagine how discombobulating and frightening it is when they're no longer on your side, especially if your life has been pretty long.

Hang on though, what about the seventies? It went pretty damn left wing then, the Unions were in charge.

Why would they strike if they were in charge?

rick_chasey

secretsqirrel said:

focuszing723 said:

If you've had your entire life as institutions being a sort of small c conservative constant, naturally on your side, I can't imagine how discombobulating and frightening it is when they're no longer on your side, especially if your life has been pretty long.

Hang on though, what about the seventies? It went pretty damn left wing then, the Unions were in charge.

Why would they strike if they were in charge?

Same argument for now tbf; I guess the point is that left-wing 50 years later means something different.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

secretsqirrel said:

focuszing723 said:

If you've had your entire life as institutions being a sort of small c conservative constant, naturally on your side, I can't imagine how discombobulating and frightening it is when they're no longer on your side, especially if your life has been pretty long.

Hang on though, what about the seventies? It went pretty damn left wing then, the Unions were in charge.

Why would they strike if they were in charge?

Same argument for now tbf; I guess the point is that left-wing 50 years later means something different.

You can't roll out that many hobby horses in so few posts.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

secretsqirrel said:

focuszing723 said:

If you've had your entire life as institutions being a sort of small c conservative constant, naturally on your side, I can't imagine how discombobulating and frightening it is when they're no longer on your side, especially if your life has been pretty long.

Hang on though, what about the seventies? It went pretty damn left wing then, the Unions were in charge.

Why would they strike if they were in charge?

Same argument for now tbf; I guess the point is that left-wing 50 years later means something different.

You can't roll out that many hobby horses in so few posts.

Aw, not even on a Monday? I'm all limbered up from the weekend spent with kids so I've not had an outlet for my grand narratives.

" You know what, I do really think the political divide here is really about age and education"

"Yes Daddy, the teddy bear wants to live in the dolls house but he's too big. You need to make Elsa tell him"

"OK OK"

focuszing723

secretsqirrel said:

focuszing723 said:

If you've had your entire life as institutions being a sort of small c conservative constant, naturally on your side, I can't imagine how discombobulating and frightening it is when they're no longer on your side, especially if your life has been pretty long.

Hang on though, what about the seventies? It went pretty damn left wing then, the Unions were in charge.

Why would they strike if they were in charge?

The Labour Party governed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1974 to 1979. During this period, Harold Wilson and James Callaghan were successively appointed as Prime Minister by Queen Elizabeth II. The end of the Callaghan ministry was presaged by the Winter of Discontent, a period of serious industrial discontent. This was followed by the election of Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher in 1979.

focuszing723

And lets face it New Labour were for all intents and purposes Tories.

rick_chasey

Been in the dartford crossing tax online queue now for well over an hour.

focuszing723

Also, during COVID the Tories couldn't have been more left wing. What was that £500,000,000,000 spent on furloughs, buisness and healthcare. Granted a bit of the spondulix went to their mates n $h1t.

focuszing723

Like I've said before AI governance is where it's at. Anyway, given X amount of time and we won't have a choice.

pblakeney

focuszing723 said:

Like I've said before AI governance is where it's at. Anyway, given X amount of time and we won't have a choice.

Having watched Sunak answer questions I wonder if we're in the trial period already. 😉

laurentian

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

Like I've said before AI governance is where it's at. Anyway, given X amount of time and we won't have a choice.

Having watched Sunak answer questions I wonder if we're in the trial period already. 😉

. . . you're overlooking the "I" bit

pblakeney

laurentian said:

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

Like I've said before AI governance is where it's at. Anyway, given X amount of time and we won't have a choice.

Having watched Sunak answer questions I wonder if we're in the trial period already. 😉

. . . you're overlooking the "I" bit

Trial period. Early days. I assume it will improve over time, but the Sunak model is time limited. 😉

kingstongraham

To be fair, AI just tells you what it thinks you want to hear, regardless of whether it is based on fact or not.

focuszing723

kingstongraham said:

To be fair, AI just tells you what it thinks you want to hear, regardless of whether it is based on fact or not.

When AI can evolve itself that's when X is up.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

To be fair, AI just tells you what it thinks you want to hear, regardless of whether it is based on fact or not.

Like Boris?

Stevo_666

Starmer is a suspect for being AI on that basis. Although combining leftie and intelligence makes me suspicious.