Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you
Comments
-
Sure. Some activities become difficult or impossible; plenty of other stuff is still done in cash.TheBigBean said:Also, I don't think I could do my work with payment in cash as it would trip money laundering rules. I think that would be found to be a breach of my human rights in the ECHR.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
So you did or didn't take them seriously? The bank famous for its exclusivity? Corporate 'values' are just marketing unless backed up by actions.. Also political views have f*** all to do with inclusivity by the way.Stevo_666 said:
Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:rjsterry said:
Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?Stevo_666 said:
If he was simply below their threshold for banking with them then fine, but their report on him shows it was more than just that. As for Coutts taking business from undesirables because they have enough money to make it worthwhile doing so, they have just destroyed their own stance about 'values'.rjsterry said:
That's not really what happened. They're clearly happy to have controversial clients if the price is right. He's controversial AND didn't bank much money with them.Stevo_666 said:Clearly Farage is milking for what it's worth, but I would be pretty hacked off if my bank closed my accounts on the basis of my political views.
There is a valid point here - should businesses be making moral and political judgments on their customers and refusing their business on that basis?
I think businesses should be able to choose their customers, yes. Clearly there are better and worse ways of easing a bad customer out of the door.
Otherwise we are effectively making political views a protected characteristic, which really is political correctness gone mad.
As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.
https://theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/jul/19/nigel-farage-has-a-point-coutts-should-explain-itself
Quote:
Farage makes a difficult case because so many other people understandably regard him as objectionable. But Coutts’ position here is odd. It seems to amount to this: if we find your views lawful but offensive, we’ll do nothing if you’ve got £1m on deposit; but we may dump you without explanation if you’ve got less. How does that align with those fluffy corporate values?
I can't see what is so objectionable. They're just saying they'll put up with a difficult client if it's worth their while. He's not and thus has been offered a downgrade to a plebs account with the rest of us.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Don't see what your question has to do with my point that they ahypocrites res. Nor did I mention inclusively.rjsterry said:
So you did or didn't take them seriously? Anyone can stick some bumf on their website. Political views have f*** all to do with inclusivity by the way.Stevo_666 said:
Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:rjsterry said:
Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?Stevo_666 said:
If he was simply below their threshold for banking with them then fine, but their report on him shows it was more than just that. As for Coutts taking business from undesirables because they have enough money to make it worthwhile doing so, they have just destroyed their own stance about 'values'.rjsterry said:
That's not really what happened. They're clearly happy to have controversial clients if the price is right. He's controversial AND didn't bank much money with them.Stevo_666 said:Clearly Farage is milking for what it's worth, but I would be pretty hacked off if my bank closed my accounts on the basis of my political views.
There is a valid point here - should businesses be making moral and political judgments on their customers and refusing their business on that basis?
I think businesses should be able to choose their customers, yes. Clearly there are better and worse ways of easing a bad customer out of the door.
Otherwise we are effectively making political views a protected characteristic, which really is political correctness gone mad.
As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.
https://theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/jul/19/nigel-farage-has-a-point-coutts-should-explain-itself
Quote:
Farage makes a difficult case because so many other people understandably regard him as objectionable. But Coutts’ position here is odd. It seems to amount to this: if we find your views lawful but offensive, we’ll do nothing if you’ve got £1m on deposit; but we may dump you without explanation if you’ve got less. How does that align with those fluffy corporate values?
I can't see what is so objectionable. They're just saying they'll put up with a difficult client if it's worth their while. He's not and thus has been offered a downgrade to a plebs account with the rest of us."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I thought it was a requirement in the UK that banks have to provide a personal account to everyone?rjsterry said:
1.2million don't have a bank account in the UK. I've known of at least one contractor effectively closed down by their bank. It's difficult but I think a human right is a stretch.TheBigBean said:There's two factors to this that need to be considered.
1. Having a bank account has become almost a human right. It would be very hard to survive without
2. A lot of the burden of preventing money laundering and the like falls on the private sector.
At some point, these two points may become incompatible. Farage is probably not the case though.
And Farage was offered a transfer to a NatWest account, I believe.0 -
I think the allegation is that the downgrade was only offered when the media started reporting about it.rjsterry said:
So you did or didn't take them seriously? Anyone can stick some bumf on their website. Political views have f*** all to do with inclusivity by the way.Stevo_666 said:
Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:rjsterry said:
Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?Stevo_666 said:
If he was simply below their threshold for banking with them then fine, but their report on him shows it was more than just that. As for Coutts taking business from undesirables because they have enough money to make it worthwhile doing so, they have just destroyed their own stance about 'values'.rjsterry said:
That's not really what happened. They're clearly happy to have controversial clients if the price is right. He's controversial AND didn't bank much money with them.Stevo_666 said:Clearly Farage is milking for what it's worth, but I would be pretty hacked off if my bank closed my accounts on the basis of my political views.
There is a valid point here - should businesses be making moral and political judgments on their customers and refusing their business on that basis?
I think businesses should be able to choose their customers, yes. Clearly there are better and worse ways of easing a bad customer out of the door.
Otherwise we are effectively making political views a protected characteristic, which really is political correctness gone mad.
As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.
https://theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/jul/19/nigel-farage-has-a-point-coutts-should-explain-itself
Quote:
Farage makes a difficult case because so many other people understandably regard him as objectionable. But Coutts’ position here is odd. It seems to amount to this: if we find your views lawful but offensive, we’ll do nothing if you’ve got £1m on deposit; but we may dump you without explanation if you’ve got less. How does that align with those fluffy corporate values?
I can't see what is so objectionable. They're just saying they'll put up with a difficult client if it's worth their while. He's not and thus has been offered a downgrade to a plebs account with the rest of us.0 -
He's been offered a bank account. Just not at the private bank. He's been offered one at NatWest.TheBigBean said:There's two factors to this that need to be considered.
1. Having a bank account has become almost a human right. It would be very hard to survive without
2. A lot of the burden of preventing money laundering and the like falls on the private sector.
At some point, these two points may become incompatible. Farage is probably not the case though.
He's not being denied banking. He's not commercially viable for the private bank.
We all know the difference between a bank and a private bank, yes?
0 -
Coutts happily bank all sorts of wronguns, much worse than Farage.TheBigBean said:
I think the allegation is that the downgrade was only offered when the media started reporting about it.rjsterry said:
So you did or didn't take them seriously? Anyone can stick some bumf on their website. Political views have f*** all to do with inclusivity by the way.Stevo_666 said:
Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:rjsterry said:
Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?Stevo_666 said:
If he was simply below their threshold for banking with them then fine, but their report on him shows it was more than just that. As for Coutts taking business from undesirables because they have enough money to make it worthwhile doing so, they have just destroyed their own stance about 'values'.rjsterry said:
That's not really what happened. They're clearly happy to have controversial clients if the price is right. He's controversial AND didn't bank much money with them.Stevo_666 said:Clearly Farage is milking for what it's worth, but I would be pretty hacked off if my bank closed my accounts on the basis of my political views.
There is a valid point here - should businesses be making moral and political judgments on their customers and refusing their business on that basis?
I think businesses should be able to choose their customers, yes. Clearly there are better and worse ways of easing a bad customer out of the door.
Otherwise we are effectively making political views a protected characteristic, which really is political correctness gone mad.
As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.
https://theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/jul/19/nigel-farage-has-a-point-coutts-should-explain-itself
Quote:
Farage makes a difficult case because so many other people understandably regard him as objectionable. But Coutts’ position here is odd. It seems to amount to this: if we find your views lawful but offensive, we’ll do nothing if you’ve got £1m on deposit; but we may dump you without explanation if you’ve got less. How does that align with those fluffy corporate values?
I can't see what is so objectionable. They're just saying they'll put up with a difficult client if it's worth their while. He's not and thus has been offered a downgrade to a plebs account with the rest of us.
It's not all about him. He needs to earn more if he wants to use them. And yes, being a gobsh!te is clearly a risk for Coutts, as this entire debacle demonstrates.
0 -
Do you ever read posts?rick_chasey said:
He's been offered a bank account. Just not at the private bank. He's been offered one at NatWest.TheBigBean said:There's two factors to this that need to be considered.
1. Having a bank account has become almost a human right. It would be very hard to survive without
2. A lot of the burden of preventing money laundering and the like falls on the private sector.
At some point, these two points may become incompatible. Farage is probably not the case though.
He's not being denied banking. He's not commercially viable for the private bank.
We all know the difference between a bank and a private bank, yes?1 -
I guess so. If hypocrisy bothers you. Coutts using concerns about inclusivity to boot Farage is surely some elaborate trolling exercise. Like Greggs worrying that their sausage rolls are seen as too common.Stevo_666 said:
Don't see what your question has to do with my point that they ahypocrites res. Nor did I mention inclusively.rjsterry said:
So you did or didn't take them seriously? Anyone can stick some bumf on their website. Political views have f*** all to do with inclusivity by the way.Stevo_666 said:
Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:rjsterry said:
Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?Stevo_666 said:
If he was simply below their threshold for banking with them then fine, but their report on him shows it was more than just that. As for Coutts taking business from undesirables because they have enough money to make it worthwhile doing so, they have just destroyed their own stance about 'values'.rjsterry said:
That's not really what happened. They're clearly happy to have controversial clients if the price is right. He's controversial AND didn't bank much money with them.Stevo_666 said:Clearly Farage is milking for what it's worth, but I would be pretty hacked off if my bank closed my accounts on the basis of my political views.
There is a valid point here - should businesses be making moral and political judgments on their customers and refusing their business on that basis?
I think businesses should be able to choose their customers, yes. Clearly there are better and worse ways of easing a bad customer out of the door.
Otherwise we are effectively making political views a protected characteristic, which really is political correctness gone mad.
As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.
https://theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/jul/19/nigel-farage-has-a-point-coutts-should-explain-itself
Quote:
Farage makes a difficult case because so many other people understandably regard him as objectionable. But Coutts’ position here is odd. It seems to amount to this: if we find your views lawful but offensive, we’ll do nothing if you’ve got £1m on deposit; but we may dump you without explanation if you’ve got less. How does that align with those fluffy corporate values?
I can't see what is so objectionable. They're just saying they'll put up with a difficult client if it's worth their while. He's not and thus has been offered a downgrade to a plebs account with the rest of us.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The Most Important thing affecting the dUK just now is
Huw EdwardsNiggly Fartrage. Dead cats, everywhere.0 -
orraloon said:
The Most Important thing affecting the dUK just now is
Huw EdwardsNiggly Fartrage. Dead cats, everywhere.
Immigrantprisonaccommodation barges costing more than luxury liners, Spaffer still not handing over his phone despite court order, Illegal Illegal Immigration Bill getting passed, etc, etc....0 -
I hadn't realised the barge had been actually built by the Dutch for the same purpose and was used for years without any stink.
Should add that what to do with asylum seekers has collapsed the gov't over there, so it's hardly a British problem.0 -
When ever I put on ITV 4 for the tour I get adverts for womens hair colour and nappies. Who do they believe are watching.0
-
Mumsnet.webboo said:When ever I put on ITV 4 for the tour I get adverts for womens hair colour and nappies. Who do they believe are watching.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
My point stands.rjsterry said:
I guess so. If hypocrisy bothers you. Coutts using concerns about inclusivity to boot Farage is surely some elaborate trolling exercise. Like Greggs worrying that their sausage rolls are seen as too common.Stevo_666 said:
Don't see what your question has to do with my point that they ahypocrites res. Nor did I mention inclusively.rjsterry said:
So you did or didn't take them seriously? Anyone can stick some bumf on their website. Political views have f*** all to do with inclusivity by the way.Stevo_666 said:
Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:rjsterry said:
Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?Stevo_666 said:
If he was simply below their threshold for banking with them then fine, but their report on him shows it was more than just that. As for Coutts taking business from undesirables because they have enough money to make it worthwhile doing so, they have just destroyed their own stance about 'values'.rjsterry said:
That's not really what happened. They're clearly happy to have controversial clients if the price is right. He's controversial AND didn't bank much money with them.Stevo_666 said:Clearly Farage is milking for what it's worth, but I would be pretty hacked off if my bank closed my accounts on the basis of my political views.
There is a valid point here - should businesses be making moral and political judgments on their customers and refusing their business on that basis?
I think businesses should be able to choose their customers, yes. Clearly there are better and worse ways of easing a bad customer out of the door.
Otherwise we are effectively making political views a protected characteristic, which really is political correctness gone mad.
As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.
https://theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/jul/19/nigel-farage-has-a-point-coutts-should-explain-itself
Quote:
Farage makes a difficult case because so many other people understandably regard him as objectionable. But Coutts’ position here is odd. It seems to amount to this: if we find your views lawful but offensive, we’ll do nothing if you’ve got £1m on deposit; but we may dump you without explanation if you’ve got less. How does that align with those fluffy corporate values?
I can't see what is so objectionable. They're just saying they'll put up with a difficult client if it's worth their while. He's not and thus has been offered a downgrade to a plebs account with the rest of us.
And Coutts have just apologised. Like I said upthread, a PR own goal."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Don't know how to feel about it really. On the one hand, the prison ship vibe isn't exactly great. On the other, hotels really aren't a solution either.rick_chasey said:I hadn't realised the barge had been actually built by the Dutch for the same purpose and was used for years without any stink.
Should add that what to do with asylum seekers has collapsed the gov't over there, so it's hardly a British problem.
The whole issue really is a sea of "well there aren't any good answers".0 -
(they're still right that he's a professional gobsh!te and so poses other risks to the private banks, as this exact event has demonstrated. Who'd want to be his private bank after this?!)Stevo_666 said:
My point stands.rjsterry said:
I guess so. If hypocrisy bothers you. Coutts using concerns about inclusivity to boot Farage is surely some elaborate trolling exercise. Like Greggs worrying that their sausage rolls are seen as too common.Stevo_666 said:
Don't see what your question has to do with my point that they ahypocrites res. Nor did I mention inclusively.rjsterry said:
So you did or didn't take them seriously? Anyone can stick some bumf on their website. Political views have f*** all to do with inclusivity by the way.Stevo_666 said:
Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:rjsterry said:
Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?Stevo_666 said:
If he was simply below their threshold for banking with them then fine, but their report on him shows it was more than just that. As for Coutts taking business from undesirables because they have enough money to make it worthwhile doing so, they have just destroyed their own stance about 'values'.rjsterry said:
That's not really what happened. They're clearly happy to have controversial clients if the price is right. He's controversial AND didn't bank much money with them.Stevo_666 said:Clearly Farage is milking for what it's worth, but I would be pretty hacked off if my bank closed my accounts on the basis of my political views.
There is a valid point here - should businesses be making moral and political judgments on their customers and refusing their business on that basis?
I think businesses should be able to choose their customers, yes. Clearly there are better and worse ways of easing a bad customer out of the door.
Otherwise we are effectively making political views a protected characteristic, which really is political correctness gone mad.
As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.
https://theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/jul/19/nigel-farage-has-a-point-coutts-should-explain-itself
Quote:
Farage makes a difficult case because so many other people understandably regard him as objectionable. But Coutts’ position here is odd. It seems to amount to this: if we find your views lawful but offensive, we’ll do nothing if you’ve got £1m on deposit; but we may dump you without explanation if you’ve got less. How does that align with those fluffy corporate values?
I can't see what is so objectionable. They're just saying they'll put up with a difficult client if it's worth their while. He's not and thus has been offered a downgrade to a plebs account with the rest of us.
And Coutts have just apologised. Like I said upthread, a PR own goal.0 -
I think the official hopelessly impractical, but morally superior view is that the government should spend more money to increase processing times. That and process applications abroadJezyboy said:
Don't know how to feel about it really. On the one hand, the prison ship vibe isn't exactly great. On the other, hotels really aren't a solution either.rick_chasey said:I hadn't realised the barge had been actually built by the Dutch for the same purpose and was used for years without any stink.
Should add that what to do with asylum seekers has collapsed the gov't over there, so it's hardly a British problem.
The whole issue really is a sea of "well there aren't any good answers".0 -
They were hardly very private if they spoke to a BBC journo about one of their clients. Given how important client confidentiality is for that sort of clientelle, who would want to bank with Coutts after this?rick_chasey said:
(they're still right that he's a professional gobsh!te and so poses other risks to the private banks, as this exact event has demonstrated. Who'd want to be his private bank after this?!)Stevo_666 said:
My point stands.rjsterry said:
I guess so. If hypocrisy bothers you. Coutts using concerns about inclusivity to boot Farage is surely some elaborate trolling exercise. Like Greggs worrying that their sausage rolls are seen as too common.Stevo_666 said:
Don't see what your question has to do with my point that they ahypocrites res. Nor did I mention inclusively.rjsterry said:
So you did or didn't take them seriously? Anyone can stick some bumf on their website. Political views have f*** all to do with inclusivity by the way.Stevo_666 said:
Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:rjsterry said:
Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?Stevo_666 said:
If he was simply below their threshold for banking with them then fine, but their report on him shows it was more than just that. As for Coutts taking business from undesirables because they have enough money to make it worthwhile doing so, they have just destroyed their own stance about 'values'.rjsterry said:
That's not really what happened. They're clearly happy to have controversial clients if the price is right. He's controversial AND didn't bank much money with them.Stevo_666 said:Clearly Farage is milking for what it's worth, but I would be pretty hacked off if my bank closed my accounts on the basis of my political views.
There is a valid point here - should businesses be making moral and political judgments on their customers and refusing their business on that basis?
I think businesses should be able to choose their customers, yes. Clearly there are better and worse ways of easing a bad customer out of the door.
Otherwise we are effectively making political views a protected characteristic, which really is political correctness gone mad.
As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.
https://theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/jul/19/nigel-farage-has-a-point-coutts-should-explain-itself
Quote:
Farage makes a difficult case because so many other people understandably regard him as objectionable. But Coutts’ position here is odd. It seems to amount to this: if we find your views lawful but offensive, we’ll do nothing if you’ve got £1m on deposit; but we may dump you without explanation if you’ve got less. How does that align with those fluffy corporate values?
I can't see what is so objectionable. They're just saying they'll put up with a difficult client if it's worth their while. He's not and thus has been offered a downgrade to a plebs account with the rest of us.
And Coutts have just apologised. Like I said upthread, a PR own goal.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Because he was spouting off, right?Stevo_666 said:
They were hardly very private if they spoke to a BBC journo about one of their clients. Given how important client confidentiality is for that sort of clientelle, who would want to bank with Coutts after this?
This didn't come about because Coutts started discussing him and his private finances. The opposite.
This is part of the risk they were trying to evaluate and figured it wasn't worth it given he was below threshold.
Clearly they hadn't necessarily expected him to go public with it (who would want to admit they're now too poor for Coutts?), but that is literally part of the reputation risk.
If I whine about Coutts not banking me, no-one is gonna listen to me. That's the difference.0 -
I think his speech also included the words
"I have virtually no links of any kind to Russia whatsoever"1 -
Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.rick_chasey said:
Because he was spouting off, right?Stevo_666 said:
They were hardly very private if they spoke to a BBC journo about one of their clients. Given how important client confidentiality is for that sort of clientelle, who would want to bank with Coutts after this?
This didn't come about because Coutts started discussing him and his private finances. The opposite.
This is part of the risk they were trying to evaluate and figured it wasn't worth it given he was below threshold.
Clearly they hadn't necessarily expected him to go public with it (who would want to admit they're now too poor for Coutts?), but that is literally part of the reputation risk.
If I whine about Coutts not banking me, no-one is gonna listen to me. That's the difference.
And as I said above, PR own goal."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Is it morally superior to think the Tories should focus on processing times, rather than spend all their energy on deliberately provocative schemes like Rwanda?TheBigBean said:
I think the official hopelessly impractical, but morally superior view is that the government should spend more money to increase processing times. That and process applications abroadJezyboy said:
Don't know how to feel about it really. On the one hand, the prison ship vibe isn't exactly great. On the other, hotels really aren't a solution either.rick_chasey said:I hadn't realised the barge had been actually built by the Dutch for the same purpose and was used for years without any stink.
Should add that what to do with asylum seekers has collapsed the gov't over there, so it's hardly a British problem.
The whole issue really is a sea of "well there aren't any good answers".
0 -
No, you've got the wrong end of the stick here.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.rick_chasey said:
Because he was spouting off, right?Stevo_666 said:
They were hardly very private if they spoke to a BBC journo about one of their clients. Given how important client confidentiality is for that sort of clientelle, who would want to bank with Coutts after this?
This didn't come about because Coutts started discussing him and his private finances. The opposite.
This is part of the risk they were trying to evaluate and figured it wasn't worth it given he was below threshold.
Clearly they hadn't necessarily expected him to go public with it (who would want to admit they're now too poor for Coutts?), but that is literally part of the reputation risk.
If I whine about Coutts not banking me, no-one is gonna listen to me. That's the difference.
And as I said above, PR own goal.
Farage made a claim first, in public. He kicked it off.0 -
Yes, they should have just put up his fees until he moved of his own accord.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.rick_chasey said:
Because he was spouting off, right?Stevo_666 said:
They were hardly very private if they spoke to a BBC journo about one of their clients. Given how important client confidentiality is for that sort of clientelle, who would want to bank with Coutts after this?
This didn't come about because Coutts started discussing him and his private finances. The opposite.
This is part of the risk they were trying to evaluate and figured it wasn't worth it given he was below threshold.
Clearly they hadn't necessarily expected him to go public with it (who would want to admit they're now too poor for Coutts?), but that is literally part of the reputation risk.
If I whine about Coutts not banking me, no-one is gonna listen to me. That's the difference.
And as I said above, PR own goal.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If Coutts hadn't written the report about Farage then he wouldn't have had much to spout about.rick_chasey said:
No, you've got the wrong end of the stick here.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.rick_chasey said:
Because he was spouting off, right?Stevo_666 said:
They were hardly very private if they spoke to a BBC journo about one of their clients. Given how important client confidentiality is for that sort of clientelle, who would want to bank with Coutts after this?
This didn't come about because Coutts started discussing him and his private finances. The opposite.
This is part of the risk they were trying to evaluate and figured it wasn't worth it given he was below threshold.
Clearly they hadn't necessarily expected him to go public with it (who would want to admit they're now too poor for Coutts?), but that is literally part of the reputation risk.
If I whine about Coutts not banking me, no-one is gonna listen to me. That's the difference.
And as I said above, PR own goal.
Farage made a claim first, in public. He kicked it off.
And allegedly Rose leaked confidential info to a BBC journo."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
How do you leak something that isn't true?Stevo_666 said:
If Coutts hadn't written the report about Farage then he wouldn't have had much to spout about.rick_chasey said:
No, you've got the wrong end of the stick here.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.rick_chasey said:
Because he was spouting off, right?Stevo_666 said:
They were hardly very private if they spoke to a BBC journo about one of their clients. Given how important client confidentiality is for that sort of clientelle, who would want to bank with Coutts after this?
This didn't come about because Coutts started discussing him and his private finances. The opposite.
This is part of the risk they were trying to evaluate and figured it wasn't worth it given he was below threshold.
Clearly they hadn't necessarily expected him to go public with it (who would want to admit they're now too poor for Coutts?), but that is literally part of the reputation risk.
If I whine about Coutts not banking me, no-one is gonna listen to me. That's the difference.
And as I said above, PR own goal.
Farage made a claim first, in public. He kicked it off.
And allegedly Rose leaked confidential info to a BBC journo.
Embarrassing for Coutts but he's still dumped. Something for everyone.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
That would have been a win win for Coutts. I guess what happened just shows the risk of choosing the right on route rather than good old fashioned capitalism.rjsterry said:
Yes, they should have just put up his fees until he moved of his own accord.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.rick_chasey said:
Because he was spouting off, right?Stevo_666 said:
They were hardly very private if they spoke to a BBC journo about one of their clients. Given how important client confidentiality is for that sort of clientelle, who would want to bank with Coutts after this?
This didn't come about because Coutts started discussing him and his private finances. The opposite.
This is part of the risk they were trying to evaluate and figured it wasn't worth it given he was below threshold.
Clearly they hadn't necessarily expected him to go public with it (who would want to admit they're now too poor for Coutts?), but that is literally part of the reputation risk.
If I whine about Coutts not banking me, no-one is gonna listen to me. That's the difference.
And as I said above, PR own goal."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Possibly deliberate disinformation? In any event a breach of client confidentiality.rjsterry said:
How do you leak something that isn't true?Stevo_666 said:
If Coutts hadn't written the report about Farage then he wouldn't have had much to spout about.rick_chasey said:
No, you've got the wrong end of the stick here.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.rick_chasey said:
Because he was spouting off, right?Stevo_666 said:
They were hardly very private if they spoke to a BBC journo about one of their clients. Given how important client confidentiality is for that sort of clientelle, who would want to bank with Coutts after this?
This didn't come about because Coutts started discussing him and his private finances. The opposite.
This is part of the risk they were trying to evaluate and figured it wasn't worth it given he was below threshold.
Clearly they hadn't necessarily expected him to go public with it (who would want to admit they're now too poor for Coutts?), but that is literally part of the reputation risk.
If I whine about Coutts not banking me, no-one is gonna listen to me. That's the difference.
And as I said above, PR own goal.
Farage made a claim first, in public. He kicked it off.
And allegedly Rose leaked confidential info to a BBC journo.
Embarrassing for Coutts but he's still dumped. Something for everyone."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Tinfoil on standby. Have you considered that Jack might have been mistaken.Stevo_666 said:
Possibly deliberate disinformation? In any event a breach of client confidentiality.rjsterry said:
How do you leak something that isn't true?Stevo_666 said:
If Coutts hadn't written the report about Farage then he wouldn't have had much to spout about.rick_chasey said:
No, you've got the wrong end of the stick here.Stevo_666 said:
Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.rick_chasey said:
Because he was spouting off, right?Stevo_666 said:
They were hardly very private if they spoke to a BBC journo about one of their clients. Given how important client confidentiality is for that sort of clientelle, who would want to bank with Coutts after this?
This didn't come about because Coutts started discussing him and his private finances. The opposite.
This is part of the risk they were trying to evaluate and figured it wasn't worth it given he was below threshold.
Clearly they hadn't necessarily expected him to go public with it (who would want to admit they're now too poor for Coutts?), but that is literally part of the reputation risk.
If I whine about Coutts not banking me, no-one is gonna listen to me. That's the difference.
And as I said above, PR own goal.
Farage made a claim first, in public. He kicked it off.
And allegedly Rose leaked confidential info to a BBC journo.
Embarrassing for Coutts but he's still dumped. Something for everyone.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0