Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

rjsterry

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.

Sure. Some activities become difficult or impossible; plenty of other stuff is still done in cash.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

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?

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.

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.

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'.

Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?

As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.

Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:
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?

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.

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.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

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?

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.

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.

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'.

Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?

As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.

Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:
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?

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.

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.

Don't see what your question has to do with my point that they ahypocrites res. Nor did I mention inclusively.

Pross

rjsterry said:

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.

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.

And Farage was offered a transfer to a NatWest account, I believe.

I thought it was a requirement in the UK that banks have to provide a personal account to everyone?

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

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?

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.

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.

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'.

Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?

As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.

Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:
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?

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.

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 think the allegation is that the downgrade was only offered when the media started reporting about it.

rick_chasey

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 been offered a bank account. Just not at the private bank. He's been offered one at NatWest.

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?

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

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?

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.

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.

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'.

Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?

As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.

Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:
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?

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.

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 think the allegation is that the downgrade was only offered when the media started reporting about it.

Coutts happily bank all sorts of wronguns, much worse than Farage.

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.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

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 been offered a bank account. Just not at the private bank. He's been offered one at NatWest.

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?

Do you ever read posts?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

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?

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.

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.

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'.

Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?

As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.

Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:
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?

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.

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.

Don't see what your question has to do with my point that they ahypocrites res. Nor did I mention inclusively.

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.

orraloon

The Most Important thing affecting the dUK just now is Huw Edwards Niggly Fartrage. Dead cats, everywhere.

briantrumpet

orraloon said:

The Most Important thing affecting the dUK just now is Huw Edwards Niggly Fartrage. Dead cats, everywhere.

Immigrant prison accommodation barges costing more than luxury liners, Spaffer still not handing over his phone despite court order, Illegal Illegal Immigration Bill getting passed, etc, etc....

rick_chasey

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.

webboo

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.

pblakeney

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.

Mumsnet.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

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?

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.

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.

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'.

Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?

As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.

Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:
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?

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.

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.

Don't see what your question has to do with my point that they ahypocrites res. Nor did I mention inclusively.

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.

My point stands.

And Coutts have just apologised. Like I said upthread, a PR own goal.

Jezyboy

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.

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.

The whole issue really is a sea of "well there aren't any good answers".

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

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?

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.

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.

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'.

Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?

As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.

Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:
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?

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.

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.

Don't see what your question has to do with my point that they ahypocrites res. Nor did I mention inclusively.

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.

My point stands.

And Coutts have just apologised. Like I said upthread, a PR own goal.

(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?!)

TheBigBean

Jezyboy said:

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.

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.

The whole issue really is a sea of "well there aren't any good answers".

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 abroad

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

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?

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.

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.

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'.

Surely you didn't seriously think that was anything more than PR gloss?

As someone posted further up, banks close accounts all the time for a variety of reasons. This one just happens to be more gobby.

Call it right on hypocrisy then. And in a bizarre turn of events, the Guardian agrees with me:
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?

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.

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.

Don't see what your question has to do with my point that they ahypocrites res. Nor did I mention inclusively.

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.

My point stands.

And Coutts have just apologised. Like I said upthread, a PR own goal.

(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?!)

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

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?

Because he was spouting off, right?

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.

shirley_basso

I think his speech also included the words

"I have virtually no links of any kind to Russia whatsoever"

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

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?

Because he was spouting off, right?

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.

Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.

And as I said above, PR own goal.

Jezyboy

TheBigBean said:

Jezyboy said:

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.

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.

The whole issue really is a sea of "well there aren't any good answers".

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 abroad

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?

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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?

Because he was spouting off, right?

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.

Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.

And as I said above, PR own goal.

No, you've got the wrong end of the stick here.

Farage made a claim first, in public. He kicked it off.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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?

Because he was spouting off, right?

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.

Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.

And as I said above, PR own goal.

Yes, they should have just put up his fees until he moved of his own accord.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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?

Because he was spouting off, right?

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.

Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.

And as I said above, PR own goal.

No, you've got the wrong end of the stick here.

Farage made a claim first, in public. He kicked it off.

If Coutts hadn't written the report about Farage then he wouldn't have had much to spout about.

And allegedly Rose leaked confidential info to a BBC journo.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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?

Because he was spouting off, right?

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.

Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.

And as I said above, PR own goal.

No, you've got the wrong end of the stick here.

Farage made a claim first, in public. He kicked it off.

If Coutts hadn't written the report about Farage then he wouldn't have had much to spout about.

And allegedly Rose leaked confidential info to a BBC journo.

How do you leak something that isn't true?
Embarrassing for Coutts but he's still dumped. Something for everyone.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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?

Because he was spouting off, right?

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.

Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.

And as I said above, PR own goal.

Yes, they should have just put up his fees until he moved of his own accord.

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.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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?

Because he was spouting off, right?

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.

Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.

And as I said above, PR own goal.

No, you've got the wrong end of the stick here.

Farage made a claim first, in public. He kicked it off.

If Coutts hadn't written the report about Farage then he wouldn't have had much to spout about.

And allegedly Rose leaked confidential info to a BBC journo.

How do you leak something that isn't true?
Embarrassing for Coutts but he's still dumped. Something for everyone.

Possibly deliberate disinformation? In any event a breach of client confidentiality.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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?

Because he was spouting off, right?

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.

Nope, Alison Rose was doing the spouting it would seem.

And as I said above, PR own goal.

No, you've got the wrong end of the stick here.

Farage made a claim first, in public. He kicked it off.

If Coutts hadn't written the report about Farage then he wouldn't have had much to spout about.

And allegedly Rose leaked confidential info to a BBC journo.

How do you leak something that isn't true?
Embarrassing for Coutts but he's still dumped. Something for everyone.

Possibly deliberate disinformation? In any event a breach of client confidentiality.

Tinfoil on standby. Have you considered that Jack might have been mistaken.