ChatterBank1 min ago
Newspapers Are Continuing To Spin The Lie That Farage Was Not To Poor Hold An Account With Coutts
Those of you who followed my previous post on this topic will know that the Coutts 40 page report stated unequivocally that ‘After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, Farage would not be a criteria client’ In other words, he would be too poor to hold an account with them – and this was the reason they debanked him.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Farage would not be a criteria client, after the expiry of his mortgage?
we all agree on that
but we should all agree that the critierion didnt fit at the time of writing
but in the future, and so it implies they had decided already and a handy condition wd present itself in a few months
you might say "no it shows they were going to do the whole thing again with fresh unsullied minds"
virtually no one else agree with that
we all agree on that
but we should all agree that the critierion didnt fit at the time of writing
but in the future, and so it implies they had decided already and a handy condition wd present itself in a few months
you might say "no it shows they were going to do the whole thing again with fresh unsullied minds"
virtually no one else agree with that
//If you want, I’ll quote verbatim from their 40 page report.//
No please don't bother. You will only quote the parts of it which suit your agenda. In an earlier thread on this same topic I quoted some other passages from the report which placed the part which you insist on emphasising into proper context. I asked you to comment on that and you ignored it.
In short, the Coutts report says that when Mr Farage's mortgage came to an end he would possibly no longer meet their financial criteria to continue being a customer. However (and this is the part you conveniently ignore) the bank would then consider its position (as it does not automatically de-bank customers in those circumstances). It went on to say that when making that consideration they would take into account (in precis) that he was a friend of Donald Trump and Novak Djokovic and that he held views on climate change and immigration which did not concur with the bank's values.
The BBC has amended its story and apologised for mis-reporting the facts, the bank has provided an apology from its CEO. And here's a passage from The Guardian (not known for the support it provides to Mr Farage:
---
The minutes of Coutts committee’s meeting make two things clear. First, Farage was still regarded as wealthy enough to be a profitable customer. “The client’s EC [economic contribution] is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis,” it says, noting that he had been downgraded to “lower risk” in the classification of “politically exposed persons”.
Second, the choice to get shot of Farage was motivated by Coutts’ objections to his views. “The committee did not think continuing to bank NF [Nigel Farage] was compatible with Coutts given his publicly stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” He failed a political or inclusivity test and was regarded as a risk reputation-wise.
---
Yet you still insist you are correct. As I said in the other thread, time to give this one up, methinks. But I'll not hold my breath because Your entire ethos seems to be built around cherry-picking passages of written or spoken comments which answer your questions to your satisfaction. The rest of us (with one or two notorious exceptions) seem able to absorb all the information being presented and not just the parts you want us to hear.
No please don't bother. You will only quote the parts of it which suit your agenda. In an earlier thread on this same topic I quoted some other passages from the report which placed the part which you insist on emphasising into proper context. I asked you to comment on that and you ignored it.
In short, the Coutts report says that when Mr Farage's mortgage came to an end he would possibly no longer meet their financial criteria to continue being a customer. However (and this is the part you conveniently ignore) the bank would then consider its position (as it does not automatically de-bank customers in those circumstances). It went on to say that when making that consideration they would take into account (in precis) that he was a friend of Donald Trump and Novak Djokovic and that he held views on climate change and immigration which did not concur with the bank's values.
The BBC has amended its story and apologised for mis-reporting the facts, the bank has provided an apology from its CEO. And here's a passage from The Guardian (not known for the support it provides to Mr Farage:
---
The minutes of Coutts committee’s meeting make two things clear. First, Farage was still regarded as wealthy enough to be a profitable customer. “The client’s EC [economic contribution] is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis,” it says, noting that he had been downgraded to “lower risk” in the classification of “politically exposed persons”.
Second, the choice to get shot of Farage was motivated by Coutts’ objections to his views. “The committee did not think continuing to bank NF [Nigel Farage] was compatible with Coutts given his publicly stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” He failed a political or inclusivity test and was regarded as a risk reputation-wise.
---
Yet you still insist you are correct. As I said in the other thread, time to give this one up, methinks. But I'll not hold my breath because Your entire ethos seems to be built around cherry-picking passages of written or spoken comments which answer your questions to your satisfaction. The rest of us (with one or two notorious exceptions) seem able to absorb all the information being presented and not just the parts you want us to hear.
OG, //The big question is why some are still having a go at Farage and defending the bank's appalling actions. Very strange. //
Not strange at all for the deliberately evasive. Brexit happened, Farage, like Boris, was instrumental in that, neither of them will ever be forgiven and any excuse will do - even if it is very clearly a lie.
Not strange at all for the deliberately evasive. Brexit happened, Farage, like Boris, was instrumental in that, neither of them will ever be forgiven and any excuse will do - even if it is very clearly a lie.
//It strikes me that for many, the only reason the bank’s actions are appalling is because the customer concerned is Farage.//
Which demonstrates that you only absorb what you want to hear. In the earlier thread I stated that I was profoundly disturbed by the bank's action (keeping tabs on who their clients befriend and what their views on topical issues are). I also stated that I would feel exactly the same had the client concerned been Jeremy Corbyn.
Which demonstrates that you only absorb what you want to hear. In the earlier thread I stated that I was profoundly disturbed by the bank's action (keeping tabs on who their clients befriend and what their views on topical issues are). I also stated that I would feel exactly the same had the client concerned been Jeremy Corbyn.
As pointed out, the financial criteria is clearly an excuse, since it isn't one applied consistently; but would prove useful when determined to make life difficult for a customer for hidden reasons. (Be they, spite, wokeness, or whatever.) As such, removing a vital banking service without any valid reason is obviously appalling. All the more so when trying to move to another bank you find they are all in cahoots; or should that be caCoutts ?
Latest Posts
Chicken Drumstick, Pork Pie, Glass Of...
News3 mins ago
Spectator N0 2680 : "Two Of A...
Crosswords6 mins ago
Spam & Scams13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.