You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
We absolutely shouldn’t need signs like that!
I agree, but that is a different subject..
apparently other customers of Coutts are contacting the BBC to say that they don’t meet the wealth criteria and they haven’t had their accounts closed.
Perhaps the wealth criteria only applies if you are an obnoxious ****er?
There is the concept (in some businesses and countries) of having lots of rules/laws/processes whose application/enforcement there is considerable discretion over. The idea is that nobody could possibly comply or navigate all of them, so if the powers that be are displeased for any reason with someone, then they can whack them with the aforementioned without revealing the true reason. Or just make use of the ever-present implied threat of that to steer things in the desired direction.
don’t meet the wealth criteria and they haven’t had their accounts closed.
Yet 🙂
I hate to sound like a crazed American, but the main stream media are really letting society down by not fact checking stuff before they spaff it everywhere.
yep it’s insane, they do seem to like flooding the airwaves with non-stories.
I think it’s weird thou,man of the people, complaining bitterly that he’s been downgraded on his bank account, in a cost of living crisis.
I’m sorry sir we have to withdraw your black card so you’ll have to slum it with a gold card.
He’s so offended that he can’t name drop Coutts anymore and has to struggle with a NatWest account like the rest of us.
Whatever next ,will his family office be forced to close 🙂
Did Coutts actually confirm this; everything I read seems to be 'people familiar with Coutts move' so probably insiders but not actually the bank itself?
Just makes his man of the people act even more ridiculous though, whether he has that wealth now or not. He has no more idea what normal people's lives are like than Sunak or Johnson or any of them.
Coutts won't make a public comment about a specific case.
The change in money laundering regs mentioned further up is probably the real reason.
Coutts won’t make a public comment about a specific case.
The change in money laundering regs mentioned further up is probably the real reason.
Feels like that to me, I can't help hoping all of his bleatings bring more focussed attention from the authorities on to his finances.
Ahhh, the good old Streisand effect. Keep on whinging loudly Nige, I'm sure you've hidden Vlad's donations expertly...
There’s one in our GP practice, it went up after a patient (bitter angry red faced man*) at one of our receptionist with his walking stick because he couldn’t get an appt. that day.
I’m confused what purpose the sign actually serves? Angry and irrational people are not usually calmed down by a sign. There’s no need to put a sign up to refuse a service (unless you are in some statutory service where a sign may not help anyway). It has zero bearing on any prosecution. Does a bit of laminated A4 make your staff feel protected? I’ve always assumed these were a bit of an HR bullshit thing - “if we get sued by the staff for their MH issues we can point at the sign and say not our fault”. Or if a staff member goes off with stress we can get rid of them easier by saying “we did everything we could”.
* and it’s always bitter angry red-faced men
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">its not. If that’s your experience in your practice I’d be wondering why you are only seeing angry men - are the women getting better service, or are they just so used to being downtrodden and ignored that they give up? Is it that men, in general, go to the GP less often than women so have become unaware of just how much of a shit show it’s become? Is it that women are more socially connected with their friends and willing to discuss their health issues with them and so either have found an informal way of getting advice or their friends have told them how to navigate the system? I am sure there are men getting angry and red faced because they can’t get an appointment today about the verruca they’ve had for years but in many cases angry patients either have an underlying addiction or mental health issue or have a genuine health concern (which may or may not be as big a concern to the clinician) which they’ve been trying to navigate the system for and coming up against barriers and little laminated signs.
</span>
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">If I was running a facility where people were getting angry regularly enough to consider a sign that states the obvious I’d be asking what can we do to alleviate some of that anger. That’s not pandering to angry people - the issues that make a man go red in the face and shout also affect lots of your other “customers” who are just passively pissed off instead. It’s not always about spending more to solve the problem either - often people get angry because they don’t think they are being listened to, they don’t understand something, or they don’t like the tone of the way they were responded to.
</span>
there’s no excuse for abusive behaviour, and my experience is police, prosecutors and the courts take it seriously when reported especially from places like pharmacies and doctors. But sometimes these places seem to have engineered their processes and environment almost to make it more likely to generate conflict. In contrast I’m sure that Coutts don’t make their customers queue up to then have to talk loudly through a Perspex screen sharing personal information for everyone else waiting to hear, or insist that to talk to their staff you must call at 0800 and keep hitting redial, or expect the customer who only meets them once a year to know how their system works even though you change it every six months, etc.
Actually, Please can someone deep fake him doing a payday loans advert... That would be awesome.
I want Farage to become the unofficial face of Wonga.com (do they still exist?)...
The other coutts customers who didn't meet the financial requirements probably passed the don't be a dick test, farage didn't
Angry and irrational people are not usually calmed down by a sign.
Not all angry people are irrational.
If someone is angry due to the time they have waited to been seen in an NHS provided facility, for example, being reminded by a sign that if they become abused and threatened towards staff it will result in them being ejected from the premises, that could well prevent unacceptable behaviour from developing in the first place.
I also can't help feeling that a zero tolerance sign gives staff an element of reassurance that their employers will fully support them should they be threatened or abused.
When I see zero tolerance signs my first reaction is that the staff have to operate in difficult and challenging circumstances. It is likely to make me cut them more slack.
there’s no excuse for abusive behaviour
That for me; is the entirety of what you're probably trying to say, the sign is just there to remind people of that. I don't expect any more from it than that really, You're probably aware that being a GP receptionist is perhaps one of the least respected positions a person can take on, and my staff are routinely abused by folks who are rude and dismissive all the way from speaking to my staff like they are servants, all the way to physical attacks with proper long lasting harm
Regardless of the state of the NHS, or the lack of appts or how hard it is to get through on the phone, or how long you have to queue, or all that other what-a-boutry in your post, the least folks can do, is perhaps take note of the sign, comprehend what it probably means to have to be a reception team member working in the NHS at the moment, and take a breath.
The other coutts customers who didn’t meet the financial requirements probably passed the don’t be a dick test, farage didn’t
From what Farage has been saying, he’s fallen short for a number of year. Perhaps they allow all customers grace periods, and his is over, where as other customers may still have time to come good on their claims of income/wealth.
If I was running a facility where people were getting angry regularly enough to consider a sign that states the obvious I’d be asking what can we do to alleviate some of that anger. That’s not pandering to angry people – the issues that make a man go red in the face and shout also affect lots of your other “customers” who are just passively pissed off instead. It’s not always about spending more to solve the problem either – often people get angry because they don’t think they are being listened to, they don’t understand something, or they don’t like the tone of the way they were responded to.
Nope, a proportion of people are just horrible and shouldn't be pandered to.
Nope, a proportion of people are just horrible and shouldn’t be pandered to.
Farage being one of them
or all that other what-a-boutry in your post,
None of it was what-aboutry. I started writing a long post explaining how you might perceive things as patient (or family member) in an NHS waiting room and how some of the things the facility does could make it better or worse, but I decided I've got better things to do with my time than argue with you about whether your laminated signs increase respect for your staff or make them less likely to suffer abuse. Perhaps it makes your staff feel better in which case who am I to have an opinion.
I'll tell you what Poly, The moment I start to tell you how to do your job or how to arrange things in your work place, feel free to lecture me all you want on the NHS' obsession with keeping the manufacturers of home laminating machines in business, ok?
I worked in Coutts for a bit, it's really just "Posh Natwest" and if I ever found myself in possession of millions of pounds, I wouldn't bank with them. It's like those expensive current accounts you can get that come with Gold debit cards, a bit of flash if you like that sort of thing. My 2p:
Coutts wouldn't give a flying one about having Farage on the books because he's an knob, he wouldn't make the top 100 list of knobs they've got accounts for, and as for history, it's a who's who of evil doers and dodgy dealers.
Having Russian money coming into the UK since the war though... yeah, they've few morals, but they've zero interest in getting involved in anything accually illegal, they'd rather you did that sort of thing elsewere since they wound down Coutts & Co Zurich. I doubt that's the reason why they dropped him though. If he's taking money from Russia and holding it in the UK he's mad, he's an ex-city boy, he'd know better than that, it'll be in Switzerland etc.
If I had to guess, it's as simple as the papers are saying now. There's not really an automatic mechnisum (or wasn't anyway) for dropping customers, only to open an account. I'd bet his (former) RM / BDM looked down their list of clients, saw he wasn't profitable enough (not enough lending or investment) to justify a 100/1 customer to RM and 'introduced' him to Natwest Premier Black Card or something, I think they're 1000/1 or something and he got the hump, it's peak Farage really. Coutts only really makes sense if you want to use them for borrowing/investing OR if you're seriously wealthy and just want a 'chap' you can call to sort shit out for you. It costs a fortune. You might as well use Natwest Premier for £30 or whatever, it's all but the same for a tiny fraction of the cost.
There’s one in our GP practice, it went up after a patient (bitter angry red faced man*) at one of our receptionist with his walking stick because he couldn’t get an appt. that day.
At my GP we used to have the opposite sign - asking the patients to put up with doctors' anger. This was about 5 years ago, wish I'd taken a picture of it. This was in the waiting room, not a joke sign in the kitchen.
Said something like: the doctors work long hours, are very stressed, and have a lot of responsibility. Please bear with them and understand if at times they raise their voice or become frustrated with you, and conduct yourself so as not to piss them off.
Oooh I do love an argument about signage. I didn't see any signs about abusive behaviour in the job centre today, but I did have to defeat* two security guards to enter.
*just a friendly hello.
poly
Free MemberThere’s one in our GP practice, it went up after a patient (bitter angry red faced man*) at one of our receptionist with his walking stick because he couldn’t get an appt. that day.
I’m confused what purpose the sign actually serves? Angry and irrational people are not usually calmed down by a sign. There’s no need to put a sign up to refuse a service (unless you are in some statutory service where a sign may not help anyway). It has zero bearing on any prosecution. Does a bit of laminated A4 make your staff feel protected? I’ve always assumed these were a bit of an HR bullshit thing – “if we get sued by the staff for their MH issues we can point at the sign and say not our fault”. Or if a staff member goes off with stress we can get rid of them easier by saying “we did everything we could”.
* and it’s always bitter angry red-faced men
<span style=”font-size: 0.8rem;”>its not. If that’s your experience in your practice I’d be wondering why you are only seeing angry men – are the women getting better service, or are they just so used to being downtrodden and ignored that they give up? Is it that men, in general, go to the GP less often than women so have become unaware of just how much of a shit show it’s become? Is it that women are more socially connected with their friends and willing to discuss their health issues with them and so either have found an informal way of getting advice or their friends have told them how to navigate the system? I am sure there are men getting angry and red faced because they can’t get an appointment today about the verruca they’ve had for years but in many cases angry patients either have an underlying addiction or mental health issue or have a genuine health concern (which may or may not be as big a concern to the clinician) which they’ve been trying to navigate the system for and coming up against barriers and little laminated signs.
</span><span style=”font-size: 0.8rem;”>If I was running a facility where people were getting angry regularly enough to consider a sign that states the obvious I’d be asking what can we do to alleviate some of that anger. That’s not pandering to angry people – the issues that make a man go red in the face and shout also affect lots of your other “customers” who are just passively pissed off instead. It’s not always about spending more to solve the problem either – often people get angry because they don’t think they are being listened to, they don’t understand something, or they don’t like the tone of the way they were responded to.
</span>there’s no excuse for abusive behaviour, and my experience is police, prosecutors and the courts take it seriously when reported especially from places like pharmacies and doctors. But sometimes these places seem to have engineered their processes and environment almost to make it more likely to generate conflict. In contrast I’m sure that Coutts don’t make their customers queue up to then have to talk loudly through a Perspex screen sharing personal information for everyone else waiting to hear, or insist that to talk to their staff you must call at 0800 and keep hitting redial, or expect the customer who only meets them once a year to know how their system works even though you change it every six months, etc.
Have two different threads merged into one here, I’m seeing chat about Coutts and chat about anger in GP practices.
I’m confused
Have two different threads merged into one here, I’m seeing chat about Coutts and chat about anger in GP practices.
I’m confused
Look it's quite straightforward if Coutts had a sign up saying please don't get angry then Farage wouldn't have thrown his toys out of the pram about his account being closed and none of this would have happened.
Look it’s quite straightforward if Coutts had a sign up saying please don’t get angry then Farage wouldn’t have thrown his toys out of the pram about his account being closed and none of this would have happened.
’No Povo’s’ would have had the same effect.
I just couldn't resist watching GB news Farage and a report they did on Coutts Bank.
They had a reporter outside attempting to question anyone coming out of the bank about Farage's issue and asking them if they were aware of Coutts links to slavery.
In fact they made a massive deal about the slavery angle, even though they themselves had taken the completely opposite view that families today or institutions which were being quizzed about their own slavery links should be left alone as that was long in the past and today is today.
What made it even funnier in a hypocritical point of view is who owns GB news, and his father was managing director of the Lever group which had links directly to slavery, sexual abuse,physical abuse of entire communities in the west indies.
The other owner a hedge fund has been accused by MP's of having links to Russian intelligence.
Curiouser and Curiouser
Have two different threads merged into one here, I’m seeing chat about Coutts and chat about anger in GP practices.
I’m confused
Yes and No, the red herring Farage and the RW propaganda press threw trying to link his financial woes to imaginary, clandestine efforts by the wokes seems to have triggered a few boring pedantic "bitter angry red-faced men" with a dislike of signage it seems...
My Colin Robinson reference back up the page really didn't land did it...
So it's technically "on topic", but it's really a tangent caused by people taking the bait offered by the protagonist in all of this. This thread should really be all about taking the piss out of Nigel IMO, but hey it's a free world, let's talk about how awful GPs receptionists are instead...
I’ll tell you what Poly, The moment I start to tell you how to do your job or how to arrange things in your work place, feel free to lecture me all you want on the NHS’ obsession with keeping the manufacturers of home laminating machines in business, ok?
my work place actively encourages people to challenge things that achieve nothing and we quite like to have a “hang on a minute, just cos everyone else does this should we” moment.
Have two different threads merged into one here, I’m seeing chat about Coutts and chat about anger in GP practices.
I think the parallel conversations arose from the question of providers of important services should have right to refuse to deal with objectionable people (by and large they should) and some people seem to feel that you should first warn objectionable people that they won’t be tolerated. There is a clear distinction though - as far as we are aware Mr Farage was thoroughly civil and decent to Couts staff. Even GB News would have struggled to find a way to fake outrage if Farage had been booted out the bank for calling the clerk a ****ing **** and threatening to have them killed if they didn’t sort it today. I think most people would be less comfortable if public services refused to engage with people who were civil and pleasant on the premises but espouse shite in the media, but I don’t mind if private ventures make legal rules for refusing custom whether it’s on their bank balance, future revenue potential, what they put on Twitter, or if they seem untrustworthy.
I gather he's not happy with the result of his SAR. Poor lamb.
BBC News - Nigel Farage: Coutts document 'shows bank account shut over my views'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66240298
Just seen the newspaper headlines on the BBC site - Torygraph stepping back a bit, Mail doubling down.
He should set up his own bank for politically exposed grifters which aligns with their values.
Has he mentioned anymore about leaving the country?
Asked what he plans to do in response to his accounts being closed and debit cards rendered defunct, he said: “Leave the country? I haven’t decided. I’ve really got to think about this.”
I think it is now about 9 banks that have refused to allow Nigel Farage to have an account with them. I feel that he might have better luck with a Russian bank.
This Telegraph article suggests that Farage's account was closed becasue the bank though he was bad for their corporate image and that he "didn't align with their inclusive values". It goes on to say that they had access to a 25 page dossier of background info on him showing what a risk he was. which included: Fascism, racism, xenophobia, pro Putin, pro RT, anti climate change and risky and obscure finances
I mean, when a bank of all the rapacious capitalist Institutions thinks you're beyond the pale, it's probably time to re-evaluate your life choices. I get the impression Nigel isn't one for a long night of the soul though
Fascism, racism, xenophobia, pro Putin, pro RT, anti climate change and risky and obscure finances
Surely there should be an investigation into how confidential information about one of their customers was leaked by a bank?
I had no idea.
Surely there should be an investigation into how confidential information about one of their customers was leaked by a bank?
Farage has shared it after obtaining it via a Subject Access Request.
Not sure thats worked quite how he intended.
" Mr Farage said he put in a subject access request because he wanted to establish the reason "behind them closing the account" "
Looks like there is no leak. He requested the information.
My comment that his bank had revealed confidential and sensitive information about Farage being a xenophobic, pro-Putin, fascist, climate change denying racist, might not have been entirely serious.
Sorry, missed the subtlety
Jacob Rees-Mogg raising this at PMQs. I admit couldn't pick anything out of the PM's answer.
David Davis wasting another PMQ with the same question. PM's answer something about "cracking down".
I've had two customers today say how appallingly they think NF is being treated by coutts - both are coutts customers, both voted Brexit etc.
I just laugh and say I think he's just got what's coming to him - if he doesn't meat the criteria of the bank, and effectively helped / was a primary spokesperson for tanking the economy with Brexit what does he expect? If he was a customer of mine that cost me money every time I walked into the shop I would refuse him custom too...
Farage continuing to bitterly complain on R4 world at 1 just now that the 'elites' have made his life a misery now that he's not got the £££££££££ x millions available to bank with Coutts...
He's merely the equivalent of a drunk pub goer getting chucked out for being drunk & disorderly.
Farage continuing to bitterly complain on R4 world at 1 just now that the ‘elites’ have made his life a misery
If I was the interviewer I'd be hard pressed not to respond "Do you not think its because they think you are a **** as well?"
Well Farage & the Telegraph seem to have got their message accross
even Sunak coming out in his defense!
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1681654695738200065
evn though his 'bombshell' memo clearly states that farage was downgraded beacuse he was a racist douchebag putin fanboy AS WELL AS NOT HAVING THE CASH TO QUALIFY FOR THE ACCOUNT
Nice to see the party of personal responsibility ****ing it up again
That tweet from Rishi makes no sense if you're the leader of the Tories. His party believes in the freedom of the market, which extends both ways. Y'know? If X-tian bakers in NI can refuse to make a cake celebrating gay pride, and that's cool, then banks can refuse to hold Farage's acct 'cause he's a ****. And Nigel's free to take his cash anywhere else he pleases. That's how the world should work according to the Tories
So Coutts accepted that closing Farage's account could cause them negative publicity but decided it was still worth doing. Cool.
And since Farage's alledged links with Russia now appear to be rather central to Coutts decision to close his account I am surprised that the Prime Minister should be so keen to defend him.
The Tories now back an individual's right to have links with Russia? Surely something for opposition parties to get their teeth into.
Plus another issue which undermines the Tory outrage over the closure of Farage's bank account is the fact that he claims about another 8 or 9 banks have refused him an account, is this a conspiracy by the banks?
These are private businesses, what are the Tories going to do - nationalise them? Presumably not. So tighter controls and regulations? But central to neoliberal philosophy is the belief of minimal/light touch regulations for banking and finance.
I see rushing to Farage's defence causing all sorts of problems for the Tories, and he isn't even a member of their party. They would do better to tell him to **** off. Which after all is what most people do, including apparently Couttes.
No one should be barred from using basic services for their political views...
...if they're rich enough.
Farage can open a "basic service" bank account like anyone else. Who here is eligible to hold a high wealth account at Coutts? Anyone...? How can it be a basic service then. Sunak is so out of touch. He's on another planet. Planet rich.
I do like Farage describing Coutts as 'prejudiced and nasty' 😂
Farage needs a slap.....
Please please please let Starmer and anyone else bring up Sunak's defence of this cretin.
If Farage was glassed in a pub I doubt much of the country would care other than the assailant getting a wodge of cash via gofundme for his defence case.
Use a Bavarian Maß glass.... (The one every idiot calls a Stein, although that refers to any mug/jug made from clay... A Maß is specifically a litre glass of beer.....)
They're designed with a Sollbruchstelle (a point at which they're designed to break, lit. a should-break-here-point) in the case of colliding with something. However, sadly I've seen them used in anger (Oktoberfest, village fest, etc) and they can still knock someone out.
Cheers!
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/15Jx4hYZ/20230709-173456.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/15Jx4hYZ/20230709-173456.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Farage can open a “basic service” bank account like anyone else
TBH wasn’t the Coutts exit plan a transition to a boggo NatWest.
Please please please let Starmer and anyone else bring up Sunak’s defence of this cretin.
You would think that rather than give moral support to Nigel Farage Rishi Sunak would be enjoying anything which causes him discomfort and further discredits him.
Nigel Farage is still President of Reform UK, which has pledged to stand their own candidates against every Tory candidate in the UK in the next general election.
The next general election is going to be difficult enough for Rishi Sunak without Reform UK standing candidates and drawing away votes in critical seats thereby allowing Labour victory in the marginals.
"The commitment will add to Rishi Sunak’s political woes and could make a Conservative defeat in the general election, expected next year, more likely."
Anything that makes Nigel Farage look like an obnoxious ****er which no reasonable person wants anything to do with will by default damage Reform UK. For senior Tories to rally round him makes no sense at all. Especially when Reform UK look as if they might play a small part in possibly the greatest Tory general election defeat in history.
Although I don't know how Reform UK's pledge to stand a candidate in every UK constituency will pan out with this commitment:
https://www.reformparty.uk/reformuk_sdp_general_election_pact
"Joint branding of ‘Reform UK & The Social Democratic Party"?
What makes the Reform UK-SDP pact particularly strange and bizarre is that the SDP is the rump of the 1981 right-wing breakaway from the Labour Party. And the reason they split away from the Labour Party was over three major policy differences - unilateral nuclear disarmament, nationalisation of the banks, and withdrawal from the European Economic Community.
Those three issues were a red line for the right-wingers who broke away from the Labour Party. Strange therefore that forty years later they should form an electoral pact with a party so hostile to European integration. Nowt so queer as folk.
If Rishi wants free speech, then he should make some laws to protect it. That's not the job of Coutts - they're a private company operating within the law.
This cracks me up. Don't make any laws to protect the public then complain when private companies fail to 'act responsibly'.
If closing accounts because your customer is an odious **** is their benchmark then they'll have no accounts left by the end of the year.
Not defending Farage in any way but I'd bet my house they have far far worse people on the books who they suck up to. The ones with a couple of billion knocking around in loose change.
Mr Sunak has forgotten that Free Speech does not come with a free platform. One may say what one wants subject to not breaking laws that prohibit hateful conduct or safety breaches. One is not entitled to a platform to say these things nor is one sheltered from the consequences of ones free speech.
Muck around and find out Nigel, you're at the find out stage.
Not defending Farage in any way but I’d bet my house they have far far worse people on the books who they suck up to.
but they walk the walk, rather than talk the talk. I’m,sure they’ve got plenty of odious customers doing odious things but they are at least smart enough to do it quietly. It’s Farage’s mouth that’s harmful to the banks reputation more than actions. He ruining it for everyone else.
Not defending Farage in any way but I’d bet my house they have far far worse people on the books who they suck up to. The ones with a couple of billion knocking around in loose change
They are probably not usually so public with their ism's though.
Yeah, but Farage is way more fun when wound up, he's going all offended over this, which is great to see, can't believe he's still being given the time of day in this country after the debacle that was Brexit.
In a Twitter post, the home secretary, Suella Braverman, accused NatWest Group of “politically biased dogma”, claiming “the Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry”
Have to wonder if she’s genuinely this stupid, or somehow imagines she’d be immune to the impact of a return to the 1950s social attitudes.
Not defending Farage in any way but I’d bet my house they have far far worse people on the books who they suck up to. The ones with a couple of billion knocking around in loose change.
Given the apparent tightening of the rules in April mentioned above, and Coutts being pulled up for breaching the old rules, they may not have as many dodgy customers as they did, and they must be delighted to be able to show they are dealing with undesirables
What I don't get is how anyone would know he banks with them, other than perhaps those close to him and those he might do business with. Would such a small number of people being aware he uses them really amount to reputational risk?
the SDP is the rump of the 1981 right-wing breakaway from the Labour Party
Same name, that's about it. The party currently using the name is a socially conservative anti-europe anti-immigration party made up of people who defected from UKIP and the Conservative party, not just Labour. Not so strange bed fellows for ReformUK, accept they are far less "small government" and are more interventionist, especially on housing, health and public vs private ownership of utilities.
Given the apparent tightening of the rules in April mentioned above, and Coutts being pulled up for breaching the old rules, they may not have as many dodgy customers as they did, and they must be delighted to be able to show they are dealing with undesirables
This is what I couldn't unpick from the PM's answers to questions at PMQs today. He kept talking about the rules changing, but I thought those rules meant that there would be MORE scrutiny by the banks of people of political interest, rather than forcing banks to handle their accounts.
Not defending Farage in any way but I’d bet my house they have far far worse people on the books who they suck up to. The ones with a couple of billion knocking around in loose change
thats the issue
Farage didn't have billions & with his mortgage ending they weren't getting enough interest off him to make him eligible for their account
Not so strange bed fellows for ReformUK,
Obviously you have a different opinion to mine but I reserve the right to feel that it is strange and ironic that the rump of the SDP should end up forming an electoral pact with Reform UK.
One of the principal disagreements that the Gang of Four had with the Labour Party's policies was over withdrawal from the EEC.
From the Limehouse Declaration:
"will strive for Britain to be shed of all isolationist and xenophobic attitudes towards the management of our nations foreign affairs. Hence, we support Britain’s responsibilities within the European Economic Community"
So yes, I think that it is strange and ironic that the party directly descended from the product of that declaration should now feel closer to Nigel Farage than the Labour Party.
I think a large part of this is linked to Farage's ego. He can no longer drop Coutts into conversation
OK he can but it will be an entertaining rant now.
The current SDP has nothing to do with the one formed by the Gang of Four
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK,_1990%E2%80%93present)
It looks like a political decision mascaraing as financial decision. If he is not financially viable as a customer just stick to that line, but to further justify their actions with some political related matters, the bank can only be seen as a higher/greater evil ... eviler ... LOL! (the link at this BBC news)
The current SDP has nothing to do with the one formed by the Gang of Four
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK,_1990%E2%80%93present)
If you had read your own link you would have seen this :
The current party traces its origin to the Social Democratic Party which was formed in 1981 by a group of dissident Labour Party Members of Parliament (MPs) and former Cabinet members Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Bill Rodgers and Shirley Williams, who became known as the Gang of Four.
Which is precisely my point.
It's not the same party. And it doesn't have the same policies. Most notably it is an anti-immigrant party, and that's why it is chasing some of the same voters as ReformUK and an alliance makes sense to both parties. The SDP long ago formed the LibDems after an alliance with a party about as different to ReformUK as you can get.
Anyway, it was back to angry Farage on Newsnight, as they dared to ask someone else to speak not just him. Not worth watching.
And it doesn’t have the same policies.
LOL! That is obviously exactly my point!
A party which traces its origin to the exceptionally pro-Europe Gang of Four now feels closer to Nigel Farage.
Pardon me for pointing out the irony of that! 😀
It's not the same party. That pro-Europe party became the LibDems.
Link for Farage on Newsnight for the masochists: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001nxw7
That party became the LibDems.
No it didn't. The Liberal Democrats are a different party to the SDP. The SDP didn't include any members of the Liberal Party.
But apart from that you are completely right.
The nicotine-stained man-frog was just on Newsnight
I am enjoying the delicious irony of a free marketeer, who has spent his life telling everyone that ‘the market’ should be left to decide everything, without interference from government, then wetting himself when ‘the market’ tells him to **** off and then demanding action from government
Ernie, you're wrong.
In 1981, an electoral alliance was established between the Liberal Party, a group which descended from the 18th-century Whigs, and the Social Democratic Party (SDP), a splinter group from the Labour Party. In 1988, the parties merged as the Social and Liberal Democrats, adopting their present name just over a year later.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats_(UK)
Also, your selective posting is becoming REALLY obvious. You missed the following pertinent info straight after the bit you posted:
The original SDP merged with the Liberal Party in 1988 to form the Liberal Democrats, but Owen, two other MPs and a minority of party activists formed a breakaway group also called the Social Democratic Party (1988–1990) immediately afterwards. That continuing party dissolved itself in 1990 after finishing behind the Official Monster Raving Loony Party in a by-election, but activists met and voted to continue the party in defiance of its National Executive, leading to the creation of the current Social Democratic Party under the leadership of the candidate who lost the by-election.
So links tenuous at best.
If you're gonna troll or shitpost you need to do better.
Git gud scrub.
So links tenuous at best.
So you agree that there is a link between the party that currently calls itself the SDP and the Gang of Four then.
I have absolutely no idea why pointing the irony of a party which traces its origins to the Gang of Four having a very close relationship with Nigel Farage should be a problem for anyone. Apart obviously a need to contradict wherever possible anything I say. And in that respect a couple of people are very predictable, particularly you SK.
And as for "selective posting" what do you want me to post, the entire internet? Someone posted a link to prove that " the current SDP has nothing to do with the one formed by the Gang of Four", the very first paragraph of their link said
"The current party traces its origin to the Social Democratic Party which was formed in 1981 by a group of dissident Labour Party Members of Parliament (MPs) and former Cabinet members Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Bill Rodgers and Shirley Williams, who became known as the Gang of Four"
So I obviously posted that. That bothers you?
If you’re gonna troll or shitpost you need to do better.
Always angry and quick with the personal insults, eh? And over the most mundane things.
Apparently Farage told BBC Radio 4's World at One :
"I have virtually no links of any kind to Russia whatsoever."
Virtually no links whatsoever? What does that mean?
I'm taking it as he definitely has links with Russia. Which given the present situation seems a perfectly reasonable reason for a bank to decline a customer.
Link for Farage on Newsnight for the masochists
So we got a different view to the narrative old fannybaws was putting out, and he didnt like her telling it straight, so at the end went on the personal attack.
Virtually no links whatsoever? What does that mean?
Snake oil salesmen talk. half truths, not or never the full facts.
I have
virtually nolinksof any kindto Russiawhatsoever.
Soooo, that then, eh Nige?
From the Oppenheimer trailer, on the risk of the bomb destroying the world. Seems to apply here, shame there’s no gif yet.
‘Near zero, what more do you want’
‘Zero!’
What I don’t get is how anyone would know he banks with them
In my experience*, people who bank with Coutts will tell you at every opportunity
*sample of one