|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 20, 2023 18:13:39 GMT
That’s right. There were some inappropriate comments on his file. What the apology did not say was that the account was closed because of his political beliefs. The facts we await is to understand why that decision was made and why it was made now. Until this row blew up he was much lower profile than he was say five years ago. So if in whole or in part because of his beliefs, why now not then? By the way I said I think on page 1 of this thread that IF the account was closed because of his beliefs, that would be outrageous. We wait to find out if it was. Yes it did.
Facts, Dappy. Facts.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 20, 2023 18:15:35 GMT
Farage has just said that today he was discreetly informed that Alison Rose was 'told' to apologise by the treasury. Perhaps that's why Lord Moylan says it's not much of an apology and has only made things worse. One thing is for sure, this is not the end. Farage is angry and he's taking this further. Good man.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 20, 2023 18:17:30 GMT
I have read the apology in full, which was described by Lord Moylan as no apology at all and rather makes things worse for the bank. Just read it. They appear to have apologised for inappropriate comments they made and re-iterated that they do not close accounts for political beliefs. So we still don't know why they closed his account. Correct, it now transpires Alison Rose was 'told' to apologise by the treasury, which is why it's not much of an apology and is why Farage is taking it further.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 20, 2023 18:19:23 GMT
I think you need to read the apology Swueezed. You are wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 18:22:13 GMT
Good What in your opinion does it say? No idea who lord moylan is by the way? What it says is that despite your glee initially at Farage being targeted the Bank have come out looking prize ***** good because they are. Well it's in the public domain so here goes. Dear Mr Farage,
I am writing to apologise for the deeply inappropriate comments about yourself made in the now published papers prepared for the Wealth Committee. I would like to make it clear that they do not reflect the view of the bank.
I believe very strongly that freedom of expression and access to banking are fundamental to our society and it is absolutely not our policy to exit a customer on the basis of legally held political and personal views. To this end, I would also like to personally reiterate our offer to you of alternative banking arrangements at NatWest.
I fully understand yours and the public’s concern that the processes for bank account closure are not sufficiently transparent. Customers have a right to expect their bank to make consistent decisions against publicly available criteria and those decisions should be communicated clearly and openly with them, within the constraints imposed by the law.
To achieve this, sector wide change is required, but your experience, highlighted in recent days, has shown we also need to put our own processes under scrutiny too. As a result I am commissioning a full review of the Coutts processes for how these decisions are made and communicated, to ensure we provide better, clearer and more consistent experience for customers in the future.
The review will be reporting to me as NatWest Group CEO.
I welcome the FCA’s reviews of regulatory rules associated with Politically Exposed Persons, and we will implement the recommendations of our review alongside any changes that they or the Government makes to the overall regulatory framework.
Yours sincerely,
Alison Rose.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 20, 2023 18:29:52 GMT
Thank you for posting that Black.
As you will see it confirms what I said.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 20, 2023 18:32:02 GMT
As has been pointed out, it's a forced apology and doesn't address many of the issues that need answering. For instance: Why are Coutts still denying him a ban account [Even though they have issued an apology] Why did Coutts change their mind about the reasons for cancelling Farage's accounts, why did Coutts secretly collude with the BBC and divulge personal information to both the BBC and the press about a customers private affairs, which incidentally is against the law, there's a lot more. A less than competent lawyer could take NatWest to the cleaners, and as Farage said a few minutes ago, this is not the end.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 20, 2023 18:33:11 GMT
Thank you for posting that Black. As you will see it confirms what I said. Pillock.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 20, 2023 18:53:02 GMT
I presume “Pillock” is Rackham code for “oh shit you have been proven right again, bugger”.
You are quite right in your previous post. There are many facts about this story we don’t know.
To clear all this up, perhaps Farage could authorize the bank to release publically the 40 page reports and recommendation paper to the committee and indeed all other relevant facts they hold.
Transparency is surely the key here
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 20, 2023 18:55:45 GMT
I think you need to read the apology Swueezed. You are wrong. I did. It's as quoted by me.
Facts, Dappy. Facts.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 20, 2023 18:58:08 GMT
I hate to return to the pantomime but
Oh no it doesn’t.
It’s printed a few posts up for FFS.
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 20, 2023 18:58:27 GMT
I presume “Pillock” is Rackham code for “oh shit you have been proven right again, bugger”... No. "Pillock" has its usual meaning in this context. As in you are wrong, as usual. And as quoted, and as per facts, and as usual and as per Dappy, etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 20, 2023 19:02:54 GMT
I presume “Pillock” is Rackham code for “oh shit you have been proven right again, bugger”. You are quite right in your previous post. There are many facts about this story we don’t know. To clear all this up, perhaps Farage could authorize the bank to release publically the 40 page reports and recommendation paper to the committee and indeed all other relevant facts they hold. Transparency is surely the key here. Dappy, even people who dislike Farage have spoken up in his defence. Politicians who for years have railed against him, have spoken up in his defence because to cancel someone's bank account because of their political opinions is clearly wrong. And it must be said, as far as I can see the only people who, thus far, have not spoken up for him are you and Starmer. So you're in good company.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 20, 2023 19:21:18 GMT
As I said Red on the very first page of this thread, IF Farage’s bank accounts were cancelled because of his political beliefs, that would be outrageous.
I didn’t spell it out but I will now if it helps, that would apply not only if that was the exclusive reason but also if it was the primary reason amongst others.
Contrary to Squeezed’s interpretation, the Nat West statement does NOT state that to be the case. In fact it confirms that would not be bank policy.
The bank is prevented by confidentiality from publishing the relevant papers but it could if Farage gave them permission to do so. Why do you think he has not done so? Could it be that the facts are not fully what Farage claims them to be.
By the way shall we have a little sweepstake on how long it will be before Farage announces his return to politics to fight for the common man against the iniquitous banks. Infamy infamy they’ve ….
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 20, 2023 19:39:16 GMT
As I said Red on the very first page of this thread, IF Farage’s bank accounts were cancelled because of his political beliefs, that would be outrageous. I didn’t spell it out but I will now if it helps, that would apply not only if that was the exclusive reason but also if it was the primary reason amongst others. Contrary to Squeezed’s interpretation, the Nat West statement does NOT state that to be the case. In fact it confirms that would not be bank policy. The bank is prevented by confidentiality from publishing the relevant papers but it could if Farage gave them permission to do so. Why do you think he has not done so? Could it be that the facts are not fully what Farage claims them to be. By the way shall we have a little sweepstake on how long it will be before Farage announces his return to politics to fight for the common man against the iniquitous banks. Infamy infamy they’ve …. Dappy, initially Coutts said his accounts were closed due to a lack of funds, that was false. The NatWest 'apology' on close inspection has been dismissed as a failed excercise in damage limitation that has probably made things worse, for Coutts. You claim Coutts is prevented from publishing relevant papers by confidentiality law. But that didn't stop Coutts divulging a customers private information to the BBC and press, which is against the law which is why there was no mention of it in the letter of apology. Farage is going to take Coutts to the cleaners, and it will probably cost Dame Alison Rose her job. And good riddance.
|
|