|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 26, 2023 16:28:44 GMT
Ok he was born here but Rachid Radouane wasn't. He was one of the London bridge attackers.
There is no reason to make it easy for terrorists to come in and kill us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 16:31:22 GMT
Erm ... the statement that the reasons were 'non-commercial' was itself commercially driven. That's how PR works - ypu present yourself in the very best light. But if you're inclined to believe that banks are philanthropic organisations, who are we to disillusion you? This would be an unnecessary risk. Every lefty progressive would already know in their heart of hearts you were sticking it to the gammon anyway. Any PR advantage would stick, whether you said it was commercially based or not. The arithmetic doesn't work anyway - as we are seeing. This is probably the first major bank since the fall of the Third Reich that has engaged in a racist attack on a customer. I've no idea what you're talking about, Mags. A racist attack? |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 26, 2023 16:34:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 26, 2023 16:35:18 GMT
LOL! Neither Nigel Farage nor Boris Johnson can succeed in a libel suit based on the claim that someone called them a liar. In order to win that case, Farage would have to demonstrate that he is not a liar, not only in the very specific circumstances of this case, but generally. Libel is like theft. You steal someone's good reputation. If that person didn't have a good reputation in the first place, it is impossible to steal it from them. That is the law. Good luck to the manfrog!!! Pepe having to give evidence under oath in order to prove ''disingenuous grifter'' is libelous? Talk about threatening me with having a good time. If Farage does sue there is absolutely no way that NatWest will want it to go to court and have to defend their actions. It will be a secret deal with a non-disclosure agreement and a payoff to Farage to make it all go away. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 16:36:43 GMT
Pepe having to give evidence under oath in order to prove ''disingenuous grifter'' is libelous? Talk about threatening me with having a good time. If Farage does sue there is absolutely no way that NatWest will want it to go to court and have to defend their actions. It will be a secret deal with a non-disclosure agreement and a payoff to Farage to make it all go away. What is he supposed to be suing for? From all the talk of litigation from the Right, I assume something has appeared in a newspaper. Can you share the details? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 26, 2023 16:41:06 GMT
Discrimination and defamation
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 26, 2023 16:43:33 GMT
Pepe having to give evidence under oath in order to prove ''disingenuous grifter'' is libelous? Talk about threatening me with having a good time. If Farage does sue there is absolutely no way that NatWest will want it to go to court and have to defend their actions. It will be a secret deal with a non-disclosure agreement and a payoff to Farage to make it all go away. There's always one person who wants to spoil my fun.  |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 16:51:46 GMT
Discrimination and defamation Do you have a link? Has he stated the grounds for his 'discrimination' claim? What is the basis for his claim that he was defamed? I assume it's something other than the statement that he 'is perceived to be a disingenuous grifter', as it is a fact that he is so perceived. Maybe, it's based on another statement? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 16:55:27 GMT
Discrimination and defamation I don't suppose he's suing for the claims made in the bank's internal correspondence, as Farage himself published those, not the bank. And he can't sue just because the bank's employees will have read defamatory remarks about him in that correspondence, as that is covered by the privilege defence (unless it can be proved that the bank was actuated by malice (very difficult)). |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 26, 2023 17:02:32 GMT
He isn't suing anyone as yet - but the grounds for any successful action are quite clear should he decide to go ahead.
And as I said - NatWest are not going to want any more adverse publicity. They have already offered a public apology so there is absolutely no way they are going to now try and defend themselves in a Court of Law over a few bob that is a trivial amount given the size of the business.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 26, 2023 17:03:07 GMT
Discrimination and defamation Not sure that political views is a protected characteristic? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 17:03:22 GMT
He isn't suing anyone as yet - but the grounds for any successful action are quite clear should he decide to go ahead. Oh, okay. I have to confess that they're not clear to me. But that's not to say they don't exist. What are those grounds? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 26, 2023 17:04:12 GMT
If the manfrog has a good legal case, he would be a fool not to sue. I'm genuinely curious as to what the grounds for suing would be, though. Have you read something somewhere? Put it this way Darling if the CEO of your bank handed details of your account to a third party without your consent, you'd be outraged, the CEO of Coutts not only give the BBC details of Farage financial status she malisciously 'lied' about them, which amounts to....
What does a claimant need to show to make out a claim in Malicious Falsehood? The statement must be published deliberately to a third party. The claimant must prove that the statement was not true.
Farage has proven the statement NOT TO BE TRUE, because we heard it straight from the horses mouth ... the CEO of coutts admitted it was lies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 17:04:30 GMT
If the manfrog has a good legal case, he would be a fool not to sue. I'm genuinely curious as to what the grounds for suing would be, though. Have you read something somewhere? Put it this way Darling if the CEO of your bank handed details of your account you'd be outraged, the CEO of Coutts not only give the BBC details of Farage financial status she malisciously 'lied' about them, which amounts to....
What does a claimant need to show to make out a claim in Malicious Falsehood? The statement must be published deliberately to a third party. The claimant must prove that the statement was not true.
Farage has proven the statement NOT TO BE TRUE, because we heard it straight from the horses mouth ... the CEO of coutts admitted it was lies.
Okay. What statements did she make that weren't true? I can see how there might be a breach of the Data Protection Act, but I don't see defamation or discrimination. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 26, 2023 17:04:49 GMT
Discrimination and defamation Not sure that political views is a protected characteristic? Beliefs? |
|
