|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 17:08:24 GMT
Not sure that political views is a protected characteristic? Beliefs? Ah! You obviously have a particular piece of legislation in mind. What is it? And what section are you relying on? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 26, 2023 17:10:10 GMT
I think you will find that is in UK banking law - ie you aren't supposed to use a banking licence to force political beliefs on your customers.
One odd comment the former CEO made contained a reference to 'legal political opinions' - odd because, in the UK all political opinions are legal.
This person was probably a bit of an idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 26, 2023 17:11:26 GMT
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.
The BBC had previously reported Farage falling below the financial threshold required to be a customer at Coutts - whose website advises its clients should be able to borrow or invest at least 1 million pounds ($1.28 million) with the bank or hold 3 million pounds in savings - was the reason for the closure
LIES^^
**We now know the TRUTH it was closed because of his political views.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 26, 2023 17:14:20 GMT
I think you will find that is in UK banking law - ie you aren't supposed to use a banking licence to force political beliefs on your customers. One odd comment the former CEO made contained a reference to 'legal political opinions' - odd because, in the UK all political opinions are legal. This person was probably a bit of an idiot. No they aren't. ''we need to rise up and kill the Jews'' is not a legal political opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 17:15:17 GMT
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.
The BBC had previously reported Farage falling below the financial threshold required to be a customer at Coutts - whose website advises its clients should be able to borrow or invest at least 1 million pounds ($1.28 million) with the bank or hold 3 million pounds in savings - was the reason for the closure
LIES^^
**We now know the TRUTH it was closed because of his political views.
That's not a ground for suing for defamation. The Manfrog might be on more solid ground suing for discrimination. The only article discussing the subject I've been able to find is behind a paywall. The article suggests that discrimination for 'beliefs' is a ground, but, from what I was able to see of the article, that opinion is based on the views of 'bankers', not lawyers. 'Beliefs' seems like a hopelessly broad ground, though. And, I wonder what the damages might be. Have you looked at the case law? Is it a couple of thousand? Do applicants who prove discrimination generally get more than £10,000? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 26, 2023 17:18:06 GMT
I bet that silly ex-CEO lefty idiot Alison will be kicking her daft lefty butt, she's lost 3 well paid jobs because of her political beliefs, quite ironic really ... LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 26, 2023 17:19:07 GMT
I think you will find that is in UK banking law - ie you aren't supposed to use a banking licence to force political beliefs on your customers. One odd comment the former CEO made contained a reference to 'legal political opinions' - odd because, in the UK all political opinions are legal. This person was probably a bit of an idiot. No they aren't. ''we need to rise up and kill the Jews'' is not a legal political opinion. Yes it is. You could only be charged with acting illegally. The opinion itself would not be a crime. As an example - If a policeman takes you in for questioning and under interrogation you reveal such an opinion, you have committed no crime. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 26, 2023 17:20:44 GMT
The BBC had previously reported Farage falling below the financial threshold required to be a customer at Coutts - whose website advises its clients should be able to borrow or invest at least 1 million pounds ($1.28 million) with the bank or hold 3 million pounds in savings - was the reason for the closure
LIES^^
**We now know the TRUTH it was closed because of his political views.
That's not a ground for suing for defamation. The Manfrog might be on more solid ground suing for discrimination. The only article discussing the subject I've been able to find is behind a paywall. The article suggests that discrimination for 'beliefs' is a ground, but, from what I was able to see of the article, that opinion is based on the views of 'bankers', not lawyers. 'Beliefs' seems like a hopelessly broad ground, though. And, I wonder what the damages might be. Have you looked at the case law? Is it a couple of thousand? Do applicants who prove discrimination generally get more than £10,000? Bloody hell Darling are you trying to compete with redrum for asking the same question over and over and over again FFS ... here for the last time
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.
It's an open and shut case the bank lied why they closed his account.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 17:22:10 GMT
That's not a ground for suing for defamation. The Manfrog might be on more solid ground suing for discrimination. The only article discussing the subject I've been able to find is behind a paywall. The article suggests that discrimination for 'beliefs' is a ground, but, from what I was able to see of the article, that opinion is based on the views of 'bankers', not lawyers. 'Beliefs' seems like a hopelessly broad ground, though. And, I wonder what the damages might be. Have you looked at the case law? Is it a couple of thousand? Do applicants who prove discrimination generally get more than £10,000? Bloody hell Darling are you trying to compete with redrum for asking the same question over and over and over again FFS ... here for the last time
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.
It's an open and shut case the bank lied why they closed his account.
Are you competing with Jonksy for the title of most stupid gammon? You have yourself said that it must be published to a third party. As I have pointed out, Nigel Farage published it, not the bank! Farage made a freedom of information request, and then made the contents public himself. So, there was no publication by the bank! |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 26, 2023 17:22:21 GMT
A claim for malicious falsehood may be brought against a defendant who maliciously publishes a false statement which identifies the claimant, their business, property or other economic interests, and can be shown to have caused the claimant financial loss or to fall within one of the exceptions in section 3(1) of the 1952 Defamation Act.
A typical situation in which a claim for malicious falsehood arises is where one competitor has made an untrue statement about another’s goods or services, which is calculated to cause the competitor financial loss. Slander of goods or title are types of malicious falsehood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 26, 2023 17:24:18 GMT
Bloody hell Darling are you trying to compete with redrum for asking the same question over and over and over again FFS ... here for the last time
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.
It's an open and shut case the bank lied why they closed his account.
Are you competing with the Jonksy for the title of most stupid gammon? You have yourself said that it must be published to a third party. As I have pointed out, Nigel Farage published it, not the bank! Farage made a freedom of information request, and then made the contents public himself. So, there was no publication by the bank! lolol the BBC is the 'third party' you clown lolol |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 17:25:40 GMT
Are you competing with the Jonksy for the title of most stupid gammon? You have yourself said that it must be published to a third party. As I have pointed out, Nigel Farage published it, not the bank! Farage made a freedom of information request, and then made the contents public himself. So, there was no publication by the bank! lolol the BBC is the 'third party' you clown lololWhat did they publish to the BBC? As far as I'm aware, they told the BBC that he didn't have enough in his account. That's not defamatory. That's a fact. That might be a breach of Data Protection Act, but it isn't defamation. And, as far as I can see, damages awards for breach of the Data Protection Act are relatively small (he can expect less that £13,000) LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 26, 2023 17:28:11 GMT
lolol the BBC is the 'third party' you clown lolol What did they publish to the BBC? As far as I'm aware, they told the BBC that he didn't have enough in his account. That's not defamatory. That's a fact. LOL! Seriously are you losing the plot?
I don't think you have a clue what's going on in the Farage v Coutts ... have you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 17:29:35 GMT
What did they publish to the BBC? As far as I'm aware, they told the BBC that he didn't have enough in his account. That's not defamatory. That's a fact. LOL! Seriously are you losing the plot?
I don't think you have a clue what's going on in the Farage v Coutts ... have you?
Tell me, then. Maybe, I've overlooked something. What did Coutts say to the BBC that was defamatory? I can see a breach of the Data Protection Act, but I don't see defamation. You can obviously see something I've missed. Just point it out. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 26, 2023 17:31:07 GMT
No they aren't. ''we need to rise up and kill the Jews'' is not a legal political opinion. Yes it is. You could only be charged with acting illegally. The opinion itself would not be a crime. As an example - If a policeman takes you in for questioning and under interrogation you reveal such an opinion, you have committed no crime. Try expressing that political opinion in public or on any form of media and will find yourself charged with incitement to violence and incitement to racial hatred. It is an illegal political opinion in the UK. |
|
