|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 18:22:34 GMT
Publicly expose the bank? How can the bank be further exposed? Why wont it, if he takes them to court they have to put up a defense, and Farage puts his case forward, how do you think it will work? I've no idea how it will work, because I don't know what the basis of his claim will be. If the claim is defamation, most the court's time will be taken up with the bank's defences. It has several. If the claim is discrimination or breach of Data Protection Act, the damages awards will be minimal, and the case will be heard in a low court. I suppose that the bank might pay him off just to be rid of a nuisance. The damages for these things will be a pittance for the bank (in the area of £13,000, I should think (by comparison with damages for distress in other areas of law)). They might pay him nuisance money. Who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 26, 2023 18:26:18 GMT
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. True, but he doesn't have to accept any secret deals, Farage has the chance to publicly expose the bank, if it's about money he'll do a deal, if he genuinely wants to expose the bank he'll go all the way, the odds are they will withdraw any financial offer that was on the table, and he could end up with a big legal bill himself, but it will be interesting to see how it pans out. If he's wise he'll take the money and continue to campaign for further regulation/transparency for the banks. Everyone already knows what Coutts have done, no point dragging out the nitty gritty of that until everyone gets bored. Unless of course they decide to be silly in which case wash that dirty laundry in public. A move which is likely to end Coutts. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 26, 2023 18:30:01 GMT
True, but he doesn't have to accept any secret deals, Farage has the chance to publicly expose the bank, if it's about money he'll do a deal, if he genuinely wants to expose the bank he'll go all the way, the odds are they will withdraw any financial offer that was on the table, and he could end up with a big legal bill himself, but it will be interesting to see how it pans out. If he's wise he'll take the money and continue to campaign for further regulation/transparency for the banks. Everyone already knows what Coutts have done, no point dragging out the nitty gritty of that until everyone gets bored. Unless of course they decide to be silly in which case wash that dirty laundry in public. A move which is likely to end Coutts. I agree, he's probably better to take the money and run, the damage has been done, it's already cost the bank £800 million in share losses, I think, or hope they have learnt a valuable lesson, banks don't do politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 26, 2023 18:33:13 GMT
More regulation of the banks.
Damn, that's the second time today that I've been threatened with having a good time.
Bring it on Nige, maybe expose your tax avoiding offshore accounts while you are at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 18:37:50 GMT
True, but he doesn't have to accept any secret deals, Farage has the chance to publicly expose the bank, if it's about money he'll do a deal, if he genuinely wants to expose the bank he'll go all the way, the odds are they will withdraw any financial offer that was on the table, and he could end up with a big legal bill himself, but it will be interesting to see how it pans out. If he's wise he'll take the money and continue to campaign for further regulation/transparency for the banks. Everyone already knows what Coutts have done, no point dragging out the nitty gritty of that until everyone gets bored. Unless of course they decide to be silly in which case wash that dirty laundry in public. A move which is likely to end Coutts. What money? The nuisance money the bank might pay him? As I've repeatedly said, his time would be more profitably spent screwing £80 from people like you for a short video message. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 18:39:22 GMT
More regulation of the banks. Damn, that's the second time today that I've been threatened with having a good time. Bring it on Nige, maybe expose your tax avoiding offshore accounts while you are at it. Yeah, Brexit's really working out well, isn't it?.The Right wanted less regulation, now the manfrog is spearheading the campaign for more.  |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 26, 2023 18:41:01 GMT
If he's wise he'll take the money and continue to campaign for further regulation/transparency for the banks. Everyone already knows what Coutts have done, no point dragging out the nitty gritty of that until everyone gets bored. Unless of course they decide to be silly in which case wash that dirty laundry in public. A move which is likely to end Coutts. What money? The nuisance money the bank might pay him? As I've repeatedly said, his time would be more profitably spent screwing £80 from people like you for a short video message. you really are naive, the bank will strive to reduce any more damage limitation, I don't know why you keep going on about £80, you're sounding daft, |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 18:43:57 GMT
What money? The nuisance money the bank might pay him? As I've repeatedly said, his time would be more profitably spent screwing £80 from people like you for a short video message. you really are naive, the bank will strive to reduce any more damage limitation, I don't know why you keep going on about £80, you're sounding daft, Meh! Before you start calling people daft, you might want to reread your post above ('the bank will strive to reduce any more damage limitation'). |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 26, 2023 18:47:48 GMT
More regulation of the banks. Damn, that's the second time today that I've been threatened with having a good time. Bring it on Nige, maybe expose your tax avoiding offshore accounts while you are at it. Yeah, Brexit's really working out well, isn't it?.The Right wanted less regulation, now the manfrog is spearheading the campaign for more. ...and using EU legislation which protects a person's right to have a bank account without discrimination while he's at it. Hell, he might yet earn his MEP pension for services rendered. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 18:49:27 GMT
Yeah, Brexit's really working out well, isn't it?.The Right wanted less regulation, now the manfrog is spearheading the campaign for more. ...and using EU legislation which protects a person's right to have a bank account without discrimination while he's at it. Hell, he might yet earn his MEP pension for services rendered. Hope he's not a fifth columnist! |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 19:00:11 GMT
True, but he doesn't have to accept any secret deals, Farage has the chance to publicly expose the bank, if it's about money he'll do a deal, if he genuinely wants to expose the bank he'll go all the way, the odds are they will withdraw any financial offer that was on the table, and he could end up with a big legal bill himself, but it will be interesting to see how it pans out. If he's wise he'll take the money and continue to campaign for further regulation/transparency for the banks. Everyone already knows what Coutts have done, no point dragging out the nitty gritty of that until everyone gets bored. Unless of course they decide to be silly in which case wash that dirty laundry in public. A move which is likely to end Coutts. According to The Guardian, banks have a legal right to refuse or terminate a bank account if they believe the account holder poses a reputational risk. So, again, breach of The Data Protection Act aside, what cause of action does the manfrog have? The bank was entitled to close his account for reputational risk. It should have been honest that that was its primary reason for closing his account. Instead, it lied and said it closed his account solely for a shortage of funds. So, on what basis can the bank be sued for this lie? Is it illegal to lie about the motives for exercising a contractual right? I've not heard of any law to that effect. Can you enlighten us? www.theguardian.com/money/2023/jul/20/bank-account-closures-what-new-rules-mean-for-uk-customers |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 26, 2023 19:03:36 GMT
If he's wise he'll take the money and continue to campaign for further regulation/transparency for the banks. Everyone already knows what Coutts have done, no point dragging out the nitty gritty of that until everyone gets bored. Unless of course they decide to be silly in which case wash that dirty laundry in public. A move which is likely to end Coutts. According to The Guardian, banks have a legal right to refuse or terminate a bank account if it believes the account holder poses a reputational risk. So, again, breach of The Data Protection Act aside, what cause of action does the manfrog have? www.theguardian.com/money/2023/jul/20/bank-account-closures-what-new-rules-mean-for-uk-customersWhere does it say they can close them on the grounds of a customers political preference, because that's why Farage and many more people are having their accounts closed?
Banks could lose their licences if they close customers’ accounts over their political views, it has been reported.
According to The Times, ministers are considering making new laws that stop banks turning customers away in an effort to protect free speech.
The Treasury will also reportedly announce plans as soon as next week to extend the notice time given to customers to close their accounts from one month to three months.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jul 26, 2023 19:07:51 GMT
More regulation of the banks. Damn, that's the second time today that I've been threatened with having a good time. Bring it on Nige, maybe expose your tax avoiding offshore accounts while you are at it. Tax Avoidance measures are lawful and Off Shore Accounts are also lawful , its Tax Evasion that is unlawful. PS NatWest shares have fallen £600,000,000 today according to the Metro |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jul 26, 2023 19:08:02 GMT
...and using EU legislation which protects a person's right to have a bank account without discrimination while he's at it. Hell, he might yet earn his MEP pension for services rendered. Hope he's not a fifth columnist! I hope our jollity isn't spoiling anyone's gloating. Nah, I'm sure everyone is just happy that we're happy. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 26, 2023 19:10:43 GMT
Where does it say they can close them on the grounds of a customers political preference, because that's why Farage and many more people are having their accounts closed?
Banks could lose their licences if they close customers’ accounts over their political views, it has been reported.
According to The Times, ministers are considering making new laws that stop banks turning customers away in an effort to protect free speech.
The Treasury will also reportedly announce plans as soon as next week to extend the notice time given to customers to close their accounts from one month to three months.
It doesn't say that they can close accounts for political preference. It says they can close for risk of reputational damage, though. So, the bank was entirely within its rights to close his account. The only people who claim that the bank closed his account for political preferences are Farage and his gammon army. The bank, supported by its internal documents, claim that it was for risk of reputational damage. The burden of proof will lie with Farage to demonstrate that the bank acted because of his political beliefs rather than a fear of reputational damage. Where is Farage going to get that proof? Without it, he has no case. |
|
