|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 27, 2023 16:51:14 GMT
Forcing a private company to take on customers they think are causing them reputational (and therefore financial) damage is a slippery slope. Hasn't Farage damaged British banking enough already? If business should not be forced to take on customers they disagree with then you would have no problem with a ban on Blacks and Gays? After all they are private companies.. Blacks and Gays are not individual customers. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 27, 2023 16:51:35 GMT
Good article in the Staggers that some of the (supposed) liberals and progressives on this forum could do with reading.. “This story is much bigger than Nigel Farage himself and we should be grateful that Coutts picked the wrong target this time.”
“If the left (and Labour) wants to salvage some credibility, it should rediscover its long-lost principles.”
How is this a free speech matter? Pepe has been on every news channel for a week claiming victimisation and doing his usual rabble rousing ''everybody listen to poor me'' speil. What about all the others who were debanked for their views - are they not worthy of freedom of speech?. Farage has simply highlighted a major problem with UK banking - but its a problem that existed long before he was debanked for his views and for Brexit. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 27, 2023 16:51:42 GMT
Forcing a private company to take on customers they think are causing them reputational (and therefore financial) damage is a slippery slope. Hasn't Farage damaged British banking enough already? If business should not be forced to take on customers they disagree with then you would have no problem with a ban on Blacks and Gays? After all they are private companies.. The law doesn't say that the banks can refuse to take on customers they disagree with. It says that they can refuse to take on customers that will cause them reputational damage. That is an entirely different thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 27, 2023 16:54:26 GMT
If business should not be forced to take on customers they disagree with then you would have no problem with a ban on Blacks and Gays? After all they are private companies.. Blacks and Gays are not individual customers. Relevance? - I thought the argument was that Banks, as private businesses, were entitled to take on whoever they liked?. If the 'values' of a bank were that homosexuality was a sin and they wished to have nothing to do with people like that surely that should be allowed in your world? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 27, 2023 16:55:20 GMT
If business should not be forced to take on customers they disagree with then you would have no problem with a ban on Blacks and Gays? After all they are private companies.. The law doesn't say that the banks can refuse to take on customers they disagree with. It says that they can refuse to take on customers that will cause them reputational damage. That is an entirely different thing. What reputational damage can be done to a Bank that provides services to the likes of Augusto Pinochet? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 27, 2023 16:58:04 GMT
The law doesn't say that the banks can refuse to take on customers they disagree with. It says that they can refuse to take on customers that will cause them reputational damage. That is an entirely different thing. What reputational damage can be done to a Bank that provides services to the likes of Augusto Pinochet? If Augusto Pinochet was a public figure in the UK, Coutts would probably have ditched him too. There isn't any public interest in the man, so the bank obviously felt no threat of reputational damage from its association with him. I'm not pro-Coutts, Doc. I'll be only too delighted if Farage and Coutts destroy each other. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 27, 2023 16:59:35 GMT
If business should not be forced to take on customers they disagree with then you would have no problem with a ban on Blacks and Gays? After all they are private companies.. The law doesn't say that the banks can refuse to take on customers they disagree with. It says that they can refuse to take on customers that will cause them reputational damage. That is an entirely different thing. Well the tax payers who bailed them out should have had the same option, they've taken my hard earned cash to pay some Coutts CEO silly bitch £5 million a year and other perks, and I want my fuckin money back, NatWest is not fit-for-purpose and 'us the tax payers have been conned in to bailing out banks so they can keep their CEOs and top brass in a lavish luxury lifestyle, while they've decided who they want to pick and choose to be their customers. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 27, 2023 17:02:01 GMT
The law doesn't say that the banks can refuse to take on customers they disagree with. It says that they can refuse to take on customers that will cause them reputational damage. That is an entirely different thing. Well the tax payers who bailed them out should have had the same option, they've taken my hard earned cash to pay some Coutts CEO silly bitch £5 million a year and other perks, and I want my fuckin money back, NatWest is not fit-for-purpose and 'us the tax payers have been conned in to bailing out banks so they can keep their CEOs and top brass in a lavish luxury lifestyle, while they've decided who they want to pick and choose to be their customers. I feel your pain, Fairy. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 27, 2023 17:04:54 GMT
Blacks and Gays are not individual customers. Relevance? - I thought the argument was that Banks, as private businesses, were entitled to take on whoever they liked?. If the 'values' of a bank were that homosexuality was a sin and they wished to have nothing to do with people like that surely that should be allowed in your world? No. For some years that has been illegal. I'm sure you know the reasons, so I wont divert the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 27, 2023 17:07:35 GMT
Well the tax payers who bailed them out should have had the same option, they've taken my hard earned cash to pay some Coutts CEO silly bitch £5 million a year and other perks, and I want my fuckin money back, NatWest is not fit-for-purpose and 'us the tax payers have been conned in to bailing out banks so they can keep their CEOs and top brass in a lavish luxury lifestyle, while they've decided who they want to pick and choose to be their customers. I feel your pain, Fairy. I'm sure you do, you not being a tax payer haven't contributed to the offensive CEO fatcat salaries, but you should be concerned, the more tax payers cash they guzzle, the less for the likes of you. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 27, 2023 17:13:33 GMT
Relevance? - I thought the argument was that Banks, as private businesses, were entitled to take on whoever they liked?. If the 'values' of a bank were that homosexuality was a sin and they wished to have nothing to do with people like that surely that should be allowed in your world? No. For some years that has been illegal. I'm sure you know the reasons, so I wont divert the thread. Yes it is illegal - but only since 2010. So before then you were in favour of allowing banks to discriminate against gays - after all a private business should be allowed to decide for themselves who they do business with. Would you extend this idea to energy companies - should they be allowed to disconnect customers from the grid if their values do not align with the company? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 27, 2023 17:20:01 GMT
I'm sure you do, you not being a tax payer haven't contributed to the offensive CEO fatcat salaries, but you should be concerned, the more tax payers cash they guzzle, the less for the likes of you. If the average payment to a victim of the Windrush Scandal was between £50,000 and £100,000, what do you think a fair payment to the manfrog for his 'pain' would be, Fairy? Squeaky and Vinny have pulled damages figures out of their arses, so there's no reason why you shouldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Jul 27, 2023 17:20:20 GMT
The boss of upmarket private bank Coutts has become the second banking chief in two days to resign over the closure of Nigel Farage’s accounts.
Peter Flavel acknowledged the handling of the former Ukip leader’s case “fell below Coutts’s high standards” and stepped down with immediate effect on Thursday.
His departure piles pressure on Sir Howard Davies, the chairman of NatWest - which owns Coutts - to stand down. It follows the middle of the night resignation of Dame Alison Rose as the chief executive of NatWest, after a furore which has plunged the bank into chaos.
Sir Howard initially expressed “full confidence” in Dame Alison when she admitted she was the source of a leak to a BBC journalist, which led to a misleading story suggesting Mr Farage’s accounts were shuttered solely for financial reasons.
Mr Farage later obtained internal documents labelling him as “xenophobic and racist” and a “grifter” - suggesting his account was closed in part due to his political views
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jul 27, 2023 17:22:06 GMT
The boss of upmarket private bank Coutts has become the second banking chief in two days to resign over the closure of Nigel Farage’s accounts. Peter Flavel acknowledged the handling of the former Ukip leader’s case “fell below Coutts’s high standards” and stepped down with immediate effect on Thursday. His departure piles pressure on Sir Howard Davies, the chairman of NatWest - which owns Coutts - to stand down. It follows the middle of the night resignation of Dame Alison Rose as the chief executive of NatWest, after a furore which has plunged the bank into chaos. Sir Howard initially expressed “full confidence” in Dame Alison when she admitted she was the source of a leak to a BBC journalist, which led to a misleading story suggesting Mr Farage’s accounts were shuttered solely for financial reasons. Mr Farage later obtained internal documents labelling him as “xenophobic and racist” and a “grifter” - suggesting his account was closed in part due to his political views Excellent! |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 27, 2023 17:26:35 GMT
I'm sure you do, you not being a tax payer haven't contributed to the offensive CEO fatcat salaries, but you should be concerned, the more tax payers cash they guzzle, the less for the likes of you. If the average payment to a victim of the Windrush Scandal was between £50,000 and £100,000, what do you think a fair payment to the manfrog for his 'pain' would be, Fairy? Squeaky and Vinny have pulled damages figures out of their arses, so there's no reason why you shouldn't. Hate to break it to you Darling ..
How much compensation can I get for injury to feelings? Check how much you can claim for hurt or distress - injury to feelings awards
Band Amount Lower £1,100 to £11,200 Middle £11,200 to £33,700
High £33,700 to £56,200
** I bet Farage feelings were between High £33,700 to £56,000 hurt ........ LOL
|
|
