Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology2 mins ago
Coutts Have (Not) Been Telling Fibs (Part Ii)
In the original thread on this topic, I pointed out that a financial expert had stated (in a youtube video) that Coutts had terminated Farage’s account because he no longer met the financial criteria to hold an account with them, once his mortgage came to an end.
Many pooh poohed my posts, pointing out that I was wrong (as was the financial expert) – and asking me to apologise.
Well, I have now read that 40 page report from Coutts, and indeed it does say that Farage’s account would be closed because he no longer met the financial criteria to hold an account (once the mortgage expired). It also mentions that the bank should continue to monitor Farage with regards a reputational risk to the bank, which should be escalated to the Bank’s Committee – and I assume that they could have closed the account on this basis if some incident has arisen, but they did not.
The actual relevant words from the report are copied and pasted below:-
‘With the support of the Committee, [the Chair] concluded as follows: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client, and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.
However, whilst the mortgage is in place we should continue to monitor NF, and if there is a ‘flash point’ involving NF which would increase the reputational risk to the bank, it should be escalated to this Committee promptly.’
Many pooh poohed my posts, pointing out that I was wrong (as was the financial expert) – and asking me to apologise.
Well, I have now read that 40 page report from Coutts, and indeed it does say that Farage’s account would be closed because he no longer met the financial criteria to hold an account (once the mortgage expired). It also mentions that the bank should continue to monitor Farage with regards a reputational risk to the bank, which should be escalated to the Bank’s Committee – and I assume that they could have closed the account on this basis if some incident has arisen, but they did not.
The actual relevant words from the report are copied and pasted below:-
‘With the support of the Committee, [the Chair] concluded as follows: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client, and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.
However, whilst the mortgage is in place we should continue to monitor NF, and if there is a ‘flash point’ involving NF which would increase the reputational risk to the bank, it should be escalated to this Committee promptly.’
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hyme - they thought they cd do it
The grand daughter of DOminic L was debanked and the Great and Good rolled over and accepted it ( poosies all of them)
God knows what my arab colleagues are gonna do when the banks find out they have contributed to charities in the middle east
..... what the banks are gonna do to my arab....
The grand daughter of DOminic L was debanked and the Great and Good rolled over and accepted it ( poosies all of them)
God knows what my arab colleagues are gonna do when the banks find out they have contributed to charities in the middle east
..... what the banks are gonna do to my arab....
what short memories we all have (*)
anyway the hoped for outcome is that
a.we have more accountabliity in the banks
b.the banks explain their decisions
c. you dont get debanked if you arent woke ( double neg there sozza).
d. they reiterate their trading purpose is banking and not re-education of a selected set of people
(*) good set of essays called the Curtain about targetted forgetting by Milan Cundera. He forgot that his testimony had cost an author colleague 10 y in prison for political crimes. and then someone found the papers in the ministry.
Clearly the author hadnt, but his testimony and memory was er less creditted
anyway the hoped for outcome is that
a.we have more accountabliity in the banks
b.the banks explain their decisions
c. you dont get debanked if you arent woke ( double neg there sozza).
d. they reiterate their trading purpose is banking and not re-education of a selected set of people
(*) good set of essays called the Curtain about targetted forgetting by Milan Cundera. He forgot that his testimony had cost an author colleague 10 y in prison for political crimes. and then someone found the papers in the ministry.
Clearly the author hadnt, but his testimony and memory was er less creditted
> The bank, in their own report, has stated “…the client’s economic contribution is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
Yep, while he still had a mortgage. Once the mortgage was paid, the contribution was not sufficient, and the relationship ended because the risk/reward was too high on the risk side for Coutts to carry on with it.
That is what happened.
Yep, while he still had a mortgage. Once the mortgage was paid, the contribution was not sufficient, and the relationship ended because the risk/reward was too high on the risk side for Coutts to carry on with it.
That is what happened.
Yeah the bit I dont understand
suppose you have £1m in cash ( haha) at the bank - goodie goodie, you have assets deposited of a million
and then you take out a mortgage of £2m - then you dont have 3 million at the bank but - - - minus one
so wivva mortgage, you have less and not more
so The Nige ending his mortgage should not, decrease his assets ( and os it is a criterion for assets is fulfilled)
that is why I am not a bank manager probably
or
COutts speaks with forked tongue
suppose you have £1m in cash ( haha) at the bank - goodie goodie, you have assets deposited of a million
and then you take out a mortgage of £2m - then you dont have 3 million at the bank but - - - minus one
so wivva mortgage, you have less and not more
so The Nige ending his mortgage should not, decrease his assets ( and os it is a criterion for assets is fulfilled)
that is why I am not a bank manager probably
or
COutts speaks with forked tongue
Hymie, however you dress this up or disguise it, there is no doubt that Coutts considered closing Mr Farage’s account because of his political views. The passage which Corby provided leaves that in no doubt:
“In making the decision risk factors including accusations of links to Russia, controversial public statements which were felt to conflict with the bank’s purpose and the possibility, speculated upon in the press and not denied, of re- entry to politics were taken into account.”
The decision may have been triggered by the ending of Mr Farage’s mortgage, but if that was the sole criterion for “exiting” him there was simply no need to take the factors listed above into consideration. In fact there was no need to take anything else into consideration at all. What the above passage suggests is that although Mr Farage’s finances had fallen below the level where Coutts would normally end their relationship, if he had concurred with their aims and values, they may well have kept it going (otherwise why consider those factors?)
I think you have pursued this to a level where you are beginning to look foolish. The letter of apology that Mr Farage received from Alison Rose, Natwest’s Group CEO, begins:
“I am writing to apologise for the deeply inappropriate comments about yourself made in the now published papers prepared for the wealth committee.”
Your gripe seems to be that Mr Farage lied about the matter. He did not. He suspected there were other considerations in play which clearly involved his views and political position and his suspicions were correct. I am pleased that the bank's duplicity has been exposed and I’m grateful to Mr Farage for that exposure. I would have been just as grateful had it been Jeremy Corbyn rather than Mr Farage as I do not feel particularly comfortable with a banking regime which chooses its customers based on their political opinions.
Time for you to give this one up, I would venture to suggest.
“In making the decision risk factors including accusations of links to Russia, controversial public statements which were felt to conflict with the bank’s purpose and the possibility, speculated upon in the press and not denied, of re- entry to politics were taken into account.”
The decision may have been triggered by the ending of Mr Farage’s mortgage, but if that was the sole criterion for “exiting” him there was simply no need to take the factors listed above into consideration. In fact there was no need to take anything else into consideration at all. What the above passage suggests is that although Mr Farage’s finances had fallen below the level where Coutts would normally end their relationship, if he had concurred with their aims and values, they may well have kept it going (otherwise why consider those factors?)
I think you have pursued this to a level where you are beginning to look foolish. The letter of apology that Mr Farage received from Alison Rose, Natwest’s Group CEO, begins:
“I am writing to apologise for the deeply inappropriate comments about yourself made in the now published papers prepared for the wealth committee.”
Your gripe seems to be that Mr Farage lied about the matter. He did not. He suspected there were other considerations in play which clearly involved his views and political position and his suspicions were correct. I am pleased that the bank's duplicity has been exposed and I’m grateful to Mr Farage for that exposure. I would have been just as grateful had it been Jeremy Corbyn rather than Mr Farage as I do not feel particularly comfortable with a banking regime which chooses its customers based on their political opinions.
Time for you to give this one up, I would venture to suggest.
Whilst Farage had a mortgage with Coutts, they would have had a charge on the property. Theoretically this could have been 100% of the property value, but in reality diminishing as the mortgage was paid off.
But I suspect for the purposes of the bank accounting, having a charge on the property entitled them to potentially 100% of its value (or at least the full original mortgage amount, loaned by the bank).
But I suspect for the purposes of the bank accounting, having a charge on the property entitled them to potentially 100% of its value (or at least the full original mortgage amount, loaned by the bank).
Banks should not debank a person where they meet the financial requirements to continue to hold an account with them. Farage failed to meet Coutts financial requirements to bank with them once his mortgage was paid off – hence they quite reasonably debanked him. And from what I have seen, advising him in advance that this would happen.
Farage failed to meet Coutts financial requirements to bank with them once his mortgage was paid off
yeah but no but
you are richer if you have no mortgage than if you have a whopping one - and so.... if he fulfilled the criteria whilst mortgaged then he has to fulfil the criteria - er a fortiori once he pays it off
unless..... they are using other criteria ( which is what the Nige said).
and it is this internal inconsistency or er lie that seems to make the whole thing get up and run. As for Rosie ( you know HER) running with the lie ( if she did) , you can automatically deny on the grounds that no one ( even if pd £5m a year) wd be that stupid, Rosie seems to have a death wish
Not too rambly is it for the av ABer? I have kept strictly to F, C and Rosie. No need for wobbly eyes and gasps
yeah but no but
you are richer if you have no mortgage than if you have a whopping one - and so.... if he fulfilled the criteria whilst mortgaged then he has to fulfil the criteria - er a fortiori once he pays it off
unless..... they are using other criteria ( which is what the Nige said).
and it is this internal inconsistency or er lie that seems to make the whole thing get up and run. As for Rosie ( you know HER) running with the lie ( if she did) , you can automatically deny on the grounds that no one ( even if pd £5m a year) wd be that stupid, Rosie seems to have a death wish
Not too rambly is it for the av ABer? I have kept strictly to F, C and Rosie. No need for wobbly eyes and gasps
the remainder of the 40 page Coutts report noted that Farage was a dodgy geezer, had nothing to do with them debanking him.
well Yes it was - because they used the 40 p document as a reason to debank him
and disregarding bits means you have to stand up and say " yeah Page one is OK, and two. Not 5 and 6. P 10 where we call him a crook and grifter, deffo not"
and it makes people scream, Liar Liar!
and that is the posn Coutts seems to be in
well Yes it was - because they used the 40 p document as a reason to debank him
and disregarding bits means you have to stand up and say " yeah Page one is OK, and two. Not 5 and 6. P 10 where we call him a crook and grifter, deffo not"
and it makes people scream, Liar Liar!
and that is the posn Coutts seems to be in
many of their customers don't meet their financial requirements, but are not debanked.
yeah but no but.....
they say that they are guidelines and not to be used as precedent (and there is case law about this: each case to be decided on facts and not on decisions of other non legal tribunals)
all to do with 'admissibility' of 'evidence'
excuse me whilst I let out a peal of sardonic laughter
yeah but no but.....
they say that they are guidelines and not to be used as precedent (and there is case law about this: each case to be decided on facts and not on decisions of other non legal tribunals)
all to do with 'admissibility' of 'evidence'
excuse me whilst I let out a peal of sardonic laughter
Having posted verbatim an extract of the Coutts 40 page report – this reminds me of my early school days where you were given a short essay to read and then asked questions to test your understanding.
So my English test is: Read the penultimate sentence in the original post (above) and answer the following question.
What would result in the individual identified as NF, not being a criteria client?
A) The individual identified as NF having xenophobic views
B) The individual identified as NF being a fervent Brexit supporter
C) The individual identified as NF having racist views
D) After the expiry of a mortgage with Coutts
I’m willing to bet more than 90% of you would get the answer wrong.
So my English test is: Read the penultimate sentence in the original post (above) and answer the following question.
What would result in the individual identified as NF, not being a criteria client?
A) The individual identified as NF having xenophobic views
B) The individual identified as NF being a fervent Brexit supporter
C) The individual identified as NF having racist views
D) After the expiry of a mortgage with Coutts
I’m willing to bet more than 90% of you would get the answer wrong.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.