And if I have to repeat it again then so be it but people aren't about to jump on bikes, even to go a mile or three if they are not a) youngish; or b) of the athletic type to start with. It is a huge faff plus you need all the kit plus it starts raining plus you need to find somewhere to put it plus you aren't sure where you will start and finish and so forth.
In central cities you can use Boris bikes or their equivalents but this is only a small area (anywhere west of Gunnersbury or indeed if you want to cycle from Camden to Flask Walk you are stuffed).
ULEZ zones just concentrate traffic in certain areas where congestion is made worse. I doubt it stops much traffic at all but would be interested to see the stats.
This is just another example of perception vs reality. None of these things are really things that prevent you using a bicycle to get around, they’re just barriers that exist in your mind.
I have commuted to work in jeans & a shirt in all weathers by bicycle. What is this ”kit” you refer to?
In the modern world, e-bikes completely eliminate any need to be athletic, but honestly even before there was no need to be athletic for utility cycling: Out of breath? Go slower! Nobody cares.
& I really don’t understand the start & finish thing. I start at home & finish where-ever I want to get to. Lock the bike up, done. Are there exceptions to this? Sure! But again we have this weird absolutism that if the bike can’t solve /everything/ then it doesn’t deserve consideration. I don’t use the bike all the time: Sometimes I (shock, horror, etc) drive! Or take the train. Neither of these invalidates my bicycle.
It’s fine to not use a bike - lots of people can’t for a variety of perfectly good reasons! - but lots of people seem to have this idea about cycling that it’s somehow meant to be hard work or difficult or they have to do it all the time. None of these things are true: You can cycle a little bit, in ordinary clothes, at comfortable speeds, in whatever weather you’re happy to cycle in.
Nah you don't understand because you are a cyclist. You need kit because you need a helmet and a lock and to know where and what to do at the other end and you might be in a muck sweat or carrying bags to/from Sainsburys, and, if you are in the UK, likely some wet weather kit. Plus you are running a risk several times higher than if you are in a motor vehicle and again, some people aren't comfortable with that.
It is something that is for some people (young, and/or athletic) and manifestly not for others. It's a bit like cafe society - nothing stopping the UK being like France in that respect except that's not what our society is geared up to be like.
Lock goes on the bike in a little clicky attachment it came with. Unclick at the other end, lock bike up. Done. Whenever I wear a helmet it I put the lock through it when I lock the bike up. Again, next to no extra effort & the helmet gets stored at each end right with the bike. I don’t get in a muck sweat because I’m cycling mostly for utility, not speed: Pootling along at whatever velocity gets me to my destination without breakout out in a sweat is just fine. If I want to zoom along, then sure, I can do that; but there’s no need to do so if I don’t want to.
Again, you’re being very all or nothing about this: You don’t have to do the carrying stuff on the bike thing if you don’t want to. Sure, you can go for the whole rack, panniers & trailer shebang if you want, but absolutely no one is going to make you. One of the beauties of cycling is that you can do as much of it as you like. Commute once a week for the exercise? Go for it! Just use it to go to the local shops & stuff everything in a set of panniers? No problem, if that’s what you want to do.
It’s been said that you can’t argue someone out of a position that they didn’t argue themselves into in the first place & I think that’s the case here - it’s not that you have rational reasons not to cycle, it’s just that you don’t want to & have come up with all of these post-hoc reasons why not. Which is a shame, because those false reasons might convince others that cycling isn’t for them too & you not wanting to cycle shouldn’t be a thing that stops other people from trying it.
"Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧 @montie Let's pray for all the staff at Coutts. They'll be v busy tmrw closing the accounts of everyone in Uxbridge 2:34 AM · Jul 21, 2023"
Coutts customers do not expect to be morally judged by some counter jumping pleb
It is not just that the woke thing that has Ratnered Coutts but the realisation that, as with Ratner's hollow gold jewellery, there is nothing in the private banking offer that is not also offered and usually surpassed by other banks' precious metal cards or Amex black. As several PBers commented, there is no longer even the frisson of passing fancy cheques.
There is the ability to call Coutts at any time of day or night on any day and have a human being answer and handle your query.
Concierges are ten a penny. Every posh bank and/or card has them.
Ah well then. Perhaps no big differentiation.
Presumably because I'd been researching the Farage/Coutts kerfuffle, Youtube kept showing me videos about Amex Black and other cards. So far as I can tell, they are great for frequent flyers because they offer cash back on air fares along with access to posh airport lounges (which you'd probably get anyway for flying first class).
They give you a bundle of perks including lounge entry but the pretty crappy Priority Pass lounges and as you say you are better off going to the airline ones.
"Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧 @montie Let's pray for all the staff at Coutts. They'll be v busy tmrw closing the accounts of everyone in Uxbridge 2:34 AM · Jul 21, 2023"
Calling the then Prince Charles "stupid" for accepting a million euros in cash in a suitcase from a Saudi sheikh may have been more "essential" to what Coutts did (bearing in mind that they're bankers to the royal family) than e.g. the tweet in which he likes the anti-trans skit by Ricky Gervais.
Also - who does Oleg Tinkov bank with? He's the Russian businessman who Britain recently unsanctioned. I can't believe it was just because Richard Branson said please unsanction him.
Why should a bank give a sh!t what their customers post on Twitter?
Could be because the monarch is more powerful than is usually believed - or those who see it as their role to defend the guy's interests are.
Presumably King Prince Charles is a more valuable customer to Coutts than Nigel Farage. So if they have to take sides, they go with KPC.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
"Tim Montgomerie 🇬🇧 @montie Let's pray for all the staff at Coutts. They'll be v busy tmrw closing the accounts of everyone in Uxbridge 2:34 AM · Jul 21, 2023"
Coutts customers do not expect to be morally judged by some counter jumping pleb
It is not just that the woke thing that has Ratnered Coutts but the realisation that, as with Ratner's hollow gold jewellery, there is nothing in the private banking offer that is not also offered and usually surpassed by other banks' precious metal cards or Amex black. As several PBers commented, there is no longer even the frisson of passing fancy cheques.
There is the ability to call Coutts at any time of day or night on any day and have a human being answer and handle your query.
Concierges are ten a penny. Every posh bank and/or card has them.
One other thing about Coutts - the average personal banker there isn’t what you expect.
Double glazing salesman types. A friend worked there and I met some. Selling from a script was their thing. Imagine the comedy of trying to sell pensions to people with seven figure incomes from investments - yes, they were trying to pressure sell to their own customers!
Plus they had no understanding it seemed, of how things worked. Lots of loans got signed off, by a client taking them out to lunch.
That's part of the joke. There's nothing prestigious about Coutts any more, it's just a Nat West brand.
Indeed. How to demolish a brand.
They were trying to drag it back, though. Bin the crap customers, stop the cold calling crap etc.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It did occur to them because that was partly what inspired them to look for dirt on him. They even say that there is a risk he would go public.
As far as I'm concerned people's political opinions should be professionally irrelevant in doing business, as a matter of course, unless they are breaking the law.
This was taken for granted by almost everyone until about 5 years ago.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It’s up there with Bud Light’s marketing manager describing their customers as “too fratty” and “not inclusive”, or Ratner’s famous calling of his own product as being “crap”.
Surely we declare with 250 as the lead, or are we waiting for Johnny to get his century?
I'm obviously very bad at second-guessing what Stokes will do, but... perhaps they're aiming for double Australia's score and a bit of mental disintegration?
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
As far as I'm concerned people's political opinions should be professionally irrelevant in doing business, as a matter of course, unless they are breaking the law.
For banking even if someone is breaking the law they should still have access to a bank account. The alternative is as a society we push them into further inevitable criminality, as without banking they cannot access many mainstream services in housing and employment. By all means control and monitor such accounts more strictly, but access must be a fundamental right in modern society.
I think banking is separate from many other parts of business, where there can be times where political opinions do matter, as hypocrisy and lack of trust can seriously damage brands. So up to businesses to decide for themselves generally, but not in essential services like banking, water, power etc.
And if I have to repeat it again then so be it but people aren't about to jump on bikes, even to go a mile or three if they are not a) youngish; or b) of the athletic type to start with. It is a huge faff plus you need all the kit plus it starts raining plus you need to find somewhere to put it plus you aren't sure where you will start and finish and so forth.
In central cities you can use Boris bikes or their equivalents but this is only a small area (anywhere west of Gunnersbury or indeed if you want to cycle from Camden to Flask Walk you are stuffed).
ULEZ zones just concentrate traffic in certain areas where congestion is made worse. I doubt it stops much traffic at all but would be interested to see the stats.
This is just another example of perception vs reality. None of these things are really things that prevent you using a bicycle to get around, they’re just barriers that exist in your mind.
I have commuted to work in jeans & a shirt in all weathers by bicycle. What is this ”kit” you refer to?
In the modern world, e-bikes completely eliminate any need to be athletic, but honestly even before there was no need to be athletic for utility cycling: Out of breath? Go slower! Nobody cares.
& I really don’t understand the start & finish thing. I start at home & finish where-ever I want to get to. Lock the bike up, done. Are there exceptions to this? Sure! But again we have this weird absolutism that if the bike can’t solve /everything/ then it doesn’t deserve consideration. I don’t use the bike all the time: Sometimes I (shock, horror, etc) drive! Or take the train. Neither of these invalidates my bicycle.
It’s fine to not use a bike - lots of people can’t for a variety of perfectly good reasons! - but lots of people seem to have this idea about cycling that it’s somehow meant to be hard work or difficult or they have to do it all the time. None of these things are true: You can cycle a little bit, in ordinary clothes, at comfortable speeds, in whatever weather you’re happy to cycle in.
Nah you don't understand because you are a cyclist. You need kit because you need a helmet and a lock and to know where and what to do at the other end and you might be in a muck sweat or carrying bags to/from Sainsburys, and, if you are in the UK, likely some wet weather kit. Plus you are running a risk several times higher than if you are in a motor vehicle and again, some people aren't comfortable with that.
It is something that is for some people (young, and/or athletic) and manifestly not for others. It's a bit like cafe society - nothing stopping the UK being like France in that respect except that's not what our society is geared up to be like.
Lock goes on the bike in a little clicky attachment it came with. Unclick at the other end, lock bike up. Done. Whenever I wear a helmet it I put the lock through it when I lock the bike up. Again, next to no extra effort & the helmet gets stored at each end right with the bike. I don’t get in a muck sweat because I’m cycling mostly for utility, not speed: Pootling along at whatever velocity gets me to my destination without breakout out in a sweat is just fine. If I want to zoom along, then sure, I can do that; but there’s no need to do so if I don’t want to.
Again, you’re being very all or nothing about this: You don’t have to do the carrying stuff on the bike thing if you don’t want to. Sure, you can go for the whole rack, panniers & trailer shebang if you want, but absolutely no one is going to make you. One of the beauties of cycling is that you can do as much of it as you like. Commute once a week for the exercise? Go for it! Just use it to go to the local shops & stuff everything in a set of panniers? No problem, if that’s what you want to do.
It’s been said that you can’t argue someone out of a position that they didn’t argue themselves into in the first place & I think that’s the case here - it’s not that you have rational reasons not to cycle, it’s just that you don’t want to & have come up with all of these post-hoc reasons why not. Which is a shame, because those false reasons might convince others that cycling isn’t for them too & you not wanting to cycle shouldn’t be a thing that stops other people from trying it.
I cycle around 30-50 miles a week in London I am well aware of what is involved. As I mentioned upthread, however, the greatest barrier is psychological. Setting out on a bike when you have previously been in a car or bus is a huge leap. It is literally a leap into the unknown. You are exposing yourself to the elements, to other drivers, to other cyclists, to pedestrians, to any number of unpredictable scenarios that you had never previously considered.
There is a group of people who never will, and some of those never should start cycling. Of course fine to the shops 500 yards away in your quiet village but not "seriously" cycling to replace routine journeys taken in a motor vehicle.
You are living in a fantasy land but, as @rcs1000 notes, in 50-100 years I'm sure this will all change and we will be a veritable Amsterdam sur Thames.
Meanwhile my uncle at one point had some spare cash in his account so Coutts invested it for him, saying he wouldn't want it to be unproductive. He was furious and moved instantly to Hoare's. As in this instance no doubt it was the case of a (likely sole) employee overreaching thinking he would please his masters.
Why did the people at the top go along with it? That's the big question.
I love miserable cricketers. Jimmy smacks it for four and looks like his cats just been sick. YJB gets his 50 and looks like he's just been told his daughter has failed her audition for the school play. I don't want them to be miserable. I want them to be happy. But they don't half engender some sympathy.
Actually, that drew a smile from Jimmy - a bit of inept defence enabling him to get off strike. Being at the non-striker's end - manna to a tail ender...
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It did occur to them because that was partly what inspired them to look for dirt on him. They even say that there is a risk he would go public.
"When pressed by customers who were concerned their social media accounts would be scrutinised Coutts said the change had been introduced after a “racial equality task force” report.
Rose, 54, set up the task force after the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in the United States in 2020 and the rise of Black Lives Matter. Coutts said senior leadership team"
They set up a team to go through the social media accounts of their customers, trying to sniff out Unwoke opinions
Yes, I'd love to bank with them. Who doesn't want their humourless twat of a bank manager sniffily scrolling through their phone, every few hours, looking for things they might not approve of, so they can take away your debit card
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
Meanwhile my uncle at one point had some spare cash in his account so Coutts invested it for him, saying he wouldn't want it to be unproductive. He was furious and moved instantly to Hoare's. As in this instance no doubt it was the case of a (likely sole) employee overreaching thinking he would please his masters.
Why did the people at the top go along with it? That's the big question.
There was, at one point, high pressure within Coutts to sell products.
The culture transfer, from Nat West, was that *not pressuring* clients to buy stuff was a sign of laziness and poor sales work.
Meanwhile my uncle at one point had some spare cash in his account so Coutts invested it for him, saying he wouldn't want it to be unproductive. He was furious and moved instantly to Hoare's. As in this instance no doubt it was the case of a (likely sole) employee overreaching thinking he would please his masters.
Why did the people at the top go along with it? That's the big question.
There was, at one point, high pressure within Coutts to sell products.
The culture transfer, from Nat West, was that *not pressuring* clients to buy stuff was a sign of laziness and poor sales work.
NatWest have turned one of the most famous banking brands in the world, into something that’s not much different to an HSBC Premier Account, with added wokeness.
Meanwhile my uncle at one point had some spare cash in his account so Coutts invested it for him, saying he wouldn't want it to be unproductive. He was furious and moved instantly to Hoare's. As in this instance no doubt it was the case of a (likely sole) employee overreaching thinking he would please his masters.
Why did the people at the top go along with it? That's the big question.
There was, at one point, high pressure within Coutts to sell products.
The culture transfer, from Nat West, was that *not pressuring* clients to buy stuff was a sign of laziness and poor sales work.
Which is another reason why the wealth threshold argument about the Farage thing was dubious to say the least. They know that they can make a ton of money out of banking charges for people who don't have the requisite amount to qualify for "free" banking (on top of course of the annual fee) so are unwilling to boot anyone out who is not about to actually become penniless.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
Even if you despise Farage, as you surely do, he is doing us all a favour by exposing this Absolute Shit-house Twat-Wankery from the banks. Get the fuck out of our lives, and politics, just give us a checking account, thanks, that's your job
And if I have to repeat it again then so be it but people aren't about to jump on bikes, even to go a mile or three if they are not a) youngish; or b) of the athletic type to start with. It is a huge faff plus you need all the kit plus it starts raining plus you need to find somewhere to put it plus you aren't sure where you will start and finish and so forth.
In central cities you can use Boris bikes or their equivalents but this is only a small area (anywhere west of Gunnersbury or indeed if you want to cycle from Camden to Flask Walk you are stuffed).
ULEZ zones just concentrate traffic in certain areas where congestion is made worse. I doubt it stops much traffic at all but would be interested to see the stats.
This is just another example of perception vs reality. None of these things are really things that prevent you using a bicycle to get around, they’re just barriers that exist in your mind.
I have commuted to work in jeans & a shirt in all weathers by bicycle. What is this ”kit” you refer to?
In the modern world, e-bikes completely eliminate any need to be athletic, but honestly even before there was no need to be athletic for utility cycling: Out of breath? Go slower! Nobody cares.
& I really don’t understand the start & finish thing. I start at home & finish where-ever I want to get to. Lock the bike up, done. Are there exceptions to this? Sure! But again we have this weird absolutism that if the bike can’t solve /everything/ then it doesn’t deserve consideration. I don’t use the bike all the time: Sometimes I (shock, horror, etc) drive! Or take the train. Neither of these invalidates my bicycle.
It’s fine to not use a bike - lots of people can’t for a variety of perfectly good reasons! - but lots of people seem to have this idea about cycling that it’s somehow meant to be hard work or difficult or they have to do it all the time. None of these things are true: You can cycle a little bit, in ordinary clothes, at comfortable speeds, in whatever weather you’re happy to cycle in.
Nah you don't understand because you are a cyclist. You need kit because you need a helmet and a lock and to know where and what to do at the other end and you might be in a muck sweat or carrying bags to/from Sainsburys, and, if you are in the UK, likely some wet weather kit. Plus you are running a risk several times higher than if you are in a motor vehicle and again, some people aren't comfortable with that.
It is something that is for some people (young, and/or athletic) and manifestly not for others. It's a bit like cafe society - nothing stopping the UK being like France in that respect except that's not what our society is geared up to be like.
Lock goes on the bike in a little clicky attachment it came with. Unclick at the other end, lock bike up. Done. Whenever I wear a helmet it I put the lock through it when I lock the bike up. Again, next to no extra effort & the helmet gets stored at each end right with the bike. I don’t get in a muck sweat because I’m cycling mostly for utility, not speed: Pootling along at whatever velocity gets me to my destination without breakout out in a sweat is just fine. If I want to zoom along, then sure, I can do that; but there’s no need to do so if I don’t want to.
Again, you’re being very all or nothing about this: You don’t have to do the carrying stuff on the bike thing if you don’t want to. Sure, you can go for the whole rack, panniers & trailer shebang if you want, but absolutely no one is going to make you. One of the beauties of cycling is that you can do as much of it as you like. Commute once a week for the exercise? Go for it! Just use it to go to the local shops & stuff everything in a set of panniers? No problem, if that’s what you want to do.
It’s been said that you can’t argue someone out of a position that they didn’t argue themselves into in the first place & I think that’s the case here - it’s not that you have rational reasons not to cycle, it’s just that you don’t want to & have come up with all of these post-hoc reasons why not. Which is a shame, because those false reasons might convince others that cycling isn’t for them too & you not wanting to cycle shouldn’t be a thing that stops other people from trying it.
All of which highlights two bits of mental stuckness, I reckon. For balance, they seem to fall into one on each side.
Cyclists do get sniffy about people Not Doing It Properly. The thing that makes urban life more pleasant is taking all those very short (1 mile or so, 5 minutes on a bike, 15-20 on foot) journeys out of cars. Popping to the shops to get some milk, accompanying a child on a school run, going to the park, biking to Holy Communion through the mists of the autumn mornings, that sort of thing. And you really don't need much of a bike for that, and it doesn't matter if it's somewhat clunky. And going slowly is still usefully fast, so you don't need a shower at each end. And if your commute is longer, fine, don't go by bike. (Though the fact that we've ended up with a geography why so many people have to commute by car is a bad thing and I'm pretty confident it makes us poorer and less healthy than we would like to be.)
Equally, a lot of car users do get sucked into a "I've got a car, so I should use it for every journey, even if it's not appropriate really" mindset. The structure of the costs, the ones that are one off, the ones that are pay per mile and the ones that are invisible, kind of make that seem sensible. Hence a load of rational individual decisions ending up somewhere irrational overall. Lots of cars leads to lower safety leads to even more cars and so on.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
Even if you despise Farage, as you surely do, he is doing us all a favour by exposing this Absolute Shit-house Twat-Wankery from the banks. Get the fuck out of our lives, and politics, just give us a checking account, thanks, that's your job
Indeed. Small business banking, at the high street banks, is even worse.
And if I have to repeat it again then so be it but people aren't about to jump on bikes, even to go a mile or three if they are not a) youngish; or b) of the athletic type to start with. It is a huge faff plus you need all the kit plus it starts raining plus you need to find somewhere to put it plus you aren't sure where you will start and finish and so forth.
In central cities you can use Boris bikes or their equivalents but this is only a small area (anywhere west of Gunnersbury or indeed if you want to cycle from Camden to Flask Walk you are stuffed).
ULEZ zones just concentrate traffic in certain areas where congestion is made worse. I doubt it stops much traffic at all but would be interested to see the stats.
This is just another example of perception vs reality. None of these things are really things that prevent you using a bicycle to get around, they’re just barriers that exist in your mind.
I have commuted to work in jeans & a shirt in all weathers by bicycle. What is this ”kit” you refer to?
In the modern world, e-bikes completely eliminate any need to be athletic, but honestly even before there was no need to be athletic for utility cycling: Out of breath? Go slower! Nobody cares.
& I really don’t understand the start & finish thing. I start at home & finish where-ever I want to get to. Lock the bike up, done. Are there exceptions to this? Sure! But again we have this weird absolutism that if the bike can’t solve /everything/ then it doesn’t deserve consideration. I don’t use the bike all the time: Sometimes I (shock, horror, etc) drive! Or take the train. Neither of these invalidates my bicycle.
It’s fine to not use a bike - lots of people can’t for a variety of perfectly good reasons! - but lots of people seem to have this idea about cycling that it’s somehow meant to be hard work or difficult or they have to do it all the time. None of these things are true: You can cycle a little bit, in ordinary clothes, at comfortable speeds, in whatever weather you’re happy to cycle in.
Nah you don't understand because you are a cyclist. You need kit because you need a helmet and a lock and to know where and what to do at the other end and you might be in a muck sweat or carrying bags to/from Sainsburys, and, if you are in the UK, likely some wet weather kit. Plus you are running a risk several times higher than if you are in a motor vehicle and again, some people aren't comfortable with that.
It is something that is for some people (young, and/or athletic) and manifestly not for others. It's a bit like cafe society - nothing stopping the UK being like France in that respect except that's not what our society is geared up to be like.
Lock goes on the bike in a little clicky attachment it came with. Unclick at the other end, lock bike up. Done. Whenever I wear a helmet it I put the lock through it when I lock the bike up. Again, next to no extra effort & the helmet gets stored at each end right with the bike. I don’t get in a muck sweat because I’m cycling mostly for utility, not speed: Pootling along at whatever velocity gets me to my destination without breakout out in a sweat is just fine. If I want to zoom along, then sure, I can do that; but there’s no need to do so if I don’t want to.
Again, you’re being very all or nothing about this: You don’t have to do the carrying stuff on the bike thing if you don’t want to. Sure, you can go for the whole rack, panniers & trailer shebang if you want, but absolutely no one is going to make you. One of the beauties of cycling is that you can do as much of it as you like. Commute once a week for the exercise? Go for it! Just use it to go to the local shops & stuff everything in a set of panniers? No problem, if that’s what you want to do.
It’s been said that you can’t argue someone out of a position that they didn’t argue themselves into in the first place & I think that’s the case here - it’s not that you have rational reasons not to cycle, it’s just that you don’t want to & have come up with all of these post-hoc reasons why not. Which is a shame, because those false reasons might convince others that cycling isn’t for them too & you not wanting to cycle shouldn’t be a thing that stops other people from trying it.
I cycle around 30-50 miles a week in London I am well aware of what is involved. As I mentioned upthread, however, the greatest barrier is psychological. Setting out on a bike when you have previously been in a car or bus is a huge leap. It is literally a leap into the unknown. You are exposing yourself to the elements, to other drivers, to other cyclists, to pedestrians, to any number of unpredictable scenarios that you had never previously considered.
There is a group of people who never will, and some of those never should start cycling. Of course fine to the shops 500 yards away in your quiet village but not "seriously" cycling to replace routine journeys taken in a motor vehicle.
You are living in a fantasy land but, as @rcs1000 notes, in 50-100 years I'm sure this will all change and we will be a veritable Amsterdam sur Thames.
Well, I’m quietly amazed that you’re such a keen cyclist, because that’s not the impression you were giving!
& I’m not living in a fantasy land. I live in a county where 25% of the population commutes to work by bicycle or on foot, despite the almost total lack of separate cycle infrastructure. Cycle culture is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It did occur to them because that was partly what inspired them to look for dirt on him. They even say that there is a risk he would go public.
"When pressed by customers who were concerned their social media accounts would be scrutinised Coutts said the change had been introduced after a “racial equality task force” report.
Rose, 54, set up the task force after the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in the United States in 2020 and the rise of Black Lives Matter. Coutts said senior leadership team"
They set up a team to go through the social media accounts of their customers, trying to sniff out Unwoke opinions
Yes, I'd love to bank with them. Who doesn't want their humourless twat of a bank manager sniffily scrolling through their phone, every few hours, looking for things they might not approve of, so they can take away your debit card
Ah, Empire Building. Take the hot new thing (risk, environment, whatever) turn it into a business unit and before you know it you have a corner office and are reporting to the board…
After 2008 there were some hilarious attempts to bin the people from Risk, in some banks, despite the fact they’d been warning of problems etc. Because Risk was the new hot topic, and the people who’d fucked up in trading wanted to run Risk…
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It did occur to them because that was partly what inspired them to look for dirt on him. They even say that there is a risk he would go public.
"When pressed by customers who were concerned their social media accounts would be scrutinised Coutts said the change had been introduced after a “racial equality task force” report.
Rose, 54, set up the task force after the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in the United States in 2020 and the rise of Black Lives Matter. Coutts said senior leadership team"
They set up a team to go through the social media accounts of their customers, trying to sniff out Unwoke opinions
Yes, I'd love to bank with them. Who doesn't want their humourless twat of a bank manager sniffily scrolling through their phone, every few hours, looking for things they might not approve of, so they can take away your debit card
Surely the whole point of banking with Coutts is that it gives out the following message: the combination of my wealth and breeding speaks for itself and I can do pretty much whatever the hell I like. That it now indicates that you have the type of lifestyle in which you get morally audited by one of your own servants... Well, I can't see that going down too well.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It did occur to them because that was partly what inspired them to look for dirt on him. They even say that there is a risk he would go public.
"When pressed by customers who were concerned their social media accounts would be scrutinised Coutts said the change had been introduced after a “racial equality task force” report.
Rose, 54, set up the task force after the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in the United States in 2020 and the rise of Black Lives Matter. Coutts said senior leadership team"
They set up a team to go through the social media accounts of their customers, trying to sniff out Unwoke opinions
Yes, I'd love to bank with them. Who doesn't want their humourless twat of a bank manager sniffily scrolling through their phone, every few hours, looking for things they might not approve of, so they can take away your debit card
Silly, especially when the George Floyd case had nothing whatsoever to do with this country.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It did occur to them because that was partly what inspired them to look for dirt on him. They even say that there is a risk he would go public.
"When pressed by customers who were concerned their social media accounts would be scrutinised Coutts said the change had been introduced after a “racial equality task force” report.
Rose, 54, set up the task force after the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in the United States in 2020 and the rise of Black Lives Matter. Coutts said senior leadership team"
They set up a team to go through the social media accounts of their customers, trying to sniff out Unwoke opinions
Yes, I'd love to bank with them. Who doesn't want their humourless twat of a bank manager sniffily scrolling through their phone, every few hours, looking for things they might not approve of, so they can take away your debit card
Surely the whole point of banking with Coutts is that it gives out the following message: the combination of my wealth and breeding speaks for itself and I can do pretty much whatever the hell I like. That it now indicates that you have the type of lifestyle in which you get morally audited by one of your own servants... Well, I can't see that going down too well.
Yes, it's the equivalent of the butler angrily refusing to serve you a steak because he's vegetarian
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
Not really - many organisations have as little self awareness as people.
Just like the MPs who couldn’t understand why ordering £8,000 B&O TV on expenses could be seen as arrogant.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It’s up there with Bud Light’s marketing manager describing their customers as “too fratty” and “not inclusive”, or Ratner’s famous calling of his own product as being “crap”.
I wonder how many in senior management actually believe this crap? And how many are just too weak to face it down? Because it is genuinely difficult to call this stuff out and demands quite a lot of self-confidence. Because the nagging doubt is that if you raise your head above the parapet they'll come for you next.
As predicted by some (me), Starmer has explicitly dumped Uxbridge on Khan. Khan has helpfully (for his opponents) brought race into the debate by highlighting the purported racial justice aspect toward black people. Implying that Uxbridge residents are racist whites and selfish Asians is a nonwinner. Meanwhile the Tories can't agree if ULEZ is good or bad. Playing a Sir Keir Blinder.
Strange there should be so much antagonism against the low emission zone when few people are in scope for it, becoming increasingly fewer.
Suspect there's something else going on. Maybe the people of Hillingdon actually like the Conservatives. They willingly voted for Johnson after all.
From actually talking to people - in addition to the people affected, everyone with an ICE vehicle is convinced they are next for the chop. With just as little notice, or help.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It’s up there with Bud Light’s marketing manager describing their customers as “too fratty” and “not inclusive”, or Ratner’s famous calling of his own product as being “crap”.
I wonder how many in senior management actually believe this crap? And how many are just too weak to face it down? Because it is genuinely difficult to call this stuff out and demands quite a lot of self-confidence. Because the nagging doubt is that if you raise your head above the parapet they'll come for you next.
Excellent tip btw, whoever it was pointed out the Australia lay before the start - bad weather, no need for Aus to push for win etc. I had a little as I saw the logic (but hadn't seen it until it was pointed out).
Thinking it was maybe @Andy_JS but perhaps I'm wrong.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It did occur to them because that was partly what inspired them to look for dirt on him. They even say that there is a risk he would go public.
"When pressed by customers who were concerned their social media accounts would be scrutinised Coutts said the change had been introduced after a “racial equality task force” report.
Rose, 54, set up the task force after the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in the United States in 2020 and the rise of Black Lives Matter. Coutts said senior leadership team"
They set up a team to go through the social media accounts of their customers, trying to sniff out Unwoke opinions
Yes, I'd love to bank with them. Who doesn't want their humourless twat of a bank manager sniffily scrolling through their phone, every few hours, looking for things they might not approve of, so they can take away your debit card
No sinister at all.....your bank making sure you have the "correct" opinions. Rather 1984.
And if I have to repeat it again then so be it but people aren't about to jump on bikes, even to go a mile or three if they are not a) youngish; or b) of the athletic type to start with. It is a huge faff plus you need all the kit plus it starts raining plus you need to find somewhere to put it plus you aren't sure where you will start and finish and so forth.
In central cities you can use Boris bikes or their equivalents but this is only a small area (anywhere west of Gunnersbury or indeed if you want to cycle from Camden to Flask Walk you are stuffed).
ULEZ zones just concentrate traffic in certain areas where congestion is made worse. I doubt it stops much traffic at all but would be interested to see the stats.
This is just another example of perception vs reality. None of these things are really things that prevent you using a bicycle to get around, they’re just barriers that exist in your mind.
I have commuted to work in jeans & a shirt in all weathers by bicycle. What is this ”kit” you refer to?
In the modern world, e-bikes completely eliminate any need to be athletic, but honestly even before there was no need to be athletic for utility cycling: Out of breath? Go slower! Nobody cares.
& I really don’t understand the start & finish thing. I start at home & finish where-ever I want to get to. Lock the bike up, done. Are there exceptions to this? Sure! But again we have this weird absolutism that if the bike can’t solve /everything/ then it doesn’t deserve consideration. I don’t use the bike all the time: Sometimes I (shock, horror, etc) drive! Or take the train. Neither of these invalidates my bicycle.
It’s fine to not use a bike - lots of people can’t for a variety of perfectly good reasons! - but lots of people seem to have this idea about cycling that it’s somehow meant to be hard work or difficult or they have to do it all the time. None of these things are true: You can cycle a little bit, in ordinary clothes, at comfortable speeds, in whatever weather you’re happy to cycle in.
Nah you don't understand because you are a cyclist. You need kit because you need a helmet and a lock and to know where and what to do at the other end and you might be in a muck sweat or carrying bags to/from Sainsburys, and, if you are in the UK, likely some wet weather kit. Plus you are running a risk several times higher than if you are in a motor vehicle and again, some people aren't comfortable with that.
It is something that is for some people (young, and/or athletic) and manifestly not for others. It's a bit like cafe society - nothing stopping the UK being like France in that respect except that's not what our society is geared up to be like.
Lock goes on the bike in a little clicky attachment it came with. Unclick at the other end, lock bike up. Done. Whenever I wear a helmet it I put the lock through it when I lock the bike up. Again, next to no extra effort & the helmet gets stored at each end right with the bike. I don’t get in a muck sweat because I’m cycling mostly for utility, not speed: Pootling along at whatever velocity gets me to my destination without breakout out in a sweat is just fine. If I want to zoom along, then sure, I can do that; but there’s no need to do so if I don’t want to.
Again, you’re being very all or nothing about this: You don’t have to do the carrying stuff on the bike thing if you don’t want to. Sure, you can go for the whole rack, panniers & trailer shebang if you want, but absolutely no one is going to make you. One of the beauties of cycling is that you can do as much of it as you like. Commute once a week for the exercise? Go for it! Just use it to go to the local shops & stuff everything in a set of panniers? No problem, if that’s what you want to do.
It’s been said that you can’t argue someone out of a position that they didn’t argue themselves into in the first place & I think that’s the case here - it’s not that you have rational reasons not to cycle, it’s just that you don’t want to & have come up with all of these post-hoc reasons why not. Which is a shame, because those false reasons might convince others that cycling isn’t for them too & you not wanting to cycle shouldn’t be a thing that stops other people from trying it.
I cycle around 30-50 miles a week in London I am well aware of what is involved. As I mentioned upthread, however, the greatest barrier is psychological. Setting out on a bike when you have previously been in a car or bus is a huge leap. It is literally a leap into the unknown. You are exposing yourself to the elements, to other drivers, to other cyclists, to pedestrians, to any number of unpredictable scenarios that you had never previously considered.
There is a group of people who never will, and some of those never should start cycling. Of course fine to the shops 500 yards away in your quiet village but not "seriously" cycling to replace routine journeys taken in a motor vehicle.
You are living in a fantasy land but, as @rcs1000 notes, in 50-100 years I'm sure this will all change and we will be a veritable Amsterdam sur Thames.
Well, I’m quietly amazed that you’re such a keen cyclist, because that’s not the impression you were giving!
& I’m not living in a fantasy land. I live in a county where 25% of the population commutes to work by bicycle or on foot, despite the almost total lack of separate cycle infrastructure. Cycle culture is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.
25% seems high. What is the split between cycle and on foot.
And if I have to repeat it again then so be it but people aren't about to jump on bikes, even to go a mile or three if they are not a) youngish; or b) of the athletic type to start with. It is a huge faff plus you need all the kit plus it starts raining plus you need to find somewhere to put it plus you aren't sure where you will start and finish and so forth.
In central cities you can use Boris bikes or their equivalents but this is only a small area (anywhere west of Gunnersbury or indeed if you want to cycle from Camden to Flask Walk you are stuffed).
ULEZ zones just concentrate traffic in certain areas where congestion is made worse. I doubt it stops much traffic at all but would be interested to see the stats.
This is just another example of perception vs reality. None of these things are really things that prevent you using a bicycle to get around, they’re just barriers that exist in your mind.
I have commuted to work in jeans & a shirt in all weathers by bicycle. What is this ”kit” you refer to?
In the modern world, e-bikes completely eliminate any need to be athletic, but honestly even before there was no need to be athletic for utility cycling: Out of breath? Go slower! Nobody cares.
& I really don’t understand the start & finish thing. I start at home & finish where-ever I want to get to. Lock the bike up, done. Are there exceptions to this? Sure! But again we have this weird absolutism that if the bike can’t solve /everything/ then it doesn’t deserve consideration. I don’t use the bike all the time: Sometimes I (shock, horror, etc) drive! Or take the train. Neither of these invalidates my bicycle.
It’s fine to not use a bike - lots of people can’t for a variety of perfectly good reasons! - but lots of people seem to have this idea about cycling that it’s somehow meant to be hard work or difficult or they have to do it all the time. None of these things are true: You can cycle a little bit, in ordinary clothes, at comfortable speeds, in whatever weather you’re happy to cycle in.
Nah you don't understand because you are a cyclist. You need kit because you need a helmet and a lock and to know where and what to do at the other end and you might be in a muck sweat or carrying bags to/from Sainsburys, and, if you are in the UK, likely some wet weather kit. Plus you are running a risk several times higher than if you are in a motor vehicle and again, some people aren't comfortable with that.
It is something that is for some people (young, and/or athletic) and manifestly not for others. It's a bit like cafe society - nothing stopping the UK being like France in that respect except that's not what our society is geared up to be like.
Lock goes on the bike in a little clicky attachment it came with. Unclick at the other end, lock bike up. Done. Whenever I wear a helmet it I put the lock through it when I lock the bike up. Again, next to no extra effort & the helmet gets stored at each end right with the bike. I don’t get in a muck sweat because I’m cycling mostly for utility, not speed: Pootling along at whatever velocity gets me to my destination without breakout out in a sweat is just fine. If I want to zoom along, then sure, I can do that; but there’s no need to do so if I don’t want to.
Again, you’re being very all or nothing about this: You don’t have to do the carrying stuff on the bike thing if you don’t want to. Sure, you can go for the whole rack, panniers & trailer shebang if you want, but absolutely no one is going to make you. One of the beauties of cycling is that you can do as much of it as you like. Commute once a week for the exercise? Go for it! Just use it to go to the local shops & stuff everything in a set of panniers? No problem, if that’s what you want to do.
It’s been said that you can’t argue someone out of a position that they didn’t argue themselves into in the first place & I think that’s the case here - it’s not that you have rational reasons not to cycle, it’s just that you don’t want to & have come up with all of these post-hoc reasons why not. Which is a shame, because those false reasons might convince others that cycling isn’t for them too & you not wanting to cycle shouldn’t be a thing that stops other people from trying it.
I cycle around 30-50 miles a week in London I am well aware of what is involved. As I mentioned upthread, however, the greatest barrier is psychological. Setting out on a bike when you have previously been in a car or bus is a huge leap. It is literally a leap into the unknown. You are exposing yourself to the elements, to other drivers, to other cyclists, to pedestrians, to any number of unpredictable scenarios that you had never previously considered.
There is a group of people who never will, and some of those never should start cycling. Of course fine to the shops 500 yards away in your quiet village but not "seriously" cycling to replace routine journeys taken in a motor vehicle.
You are living in a fantasy land but, as @rcs1000 notes, in 50-100 years I'm sure this will all change and we will be a veritable Amsterdam sur Thames.
Well, I’m quietly amazed that you’re such a keen cyclist, because that’s not the impression you were giving!
& I’m not living in a fantasy land. I live in a county where 25% of the population commutes to work by bicycle or on foot, despite the almost total lack of separate cycle infrastructure. Cycle culture is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.
25% seems high. What is the split between cycle and on foot.
What happened?
I thought Graeme Hick was brought in on 99 by Atherton once, but clearly not.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Oh behave. He fell below the threshold and he's an ar**. He sold the original story as "I am a national treasure and I have to leave this country because I cannot get a bank account, because of he woke banks". This story has become bigger as his ego has been inflated by his shills.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
And if I have to repeat it again then so be it but people aren't about to jump on bikes, even to go a mile or three if they are not a) youngish; or b) of the athletic type to start with. It is a huge faff plus you need all the kit plus it starts raining plus you need to find somewhere to put it plus you aren't sure where you will start and finish and so forth.
In central cities you can use Boris bikes or their equivalents but this is only a small area (anywhere west of Gunnersbury or indeed if you want to cycle from Camden to Flask Walk you are stuffed).
ULEZ zones just concentrate traffic in certain areas where congestion is made worse. I doubt it stops much traffic at all but would be interested to see the stats.
This is just another example of perception vs reality. None of these things are really things that prevent you using a bicycle to get around, they’re just barriers that exist in your mind.
I have commuted to work in jeans & a shirt in all weathers by bicycle. What is this ”kit” you refer to?
In the modern world, e-bikes completely eliminate any need to be athletic, but honestly even before there was no need to be athletic for utility cycling: Out of breath? Go slower! Nobody cares.
& I really don’t understand the start & finish thing. I start at home & finish where-ever I want to get to. Lock the bike up, done. Are there exceptions to this? Sure! But again we have this weird absolutism that if the bike can’t solve /everything/ then it doesn’t deserve consideration. I don’t use the bike all the time: Sometimes I (shock, horror, etc) drive! Or take the train. Neither of these invalidates my bicycle.
It’s fine to not use a bike - lots of people can’t for a variety of perfectly good reasons! - but lots of people seem to have this idea about cycling that it’s somehow meant to be hard work or difficult or they have to do it all the time. None of these things are true: You can cycle a little bit, in ordinary clothes, at comfortable speeds, in whatever weather you’re happy to cycle in.
Nah you don't understand because you are a cyclist. You need kit because you need a helmet and a lock and to know where and what to do at the other end and you might be in a muck sweat or carrying bags to/from Sainsburys, and, if you are in the UK, likely some wet weather kit. Plus you are running a risk several times higher than if you are in a motor vehicle and again, some people aren't comfortable with that.
It is something that is for some people (young, and/or athletic) and manifestly not for others. It's a bit like cafe society - nothing stopping the UK being like France in that respect except that's not what our society is geared up to be like.
Lock goes on the bike in a little clicky attachment it came with. Unclick at the other end, lock bike up. Done. Whenever I wear a helmet it I put the lock through it when I lock the bike up. Again, next to no extra effort & the helmet gets stored at each end right with the bike. I don’t get in a muck sweat because I’m cycling mostly for utility, not speed: Pootling along at whatever velocity gets me to my destination without breakout out in a sweat is just fine. If I want to zoom along, then sure, I can do that; but there’s no need to do so if I don’t want to.
Again, you’re being very all or nothing about this: You don’t have to do the carrying stuff on the bike thing if you don’t want to. Sure, you can go for the whole rack, panniers & trailer shebang if you want, but absolutely no one is going to make you. One of the beauties of cycling is that you can do as much of it as you like. Commute once a week for the exercise? Go for it! Just use it to go to the local shops & stuff everything in a set of panniers? No problem, if that’s what you want to do.
It’s been said that you can’t argue someone out of a position that they didn’t argue themselves into in the first place & I think that’s the case here - it’s not that you have rational reasons not to cycle, it’s just that you don’t want to & have come up with all of these post-hoc reasons why not. Which is a shame, because those false reasons might convince others that cycling isn’t for them too & you not wanting to cycle shouldn’t be a thing that stops other people from trying it.
I cycle around 30-50 miles a week in London I am well aware of what is involved. As I mentioned upthread, however, the greatest barrier is psychological. Setting out on a bike when you have previously been in a car or bus is a huge leap. It is literally a leap into the unknown. You are exposing yourself to the elements, to other drivers, to other cyclists, to pedestrians, to any number of unpredictable scenarios that you had never previously considered.
There is a group of people who never will, and some of those never should start cycling. Of course fine to the shops 500 yards away in your quiet village but not "seriously" cycling to replace routine journeys taken in a motor vehicle.
You are living in a fantasy land but, as @rcs1000 notes, in 50-100 years I'm sure this will all change and we will be a veritable Amsterdam sur Thames.
Well, I’m quietly amazed that you’re such a keen cyclist, because that’s not the impression you were giving!
& I’m not living in a fantasy land. I live in a county where 25% of the population commutes to work by bicycle or on foot, despite the almost total lack of separate cycle infrastructure. Cycle culture is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.
25% seems high. What is the split between cycle and on foot.
What happened?
I thought Graeme Hick was brought in on 99 by Atherton once, but clearly not.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It’s up there with Bud Light’s marketing manager describing their customers as “too fratty” and “not inclusive”, or Ratner’s famous calling of his own product as being “crap”.
I wonder how many in senior management actually believe this crap? And how many are just too weak to face it down? Because it is genuinely difficult to call this stuff out and demands quite a lot of self-confidence. Because the nagging doubt is that if you raise your head above the parapet they'll come for you next.
The next year or two, is going to involve a whole load of senior management in these issues, in any listed company. There’s activist employees, activist shareholders, and customers who just want the product without the politics.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Oh behave. He fell below the threshold and he's an ar**. He sold the original story as "I am a national treasure and I have to leave this country because I cannot get a bank account, because of he woke banks". This story has become bigger as his ego has been inflated by his shills.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
But hasn't that been shown to be nonsense? I thought it now turned out that it's nothing to do with the threshold and that they'd taken his account off him because they didn't like him.
And if I have to repeat it again then so be it but people aren't about to jump on bikes, even to go a mile or three if they are not a) youngish; or b) of the athletic type to start with. It is a huge faff plus you need all the kit plus it starts raining plus you need to find somewhere to put it plus you aren't sure where you will start and finish and so forth.
In central cities you can use Boris bikes or their equivalents but this is only a small area (anywhere west of Gunnersbury or indeed if you want to cycle from Camden to Flask Walk you are stuffed).
ULEZ zones just concentrate traffic in certain areas where congestion is made worse. I doubt it stops much traffic at all but would be interested to see the stats.
This is just another example of perception vs reality. None of these things are really things that prevent you using a bicycle to get around, they’re just barriers that exist in your mind.
I have commuted to work in jeans & a shirt in all weathers by bicycle. What is this ”kit” you refer to?
In the modern world, e-bikes completely eliminate any need to be athletic, but honestly even before there was no need to be athletic for utility cycling: Out of breath? Go slower! Nobody cares.
& I really don’t understand the start & finish thing. I start at home & finish where-ever I want to get to. Lock the bike up, done. Are there exceptions to this? Sure! But again we have this weird absolutism that if the bike can’t solve /everything/ then it doesn’t deserve consideration. I don’t use the bike all the time: Sometimes I (shock, horror, etc) drive! Or take the train. Neither of these invalidates my bicycle.
It’s fine to not use a bike - lots of people can’t for a variety of perfectly good reasons! - but lots of people seem to have this idea about cycling that it’s somehow meant to be hard work or difficult or they have to do it all the time. None of these things are true: You can cycle a little bit, in ordinary clothes, at comfortable speeds, in whatever weather you’re happy to cycle in.
Nah you don't understand because you are a cyclist. You need kit because you need a helmet and a lock and to know where and what to do at the other end and you might be in a muck sweat or carrying bags to/from Sainsburys, and, if you are in the UK, likely some wet weather kit. Plus you are running a risk several times higher than if you are in a motor vehicle and again, some people aren't comfortable with that.
It is something that is for some people (young, and/or athletic) and manifestly not for others. It's a bit like cafe society - nothing stopping the UK being like France in that respect except that's not what our society is geared up to be like.
Lock goes on the bike in a little clicky attachment it came with. Unclick at the other end, lock bike up. Done. Whenever I wear a helmet it I put the lock through it when I lock the bike up. Again, next to no extra effort & the helmet gets stored at each end right with the bike. I don’t get in a muck sweat because I’m cycling mostly for utility, not speed: Pootling along at whatever velocity gets me to my destination without breakout out in a sweat is just fine. If I want to zoom along, then sure, I can do that; but there’s no need to do so if I don’t want to.
Again, you’re being very all or nothing about this: You don’t have to do the carrying stuff on the bike thing if you don’t want to. Sure, you can go for the whole rack, panniers & trailer shebang if you want, but absolutely no one is going to make you. One of the beauties of cycling is that you can do as much of it as you like. Commute once a week for the exercise? Go for it! Just use it to go to the local shops & stuff everything in a set of panniers? No problem, if that’s what you want to do.
It’s been said that you can’t argue someone out of a position that they didn’t argue themselves into in the first place & I think that’s the case here - it’s not that you have rational reasons not to cycle, it’s just that you don’t want to & have come up with all of these post-hoc reasons why not. Which is a shame, because those false reasons might convince others that cycling isn’t for them too & you not wanting to cycle shouldn’t be a thing that stops other people from trying it.
I cycle around 30-50 miles a week in London I am well aware of what is involved. As I mentioned upthread, however, the greatest barrier is psychological. Setting out on a bike when you have previously been in a car or bus is a huge leap. It is literally a leap into the unknown. You are exposing yourself to the elements, to other drivers, to other cyclists, to pedestrians, to any number of unpredictable scenarios that you had never previously considered.
There is a group of people who never will, and some of those never should start cycling. Of course fine to the shops 500 yards away in your quiet village but not "seriously" cycling to replace routine journeys taken in a motor vehicle.
You are living in a fantasy land but, as @rcs1000 notes, in 50-100 years I'm sure this will all change and we will be a veritable Amsterdam sur Thames.
Well, I’m quietly amazed that you’re such a keen cyclist, because that’s not the impression you were giving!
& I’m not living in a fantasy land. I live in a county where 25% of the population commutes to work by bicycle or on foot, despite the almost total lack of separate cycle infrastructure. Cycle culture is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.
25% seems high. What is the split between cycle and on foot.
What happened?
I thought Graeme Hick was brought in on 99 by Atherton once, but clearly not.
What do we think really happened with Coutts? They can't be closing down every account where a customer said something iffy. Did they want rid of Farage for other reasons and thought this would be the path of least resistance (wrongly).
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Oh behave. He fell below the threshold and he's an ar**. He sold the original story as "I am a national treasure and I have to leave this country because I cannot get a bank account, because of he woke banks". This story has become bigger as his ego has been inflated by his shills.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
The left wing attack should be that Farage has drawn attention to a much wider problem, whereby tens of thousands of ordinary people have had their bank accounts arbitrarily closed.
What do we think really happened with Coutts? They can't be closing down every account where a customer said something iffy. Did they want rid of Farage for other reasons and thought this would be the path of least resistance (wrongly).
"The problem is that these are ideologies that fail to realise they are ideologies. To many of their proponents, it is just a matter of being kind, doing good, keeping on the right side of history, and making life better for more people. Their virtue is self-evident, so anyone who opposes them is a creature of vice and must be resisted. And thus we find ourselves in a strange place, where the nice people are coercing us into becoming more like them.
I should be happy about this. I am a Guardian-reading, Remain-voting, lockdown-supporting, double-Covid-vax-boosted Anglican who defends the BBC and wore masks more often than was strictly required during the pandemic. But it is hard to ignore the stirrings of a certain polite and cuddly totalitarianism (it would obviously laugh at the word and create mocking memes, rather than reflect upon itself meaningfully)."
This kind of one-sided left-bashing annoys me. Farage too thinks he is just talking common sense about uncontroversial ideas about sovereignty and control, when in reality he's an ethnic supremacist in the contemporary Russian tradition, spreading fear of Turks and Africans to get hours on the BBC.
Separate to his right to a bank account. Being a twat should not be a bar to having a bank account. Indeed even fraud or money laundering cannot be a bar to having a bank account if we are serious in going cashless, although obviously those could be heavily controlled for people with previous.
We should have a legal right to a bank account.
The old National Savings Bank (via the Post Office and what is now NS&I) might have been the ideal vehicle but we are where we are. We will need something like this as cash disappears, but who will be the supplier? Surely we cannot legislate that everyone is entitled to a Coutts account.
We can legislate that banks must give an honest reason when closing an account or refusing to open one.
To be fair the government are (as a result of Coutts-Farage) inching in the right direction after a decade or two of encouraging ever tighter checks and controls without much thought about a balanced end point.
Coutts did have a legitimate reason to close Farage's account even without the political stuff. His next problem was several other banks did not want to open one, and what use would the honest reason be if that is just "you look like a pep and frankly it is too expensive to investigate properly"? Still no account.
Issues around AML, KYC and source of funds are common to bookmaking and banking and many punters, invariably winning punters, have run foul of this ill-considered legislation.
And it is not just bank accounts. I know a woman with a steady job in retail for the last several years who can't get a credit card.
So well done to Nigel Farage for exposing this issue but it goes a lot further than whether one man can have a posh charge card that gets him into airport lounges.
For many the reason will be, you are on list x provided by company z.
The individual can then challenge company z if it is wrong instead of having a kafka-esque nightmare. Yes, this only impacts a tiny minority, but it is still important, and will become increasingly so as society drifts towards cashless and big data.
Isn't Mr F a PEP anyway, under the rules? Anyone who is, or has been, a party leader etc. ... and he's certainly not avoiding politics.
For a PEP the bank should have higher compliance duties, but not be allowed to use those costs against the customer. That is just freeloading.
Interesting thought, certainly as a general principle. Though the risks are difficult to quantify, I'd have thought. It's one thing to have to process the fucktonne of US regulatory bumf which TSE mentioned the other day; [edit] this can be tricky and so unpredictably expensive in staff time I'd think? and another to have to deal with the mess if the sharn hits the spreader through no fault of the bank (no particular person in mind).
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Oh behave. He fell below the threshold and he's an ar**. He sold the original story as "I am a national treasure and I have to leave this country because I cannot get a bank account, because of he woke banks". This story has become bigger as his ego has been inflated by his shills.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
We, your bank, have noticed that you post a lot on politicalbetting.com
You may think you are anonymous, but the data you can buy these days…. Plus we scraped the cookies in your browser when you used online banking.
We have introduced a strict anti-gambling policy, so we are terminating your account, immediately. In addition, to be proactive in our corporate citizenship, we have flagged you as a potential problem gambler on the various interbank systems. This will mean that all the other banks will terminate any accounts you have.
Sincerely,
Megabank
P.S. Please click here to fill out a survey on how well we did in this communication.
What do we think really happened with Coutts? They can't be closing down every account where a customer said something iffy. Did they want rid of Farage for other reasons and thought this would be the path of least resistance (wrongly).
A decision made at a relatively junior level, that ended up becoming a problem for senior management when the victim went to the press.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Oh behave. He fell below the threshold and he's an ar**. He sold the original story as "I am a national treasure and I have to leave this country because I cannot get a bank account, because of he woke banks". This story has become bigger as his ego has been inflated by his shills.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
The left wing attack should be that Farage has drawn attention to a much wider problem, whereby tens of thousands of ordinary people have had their bank accounts arbitrarily closed.
Now that's a different story, and one that is a major issue for breadline Britain.
I would love to have seen Farage reduced to joining a credit union.
And if I have to repeat it again then so be it but people aren't about to jump on bikes, even to go a mile or three if they are not a) youngish; or b) of the athletic type to start with. It is a huge faff plus you need all the kit plus it starts raining plus you need to find somewhere to put it plus you aren't sure where you will start and finish and so forth.
In central cities you can use Boris bikes or their equivalents but this is only a small area (anywhere west of Gunnersbury or indeed if you want to cycle from Camden to Flask Walk you are stuffed).
ULEZ zones just concentrate traffic in certain areas where congestion is made worse. I doubt it stops much traffic at all but would be interested to see the stats.
This is just another example of perception vs reality. None of these things are really things that prevent you using a bicycle to get around, they’re just barriers that exist in your mind.
I have commuted to work in jeans & a shirt in all weathers by bicycle. What is this ”kit” you refer to?
In the modern world, e-bikes completely eliminate any need to be athletic, but honestly even before there was no need to be athletic for utility cycling: Out of breath? Go slower! Nobody cares.
& I really don’t understand the start & finish thing. I start at home & finish where-ever I want to get to. Lock the bike up, done. Are there exceptions to this? Sure! But again we have this weird absolutism that if the bike can’t solve /everything/ then it doesn’t deserve consideration. I don’t use the bike all the time: Sometimes I (shock, horror, etc) drive! Or take the train. Neither of these invalidates my bicycle.
It’s fine to not use a bike - lots of people can’t for a variety of perfectly good reasons! - but lots of people seem to have this idea about cycling that it’s somehow meant to be hard work or difficult or they have to do it all the time. None of these things are true: You can cycle a little bit, in ordinary clothes, at comfortable speeds, in whatever weather you’re happy to cycle in.
Nah you don't understand because you are a cyclist. You need kit because you need a helmet and a lock and to know where and what to do at the other end and you might be in a muck sweat or carrying bags to/from Sainsburys, and, if you are in the UK, likely some wet weather kit. Plus you are running a risk several times higher than if you are in a motor vehicle and again, some people aren't comfortable with that.
It is something that is for some people (young, and/or athletic) and manifestly not for others. It's a bit like cafe society - nothing stopping the UK being like France in that respect except that's not what our society is geared up to be like.
Lock goes on the bike in a little clicky attachment it came with. Unclick at the other end, lock bike up. Done. Whenever I wear a helmet it I put the lock through it when I lock the bike up. Again, next to no extra effort & the helmet gets stored at each end right with the bike. I don’t get in a muck sweat because I’m cycling mostly for utility, not speed: Pootling along at whatever velocity gets me to my destination without breakout out in a sweat is just fine. If I want to zoom along, then sure, I can do that; but there’s no need to do so if I don’t want to.
Again, you’re being very all or nothing about this: You don’t have to do the carrying stuff on the bike thing if you don’t want to. Sure, you can go for the whole rack, panniers & trailer shebang if you want, but absolutely no one is going to make you. One of the beauties of cycling is that you can do as much of it as you like. Commute once a week for the exercise? Go for it! Just use it to go to the local shops & stuff everything in a set of panniers? No problem, if that’s what you want to do.
It’s been said that you can’t argue someone out of a position that they didn’t argue themselves into in the first place & I think that’s the case here - it’s not that you have rational reasons not to cycle, it’s just that you don’t want to & have come up with all of these post-hoc reasons why not. Which is a shame, because those false reasons might convince others that cycling isn’t for them too & you not wanting to cycle shouldn’t be a thing that stops other people from trying it.
I cycle around 30-50 miles a week in London I am well aware of what is involved. As I mentioned upthread, however, the greatest barrier is psychological. Setting out on a bike when you have previously been in a car or bus is a huge leap. It is literally a leap into the unknown. You are exposing yourself to the elements, to other drivers, to other cyclists, to pedestrians, to any number of unpredictable scenarios that you had never previously considered.
There is a group of people who never will, and some of those never should start cycling. Of course fine to the shops 500 yards away in your quiet village but not "seriously" cycling to replace routine journeys taken in a motor vehicle.
You are living in a fantasy land but, as @rcs1000 notes, in 50-100 years I'm sure this will all change and we will be a veritable Amsterdam sur Thames.
Well, I’m quietly amazed that you’re such a keen cyclist, because that’s not the impression you were giving!
& I’m not living in a fantasy land. I live in a county where 25% of the population commutes to work by bicycle or on foot, despite the almost total lack of separate cycle infrastructure. Cycle culture is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.
25% seems high. What is the split between cycle and on foot.
County wide? No idea. In Oxford itself it was 17% cyclists according to the 2011 census, but that’s a completely different survey methodology so not a directly comparable figure.
I have no idea why the county documents don’t break down the non-motorised commuters by type. For planning purposes I guess it makes a certain amount of sense - motorised vs non-motorised, public transport vs private - but it’s a bit annoying from our POV.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Oh behave. He fell below the threshold and he's an ar**. He sold the original story as "I am a national treasure and I have to leave this country because I cannot get a bank account, because of he woke banks". This story has become bigger as his ego has been inflated by his shills.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
The left wing attack should be that Farage has drawn attention to a much wider problem, whereby tens of thousands of ordinary people have had their bank accounts arbitrarily closed.
Now that's a different story, and one that is a major issue for breadline Britain.
I would love to have seen Farage reduced to joining a credit union.
Would you really like it if you lived in a country where you could be denied banking on the basis of your political opinions?
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Oh behave. He fell below the threshold and he's an ar**. He sold the original story as "I am a national treasure and I have to leave this country because I cannot get a bank account, because of he woke banks". This story has become bigger as his ego has been inflated by his shills.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
The left wing attack should be that Farage has drawn attention to a much wider problem, whereby tens of thousands of ordinary people have had their bank accounts arbitrarily closed.
Now that's a different story, and one that is a major issue for breadline Britain.
I would love to have seen Farage reduced to joining a credit union.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Oh behave. He fell below the threshold and he's an ar**. He sold the original story as "I am a national treasure and I have to leave this country because I cannot get a bank account, because of he woke banks". This story has become bigger as his ego has been inflated by his shills.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
The left wing attack should be that Farage has drawn attention to a much wider problem, whereby tens of thousands of ordinary people have had their bank accounts arbitrarily closed.
Now that's a different story, and one that is a major issue for breadline Britain.
I would love to have seen Farage reduced to joining a credit union.
I find it instructive that most left-wingers online are much happier laughing at Farage, than they are looking at the same issue as it affects tens of thousands of poorer people, many of whom now find themselves totally excluded from society as a result.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Oh behave. He fell below the threshold and he's an ar**. He sold the original story as "I am a national treasure and I have to leave this country because I cannot get a bank account, because of he woke banks". This story has become bigger as his ego has been inflated by his shills.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
We, your bank, have noticed that you post a lot on politicalbetting.com
You may think you are anonymous, but the data you can buy these days…. Plus we scraped the cookies in your browser when you used online banking.
We have introduced a strict anti-gambling policy, so we are terminating your account, immediately. In addition, to be proactive in our corporate citizenship, we have flagged you as a potential problem gambler on the various interbank systems. This will mean that all the other banks will terminate any accounts you have.
Sincerely,
Megabank
P.S. Please click here to fill out a survey on how well we did in this communication.
That happens every day. Private sector banks operate on risk assessment. They don't want to be exposed to losing money. If I am deemed to be a potential risk, I might bellyache about the unfairness, but them's the rules.
And if I have to repeat it again then so be it but people aren't about to jump on bikes, even to go a mile or three if they are not a) youngish; or b) of the athletic type to start with. It is a huge faff plus you need all the kit plus it starts raining plus you need to find somewhere to put it plus you aren't sure where you will start and finish and so forth.
In central cities you can use Boris bikes or their equivalents but this is only a small area (anywhere west of Gunnersbury or indeed if you want to cycle from Camden to Flask Walk you are stuffed).
ULEZ zones just concentrate traffic in certain areas where congestion is made worse. I doubt it stops much traffic at all but would be interested to see the stats.
This is just another example of perception vs reality. None of these things are really things that prevent you using a bicycle to get around, they’re just barriers that exist in your mind.
I have commuted to work in jeans & a shirt in all weathers by bicycle. What is this ”kit” you refer to?
In the modern world, e-bikes completely eliminate any need to be athletic, but honestly even before there was no need to be athletic for utility cycling: Out of breath? Go slower! Nobody cares.
& I really don’t understand the start & finish thing. I start at home & finish where-ever I want to get to. Lock the bike up, done. Are there exceptions to this? Sure! But again we have this weird absolutism that if the bike can’t solve /everything/ then it doesn’t deserve consideration. I don’t use the bike all the time: Sometimes I (shock, horror, etc) drive! Or take the train. Neither of these invalidates my bicycle.
It’s fine to not use a bike - lots of people can’t for a variety of perfectly good reasons! - but lots of people seem to have this idea about cycling that it’s somehow meant to be hard work or difficult or they have to do it all the time. None of these things are true: You can cycle a little bit, in ordinary clothes, at comfortable speeds, in whatever weather you’re happy to cycle in.
Nah you don't understand because you are a cyclist. You need kit because you need a helmet and a lock and to know where and what to do at the other end and you might be in a muck sweat or carrying bags to/from Sainsburys, and, if you are in the UK, likely some wet weather kit. Plus you are running a risk several times higher than if you are in a motor vehicle and again, some people aren't comfortable with that.
It is something that is for some people (young, and/or athletic) and manifestly not for others. It's a bit like cafe society - nothing stopping the UK being like France in that respect except that's not what our society is geared up to be like.
Lock goes on the bike in a little clicky attachment it came with. Unclick at the other end, lock bike up. Done. Whenever I wear a helmet it I put the lock through it when I lock the bike up. Again, next to no extra effort & the helmet gets stored at each end right with the bike. I don’t get in a muck sweat because I’m cycling mostly for utility, not speed: Pootling along at whatever velocity gets me to my destination without breakout out in a sweat is just fine. If I want to zoom along, then sure, I can do that; but there’s no need to do so if I don’t want to.
Again, you’re being very all or nothing about this: You don’t have to do the carrying stuff on the bike thing if you don’t want to. Sure, you can go for the whole rack, panniers & trailer shebang if you want, but absolutely no one is going to make you. One of the beauties of cycling is that you can do as much of it as you like. Commute once a week for the exercise? Go for it! Just use it to go to the local shops & stuff everything in a set of panniers? No problem, if that’s what you want to do.
It’s been said that you can’t argue someone out of a position that they didn’t argue themselves into in the first place & I think that’s the case here - it’s not that you have rational reasons not to cycle, it’s just that you don’t want to & have come up with all of these post-hoc reasons why not. Which is a shame, because those false reasons might convince others that cycling isn’t for them too & you not wanting to cycle shouldn’t be a thing that stops other people from trying it.
I cycle around 30-50 miles a week in London I am well aware of what is involved. As I mentioned upthread, however, the greatest barrier is psychological. Setting out on a bike when you have previously been in a car or bus is a huge leap. It is literally a leap into the unknown. You are exposing yourself to the elements, to other drivers, to other cyclists, to pedestrians, to any number of unpredictable scenarios that you had never previously considered.
There is a group of people who never will, and some of those never should start cycling. Of course fine to the shops 500 yards away in your quiet village but not "seriously" cycling to replace routine journeys taken in a motor vehicle.
You are living in a fantasy land but, as @rcs1000 notes, in 50-100 years I'm sure this will all change and we will be a veritable Amsterdam sur Thames.
Well, I’m quietly amazed that you’re such a keen cyclist, because that’s not the impression you were giving!
& I’m not living in a fantasy land. I live in a county where 25% of the population commutes to work by bicycle or on foot, despite the almost total lack of separate cycle infrastructure. Cycle culture is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.
25% seems high. What is the split between cycle and on foot.
County wide? No idea. In Oxford itself it was 17% cyclists according to the 2011 census, but that’s a completely different survey methodology so not a directly comparable figure.
I have no idea why the county documents don’t break down the non-motorised commuters by type. For planning purposes I guess it makes a certain amount of sense - motorised vs non-motorised, public transport vs private - but it’s a bit annoying from our POV.
Yep. Plus let's look at the Oxford 17% number wrt my criteria of cyclists on the whole needing to be a) young; and/or b) athletic....
As far as I'm concerned people's political opinions should be professionally irrelevant in doing business, as a matter of course, unless they are breaking the law.
Firstly "unless they are breaking the law" is a bad caveat. The political process includes advocating that a law should be changed/removed, which is literally advocating breaking the law. According to you, the Homosexual Law Reform Society and the British National Party would be rightfully denied a bank account.
Secondly, your stance, whilst actually correct and admirable, was only feasible when people did not broadcast their internal state 24hrs a day via Twitter/Truth Social/Threads/Bluesky/Telegraph/whatever. How long do you think a regime of "we'll take you whatever your opinions" would last? How about a fund raising money in support of the Chinese regime in Tibet?
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Oh behave. He fell below the threshold and he's an ar**. He sold the original story as "I am a national treasure and I have to leave this country because I cannot get a bank account, because of he woke banks". This story has become bigger as his ego has been inflated by his shills.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
We, your bank, have noticed that you post a lot on politicalbetting.com
You may think you are anonymous, but the data you can buy these days…. Plus we scraped the cookies in your browser when you used online banking.
We have introduced a strict anti-gambling policy, so we are terminating your account, immediately. In addition, to be proactive in our corporate citizenship, we have flagged you as a potential problem gambler on the various interbank systems. This will mean that all the other banks will terminate any accounts you have.
Sincerely,
Megabank
P.S. Please click here to fill out a survey on how well we did in this communication.
That happens every day. Private sector banks operate on risk assessment. They don't want to be exposed to losing money. If I am deemed to be a potential risk, I might bellyache about the unfairness, but them's the rules.
So you’d be happy to be blackballed by all the major banks and reduced to a Paysafe account?
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It did occur to them because that was partly what inspired them to look for dirt on him. They even say that there is a risk he would go public.
"When pressed by customers who were concerned their social media accounts would be scrutinised Coutts said the change had been introduced after a “racial equality task force” report.
Rose, 54, set up the task force after the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in the United States in 2020 and the rise of Black Lives Matter. Coutts said senior leadership team"
They set up a team to go through the social media accounts of their customers, trying to sniff out Unwoke opinions
Yes, I'd love to bank with them. Who doesn't want their humourless twat of a bank manager sniffily scrolling through their phone, every few hours, looking for things they might not approve of, so they can take away your debit card
No sinister at all.....your bank making sure you have the "correct" opinions. Rather 1984.
It does raise the question as to the circumstances under which a private individual or business may turn down a customer or client. I used to work as a freelance technical translator, and I once turned down a customer because the material to be translated was basically pseudo-scientific gibberish obviously intended to deceive people. Should I have been allowed to do that? Could the client have prosecuted me for turning them down because I didn't agree with their opinions (which were that such advertising was acceptable)?
Comments
Shame he hasn't taken the hint about his keeping...
Again, you’re being very all or nothing about this: You don’t have to do the carrying stuff on the bike thing if you don’t want to. Sure, you can go for the whole rack, panniers & trailer shebang if you want, but absolutely no one is going to make you. One of the beauties of cycling is that you can do as much of it as you like. Commute once a week for the exercise? Go for it! Just use it to go to the local shops & stuff everything in a set of panniers? No problem, if that’s what you want to do.
It’s been said that you can’t argue someone out of a position that they didn’t argue themselves into in the first place & I think that’s the case here - it’s not that you have rational reasons not to cycle, it’s just that you don’t want to & have come up with all of these post-hoc reasons why not. Which is a shame, because those false reasons might convince others that cycling isn’t for them too & you not wanting to cycle shouldn’t be a thing that stops other people from trying it.
"The bank reportedly cited Mr Farage’s retweet of a joke by comedian Ricky Gervais about trans women "
Could this get any worse? Hopefully, yes. Hilarious
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-bank-account-coutts-b2379476.html
Edit: apparently.
They were trying to drag it back, though. Bin the crap customers, stop the cold calling crap etc.
Also to England who deserved an extra ball.
I think banking is separate from many other parts of business, where there can be times where political opinions do matter, as hypocrisy and lack of trust can seriously damage brands. So up to businesses to decide for themselves generally, but not in essential services like banking, water, power etc.
There is a group of people who never will, and some of those never should start cycling. Of course fine to the shops 500 yards away in your quiet village but not "seriously" cycling to replace routine journeys taken in a motor vehicle.
You are living in a fantasy land but, as @rcs1000 notes, in 50-100 years I'm sure this will all change and we will be a veritable Amsterdam sur Thames.
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coutts-updated-its-client-rules-after-george-floyd-murder-m5nc3krm3
"When pressed by customers who were concerned their social media accounts would be scrutinised Coutts said the change had been introduced after a “racial equality task force” report.
Rose, 54, set up the task force after the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in the United States in 2020 and the rise of Black Lives Matter. Coutts said senior leadership team"
They set up a team to go through the social media accounts of their customers, trying to sniff out Unwoke opinions
Yes, I'd love to bank with them. Who doesn't want their humourless twat of a bank manager sniffily scrolling through their phone, every few hours, looking for things they might not approve of, so they can take away your debit card
Can't they both lose ?
The culture transfer, from Nat West, was that *not pressuring* clients to buy stuff was a sign of laziness and poor sales work.
Hundred for Bairstow, 275 the lead.
Cyclists do get sniffy about people Not Doing It Properly. The thing that makes urban life more pleasant is taking all those very short (1 mile or so, 5 minutes on a bike, 15-20 on foot) journeys out of cars. Popping to the shops to get some milk, accompanying a child on a school run, going to the park, biking to Holy Communion through the mists of the autumn mornings, that sort of thing. And you really don't need much of a bike for that, and it doesn't matter if it's somewhat clunky. And going slowly is still usefully fast, so you don't need a shower at each end. And if your commute is longer, fine, don't go by bike. (Though the fact that we've ended up with a geography why so many people have to commute by car is a bad thing and I'm pretty confident it makes us poorer and less healthy than we would like to be.)
Equally, a lot of car users do get sucked into a "I've got a car, so I should use it for every journey, even if it's not appropriate really" mindset. The structure of the costs, the ones that are one off, the ones that are pay per mile and the ones that are invisible, kind of make that seem sensible. Hence a load of rational individual decisions ending up somewhere irrational overall. Lots of cars leads to lower safety leads to even more cars and so on.
We may well not need this lead. And even if we do have to bat again we could knock off say 50 as quickly as we are scoring now.
Small business banking, at the high street banks, is even worse.
& I’m not living in a fantasy land. I live in a county where 25% of the population commutes to work by bicycle or on foot, despite the almost total lack of separate cycle infrastructure. Cycle culture is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.
After 2008 there were some hilarious attempts to bin the people from Risk, in some banks, despite the fact they’d been warning of problems etc. Because Risk was the new hot topic, and the people who’d fucked up in trading wanted to run Risk…
99 NOoooooo.
God knows what this is doing to the Australians. They've never had three seamers conceded over 120 runs apiece like this.
I don't care about the extra run. I just wanted to see Jonny smile.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
Would take a fivefer.
Suspect there's something else going on. Maybe the people of Hillingdon actually like the Conservatives. They willingly voted for Johnson after all.
Just like the MPs who couldn’t understand why ordering £8,000 B&O TV on expenses could be seen as arrogant.
Because it is genuinely difficult to call this stuff out and demands quite a lot of self-confidence. Because the nagging doubt is that if you raise your head above the parapet they'll come for you next.
Thinking it was maybe @Andy_JS but perhaps I'm wrong.
I thought Graeme Hick was brought in on 99 by Atherton once, but clearly not.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-australia-1994-95-61706/australia-vs-england-3rd-test-63665/full-scorecard
Dear @Mexicanpete,
We, your bank, have noticed that you post a lot on politicalbetting.com
You may think you are anonymous, but the data you can buy these days…. Plus we scraped the cookies in your browser when you used online banking.
We have introduced a strict anti-gambling policy, so we are terminating your account, immediately. In addition, to be proactive in our corporate citizenship, we have flagged you as a potential problem gambler on the various interbank systems. This will mean that all the other banks will terminate any accounts you have.
Sincerely,
Megabank
P.S. Please click here to fill out a survey on how well we did in this communication.
I would love to have seen Farage reduced to joining a credit union.
I have no idea why the county documents don’t break down the non-motorised commuters by type. For planning purposes I guess it makes a certain amount of sense - motorised vs non-motorised, public transport vs private - but it’s a bit annoying from our POV.
Just the people effected are people you like
What about Eastbourne (or Poundbury)?
Boycott - well, if he'd only been a bit less Boycott he'd have been on 150 by that point