There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It's a tactical gain, not a strategic one - but it's part of a series of small advances around Bakhmut. The Russian position there seems slowly to be disintegrating. And the notable thing is that Russia now appears to be taking greater losses in the defence than is Ukraine in the offence.
My armchair generalship on all of this stuff amounts to not knowing whether either 1. attrition is slowly but surely getting the better of Russian forces and they are on the verge of collapse, or 2. Ukraine is running out of momentum and firepower and is about to "cultimate", or indeed 3. neither of those and they keep slugging it out WW1 style until Trump comes to power and helps Russia to win the war.
Nobody has any fucking clue and that ignorance is compounded by massive amounts of wilful disinformation from all sides.
On power: "ten years is the maximum dose for adults".
The introduction to that interview supports my thesis that Ken Clarke bears heavy responsibility for the Tories losing power after he moved from department to department attacking Conservative-supporting professionals in the public sector.
Not sure about this. The pendulum always swings eventually, and you can't really be a Secretary of State whilst offending nobody.
That's not a defence of Clarke's record at Health and Education before he was Chancellor, but the Conservatives implemented a lot of controversial policies in the 1980s and early 1990s, some of which Clarke was directly involved in, some not. That isn't really what lost it for them in 1997 - there was simply a general feeling by the mid-1990s that the Conservatives had run out of steam and didn't fully appreciate or have compelling solutions for the most important issues for people. There was also a fairly large amount of sleaze going on, and it was widely felt that it was time for a change to the other lot.
Clarke was Health Secretary 1988-1990 and Education 1990-92. Are you really saying 1997 was some kind of delayed reaction to that (which was not felt in the 1992 General Election for some reason)? Feels a bit far-fetched to me, although he was one of a series of Conservative ministers who were unconvincing on those issues both within the professions involved and externally.
I think I am saying the Conservative government was wiped out because it had taken on so many voters who were its natural supporters. Not just Clarke with police, doctors and teachers, although that was a large part of it, but also the defence cuts, and then if you look at who was hurt by the ERM debacle, it was home owners and mortgage holders, it was entrepreneurs and small business owners.
That is how I conceptualise that part of our political history, rather than hand-waving about running out of ideas or fairness or time for a change. Whatever people thought of the cones hotline, that was not what changed their votes. Nor was it the poll tax, which had been neutralised by John Major. The blue team lost power because it systematically alienated its own voters. They'd played by the rules, done what was called for, and *their* government had screwed them over.
Good to see SKS taking a position on NatWest now that all the difficult decisions have been taken.
Just like he was during COVID. Captain Hindsight.
It is what concerns me most about him being PM. We really need dynamic brave leadership, Sunak and Hunt are running the country like a middle manager waiting for the boss to come back, when we actually have a lot of issue that the longer we wait the worse they are getting.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
Freedom of Belief is protected under the Equality Act. Companies cannot discriminate against people over lawful views. There are many less high profile individuals whose accounts appear to been closed for this reason. I hope banks will look again.
RBS closes gender equality campaigner’s bank account NatWest subsidiary gave no explanation and will not discuss the ban with Lesley Sawers or her husband
If the account holder is subject to a Suspicious Activity Report - money laundering or other financial crime triggers effectively - bank staff will be guilty of "tipping off" if they say anything about the investigation to the customer. This comes with dismissal, a two year prison sentence and a lifetime ban from any job in financial services.
You might expect Kemi Badenoch to know that as I think financial services are within her ministerial brief.
Bit of balance - the real problem, not pols' particular preoccupations.
"Despite all the recent front-page attention given to Nigel Farage and today’s development – the resignation of NatWest chief executive Alison Rose – there is something else you should know: banks have been quietly closing accounts without giving their customers any reasonable explanation for decades. Setting aside Farage’s politics and personality, and Coutts’s fragile disposition when it comes to people rich enough but arguably not wholesome enough to utilise their elite banking facilities, it should concern us when banks close our accounts with little or no warning. Ordinary people don’t get the prime minister hollering for justice, and we certainly don’t get apologies from CEOs."
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months.
We remember WW1, but forget that it took four years to resolve. This isn't going to finish in 2023, and probably not 2024. Unless Trump wins and changes US policy faster than Starmer on penises, in which case the Ukranians are dead by Xmas 2024.
Personally I doubt it. Ireland had an anglo saxon economy and was totally screwed in 2009. Eye watering pain. It has only escaped as it nicks everyone elses taxes and is a small economy so can pay its debts down.
The UK would not have had that luxury and was probably so large an economy as to wreck the Euro. Black Wednesday 2 would have been the outcome.
The owners of GB News are plonkers if they don't sell....there is no real business in the UK for TV News, especially if you are just a single channel. You can't even really leveraged advertising, as nobody really cares about advertising to 50,000 people, however if you say you have an international network of outlets, that's a different matter.
Bit of balance - the real problem, not pols' particular preoccupations.
"Despite all the recent front-page attention given to Nigel Farage and today’s development – the resignation of NatWest chief executive Alison Rose – there is something else you should know: banks have been quietly closing accounts without giving their customers any reasonable explanation for decades. Setting aside Farage’s politics and personality, and Coutts’s fragile disposition when it comes to people rich enough but arguably not wholesome enough to utilise their elite banking facilities, it should concern us when banks close our accounts with little or no warning. Ordinary people don’t get the prime minister hollering for justice, and we certainly don’t get apologies from CEOs."
Ooh, the Guardian have almost got there. Yes, it’s been happening for years but the media have been ignoring it.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Also, does Nigel really want to be in court under oath?
Bit of balance - the real problem, not pols' particular preoccupations.
"Despite all the recent front-page attention given to Nigel Farage and today’s development – the resignation of NatWest chief executive Alison Rose – there is something else you should know: banks have been quietly closing accounts without giving their customers any reasonable explanation for decades. Setting aside Farage’s politics and personality, and Coutts’s fragile disposition when it comes to people rich enough but arguably not wholesome enough to utilise their elite banking facilities, it should concern us when banks close our accounts with little or no warning. Ordinary people don’t get the prime minister hollering for justice, and we certainly don’t get apologies from CEOs."
Ooh, the Guardian have almost got it.
The thing is the left outlets are making a big deal out of the fact it is Farage, but unfortunately a lot of change only comes when you get a well connected person wronged.
Sarah Everard has sparked changes to the law and policing (and rightly so), but she is far from the first case, but she was well connected to the media, so her case got massive prominence among the industry.
She seem the opposite with grooming gangs. They were "nobodies", so the media didn't care for years and years. It was one brave Times journalist who finally pushed and pushed and pushed on this.
Freedom of Belief is protected under the Equality Act. Companies cannot discriminate against people over lawful views. There are many less high profile individuals whose accounts appear to been closed for this reason. I hope banks will look again.
RBS closes gender equality campaigner’s bank account NatWest subsidiary gave no explanation and will not discuss the ban with Lesley Sawers or her husband
If the account holder is subject to a Suspicious Activity Report - money laundering or other financial crime triggers effectively - bank staff will be guilty of "tipping off" if they say anything about the investigation to the customer. This comes with dismissal, a two year prison sentence and a lifetime ban from any job in financial services.
You might expect Kemi Badenoch to know that as I think financial services are within her ministerial brief.
She seems slightly confused about the boundaries. She is prone to cat-egory errors such as clyping to Ofsted about schools which aren't even in her constituency.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Coutts private banking is in serious trouble. A real client manager can take his clients with him. How many of the good client managers at Coutts (there are a few) have rung round their premium clients, got agreement and approached Rothschilds with a list and a request for a signing bonus.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
It just isn't a very good news story for Farage if he is awarded relatively derisory damages but has to pay substantial costs (even if someone else picks up the tab).
There's a real risk that the judgment is "Technically you're right, Mr Farage, but you're a whinging sod and your loss is negligible - so here's ten grand... and a bill for a couple of million". So as a practical point, I think this is rather unlikely to go to court.
Bit of balance - the real problem, not pols' particular preoccupations.
"Despite all the recent front-page attention given to Nigel Farage and today’s development – the resignation of NatWest chief executive Alison Rose – there is something else you should know: banks have been quietly closing accounts without giving their customers any reasonable explanation for decades. Setting aside Farage’s politics and personality, and Coutts’s fragile disposition when it comes to people rich enough but arguably not wholesome enough to utilise their elite banking facilities, it should concern us when banks close our accounts with little or no warning. Ordinary people don’t get the prime minister hollering for justice, and we certainly don’t get apologies from CEOs."
Ooh, the Guardian have almost got it.
The thing is the left outlets are making a big deal out of the fact it is Farage, but unfortunately a lot of change only comes when you get a well connected person wronged.
Sarah Everard has sparked changes to the law and policing (and rightly so), but she is far from the first case, but she was well connected to the media, so her case got massive prominence among the industry.
She seem the opposite with grooming gangs. They were "nobodies", so the media didn't care for years and years. It was one brave Times journalist who finally pushed and pushed and pushed on this.
Have there been many "nobodies" abducted, raped and horribly murdered by a serving police officer?
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months.
We remember WW1, but forget that it took four years to resolve. This isn't going to finish in 2023, and probably not 2024. Unless Trump wins and changes US policy faster than Starmer on penises, in which case the Ukranians are dead by Xmas 2024.
It's 603,000 km2 including Crimea I believe. I imagine part of the reason the Ukrainians haven't immediately committed all their stuff to the new offensive is they don't trust their western partners and want plenty in reserve in case that support capitulates as it could do after 2024. It seems the US would rather risk ten of thousands of Ukrainian lives rather than provide them with air power, I'm guessing because they do not want such Ukrainian success that Russia might lose Crimea/implode. To my mind it's silly and may reflect narcissistic egos in the NSC, who perhaps quite enjoy controlling Ukraine and think they can carefully calibrate exactly what needs to be done. Heaven forbid Ukraine be so strong that the US can't control them. Does the US want Ukrainian autonomy or leverage?
Read Phillips O'Brien bemoaning attempts in Washington to micromanage the war.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Also, does Nigel really want to be in court under oath?
Even if he wins the case, he risks embarrassment.
Or to be told that his reputation is worth less than he estimates it ?
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
Farage is an obnoxious tosser with dodgy friends, but that doesn't alter the fact that his private bank details are confidential between him, the bank, and where necessary law enforcement. They are not for chit-chat at a party with a journalist.
I'm finding the immolation of the Mets over Farage absolutely delicious, and richly deserved.
The owners of GB News are plonkers if they don't sell....there is no real business in the UK for TV News, especially if you are just a single channel. You can't even really leveraged advertising, as nobody really cares about advertising to 50,000 people, however if you say you have an international network of outlets, that's a different matter.
In IT startup, when the offers start coming in, isn’t the time to sell. That just affirms that you have a business that is viable.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Coutts private banking is in serious trouble. A real client manager can take his clients with him. How many of the good client managers at Coutts (there are a few) have rung round their premium clients, got agreement and approached Rothschilds with a list and a request for a signing bonus.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
Ratner-ing your brand. Even if you hate Farage, the thought that your exclusive private bank, the reason most people want an account there is that their person business and wealth stays private, can be undermined by an executive of the wider group (who shouldn't even know anything about your financial status) casually spilling the beans to a friendly journalist at a big public dinner.
And for good measure, the potential that they have people trawling your social media etc, to see what kind of person you are and compiling dossiers on you.
Freedom of Belief is protected under the Equality Act. Companies cannot discriminate against people over lawful views. There are many less high profile individuals whose accounts appear to been closed for this reason. I hope banks will look again.
RBS closes gender equality campaigner’s bank account NatWest subsidiary gave no explanation and will not discuss the ban with Lesley Sawers or her husband
Fair enough, but what happens when the subject really is bent and they won't provide one? The bank gets prosecuted.
If the subject really is bent then the bank will either be able to contact the police / financial authorities in connection with the breaches, or will be able to provide a sustainable explanation that the customer won't challenge because they'll know it's both true and personally damaging.
On power: "ten years is the maximum dose for adults".
If Ken Clarke had been LotO after 1997, the UK would almost certainly have joined the Euro in 2001.
All in all, I'd take that over what we have now.
If we'd joined the Euro in 2001 we probably would never have voted Brexit, would have had more influence over EU decision making in the years since, and our economy would be doing nicely. Yes please.
Sorry that's ludicrous. We would have been much worse affected by the 2008 financial crisis and it would have been much harder to solve given the size of the banking and financial sector in the UK. We might well have been forced out of the Euro at that point.
I think we'd be richer than we are now if we were in the Euro, having had to make tougher fiscal choices than we did in the actualité of 2008 - now. On a personal/business level it'd be nice to eliminate currency risk between euros and sterling on all our large contracts.
In all likelihood London and the South-East would be richer and there'd be an even bigger divide between those regions and the rest of the UK.
In recessions it'd be worse - much worse - as monetary policy and QE could not be flexed. I think it'd be politically unsurvivable for any British government.
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months.
We remember WW1, but forget that it took four years to resolve. This isn't going to finish in 2023, and probably not 2024. Unless Trump wins and changes US policy faster than Starmer on penises, in which case the Ukranians are dead by Xmas 2024.
Personally I doubt it. Ireland had an anglo saxon economy and was totally screwed in 2009. Eye watering pain. It has only escaped as it nicks everyone elses taxes and is a small economy so can pay its debts down.
The UK would not have had that luxury and was probably so large an economy as to wreck the Euro. Black Wednesday 2 would have been the outcome.
I think you may have replied to a different post than the one you thought...
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
Sure, but relieving pols of the worry of having to keep to high standards (aka not taking bribes) is against our collective rights.
And banks are commercial organizations. They don't have to take customers if they are too much hassle or seem well dodgy.
Edit: I can't se how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
No, it should be central to banks that they don't accept accounts for people guilty of money laundering. It seems they're going much much wider than that -legislation is needed to ensure they can't just arbitrarily not accept the son of a HoL peer or some such. There's no pushback in legislation the other way which is clearly sorely needed.
Sledging Farage was the ultimate virtue-signal.
Now they've been found out they are paying the penalty, and rightly so.
On power: "ten years is the maximum dose for adults".
The introduction to that interview supports my thesis that Ken Clarke bears heavy responsibility for the Tories losing power after he moved from department to department attacking Conservative-supporting professionals in the public sector.
Not sure about this. The pendulum always swings eventually, and you can't really be a Secretary of State whilst offending nobody.
That's not a defence of Clarke's record at Health and Education before he was Chancellor, but the Conservatives implemented a lot of controversial policies in the 1980s and early 1990s, some of which Clarke was directly involved in, some not. That isn't really what lost it for them in 1997 - there was simply a general feeling by the mid-1990s that the Conservatives had run out of steam and didn't fully appreciate or have compelling solutions for the most important issues for people. There was also a fairly large amount of sleaze going on, and it was widely felt that it was time for a change to the other lot.
Clarke was Health Secretary 1988-1990 and Education 1990-92. Are you really saying 1997 was some kind of delayed reaction to that (which was not felt in the 1992 General Election for some reason)? Feels a bit far-fetched to me, although he was one of a series of Conservative ministers who were unconvincing on those issues both within the professions involved and externally.
I think I am saying the Conservative government was wiped out because it had taken on so many voters who were its natural supporters. Not just Clarke with police, doctors and teachers, although that was a large part of it, but also the defence cuts, and then if you look at who was hurt by the ERM debacle, it was home owners and mortgage holders, it was entrepreneurs and small business owners.
That is how I conceptualise that part of our political history, rather than hand-waving about running out of ideas or fairness or time for a change. Whatever people thought of the cones hotline, that was not what changed their votes. Nor was it the poll tax, which had been neutralised by John Major. The blue team lost power because it systematically alienated its own voters. They'd played by the rules, done what was called for, and *their* government had screwed them over.
It's true that, over the course of a period in government, you collect enemies like a rolling stone gathering moss, and they tend to be a bit stickier than the friends you make.
But I think you underestimate things like the Cones Hotline. It's not that it was an awful policy in itself - there have been many worse and if it had been proposed in 1985 alongside a broad programme it would barely have been newsworthy. But by the mid-90s it was emblematic of a fag end administration that struggled to get things done, to grasp the scale of challenges in public services, or to have meaningful solutions. And it's that broad impression more than the fact a couple of professions had been narked with the Tories for a while that really lost it for them in 1997, in my view.
Bit of balance - the real problem, not pols' particular preoccupations.
"Despite all the recent front-page attention given to Nigel Farage and today’s development – the resignation of NatWest chief executive Alison Rose – there is something else you should know: banks have been quietly closing accounts without giving their customers any reasonable explanation for decades. Setting aside Farage’s politics and personality, and Coutts’s fragile disposition when it comes to people rich enough but arguably not wholesome enough to utilise their elite banking facilities, it should concern us when banks close our accounts with little or no warning. Ordinary people don’t get the prime minister hollering for justice, and we certainly don’t get apologies from CEOs."
Ooh, the Guardian have almost got it.
The thing is the left outlets are making a big deal out of the fact it is Farage, but unfortunately a lot of change only comes when you get a well connected person wronged.
Sarah Everard has sparked changes to the law and policing (and rightly so), but she is far from the first case, but she was well connected to the media, so her case got massive prominence among the industry.
She seem the opposite with grooming gangs. They were "nobodies", so the media didn't care for years and years. It was one brave Times journalist who finally pushed and pushed and pushed on this.
Have there been many "nobodies" abducted, raped and horribly murdered by a serving police officer?
David Carrick. All the way back to 2002, issues were raised about him. How about Laurence Knight, doubt the public ever heard of him.
The plod under pressure from politicians and the media after Sarah Everard, have finally started to look back through their employees and it seems they have been happy to hire some very dodgy individuals.
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months.
We remember WW1, but forget that it took four years to resolve. This isn't going to finish in 2023, and probably not 2024. Unless Trump wins and changes US policy faster than Starmer on penises, in which case the Ukranians are dead by Xmas 2024.
Every major country that lost in WWI collapsed at home before they did on the battlefield (even Russia, although the two were closer to being hand-in-hand there). The Ukraine war is obviously smaller in scale and intensity. Nonetheless, I'd expect the same - it'll be a political defeat that ends it, not a military one.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
I think Farage would have to prove the bank discriminated against him, which might not be that easy as his account was closed within the bank's published commercial policy. On the other hand the embarrassment to the bank of these shenanigans might be enough that they are happy to pay £250K to make Farage go away.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Coutts private banking is in serious trouble. A real client manager can take his clients with him. How many of the good client managers at Coutts (there are a few) have rung round their premium clients, got agreement and approached Rothschilds with a list and a request for a signing bonus.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
Ratner-ing your brand. Even if you hate Farage, the thought that your exclusive private bank, the reason most people want an account there is that their person business and wealth stays private, can be undermined by an executive of the wider group (who shouldn't even know anything about your financial status) casually spilling the beans to a friendly journalist at a big public dinner.
And for good measure, the potential that they have people trawling your social media etc, to see what kind of person you are and compiling dossiers on you.
Surely if private banking stands for anything, it’s discretion. Coutts has just said, to the world, that they don’t do discretion.
The Hoares and the Swiss are now laughing their arses off.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Coutts private banking is in serious trouble. A real client manager can take his clients with him. How many of the good client managers at Coutts (there are a few) have rung round their premium clients, got agreement and approached Rothschilds with a list and a request for a signing bonus.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
Ratner-ing your brand. Even if you hate Farage, the thought that your exclusive private bank, the reason most people want an account there is that their person business and wealth stays private, can be undermined by an executive of the wider group (who shouldn't even know anything about your financial status) casually spilling the beans to a friendly journalist at a big public dinner.
And for good measure, the potential that they have people trawling your social media etc, to see what kind of person you are and compiling dossiers on you.
Surely if private banking stands for anything, it’s discretion. Coutts has just said, to the world, that they don’t do discretion.
The Hoares and the Swiss are now laughing their arses off.
Handelsbanken might find they also have some new customers.
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months.
We remember WW1, but forget that it took four years to resolve. This isn't going to finish in 2023, and probably not 2024. Unless Trump wins and changes US policy faster than Starmer on penises, in which case the Ukranians are dead by Xmas 2024.
Personally I doubt it. Ireland had an anglo saxon economy and was totally screwed in 2009. Eye watering pain. It has only escaped as it nicks everyone elses taxes and is a small economy so can pay its debts down.
The UK would not have had that luxury and was probably so large an economy as to wreck the Euro. Black Wednesday 2 would have been the outcome.
I think you may have replied to a different post than the one you thought...
LOL old age - just turned 62, things can only get worse !
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
I think Farage would have to prove the bank discriminated against him, which might not be that easy as his account was closed within the bank's published commercial policy. On the other hand the embarrassment to the bank of these shenanigans might be enough that they are happy to pay £250K to make Farage go away.
If the bank did nothing wrong, and was just following policy, why did its CEO resign?
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Coutts private banking is in serious trouble. A real client manager can take his clients with him. How many of the good client managers at Coutts (there are a few) have rung round their premium clients, got agreement and approached Rothschilds with a list and a request for a signing bonus.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
Ratner-ing your brand. Even if you hate Farage, the thought that your exclusive private bank, the reason most people want an account there is that their person business and wealth stays private, can be undermined by an executive of the wider group (who shouldn't even know anything about your financial status) casually spilling the beans to a friendly journalist at a big public dinner.
And for good measure, the potential that they have people trawling your social media etc, to see what kind of person you are and compiling dossiers on you.
Imagine you are a client manager of the old school - they exist in Coutts, I’ve met them.
You are answering to a management who were, until quite recently, trying to get you to cold call your clients to sell them products. Imagine trying to sell a pension to someone with 100 million.. Because that was the NatWest metric for an “active” client manager.
You have a book with a bunch of dead wood, but some whales.
Call the whales - ask them if they want to move to a better, cheaper place. Then go an negotiate a deal. Which includes a bonus for yourself. At somewhere which understands what people with money want.
Bit of balance - the real problem, not pols' particular preoccupations.
"Despite all the recent front-page attention given to Nigel Farage and today’s development – the resignation of NatWest chief executive Alison Rose – there is something else you should know: banks have been quietly closing accounts without giving their customers any reasonable explanation for decades. Setting aside Farage’s politics and personality, and Coutts’s fragile disposition when it comes to people rich enough but arguably not wholesome enough to utilise their elite banking facilities, it should concern us when banks close our accounts with little or no warning. Ordinary people don’t get the prime minister hollering for justice, and we certainly don’t get apologies from CEOs."
Ooh, the Guardian have almost got it.
The thing is the left outlets are making a big deal out of the fact it is Farage, but unfortunately a lot of change only comes when you get a well connected person wronged.
Sarah Everard has sparked changes to the law and policing (and rightly so), but she is far from the first case, but she was well connected to the media, so her case got massive prominence among the industry.
She seem the opposite with grooming gangs. They were "nobodies", so the media didn't care for years and years. It was one brave Times journalist who finally pushed and pushed and pushed on this.
Was it her connections to the media? I thought it was the pretty, white young woman that resonated with so many other young women. See differing levels of media noise based on the ethnicity of the victims.
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months.
We remember WW1, but forget that it took four years to resolve. This isn't going to finish in 2023, and probably not 2024. Unless Trump wins and changes US policy faster than Starmer on penises, in which case the Ukranians are dead by Xmas 2024.
Personally I doubt it. Ireland had an anglo saxon economy and was totally screwed in 2009. Eye watering pain. It has only escaped as it nicks everyone elses taxes and is a small economy so can pay its debts down.
The UK would not have had that luxury and was probably so large an economy as to wreck the Euro. Black Wednesday 2 would have been the outcome.
I think you may have replied to a different post than the one you thought...
No I think you are wrong on this. Joe Root should open both the batting and bowling for England.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Also, does Nigel really want to be in court under oath?
Even if he wins the case, he risks embarrassment.
I can't see a case. There's been zero reputational damage. Farage has emerged smelling of roses. If anything he should be paying Coutts.
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months.
We remember WW1, but forget that it took four years to resolve. This isn't going to finish in 2023, and probably not 2024. Unless Trump wins and changes US policy faster than Starmer on penises, in which case the Ukranians are dead by Xmas 2024.
Every major country that lost in WWI collapsed at home before they did on the battlefield (even Russia, although the two were closer to being hand-in-hand there). The Ukraine war is obviously smaller in scale and intensity. Nonetheless, I'd expect the same - it'll be a political defeat that ends it, not a military one.
Interestingly, though, the two are sort of linked.
The political defeat occurs when it looks like the military one will take too long.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Coutts private banking is in serious trouble. A real client manager can take his clients with him. How many of the good client managers at Coutts (there are a few) have rung round their premium clients, got agreement and approached Rothschilds with a list and a request for a signing bonus.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
Ratner-ing your brand. Even if you hate Farage, the thought that your exclusive private bank, the reason most people want an account there is that their person business and wealth stays private, can be undermined by an executive of the wider group (who shouldn't even know anything about your financial status) casually spilling the beans to a friendly journalist at a big public dinner.
And for good measure, the potential that they have people trawling your social media etc, to see what kind of person you are and compiling dossiers on you.
Surely if private banking stands for anything, it’s discretion. Coutts has just said, to the world, that they don’t do discretion.
The Hoares and the Swiss are now laughing their arses off.
Bit of balance - the real problem, not pols' particular preoccupations.
"Despite all the recent front-page attention given to Nigel Farage and today’s development – the resignation of NatWest chief executive Alison Rose – there is something else you should know: banks have been quietly closing accounts without giving their customers any reasonable explanation for decades. Setting aside Farage’s politics and personality, and Coutts’s fragile disposition when it comes to people rich enough but arguably not wholesome enough to utilise their elite banking facilities, it should concern us when banks close our accounts with little or no warning. Ordinary people don’t get the prime minister hollering for justice, and we certainly don’t get apologies from CEOs."
Ooh, the Guardian have almost got it.
The thing is the left outlets are making a big deal out of the fact it is Farage, but unfortunately a lot of change only comes when you get a well connected person wronged.
Sarah Everard has sparked changes to the law and policing (and rightly so), but she is far from the first case, but she was well connected to the media, so her case got massive prominence among the industry.
She seem the opposite with grooming gangs. They were "nobodies", so the media didn't care for years and years. It was one brave Times journalist who finally pushed and pushed and pushed on this.
Was it her connections to the media? I thought it was the pretty, white young woman that resonated with so many other young women. See differing levels of media noise based on the ethnicity of the victims.
She was a marketing executive for digital media agency in London. So the word spread in that industry and I imagine a lot of similar women in that industry became extremely scared and concerned, and also started to talk to one another about weirdos who have made them uncomfortable / scared.
If ever there was an argument for average speed cameras , 20mph limits, or even GPS-based speed limits, insurance premiums are it. I have been absolutely rinsed.
On power: "ten years is the maximum dose for adults".
The introduction to that interview supports my thesis that Ken Clarke bears heavy responsibility for the Tories losing power after he moved from department to department attacking Conservative-supporting professionals in the public sector.
Not sure about this. The pendulum always swings eventually, and you can't really be a Secretary of State whilst offending nobody.
That's not a defence of Clarke's record at Health and Education before he was Chancellor, but the Conservatives implemented a lot of controversial policies in the 1980s and early 1990s, some of which Clarke was directly involved in, some not. That isn't really what lost it for them in 1997 - there was simply a general feeling by the mid-1990s that the Conservatives had run out of steam and didn't fully appreciate or have compelling solutions for the most important issues for people. There was also a fairly large amount of sleaze going on, and it was widely felt that it was time for a change to the other lot.
Clarke was Health Secretary 1988-1990 and Education 1990-92. Are you really saying 1997 was some kind of delayed reaction to that (which was not felt in the 1992 General Election for some reason)? Feels a bit far-fetched to me, although he was one of a series of Conservative ministers who were unconvincing on those issues both within the professions involved and externally.
I think I am saying the Conservative government was wiped out because it had taken on so many voters who were its natural supporters. Not just Clarke with police, doctors and teachers, although that was a large part of it, but also the defence cuts, and then if you look at who was hurt by the ERM debacle, it was home owners and mortgage holders, it was entrepreneurs and small business owners.
That is how I conceptualise that part of our political history, rather than hand-waving about running out of ideas or fairness or time for a change. Whatever people thought of the cones hotline, that was not what changed their votes. Nor was it the poll tax, which had been neutralised by John Major. The blue team lost power because it systematically alienated its own voters. They'd played by the rules, done what was called for, and *their* government had screwed them over.
It's true that, over the course of a period in government, you collect enemies like a rolling stone gathering moss, and they tend to be a bit stickier than the friends you make.
But I think you underestimate things like the Cones Hotline. It's not that it was an awful policy in itself - there have been many worse and if it had been proposed in 1985 alongside a broad programme it would barely have been newsworthy. But by the mid-90s it was emblematic of a fag end administration that struggled to get things done, to grasp the scale of challenges in public services, or to have meaningful solutions. And it's that broad impression more than the fact a couple of professions had been narked with the Tories for a while that really lost it for them in 1997, in my view.
Sunak and Starmer could be doing exactly the same things they both are now under the same economic circumstances, but in 2015 rather than 2023, and I'd be very confident Sunak would trounce Starmer in the GE.
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
Sure, but relieving pols of the worry of having to keep to high standards (aka not taking bribes) is against our collective rights.
And banks are commercial organizations. They don't have to take customers if they are too much hassle or seem well dodgy.
Edit: I can't se how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
There should be rules on what they can ditch you for once accepted. Not acceptable that they can ruin you based on some halwitted Exec's idea of what correct political views are or ,what is enough doffing of cap to royalty is.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Coutts private banking is in serious trouble. A real client manager can take his clients with him. How many of the good client managers at Coutts (there are a few) have rung round their premium clients, got agreement and approached Rothschilds with a list and a request for a signing bonus.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
Ratner-ing your brand. Even if you hate Farage, the thought that your exclusive private bank, the reason most people want an account there is that their person business and wealth stays private, can be undermined by an executive of the wider group (who shouldn't even know anything about your financial status) casually spilling the beans to a friendly journalist at a big public dinner.
And for good measure, the potential that they have people trawling your social media etc, to see what kind of person you are and compiling dossiers on you.
Surely if private banking stands for anything, it’s discretion. Coutts has just said, to the world, that they don’t do discretion.
The Hoares and the Swiss are now laughing their arses off.
Coutts have effectively Ratnered their brand.
They Ratnered their brand a long time ago.
They are the bank for lottery winners and plebs who have done good.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Coutts private banking is in serious trouble. A real client manager can take his clients with him. How many of the good client managers at Coutts (there are a few) have rung round their premium clients, got agreement and approached Rothschilds with a list and a request for a signing bonus.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
Ratner-ing your brand. Even if you hate Farage, the thought that your exclusive private bank, the reason most people want an account there is that their person business and wealth stays private, can be undermined by an executive of the wider group (who shouldn't even know anything about your financial status) casually spilling the beans to a friendly journalist at a big public dinner.
And for good measure, the potential that they have people trawling your social media etc, to see what kind of person you are and compiling dossiers on you.
They thought it'd win them plaudits in their fellow professional and social circles.
I really hope Farage cleans them out and makes mincemeat of them. I've had to deal with all sorts of shit from these sorts of people over the last eight years over being a Tory and a Brexit supporter, and keep my mouth shit all the while for fear of the consequences.
On power: "ten years is the maximum dose for adults".
If Ken Clarke had been LotO after 1997, the UK would almost certainly have joined the Euro in 2001.
All in all, I'd take that over what we have now.
If we'd joined the Euro in 2001 we probably would never have voted Brexit, would have had more influence over EU decision making in the years since, and our economy would be doing nicely. Yes please.
Sorry that's ludicrous. We would have been much worse affected by the 2008 financial crisis and it would have been much harder to solve given the size of the banking and financial sector in the UK. We might well have been forced out of the Euro at that point.
I think we'd be richer than we are now if we were in the Euro, having had to make tougher fiscal choices than we did in the actualité of 2008 - now. On a personal/business level it'd be nice to eliminate currency risk between euros and sterling on all our large contracts.
In all likelihood London and the South-East would be richer and there'd be an even bigger divide between those regions and the rest of the UK.
In recessions it'd be worse - much worse - as monetary policy and QE could not be flexed. I think it'd be politically unsurvivable for any British government.
Depends on whether our cycle was synchronised with the Euro Area cycle or not. The ECB has been just as willing to cut rates and do QE as the BOE. Recent cycles have been well synchronised across the major Western economies, so the welfare loss from losing our independent monetary policy would probably be quite small. I wouldn't advocate joining the Euro right now though. The British economy is too weak.
Bit of balance - the real problem, not pols' particular preoccupations.
"Despite all the recent front-page attention given to Nigel Farage and today’s development – the resignation of NatWest chief executive Alison Rose – there is something else you should know: banks have been quietly closing accounts without giving their customers any reasonable explanation for decades. Setting aside Farage’s politics and personality, and Coutts’s fragile disposition when it comes to people rich enough but arguably not wholesome enough to utilise their elite banking facilities, it should concern us when banks close our accounts with little or no warning. Ordinary people don’t get the prime minister hollering for justice, and we certainly don’t get apologies from CEOs."
Ooh, the Guardian have almost got it.
The thing is the left outlets are making a big deal out of the fact it is Farage, but unfortunately a lot of change only comes when you get a well connected person wronged.
Sarah Everard has sparked changes to the law and policing (and rightly so), but she is far from the first case, but she was well connected to the media, so her case got massive prominence among the industry.
She seem the opposite with grooming gangs. They were "nobodies", so the media didn't care for years and years. It was one brave Times journalist who finally pushed and pushed and pushed on this.
Was it her connections to the media? I thought it was the pretty, white young woman that resonated with so many other young women. See differing levels of media noise based on the ethnicity of the victims.
The Sarah Everard case blew up, because so many young female journalists saw themselves as in the same place. Many of them lived close to her.
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months...
Silly calculation, though. The Russians might have built defences in some depth, but they're still a fairly thin red line along the borders of the territory they've seized.
Exactly , take a few key areas and most of rest become untenable.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Coutts private banking is in serious trouble. A real client manager can take his clients with him. How many of the good client managers at Coutts (there are a few) have rung round their premium clients, got agreement and approached Rothschilds with a list and a request for a signing bonus.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
Ratner-ing your brand. Even if you hate Farage, the thought that your exclusive private bank, the reason most people want an account there is that their person business and wealth stays private, can be undermined by an executive of the wider group (who shouldn't even know anything about your financial status) casually spilling the beans to a friendly journalist at a big public dinner.
And for good measure, the potential that they have people trawling your social media etc, to see what kind of person you are and compiling dossiers on you.
They thought it'd win them plaudits in their fellow professional and social circles.
I really hope Farage cleans them out and makes mincemeat of them. I've had to deal with all sorts of shit from these sorts of people over the last eight years over being a Tory and a Brexit supporter, and keep my mouth shit all the while for fear of the consequences.
Probably best not to share your mouth shit anyway.
On power: "ten years is the maximum dose for adults".
The introduction to that interview supports my thesis that Ken Clarke bears heavy responsibility for the Tories losing power after he moved from department to department attacking Conservative-supporting professionals in the public sector.
Not sure about this. The pendulum always swings eventually, and you can't really be a Secretary of State whilst offending nobody.
That's not a defence of Clarke's record at Health and Education before he was Chancellor, but the Conservatives implemented a lot of controversial policies in the 1980s and early 1990s, some of which Clarke was directly involved in, some not. That isn't really what lost it for them in 1997 - there was simply a general feeling by the mid-1990s that the Conservatives had run out of steam and didn't fully appreciate or have compelling solutions for the most important issues for people. There was also a fairly large amount of sleaze going on, and it was widely felt that it was time for a change to the other lot.
Clarke was Health Secretary 1988-1990 and Education 1990-92. Are you really saying 1997 was some kind of delayed reaction to that (which was not felt in the 1992 General Election for some reason)? Feels a bit far-fetched to me, although he was one of a series of Conservative ministers who were unconvincing on those issues both within the professions involved and externally.
I think I am saying the Conservative government was wiped out because it had taken on so many voters who were its natural supporters. Not just Clarke with police, doctors and teachers, although that was a large part of it, but also the defence cuts, and then if you look at who was hurt by the ERM debacle, it was home owners and mortgage holders, it was entrepreneurs and small business owners.
That is how I conceptualise that part of our political history, rather than hand-waving about running out of ideas or fairness or time for a change. Whatever people thought of the cones hotline, that was not what changed their votes. Nor was it the poll tax, which had been neutralised by John Major. The blue team lost power because it systematically alienated its own voters. They'd played by the rules, done what was called for, and *their* government had screwed them over.
It's true that, over the course of a period in government, you collect enemies like a rolling stone gathering moss, and they tend to be a bit stickier than the friends you make.
But I think you underestimate things like the Cones Hotline. It's not that it was an awful policy in itself - there have been many worse and if it had been proposed in 1985 alongside a broad programme it would barely have been newsworthy. But by the mid-90s it was emblematic of a fag end administration that struggled to get things done, to grasp the scale of challenges in public services, or to have meaningful solutions. And it's that broad impression more than the fact a couple of professions had been narked with the Tories for a while that really lost it for them in 1997, in my view.
Sunak and Starmer could be doing exactly the same things they both are now under the same economic circumstances, but in 2015 rather than 2023, and I'd be very confident Sunak would trounce Starmer in the GE.
Sometimes, it really is a matter of timing.
Well yes, because in 2015 the Tories hadn’t yet trashed our economy, international credibility or public services. Though they were certainly making a start.
Probably not trounced either. Similar result to Cameron-Miliband or a bit worse.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
I think Farage would have to prove the bank discriminated against him, which might not be that easy as his account was closed within the bank's published commercial policy. On the other hand the embarrassment to the bank of these shenanigans might be enough that they are happy to pay £250K to make Farage go away.
If the bank did nothing wrong, and was just following policy, why did its CEO resign?
Because Rose personally, and NatWest generally, utterly screwed this up. Firing a customer I guess is similar to firing an employee. You need to do it by the book otherwise it will come back to bite you.
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months...
Silly calculation, though. The Russians might have built defences in some depth, but they're still a fairly thin red line along the borders of the territory they've seized.
Exactly , take a few key areas and most of rest become untenable.
Freedom of Belief is protected under the Equality Act. Companies cannot discriminate against people over lawful views. There are many less high profile individuals whose accounts appear to been closed for this reason. I hope banks will look again.
RBS closes gender equality campaigner’s bank account NatWest subsidiary gave no explanation and will not discuss the ban with Lesley Sawers or her husband
If the account holder is subject to a Suspicious Activity Report - money laundering or other financial crime triggers effectively - bank staff will be guilty of "tipping off" if they say anything about the investigation to the customer. This comes with dismissal, a two year prison sentence and a lifetime ban from any job in financial services.
You might expect Kemi Badenoch to know that as I think financial services are within her ministerial brief.
You are having a laugh, not one of those clowns know anything about briefs other than the ones round their fat Tory arses.
Bit of balance - the real problem, not pols' particular preoccupations.
"Despite all the recent front-page attention given to Nigel Farage and today’s development – the resignation of NatWest chief executive Alison Rose – there is something else you should know: banks have been quietly closing accounts without giving their customers any reasonable explanation for decades. Setting aside Farage’s politics and personality, and Coutts’s fragile disposition when it comes to people rich enough but arguably not wholesome enough to utilise their elite banking facilities, it should concern us when banks close our accounts with little or no warning. Ordinary people don’t get the prime minister hollering for justice, and we certainly don’t get apologies from CEOs."
Ooh, the Guardian have almost got there. Yes, it’s been happening for years but the media have been ignoring it.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Coutts private banking is in serious trouble. A real client manager can take his clients with him. How many of the good client managers at Coutts (there are a few) have rung round their premium clients, got agreement and approached Rothschilds with a list and a request for a signing bonus.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
Ratner-ing your brand. Even if you hate Farage, the thought that your exclusive private bank, the reason most people want an account there is that their person business and wealth stays private, can be undermined by an executive of the wider group (who shouldn't even know anything about your financial status) casually spilling the beans to a friendly journalist at a big public dinner.
And for good measure, the potential that they have people trawling your social media etc, to see what kind of person you are and compiling dossiers on you.
Surely if private banking stands for anything, it’s discretion. Coutts has just said, to the world, that they don’t do discretion.
The Hoares and the Swiss are now laughing their arses off.
Coutts have effectively Ratnered their brand.
They Ratnered their brand a long time ago.
They are the bank for lottery winners and plebs who have done good.
They still had a big chunk of clients who have been banking with them since forever.
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months.
We remember WW1, but forget that it took four years to resolve. This isn't going to finish in 2023, and probably not 2024. Unless Trump wins and changes US policy faster than Starmer on penises, in which case the Ukranians are dead by Xmas 2024.
There seem to be a lot of local offensives going on at huge cost in lives - we generally hear more about the Ykrainian efforts but the Russian are at it too - e.g. they've thrown two armies and an army corps (possibly 100,000 men) at Svatove/Kremina (source: Tom Cooper), with the same sort of micro-progress that the Ukrainians report - a few hundred metres here and there. Stepping back from the individual accounts, the front does seem deadlocked.
On power: "ten years is the maximum dose for adults".
If Ken Clarke had been LotO after 1997, the UK would almost certainly have joined the Euro in 2001.
All in all, I'd take that over what we have now.
If we'd joined the Euro in 2001 we probably would never have voted Brexit, would have had more influence over EU decision making in the years since, and our economy would be doing nicely. Yes please.
Sorry that's ludicrous. We would have been much worse affected by the 2008 financial crisis and it would have been much harder to solve given the size of the banking and financial sector in the UK. We might well have been forced out of the Euro at that point.
I think we'd be richer than we are now if we were in the Euro, having had to make tougher fiscal choices than we did in the actualité of 2008 - now. On a personal/business level it'd be nice to eliminate currency risk between euros and sterling on all our large contracts.
In all likelihood London and the South-East would be richer and there'd be an even bigger divide between those regions and the rest of the UK.
In recessions it'd be worse - much worse - as monetary policy and QE could not be flexed. I think it'd be politically unsurvivable for any British government.
Depends on whether our cycle was synchronised with the Euro Area cycle or not. The ECB has been just as willing to cut rates and do QE as the BOE. Recent cycles have been well synchronised across the major Western economies, so the welfare loss from losing our independent monetary policy would probably be quite small. I wouldn't advocate joining the Euro right now though. The British economy is too weak.
Joining the Euro is irrevocable and a decision that can only be taken once.
The very marginal gains on currency transactions, which only apply to a minority of our trade btw, simply isn't worth it for the total loss of economic independence that comes with it.
On power: "ten years is the maximum dose for adults".
The introduction to that interview supports my thesis that Ken Clarke bears heavy responsibility for the Tories losing power after he moved from department to department attacking Conservative-supporting professionals in the public sector.
Not sure about this. The pendulum always swings eventually, and you can't really be a Secretary of State whilst offending nobody.
That's not a defence of Clarke's record at Health and Education before he was Chancellor, but the Conservatives implemented a lot of controversial policies in the 1980s and early 1990s, some of which Clarke was directly involved in, some not. That isn't really what lost it for them in 1997 - there was simply a general feeling by the mid-1990s that the Conservatives had run out of steam and didn't fully appreciate or have compelling solutions for the most important issues for people. There was also a fairly large amount of sleaze going on, and it was widely felt that it was time for a change to the other lot.
Clarke was Health Secretary 1988-1990 and Education 1990-92. Are you really saying 1997 was some kind of delayed reaction to that (which was not felt in the 1992 General Election for some reason)? Feels a bit far-fetched to me, although he was one of a series of Conservative ministers who were unconvincing on those issues both within the professions involved and externally.
I think I am saying the Conservative government was wiped out because it had taken on so many voters who were its natural supporters. Not just Clarke with police, doctors and teachers, although that was a large part of it, but also the defence cuts, and then if you look at who was hurt by the ERM debacle, it was home owners and mortgage holders, it was entrepreneurs and small business owners.
That is how I conceptualise that part of our political history, rather than hand-waving about running out of ideas or fairness or time for a change. Whatever people thought of the cones hotline, that was not what changed their votes. Nor was it the poll tax, which had been neutralised by John Major. The blue team lost power because it systematically alienated its own voters. They'd played by the rules, done what was called for, and *their* government had screwed them over.
It's true that, over the course of a period in government, you collect enemies like a rolling stone gathering moss, and they tend to be a bit stickier than the friends you make.
But I think you underestimate things like the Cones Hotline. It's not that it was an awful policy in itself - there have been many worse and if it had been proposed in 1985 alongside a broad programme it would barely have been newsworthy. But by the mid-90s it was emblematic of a fag end administration that struggled to get things done, to grasp the scale of challenges in public services, or to have meaningful solutions. And it's that broad impression more than the fact a couple of professions had been narked with the Tories for a while that really lost it for them in 1997, in my view.
The cones hotline, for all its silliness, was part of a serious attempt by John Major to involve the public in public sector decisions and set up a feedback loop. It was one of the first cases to change the structure of public delivery from its "consult with experts and the great and good then enact" structure. It was a very good policy inspired by a desire to get the little people involved.
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months.
We remember WW1, but forget that it took four years to resolve. This isn't going to finish in 2023, and probably not 2024. Unless Trump wins and changes US policy faster than Starmer on penises, in which case the Ukranians are dead by Xmas 2024.
Personally I doubt it. Ireland had an anglo saxon economy and was totally screwed in 2009. Eye watering pain. It has only escaped as it nicks everyone elses taxes and is a small economy so can pay its debts down.
The UK would not have had that luxury and was probably so large an economy as to wreck the Euro. Black Wednesday 2 would have been the outcome.
I think you may have replied to a different post than the one you thought...
LOL old age - just turned 62, things can only get worse !
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
I can't see how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
The issue is not "forcing them to take accounts" its "closing existing accounts" - some of which they have held for decades.
Either the bank didn't do KYC properly in the first place - or they suspect criminality in which case the police should be involved.
In Farage's case it boiled down to "we don't like his politics" - I wonder why they have closed the accounts of Professor Lesley Sawers, 64, the Equalities and Human Rights commissioner for Scotland, who has been with them 32 years....
So the big question - does Nicola Sturgeon still have a bank account ?
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Coutts private banking is in serious trouble. A real client manager can take his clients with him. How many of the good client managers at Coutts (there are a few) have rung round their premium clients, got agreement and approached Rothschilds with a list and a request for a signing bonus.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
Ratner-ing your brand. Even if you hate Farage, the thought that your exclusive private bank, the reason most people want an account there is that their person business and wealth stays private, can be undermined by an executive of the wider group (who shouldn't even know anything about your financial status) casually spilling the beans to a friendly journalist at a big public dinner.
And for good measure, the potential that they have people trawling your social media etc, to see what kind of person you are and compiling dossiers on you.
Surely if private banking stands for anything, it’s discretion. Coutts has just said, to the world, that they don’t do discretion.
The Hoares and the Swiss are now laughing their arses off.
Coutts have effectively Ratnered their brand.
They Ratnered their brand a long time ago.
They are the bank for lottery winners and plebs who have done good.
They still had a big chunk of clients who have been banking with them since forever.
On power: "ten years is the maximum dose for adults".
The introduction to that interview supports my thesis that Ken Clarke bears heavy responsibility for the Tories losing power after he moved from department to department attacking Conservative-supporting professionals in the public sector.
Not sure about this. The pendulum always swings eventually, and you can't really be a Secretary of State whilst offending nobody.
That's not a defence of Clarke's record at Health and Education before he was Chancellor, but the Conservatives implemented a lot of controversial policies in the 1980s and early 1990s, some of which Clarke was directly involved in, some not. That isn't really what lost it for them in 1997 - there was simply a general feeling by the mid-1990s that the Conservatives had run out of steam and didn't fully appreciate or have compelling solutions for the most important issues for people. There was also a fairly large amount of sleaze going on, and it was widely felt that it was time for a change to the other lot.
Clarke was Health Secretary 1988-1990 and Education 1990-92. Are you really saying 1997 was some kind of delayed reaction to that (which was not felt in the 1992 General Election for some reason)? Feels a bit far-fetched to me, although he was one of a series of Conservative ministers who were unconvincing on those issues both within the professions involved and externally.
I think I am saying the Conservative government was wiped out because it had taken on so many voters who were its natural supporters. Not just Clarke with police, doctors and teachers, although that was a large part of it, but also the defence cuts, and then if you look at who was hurt by the ERM debacle, it was home owners and mortgage holders, it was entrepreneurs and small business owners.
That is how I conceptualise that part of our political history, rather than hand-waving about running out of ideas or fairness or time for a change. Whatever people thought of the cones hotline, that was not what changed their votes. Nor was it the poll tax, which had been neutralised by John Major. The blue team lost power because it systematically alienated its own voters. They'd played by the rules, done what was called for, and *their* government had screwed them over.
It's true that, over the course of a period in government, you collect enemies like a rolling stone gathering moss, and they tend to be a bit stickier than the friends you make.
But I think you underestimate things like the Cones Hotline. It's not that it was an awful policy in itself - there have been many worse and if it had been proposed in 1985 alongside a broad programme it would barely have been newsworthy. But by the mid-90s it was emblematic of a fag end administration that struggled to get things done, to grasp the scale of challenges in public services, or to have meaningful solutions. And it's that broad impression more than the fact a couple of professions had been narked with the Tories for a while that really lost it for them in 1997, in my view.
Sunak and Starmer could be doing exactly the same things they both are now under the same economic circumstances, but in 2015 rather than 2023, and I'd be very confident Sunak would trounce Starmer in the GE.
Sometimes, it really is a matter of timing.
Well yes, because in 2015 the Tories hadn’t yet trashed our economy, international credibility or public services. Though they were certainly making a start.
Probably not trounced either. Similar result to Cameron-Miliband or a bit worse.
Labour had trashed our economy in 2010, and our international credibility over things like extraordinary rendition, Iraq and the Expenses Scandal. Public services were on a totally unsustainable footing and largely unreformed.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Coutts private banking is in serious trouble. A real client manager can take his clients with him. How many of the good client managers at Coutts (there are a few) have rung round their premium clients, got agreement and approached Rothschilds with a list and a request for a signing bonus.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
Ratner-ing your brand. Even if you hate Farage, the thought that your exclusive private bank, the reason most people want an account there is that their person business and wealth stays private, can be undermined by an executive of the wider group (who shouldn't even know anything about your financial status) casually spilling the beans to a friendly journalist at a big public dinner.
And for good measure, the potential that they have people trawling your social media etc, to see what kind of person you are and compiling dossiers on you.
They thought it'd win them plaudits in their fellow professional and social circles.
I really hope Farage cleans them out and makes mincemeat of them. I've had to deal with all sorts of shit from these sorts of people over the last eight years over being a Tory and a Brexit supporter, and keep my mouth shit all the while for fear of the consequences.
Probably best not to share your mouth shit anyway.
On power: "ten years is the maximum dose for adults".
The introduction to that interview supports my thesis that Ken Clarke bears heavy responsibility for the Tories losing power after he moved from department to department attacking Conservative-supporting professionals in the public sector.
Not sure about this. The pendulum always swings eventually, and you can't really be a Secretary of State whilst offending nobody.
That's not a defence of Clarke's record at Health and Education before he was Chancellor, but the Conservatives implemented a lot of controversial policies in the 1980s and early 1990s, some of which Clarke was directly involved in, some not. That isn't really what lost it for them in 1997 - there was simply a general feeling by the mid-1990s that the Conservatives had run out of steam and didn't fully appreciate or have compelling solutions for the most important issues for people. There was also a fairly large amount of sleaze going on, and it was widely felt that it was time for a change to the other lot.
Clarke was Health Secretary 1988-1990 and Education 1990-92. Are you really saying 1997 was some kind of delayed reaction to that (which was not felt in the 1992 General Election for some reason)? Feels a bit far-fetched to me, although he was one of a series of Conservative ministers who were unconvincing on those issues both within the professions involved and externally.
I think I am saying the Conservative government was wiped out because it had taken on so many voters who were its natural supporters. Not just Clarke with police, doctors and teachers, although that was a large part of it, but also the defence cuts, and then if you look at who was hurt by the ERM debacle, it was home owners and mortgage holders, it was entrepreneurs and small business owners.
That is how I conceptualise that part of our political history, rather than hand-waving about running out of ideas or fairness or time for a change. Whatever people thought of the cones hotline, that was not what changed their votes. Nor was it the poll tax, which had been neutralised by John Major. The blue team lost power because it systematically alienated its own voters. They'd played by the rules, done what was called for, and *their* government had screwed them over.
It's true that, over the course of a period in government, you collect enemies like a rolling stone gathering moss, and they tend to be a bit stickier than the friends you make.
But I think you underestimate things like the Cones Hotline. It's not that it was an awful policy in itself - there have been many worse and if it had been proposed in 1985 alongside a broad programme it would barely have been newsworthy. But by the mid-90s it was emblematic of a fag end administration that struggled to get things done, to grasp the scale of challenges in public services, or to have meaningful solutions. And it's that broad impression more than the fact a couple of professions had been narked with the Tories for a while that really lost it for them in 1997, in my view.
Cones Hotline? Don't give Sunak/Braverman ideas. Before you know it, we'll have a Small Boats Hotline.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
I expect that Farage is now going to sue the hell out of NatWest, and log a case with the Information Commissioner which can expose them to further fines.
I'm not totally sure he'd get far suing them, as it's not clear to me what his quantifiable loss is. Certainly, he'd be taking a major risk as soon as they made an offer to settle (essentially, he'd be liable to pay both his and their legal costs if this exceeded the sum ultimately awarded, which is quite likely to be modest). I think Farage is canny enough to get this - pursuing a court case after a sensible "without prejudice" offer is made is a bit of a mug's game.
So I'm not convinced he'll spin this out into a full-blown court case (he may issue proceedings but can't see him having his day in court), although I can see it with ICO complaints etc.
The loss is to his reputation. Now, you might think that he has no reputation to lose, but no matter his politics, he was in good standing in society, and NatWest decided to brief the press that he was not in good standing in society.
It’s the sort of case where the damages are £100k and the costs £3m, or else NW can settle for £500k now and avoid the court case they know they’ll lose.
Or they offer £250k, in the knowledge that Farage is taking a multi million pound, probably losing gamble on costs, if he takes it to court.
I suspect that Farage has someone prepared to bankroll the lawsuit. But he might take the £250k, as most of us would.
Coutts private banking is in serious trouble. A real client manager can take his clients with him. How many of the good client managers at Coutts (there are a few) have rung round their premium clients, got agreement and approached Rothschilds with a list and a request for a signing bonus.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
Ratner-ing your brand. Even if you hate Farage, the thought that your exclusive private bank, the reason most people want an account there is that their person business and wealth stays private, can be undermined by an executive of the wider group (who shouldn't even know anything about your financial status) casually spilling the beans to a friendly journalist at a big public dinner.
And for good measure, the potential that they have people trawling your social media etc, to see what kind of person you are and compiling dossiers on you.
Surely if private banking stands for anything, it’s discretion. Coutts has just said, to the world, that they don’t do discretion.
The Hoares and the Swiss are now laughing their arses off.
Coutts have effectively Ratnered their brand.
They Ratnered their brand a long time ago.
They are the bank for lottery winners and plebs who have done good.
They still had a big chunk of clients who have been banking with them since forever.
Mostly inbred yokels like the Royal family.
People with actual money. If they lose those, all they’ll have is some people who like waving the name in mid rank cocktail bars.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
All of them couldn't have played it worse from the start. They have fallen into Farage's trap at every single step.
Farage is a wily coyote and smart, he is up against chinless no mark Tory duffers. A 5 year old could run rings round them.
"Wily coyote" is a slightly odd phrase to use, since isn't it a nod to the cartoon character (Wile E. Coyote), who was famously hapless and inept, and up against a much sharper, quicker adversary?
I agree he's an effective self publicist, though. The really odd thing isn't just that they closed his account on the basis they did, but that they apparently thought, "Well, I very much doubt Nigel will make a whole big thing out of this in the media".
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months.
We remember WW1, but forget that it took four years to resolve. This isn't going to finish in 2023, and probably not 2024. Unless Trump wins and changes US policy faster than Starmer on penises, in which case the Ukranians are dead by Xmas 2024.
Personally I doubt it. Ireland had an anglo saxon economy and was totally screwed in 2009. Eye watering pain. It has only escaped as it nicks everyone elses taxes and is a small economy so can pay its debts down.
The UK would not have had that luxury and was probably so large an economy as to wreck the Euro. Black Wednesday 2 would have been the outcome.
I think you may have replied to a different post than the one you thought...
LOL old age - just turned 62, things can only get worse !
Just a boy Alan
thanks malc, but like you Im hoping wisdom follows age
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
I can't see how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
The issue is not "forcing them to take accounts" its "closing existing accounts" - some of which they have held for decades.
Either the bank didn't do KYC properly in the first place - or they suspect criminality in which case the police should be involved.
In Farage's case it boiled down to "we don't like his politics" - I wonder why they have closed the accounts of Professor Lesley Sawers, 64, the Equalities and Human Rights commissioner for Scotland, who has been with them 32 years....
So the big question - does Nicola Sturgeon still have a bank account ?
I assumed that RBS = Royal Bank of Sturgeon. Have I got that wrong?
Yes, Sturgeon banks with HBOS, well the Bank of Scotland branch.
Though SNP did comically publish her entire account and tax returns.
If she is charged and depending on the charges, she may become an unbanked person.
Right now she'll struggle to get mainstream insurance, which is another scandal like the unbanked.
Home & car insurance becomes invalidated the moment you get charged with most mainstream insurers, the ones that will accept you charge up to 10 times the standard price.
Edit - You don't even have to be charged/convicted, if you live with someone or are financially associated with somebody in those circumstances, then you are in the same boat.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
All of them couldn't have played it worse from the start. They have fallen into Farage's trap at every single step.
Farage is a wily coyote and smart, he is up against chinless no mark Tory duffers. A 5 year old could run rings round them.
"Wily coyote" is a slightly odd phrase to use, since isn't it a nod to the cartoon character (Wile E. Coyote), who was famously hapless and inept, and up against a much sharper, quicker adversary?
I agree he's an effective self publicist, though. The really odd thing isn't just that they closed his account on the basis they did, but that they apparently thought, "Well, I very much doubt Nigel will make a whole big thing out of this in the media".
It's worse than that. They wrote a report saying precisely that Nigel would make a big thing out of it in the media.
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months...
Silly calculation, though. The Russians might have built defences in some depth, but they're still a fairly thin red line along the borders of the territory they've seized.
Exactly , take a few key areas and most of rest become untenable.
The last time somebody tried that we ended up with Operation Market Garden.
We know some things work.
Going around works, eg MacArthur and Inchon.
Attacking from an unexepected direction works, eg Tommy Franks and Gulf War II or the Germans and the Ardennes Forest.
Overwhelming firepower and technological superiority works, eg Schwartzkopf and Gulf War I.
Surprise works, like the Six Day War, when the IAF destroyed Egyptian air forces on the ground
Do you know what doesn't work? Taking a few key areas. It's a war. Unless it's something like a port, things move.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
All of them couldn't have played it worse from the start. They have fallen into Farage's trap at every single step.
Farage is a wily coyote and smart, he is up against chinless no mark Tory duffers. A 5 year old could run rings round them.
"Wily coyote" is a slightly odd phrase to use, since isn't it a nod to the cartoon character (Wile E. Coyote), who was famously hapless and inept, and up against a much sharper, quicker adversary?
I agree he's an effective self publicist, though. The really odd thing isn't just that they closed his account on the basis they did, but that they apparently thought, "Well, I very much doubt Nigel will make a whole big thing out of this in the media".
Surely they did flag up that Farage would publicise this?
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
All of them couldn't have played it worse from the start. They have fallen into Farage's trap at every single step.
Farage is a wily coyote and smart, he is up against chinless no mark Tory duffers. A 5 year old could run rings round them.
"Wily coyote" is a slightly odd phrase to use, since isn't it a nod to the cartoon character (Wile E. Coyote), who was famously hapless and inept, and up against a much sharper, quicker adversary?
I agree he's an effective self publicist, though. The really odd thing isn't just that they closed his account on the basis they did, but that they apparently thought, "Well, I very much doubt Nigel will make a whole big thing out of this in the media".
It's worse than that. They wrote a report saying precisely that Nigel would make a big thing out of it in the media.
Once again I still struggle to understand why Coutts isnt a sea of rolling heads
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
All of them couldn't have played it worse from the start. They have fallen into Farage's trap at every single step.
Farage is a wily coyote and smart, he is up against chinless no mark Tory duffers. A 5 year old could run rings round them.
"Wily coyote" is a slightly odd phrase to use, since isn't it a nod to the cartoon character (Wile E. Coyote), who was famously hapless and inept, and up against a much sharper, quicker adversary?
I agree he's an effective self publicist, though. The really odd thing isn't just that they closed his account on the basis they did, but that they apparently thought, "Well, I very much doubt Nigel will make a whole big thing out of this in the media".
It's worse than that. They wrote a report saying precisely that Nigel would make a big thing out of it in the media.
Once again I still struggle to understand why Coutts isnt a sea of rolling heads
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months.
We remember WW1, but forget that it took four years to resolve. This isn't going to finish in 2023, and probably not 2024. Unless Trump wins and changes US policy faster than Starmer on penises, in which case the Ukranians are dead by Xmas 2024.
There seem to be a lot of local offensives going on at huge cost in lives - we generally hear more about the Ykrainian efforts but the Russian are at it too - e.g. they've thrown two armies and an army corps (possibly 100,000 men) at Svatove/Kremina (source: Tom Cooper), with the same sort of micro-progress that the Ukrainians report - a few hundred metres here and there. Stepping back from the individual accounts, the front does seem deadlocked.
I would recommend the Institute for the Study of War reports for reasonably objective coverage.
There are many Andriivkas in Ukraine. The one in question is about 6km south of the center of Bakhmut and about 2km south of Klishchiivka. I suspect I am going to be saying this again and again, but the total area that has changed hands is about 6 square km. It's good, but it is slow.
It’s always slow, when the enemy is digging trenches and mining fields.
Progress is progress though, and the Ukranians are making progress every day.
I know. I agree with you. But the 2014 area of Ukraine is 579,290sqkm and the Russians currently occupy about a quarter of it including Crimea. Call it 150Ksqkm. 6sqkm is 0.005% (ie 0.00005) of the occupied territory. At that rate they will have cleared out the orcs in about 20,000 days, which is 54 years ten months...
Silly calculation, though. The Russians might have built defences in some depth, but they're still a fairly thin red line along the borders of the territory they've seized.
Exactly , take a few key areas and most of rest become untenable.
The last time somebody tried that we ended up with Operation Market Garden.
We know some things work.
Going around works, eg MacArthur and Inchon.
Attacking from an unexepected direction works, eg Tommy Franks and Gulf War II or the Germans and the Ardennes Forest.
Overwhelming firepower and technological superiority works, eg Schwartzkopf and Gulf War I.
Surprise works, like the Six Day War, when the IAF destroyed Egyptian air forces on the ground
Do you know what doesn't work? Taking a few key areas. It's a war. Unless it's something like a port, things move.
In the 6 Day War, the Syrians panicked after their defences were breached. It was only the fact that the Israel didn’t have a plan or interest in conquering the whole country that saved them.
Once an army breaks, it can loose a lot of ground fast. As we saw earlier in this war.
Hyundai Motor's Q2 operating profit exceeds 4 trillion won for 1st time https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=355763 Hyundai Motor said Wednesday that its second-quarter revenue increased 17.4 percent year-on-year to 42.2 trillion won ($33 billion), and operating profit rose 42.2 percent to 4.2 trillion won. This was backed by continued strong demand for its electric vehicles (EV), SUVs and luxury models around the world.
The company's operating profit margin for the period hit 10 percent, the highest since the second quarter of 2013. Its net profit including non-controlling interest was also up by 8.5 percent to 3.35 trillion won.
Hyundai Motor sold over 1.05 million vehicles around the globe in the second quarter, an 8.5 percent increase from a year earlier. Sales in markets outside of Korea were up by 7.6 percent to 854,210, and sales in Korea increased by 12.7 percent to 205,503...
The car trade is still pretty profitable if you get it right. They'll probably be among those who prosper with the transition to EVs.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
All of them couldn't have played it worse from the start. They have fallen into Farage's trap at every single step.
Farage is a wily coyote and smart, he is up against chinless no mark Tory duffers. A 5 year old could run rings round them.
"Wily coyote" is a slightly odd phrase to use, since isn't it a nod to the cartoon character (Wile E. Coyote), who was famously hapless and inept, and up against a much sharper, quicker adversary?
I agree he's an effective self publicist, though. The really odd thing isn't just that they closed his account on the basis they did, but that they apparently thought, "Well, I very much doubt Nigel will make a whole big thing out of this in the media".
It's worse than that. They wrote a report saying precisely that Nigel would make a big thing out of it in the media.
Once again I still struggle to understand why Coutts isnt a sea of rolling heads
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
All of them couldn't have played it worse from the start. They have fallen into Farage's trap at every single step.
Farage is a wily coyote and smart, he is up against chinless no mark Tory duffers. A 5 year old could run rings round them.
"Wily coyote" is a slightly odd phrase to use, since isn't it a nod to the cartoon character (Wile E. Coyote), who was famously hapless and inept, and up against a much sharper, quicker adversary?
I agree he's an effective self publicist, though. The really odd thing isn't just that they closed his account on the basis they did, but that they apparently thought, "Well, I very much doubt Nigel will make a whole big thing out of this in the media".
Recently I learned that coyotes are faster than roadrunners.
Bit of balance - the real problem, not pols' particular preoccupations.
"Despite all the recent front-page attention given to Nigel Farage and today’s development – the resignation of NatWest chief executive Alison Rose – there is something else you should know: banks have been quietly closing accounts without giving their customers any reasonable explanation for decades. Setting aside Farage’s politics and personality, and Coutts’s fragile disposition when it comes to people rich enough but arguably not wholesome enough to utilise their elite banking facilities, it should concern us when banks close our accounts with little or no warning. Ordinary people don’t get the prime minister hollering for justice, and we certainly don’t get apologies from CEOs."
Ooh, the Guardian have almost got it.
The thing is the left outlets are making a big deal out of the fact it is Farage, but unfortunately a lot of change only comes when you get a well connected person wronged.
Sarah Everard has sparked changes to the law and policing (and rightly so), but she is far from the first case, but she was well connected to the media, so her case got massive prominence among the industry.
She seem the opposite with grooming gangs. They were "nobodies", so the media didn't care for years and years. It was one brave Times journalist who finally pushed and pushed and pushed on this.
Was it her connections to the media? I thought it was the pretty, white young woman that resonated with so many other young women. See differing levels of media noise based on the ethnicity of the victims.
Zara Aleena, the law graduate murdered walking home in Sunil's manor, might beg to differ. It is often said that only White victims grab the headlines but that is not really true. The biggest factor is probably what else happened on the same day. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63599799
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
All of them couldn't have played it worse from the start. They have fallen into Farage's trap at every single step.
Farage is a wily coyote and smart, he is up against chinless no mark Tory duffers. A 5 year old could run rings round them.
"Wily coyote" is a slightly odd phrase to use, since isn't it a nod to the cartoon character (Wile E. Coyote), who was famously hapless and inept, and up against a much sharper, quicker adversary?
I agree he's an effective self publicist, though. The really odd thing isn't just that they closed his account on the basis they did, but that they apparently thought, "Well, I very much doubt Nigel will make a whole big thing out of this in the media".
Surely they did flag up that Farage would publicise this?
The general advice to deal with people you don't like, basically ignore them, don't give them the oxygen of publicity.....If Coutts had just kept his account, but under a close watch for anything dodgy, no news story, no tales of building dodgy dossiers, no bad PR, no getting called in by the government etc etc etc.
Instead they just given Farage a megaphone and a massive watch tower spotlight to be shone right at them AND worst of all now given his a new crusade to campaign on, one in which he is in the right.
I bet all the other banks are really thanking the morons at Natwest for this.
On power: "ten years is the maximum dose for adults".
The introduction to that interview supports my thesis that Ken Clarke bears heavy responsibility for the Tories losing power after he moved from department to department attacking Conservative-supporting professionals in the public sector.
Not sure about this. The pendulum always swings eventually, and you can't really be a Secretary of State whilst offending nobody.
That's not a defence of Clarke's record at Health and Education before he was Chancellor, but the Conservatives implemented a lot of controversial policies in the 1980s and early 1990s, some of which Clarke was directly involved in, some not. That isn't really what lost it for them in 1997 - there was simply a general feeling by the mid-1990s that the Conservatives had run out of steam and didn't fully appreciate or have compelling solutions for the most important issues for people. There was also a fairly large amount of sleaze going on, and it was widely felt that it was time for a change to the other lot.
Clarke was Health Secretary 1988-1990 and Education 1990-92. Are you really saying 1997 was some kind of delayed reaction to that (which was not felt in the 1992 General Election for some reason)? Feels a bit far-fetched to me, although he was one of a series of Conservative ministers who were unconvincing on those issues both within the professions involved and externally.
I think I am saying the Conservative government was wiped out because it had taken on so many voters who were its natural supporters. Not just Clarke with police, doctors and teachers, although that was a large part of it, but also the defence cuts, and then if you look at who was hurt by the ERM debacle, it was home owners and mortgage holders, it was entrepreneurs and small business owners.
That is how I conceptualise that part of our political history, rather than hand-waving about running out of ideas or fairness or time for a change. Whatever people thought of the cones hotline, that was not what changed their votes. Nor was it the poll tax, which had been neutralised by John Major. The blue team lost power because it systematically alienated its own voters. They'd played by the rules, done what was called for, and *their* government had screwed them over.
It's true that, over the course of a period in government, you collect enemies like a rolling stone gathering moss, and they tend to be a bit stickier than the friends you make.
But I think you underestimate things like the Cones Hotline. It's not that it was an awful policy in itself - there have been many worse and if it had been proposed in 1985 alongside a broad programme it would barely have been newsworthy. But by the mid-90s it was emblematic of a fag end administration that struggled to get things done, to grasp the scale of challenges in public services, or to have meaningful solutions. And it's that broad impression more than the fact a couple of professions had been narked with the Tories for a while that really lost it for them in 1997, in my view.
The cones hotline, for all its silliness, was part of a serious attempt by John Major to involve the public in public sector decisions and set up a feedback loop. It was one of the first cases to change the structure of public delivery from its "consult with experts and the great and good then enact" structure. It was a very good policy inspired by a desire to get the little people involved.
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
I can't see how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
The issue is not "forcing them to take accounts" its "closing existing accounts" - some of which they have held for decades.
Either the bank didn't do KYC properly in the first place - or they suspect criminality in which case the police should be involved.
In Farage's case it boiled down to "we don't like his politics" - I wonder why they have closed the accounts of Professor Lesley Sawers, 64, the Equalities and Human Rights commissioner for Scotland, who has been with them 32 years....
So the big question - does Nicola Sturgeon still have a bank account ?
I assumed that RBS = Royal Bank of Sturgeon. Have I got that wrong?
Yes, Sturgeon banks with HBOS, well the Bank of Scotland branch.
Though SNP did comically publish her entire account and tax returns.
If she is charged and depending on the charges, she may become an unbanked person.
Right now she'll struggle to get mainstream insurance, which is another scandal like the unbanked.
Home & car insurance becomes invalidated the moment you get charged with most mainstream insurers, the ones that will accept you charge up to 10 times the standard price.
Edit - You don't even have to be charged/convicted, if you live with someone or are financially associated with somebody in those circumstances, then you are in the same boat.
I didn't know that. Pretty disgraceful as it's effectively punishment before trial - and collective punishment.
On power: "ten years is the maximum dose for adults".
The introduction to that interview supports my thesis that Ken Clarke bears heavy responsibility for the Tories losing power after he moved from department to department attacking Conservative-supporting professionals in the public sector.
Not sure about this. The pendulum always swings eventually, and you can't really be a Secretary of State whilst offending nobody.
That's not a defence of Clarke's record at Health and Education before he was Chancellor, but the Conservatives implemented a lot of controversial policies in the 1980s and early 1990s, some of which Clarke was directly involved in, some not. That isn't really what lost it for them in 1997 - there was simply a general feeling by the mid-1990s that the Conservatives had run out of steam and didn't fully appreciate or have compelling solutions for the most important issues for people. There was also a fairly large amount of sleaze going on, and it was widely felt that it was time for a change to the other lot.
Clarke was Health Secretary 1988-1990 and Education 1990-92. Are you really saying 1997 was some kind of delayed reaction to that (which was not felt in the 1992 General Election for some reason)? Feels a bit far-fetched to me, although he was one of a series of Conservative ministers who were unconvincing on those issues both within the professions involved and externally.
I think I am saying the Conservative government was wiped out because it had taken on so many voters who were its natural supporters. Not just Clarke with police, doctors and teachers, although that was a large part of it, but also the defence cuts, and then if you look at who was hurt by the ERM debacle, it was home owners and mortgage holders, it was entrepreneurs and small business owners.
That is how I conceptualise that part of our political history, rather than hand-waving about running out of ideas or fairness or time for a change. Whatever people thought of the cones hotline, that was not what changed their votes. Nor was it the poll tax, which had been neutralised by John Major. The blue team lost power because it systematically alienated its own voters. They'd played by the rules, done what was called for, and *their* government had screwed them over.
It's true that, over the course of a period in government, you collect enemies like a rolling stone gathering moss, and they tend to be a bit stickier than the friends you make.
But I think you underestimate things like the Cones Hotline. It's not that it was an awful policy in itself - there have been many worse and if it had been proposed in 1985 alongside a broad programme it would barely have been newsworthy. But by the mid-90s it was emblematic of a fag end administration that struggled to get things done, to grasp the scale of challenges in public services, or to have meaningful solutions. And it's that broad impression more than the fact a couple of professions had been narked with the Tories for a while that really lost it for them in 1997, in my view.
The cones hotline, for all its silliness, was part of a serious attempt by John Major to involve the public in public sector decisions and set up a feedback loop. It was one of the first cases to change the structure of public delivery from its "consult with experts and the great and good then enact" structure. It was a very good policy inspired by a desire to get the little people involved.
Bit of a shock to hear that the fires in Greece may have been caused by arson, according to local officials.
I don't think its that uncommon. Wild fires are overwhelmingly started by humans, either deliberately, semi-deliberately (i.e. it will be a laugh to start a small fire, ohhhhhh shit) or by carelessness.
If there are already restrictions in place, I think you can be done for arson in lots of places if you then go out and start any kind of fire.
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
I can't see how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
The issue is not "forcing them to take accounts" its "closing existing accounts" - some of which they have held for decades.
Either the bank didn't do KYC properly in the first place - or they suspect criminality in which case the police should be involved.
In Farage's case it boiled down to "we don't like his politics" - I wonder why they have closed the accounts of Professor Lesley Sawers, 64, the Equalities and Human Rights commissioner for Scotland, who has been with them 32 years....
So the big question - does Nicola Sturgeon still have a bank account ?
I assumed that RBS = Royal Bank of Sturgeon. Have I got that wrong?
Yes, Sturgeon banks with HBOS, well the Bank of Scotland branch.
Though SNP did comically publish her entire account and tax returns.
If she is charged and depending on the charges, she may become an unbanked person.
Right now she'll struggle to get mainstream insurance, which is another scandal like the unbanked.
Home & car insurance becomes invalidated the moment you get charged with most mainstream insurers, the ones that will accept you charge up to 10 times the standard price.
Edit - You don't even have to be charged/convicted, if you live with someone or are financially associated with somebody in those circumstances, then you are in the same boat.
I didn't know that. Pretty disgraceful as it's effectively punishment before trial - and collective punishment.
Yeah, this is (well should be) a massive civil liberties story with a bureaucracy that has gone mad following kafkaesque rules that have been introduced without consideration of why society should leave anyone "unbanked".
No-one should be "unbanked" regardless of what they have done. By all means monitor and control high risk accounts differently but absolutely do not shut them off from employment and housing.
But because its Farage, those who would normally be loudly complaining about civil liberties have been too quiet, and left the story mostly about him and the idiots at Coutts/Natwest.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
All of them couldn't have played it worse from the start. They have fallen into Farage's trap at every single step.
Farage is a wily coyote and smart, he is up against chinless no mark Tory duffers. A 5 year old could run rings round them.
"Wily coyote" is a slightly odd phrase to use, since isn't it a nod to the cartoon character (Wile E. Coyote), who was famously hapless and inept, and up against a much sharper, quicker adversary?
I agree he's an effective self publicist, though. The really odd thing isn't just that they closed his account on the basis they did, but that they apparently thought, "Well, I very much doubt Nigel will make a whole big thing out of this in the media".
Recently I learned that coyotes are faster than roadrunners.
This has ruined my childhood.
Well that's it then - they'll never be able to show repeats of Rolf Harris' Cartoon Time again now that this appalling revelation is out there. It's totally ruined the innocent pleasure of the show.
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
I can't see how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
The issue is not "forcing them to take accounts" its "closing existing accounts" - some of which they have held for decades.
Either the bank didn't do KYC properly in the first place - or they suspect criminality in which case the police should be involved.
In Farage's case it boiled down to "we don't like his politics" - I wonder why they have closed the accounts of Professor Lesley Sawers, 64, the Equalities and Human Rights commissioner for Scotland, who has been with them 32 years....
So the big question - does Nicola Sturgeon still have a bank account ?
I assumed that RBS = Royal Bank of Sturgeon. Have I got that wrong?
Yes, Sturgeon banks with HBOS, well the Bank of Scotland branch.
Though SNP did comically publish her entire account and tax returns.
If she is charged and depending on the charges, she may become an unbanked person.
Right now she'll struggle to get mainstream insurance, which is another scandal like the unbanked.
Home & car insurance becomes invalidated the moment you get charged with most mainstream insurers, the ones that will accept you charge up to 10 times the standard price.
Edit - You don't even have to be charged/convicted, if you live with someone or are financially associated with somebody in those circumstances, then you are in the same boat.
I didn't know that. Pretty disgraceful as it's effectively punishment before trial - and collective punishment.
It's Kafkaesque.
Most people don't realise they have to inform their insurers they only find out when they renew or have to put in a claim which gets rejected as the policy gets voided.
The truly troubling bit, say the Sturgeons gets charged, they tell their current insurers about being charged, their policy gets voided.
Say in a couple of years time they are found not guilty, and apply for new insurance, they are in a Kafkaesque world because most insurers have this clause, for example with Sainsbury's Bank.
We've made some assumptions - please read
Read the statements below and confirm they're all true. If any aren't true, please contact us.
The car you're insuring is kept at the address you entered on the quote and the people who will be driving the car live in the UK permanently
You've told the DVLA about any disability or medical condition that needs to be disclosed and you've got evidence of their approval to drive
Nobody named on this policy has unspent non-motoring convictions or prosecutions pending for any criminal offence, like theft, dishonesty, fraud or drug/drink related offences
Nobody named on the quote has been refused a motor insurance policy before, had a policy voided or had special terms or conditions imposed on them
The car you're insuring isn't impounded by the police or other authorities at the moment
Any provisional drivers licence is a UK provisional drivers licence
Bit of a shock to hear that the fires in Greece may have been caused by arson, according to local officials.
I don't think its that uncommon. Wild fires are overwhelmingly started by humans, either deliberately, semi-deliberately (i.e. it will be a laugh to start a small fire, ohhhhhh shit) or by carelessness.
If there are already restrictions in place, I think you can be done for arson in lots of places if you then go out and start any kind of fire.
Does there need to be any malicious intent (as opposed to crass stupidity or accident)?
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
All of them couldn't have played it worse from the start. They have fallen into Farage's trap at every single step.
Farage is a wily coyote and smart, he is up against chinless no mark Tory duffers. A 5 year old could run rings round them.
"Wily coyote" is a slightly odd phrase to use, since isn't it a nod to the cartoon character (Wile E. Coyote), who was famously hapless and inept, and up against a much sharper, quicker adversary?
I agree he's an effective self publicist, though. The really odd thing isn't just that they closed his account on the basis they did, but that they apparently thought, "Well, I very much doubt Nigel will make a whole big thing out of this in the media".
Surely they did flag up that Farage would publicise this?
The general advice to deal with people you don't like, basically ignore them, don't give them the oxygen of publicity.....If Coutts had just kept his account, but under a close watch for anything dodgy, no news story, no tales of building dodgy dossiers, no bad PR, no getting called in by the government etc etc etc.
Instead they just given Farage a megaphone and a massive watch tower spotlight to be shone right at them AND worst of all now given his a new crusade to campaign on, one in which he is in the right.
I bet all the other banks are really thanking the morons at Natwest for this.
What crusade ? His thing seems to be calling for the rest of the NatWest board to be sacked.
The bank has accepted it was in the wrong; the CEO has resigned. Now he's just being a pillock.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
All of them couldn't have played it worse from the start. They have fallen into Farage's trap at every single step.
Farage is a wily coyote and smart, he is up against chinless no mark Tory duffers. A 5 year old could run rings round them.
"Wily coyote" is a slightly odd phrase to use, since isn't it a nod to the cartoon character (Wile E. Coyote), who was famously hapless and inept, and up against a much sharper, quicker adversary?
I agree he's an effective self publicist, though. The really odd thing isn't just that they closed his account on the basis they did, but that they apparently thought, "Well, I very much doubt Nigel will make a whole big thing out of this in the media".
It's worse than that. They wrote a report saying precisely that Nigel would make a big thing out of it in the media.
Once again I still struggle to understand why Coutts isnt a sea of rolling heads
It’s just getting started.
That's the price of incomptete for you.
If Nigel isn't entitled to a posh cheque book any more, whatevs.
But you have to be clear about the process and the story. Because otherwise people like Nigel will take you to the reputational cleaners, irrespective of the facts of the matter.
Bit of a shock to hear that the fires in Greece may have been caused by arson, according to local officials.
I don't think its that uncommon. Wild fires are overwhelmingly started by humans, either deliberately, semi-deliberately (i.e. it will be a laugh to start a small fire, ohhhhhh shit) or by carelessness.
If there are already restrictions in place, I think you can be done for arson in lots of places if you then go out and start any kind of fire.
Does there need to be any malicious intent (as opposed to crass stupidity or accident)?
Accidentally no, but you don't need to be planning on causing an island wild fires. Although, in some places there are laws around "reckless burning" i.e. and under some provisions you might not have even tried to deliberately start a fire, but your actions where reckless and ultimately to blame for the fire starting.
Who would have thought, that briefing a journalist with lies about the personal details of a customer might be a bad thing?
She should have resigned yesterday when the story first appeared.
If an employee had done that it would have been instant dismissal for Gross Misconduct...
All of them couldn't have played it worse from the start. They have fallen into Farage's trap at every single step.
Farage is a wily coyote and smart, he is up against chinless no mark Tory duffers. A 5 year old could run rings round them.
"Wily coyote" is a slightly odd phrase to use, since isn't it a nod to the cartoon character (Wile E. Coyote), who was famously hapless and inept, and up against a much sharper, quicker adversary?
I agree he's an effective self publicist, though. The really odd thing isn't just that they closed his account on the basis they did, but that they apparently thought, "Well, I very much doubt Nigel will make a whole big thing out of this in the media".
Surely they did flag up that Farage would publicise this?
The general advice to deal with people you don't like, basically ignore them, don't give them the oxygen of publicity.....If Coutts had just kept his account, but under a close watch for anything dodgy, no news story, no tales of building dodgy dossiers, no bad PR, no getting called in by the government etc etc etc.
Instead they just given Farage a megaphone and a massive watch tower spotlight to be shone right at them AND worst of all now given his a new crusade to campaign on, one in which he is in the right.
I bet all the other banks are really thanking the morons at Natwest for this.
What crusade ? His thing seems to be calling for the rest of the NatWest board to be sacked.
The bank has accepted it was in the wrong; the CEO has resigned. Now he's just being a pillock.
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
Sure, but relieving pols of the worry of having to keep to high standards (aka not taking bribes) is against our collective rights.
And banks are commercial organizations. They don't have to take customers if they are too much hassle or seem well dodgy.
Edit: I can't se how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
There should be rules on what they can ditch you for once accepted. Not acceptable that they can ruin you based on some halwitted Exec's idea of what correct political views are or ,what is enough doffing of cap to royalty is.
There are. Laws, actually. Trouble is they don't allow the bank to tell you what the reasons are if they ditch you (because it would mean tipping off criminals if they don't tell the criminal). So if some idiot confuses one's wife with some scrote that stole her card number, there is no way to know what the problem is.
Comments
That is how I conceptualise that part of our political history, rather than hand-waving about running out of ideas or fairness or time for a change. Whatever people thought of the cones hotline, that was not what changed their votes. Nor was it the poll tax, which had been neutralised by John Major. The blue team lost power because it systematically alienated its own voters. They'd played by the rules, done what was called for, and *their* government had screwed them over.
Those higher up just try to cling on.
It is what concerns me most about him being PM. We really need dynamic brave leadership, Sunak and Hunt are running the country like a middle manager waiting for the boss to come back, when we actually have a lot of issue that the longer we wait the worse they are getting.
You might expect Kemi Badenoch to know that as I think financial services are within her ministerial brief.
Bit of balance - the real problem, not pols' particular preoccupations.
"Despite all the recent front-page attention given to Nigel Farage and today’s development – the resignation of NatWest chief executive Alison Rose – there is something else you should know: banks have been quietly closing accounts without giving their customers any reasonable explanation for decades. Setting aside Farage’s politics and personality, and Coutts’s fragile disposition when it comes to people rich enough but arguably not wholesome enough to utilise their elite banking facilities, it should concern us when banks close our accounts with little or no warning. Ordinary people don’t get the prime minister hollering for justice, and we certainly don’t get apologies from CEOs."
The UK would not have had that luxury and was probably so large an economy as to wreck the Euro. Black Wednesday 2 would have been the outcome.
Even if he wins the case, he risks embarrassment.
Sarah Everard has sparked changes to the law and policing (and rightly so), but she is far from the first case, but she was well connected to the media, so her case got massive prominence among the industry.
She seem the opposite with grooming gangs. They were "nobodies", so the media didn't care for years and years. It was one brave Times journalist who finally pushed and pushed and pushed on this.
This recently happened to one private bank - that hadn’t fucked up publicly.
There's a real risk that the judgment is "Technically you're right, Mr Farage, but you're a whinging sod and your loss is negligible - so here's ten grand... and a bill for a couple of million". So as a practical point, I think this is rather unlikely to go to court.
Read Phillips O'Brien bemoaning attempts in Washington to micromanage the war.
People try and buy then, to get in early.
And for good measure, the potential that they have people trawling your social media etc, to see what kind of person you are and compiling dossiers on you.
In recessions it'd be worse - much worse - as monetary policy and QE could not be flexed. I think it'd be politically unsurvivable for any British government.
Now they've been found out they are paying the penalty, and rightly so.
But I think you underestimate things like the Cones Hotline. It's not that it was an awful policy in itself - there have been many worse and if it had been proposed in 1985 alongside a broad programme it would barely have been newsworthy. But by the mid-90s it was emblematic of a fag end administration that struggled to get things done, to grasp the scale of challenges in public services, or to have meaningful solutions. And it's that broad impression more than the fact a couple of professions had been narked with the Tories for a while that really lost it for them in 1997, in my view.
The plod under pressure from politicians and the media after Sarah Everard, have finally started to look back through their employees and it seems they have been happy to hire some very dodgy individuals.
The Hoares and the Swiss are now laughing their arses off.
You are answering to a management who were, until quite recently, trying to get you to cold call your clients to sell them products. Imagine trying to sell a pension to someone with 100 million.. Because that was the NatWest metric for an “active” client manager.
You have a book with a bunch of dead wood, but some whales.
Call the whales - ask them if they want to move to a better, cheaper place. Then go an negotiate a deal. Which includes a bonus for yourself. At somewhere which understands what people with money want.
The political defeat occurs when it looks like the military one will take too long.
Sometimes, it really is a matter of timing.
They are the bank for lottery winners and plebs who have done good.
I really hope Farage cleans them out and makes mincemeat of them. I've had to deal with all sorts of shit from these sorts of people over the last eight years over being a Tory and a Brexit supporter, and keep my mouth shit all the while for fear of the consequences.
Probably not trounced either. Similar result to Cameron-Miliband or a bit worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/22/home-office-errors-already-leading-to-people-being-denied-bank-accounts
The very marginal gains on currency transactions, which only apply to a minority of our trade btw, simply isn't worth it for the total loss of economic independence that comes with it.
Motes and Beams.
Before you know it, we'll have a Small Boats Hotline.
I agree he's an effective self publicist, though. The really odd thing isn't just that they closed his account on the basis they did, but that they apparently thought, "Well, I very much doubt Nigel will make a whole big thing out of this in the media".
Though SNP did comically publish her entire account and tax returns.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-publish-nicola-sturgeons-bank-account-along-with-tax-returns-in-accidental-blunder-4015379
If she is charged and depending on the charges, she may become an unbanked person.
Right now she'll struggle to get mainstream insurance, which is another scandal like the unbanked.
Home & car insurance becomes invalidated the moment you get charged with most mainstream insurers, the ones that will accept you charge up to 10 times the standard price.
Edit - You don't even have to be charged/convicted, if you live with someone or are financially associated with somebody in those circumstances, then you are in the same boat.
We know some things work.
- Going around works, eg MacArthur and Inchon.
- Attacking from an unexepected direction works, eg Tommy Franks and Gulf War II or the Germans and the Ardennes Forest.
- Overwhelming firepower and technological superiority works, eg Schwartzkopf and Gulf War I.
- Surprise works, like the Six Day War, when the IAF destroyed Egyptian air forces on the ground
Do you know what doesn't work? Taking a few key areas. It's a war. Unless it's something like a port, things move.Once an army breaks, it can loose a lot of ground fast. As we saw earlier in this war.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=355763
Hyundai Motor said Wednesday that its second-quarter revenue increased 17.4 percent year-on-year to 42.2 trillion won ($33 billion), and operating profit rose 42.2 percent to 4.2 trillion won. This was backed by continued strong demand for its electric vehicles (EV), SUVs and luxury models around the world.
The company's operating profit margin for the period hit 10 percent, the highest since the second quarter of 2013. Its net profit including non-controlling interest was also up by 8.5 percent to 3.35 trillion won.
Hyundai Motor sold over 1.05 million vehicles around the globe in the second quarter, an 8.5 percent increase from a year earlier. Sales in markets outside of Korea were up by 7.6 percent to 854,210, and sales in Korea increased by 12.7 percent to 205,503...
The car trade is still pretty profitable if you get it right.
They'll probably be among those who prosper with the transition to EVs.
This has ruined my childhood.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63599799
Instead they just given Farage a megaphone and a massive watch tower spotlight to be shone right at them AND worst of all now given his a new crusade to campaign on, one in which he is in the right.
I bet all the other banks are really thanking the morons at Natwest for this.
Pretty disgraceful as it's effectively punishment before trial - and collective punishment.
Unless you're travelling by handcart.
If there are already restrictions in place, I think you can be done for arson in lots of places if you then go out and start any kind of fire.
No-one should be "unbanked" regardless of what they have done. By all means monitor and control high risk accounts differently but absolutely do not shut them off from employment and housing.
But because its Farage, those who would normally be loudly complaining about civil liberties have been too quiet, and left the story mostly about him and the idiots at Coutts/Natwest.
Most people don't realise they have to inform their insurers they only find out when they renew or have to put in a claim which gets rejected as the policy gets voided.
The truly troubling bit, say the Sturgeons gets charged, they tell their current insurers about being charged, their policy gets voided.
Say in a couple of years time they are found not guilty, and apply for new insurance, they are in a Kafkaesque world because most insurers have this clause, for example with Sainsbury's Bank.
We've made some assumptions - please read
Read the statements below and confirm they're all true. If any aren't true, please contact us.
The car you're insuring is kept at the address you entered on the quote and the people who will be driving the car live in the UK permanently
You've told the DVLA about any disability or medical condition that needs to be disclosed and you've got evidence of their approval to drive
Nobody named on this policy has unspent non-motoring convictions or prosecutions pending for any criminal offence, like theft, dishonesty, fraud or drug/drink related offences
Nobody named on the quote has been refused a motor insurance policy before, had a policy voided or had special terms or conditions imposed on them
The car you're insuring isn't impounded by the police or other authorities at the moment
Any provisional drivers licence is a UK provisional drivers licence
https://www.sainsburysbank.co.uk/car-insurance/get-a-quote
His thing seems to be calling for the rest of the NatWest board to be sacked.
The bank has accepted it was in the wrong; the CEO has resigned. Now he's just being a pillock.
If Nigel isn't entitled to a posh cheque book any more, whatevs.
But you have to be clear about the process and the story. Because otherwise people like Nigel will take you to the reputational cleaners, irrespective of the facts of the matter.
As has happened.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll
A couple more useful Graun pieces:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/22/bank-rule-changes-nigel-farage-closure-accounts-criminals-money-laundering
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/jul/20/bank-account-closures-what-new-rules-mean-for-uk-customers