An error of judgment – politicalbetting.com

System

An error of judgment – politicalbetting.com

She had to go. You simply cannot have the CEO of a bank unable to understand that if a journalist sat next to you at dinner asks you about a live story involving confidential details about a customer of the bank, the only possible response is “I can’t talk to you about that. Mmm, isn’t the soufflé delicious.” Especially not when in a few days time you will be presenting the bank’s results and therefore are currently in possession of price sensitive market information. If you can’t keep quiet about the former, how can you be trusted with the latter. NatWest will now look for a new CEO. The interim one will need to ensure many things but among them are: (1) sharpening up its public communications strategy; (2) remedial English classes for whoever wrote that shocker of an apology letter; and (3) making sure staff understand that it is not enough to get decisions done for the right reasons. They must also be accurately recorded and in a way that won’t cause problems if made public.

Read the full story here

Cookie

Great article.

Andy_JS

Thanks Cyclefree.

Carnyx

Ditto.

Ghedebrav

[T]he tension caused by having private profit-making companies provide vital services without which it is hard to be a fully functioning or contributing member of society: bank accounts / social media / transport / phones / internet access. If everyone needs these should companies be obliged to provide them regardless of other considerations. And if not who should?

Excellent point that government needs to confront.

ydoethur

Speaking of errors of judgment, we seem to have two threads running in this,

BartholomewRoberts

Good article, though I'm curious about this part.

Kemi Badenoch predictably enough sought to remind banks that they must remember free speech and not discriminate on the grounds of political belief. She “hoped” banks would remember this. What is it with Cabinet Ministers commenting on events like passers-by at the scene of an accident. She’s a Minister. If something needs doing, has she thought of actually taking some … er, you know …. action.

One of the worst things about politics sometimes is the immediate and unthinking rush to action. Something must be done, this is something, so this must be done.

Politicians primary responsibility is to get the law right. Its others responsibility typically to enforce the law. If the law already forbids discrimination on the grounds of political belief then maybe a politician reminding people that the law already forbids that is the right action to take, rather than rushing to change the law to what it already is.

rcs1000

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

ydoethur

Of course, she didn't have to say the soufflé was delicious.

It might have been very poor quality.

rottenborough

Thanks Cyclefree

China and its social credit is a warning to us.

Alanbrooke

ydoethur said:

Speaking of errors of judgment, we seem to have two threads running in this,

I was heartened to see SKS has come out in favour of declaring war on Nazi Germany.

He says its the right thing to do.

Carnyx

Ghedebrav said:

[T]he tension caused by having private profit-making companies provide vital services without which it is hard to be a fully functioning or contributing member of society: bank accounts / social media / transport / phones / internet access. If everyone needs these should companies be obliged to provide them regardless of other considerations. And if not who should?

Excellent point that government needs to confront.

Water can't legally be cut off, even in England. Gas and leccy can, but with due process and a court warrant if it comes to that. So there are precedents.

Alanbrooke

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

Of course I am I just dont agree with your approach.

Omnium

ydoethur said:

Of course, she didn't have to say the soufflé was delicious.

It might have been very poor quality.

You mistake intent for delivery. Politics in a nushell.

Alanbrooke

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

FPT

Well lets see when Trump was a democrat he was great guy, then when he wasnt - whack job. When RFK was on side - great guy, great family - now he isnt hes building the 4th Reich.

There seems to be too much strangling at birth. If he was that bad, then why was he a young prince at the heart of the democrats for so long, If he was that bad why did the dems not kick him out ?

And for the record I happened to say casually yesterday he was one of the more interesting candidates. I have no fixed view of the man but from the reaction to an innocent statement I can sense Bidenites are shit scared.

Why ?

RochdalePioneers

Well of course she had to go. But at the same time I don't see anything wrong with a private bank choosing who it wants to offer accounts to.

ydoethur

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

[T]he tension caused by having private profit-making companies provide vital services without which it is hard to be a fully functioning or contributing member of society: bank accounts / social media / transport / phones / internet access. If everyone needs these should companies be obliged to provide them regardless of other considerations. And if not who should?

Excellent point that government needs to confront.

Water can't legally be cut off, even in England. Gas and leccy can, but with due process and a court warrant if it comes to that. So there are precedents.

That led to a rather embarrassing situation for one gas company.

They pursued a householder for years through the courts, very slowly, to get his gas cut off.

At each stage, he refused to turn up or even to contact the gas company.

Finally, the court reluctantly sanctioned an engineer to go out with two bailiffs to disconnect the supply.

The homeowner opened the door and invited them in quite cheerfully. He let them look round every part of his property, and even made them tea.

After it had dawned on them that he did not have, and never had had, a gas supply.

Andy_JS

O/T

"Andrew Malkinson: Rape conviction of man who spent 17 years in prison overturned
Fresh DNA evidence has emerged linking another suspect to the crime."

https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-malkinson-rape-conviction-of-man-who-spent-17-years-in-prison-overturned-12927618

SeaShantyIrish2

BartholomewRoberts said:

Good article, though I'm curious about this part.

Kemi Badenoch predictably enough sought to remind banks that they must remember free speech and not discriminate on the grounds of political belief. She “hoped” banks would remember this. What is it with Cabinet Ministers commenting on events like passers-by at the scene of an accident. She’s a Minister. If something needs doing, has she thought of actually taking some … er, you know …. action.

One of the worst things about politics sometimes is the immediate and unthinking rush to action. Something must be done, this is something, so this must be done.

Politicians primary responsibility is to get the law right. Its others responsibility typically to enforce the law. If the law already forbids discrimination on the grounds of political belief then maybe a politician reminding people that the law already forbids that is the right action to take, rather than rushing to change the law to what it already is.

This of course assumes that BadEnoch, or anyone in her magic circle, has the faintest clue what The Law says or doesn't say, about banking or anything else.

OR give a blind fiddler's final farewell feck about The Law.

BartholomewRoberts

As far as AML laws are concerned, I think on reflection perhaps they should change. Rather than de-banking those who are a "risk" as far as money laundering are concerned, wouldn't it make more sense for the banking to continue but for banks to have an obligation to report any suspicions to the authorities when they have a reason they think someone is a risk and to co-operate with the authorities?

This way the principle of innocent until proven guilty is maintained, those who aren't guilty of money laundering don't lose their banking, banks have an obligation to stand up against money laundering still and those who are guilty can be convicted.

What is the downside?

Cyclefree

ydoethur said:

Of course, she didn't have to say the soufflé was delicious.

It might have been very poor quality.

And this is why I look forward to you visiting the Lakes and telling me all about Ofsted scandals

TheScreamingEagles

Cannot wait for the usual suspects to tell us why this is bad news for Joe Biden.

Rudolph W. Giuliani has conceded that while acting as a lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump, he made false statements by asserting that two Georgia election workers had mishandled ballots while counting votes in Atlanta during the 2020 election.

The concession by Mr. Giuliani came in court papers filed on Tuesday night as part of a defamation lawsuit that the two workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, had brought against him in Federal District Court in Washington in December 2021.

The suit accused Mr. Giuliani and others of promoting a video that purported to show Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss — who are mother and daughter — of manipulating ballots while working at the State Farm Arena for the Fulton County Board of Elections.

In a two-page declaration, Mr. Giuliani acknowledged that he had in fact made the statements about Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss that led to the filing of the suit and that the remarks “carry meaning that is defamatory per se.” He also admitted that his statements were “actionable” and “false” and that he no longer disputed the “factual elements of liability” the election workers had raised in their suit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/26/us/politics/giuliani-georgia-election-workers.html

rcs1000

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

Of course I am I just dont agree with your approach.

What is it about my approach you don't agree with?

That we should actually listen to what he says in his own Presidential announcement speech?

You say you like RFK, because he's different. How is he different? What - other than his vaccine scepticism* - differentiates him from the other Democratic candidates?

The criticism that you level at him, that he is a policy free zone: well, that's a criticism that you can level at him, if you just - you know - look at his website.

BartholomewRoberts

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Good article, though I'm curious about this part.

Kemi Badenoch predictably enough sought to remind banks that they must remember free speech and not discriminate on the grounds of political belief. She “hoped” banks would remember this. What is it with Cabinet Ministers commenting on events like passers-by at the scene of an accident. She’s a Minister. If something needs doing, has she thought of actually taking some … er, you know …. action.

One of the worst things about politics sometimes is the immediate and unthinking rush to action. Something must be done, this is something, so this must be done.

Politicians primary responsibility is to get the law right. Its others responsibility typically to enforce the law. If the law already forbids discrimination on the grounds of political belief then maybe a politician reminding people that the law already forbids that is the right action to take, rather than rushing to change the law to what it already is.

This of course assumes that BadEnoch, or anyone in her magic circle, has the faintest clue what The Law says or doesn't say, about banking or anything else.

OR give a blind fiddler's final farewell feck about The Law.

I can't stand Bad Enoch.

But even a broken clock can be right.

If the law already says don't discriminate against beliefs then we don't need a change of the law, we just need the law enforced.

Leon

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

Stark_Dawning

Is there a link to the letter of apology? Can't wait to snigger at it!

TheScreamingEagles

BartholomewRoberts said:

As far as AML laws are concerned, I think on reflection perhaps they should change. Rather than de-banking those who are a "risk" as far as money laundering are concerned, wouldn't it make more sense for the banking to continue but for banks to have an obligation to report any suspicions to the authorities when they have a reason they think someone is a risk and to co-operate with the authorities?

This way the principle of innocent until proven guilty is maintained, those who aren't guilty of money laundering don't lose their banking, banks have an obligation to stand up against money laundering still and those who are guilty can be convicted.

What is the downside?

Lots, particularly for those customers who have investments/income from America.

This is the banking equivalent of remand.

Also Unexplained Wealth Orders.

tlg86

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

We're not worried. You're there voluntarily.

Cyclefree

BartholomewRoberts said:

As far as AML laws are concerned, I think on reflection perhaps they should change. Rather than de-banking those who are a "risk" as far as money laundering are concerned, wouldn't it make more sense for the banking to continue but for banks to have an obligation to report any suspicions to the authorities when they have a reason they think someone is a risk and to co-operate with the authorities?

This way the principle of innocent until proven guilty is maintained, those who aren't guilty of money laundering don't lose their banking, banks have an obligation to stand up against money laundering still and those who are guilty can be convicted.

What is the downside?

Banks already have this obligation. And do make such reports. But banks also do not want to be found in breach of AML rules - check out the fines levied - nor do they want to be seen as actively helping money launderers. See HSBC and.... er .... NatWest.

Flatlander

BartholomewRoberts said:

As far as AML laws are concerned, I think on reflection perhaps they should change. Rather than de-banking those who are a "risk" as far as money laundering are concerned, wouldn't it make more sense for the banking to continue but for banks to have an obligation to report any suspicions to the authorities when they have a reason they think someone is a risk and to co-operate with the authorities?

This way the principle of innocent until proven guilty is maintained, those who aren't guilty of money laundering don't lose their banking, banks have an obligation to stand up against money laundering still and those who are guilty can be convicted.

What is the downside?

The banks end up reporting everyone as a risk, just in case?

TheScreamingEagles

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

What did you expect in Ukraine?

You are such a snowflake.

Stuartinromford

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

Hi Leon,
I'm sure it's all fine. Do we need to save you any canapes or something?

kinabalu

That's a very good article Cyclefree. The best take on this Farage episode that I've read.

TheScreamingEagles

Forget Leon's travails, about an hour ago I accidentally drank sparkling water.

Sparkling water is the Max Verstappen/Pineapple on pizza of waters.

Carnyx

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

What did you expect in Ukraine?

You are such a snowflake.

Yeah, it's like going to Glasgow and complaining about rain and drunks.

Omnium

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

Hi Leon,
I'm sure it's all fine. Do we need to save you any canapes or something?

I think he's rather after emergency replacement trousers.

Casino_Royale

I think I resent the 2p losses on the tuppence push machines more than any other form of gambling loss I've experienced.

Yes, I know this is not rational.

Cyclefree

BartholomewRoberts said:

Good article, though I'm curious about this part.

Kemi Badenoch predictably enough sought to remind banks that they must remember free speech and not discriminate on the grounds of political belief. She “hoped” banks would remember this. What is it with Cabinet Ministers commenting on events like passers-by at the scene of an accident. She’s a Minister. If something needs doing, has she thought of actually taking some … er, you know …. action.

One of the worst things about politics sometimes is the immediate and unthinking rush to action. Something must be done, this is something, so this must be done.

Politicians primary responsibility is to get the law right. Its others responsibility typically to enforce the law. If the law already forbids discrimination on the grounds of political belief then maybe a politician reminding people that the law already forbids that is the right action to take, rather than rushing to change the law to what it already is.

That is why I said "If".

Benpointer

Ghedebrav said:

[T]he tension caused by having private profit-making companies provide vital services without which it is hard to be a fully functioning or contributing member of society: bank accounts / social media / transport / phones / internet access. If everyone needs these should companies be obliged to provide them regardless of other considerations. And if not who should?

Excellent point that government needs to confront.

Banks offer a Basic Bank Account which anyone can get with ID provided they haven't been convicted of fraud. I am not sure that was what Farage was after though.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/basic-bank-accounts/

BartholomewRoberts

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

As far as AML laws are concerned, I think on reflection perhaps they should change. Rather than de-banking those who are a "risk" as far as money laundering are concerned, wouldn't it make more sense for the banking to continue but for banks to have an obligation to report any suspicions to the authorities when they have a reason they think someone is a risk and to co-operate with the authorities?

This way the principle of innocent until proven guilty is maintained, those who aren't guilty of money laundering don't lose their banking, banks have an obligation to stand up against money laundering still and those who are guilty can be convicted.

What is the downside?

Banks already have this obligation. And do make such reports. But banks also do not want to be found in breach of AML rules - check out the fines levied - nor do they want to be seen as actively helping money launderers. See HSBC and.... er .... NatWest.

I understand that, but if banks have reported their concerns to the relevant authorities then they should have fulfilled their obligations under the rules, if that is how the rules are set.

That's completely different from banks not only not reporting concerns, but actively helping to cover up money laundering.

Its a bit like the law. Everyone, even the guilty, should be able to get a lawyer. But you don't get a 'criminal lawyer' as per Breaking Bad.

Cutting off banking without a conviction is every bit as inhumane and illiberal as cutting off access to lawyers without one too, in this day and age.

TheScreamingEagles

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

What did you expect in Ukraine?

You are such a snowflake.

Yeah, it's like going to Glasgow and complaining about rain and drunks.

When I go to Glasgow I complain about just three things

1) The druggies

2) The accents, two or more Glaswegians talking to each other is undecipherable to non Glaswegians

3) The food, I'd rather eat the shavings from a ped egg.

Stuartinromford

Oh, by the way, @Leon, your stalker has made Private Eye this week. He's quoted as writing that "obvious, tangible, yay-look-at-this Breixt benefits have been pretty thin on the ground. Or, in fact, utterly non-existent."

Beibheirli_C

Ghedebrav said:

[T]he tension caused by having private profit-making companies provide vital services without which it is hard to be a fully functioning or contributing member of society: bank accounts / social media / transport / phones / internet access. If everyone needs these should companies be obliged to provide them regardless of other considerations. And if not who should?

Excellent point that government needs to confront.

If only something like the Post Office could offer public banking services. I am sure they would have the IT infrastructure needed to manage money and accounts efficiently .........

ydoethur

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

What did you expect in Ukraine?

You are such a snowflake.

Yeah, it's like going to Glasgow and complaining about rain and drunks.

Are you annoyed with Glasgow today for some reason?

Leon

Stuartinromford said:

Oh, by the way, @Leon, your stalker has made Private Eye this week. He's quoted as writing that "obvious, tangible, yay-look-at-this Breixt benefits have been pretty thin on the ground. Or, in fact, utterly non-existent."

He is?! In what context?

Carnyx

Benpointer said:

Ghedebrav said:

[T]he tension caused by having private profit-making companies provide vital services without which it is hard to be a fully functioning or contributing member of society: bank accounts / social media / transport / phones / internet access. If everyone needs these should companies be obliged to provide them regardless of other considerations. And if not who should?

Excellent point that government needs to confront.

Banks offer a Basic Bank Account which anyone can get with ID provided they haven't been convicted of fraud. I am not sure that was what Farage was after though.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/basic-bank-accounts/

Mr F wouldn't want the Coutts Basic Bank Account. No chequebook or concierge.

DecrepiterJohnL

Andy_JS said:

O/T

"Andrew Malkinson: Rape conviction of man who spent 17 years in prison overturned
Fresh DNA evidence has emerged linking another suspect to the crime."

https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-malkinson-rape-conviction-of-man-who-spent-17-years-in-prison-overturned-12927618

As well as the obvious issues, there is also the Kafkaesque problem that in order to qualify for early release, you have to show remorse and therefore admit guilt. As the story says, he "stayed in jail for another decade because he maintained his innocence."

Carnyx

ydoethur said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

What did you expect in Ukraine?

You are such a snowflake.

Yeah, it's like going to Glasgow and complaining about rain and drunks.

Are you annoyed with Glasgow today for some reason?

Not at all - just that every tine I go there there seems to be one.

The idiom I used earlier is the usual one, anyway: I couldn't have said "Edinburgh urban improvement" as everyone would have thought I was talking about hotels with gilded turds.

Ghedebrav

Casino_Royale said:

I think I resent the 2p losses on the tuppence push machines more than any other form of gambling loss I've experienced.

Yes, I know this is not rational.

I treat it as entertainment that I’m paying for, knowing full well that me and my daughter will keep feeding winning back into the beast anyway.

You occasionally get a crappy plastic toy or summat. But otherwise we can happily plunge a few quids worth of tuppences into the thing and have a nice time.

SeaShantyIrish2

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is interesting throwback - in some ways, anyway - to his paternal grandfather, that old PB favorite: Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.

> both sons of successful politicos
> both successful in fields OTHER than politics (JPKsr finance & investments; RFKjr enviromental law & advocacy)
> both prominent advocates for isolationist foreign policy for USA
> both accused (with reason) of anti-Semitism in the bad-old Boston Irish tradition
> both with personal ties to entertainment industry (Gloria Swanson; Cheryl Hines)
> both players in POTUS elections (1940 & 1960; 2024)

Casino_Royale

On topic, great article.

Corporations and institutions loudly proclaiming their "values" is a lot of piss and wind, that fools far too many people, which is why I have so little time for it.

It irritates me even more when they very cynically double-down and try to leverage those who call it out as, essentially, thinly-veiled bigots who can "shop elsewhere".

Sometimes you can wake them up by boycotting but that's not always possible and that's where the law comes in.

BartholomewRoberts

RochdalePioneers said:

Well of course she had to go. But at the same time I don't see anything wrong with a private bank choosing who it wants to offer accounts to.

So if a private bank chose to say "we only offer bank accounts to white people" then you'd be OK with that?

Or a private bank that refused to provide banking to women?

The law provides classes you can't discriminate, which includes race, sex, religion or belief etc - should that law be repealed?

NerysHughes

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

O/T

"Andrew Malkinson: Rape conviction of man who spent 17 years in prison overturned
Fresh DNA evidence has emerged linking another suspect to the crime."

https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-malkinson-rape-conviction-of-man-who-spent-17-years-in-prison-overturned-12927618

As well as the obvious issues, there is also the Kafkaesque problem that in order to qualify for early release, you have to show remorse and therefore admit guilt. As the story says, he "stayed in jail for another decade because he maintained his innocence."

Glyn Razell's probabtion hearing is in August in public. That will be interesting as he has been in Prison for 20 years for the murder of his wife despite there being no body, and a very weird set of circumstances. He has always pleaded his innocence

Stuartinromford

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

Oh, by the way, @Leon, your stalker has made Private Eye this week. He's quoted as writing that "obvious, tangible, yay-look-at-this Breixt benefits have been pretty thin on the ground. Or, in fact, utterly non-existent."

He is?! In what context?

A Hackwatch compilation of how the Mail/Express/Telegraph/Speccie are celebrating the seventh birthday of the Brexit vote.

If it is a baby, does that mean we can we send it off to boarding school and forget about it?

Alanbrooke

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

Of course I am I just dont agree with your approach.

What is it about my approach you don't agree with?

That we should actually listen to what he says in his own Presidential announcement speech?

You say you like RFK, because he's different. How is he different? What - other than his vaccine scepticism* - differentiates him from the other Democratic candidates?

The criticism that you level at him, that he is a policy free zone: well, that's a criticism that you can level at him, if you just - you know - look at his website.

I disagree with you asking me to cancel the bloke because he has said something stupid.

All politicians say thing they wish the hadnt and some of them actually mean them, So Ill listen to what the guy has to say in the round same as any other candidate.. And as I said if he;s a baddun hell get rumbled.

If I take your word that he's the spawn of Adolf Eichmann then why is it not concerning you more that he's still a member of the Democrats ? Why havent they kicked him out with short shrift ? Why does Joe Biden turn a blind eye to anti semites ?

noneoftheabove

RochdalePioneers said:

Well of course she had to go. But at the same time I don't see anything wrong with a private bank choosing who it wants to offer accounts to.

For this line to hold, society has to have an answer as to how someone without access to a bank account is supposed to work, find housing, energy, food and water. The only options I can see left available are homelessness, criminality or leaving the country.

Do you have an answer? If not, then there needs to be some way to protect, at a minimum, an individuals only/last bank account.

Alanbrooke

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

did that years ago with the Provies.

BartholomewRoberts

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

Of course I am I just dont agree with your approach.

What is it about my approach you don't agree with?

That we should actually listen to what he says in his own Presidential announcement speech?

You say you like RFK, because he's different. How is he different? What - other than his vaccine scepticism* - differentiates him from the other Democratic candidates?

The criticism that you level at him, that he is a policy free zone: well, that's a criticism that you can level at him, if you just - you know - look at his website.

I disagree with you asking me to cancel the bloke because he has said something stupid.

All politicians say thing they wish the hadnt and some of them actually mean them, So Ill listen to what the guy has to say in the round same as any other candidate.. And as I said if he;s a baddun hell get rumbled.

If I take your word that he's the spawn of Adolf Eichmann then why is it not concerning you more that he's still a member of the Democrats ? Why havent they kicked him out with short shrift ? Why does Joe Biden turn a blind eye to anti semites ?

He shouldn't be "cancelled" whatever that is supposed to mean in this context because he has said something stupid.

He should simply not be elected because he has said, and is campaigning on, something stupid.

He's already been rumbled that what he's saying is bad, because you can read what he's saying on his own website, or listen to what he's saying in his own speeches.

SeaShantyIrish2

BartholomewRoberts said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Good article, though I'm curious about this part.

Kemi Badenoch predictably enough sought to remind banks that they must remember free speech and not discriminate on the grounds of political belief. She “hoped” banks would remember this. What is it with Cabinet Ministers commenting on events like passers-by at the scene of an accident. She’s a Minister. If something needs doing, has she thought of actually taking some … er, you know …. action.

One of the worst things about politics sometimes is the immediate and unthinking rush to action. Something must be done, this is something, so this must be done.

Politicians primary responsibility is to get the law right. Its others responsibility typically to enforce the law. If the law already forbids discrimination on the grounds of political belief then maybe a politician reminding people that the law already forbids that is the right action to take, rather than rushing to change the law to what it already is.

This of course assumes that BadEnoch, or anyone in her magic circle, has the faintest clue what The Law says or doesn't say, about banking or anything else.

OR give a blind fiddler's final farewell feck about The Law.

I can't stand Bad Enoch.

But even a broken clock can be right.

If the law already says don't discriminate against beliefs then we don't need a change of the law, we just need the law enforced.

You do have a point.

Though do note, that in practical (or even impractical) politics, logic generally takes a back seat to other considerations.

For example, years ago a local WA State politico cast the ONLY vote in the legislature against law making assaulting a nurse (a growing problem) a specific crime. On quite sensible grounds that it was ALREADY a crime to assault a nurse, or anyone else.

At next election, this vote was publicized by his opponent. Who ended up winning by a narrow margin.

Was that vote the "killer ap'[(a term not yet coined)? Hard to say . . . but it WAS a hostage to electoral fortune.

Carnyx

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

What did you expect in Ukraine?

You are such a snowflake.

Yeah, it's like going to Glasgow and complaining about rain and drunks.

When I go to Glasgow I complain about just three things

1) The druggies

2) The accents, two or more Glaswegians talking to each other is undecipherable to non Glaswegians

3) The food, I'd rather eat the shavings from a ped egg.

Yes, but you already live in Manc.

rcs1000

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

FPT

Well lets see when Trump was a democrat he was great guy, then when he wasnt - whack job. When RFK was on side - great guy, great family - now he isnt hes building the 4th Reich.

There seems to be too much strangling at birth. If he was that bad, then why was he a young prince at the heart of the democrats for so long, If he was that bad why did the dems not kick him out ?

And for the record I happened to say casually yesterday he was one of the more interesting candidates. I have no fixed view of the man but from the reaction to an innocent statement I can sense Bidenites are shit scared.

Why ?

Like many Americans, I think Biden is mentally unfit for the job. And with Trump approaching 80, that's going to be an issue for him too.

But there are, actually, lots of smart, articulate people in the US who would make a great President. Chris Sununu, Governor of New Hampshire is one. Asa Hutchinson, former Governor of Arkansas is another. On the Democratic side, I would point to Buttigieg or Ossoff.

All of these people are smart and serious.

But I'm really struggling with your attitude here. You are normally a serious poster, with genuine knoweledge about the world. You have never, as far as I've seen, been in thrall to conspiracy theories. You're a sober ulsterman with a long career in a serious industry.

And yet now you're spouting about the Dems running scared of RFK because of what I am saying? That literally makes no sense. All opinions are my own. I haven't read and repeated criticisms of him this is what I (and only I) think after reading his website and watching (most of) his speech.

Benpointer

Beibheirli_C said:

Ghedebrav said:

[T]he tension caused by having private profit-making companies provide vital services without which it is hard to be a fully functioning or contributing member of society: bank accounts / social media / transport / phones / internet access. If everyone needs these should companies be obliged to provide them regardless of other considerations. And if not who should?

Excellent point that government needs to confront.

If only something like the Post Office could offer public banking services. I am sure they would have the IT infrastructure needed to manage money and accounts efficiently .........

The Post Office. What a squandered, f*cked-up, national resource that is. All in the name of Market Competition.

kinabalu

Benpointer said:

Ghedebrav said:

[T]he tension caused by having private profit-making companies provide vital services without which it is hard to be a fully functioning or contributing member of society: bank accounts / social media / transport / phones / internet access. If everyone needs these should companies be obliged to provide them regardless of other considerations. And if not who should?

Excellent point that government needs to confront.

Banks offer a Basic Bank Account which anyone can get with ID provided they haven't been convicted of fraud. I am not sure that was what Farage was after though.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/basic-bank-accounts/

It's the word of the moment so I think 'debanked' needs a definition. To match its sense of humiliation and exclusion I propose it ought to mean 'involuntarily without a bank account'.

Nigelb

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

I think he's just winding us up.

RochdalePioneers

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Well of course she had to go. But at the same time I don't see anything wrong with a private bank choosing who it wants to offer accounts to.

So if a private bank chose to say "we only offer bank accounts to white people" then you'd be OK with that?

Or a private bank that refused to provide banking to women?

The law provides classes you can't discriminate, which includes race, sex, religion or belief etc - should that law be repealed?

They can discriminate against wealth. And the Nigel isn't rich enough according to their eligibility rules.

The law doesn't come into it. Whatever else is thrown around they have cover here on account of the man not being rich enough. And that ultimately is at the heart of his strop.

Alanbrooke

BartholomewRoberts said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

Of course I am I just dont agree with your approach.

What is it about my approach you don't agree with?

That we should actually listen to what he says in his own Presidential announcement speech?

You say you like RFK, because he's different. How is he different? What - other than his vaccine scepticism* - differentiates him from the other Democratic candidates?

The criticism that you level at him, that he is a policy free zone: well, that's a criticism that you can level at him, if you just - you know - look at his website.

I disagree with you asking me to cancel the bloke because he has said something stupid.

All politicians say thing they wish the hadnt and some of them actually mean them, So Ill listen to what the guy has to say in the round same as any other candidate.. And as I said if he;s a baddun hell get rumbled.

If I take your word that he's the spawn of Adolf Eichmann then why is it not concerning you more that he's still a member of the Democrats ? Why havent they kicked him out with short shrift ? Why does Joe Biden turn a blind eye to anti semites ?

He shouldn't be "cancelled" whatever that is supposed to mean in this context because he has said something stupid.

He should simply not be elected because he has said, and is campaigning on, something stupid.

He's already been rumbled that what he's saying is bad, because you can read what he's saying on his own website, or listen to what he's saying in his own speeches.

I heard the same about Trump ( a former democrat ) and he was well on the chart with stupid things he had done. I was told he would start world war 3, collapse the US economy and make the US a fascist state amongst other claims.

In the event he was a big bag of wind and probably the most peaceful US president since the war.

If RFK is the evil you insist then why is he still in the Democrats ?

RochdalePioneers

kinabalu said:

Benpointer said:

Ghedebrav said:

[T]he tension caused by having private profit-making companies provide vital services without which it is hard to be a fully functioning or contributing member of society: bank accounts / social media / transport / phones / internet access. If everyone needs these should companies be obliged to provide them regardless of other considerations. And if not who should?

Excellent point that government needs to confront.

Banks offer a Basic Bank Account which anyone can get with ID provided they haven't been convicted of fraud. I am not sure that was what Farage was after though.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/basic-bank-accounts/

It's the word of the moment so I think 'debanked' needs a definition. To match its sense of humiliation and exclusion I propose it ought to mean 'involuntarily without a bank account'.

"Debanked" - to be removed as a private bank client when your wealth drops below their eligibility criteria.

Casino_Royale

Alanbrooke said:

ydoethur said:

Speaking of errors of judgment, we seem to have two threads running in this,

I was heartened to see SKS has come out in favour of declaring war on Nazi Germany.

He says its the right thing to do.

Is it still going?

kle4

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

FPT

Well lets see when Trump was a democrat he was great guy, then when he wasnt - whack job. When RFK was on side - great guy, great family - now he isnt hes building the 4th Reich.

There seems to be too much strangling at birth. If he was that bad, then why was he a young prince at the heart of the democrats for so long, If he was that bad why did the dems not kick him out ?

And for the record I happened to say casually yesterday he was one of the more interesting candidates. I have no fixed view of the man but from the reaction to an innocent statement I can sense Bidenites are shit scared.

Why ?

People thought Trump was a great guy?

BartholomewRoberts

Benpointer said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Ghedebrav said:

[T]he tension caused by having private profit-making companies provide vital services without which it is hard to be a fully functioning or contributing member of society: bank accounts / social media / transport / phones / internet access. If everyone needs these should companies be obliged to provide them regardless of other considerations. And if not who should?

Excellent point that government needs to confront.

If only something like the Post Office could offer public banking services. I am sure they would have the IT infrastructure needed to manage money and accounts efficiently .........

The Post Office. What a squandered, f*cked-up, national resource that is. All in the name of Market Competition.

Wait, what!?

The Post Office has been the source of one of the greatest scandals in recent decades.

It was wholly owned by HMG at the time.

It is still wholly owned by HMG.

Nigelb

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

Along with around 40m people in the whole of the rest of Ukraine, if you're referring to this afternoon's missile chuck from Russia.
I think your odds are pretty decent.

Whereabouts are you ?

noneoftheabove

Benpointer said:

Ghedebrav said:

[T]he tension caused by having private profit-making companies provide vital services without which it is hard to be a fully functioning or contributing member of society: bank accounts / social media / transport / phones / internet access. If everyone needs these should companies be obliged to provide them regardless of other considerations. And if not who should?

Excellent point that government needs to confront.

Banks offer a Basic Bank Account which anyone can get with ID provided they haven't been convicted of fraud. I am not sure that was what Farage was after though.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/basic-bank-accounts/

Natwest reject half of these applications. They do have to tell the applicant why. It is clearly failing as a backstop.

rcs1000

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

Of course I am I just dont agree with your approach.

What is it about my approach you don't agree with?

That we should actually listen to what he says in his own Presidential announcement speech?

You say you like RFK, because he's different. How is he different? What - other than his vaccine scepticism* - differentiates him from the other Democratic candidates?

The criticism that you level at him, that he is a policy free zone: well, that's a criticism that you can level at him, if you just - you know - look at his website.

I disagree with you asking me to cancel the bloke because he has said something stupid.

All politicians say thing they wish the hadnt and some of them actually mean them, So Ill listen to what the guy has to say in the round same as any other candidate.. And as I said if he;s a baddun hell get rumbled.

If I take your word that he's the spawn of Adolf Eichmann then why is it not concerning you more that he's still a member of the Democrats ? Why havent they kicked him out with short shrift ? Why does Joe Biden turn a blind eye to anti semites ?

"I take your word that he's the spawn of Adolf Eichmann"

I'm not saying that at all, and it is extremely rude of you to suggest that I am.

I'm saying that he believes and spreads conspiracy theories, to the extent that twenty minutes of his announcement speech was on the dangers of vaccines. And that - other than that - his campaign website contains essentially zero policies that differentiate him from the mainstream Democratic party.

Indeed, my sole point (really) is that he's not Trump. He's not scratching a Democratic Party itch that is currently unscratched. And there is no obvious viable path for him to either the nomination or the Presidency.

If Biden stands, there will be no debates. RFK will pick up no delegates in caucus states, where he'll be squashed by the Democratic organisation. And will do barely better in the regular Primary states.

If Biden does not stand, then there will be half a dozen better candidates.

Now, could I be wrong? Of course I could. I've been wrong many times. But not this time, I think. This time, I think, selling RFK is some of the easiest money out there.

Sean_F

When it comes to private banking, or other bespoke services, I've no real objection to their only serving people who share their so-called "values", provided they are entirely up-front about it at the outset.

kinabalu

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

Of course I am I just dont agree with your approach.

What is it about my approach you don't agree with?

That we should actually listen to what he says in his own Presidential announcement speech?

You say you like RFK, because he's different. How is he different? What - other than his vaccine scepticism* - differentiates him from the other Democratic candidates?

The criticism that you level at him, that he is a policy free zone: well, that's a criticism that you can level at him, if you just - you know - look at his website.

I disagree with you asking me to cancel the bloke because he has said something stupid.

All politicians say thing they wish the hadnt and some of them actually mean them, So Ill listen to what the guy has to say in the round same as any other candidate.. And as I said if he;s a baddun hell get rumbled.

If I take your word that he's the spawn of Adolf Eichmann then why is it not concerning you more that he's still a member of the Democrats ? Why havent they kicked him out with short shrift ? Why does Joe Biden turn a blind eye to anti semites ?

Trump was a baddun but he got elected rather than rumbled. Something you yourself point out in response to those writing off Kennedy's chances.

IanB2

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Ghedebrav said:

[T]he tension caused by having private profit-making companies provide vital services without which it is hard to be a fully functioning or contributing member of society: bank accounts / social media / transport / phones / internet access. If everyone needs these should companies be obliged to provide them regardless of other considerations. And if not who should?

Excellent point that government needs to confront.

If only something like the Post Office could offer public banking services. I am sure they would have the IT infrastructure needed to manage money and accounts efficiently .........

The Post Office. What a squandered, f*cked-up, national resource that is. All in the name of Market Competition.

Wait, what!?

The Post Office has been the source of one of the greatest scandals in recent decades.

It was wholly owned by HMG at the time.

It is still wholly owned by HMG.

And HMG is lucky not to be mired in it itself, since the DWP was originally a key sponsor of the Horizon project.

Casino_Royale

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

One of the Ukrainian kids in the shelter has come at you with the Supersoaker500?

kle4

Well, there's the next cyclefree header ready

The suspended chief constable of Devon and Cornwall Police is being investigated over serious allegations of sexual offences in Northern Ireland.

Will Kerr was a police officer in Northern Ireland for 27 years before leaving in 2018.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-66316756

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Nigelb

Alanbrooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

Of course I am I just dont agree with your approach.

What is it about my approach you don't agree with?

That we should actually listen to what he says in his own Presidential announcement speech?

You say you like RFK, because he's different. How is he different? What - other than his vaccine scepticism* - differentiates him from the other Democratic candidates?

The criticism that you level at him, that he is a policy free zone: well, that's a criticism that you can level at him, if you just - you know - look at his website.

I disagree with you asking me to cancel the bloke because he has said something stupid.

All politicians say thing they wish the hadnt and some of them actually mean them, So Ill listen to what the guy has to say in the round same as any other candidate.. And as I said if he;s a baddun hell get rumbled.

If I take your word that he's the spawn of Adolf Eichmann then why is it not concerning you more that he's still a member of the Democrats ? Why havent they kicked him out with short shrift ? Why does Joe Biden turn a blind eye to anti semites ?

He shouldn't be "cancelled" whatever that is supposed to mean in this context because he has said something stupid.

He should simply not be elected because he has said, and is campaigning on, something stupid.

He's already been rumbled that what he's saying is bad, because you can read what he's saying on his own website, or listen to what he's saying in his own speeches.

I heard the same about Trump ( a former democrat ) and he was well on the chart with stupid things he had done. I was told he would start world war 3, collapse the US economy and make the US a fascist state amongst other claims.

In the event he was a big bag of wind and probably the most peaceful US president since the war.

If RFK is the evil you insist then why is he still in the Democrats ?

He's a Kennedy.
It's the family brand.

Pretty popular guy with the Trump crew, nonetheless. They're always on the lookout for a good spoiler candidate, having been on the receiving end a couple of times.

IanB2

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

Lviv is miles from any fighting and you are a known drama Queen.

I will probably get nearer to Russia on my current trip than you will.

Nigelb

kle4 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

FPT

Well lets see when Trump was a democrat he was great guy, then when he wasnt - whack job. When RFK was on side - great guy, great family - now he isnt hes building the 4th Reich.

There seems to be too much strangling at birth. If he was that bad, then why was he a young prince at the heart of the democrats for so long, If he was that bad why did the dems not kick him out ?

And for the record I happened to say casually yesterday he was one of the more interesting candidates. I have no fixed view of the man but from the reaction to an innocent statement I can sense Bidenites are shit scared.

Why ?

People thought Trump was a great guy?

Some very fine people.

kinabalu

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Well of course she had to go. But at the same time I don't see anything wrong with a private bank choosing who it wants to offer accounts to.

So if a private bank chose to say "we only offer bank accounts to white people" then you'd be OK with that?

Or a private bank that refused to provide banking to women?

The law provides classes you can't discriminate, which includes race, sex, religion or belief etc - should that law be repealed?

I don't think all beliefs are protected?

SeaShantyIrish2

Alanbrooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

Of course I am I just dont agree with your approach.

What is it about my approach you don't agree with?

That we should actually listen to what he says in his own Presidential announcement speech?

You say you like RFK, because he's different. How is he different? What - other than his vaccine scepticism* - differentiates him from the other Democratic candidates?

The criticism that you level at him, that he is a policy free zone: well, that's a criticism that you can level at him, if you just - you know - look at his website.

I disagree with you asking me to cancel the bloke because he has said something stupid.

All politicians say thing they wish the hadnt and some of them actually mean them, So Ill listen to what the guy has to say in the round same as any other candidate.. And as I said if he;s a baddun hell get rumbled.

If I take your word that he's the spawn of Adolf Eichmann then why is it not concerning you more that he's still a member of the Democrats ? Why havent they kicked him out with short shrift ? Why does Joe Biden turn a blind eye to anti semites ?

He shouldn't be "cancelled" whatever that is supposed to mean in this context because he has said something stupid.

He should simply not be elected because he has said, and is campaigning on, something stupid.

He's already been rumbled that what he's saying is bad, because you can read what he's saying on his own website, or listen to what he's saying in his own speeches.

I heard the same about Trump ( a former democrat ) and he was well on the chart with stupid things he had done. I was told he would start world war 3, collapse the US economy and make the US a fascist state amongst other claims.

In the event he was a big bag of wind and probably the most peaceful US president since the war.

If RFK is the evil you insist then why is he still in the Democrats ?

RFK JUNIOR is "still in the Democrats" because, unlike in UK parties, there is no mechanism for kicking him out.

You've heard of the phrase, "follow the money"? Do this re: RFKjr campaign, and you will discover that his contributors (ditto boosters in media) are Republicans, of the Trump-Putin persuasion.

Position is somewhat (emphasis on conditional) akin to Liz Cheney.

Also to Alan Dershowitz, who Leon's (former?) heart throb and mega-MAGA-maniac Keri Lake calls "a liberal Democrat" even though the date-stamp for THAT expired long ago.

kle4

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

O/T

"Andrew Malkinson: Rape conviction of man who spent 17 years in prison overturned
Fresh DNA evidence has emerged linking another suspect to the crime."

https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-malkinson-rape-conviction-of-man-who-spent-17-years-in-prison-overturned-12927618

As well as the obvious issues, there is also the Kafkaesque problem that in order to qualify for early release, you have to show remorse and therefore admit guilt. As the story says, he "stayed in jail for another decade because he maintained his innocence."

Given delays in trials then I'd assume some people facing relatively short sentences but unlucky enough to be stuck in jail until trial plead guilty just to get home earlier.

williamglenn

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

Lviv is miles from any fighting and you are a known drama Queen.

I will probably get nearer to Russia on my current trip than you will.

That's a silly post.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/06/russia-cruise-missile-attack-ukraine-city-lviv

Russian cruise missile attack on Ukraine city of Lviv kills seven

SeaShantyIrish2

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

Of course I am I just dont agree with your approach.

What is it about my approach you don't agree with?

That we should actually listen to what he says in his own Presidential announcement speech?

You say you like RFK, because he's different. How is he different? What - other than his vaccine scepticism* - differentiates him from the other Democratic candidates?

The criticism that you level at him, that he is a policy free zone: well, that's a criticism that you can level at him, if you just - you know - look at his website.

I disagree with you asking me to cancel the bloke because he has said something stupid.

All politicians say thing they wish the hadnt and some of them actually mean them, So Ill listen to what the guy has to say in the round same as any other candidate.. And as I said if he;s a baddun hell get rumbled.

If I take your word that he's the spawn of Adolf Eichmann then why is it not concerning you more that he's still a member of the Democrats ? Why havent they kicked him out with short shrift ? Why does Joe Biden turn a blind eye to anti semites ?

He shouldn't be "cancelled" whatever that is supposed to mean in this context because he has said something stupid.

He should simply not be elected because he has said, and is campaigning on, something stupid.

He's already been rumbled that what he's saying is bad, because you can read what he's saying on his own website, or listen to what he's saying in his own speeches.

I heard the same about Trump ( a former democrat ) and he was well on the chart with stupid things he had done. I was told he would start world war 3, collapse the US economy and make the US a fascist state amongst other claims.

In the event he was a big bag of wind and probably the most peaceful US president since the war.

If RFK is the evil you insist then why is he still in the Democrats ?

He's a Kennedy.
It's the family brand.

Pretty popular guy with the Trump crew, nonetheless. They're always on the lookout for a good spoiler candidate, having been on the receiving end a couple of times.

AND also on the giving end . . . for example, Kanye West 2020.

kinabalu

noneoftheabove said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Well of course she had to go. But at the same time I don't see anything wrong with a private bank choosing who it wants to offer accounts to.

For this line to hold, society has to have an answer as to how someone without access to a bank account is supposed to work, find housing, energy, food and water. The only options I can see left available are homelessness, criminality or leaving the country.

Do you have an answer? If not, then there needs to be some way to protect, at a minimum, an individuals only/last bank account.

Yes to function you need A bank account not any specific one.

noneoftheabove

kinabalu said:

noneoftheabove said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Well of course she had to go. But at the same time I don't see anything wrong with a private bank choosing who it wants to offer accounts to.

For this line to hold, society has to have an answer as to how someone without access to a bank account is supposed to work, find housing, energy, food and water. The only options I can see left available are homelessness, criminality or leaving the country.

Do you have an answer? If not, then there needs to be some way to protect, at a minimum, an individuals only/last bank account.

Yes to function you need A bank account not any specific one.

And if banks have the authority to close down accounts for their own purposes, why would any bank bother with the least attractive customers?

TOPPING

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Well of course she had to go. But at the same time I don't see anything wrong with a private bank choosing who it wants to offer accounts to.

So if a private bank chose to say "we only offer bank accounts to white people" then you'd be OK with that?

Or a private bank that refused to provide banking to women?

The law provides classes you can't discriminate, which includes race, sex, religion or belief etc - should that law be repealed?

They can discriminate against wealth. And the Nigel isn't rich enough according to their eligibility rules.

The law doesn't come into it. Whatever else is thrown around they have cover here on account of the man not being rich enough. And that ultimately is at the heart of his strop.

The heart of it was that they believed there was reputational risk and that having Nige as a customer would devalue the brand.

Where the law is on publicising that who knows.

SeaShantyIrish2

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

Lviv is miles from any fighting and you are a known drama Queen.

I will probably get nearer to Russia on my current trip than you will.

L'viv is as much a battle zone 2023, as was London 1940-45.

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

Well, there's the next cyclefree header ready

The suspended chief constable of Devon and Cornwall Police is being investigated over serious allegations of sexual offences in Northern Ireland.

Will Kerr was a police officer in Northern Ireland for 27 years before leaving in 2018.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-66316756

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

It's not even the biggest police scandal today.

Alanbrooke

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

FPT

Well lets see when Trump was a democrat he was great guy, then when he wasnt - whack job. When RFK was on side - great guy, great family - now he isnt hes building the 4th Reich.

There seems to be too much strangling at birth. If he was that bad, then why was he a young prince at the heart of the democrats for so long, If he was that bad why did the dems not kick him out ?

And for the record I happened to say casually yesterday he was one of the more interesting candidates. I have no fixed view of the man but from the reaction to an innocent statement I can sense Bidenites are shit scared.

Why ?

Like many Americans, I think Biden is mentally unfit for the job. And with Trump approaching 80, that's going to be an issue for him too.

But there are, actually, lots of smart, articulate people in the US who would make a great President. Chris Sununu, Governor of New Hampshire is one. Asa Hutchinson, former Governor of Arkansas is another. On the Democratic side, I would point to Buttigieg or Ossoff.

All of these people are smart and serious.

But I'm really struggling with your attitude here. You are normally a serious poster, with genuine knoweledge about the world. You have never, as far as I've seen, been in thrall to conspiracy theories. You're a sober ulsterman with a long career in a serious industry.

And yet now you're spouting about the Dems running scared of RFK because of what I am saying? That literally makes no sense. All opinions are my own. I haven't read and repeated criticisms of him this is what I (and only I) think after reading his website and watching (most of) his speech.

OK RCS then we are arguing at cross purposes. You defended Biden quite sharply so I took you as you pushing a media line, I apologise if I got that wrong,

I threw out a casual remark yesterday which upset the hornets nest as you can see from other posters, As you are probably aware I dont really do US politics except to say the place is a mess atm and the US needs to jump a generation in its politics.

I am quite clear that I dont want to see a Biden Trump rematch, but then I wont be voting thats why as a spectator I would like to see more new blood and a sensible debate on where the US goes next. In its current format it is on the slide and I dont see that being a good thing for the West.

kle4

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

Lviv is miles from any fighting and you are a known drama Queen.

I will probably get nearer to Russia on my current trip than you will.

It's far from the front, but Russia has shown on multiple occasions they will launch militarily pointless barrages at cities far from the front.

tlg86

Very good from Matt:

https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1684236560990871554

Nigelb

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Nigelb said:

Alanbrooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

Of course I am I just dont agree with your approach.

What is it about my approach you don't agree with?

That we should actually listen to what he says in his own Presidential announcement speech?

You say you like RFK, because he's different. How is he different? What - other than his vaccine scepticism* - differentiates him from the other Democratic candidates?

The criticism that you level at him, that he is a policy free zone: well, that's a criticism that you can level at him, if you just - you know - look at his website.

I disagree with you asking me to cancel the bloke because he has said something stupid.

All politicians say thing they wish the hadnt and some of them actually mean them, So Ill listen to what the guy has to say in the round same as any other candidate.. And as I said if he;s a baddun hell get rumbled.

If I take your word that he's the spawn of Adolf Eichmann then why is it not concerning you more that he's still a member of the Democrats ? Why havent they kicked him out with short shrift ? Why does Joe Biden turn a blind eye to anti semites ?

He shouldn't be "cancelled" whatever that is supposed to mean in this context because he has said something stupid.

He should simply not be elected because he has said, and is campaigning on, something stupid.

He's already been rumbled that what he's saying is bad, because you can read what he's saying on his own website, or listen to what he's saying in his own speeches.

I heard the same about Trump ( a former democrat ) and he was well on the chart with stupid things he had done. I was told he would start world war 3, collapse the US economy and make the US a fascist state amongst other claims.

In the event he was a big bag of wind and probably the most peaceful US president since the war.

If RFK is the evil you insist then why is he still in the Democrats ?

He's a Kennedy.
It's the family brand.

Pretty popular guy with the Trump crew, nonetheless. They're always on the lookout for a good spoiler candidate, having been on the receiving end a couple of times.

AND also on the giving end . . . for example, Kanye West 2020.

Of course.
Since Perot, it gets talked up every cycle.

noneoftheabove

Sean_F said:

When it comes to private banking, or other bespoke services, I've no real objection to their only serving people who share their so-called "values", provided they are entirely up-front about it at the outset.

I can just see the adverts.

Private Bank X warmly welcomes those who meet the following values of our esteemed institution:

- Filthy rich
- Looking to pay as little tax as possible whilst paying your tax advisor from our subsidiary as much as possible
- Looking to make your money appear sparkling clean whilst paying us to arrange it
- Happy to invest the proceeds in our over priced and underperforming investments

ydoethur

kle4 said:

Well, there's the next cyclefree header ready

The suspended chief constable of Devon and Cornwall Police is being investigated over serious allegations of sexual offences in Northern Ireland.

Will Kerr was a police officer in Northern Ireland for 27 years before leaving in 2018.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-66316756

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

If only he had stuck to being a Wayne Kerr.

Alanbrooke

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

rcs1000 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Alanbrooke said:

TimS said:

Alanbrooke said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Alanbrooke said:

LostPassword said:

Malmesbury said:

noneoftheabove said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northern_Al said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/mps-falling-foul-bank-rules-politically-exposed-persons-chris-philp

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.

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.

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.

Not the Graun, it's been pretty good of late.

I havent seen the notion of challenging the entire idea of unbanked, including for money launderers, from anyone else at all. It is simply not compatible with modern life to leave tens of thousands of people unbanked, and an open invititation for criminal gangs to exploit such individuals.

I’ve been raising it for a while. We need data on what the actually blocks are - proper addresses, financial, credit score etc.

In theory it is trivial to sign up to any number of banks and alt-banks.

After moving to Ireland it took us seven months to open a joint bank account. A lot of the delays was because we didn't have acceptable proof of address. It was a right pain in the arse.

Do you have an Irish Passport ?

No address in a passport.

It is the same in the UK. You need a few utility bills to open accounts so you need to be somewhere for some months.

I ask only because my daughter found it a lot easier to get things done when she moved to Waterford if she used her Irish passport. It cut out some of the admin. From memory she set up her bank account in a fortnight,

I'm off to Waterford in a week or so to stay with friends. This being the short haul alternative to my cancelled Georgia holiday. Never been before and looking forward to it.

Lots of nice scenery around,. Waterford itself is like a UK market town. I enjoyed the Commeragh Mountains ( try the magic road), the copper coast, Dunmore East, Tramore, Mount Congreve gardens and if you want to splash cash Waterford Castle for a meal or afternoon tea,

PLUS Waterford is but a skip and a jump from ancestral homestead, near New Ross, of . . . wait for it . . . Robert Fizgerald Kennedy, Jr.

Currently the most popular candidate for President.

At Ben & Jerry ice cream parlors?

Amongst others

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rfk-jr-maintains-highest-favorability-rating-among-presidential-candidates-new-poll

It is worth looking at the details of the poll: https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/HHP_July2023_KeyResults.pdf

FWIW, which policies* of RFK do you think resonate particularly well with Democratic voters?

* Having the surname "Kennedy" is not a policy

LOL nor is being called Forrest Gump=Biden.

From what I can see the man is leveraging what he has and throwing in "contoversy" to get more coverage. Early candidate Trump did much the same.

Trump's policies, though, were what a lot of Republicans had been calling out for for years, while being ignored by the party hierarchy. Specifically, Trump cared about the border and immigration, and wanted a more isolationist foreign policy. By contrast, the Bushes had pushed for amnesties for illegal immigrants and taken the US into wars.

By contrast, RFK is an antisemitic conspiracy nut. The only reason he's polling so high is because people hear the name Kennedy.

What's his policy that resonates? Where is the Democratic Party ignoring its base?

And let's not forget, someone stood for the Democrats on the RFK platform last time. She was bigged up by some on here ("the only one who can beat Trump"), and she was massacred in the polls.

From what I can see none of them have come out with policies yet.

As it is I happen to agree with the 7 out of 10 Americans who dont want to see another Trump Biden run off.

If RFK is the nut job you claim he will be found out, but he is currently doing a reasonable job of cutting through a hostile establishment media. and raising his profile I want to see the US run with younger more sensible candidates rather than the geriatric mud wrestling weve had for the last 10 years.

Well, let's see what RFK himself says, shall we.

Here's his speech announcing his Presidential run: https://www.c-span.org/video/?527511-1/robert-kennedy-jr-announces-2024-presidential-campaign

What does he focus on? What is the biggest portion of his speech?

Vaccines.

But don't take my word for it, watch it yourself.

And let's look at his website: https://www.kennedy24.com/

You accuse others of having no policies. But read through that website, and other than on race relations, find even one policy. I mean, "The time has come to reverse America’s economic decline" is a great soundbite, but what does he suggest? Literally nothing.

The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line.

Really bonkers.

as I said if he's a baddun hell get found out.

Wait.

My "line" is if you want to know RFK's policies, then you should listen to his announcement speech, and read his website

To which you respond: "The democrat establishment must really be crapping itself if this is the current line."

Are you OK?

Of course I am I just dont agree with your approach.

What is it about my approach you don't agree with?

That we should actually listen to what he says in his own Presidential announcement speech?

You say you like RFK, because he's different. How is he different? What - other than his vaccine scepticism* - differentiates him from the other Democratic candidates?

The criticism that you level at him, that he is a policy free zone: well, that's a criticism that you can level at him, if you just - you know - look at his website.

I disagree with you asking me to cancel the bloke because he has said something stupid.

All politicians say thing they wish the hadnt and some of them actually mean them, So Ill listen to what the guy has to say in the round same as any other candidate.. And as I said if he;s a baddun hell get rumbled.

If I take your word that he's the spawn of Adolf Eichmann then why is it not concerning you more that he's still a member of the Democrats ? Why havent they kicked him out with short shrift ? Why does Joe Biden turn a blind eye to anti semites ?

He shouldn't be "cancelled" whatever that is supposed to mean in this context because he has said something stupid.

He should simply not be elected because he has said, and is campaigning on, something stupid.

He's already been rumbled that what he's saying is bad, because you can read what he's saying on his own website, or listen to what he's saying in his own speeches.

I heard the same about Trump ( a former democrat ) and he was well on the chart with stupid things he had done. I was told he would start world war 3, collapse the US economy and make the US a fascist state amongst other claims.

In the event he was a big bag of wind and probably the most peaceful US president since the war.

If RFK is the evil you insist then why is he still in the Democrats ?

RFK JUNIOR is "still in the Democrats" because, unlike in UK parties, there is no mechanism for kicking him out.

You've heard of the phrase, "follow the money"? Do this re: RFKjr campaign, and you will discover that his contributors (ditto boosters in media) are Republicans, of the Trump-Putin persuasion.

Position is somewhat (emphasis on conditional) akin to Liz Cheney.

Also to Alan Dershowitz, who Leon's (former?) heart throb and mega-MAGA-maniac Keri Lake calls "a liberal Democrat" even though the date-stamp for THAT expired long ago.

And in a nutshell hats why your politics is all screwed up. Youre all spending so much time trying to fk each other nobody's doing the day job.

kinabalu

noneoftheabove said:

kinabalu said:

noneoftheabove said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Well of course she had to go. But at the same time I don't see anything wrong with a private bank choosing who it wants to offer accounts to.

For this line to hold, society has to have an answer as to how someone without access to a bank account is supposed to work, find housing, energy, food and water. The only options I can see left available are homelessness, criminality or leaving the country.

Do you have an answer? If not, then there needs to be some way to protect, at a minimum, an individuals only/last bank account.

Yes to function you need A bank account not any specific one.

And if banks have the authority to close down accounts for their own purposes, why would any bank bother with the least attractive customers?

By least attractive do we mean very poor or very right wing? Where is the actual in-practice big problem? I'm thinking the 1st category but it's not something I know much about.

Benpointer

noneoftheabove said:

Benpointer said:

Ghedebrav said:

[T]he tension caused by having private profit-making companies provide vital services without which it is hard to be a fully functioning or contributing member of society: bank accounts / social media / transport / phones / internet access. If everyone needs these should companies be obliged to provide them regardless of other considerations. And if not who should?

Excellent point that government needs to confront.

Banks offer a Basic Bank Account which anyone can get with ID provided they haven't been convicted of fraud. I am not sure that was what Farage was after though.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/basic-bank-accounts/

Natwest reject half of these applications. They do have to tell the applicant why. It is clearly failing as a backstop.

That's interesting, I didn't know that. I have never seen anyone at Citizens Advice who couldn't get a bank account. That's not to say there aren't a lot out there but even the most destitute, homeless, addicts that I've seen have all got a bank account.

viewcode

Leon said:

That’s fine. Don’t worry about me. I’m just under SUSTAINED MISSILE ATTACK

This is a really good time for you to clear down your browser history