Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
I can't see how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
The issue is not "forcing them to take accounts" its "closing existing accounts" - some of which they have held for decades.
Either the bank didn't do KYC properly in the first place - or they suspect criminality in which case the police should be involved.
In Farage's case it boiled down to "we don't like his politics" - I wonder why they have closed the accounts of Professor Lesley Sawers, 64, the Equalities and Human Rights commissioner for Scotland, who has been with them 32 years....
So the big question - does Nicola Sturgeon still have a bank account ?
I assumed that RBS = Royal Bank of Sturgeon. Have I got that wrong?
Yes, Sturgeon banks with HBOS, well the Bank of Scotland branch.
Though SNP did comically publish her entire account and tax returns.
If she is charged and depending on the charges, she may become an unbanked person.
Right now she'll struggle to get mainstream insurance, which is another scandal like the unbanked.
Home & car insurance becomes invalidated the moment you get charged with most mainstream insurers, the ones that will accept you charge up to 10 times the standard price.
Edit - You don't even have to be charged/convicted, if you live with someone or are financially associated with somebody in those circumstances, then you are in the same boat.
I didn't know that. Pretty disgraceful as it's effectively punishment before trial - and collective punishment.
Yeah, this is (well should be) a massive civil liberties story with a bureaucracy that has gone mad following kafkaesque rules that have been introduced without consideration of why society should leave anyone "unbanked".
No-one should be "unbanked" regardless of what they have done. By all means monitor and control high risk accounts differently but absolutely do not shut them off from employment and housing.
But because its Farage, those who would normally be loudly complaining about civil liberties have been too quiet, and left the story mostly about him and the idiots at Coutts/Natwest.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Poor, young, English as a second language, recent immigrants, anyone involved in crypto, gambling or small scale cash generative businesses.
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
I can't see how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
The issue is not "forcing them to take accounts" its "closing existing accounts" - some of which they have held for decades.
Either the bank didn't do KYC properly in the first place - or they suspect criminality in which case the police should be involved.
In Farage's case it boiled down to "we don't like his politics" - I wonder why they have closed the accounts of Professor Lesley Sawers, 64, the Equalities and Human Rights commissioner for Scotland, who has been with them 32 years....
So the big question - does Nicola Sturgeon still have a bank account ?
I assumed that RBS = Royal Bank of Sturgeon. Have I got that wrong?
Yes, Sturgeon banks with HBOS, well the Bank of Scotland branch.
Though SNP did comically publish her entire account and tax returns.
If she is charged and depending on the charges, she may become an unbanked person.
Right now she'll struggle to get mainstream insurance, which is another scandal like the unbanked.
Home & car insurance becomes invalidated the moment you get charged with most mainstream insurers, the ones that will accept you charge up to 10 times the standard price.
Edit - You don't even have to be charged/convicted, if you live with someone or are financially associated with somebody in those circumstances, then you are in the same boat.
I didn't know that. Pretty disgraceful as it's effectively punishment before trial - and collective punishment.
Yeah, this is (well should be) a massive civil liberties story with a bureaucracy that has gone mad following kafkaesque rules that have been introduced without consideration of why society should leave anyone "unbanked".
No-one should be "unbanked" regardless of what they have done. By all means monitor and control high risk accounts differently but absolutely do not shut them off from employment and housing.
But because its Farage, those who would normally be loudly complaining about civil liberties have been too quiet, and left the story mostly about him and the idiots at Coutts/Natwest.
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.
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.
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.
Ross Perot was WAY more than just a spoiler. Though he was that also, in 1992 but NOT of course 1996.
Ditto George Wallace in 1968 (who came very close to spoiling Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy").
John Anderson in 1980 is an interesting case, in that he campaigned in BOTH for Republican nomination, then as Independent in the general election. And got a MUCH more respectable vote that fall than Ye in 2020, or (I forecast) than RFKjr in 2024. But still failed as an anti-Reagan spoiler.
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.
Poor, young, English as a second language, recent immigrants, anyone involved in crypto, gambling or small scale cash generative businesses.
Oh, and as TSE pointed out, those sharing an address with someone else suspected of being high risk. Again, consider the young forced into flat sharing often with strangers.
Easy for the flippant reactions from those who it will never impact, but it is a scandal we allow the banks to do this.
[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.
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.
Question for those who move in those circles;
How many private banks are there out there? I don't think we know which banks rebuffed Mr Farage. Were they high street banks or just other elite private banks looking at him and saying "sorry, not elite enough for us"?
On New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (himself latest edition of political dynasty) he announced last week that he is NOT gonna run for re-election in 2024.
Unclear how this is gonna impact the very early 2024 New Hampshire presidential primary, in which CS is already a major player. (The regular NH primary for governor and other offices is not until summer of 2024).
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.
Poor, young, English as a second language, recent immigrants, anyone involved in crypto, gambling or small scale cash generative businesses.
Oh, and as TSE pointed out, those sharing an address with someone else suspected of being high risk. Again, consider the young forced into flat sharing often with strangers.
Easy for the flippant reactions from those who it will never impact, but it is a scandal we allow the banks to do this.
And if someone tries to commit fraud in your identity, you sometimes get tarred with the CIFAS brush.
[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.
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.
Question for those who move in those circles;
How many private banks are there out there? I don't think we know which banks rebuffed Mr Farage. Were they high street banks or just other elite private banks looking at him and saying "sorry, not elite enough for us"?
[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.
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.
Send them to HSBC. About the same number of basic accounts as Natwest but virtually no applications refused.
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
I can't see how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
The issue is not "forcing them to take accounts" its "closing existing accounts" - some of which they have held for decades.
Either the bank didn't do KYC properly in the first place - or they suspect criminality in which case the police should be involved.
In Farage's case it boiled down to "we don't like his politics" - I wonder why they have closed the accounts of Professor Lesley Sawers, 64, the Equalities and Human Rights commissioner for Scotland, who has been with them 32 years....
So the big question - does Nicola Sturgeon still have a bank account ?
I assumed that RBS = Royal Bank of Sturgeon. Have I got that wrong?
Yes, Sturgeon banks with HBOS, well the Bank of Scotland branch.
Though SNP did comically publish her entire account and tax returns.
If she is charged and depending on the charges, she may become an unbanked person.
Right now she'll struggle to get mainstream insurance, which is another scandal like the unbanked.
Home & car insurance becomes invalidated the moment you get charged with most mainstream insurers, the ones that will accept you charge up to 10 times the standard price.
Edit - You don't even have to be charged/convicted, if you live with someone or are financially associated with somebody in those circumstances, then you are in the same boat.
I didn't know that. Pretty disgraceful as it's effectively punishment before trial - and collective punishment.
Yeah, this is (well should be) a massive civil liberties story with a bureaucracy that has gone mad following kafkaesque rules that have been introduced without consideration of why society should leave anyone "unbanked".
No-one should be "unbanked" regardless of what they have done. By all means monitor and control high risk accounts differently but absolutely do not shut them off from employment and housing.
But because its Farage, those who would normally be loudly complaining about civil liberties have been too quiet, and left the story mostly about him and the idiots at Coutts/Natwest.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for that; and I'm sorry I got a little heated
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
I can't see how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
The issue is not "forcing them to take accounts" its "closing existing accounts" - some of which they have held for decades.
Either the bank didn't do KYC properly in the first place - or they suspect criminality in which case the police should be involved.
In Farage's case it boiled down to "we don't like his politics" - I wonder why they have closed the accounts of Professor Lesley Sawers, 64, the Equalities and Human Rights commissioner for Scotland, who has been with them 32 years....
So the big question - does Nicola Sturgeon still have a bank account ?
I assumed that RBS = Royal Bank of Sturgeon. Have I got that wrong?
Yes, Sturgeon banks with HBOS, well the Bank of Scotland branch.
Though SNP did comically publish her entire account and tax returns.
If she is charged and depending on the charges, she may become an unbanked person.
Right now she'll struggle to get mainstream insurance, which is another scandal like the unbanked.
Home & car insurance becomes invalidated the moment you get charged with most mainstream insurers, the ones that will accept you charge up to 10 times the standard price.
Edit - You don't even have to be charged/convicted, if you live with someone or are financially associated with somebody in those circumstances, then you are in the same boat.
I didn't know that. Pretty disgraceful as it's effectively punishment before trial - and collective punishment.
Yeah, this is (well should be) a massive civil liberties story with a bureaucracy that has gone mad following kafkaesque rules that have been introduced without consideration of why society should leave anyone "unbanked".
No-one should be "unbanked" regardless of what they have done. By all means monitor and control high risk accounts differently but absolutely do not shut them off from employment and housing.
But because its Farage, those who would normally be loudly complaining about civil liberties have been too quiet, and left the story mostly about him and the idiots at Coutts/Natwest.
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.
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.
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.
Not quite "all of us".
And the guy you scorn - Joe Biden - IS doing HIS day job.
Maybe NOT to your complete satisfaction . . . but who is, anywhere?
Ken Clarke was on R4 earlier today. I like Ken Clarke. In amongst his reflections he said something along the lines of the best governments of 'recent' years being Thatcher's and Atlee's. In my view he's completely right on the first, but it caused me to reflect and do some small research on what I know of the Atlee government. On the face of it, it seems to have been entirely awful. Atlee just steered the cart into the wall.
What were Atlee's merits? (Let's leave the NHS aside because it's so emotive, and we all know)
MOST Scots believe the Scottish Parliament should have more powers than it does currently, according to a new poll which shows a majority opposed to “the Tories’ deliberate, co-ordinated attempts to reverse devolution”.
The research found that 51.8% of Scots were in favour of more devolution, with 17.7% in favour of powers being taken away from Holyrood.
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
I can't see how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
The issue is not "forcing them to take accounts" its "closing existing accounts" - some of which they have held for decades.
Either the bank didn't do KYC properly in the first place - or they suspect criminality in which case the police should be involved.
In Farage's case it boiled down to "we don't like his politics" - I wonder why they have closed the accounts of Professor Lesley Sawers, 64, the Equalities and Human Rights commissioner for Scotland, who has been with them 32 years....
So the big question - does Nicola Sturgeon still have a bank account ?
I assumed that RBS = Royal Bank of Sturgeon. Have I got that wrong?
Yes, Sturgeon banks with HBOS, well the Bank of Scotland branch.
Though SNP did comically publish her entire account and tax returns.
If she is charged and depending on the charges, she may become an unbanked person.
Right now she'll struggle to get mainstream insurance, which is another scandal like the unbanked.
Home & car insurance becomes invalidated the moment you get charged with most mainstream insurers, the ones that will accept you charge up to 10 times the standard price.
Edit - You don't even have to be charged/convicted, if you live with someone or are financially associated with somebody in those circumstances, then you are in the same boat.
I didn't know that. Pretty disgraceful as it's effectively punishment before trial - and collective punishment.
Yeah, this is (well should be) a massive civil liberties story with a bureaucracy that has gone mad following kafkaesque rules that have been introduced without consideration of why society should leave anyone "unbanked".
No-one should be "unbanked" regardless of what they have done. By all means monitor and control high risk accounts differently but absolutely do not shut them off from employment and housing.
But because its Farage, those who would normally be loudly complaining about civil liberties have been too quiet, and left the story mostly about him and the idiots at Coutts/Natwest.
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.
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.
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.
Of course and it was the biggest screw up or recent times by the US political establishment. The MSM loved helping to build the monster they thought Hilary would defeat, one account I saw said Trumps bogeyman shtick was worth several billions of media coverage he didnt have to fund, But they misjudged the mood of the voters and Hilary was a poor candidate.
So yes it could happen again but I suspect lightning wont strike twice. Kennedy is only to the fore because all the other Democrats dont want to upset Biden , something similar with Trump and the GOP. From what I can see thats why none of the pool of talent is being more forceful in setting their stalls out.
So the choice of VP is probably as important as the Pres in this race given the zimmer frame sumo we are about to endure.
However if you want sleepless nights there are those who want RFK as VP to Trump.
Michael Gove is a “monster” if he continues to rubbish green policies while fully understanding the urgency of the climate crisis, and Grant Shapps, the energy and net zero secretary, is taking “backward steps”, Zac Goldsmith has said in his first major interview since leaving the government.
In a surprisingly frank conversation with the Guardian, the former international environment minister also conceded that Brexit – for which he voted – could be detrimental for the environment in the end if ministers continued to abandon climate commitments in the face of a rightwing resurgence in the Tory party.
Goldsmith resigned from his post in June, after serving in government since 2019, claiming that the prime minister was apathetic about the environment.
Ken Clarke was on R4 earlier today. I like Ken Clarke. In amongst his reflections he said something along the lines of the best governments of 'recent' years being Thatcher's and Atlee's. In my view he's completely right on the first, but it caused me to reflect and do some small research on what I know of the Atlee government. On the face of it, it seems to have been entirely awful. Atlee just steered the cart into the wall.
What were Atlee's merits? (Let's leave the NHS aside because it's so emotive, and we all know)
What were Attlee's merits leaving aside his biggest achievement? I'd suggest: the social security system, 1,000,000 new homes and commencing the decolonisation of the British Empire.
On New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (himself latest edition of political dynasty) he announced last week that he is NOT gonna run for re-election in 2024.
Unclear how this is gonna impact the very early 2024 New Hampshire presidential primary, in which CS is already a major player. (The regular NH primary for governor and other offices is not until summer of 2024).
Ken Clarke was on R4 earlier today. I like Ken Clarke. In amongst his reflections he said something along the lines of the best governments of 'recent' years being Thatcher's and Atlee's. In my view he's completely right on the first, but it caused me to reflect and do some small research on what I know of the Atlee government. On the face of it, it seems to have been entirely awful. Atlee just steered the cart into the wall.
What were Atlee's merits? (Let's leave the NHS aside because it's so emotive, and we all know)
Good point, what were Thatcher's merits (Let's leave tranforming the economy, because it's so emotive, and we all know).
Good grief. Alison Rose is massively, massively in the wrong here. A lot of left wingers just don't seem to be able to get past 'Farage must be the bad guy here therefore Natwest must be the good guys'.
Good grief. Alison Rose is massively, massively in the wrong here. A lot of left wingers just don't seem to be able to get past 'Farage must be the bad guy here therefore Natwest must be the good guys'.
Politicians as a class are at higher risk of bribery and need more supervision, esp cos it is in public office. Ditto their families. So they pass laws to deal with that (good) and whine when they get it in the neck as the banks CBA with the hassle. And try to piggyback on the Farage affair to get the laws watered down.
'“Banks have also more widely been overzealously interpreting the PEP rules, which meant many MPs have had trouble getting access to financial services. MPs’ families as well, spouses and children even, so they have been a bit overzealous,” Philp told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He called the closure of Farage’s account “particularly bad” and said there was a wider issue of banks potentially not providing banking services to people because of their lawful political views.
“We believe in free speech in this country, we believe in political freedom and that means no one should be denied banking services,” said Philp.'
Yebbut loads of people are denied banking services?
The extent to which our media and politicians bend over backwards for Brexit Squidward is inexplicable to me.
That's actually a different matter entirely. Ordinary people are fallign foul of the CIFAS system as implemented by the banking industry.
But it's a good point because the pols are also trying to claim they are hard done by in the same way, when it's am entirely different issue which is the primary problem for pols (although the results are also mediated by the CIFAS system, it's silly to blame it on CIFAS).
But the principal of access to banking as a universal right (ideally) is fundamental to both. If anything good comes out of the highly unedifying affair, it would be recognition of that.
I can't see how you can force them to take anyone's accounts. Doesn't make sense. It's central to moneylaundering legislation that banks have a responsibility over whom they accept.
The issue is not "forcing them to take accounts" its "closing existing accounts" - some of which they have held for decades.
Either the bank didn't do KYC properly in the first place - or they suspect criminality in which case the police should be involved.
In Farage's case it boiled down to "we don't like his politics" - I wonder why they have closed the accounts of Professor Lesley Sawers, 64, the Equalities and Human Rights commissioner for Scotland, who has been with them 32 years....
So the big question - does Nicola Sturgeon still have a bank account ?
I assumed that RBS = Royal Bank of Sturgeon. Have I got that wrong?
Yes, Sturgeon banks with HBOS, well the Bank of Scotland branch.
Though SNP did comically publish her entire account and tax returns.
If she is charged and depending on the charges, she may become an unbanked person.
Right now she'll struggle to get mainstream insurance, which is another scandal like the unbanked.
Home & car insurance becomes invalidated the moment you get charged with most mainstream insurers, the ones that will accept you charge up to 10 times the standard price.
Edit - You don't even have to be charged/convicted, if you live with someone or are financially associated with somebody in those circumstances, then you are in the same boat.
I didn't know that. Pretty disgraceful as it's effectively punishment before trial - and collective punishment.
Yeah, this is (well should be) a massive civil liberties story with a bureaucracy that has gone mad following kafkaesque rules that have been introduced without consideration of why society should leave anyone "unbanked".
No-one should be "unbanked" regardless of what they have done. By all means monitor and control high risk accounts differently but absolutely do not shut them off from employment and housing.
But because its Farage, those who would normally be loudly complaining about civil liberties have been too quiet, and left the story mostly about him and the idiots at Coutts/Natwest.
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.
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.
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.
Of course and it was the biggest screw up or recent times by the US political establishment. The MSM loved helping to build the monster they thought Hilary would defeat, one account I saw said Trumps bogeyman shtick was worth several billions of media coverage he didnt have to fund, But they misjudged the mood of the voters and Hilary was a poor candidate.
So yes it could happen again but I suspect lightning wont strike twice. Kennedy is only to the fore because all the other Democrats dont want to upset Biden , something similar with Trump and the GOP. From what I can see thats why none of the pool of talent is being more forceful in setting their stalls out.
So the choice of VP is probably as important as the Pres in this race given the zimmer frame sumo we are about to endure.
However if you want sleepless nights there are those who want RFK as VP to Trump.
Would NOT rule out (at least yet) RFK JUNIOR as Trump's 2024 VP pick IF he gets GOP nomination.
Ken Clarke was on R4 earlier today. I like Ken Clarke. In amongst his reflections he said something along the lines of the best governments of 'recent' years being Thatcher's and Atlee's. In my view he's completely right on the first, but it caused me to reflect and do some small research on what I know of the Atlee government. On the face of it, it seems to have been entirely awful. Atlee just steered the cart into the wall.
What were Atlee's merits? (Let's leave the NHS aside because it's so emotive, and we all know)
Good point, what were Thatcher's merits (Let's leave tranforming the economy, because it's so emotive, and we all know).
Ken Clarke was on R4 earlier today. I like Ken Clarke. In amongst his reflections he said something along the lines of the best governments of 'recent' years being Thatcher's and Atlee's. In my view he's completely right on the first, but it caused me to reflect and do some small research on what I know of the Atlee government. On the face of it, it seems to have been entirely awful. Atlee just steered the cart into the wall.
What were Atlee's merits? (Let's leave the NHS aside because it's so emotive, and we all know)
Good point, what were Thatcher's merits (Let's leave tranforming the economy, because it's so emotive, and we all know).
Good grief. Alison Rose is massively, massively in the wrong here. A lot of left wingers just don't seem to be able to get past 'Farage must be the bad guy here therefore Natwest must be the good guys'.
+1 - as I said earlier where an lower employee to do such a thing they would have been removed for gross misconduct immediately.
The fact the chair didn't fire her immediately means he should be going instantly (because any manager not escalating the first point would also be out the door for gross misconduct)...
It is funny how if I want to deposit or withdraw £10,000 and 99p from the bank, they will force me to submit to a full proctological exam of my personal affairs, yet the great and the good are allowed to deposit millions in cash in waitrose bags, no questions asked.
KYC/AML laws as they currently stand are ridiculous, the equivalent to forcing everyone to take their shoes off at airports and not have any liquids beyond the size of three squirts worth of toothpaste (sold at the same price as a full tube of toothpaste), despite the fact we know it does absolutely bugger all to combat the actual problem. Much as we had covid theatre, KYC/AML as it stands is "money laundering theatre" with the big boys allowed to break the rules whenever they feel.
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?
If banks are choosing customers based on their attractiveness, I'm in real trouble.
Nigel Farage has done a great job of demonstrating the value of retained EU law.
The right to access your data, the responsibility to protect other people's data - the EU's GDPR is a gold standard that we have rightly kept as UK regs.
Who is sillier Rose or the people still defending her because they dislike Farage?
It's really not complicated at all. Your bank manager should not be discussing your private business with a stranger. That's basically what Rose did. It's wrong, you can't do what she did and work for a bank.
Ken Clarke was on R4 earlier today. I like Ken Clarke. In amongst his reflections he said something along the lines of the best governments of 'recent' years being Thatcher's and Atlee's. In my view he's completely right on the first, but it caused me to reflect and do some small research on what I know of the Atlee government. On the face of it, it seems to have been entirely awful. Atlee just steered the cart into the wall.
What were Atlee's merits? (Let's leave the NHS aside because it's so emotive, and we all know)
Possibly KC was referring to administrative competence. I remember a story about Atlee sacking a Minister and when the indignant man asked "Why?", all Atlee said was "Not up to it". We may believe (and I do) that Atlee's reforms were on balance disastrous and it's a tragedy that Churchill wasn't elected post-war, but he did do 'a lot' in a very short space of time.
Oops. Starmer had the common sense to at least wait and see.
Oh, for heaven's sake. She was not bullied. She was paid £5 million pa to get things right and take responsibility. She made a bad error and so had to go.
A very close friend is pretty high up in NatWest and says that she did a lot of good stuff, is sorry to see her go but says it was the right thing to do. It is possible for someone to do a good job overall but still make the sort of mistake that leads to resignation or sacking. That is an important lesson for all of us.
And, no-on is -or should be thought of or think of themselves - as indispensable. That too is an important - if humbling - lesson.
Nigel Farage has done a great job of demonstrating the value of retained EU law.
The right to access your data, the responsibility to protect other people's data - the EU's GDPR is a gold standard that we have rightly kept as UK regs.
Quite horrendous actually. The fact he didn't subject them to full veganism is the only saving grace. Let's hope their development hasn't been affected too badly.
Well if Trump does pick him will he still be a Deomcrat ?
Was Joe Liebermann still a Democrat, when John McCain picked HIM as HIS running mate in 2008?
Depends on whom you ask. Most Democrats would say, hell no.
Perhaps worth mentioning, that one of the political masterstrokes of Franklin D. Roosevelt was on the eve of 1940 Republican National Convention, when he recruited two very prominent Republicans to serve in his cabinet: Secretary of War Henry Stimson, former Sec of War under Taft and Sec of State for Hoover (and with a bit part in "Oppenheimer"); and Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, newspaper publisher and GOP VP nominee in 1936.
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.
Amazing.
On the subject of gas, if your supplier ever offers to send a company called Lowri Beck round to do anything, refuse. They are incompetent. In my case they were supposed to be installing smart meters. Not only did they take three attempts to do so, the last guy managed to cause a gas leak. If I hadn't been slightly suspicious about the pipe having moved, I could have been blown up.
Cadent, on the other hand, were extremely thorough, when they came to fix it. Thee guy doing it was under instruction and it was quite interesting, if hair raising, to listen to the instructor explaining what not to do and what could go wrong if he made an error. It turns out that if there is a leak upstream of the valve, the gas pipe must be cut off - by sawing through it with a hacksaw, which causes an escape of gas. If you ever see one of those temporary signs in the street saying, do not smoke, gas - lets just say they really,really, mean it.
MOST Scots believe the Scottish Parliament should have more powers than it does currently, according to a new poll which shows a majority opposed to “the Tories’ deliberate, co-ordinated attempts to reverse devolution”.
The research found that 51.8% of Scots were in favour of more devolution, with 17.7% in favour of powers being taken away from Holyrood.
You will rarely find a majority saying they should get less of a say.
Yesterday Rishi Sunak said that Labour are on the 'same side' as smuggling gangs, due to their opposition to the government's immigration policies
By 54% to 25%, Britons think this was an inappropriate thing to say
Conservative voters, by contrast, think the prime minister saying Labour is on the same side as smuggling gangs was appropriate rather than inappropriate by 48% to 33%
We had neighbours who were quite strict vegetarians and brought their children up that way as well. For some reason the school decided they were under-nourished and contacted Social Services who paid them a visit and told them that the kids needed to be offered meat and fish as well.
Pesky interfering state telling people how to feed their kids????
Oops. Starmer had the common sense to at least wait and see.
Oh, for heaven's sake. She was not bullied. She was paid £5 million pa to get things right and take responsibility. She made a bad error and so had to go.
A very close friend is pretty high up in NatWest and says that she did a lot of good stuff, is sorry to see her go but says it was the right thing to do. It is possible for someone to do a good job overall but still make the sort of mistake that leads to resignation or sacking. That is an important lesson for all of us.
And, no-on is -or should be thought of or think of themselves - as indispensable. That too is an important - if humbling - lesson.
I'm just amazed frankly that anyone at that level takes responsibility for their stupidity - even grudgingly and belatedly.
My experience is much like @Malmesbury 's - bastards still get promoted.
Quite horrendous actually. The fact he didn't subject them to full veganism is the only saving grace. Let's hope their development hasn't been affected too badly.
Do you expect vegetarians like the Sunaks to feed their children on meat, or is it just white folk that should?
Off thread: middle daughter has just come home in tears. Last day of junior school today, followed by the traditional water fight in the local park, in, unfortunately, the pouring rain. She has come home absolutely soaking and covered in bruises. The tears are not for this - she is tough as teak - but because she has had a brilliant junior school experience and doesn't want it to be over. It's not that she's not ready to move on, nor that she's not excited about senior school - it's just that being 11 is such a good experience that she doesn't want it to stop. I feel sad for her, of course. But also quite happy for her that junior school has been so good that the end of it elicits this reaction. Oldest daughter has always been mature for her age; youngest daughter has always been the baby. Middle daughter has always been very intensely the age she is now. I've never known anyone like her for living in the present.
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.
I don't think that's quite true. Lviv is on the receiving end of Russian missiles, and people die there from the attacks.
But it's not quite the same as the Blitz. On the worst days - and the London was bombed for 57 continuous days - you would have hundreds killed and thousand injured. More than a million homes in London were severely damaged or destroyed.
MOST Scots believe the Scottish Parliament should have more powers than it does currently, according to a new poll which shows a majority opposed to “the Tories’ deliberate, co-ordinated attempts to reverse devolution”.
The research found that 51.8% of Scots were in favour of more devolution, with 17.7% in favour of powers being taken away from Holyrood.
Was the phrase “the Tories’ deliberate, co-ordinated attempts to reverse devolution” part of the polling question? A bit loaded maybe?
Well if Trump does pick him will he still be a Deomcrat ?
Was Joe Liebermann still a Democrat, when John McCain picked HIM as HIS running mate in 2008?
Depends on whom you ask. Most Democrats would say, hell no.
Perhaps worth mentioning, that one of the political masterstrokes of Franklin D. Roosevelt was on the eve of 1940 Republican National Convention, when he recruited two very prominent Republicans to serve in his cabinet: Secretary of War Henry Stimson, former Sec of War under Taft and Sec of State for Hoover (and with a bit part in "Oppenheimer"); and Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, newspaper publisher and GOP VP nominee in 1936.
Most Republicans were NOT pleased.
Is this some alternative timeline where Palin isn't picked?
Oops. Starmer had the common sense to at least wait and see.
Oh, for heaven's sake. She was not bullied. She was paid £5 million pa to get things right and take responsibility. She made a bad error and so had to go.
A very close friend is pretty high up in NatWest and says that she did a lot of good stuff, is sorry to see her go but says it was the right thing to do. It is possible for someone to do a good job overall but still make the sort of mistake that leads to resignation or sacking. That is an important lesson for all of us.
And, no-on is -or should be thought of or think of themselves - as indispensable. That too is an important - if humbling - lesson.
I'm just amazed frankly that anyone at that level takes responsibility for their stupidity - even grudgingly and belatedly.
My experience is much like @Malmesbury 's - bastards still get promoted.
She didn't take responsibility; she was forced out against her will last night. But by recognising that the game was up, she was able to walk away with dignity.
Ken Clarke was on R4 earlier today. I like Ken Clarke. In amongst his reflections he said something along the lines of the best governments of 'recent' years being Thatcher's and Atlee's. In my view he's completely right on the first, but it caused me to reflect and do some small research on what I know of the Atlee government. On the face of it, it seems to have been entirely awful. Atlee just steered the cart into the wall.
What were Atlee's merits? (Let's leave the NHS aside because it's so emotive, and we all know)
Good point, what were Thatcher's merits (Let's leave tranforming the economy, because it's so emotive, and we all know).
Here's an easy one, AIDS: as a scientist, and despite her methodist beliefs, she did what was effective at saving lives, not merely retreating in the comfort zone of "abstinence first".
Quite horrendous actually. The fact he didn't subject them to full veganism is the only saving grace. Let's hope their development hasn't been affected too badly.
I suspect, given n the practising Hinduism of v the PM, that there is likely to be a fair amount of overlap between PM and LOTO in this respect.
Ken Clarke was on R4 earlier today. I like Ken Clarke. In amongst his reflections he said something along the lines of the best governments of 'recent' years being Thatcher's and Atlee's. In my view he's completely right on the first, but it caused me to reflect and do some small research on what I know of the Atlee government. On the face of it, it seems to have been entirely awful. Atlee just steered the cart into the wall.
What were Atlee's merits? (Let's leave the NHS aside because it's so emotive, and we all know)
Good point, what were Thatcher's merits (Let's leave tranforming the economy, because it's so emotive, and we all know).
Here's an easy one, AIDS: as a scientist, and despite her methodist beliefs, she did what was effective at saving lives, not merely retreating in the comfort zone of "abstinence first".
Oops. Starmer had the common sense to at least wait and see.
Oh, for heaven's sake. She was not bullied. She was paid £5 million pa to get things right and take responsibility. She made a bad error and so had to go.
A very close friend is pretty high up in NatWest and says that she did a lot of good stuff, is sorry to see her go but says it was the right thing to do. It is possible for someone to do a good job overall but still make the sort of mistake that leads to resignation or sacking. That is an important lesson for all of us.
And, no-on is -or should be thought of or think of themselves - as indispensable. That too is an important - if humbling - lesson.
I'm just amazed frankly that anyone at that level takes responsibility for their stupidity - even grudgingly and belatedly.
My experience is much like @Malmesbury 's - bastards still get promoted.
She didn't take responsibility; she was forced out against her will last night. But by recognising that the game was up, she was able to walk away with dignity.
Stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up, stand it up.
Yeah, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again.
Off thread: middle daughter has just come home in tears. Last day of junior school today, followed by the traditional water fight in the local park, in, unfortunately, the pouring rain. She has come home absolutely soaking and covered in bruises. The tears are not for this - she is tough as teak - but because she has had a brilliant junior school experience and doesn't want it to be over. It's not that she's not ready to move on, nor that she's not excited about senior school - it's just that being 11 is such a good experience that she doesn't want it to stop. I feel sad for her, of course. But also quite happy for her that junior school has been so good that the end of it elicits this reaction. Oldest daughter has always been mature for her age; youngest daughter has always been the baby. Middle daughter has always been very intensely the age she is now. I've never known anyone like her for living in the present.
Give her a couple weeks hanging with the big kids, and she'll be big-ing with the best!
We had neighbours who were quite strict vegetarians and brought their children up that way as well. For some reason the school decided they were under-nourished and contacted Social Services who paid them a visit and told them that the kids needed to be offered meat and fish as well.
Pesky interfering state telling people how to feed their kids????
One of the most tiresome people I know is a strict vegan. She eats vegan. Her husband eats vegan. Her daughter eats vegan. Even the bloody dog eats vegan.
And trust me, if you're not careful, you will end up on the receiving end of a lecture on the evils of eating any kind of animal product.
But their daughter is not malnourished. She's a 13 year old, five foot eleven girl, who is super fit, and plays basketball at an extremely high level.
It is perfectly possible, so long as you are careful to make sure you eat foods fortified with Vitamin B12, to have a very healthy vegan diet.
That's child abuse. Kids need meat and fish when they're growing up.
Maybe Sir Kid Starver is apt.
I am reminded of Lord Blake's acid comment on Sir Stafford Cripps:
'He was not only a vegetarian and teetotaller, he looked like one too.'
But whatever it is, it isn't child abuse, and I'm surprised as a parent yourself you would say that.
Well of all the unpleasant or unwise things that parents do to their kids it's not at the top of the list. But it's an odd things to do if you're not a veggie yourself (is SKS a veggie?) Why wouldn't you have the same meals? Kids need, in order of importance, 1) protein, and 2) to taste a wide variety of foods. Enforcing vegetarianism seems to make this needlessly more difficult.
We had neighbours who were quite strict vegetarians and brought their children up that way as well. For some reason the school decided they were under-nourished and contacted Social Services who paid them a visit and told them that the kids needed to be offered meat and fish as well.
Pesky interfering state telling people how to feed their kids????
One of the most tiresome people I know is a strict vegan. She eats vegan. Her husband eats vegan. Her daughter eats vegan. Even the bloody dog eats vegan.
And trust me, if you're not careful, you will end up on the receiving end of a lecture on the evils of eating any kind of animal product.
But their daughter is not malnourished. She's a 13 year old, five foot eleven girl, who is super fit, and plays basketball at an extremely high level.
It is perfectly possible, so long as you are careful to make sure you eat foods fortified with Vitamin B12, to have a very healthy vegan diet.
It is entirely possible (and indeed straightforward) to have a healthy, balanced diet as a vegan - or indeed a wilfully unhealthy one.
Well if Trump does pick him will he still be a Deomcrat ?
Was Joe Liebermann still a Democrat, when John McCain picked HIM as HIS running mate in 2008?
Depends on whom you ask. Most Democrats would say, hell no.
Perhaps worth mentioning, that one of the political masterstrokes of Franklin D. Roosevelt was on the eve of 1940 Republican National Convention, when he recruited two very prominent Republicans to serve in his cabinet: Secretary of War Henry Stimson, former Sec of War under Taft and Sec of State for Hoover (and with a bit part in "Oppenheimer"); and Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, newspaper publisher and GOP VP nominee in 1936.
Most Republicans were NOT pleased.
Is this some alternative timeline where Palin isn't picked?
NO. Just in my fool head, apparently.
John McCain DID seriously consider Liebermann, his friend and supporter, as VP. But decided to roll the dice another direction, and picked Palin.
Pretty sure bet, that he ended up wishing he'd gone with Liebermann!
BTW, you may recall the (failed) spoiler role that Joe Lieberman's son played in 2020 GA US Senate race versus Jon Ossoff?
That's child abuse. Kids need meat and fish when they're growing up.
Maybe Sir Kid Starver is apt.
I am reminded of Lord Blake's acid comment on Sir Stafford Cripps:
'He was not only a vegetarian and teetotaller, he looked like one too.'
But whatever it is, it isn't child abuse, and I'm surprised as a parent yourself you would say that.
Well of all the unpleasant or unwise things that parents do to their kids it's not at the top of the list. But it's an odd things to do if you're not a veggie yourself (is SKS a veggie?) Why wouldn't you have the same meals? Kids need, in order of importance, 1) protein, and 2) to taste a wide variety of foods. Enforcing vegetarianism seems to make this needlessly more difficult.
I wonder if the tories can do what they did with Ed Milliband: get people to believe Starmer's a weirdo. He shouldn't give them the ammo.
We had neighbours who were quite strict vegetarians and brought their children up that way as well. For some reason the school decided they were under-nourished and contacted Social Services who paid them a visit and told them that the kids needed to be offered meat and fish as well.
Pesky interfering state telling people how to feed their kids????
One of the most tiresome people I know is a strict vegan. She eats vegan. Her husband eats vegan. Her daughter eats vegan. Even the bloody dog eats vegan.
And trust me, if you're not careful, you will end up on the receiving end of a lecture on the evils of eating any kind of animal product.
But their daughter is not malnourished. She's a 13 year old, five foot eleven girl, who is super fit, and plays basketball at an extremely high level.
It is perfectly possible, so long as you are careful to make sure you eat foods fortified with Vitamin B12, to have a very healthy vegan diet.
It really isn't. Lots of vegans are chronically malnourished and there is plenty of evidence and research to support this fact.
Guess what? Humans need a balanced diet and thrive on such.
We had neighbours who were quite strict vegetarians and brought their children up that way as well. For some reason the school decided they were under-nourished and contacted Social Services who paid them a visit and told them that the kids needed to be offered meat and fish as well.
Pesky interfering state telling people how to feed their kids????
One of the most tiresome people I know is a strict vegan. She eats vegan. Her husband eats vegan. Her daughter eats vegan. Even the bloody dog eats vegan.
And trust me, if you're not careful, you will end up on the receiving end of a lecture on the evils of eating any kind of animal product.
But their daughter is not malnourished. She's a 13 year old, five foot eleven girl, who is super fit, and plays basketball at an extremely high level.
It is perfectly possible, so long as you are careful to make sure you eat foods fortified with Vitamin B12, to have a very healthy vegan diet.
It is entirely possible (and indeed straightforward) to have a healthy, balanced diet as a vegan - or indeed a wilfully unhealthy one.
Comments
Ditto George Wallace in 1968 (who came very close to spoiling Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy").
John Anderson in 1980 is an interesting case, in that he campaigned in BOTH for Republican nomination, then as Independent in the general election. And got a MUCH more respectable vote that fall than Ye in 2020, or (I forecast) than RFKjr in 2024. But still failed as an anti-Reagan spoiler.
Easy for the flippant reactions from those who it will never impact, but it is a scandal we allow the banks to do this.
Keir gives that the thumbs up too.
How many private banks are there out there? I don't think we know which banks rebuffed Mr Farage. Were they high street banks or just other elite private banks looking at him and saying "sorry, not elite enough for us"?
Unclear how this is gonna impact the very early 2024 New Hampshire presidential primary, in which CS is already a major player. (The regular NH primary for governor and other offices is not until summer of 2024).
Granted the DEGREE of bombardment is not (yet) comparable.
Yet doubt that matters to the current victims of current Russian attacks on L'viv.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1138492/Basic_Bank_Account_Report_2022.pdf
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23680504.flights-scottish-island-take-off-first-time-five-years/
Though the ferry, from the pier right next to the main Sumburgh airport, takes only 2.5 hours.
Red Wall VI (23 July):
Labour 48% (-4)
Conservative 30% (+3)
Reform UK 10% (+1)
Liberal Democrat 6% (–)
Green 4% (–)
Plaid Cymru 2% (+1)
Other 1% (-1)
Changes +/- 9 July
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1684232112814059520
And the guy you scorn - Joe Biden - IS doing HIS day job.
Maybe NOT to your complete satisfaction . . . but who is, anywhere?
What were Atlee's merits? (Let's leave the NHS aside because it's so emotive, and we all know)
MOST Scots believe the Scottish Parliament should have more powers than it does currently, according to a new poll which shows a majority opposed to “the Tories’ deliberate, co-ordinated attempts to reverse devolution”.
The research found that 51.8% of Scots were in favour of more devolution, with 17.7% in favour of powers being taken away from Holyrood.
So yes it could happen again but I suspect lightning wont strike twice. Kennedy is only to the fore because all the other Democrats dont want to upset Biden , something similar with Trump and the GOP. From what I can see thats why none of the pool of talent is being more forceful in setting their stalls out.
So the choice of VP is probably as important as the Pres in this race given the zimmer frame sumo we are about to endure.
However if you want sleepless nights there are those who want RFK as VP to Trump.
In a surprisingly frank conversation with the Guardian, the former international environment minister also conceded that Brexit – for which he voted – could be detrimental for the environment in the end if ministers continued to abandon climate commitments in the face of a rightwing resurgence in the Tory party.
Goldsmith resigned from his post in June, after serving in government since 2019, claiming that the prime minister was apathetic about the environment.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/26/zac-goldsmith-interview-michael-gove-monster-green-policies-climate-crisis
Specially for our Royal Correspondent @HYUFD - does this constitute treason?
Seriously, though, I wonder how they got the aerosol cans in.
She told Channel 4 that she doesn't like "some of the frankly, what I see as bullying attitudes towards her"
…
Am now told interview was pre-recorded and was done before Rose quit. Unsure if that changes anything from Reeves' perspective
https://twitter.com/stefan_boscia/status/1684205076066230273
Alison Rose is massively, massively in the wrong here. A lot of left wingers just don't seem to be able to get past 'Farage must be the bad guy here therefore Natwest must be the good guys'.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/twitter-took-x-handle-from-longtime-user-and-only-offered-him-some-merch/
apols that thread is now too unwieldy.
Well if Trump does pick him will he still be a Deomcrat ?
The fact the chair didn't fire her immediately means he should be going instantly (because any manager not escalating the first point would also be out the door for gross misconduct)...
KYC/AML laws as they currently stand are ridiculous, the equivalent to forcing everyone to take their shoes off at airports and not have any liquids beyond the size of three squirts worth of toothpaste (sold at the same price as a full tube of toothpaste), despite the fact we know it does absolutely bugger all to combat the actual problem. Much as we had covid theatre, KYC/AML as it stands is "money laundering theatre" with the big boys allowed to break the rules whenever they feel.
The right to access your data, the responsibility to protect other people's data - the EU's GDPR is a gold standard that we have rightly kept as UK regs.
https://twitter.com/willydunn/status/1684224352953270273
It's really not complicated at all. Your bank manager should not be discussing your private business with a stranger. That's basically what Rose did. It's wrong, you can't do what she did and work for a bank.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/26/sir-keir-starmer-labour-children-eat-meat-fish-until-age-10/
A very close friend is pretty high up in NatWest and says that she did a lot of good stuff, is sorry to see her go but says it was the right thing to do. It is possible for someone to do a good job overall but still make the sort of mistake that leads to resignation or sacking. That is an important lesson for all of us.
And, no-on is -or should be thought of or think of themselves - as indispensable. That too is an important - if humbling - lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpd-EQvoeic
Depends on whom you ask. Most Democrats would say, hell no.
Perhaps worth mentioning, that one of the political masterstrokes of Franklin D. Roosevelt was on the eve of 1940 Republican National Convention, when he recruited two very prominent Republicans to serve in his cabinet: Secretary of War Henry Stimson, former Sec of War under Taft and Sec of State for Hoover (and with a bit part in "Oppenheimer"); and Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, newspaper publisher and GOP VP nominee in 1936.
Most Republicans were NOT pleased.
I have lots of information on types of wood etc but less on how one attaches the fixing battens on the Portakabin without compromising it.
On the subject of gas, if your supplier ever offers to send a company called Lowri Beck round to do anything, refuse. They are incompetent. In my case they were supposed to be installing smart meters. Not only did they take three attempts to do so, the last guy managed to cause a gas leak. If I hadn't been slightly suspicious about the pipe having moved, I could have been blown up.
Cadent, on the other hand, were extremely thorough, when they came to fix it. Thee guy doing it was under instruction and it was quite interesting, if hair raising, to listen to the instructor explaining what not to do and what could go wrong if he made an error. It turns out that if there is a leak upstream of the valve, the gas pipe must be cut off - by sawing through it with a hacksaw, which causes an escape of gas. If you ever see one of those temporary signs in the street saying, do not smoke, gas - lets just say they really,really, mean it.
By 54% to 25%, Britons think this was an inappropriate thing to say
Conservative voters, by contrast, think the prime minister saying Labour is on the same side as smuggling gangs was appropriate rather than inappropriate by 48% to 33%
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1684205646961315840/photo/1
Pesky interfering state telling people how to feed their kids????
My experience is much like @Malmesbury 's - bastards still get promoted.
So next up for the bankers is what to do with the DT and the Spectator
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/07/26/lloyds-chief-decision-seize-telegraph/
But I expect they'll mess about in Stead.
I feel sad for her, of course. But also quite happy for her that junior school has been so good that the end of it elicits this reaction.
Oldest daughter has always been mature for her age; youngest daughter has always been the baby. Middle daughter has always been very intensely the age she is now. I've never known anyone like her for living in the present.
But it's not quite the same as the Blitz. On the worst days - and the London was bombed for 57 continuous days - you would have hundreds killed and thousand injured. More than a million homes in London were severely damaged or destroyed.
Maybe Sir Kid Starver is apt.
'He was not only a vegetarian and teetotaller, he looked like one too.'
But whatever it is, it isn't child abuse, and I'm surprised as a parent yourself you would say that.
Who is (perhaps) on his way to becoming 21st century Gordon Bennett!
Though as far as I know, JB's yet to piss in fireplaces during dinner parties . . . wait for it?
As a James Ellroy fanatic I love it. American lives may not have second acts, but American families most certainly do.
Hapless and evil is a heady cocktail.
Yeah, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again, stand it up again.
Perhaps you could tempt her with a wager on that?
If he's denying that to him due to his ideology then he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself and held to account.
His kids had no choice.
And trust me, if you're not careful, you will end up on the receiving end of a lecture on the evils of eating any kind of animal product.
But their daughter is not malnourished. She's a 13 year old, five foot eleven girl, who is super fit, and plays basketball at an extremely high level.
It is perfectly possible, so long as you are careful to make sure you eat foods fortified with Vitamin B12, to have a very healthy vegan diet.
But it's an odd things to do if you're not a veggie yourself (is SKS a veggie?) Why wouldn't you have the same meals? Kids need, in order of importance, 1) protein, and 2) to taste a wide variety of foods. Enforcing vegetarianism seems to make this needlessly more difficult.
John McCain DID seriously consider Liebermann, his friend and supporter, as VP. But decided to roll the dice another direction, and picked Palin.
Pretty sure bet, that he ended up wishing he'd gone with Liebermann!
BTW, you may recall the (failed) spoiler role that Joe Lieberman's son played in 2020 GA US Senate race versus Jon Ossoff?
THANKS FOR CORRECTION!
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/music/2023/07/26/sinead-oconnor-acclaimed-dublin-singer-dies-aged-56/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
https://twitter.com/irishtimes/status/1684255831918010369?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
Guess what? Humans need a balanced diet and thrive on such.