Another day on from the Farage / Coutts fun. As he is ineligible for an account there (I assume they won't wave their rules just because they have made a tit of themselves) will the Nigel now be demanding that "ordinary" people like him should be allowed a Coutts account?
I am feeling the Farage love on here, he is doing this not for himself, but for the poor people. Handily, I have another invisible Garden Bridge available.
What strikes me is that Mr Farage has had hassle from being a PEP. So he makes himself an even more Politically Exposed Person with his mission against the banks. What bank is now going to take him on, if it means banner headlines in the DM every time some minion burps unintentionally while handling his non-Coutt's cheque book? Which will only "justify" him even more.
Nevertheless: the point remains: we need to understand this basic bank business and how well it works. Benpointer thought just about anyone ordinary could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise.
One way of reading the stats is that everyone who persists manages to sort out a Basic Account with someone eventually, but at least one bank isn't pulling their weight in making it easy and seems generally keener on Computer Says No reasons for rejecting people. Which isn't the point really.
And that's where the stories of the Aristocrat who (no longer) banks at Coutts and the Aristocrat who cleans our boots (and can't get a basic account) do join up.
We have got a business model of banking where "nah, too difficult/ expensive" is part of the thinking. Branches, customers, services and transactions that aren't easy and quickly profitable are to be trimmed.
Capitalism doesn't have to look like that, but capitalism coupled with short horizons probably does. Fix that, and a lot of the British Disease subsides.
(Talking of which, without being conspiratorial, what's the benefit to society in a hedge fund shorting a bank?
I think GBNews needs Farage more than the other way around probably.
Maybe I missed it, but has anyone commented on the uber-irony of Farage using the EU developed GDPR (that no doubt he would like scrapped) to issue a Subject Access Request to NatWest/Coutts?
His right to see his data began in 1984, under UK-originated legislation:
Only when the 1998 act came in was there an EU basis.
Thanks for this, though I don't have the time (or expertise perhaps) to read it's provisions, I am pretty sure there was no similar provision to a SAR under Data Protection Act or else it would not have been such a major concern to many companies such as mine when GDPR became enforced. The ability of an individual to demand all info that references an individual (with some limitations where it involves privacy of others) was certainly stated by lawyers I spoke to at the time as a new development
Oh, I can quite believe provisions have become stronger. My point is just that we had strong data protection laws ourselves and, had we never joined the EU, I think we would have stronger laws now. So I don't think the EU civilized us into respecting data protection.
I get a feeling that @Leon's forthcoming Speccie article on "life in Ukraine" is going to be unbearably smug.
I don’t write for the Spectator. If only! The Knapper’s Gazette might, I suppose, ask me for a war diary. But why would it be smug?
I am completely capable of being intolerably smug, I don’t deny that. But anything I write about Ukraine will just be the truth about what I have encountered
I’m not gonna be boasting about the tasting menus and Ayurvedic massage
Will you be going to more warzones after this?
There's definitely a niche for travel in the safe parts of otherwise war torn countries, with the limitation usually being travel insurance if the FCDO have it as a red zone.
Iraqi Kurdistan (Erbil) is an example. It's amber - avoid all but necessary travel - whereas the rest of Iraq is red. So you can potentially get insurance, and there are flights to Erbil on Wizz and Pegasus airlines.
Afghanistan is another that is probably theoretically now safer than when the US and UK were occupying it. I expect that, red zones notwithstanding, there are parts of Northern Sudan still perfectly visitable, and large tracts of Yemen. The quasi-independent Somaliland at least until recently.
Then there are the disputed zones of otherwise peaceful countries, which are by and large possible to visit and by all accounts can be very interesting. Abkhazia in Georgia for example I hear is beautiful but dilapidated (Sukhumi), though South Ossetia seems more problematic. Transnistria in Moldova is an established offbeat tourist attraction. The Israeli settlements on the West Bank, etc. Others I would probably steer clear of, like the IS-prowled zones of Saharan Mali and Chad, or the cartel zones of Northern Mexico.
Erbil is not bad. I certainly didn't feel unsafe walking the streets there which is more than I would say for quite a few western cities.
Michael Palin's recent programme on Iraq was very interesting on his time in Kurdistan (coinciding with Nowruz).
Sorry if someone has already posted this, but have you seen the list of seats which the Labour Party regard as "non priority"? In other words, the places where it's OK to vote tactically for the Lib Dems as long as you don't make too much of a fuss about it?
Nor Wokingham ... clearly there's been a lot of subjective judgement used in preparing the list, but it makes interesting reading. Presumably Labour HQ won't object if the local party puts some effort in, but they won't be getting any help from the centre unless the locals can persuade them to change their minds.
Presumably Labour will target around 100 seats (perhaps something like numbers 30-130 in their list, if the polls stay where they are?), and the LDs will target around 50 seats, and there won’t be more than a handful of seats on both target lists, genuine three-way marginals?
F1: the sprint bullshit is contaminating Spa this year, so qualifying's tomorrow at 4pm. Joy.
Hopefully it pours down all day on Saturday, so we don’t have to put up with the s****t.
More seriously, there is actually a lot of adverse weather forecast for the weekend, and they might well need to make late changes to the schedule to avoid a repeat of the 2021 farce, where two safety car laps and five hours of grid-squatting was the order of the day.
F1: the sprint bullshit is contaminating Spa this year, so qualifying's tomorrow at 4pm. Joy.
Hopefully it pours down all day on Saturday, so we don’t have to put up with the s****t.
More seriously, there is actually a lot of adverse weather forecast for the weekend, and they might well need to make late changes to the schedule to avoid a repeat of the 2021 farce, where two safety car laps and five hours of grid-squatting was the order of the day.
I think there’s only been one decent sprint race.
Brazil 2021.
Yes, but only because Lewis got thrown out of qualifying, and had to start from the back in the fastest car.
Interesting set of local by-elections today. We have Con defences in Buckinghamshire, East Sussex, and Plymouth and Lab defences in another seat in Plymouth and in Warrington.
BREAKING: The High Court has just ruled that the Home Secretary @SuellaBraverman's policy of placing unaccompanied children seeking asylum in hotels is unlawful in our case brought by @BrightonHoveCC.
Since December 2021 when the policy became systemic and routine the Home 1/
Secretary has exceeded the proper limits of her powers.
The High Court has further ruled that the National Transfer Scheme - the statutory scheme that allows children to be placed in local authority care through a rota system - is enforceable by the Home Secretary.
BREAKING: The High Court has just ruled that the Home Secretary @SuellaBraverman's policy of placing unaccompanied children seeking asylum in hotels is unlawful in our case brought by @BrightonHoveCC.
Since December 2021 when the policy became systemic and routine the Home 1/
Secretary has exceeded the proper limits of her powers.
The High Court has further ruled that the National Transfer Scheme - the statutory scheme that allows children to be placed in local authority care through a rota system - is enforceable by the Home Secretary.
F1: the sprint bullshit is contaminating Spa this year, so qualifying's tomorrow at 4pm. Joy.
Hopefully it pours down all day on Saturday, so we don’t have to put up with the s****t.
More seriously, there is actually a lot of adverse weather forecast for the weekend, and they might well need to make late changes to the schedule to avoid a repeat of the 2021 farce, where two safety car laps and five hours of grid-squatting was the order of the day.
I think there’s only been one decent sprint race.
Brazil 2021.
Yes, but only because Lewis got thrown out of qualifying, and had to start from the back in the fastest car.
My month's Which magazines have arrived. Which Money? has its lead article on bank accounts and the use and abuse of the CIFAS system - unsurprisingly given their recent news release. I have not had time to read it in detail, but good to have the Consumers Assn looking at it as well as Mr F.
BREAKING: The High Court has just ruled that the Home Secretary @SuellaBraverman's policy of placing unaccompanied children seeking asylum in hotels is unlawful in our case brought by @BrightonHoveCC.
Since December 2021 when the policy became systemic and routine the Home 1/
Secretary has exceeded the proper limits of her powers.
The High Court has further ruled that the National Transfer Scheme - the statutory scheme that allows children to be placed in local authority care through a rota system - is enforceable by the Home Secretary.
Maybe I missed it, but has anyone commented on the uber-irony of Farage using the EU developed GDPR (that no doubt he would like scrapped) to issue a Subject Access Request to NatWest/Coutts?
His right to see his data began in 1984, under UK-originated legislation:
Only when the 1998 act came in was there an EU basis.
Thanks for this, though I don't have the time (or expertise perhaps) to read it's provisions, I am pretty sure there was no similar provision to a SAR under Data Protection Act
Really?
21. Rights of Data Subjects - (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an individual shall be entitled (a) to be informed by any data user whether the data held by him include personal data of which that individual is the data subject ; and (b) to be supplied by any data user with a copy of the information constituting any such personal data held by him
Took me about thirty seconds. ED: 2018 Data Protection Act text for comparison.
45 Right of access by the data subject
(1) A data subject is entitled to obtain from the controller— (a) confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning him or her is being processed, and (b) where that is the case, access to the personal data and the information set out in subsection (2).
It's a minor point but a name like "the Data Protection Act" sounds much more substantial and meaningful than jargon acronyms like GDPR.
When I was working, it was always called the DPA as was the FOIA (FOI(S)A in my case obvs) ...
The closure of bank accounts belonging to racecourse bookmakers was described as a "scandal" by one MP yesterday as the reverberations over the shutting down of ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage's account spread to the betting industry.
Numerous racecourse bookmakers have revealed they have had accounts closed by banks without explanation. One bookmaker, Graham Thorpe, told the Racing Post he had had 11 accounts associated with him closed, including those of charities and organisations for which he was treasurer.
It is not just Farage, and not just woke. It's the AML rules making banks decide some customers are just too much hassle. Even if it is especially the unwoke ones.
Another day on from the Farage / Coutts fun. As he is ineligible for an account there (I assume they won't wave their rules just because they have made a tit of themselves) will the Nigel now be demanding that "ordinary" people like him should be allowed a Coutts account?
I am feeling the Farage love on here, he is doing this not for himself, but for the poor people. Handily, I have another invisible Garden Bridge available.
What strikes me is that Mr Farage has had hassle from being a PEP. So he makes himself an even more Politically Exposed Person with his mission against the banks. What bank is now going to take him on, if it means banner headlines in the DM every time some minion burps unintentionally while handling his non-Coutt's cheque book? Which will only "justify" him even more.
Nevertheless: the point remains: we need to understand this basic bank business and how well it works. Benpointer thought just about anyone ordinary could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise.
One way of reading the stats is that everyone who persists manages to sort out a Basic Account with someone eventually, but at least one bank isn't pulling their weight in making it easy and seems generally keener on Computer Says No reasons for rejecting people. Which isn't the point really.
And that's where the stories of the Aristocrat who (no longer) banks at Coutts and the Aristocrat who cleans our boots (and can't get a basic account) do join up.
We have got a business model of banking where "nah, too difficult/ expensive" is part of the thinking. Branches, customers, services and transactions that aren't easy and quickly profitable are to be trimmed.
Capitalism doesn't have to look like that, but capitalism coupled with short horizons probably does. Fix that, and a lot of the British Disease subsides.
(Talking of which, without being conspiratorial, what's the benefit to society in a hedge fund shorting a bank?
I think GBNews needs Farage more than the other way around probably.
Maybe I missed it, but has anyone commented on the uber-irony of Farage using the EU developed GDPR (that no doubt he would like scrapped) to issue a Subject Access Request to NatWest/Coutts?
His right to see his data began in 1984, under UK-originated legislation:
Only when the 1998 act came in was there an EU basis.
Thanks for this, though I don't have the time (or expertise perhaps) to read it's provisions, I am pretty sure there was no similar provision to a SAR under Data Protection Act or else it would not have been such a major concern to many companies such as mine when GDPR became enforced. The ability of an individual to demand all info that references an individual (with some limitations where it involves privacy of others) was certainly stated by lawyers I spoke to at the time as a new development
Oh, I can quite believe provisions have become stronger. My point is just that we had strong data protection laws ourselves and, had we never joined the EU, I think we would have stronger laws now. So I don't think the EU civilized us into respecting data protection.
Sure, but in fact there was incessant howling about nasty Eurolaws and the GDPR.
I can't imagine many things more stupid than trafficking drugs in Singapore.
Surely proof the death penalty does not deter stupid drug traffickers.
There is a simple logical flaw in that argument.
What is it? The argument goes like this. "Everyone knows there's the death penalty for drug smuggling in Singapore and also that it's enforced. Some people are so stupid that they do it anyway. Here's an example."
Nobody's claiming it doesn't stop the specific drug smugglers who get executed from doing it again.
Simples. The (highly regrettable) execution on person X on count Y proves (with reasonable reliability) that there is at least one person who is not deterred by the death penalty; and that is all. There may be a million deterred for all you know.
Sorry if someone has already posted this, but have you seen the list of seats which the Labour Party regard as "non priority"? In other words, the places where it's OK to vote tactically for the Lib Dems as long as you don't make too much of a fuss about it?
Nor Wokingham ... clearly there's been a lot of subjective judgement used in preparing the list, but it makes interesting reading. Presumably Labour HQ won't object if the local party puts some effort in, but they won't be getting any help from the centre unless the locals can persuade them to change their minds.
I don't think it's an exhaustive list. It's a list of some Labour non-priority seats. Not all of them. It doesn't mean every other seat is a Labour priority seat.
Sorry if someone has already posted this, but have you seen the list of seats which the Labour Party regard as "non priority"? In other words, the places where it's OK to vote tactically for the Lib Dems as long as you don't make too much of a fuss about it?
Nor Wokingham ... clearly there's been a lot of subjective judgement used in preparing the list, but it makes interesting reading. Presumably Labour HQ won't object if the local party puts some effort in, but they won't be getting any help from the centre unless the locals can persuade them to change their minds.
Presumably Labour will target around 100 seats (perhaps something like numbers 30-130 in their list, if the polls stay where they are?), and the LDs will target around 50 seats, and there won’t be more than a handful of seats on both target lists, genuine three-way marginals?
In a way, that's what interesting about C+F. You can make a case for Labour (it's central London) and for the Lib Dems (it's full of graduate professionals). There must be other seats where it's genuinely hard to tell who the main challenger is (which is more about who lives there as it is the 2019 results), but probably not many.
There's a list and commentary done by the House of Commons Library;
In the 2019 election however, the number of three-way marginals greatly diminished, and those that did occur were not so concentrated in one part of the UK. 17 seats had a vote-share gap between first and third place of less than 20 percentage points and only three of these had a gap of less than 10 percentage points. The 20 closest three-way marginals in the 2019 General Election are shown in the table below.
The Brexit Party was involved in five of the top 20 three-way marginals. In all five of these seats, Labour won and the Conservatives occupied the other spot in the top three.
In three of the London seats featuring in the top 20, the Liberal Democrats’ vote share appeared to be boosted by the candidacy of high-profile defectors from other parties:
My month's Which magazines have arrived. Which Money? has its lead article on bank accounts and the use and abuse of the CIFAS system - unsurprisingly given their recent news release. I have not had time to read it in detail, but good to have the Consumers Assn looking at it as well as Mr F.
Edit: Obviously been in the pipeline for some time, so not a reaction to Mr F.
Sorry if someone has already posted this, but have you seen the list of seats which the Labour Party regard as "non priority"? In other words, the places where it's OK to vote tactically for the Lib Dems as long as you don't make too much of a fuss about it?
On that logic - Chesham and Amersham is a target seat for Labour (and it really isn't). Round there the focus should be Wycombe, Watford, Aylesbury and Hemel...
I think the list actually represents something slightly different.
That is, I understand the Labour NEC in May agreed a streamlined process to fast-track selection in some non-priority seats which, due to snap elections in 2017 and 2019, hadn't actually chosen a candidate themselves in many years, causing some discontent among the rank and file. This was a bit of a quid pro quo... the more reliably loyalist regional execs would have a big role in shortlisting, but local parties would at least get a vote on the shortlisted candidates.
So these are the seats subject to that process over the summer/autumn. There are quite a few other seats which Labour clearly won't win... but the local party may already have chosen a favourite son/daughter or already be in the process of selecting under the standard approach.
The closure of bank accounts belonging to racecourse bookmakers was described as a "scandal" by one MP yesterday as the reverberations over the shutting down of ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage's account spread to the betting industry.
Numerous racecourse bookmakers have revealed they have had accounts closed by banks without explanation. One bookmaker, Graham Thorpe, told the Racing Post he had had 11 accounts associated with him closed, including those of charities and organisations for which he was treasurer.
It is not just Farage, and not just woke. It's the AML rules making banks decide some customers are just too much hassle. Even if it is especially the unwoke ones.
The problem is there's absolutely no legislation pushing back the other way. It urgently needs addressing.
The closure of bank accounts belonging to racecourse bookmakers was described as a "scandal" by one MP yesterday as the reverberations over the shutting down of ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage's account spread to the betting industry.
Numerous racecourse bookmakers have revealed they have had accounts closed by banks without explanation. One bookmaker, Graham Thorpe, told the Racing Post he had had 11 accounts associated with him closed, including those of charities and organisations for which he was treasurer.
It is not just Farage, and not just woke. It's the AML rules making banks decide some customers are just too much hassle. Even if it is especially the unwoke ones.
Good to hear. I suspect that the publicity from the Farage case, has led to a lot of people writing to their MP with their own stories of de-banking.
Small business dealing in large amounts of cash do indeed appear to be targets, despite being entirely legitimate.
Another day on from the Farage / Coutts fun. As he is ineligible for an account there (I assume they won't wave their rules just because they have made a tit of themselves) will the Nigel now be demanding that "ordinary" people like him should be allowed a Coutts account?
I am feeling the Farage love on here, he is doing this not for himself, but for the poor people. Handily, I have another invisible Garden Bridge available.
What strikes me is that Mr Farage has had hassle from being a PEP. So he makes himself an even more Politically Exposed Person with his mission against the banks. What bank is now going to take him on, if it means banner headlines in the DM every time some minion burps unintentionally while handling his non-Coutt's cheque book? Which will only "justify" him even more.
Nevertheless: the point remains: we need to understand this basic bank business and how well it works. Benpointer thought just about anyone ordinary could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise.
One way of reading the stats is that everyone who persists manages to sort out a Basic Account with someone eventually, but at least one bank isn't pulling their weight in making it easy and seems generally keener on Computer Says No reasons for rejecting people. Which isn't the point really.
And that's where the stories of the Aristocrat who (no longer) banks at Coutts and the Aristocrat who cleans our boots (and can't get a basic account) do join up.
We have got a business model of banking where "nah, too difficult/ expensive" is part of the thinking. Branches, customers, services and transactions that aren't easy and quickly profitable are to be trimmed.
Capitalism doesn't have to look like that, but capitalism coupled with short horizons probably does. Fix that, and a lot of the British Disease subsides.
(Talking of which, without being conspiratorial, what's the benefit to society in a hedge fund shorting a bank?
I think GBNews needs Farage more than the other way around probably.
Maybe I missed it, but has anyone commented on the uber-irony of Farage using the EU developed GDPR (that no doubt he would like scrapped) to issue a Subject Access Request to NatWest/Coutts?
His right to see his data began in 1984, under UK-originated legislation:
Only when the 1998 act came in was there an EU basis.
Thanks for this, though I don't have the time (or expertise perhaps) to read it's provisions, I am pretty sure there was no similar provision to a SAR under Data Protection Act or else it would not have been such a major concern to many companies such as mine when GDPR became enforced. The ability of an individual to demand all info that references an individual (with some limitations where it involves privacy of others) was certainly stated by lawyers I spoke to at the time as a new development
Oh, I can quite believe provisions have become stronger. My point is just that we had strong data protection laws ourselves and, had we never joined the EU, I think we would have stronger laws now. So I don't think the EU civilized us into respecting data protection.
One further point. My memory is that the original DPA 1984 had a fairly restrictive meaning of personal data and I have fished it out:
(3)" Personal data " means data consisting of information which relates to a living individual who can be identified from that information (or from that and other information in the possession of the data user), including any expression of opinion about the individual but not any indication of the intentions of the data user in respect of that individual.
That last element, in particular, seems distinctly different from GDPR - but I didn't have to implement the latter.
Plural, they're using their victories across the past couple of years, not just the most recent victory.
Clever and an honest bar chart. Are we sure this is the Lib Dems?
It's clever, but it's as dishonest as usual. Picking only the ones you won when they've lost several days in the same timeframe is an example of cherry picking stats, which is just as misleading as their usual bar charts with the axis cut off.
Beaten by @TimS , but I am baffled as to how you see this as dishonest. They didn't attempt to win Selby or Uxbridge so they are not relevant. If they used such a chart in seats like that it would be dishonest, but they haven't. They are comparing like with like. If you see such a chart appear in Hartlepool you would be right, but that won't happen.
But what if they produce this chart in a seat they are targeting but actually came third last time?
That is absolutely fine. I double checked the chart before saying that. Such a statement is still completely honest. Also coming from 3rd happened in one of the by elections.
I think it is definitely dishonest (although within the normal bounds of cherry-picking you'd expect) in seats where Labour (or someone else) actually has a better objective claim to being the best-placed to defeat the sitting Conservative (or sitting someone else).
It might also be counterproductive if not carefully targeted. It already has the disadvantage of being seen as just another dodgy LibDem bar chart.
I get the point that you are making, but anywhere where it is not clear cut is fair game. The chart is completely accurate and in somewhere like Chelsea and Fulham fair game, even though both LDs and Lab have a claim to be the challenger. Do you expect the LDs to just go 'Oh you have it cos you are doing so well in the polls even though we are in 2nd place?'.
No. I also don't expect the Libdems to be honest in their election material. Doesn't make it honest just because it's what we expect.
If a firm advertised a new fund by showing some of their existing funds doing better than some of a rival's existing funds, while omitting the funds where they are doing worse than the rival's equivalent, I guess you'd agree that would be dishonest?
They are being completely honest. There is nothing in that leaflet that is anything like untrue or even misleading in any way. They were comparing like with like. A stocks and shares fund wouldn't compare itself to a bond. It compares itself to like funds.
Just because Labour are doing well in polls do you expect the LDs are just going give up and go away. They have every right to go for Chelsea and Fulham and are just as well placed as Lab and the chart is a 100% accurate reflection of that.
Didn't I already answer your questions about my expectations. Anyway even this leaflet is not comparing like with like, unless there is a by-election coming up in Chelsea and Fulham. I don't know if Libdems are better placed than Labour in that seat, but as I made clear from the start I am talking about seats where it looks like they aren't best placed but still want target (if there are any)
The closure of bank accounts belonging to racecourse bookmakers was described as a "scandal" by one MP yesterday as the reverberations over the shutting down of ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage's account spread to the betting industry.
Numerous racecourse bookmakers have revealed they have had accounts closed by banks without explanation. One bookmaker, Graham Thorpe, told the Racing Post he had had 11 accounts associated with him closed, including those of charities and organisations for which he was treasurer.
It is not just Farage, and not just woke. It's the AML rules making banks decide some customers are just too much hassle. Even if it is especially the unwoke ones.
The problem is there's absolutely no legislation pushing back the other way. It urgently needs addressing.
But gtiven the existing legislation with its penalties, why take the risk? Especially when the blame can be shared with a dozen other banks.
Sorry if someone has already posted this, but have you seen the list of seats which the Labour Party regard as "non priority"? In other words, the places where it's OK to vote tactically for the Lib Dems as long as you don't make too much of a fuss about it?
Nor Wokingham ... clearly there's been a lot of subjective judgement used in preparing the list, but it makes interesting reading. Presumably Labour HQ won't object if the local party puts some effort in, but they won't be getting any help from the centre unless the locals can persuade them to change their minds.
I don't think it's an exhaustive list. It's a list of some Labour non-priority seats. Not all of them. It doesn't mean every other seat is a Labour priority seat.
Well, no, I'd expect Labour to more effort into winning Lincoln than Woking, but I don't see Labour rolling over to the Lib Dems in Woking whereas they will in Guildford.
Sorry if someone has already posted this, but have you seen the list of seats which the Labour Party regard as "non priority"? In other words, the places where it's OK to vote tactically for the Lib Dems as long as you don't make too much of a fuss about it?
Nor Wokingham ... clearly there's been a lot of subjective judgement used in preparing the list, but it makes interesting reading. Presumably Labour HQ won't object if the local party puts some effort in, but they won't be getting any help from the centre unless the locals can persuade them to change their minds.
Presumably Labour will target around 100 seats (perhaps something like numbers 30-130 in their list, if the polls stay where they are?), and the LDs will target around 50 seats, and there won’t be more than a handful of seats on both target lists, genuine three-way marginals?
In a way, that's what interesting about C+F. You can make a case for Labour (it's central London) and for the Lib Dems (it's full of graduate professionals). There must be other seats where it's genuinely hard to tell who the main challenger is (which is more about who lives there as it is the 2019 results), but probably not many.
There's a list and commentary done by the House of Commons Library;
In the 2019 election however, the number of three-way marginals greatly diminished, and those that did occur were not so concentrated in one part of the UK. 17 seats had a vote-share gap between first and third place of less than 20 percentage points and only three of these had a gap of less than 10 percentage points. The 20 closest three-way marginals in the 2019 General Election are shown in the table below.
The Brexit Party was involved in five of the top 20 three-way marginals. In all five of these seats, Labour won and the Conservatives occupied the other spot in the top three.
In three of the London seats featuring in the top 20, the Liberal Democrats’ vote share appeared to be boosted by the candidacy of high-profile defectors from other parties:
The Lab>Con>Brexit marginals are worth noting - these could be seats that go from Lab to Con next time, against the national swing, and therefore likely to be good value bets. Every election has the 10/1 shots that come in - and the 1/10 dead certs that don’t!
Another day on from the Farage / Coutts fun. As he is ineligible for an account there (I assume they won't wave their rules just because they have made a tit of themselves) will the Nigel now be demanding that "ordinary" people like him should be allowed a Coutts account?
I am feeling the Farage love on here, he is doing this not for himself, but for the poor people. Handily, I have another invisible Garden Bridge available.
What strikes me is that Mr Farage has had hassle from being a PEP. So he makes himself an even more Politically Exposed Person with his mission against the banks. What bank is now going to take him on, if it means banner headlines in the DM every time some minion burps unintentionally while handling his non-Coutt's cheque book? Which will only "justify" him even more.
Nevertheless: the point remains: we need to understand this basic bank business and how well it works. Benpointer thought just about anyone ordinary could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise.
One way of reading the stats is that everyone who persists manages to sort out a Basic Account with someone eventually, but at least one bank isn't pulling their weight in making it easy and seems generally keener on Computer Says No reasons for rejecting people. Which isn't the point really.
And that's where the stories of the Aristocrat who (no longer) banks at Coutts and the Aristocrat who cleans our boots (and can't get a basic account) do join up.
We have got a business model of banking where "nah, too difficult/ expensive" is part of the thinking. Branches, customers, services and transactions that aren't easy and quickly profitable are to be trimmed.
Capitalism doesn't have to look like that, but capitalism coupled with short horizons probably does. Fix that, and a lot of the British Disease subsides.
(Talking of which, without being conspiratorial, what's the benefit to society in a hedge fund shorting a bank?
I think GBNews needs Farage more than the other way around probably.
Maybe I missed it, but has anyone commented on the uber-irony of Farage using the EU developed GDPR (that no doubt he would like scrapped) to issue a Subject Access Request to NatWest/Coutts?
His right to see his data began in 1984, under UK-originated legislation:
Only when the 1998 act came in was there an EU basis.
Thanks for this, though I don't have the time (or expertise perhaps) to read it's provisions, I am pretty sure there was no similar provision to a SAR under Data Protection Act or else it would not have been such a major concern to many companies such as mine when GDPR became enforced. The ability of an individual to demand all info that references an individual (with some limitations where it involves privacy of others) was certainly stated by lawyers I spoke to at the time as a new development
Oh, I can quite believe provisions have become stronger. My point is just that we had strong data protection laws ourselves and, had we never joined the EU, I think we would have stronger laws now. So I don't think the EU civilized us into respecting data protection.
One further point. My memory is that the original DPA 1984 had a fairly restrictive meaning of personal data and I have fished it out:
(3)" Personal data " means data consisting of information which relates to a living individual who can be identified from that information (or from that and other information in the possession of the data user), including any expression of opinion about the individual but not any indication of the intentions of the data user in respect of that individual.
That last element, in particular, seems distinctly different from GDPR - but I didn't have to implement the latter.
From my POV (secondary data analysis in medical records) the GDPR was mostly just a bit clearer on things, with some slightly broader or better worded definitions that left fewer uncertainties. For us it removed some uncertainties about consenting.
The closure of bank accounts belonging to racecourse bookmakers was described as a "scandal" by one MP yesterday as the reverberations over the shutting down of ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage's account spread to the betting industry.
Numerous racecourse bookmakers have revealed they have had accounts closed by banks without explanation. One bookmaker, Graham Thorpe, told the Racing Post he had had 11 accounts associated with him closed, including those of charities and organisations for which he was treasurer.
It is not just Farage, and not just woke. It's the AML rules making banks decide some customers are just too much hassle. Even if it is especially the unwoke ones.
Good to hear. I suspect that the publicity from the Farage case, has led to a lot of people writing to their MP with their own stories of de-banking.
Small business dealing in large amounts of cash do indeed appear to be targets, despite being entirely legitimate.
The idiocy of the anti-money-laundering rules - they are hugely inconvenient for legitimate businesses, without necessarily inconveniencing serious international criminals at all. Unfortunately, not working and being counterproductive doesn't get a government programme binned if there is a large enough industry behind it (see lockdowns), and these compliance and regulation professionals are very good at arguing for their jobs.
Sorry if someone has already posted this, but have you seen the list of seats which the Labour Party regard as "non priority"? In other words, the places where it's OK to vote tactically for the Lib Dems as long as you don't make too much of a fuss about it?
Nor Wokingham ... clearly there's been a lot of subjective judgement used in preparing the list, but it makes interesting reading. Presumably Labour HQ won't object if the local party puts some effort in, but they won't be getting any help from the centre unless the locals can persuade them to change their minds.
Presumably Labour will target around 100 seats (perhaps something like numbers 30-130 in their list, if the polls stay where they are?), and the LDs will target around 50 seats, and there won’t be more than a handful of seats on both target lists, genuine three-way marginals?
In a way, that's what interesting about C+F. You can make a case for Labour (it's central London) and for the Lib Dems (it's full of graduate professionals). There must be other seats where it's genuinely hard to tell who the main challenger is (which is more about who lives there as it is the 2019 results), but probably not many.
There's a list and commentary done by the House of Commons Library;
In the 2019 election however, the number of three-way marginals greatly diminished, and those that did occur were not so concentrated in one part of the UK. 17 seats had a vote-share gap between first and third place of less than 20 percentage points and only three of these had a gap of less than 10 percentage points. The 20 closest three-way marginals in the 2019 General Election are shown in the table below.
The Brexit Party was involved in five of the top 20 three-way marginals. In all five of these seats, Labour won and the Conservatives occupied the other spot in the top three.
In three of the London seats featuring in the top 20, the Liberal Democrats’ vote share appeared to be boosted by the candidacy of high-profile defectors from other parties:
The Lab>Con>Brexit marginals are worth noting - these could be seats that go from Lab to Con next time, against the national swing, and therefore likely to be good value bets. Every election has the 10/1 shots that come in - and the 1/10 dead certs that don’t!
Good point. It's why the Hartlepool by-election shouldn't have been a shock; there were lots of votes the Conservatives could expect to pick up and they did.
On the same basis, Barnsley East looks tempting, though that's been abolished in the boundary review. The others further down the list (Doncaster N, Barnsley C, Normanton) might be OK with national swing. But worth looking out for.
The closure of bank accounts belonging to racecourse bookmakers was described as a "scandal" by one MP yesterday as the reverberations over the shutting down of ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage's account spread to the betting industry.
Numerous racecourse bookmakers have revealed they have had accounts closed by banks without explanation. One bookmaker, Graham Thorpe, told the Racing Post he had had 11 accounts associated with him closed, including those of charities and organisations for which he was treasurer.
It is not just Farage, and not just woke. It's the AML rules making banks decide some customers are just too much hassle. Even if it is especially the unwoke ones.
Good to hear. I suspect that the publicity from the Farage case, has led to a lot of people writing to their MP with their own stories of de-banking.
Small business dealing in large amounts of cash do indeed appear to be targets, despite being entirely legitimate.
The idiocy of the anti-money-laundering rules - they are hugely inconvenient for legitimate businesses, without necessarily inconveniencing serious international criminals at all. Unfortunately, not working and being counterproductive doesn't get a government programme binned if there is a large enough industry behind it (see lockdowns), and these compliance and regulation professionals are very good at arguing for their jobs.
The banks do appear rather surprised that bookmakers regularly turn up at the branches with five figures in 20s and 50s.
I blame Walter White’s car wash, for the banking industry now assuming that anyone handling cash must be laundering money.
My MacBook has arrived. Comfortably the most I have ever spent on a computer. Feels like its built like a tank though, so hopefully will have a longer life than the various almost disposable machines I have had for the last decade or so.
My MacBook has arrived. Comfortably the most I have ever spent on a computer. Feels like its built like a tank though, so hopefully will have a longer life than the various almost disposable machines I have had for the last decade or so.
The closure of bank accounts belonging to racecourse bookmakers was described as a "scandal" by one MP yesterday as the reverberations over the shutting down of ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage's account spread to the betting industry.
Numerous racecourse bookmakers have revealed they have had accounts closed by banks without explanation. One bookmaker, Graham Thorpe, told the Racing Post he had had 11 accounts associated with him closed, including those of charities and organisations for which he was treasurer.
It is not just Farage, and not just woke. It's the AML rules making banks decide some customers are just too much hassle. Even if it is especially the unwoke ones.
Good to hear. I suspect that the publicity from the Farage case, has led to a lot of people writing to their MP with their own stories of de-banking.
Small business dealing in large amounts of cash do indeed appear to be targets, despite being entirely legitimate.
The idiocy of the anti-money-laundering rules - they are hugely inconvenient for legitimate businesses, without necessarily inconveniencing serious international criminals at all. Unfortunately, not working and being counterproductive doesn't get a government programme binned if there is a large enough industry behind it (see lockdowns), and these compliance and regulation professionals are very good at arguing for their jobs.
The banks do appear rather surprised that bookmakers regularly turn up at the branches with five figures in 20s and 50s.
I blame Walter White’s car wash, for the banking industry now assuming that anyone handling cash must be laundering money.
The trouble is, the banks might be right that *some* bookmakers have been used to launder money, and that other cash businesses are evading tax. Given the legislation, it makes some sort of sense for banks (and other institutions, including, ironically, bookmakers) just to say that it's too much hassle to do business with a customer whom we cannot properly investigate ourselves, whose value to the bank is hundreds at best, yet who risks landing us with multi-million pound fines.
The closure of bank accounts belonging to racecourse bookmakers was described as a "scandal" by one MP yesterday as the reverberations over the shutting down of ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage's account spread to the betting industry.
Numerous racecourse bookmakers have revealed they have had accounts closed by banks without explanation. One bookmaker, Graham Thorpe, told the Racing Post he had had 11 accounts associated with him closed, including those of charities and organisations for which he was treasurer.
It is not just Farage, and not just woke. It's the AML rules making banks decide some customers are just too much hassle. Even if it is especially the unwoke ones.
Good to hear. I suspect that the publicity from the Farage case, has led to a lot of people writing to their MP with their own stories of de-banking.
Small business dealing in large amounts of cash do indeed appear to be targets, despite being entirely legitimate.
The idiocy of the anti-money-laundering rules - they are hugely inconvenient for legitimate businesses, without necessarily inconveniencing serious international criminals at all. Unfortunately, not working and being counterproductive doesn't get a government programme binned if there is a large enough industry behind it (see lockdowns), and these compliance and regulation professionals are very good at arguing for their jobs.
The banks do appear rather surprised that bookmakers regularly turn up at the branches with five figures in 20s and 50s.
I blame Walter White’s car wash, for the banking industry now assuming that anyone handling cash must be laundering money.
The trouble is, the banks might be right that *some* bookmakers have been used to launder money, and that other cash businesses are evading tax. Given the legislation, it makes some sort of sense for banks (and other institutions, including, ironically, bookmakers) just to say that it's too much hassle to do business with a customer whom we cannot properly investigate ourselves, whose value to the bank is hundreds at best, yet who risks landing us with multi-million pound fines.
Besides, handling that much cash is a faff and an expense.
If we can make banks provide services to anyone, howabout bookies too. Why should they be able to close or ridiculously limit successful punters?
Firstly, I don’t think any punters are being denied access to bookmakers based on their political beliefs. Secondly, you don’t really need a bookmaker account to survive.
The closure of bank accounts belonging to racecourse bookmakers was described as a "scandal" by one MP yesterday as the reverberations over the shutting down of ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage's account spread to the betting industry.
Numerous racecourse bookmakers have revealed they have had accounts closed by banks without explanation. One bookmaker, Graham Thorpe, told the Racing Post he had had 11 accounts associated with him closed, including those of charities and organisations for which he was treasurer.
It is not just Farage, and not just woke. It's the AML rules making banks decide some customers are just too much hassle. Even if it is especially the unwoke ones.
Good to hear. I suspect that the publicity from the Farage case, has led to a lot of people writing to their MP with their own stories of de-banking.
Small business dealing in large amounts of cash do indeed appear to be targets, despite being entirely legitimate.
Despite the views of progressive PB comments about cash, it remains the case that banks being iffy about cash is like supermarkets being iffy about cornflakes.
Cash, like cornflakes, has to be lawful and subject to regulation. That's why we have police and food inspectors.
Meanwhile most fraudsters most of the time focus not on cash but more fashionable forms of transaction - see for example the fascinating recent Supreme Court case I mentioned earlier today.
Sorry if someone has already posted this, but have you seen the list of seats which the Labour Party regard as "non priority"? In other words, the places where it's OK to vote tactically for the Lib Dems as long as you don't make too much of a fuss about it?
Nor Wokingham ... clearly there's been a lot of subjective judgement used in preparing the list, but it makes interesting reading. Presumably Labour HQ won't object if the local party puts some effort in, but they won't be getting any help from the centre unless the locals can persuade them to change their minds.
Presumably Labour will target around 100 seats (perhaps something like numbers 30-130 in their list, if the polls stay where they are?), and the LDs will target around 50 seats, and there won’t be more than a handful of seats on both target lists, genuine three-way marginals?
In a way, that's what interesting about C+F. You can make a case for Labour (it's central London) and for the Lib Dems (it's full of graduate professionals). There must be other seats where it's genuinely hard to tell who the main challenger is (which is more about who lives there as it is the 2019 results), but probably not many.
There's a list and commentary done by the House of Commons Library;
In the 2019 election however, the number of three-way marginals greatly diminished, and those that did occur were not so concentrated in one part of the UK. 17 seats had a vote-share gap between first and third place of less than 20 percentage points and only three of these had a gap of less than 10 percentage points. The 20 closest three-way marginals in the 2019 General Election are shown in the table below.
The Brexit Party was involved in five of the top 20 three-way marginals. In all five of these seats, Labour won and the Conservatives occupied the other spot in the top three.
In three of the London seats featuring in the top 20, the Liberal Democrats’ vote share appeared to be boosted by the candidacy of high-profile defectors from other parties:
The Lab>Con>Brexit marginals are worth noting - these could be seats that go from Lab to Con next time, against the national swing, and therefore likely to be good value bets. Every election has the 10/1 shots that come in - and the 1/10 dead certs that don’t!
Yes, but is Barnsley really going to turnout for Sunaks Conservatives?
Are we going to see a disappointing England performance, convicts win 3-1, and the record books show a comfortable win for the series.
Travesty if so. But it does happen sometimes in sport. The key chips fall one way and you get a result bearing little resemblance to the underlying performances. It's natural to look for reasons, to try and make sense of it all, but I think the randomness element is underappreciated. You do a Monte Carlo with these 2 teams playing just as they did and I reckon 3/1 to England would be the lead outcome.
If we can make banks provide services to anyone, howabout bookies too. Why should they be able to close or ridiculously limit successful punters?
If they advertise a price, it should be honoured with a potential loss of say £1k to anyone, unless they're suspected of being a money launderer - and if the bookie suspects that they should inform the police.
My MacBook has arrived. Comfortably the most I have ever spent on a computer. Feels like its built like a tank though, so hopefully will have a longer life than the various almost disposable machines I have had for the last decade or so.
The models between 2016 and 2020 were absolute trash but the models before and after are fantastic.
My 2013 would still work if I hadn't damaged the screen which was entirely my fault.
The closure of bank accounts belonging to racecourse bookmakers was described as a "scandal" by one MP yesterday as the reverberations over the shutting down of ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage's account spread to the betting industry.
Numerous racecourse bookmakers have revealed they have had accounts closed by banks without explanation. One bookmaker, Graham Thorpe, told the Racing Post he had had 11 accounts associated with him closed, including those of charities and organisations for which he was treasurer.
It is not just Farage, and not just woke. It's the AML rules making banks decide some customers are just too much hassle. Even if it is especially the unwoke ones.
The 'woke' aspect is not that material, I wouldn't have thought, compared to the other reasons accounts are refused or closed.
If we can make banks provide services to anyone, howabout bookies too. Why should they be able to close or ridiculously limit successful punters?
Firstly, I don’t think any punters are being denied access to bookmakers based on their political beliefs. Secondly, you don’t really need a bookmaker account to survive.
How dare you come on this website and claim you don't need a bookmaker to survive. Wash your mouth out with soap and water, young man, and I never want to hear that language again in front of OGH.
The closure of bank accounts belonging to racecourse bookmakers was described as a "scandal" by one MP yesterday as the reverberations over the shutting down of ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage's account spread to the betting industry.
Numerous racecourse bookmakers have revealed they have had accounts closed by banks without explanation. One bookmaker, Graham Thorpe, told the Racing Post he had had 11 accounts associated with him closed, including those of charities and organisations for which he was treasurer.
It is not just Farage, and not just woke. It's the AML rules making banks decide some customers are just too much hassle. Even if it is especially the unwoke ones.
Good to hear. I suspect that the publicity from the Farage case, has led to a lot of people writing to their MP with their own stories of de-banking.
Small business dealing in large amounts of cash do indeed appear to be targets, despite being entirely legitimate.
The idiocy of the anti-money-laundering rules - they are hugely inconvenient for legitimate businesses, without necessarily inconveniencing serious international criminals at all. Unfortunately, not working and being counterproductive doesn't get a government programme binned if there is a large enough industry behind it (see lockdowns), and these compliance and regulation professionals are very good at arguing for their jobs.
The banks do appear rather surprised that bookmakers regularly turn up at the branches with five figures in 20s and 50s.
I blame Walter White’s car wash, for the banking industry now assuming that anyone handling cash must be laundering money.
The trouble is, the banks might be right that *some* bookmakers have been used to launder money, and that other cash businesses are evading tax. Given the legislation, it makes some sort of sense for banks (and other institutions, including, ironically, bookmakers) just to say that it's too much hassle to do business with a customer whom we cannot properly investigate ourselves, whose value to the bank is hundreds at best, yet who risks landing us with multi-million pound fines.
Legislation which results in banks punishing the innocent (like on course bookies) because regulation is too much faff is bad legislation.
By regulation and legislation we are turning more and more people into bodies who have legal duties to operate as policemen. Between them safeguarding and dodgy money have turned huge numbers of professionals into snoopers without discretion over it. I don't think it will end well and it has gone too far.
My MacBook has arrived. Comfortably the most I have ever spent on a computer. Feels like its built like a tank though, so hopefully will have a longer life than the various almost disposable machines I have had for the last decade or so.
I found I had to replace Windows machines every 3-4 years - my iMac had lasted over a decade when I finally moved on - even though it was still working perfectly well.
It's good to see Mr. Farage fighting the good fight against injustice and the punishment of innocent people by the state bureaucracies. I look forward to him using his platform and undoubted skills to rail against the gross miscarriages of justice that befell Andrew Malkinson and others, and the corruption of GMP and other police forces. But I won't hold my breath.
My MacBook has arrived. Comfortably the most I have ever spent on a computer. Feels like its built like a tank though, so hopefully will have a longer life than the various almost disposable machines I have had for the last decade or so.
The models between 2016 and 2020 were absolute trash but the models before and after are fantastic.
My 2013 would still work if I hadn't damaged the screen which was entirely my fault.
Had one of the first 2013 Macbook 15 with retina screens and having had various other things since I moved to a 14" Macbook pro 14 last year.
It's light enough to transport and does everything I need.
My MacBook has arrived. Comfortably the most I have ever spent on a computer. Feels like its built like a tank though, so hopefully will have a longer life than the various almost disposable machines I have had for the last decade or so.
I found I had to replace Windows machines every 3-4 years - my iMac had lasted over a decade when I finally moved on - even though it was still working perfectly well.
Wow what the hell are you doing to them I have windows pc's more than a decade old I still use. Indeed my newest was brought in 2016 but then I don't use laptops and am happy to upgrade a piece if needed
While not looking for a new computer right now, how easier/hard is the shift from a Windows PC to a Mac (desktop or laptop)?
Not particularly difficult. The difference between the two operating systems has narrowed significantly over the years as Apple pursued more user-friendly UI and Microsoft became more influenced by Apple UI.
The key consideration is really what you use it for. For what I suspect will be the overwhelming majority of users, either system is an option. For those using a computer for design/creative work, Apple is seen as having a significant edge still. If you’re someone who wants to use a computer for high end gaming, then you really want to stick with a PC.
Maybe I missed it, but has anyone commented on the uber-irony of Farage using the EU developed GDPR (that no doubt he would like scrapped) to issue a Subject Access Request to NatWest/Coutts?
His right to see his data began in 1984, under UK-originated legislation:
Only when the 1998 act came in was there an EU basis.
Thanks for this, though I don't have the time (or expertise perhaps) to read it's provisions, I am pretty sure there was no similar provision to a SAR under Data Protection Act
Really?
21. Rights of Data Subjects (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an individual shall be entitled (a) to be informed by any data user whether the data held by him include personal data of which that individual is the data subject ; and (b) to be supplied by any data user with a copy of the information constituting any such personal data held by him
Took me about thirty seconds. ED: 2018 Data Protection Act text for comparison.
45 Right of access by the data subject (1) A data subject is entitled to obtain from the controller— (a) confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning him or her is being processed, and (b) where that is the case, access to the personal data and the information set out in subsection (2).
IIRC GDPR tidied up and expanded upon existing rights in many countries.
A big thing was making it so that they couldn’t hide behind the “get a lawyer and we will argue with him on your tab” thing - ask and they have to produce.
While not looking for a new computer right now, how easier/hard is the shift from a Windows PC to a Mac (desktop or laptop)?
Astonishingly easy.
After decades on Windows with files all over the shop I thought “this’ll take a couple of days to transfer stuff across and get it organised”.
Not a bit of it - connected the two and within a couple of hours everything was across - and organised. Photos all in one place, documents all in another. Not spread out across multiple sub directories like on Windows.
Mr. Pagan, to be fair, my most recent PC just died by itself a year or so ago after about 3-4 years of working. Managed to fumble my way to resurrecting it but no idea why it fell off a cliff.
Yes, good piece from Mike and it echoes my own view that this could be a very good election for the LDs.
Their biggest stumbling block is that they have to overcome some seriously large majorities to win a lot of seats from the Conservatives, but as the bar illustrates, they are capable of doing this.
I am going to provisionally estimate that yhey will emerge from the GE with at least 30 seats. They may even displace the SNP as the third largest Party.
As Generals go, Davey is almost as lucky as Starmer.
Good morning
Fair comment and as things stand entirely possible
On the Farage banking affair there are times, when no matter how you dislike someone's political views, when a stand has to be made against an injustice
Yesterday, Nick Thomas Symonds was terrible on Sky attempting to defend Alison Rose and even worse, Rachel Reeves penned a piece (before Rose resigned) accusing Farage and the media of 'bullying' Rose which was just crass in the extreme
Starmer eventually endorsed her resignation, but only after seeing the way the wind was blowing
This was not a political issue, but the difference between trust and confidentiality, and no doubt if it had been anyone other than Farage, these labour politicians would have had a different response
And I would say the same thing if it had been Corbyn who had been subject to this injustice
Agreed, Big G.
Awkward as it is to find oneself supporting Farage, it has to be said that he has as much right to privacy as the rest of us.
What possessed this woman to blurt out his private details to a journalist is beyond me.
Why do you believe that ridiculously spun story?
The printing of that material by the BBC was almost certainly a result of a parallelogram of forces, a negotiated agreement between tough, serious, very intelligent people, not the product of somebody finding out she was sitting next to somebody else at a dinner one evening and blurting it out by accident after she'd had a few. The same can be said about the cracking down on Farage's account in the first place. Ditto with the unsanctioning of Oleg Tinkov. Into that, add a dose of the fact that in Britain wherever the royal family are concerned, especially the head of that family - currently a man who can't write his own name with a pen without effing and blinding at his servants - different rules apply.
Farage should lose the "K" bit in "Reform UK".
You keep pushing that line.
As I actually work in the industry, I say you are wrong.
The amount of stupid shit I see from senior management - but unlike them I can keep my mouth shut. Suffice it to say, that a few days ago, senior managers in another bank demonstrated in a large meeting that they had no understanding of the legal and required process for moving money on a large scale.
Yes, classic conspiracy theory reasoning from Peck. Stupidity - in this case a moment of foolishness from someone not evidently stupid - is a more parsimonious explanation.
While not looking for a new computer right now, how easier/hard is the shift from a Windows PC to a Mac (desktop or laptop)?
Not particularly difficult. The difference between the two operating systems has narrowed significantly over the years as Apple pursued more user-friendly UI and Microsoft became more influenced by Apple UI.
The key consideration is really what you use it for. For what I suspect will be the overwhelming majority of users, either system is an option. For those using a computer for design/creative work, Apple is seen as having a significant edge still. If you’re someone who wants to use a computer for high end gaming, then you really want to stick with a PC.
My MacBook has arrived. Comfortably the most I have ever spent on a computer. Feels like its built like a tank though, so hopefully will have a longer life than the various almost disposable machines I have had for the last decade or so.
I found I had to replace Windows machines every 3-4 years - my iMac had lasted over a decade when I finally moved on - even though it was still working perfectly well.
What goes wrong with a Windows laptop that doesn't go wrong with a Mac?
Admittedly I only use a personal Windows laptop to do light editing or as a terminal and do any number crunching and file storage on a full fat Linux server, but I can't say I've had any major issues.
I still have a 10+ year old one that works fine for media and it wasn't that hot when I bought it.
Sitting at home I always use an external keyboard and monitor - easier on the eyes and easier to replace.
Jeez how much more ridiculous over the top coverage of Farage must we endure . I don’t fxcking care about his account .
You don’t care about someone being denied a service because of their political beliefs?
The martyrdom of Farage ! What if someone was pro a terrorist organization. Should the bank be forced to open an account . Where do you draw the line.
Farage is NOT a terrorist FFS!
He’s odious scum . I don’t give a fig if the bank this he’s not worthy of an account .
It establishes a precedent that services can be denied to people just because of their political beliefs. Are you really so blinded by your hatred for him that you can’t see that?
Sorry if someone has already posted this, but have you seen the list of seats which the Labour Party regard as "non priority"? In other words, the places where it's OK to vote tactically for the Lib Dems as long as you don't make too much of a fuss about it?
Nor Wokingham ... clearly there's been a lot of subjective judgement used in preparing the list, but it makes interesting reading. Presumably Labour HQ won't object if the local party puts some effort in, but they won't be getting any help from the centre unless the locals can persuade them to change their minds.
Presumably Labour will target around 100 seats (perhaps something like numbers 30-130 in their list, if the polls stay where they are?), and the LDs will target around 50 seats, and there won’t be more than a handful of seats on both target lists, genuine three-way marginals?
In a way, that's what interesting about C+F. You can make a case for Labour (it's central London) and for the Lib Dems (it's full of graduate professionals). There must be other seats where it's genuinely hard to tell who the main challenger is (which is more about who lives there as it is the 2019 results), but probably not many.
There's a list and commentary done by the House of Commons Library;
In the 2019 election however, the number of three-way marginals greatly diminished, and those that did occur were not so concentrated in one part of the UK. 17 seats had a vote-share gap between first and third place of less than 20 percentage points and only three of these had a gap of less than 10 percentage points. The 20 closest three-way marginals in the 2019 General Election are shown in the table below.
The Brexit Party was involved in five of the top 20 three-way marginals. In all five of these seats, Labour won and the Conservatives occupied the other spot in the top three.
In three of the London seats featuring in the top 20, the Liberal Democrats’ vote share appeared to be boosted by the candidacy of high-profile defectors from other parties:
The Lab>Con>Brexit marginals are worth noting - these could be seats that go from Lab to Con next time, against the national swing, and therefore likely to be good value bets. Every election has the 10/1 shots that come in - and the 1/10 dead certs that don’t!
Good point. It's why the Hartlepool by-election shouldn't have been a shock; there were lots of votes the Conservatives could expect to pick up and they did.
On the same basis, Barnsley East looks tempting, though that's been abolished in the boundary review. The others further down the list (Doncaster N, Barnsley C, Normanton) might be OK with national swing. But worth looking out for.
Yes, the new boundaries will complicate things, but there’s always a few seats where something totally unexpected happens if you’re not paying attention. Seats where Lab won in 2019 from Brexit Party might see swing back to the Tories, even if the rest of the country swings the other way.
IIRC two Lab MPs lost their seats in 1997, and a couple of Tories lost in 2010.
With likely about 15 months to go, I suspect that one of the features of the next election is going to be a low turnout, especially in what we think of as “Red Wall” working-class seats. Scotland is the other big unknown, there’s been good money to be made there in the past few general elections.
A bit of scrutiny on the banks isn't going to do any harm - it would be nice if there were a little questioning of the banks gleefully passing on interest rate rises to mortgage holders, yet being considerably slower to pass them on to savers, who are of course lending the banks their money. Perhaps depositors should be allowed to decide the rate at which they lend the banks their money?
While not looking for a new computer right now, how easier/hard is the shift from a Windows PC to a Mac (desktop or laptop)?
Not particularly difficult. The difference between the two operating systems has narrowed significantly over the years as Apple pursued more user-friendly UI and Microsoft became more influenced by Apple UI.
The key consideration is really what you use it for. For what I suspect will be the overwhelming majority of users, either system is an option. For those using a computer for design/creative work, Apple is seen as having a significant edge still. If you’re someone who wants to use a computer for high end gaming, then you really want to stick with a PC.
Linux is often best for software development.
... and then you're forced to do the software on a Windows box. Yes, I've built consumer products using Cygwin. Quite successfully, in fact.
But only because I was forced to. The company had a Windows-only policy. Except for the senior management, who insisted on windows boxes, and the IT bods, who could use whatever they wanted without anyone knowing.
A bit of scrutiny on the banks isn't going to do any harm - it would be nice if there were a little questioning of the banks gleefully passing on interest rate rises to mortgage holders, yet being considerably slower to pass them on to savers, who are of course lending the banks their money. Perhaps depositors should be allowed to decide the rate at which they lend the banks their money?
Although interestingly someone posted on Twitter this week a comparison of different countries, and the UK's banks were among the quickest to pass on interest rate rises to savers, much more so than most other Western countries. So others are being ripped off even more.
Another day on from the Farage / Coutts fun. As he is ineligible for an account there (I assume they won't wave their rules just because they have made a tit of themselves) will the Nigel now be demanding that "ordinary" people like him should be allowed a Coutts account?
I am feeling the Farage love on here, he is doing this not for himself, but for the poor people. Handily, I have another invisible Garden Bridge available.
What strikes me is that Mr Farage has had hassle from being a PEP. So he makes himself an even more Politically Exposed Person with his mission against the banks. What bank is now going to take him on, if it means banner headlines in the DM every time some minion burps unintentionally while handling his non-Coutt's cheque book? Which will only "justify" him even more.
Nevertheless: the point remains: we need to understand this basic bank business and how well it works. Benpointer thought just about anyone ordinary could get one (which is not the same as having an existing one closed down), but RCS1000's stats suggest otherwise.
One way of reading the stats is that everyone who persists manages to sort out a Basic Account with someone eventually, but at least one bank isn't pulling their weight in making it easy and seems generally keener on Computer Says No reasons for rejecting people. Which isn't the point really.
And that's where the stories of the Aristocrat who (no longer) banks at Coutts and the Aristocrat who cleans our boots (and can't get a basic account) do join up.
We have got a business model of banking where "nah, too difficult/ expensive" is part of the thinking. Branches, customers, services and transactions that aren't easy and quickly profitable are to be trimmed.
Capitalism doesn't have to look like that, but capitalism coupled with short horizons probably does. Fix that, and a lot of the British Disease subsides.
(Talking of which, without being conspiratorial, what's the benefit to society in a hedge fund shorting a bank?
I think GBNews needs Farage more than the other way around probably.
Maybe I missed it, but has anyone commented on the uber-irony of Farage using the EU developed GDPR (that no doubt he would like scrapped) to issue a Subject Access Request to NatWest/Coutts?
His right to see his data began in 1984, under UK-originated legislation:
Only when the 1998 act came in was there an EU basis.
Thanks for this, though I don't have the time (or expertise perhaps) to read it's provisions, I am pretty sure there was no similar provision to a SAR under Data Protection Act or else it would not have been such a major concern to many companies such as mine when GDPR became enforced. The ability of an individual to demand all info that references an individual (with some limitations where it involves privacy of others) was certainly stated by lawyers I spoke to at the time as a new development
Oh, I can quite believe provisions have become stronger. My point is just that we had strong data protection laws ourselves and, had we never joined the EU, I think we would have stronger laws now. So I don't think the EU civilized us into respecting data protection.
Not quite - but the Council of Europe did. It's absolute balderdash to say that the 1984 Act was "UK-originated legislation".
" ...The Council of Europe "Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data" became open for signature in 1981. The Convention contained a set of principles to govern data processing, including that there should be fair and lawful obtaining and processing of personal data and storage of data only for specified purposes. In addition, states should not restrict trans-border data flows to other states which signed the Convention. States could only sign up to the Convention where they had national law in place guaranteeing compliance with the standards set out in it.
53. Accordingly, Parliament passed the Data Protection Act 1984 and ratified the Convention in 1985, partly to ensure the free movement of data. The Data Protection Act 1984 contained principles which were taken almost directly from Convention 108 - including that personal data shall be obtained and processed fairly and lawfully and held only for specified purposes."
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.
I have noticed that most vegans will tell you they are vegan in about the first 5 minutes of conversation and having known several, I have yet to see any of them sit down at the table look at their dinner plate and rub their hands together in anticipation of a delicious repast. They look at their plate more like a difficult task they need to get through.
I could be a veggie, but never a vegan.
I recently flourished a ham biscuit at a vegetarian friend, and asked him IF that constituted a hate crime.
He replied, hell yes! But that he would NOT press charges IF yours truly refrained from throwing it at him.
Correction - I brandished that biscuit, thus a possible criminal violation IF a ham biscuit is indeed a weapon.
Very confusing on a British forum - by 'biscuit', you mean 'scone' yes? Never had a ham one. Had a cheese one.
In USA, a scone is a (usually) triangular SWEET pastry. Whereas (our) biscuits are (generally) square or round, usually made from wheat.
American biscuits typically plain that is zero filling UNTIL the eater adds butter, jam and/or honey.
OR alternatively, a slice of meat, most typically ham. Thus ham biscuit!
However, the biscuit I brandished, actually had bits of ham baked into it, so a variation on the theme.
Yes. Your biscuit then is almost exactly a scone (typically our scones are sweetened, but you'd always at least have butter, usually jam (your jelly) and clotted cream). We have savoury versions made with cheese. You'd usually just butter these. They're not typically sandwiched with ham or other fillings as possibly a bit too crumbly? Also too crumbly to cause much pain when thrown. If they even reach the victim whole.
A biscuit here is a dry, compacted, crumbly affair. An American example of what we term a biscuit would be an Oero. We are a nation of biscuit lovers because they're ideal to dunk in tea.
Your biscuit is our cookie. As in Cookie Monster.
(With due apology to Cookie.)
Yes, they're similar but the American cookie is very special - we know them as large and a bit gooey in the middle, usually with chocolate chips. They'd be more of a treat for us, not something you'd have daily (or even a few times a day) with a cup of tea like a biscuit.
What you are calling "the American cookie" is just a KIND of cookie, NOT representative of all USA cookies.
Which CAN feature gooey chocolate chips . . . when warm (or warmed up).
My mom was a master cookie maker. My personal favorites were her Tollhouse cookies (with choc chips & chopped walnuts (not gooey unless hot from oven); and molasses cookies; others thought her best were her peanut butter cookies., which I never much liked (hers or anybody's).
All sound good to me.
I don't know where or why the two languages diverged on this.
My MacBook has arrived. Comfortably the most I have ever spent on a computer. Feels like its built like a tank though, so hopefully will have a longer life than the various almost disposable machines I have had for the last decade or so.
They literally carve the chassis of the laptops from a solid block of aluminium.
The closure of bank accounts belonging to racecourse bookmakers was described as a "scandal" by one MP yesterday as the reverberations over the shutting down of ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage's account spread to the betting industry.
Numerous racecourse bookmakers have revealed they have had accounts closed by banks without explanation. One bookmaker, Graham Thorpe, told the Racing Post he had had 11 accounts associated with him closed, including those of charities and organisations for which he was treasurer.
It is not just Farage, and not just woke. It's the AML rules making banks decide some customers are just too much hassle. Even if it is especially the unwoke ones.
Good to hear. I suspect that the publicity from the Farage case, has led to a lot of people writing to their MP with their own stories of de-banking.
Small business dealing in large amounts of cash do indeed appear to be targets, despite being entirely legitimate.
The idiocy of the anti-money-laundering rules - they are hugely inconvenient for legitimate businesses, without necessarily inconveniencing serious international criminals at all. Unfortunately, not working and being counterproductive doesn't get a government programme binned if there is a large enough industry behind it (see lockdowns), and these compliance and regulation professionals are very good at arguing for their jobs.
The banks do appear rather surprised that bookmakers regularly turn up at the branches with five figures in 20s and 50s.
I blame Walter White’s car wash, for the banking industry now assuming that anyone handling cash must be laundering money.
The trouble is, the banks might be right that *some* bookmakers have been used to launder money, and that other cash businesses are evading tax. Given the legislation, it makes some sort of sense for banks (and other institutions, including, ironically, bookmakers) just to say that it's too much hassle to do business with a customer whom we cannot properly investigate ourselves, whose value to the bank is hundreds at best, yet who risks landing us with multi-million pound fines.
Besides, handling that much cash is a faff and an expense.
Indeed. How dare we assume a bank can handle cash! The effrontery!
A bit of scrutiny on the banks isn't going to do any harm - it would be nice if there were a little questioning of the banks gleefully passing on interest rate rises to mortgage holders, yet being considerably slower to pass them on to savers, who are of course lending the banks their money. Perhaps depositors should be allowed to decide the rate at which they lend the banks their money?
They do. It's known as moving your account.
Free markets and all.
Edit: Also, the Consumers Assn/Which have been questioning this (and other banking issues) for a long time.
It does take a lot of data analysis to make the case, though, given how many accounts there are and how they change - and their various t&cs.
One thing that may help the Liberal Democrats improve their poll ratings is that they have missed the limelight for a while: the last conference had to be cancelled after the death of Elizabeth II, so there has not been much spotlight on the party. Despite this, at both Westminster by elections and local council elections, they have been performing very strongly, and above their poll ratings.
Ed Davey is a remarkable man, and when journalists have gone one-to-one with him, they seem to come away pretty impressed. (vide recent Guardian interview). He has also solved a fair few of the internal process issues and is attracting something of a surge in support, including significant financial support.
Meanwhile the Tories seem to be doing everything in their power to cozy up to the Faragist right, but this is going down very badly in places like Surrey, and many other places across the South and south west of England. In Scotland the party is coming back in the North East and making strong progress in Edinburgh.
Its all beginning to look like we could see a real move in the coming months, and the anti Tory swing could bring some remarkable results in some surprising places.
Were you still up for Gove?
The challenge for the LDs is that their popularity plummeted in the Coalition years and has been flatlining at 10% +/- 2% for a decade now. The assumption is that the LDs can sweep all before them using tactical voting but national vote share also matters.
1992 - 20 seats, 18% vote share. ratio 1.1 1997 - 46 seats, 17% vote share. ratio 2.7 2001 - 52 seats, 18% vote share. ratio 2.9 2005 - 62 seats, 22% vote share. ratio 2.8 2010 - 57 seats, 23% vote share. ratio 2.5 2015 - 8 seats, 8% vote share. ratio 1 2017 - 12 seats, 7% vote share. ratio 1.7 2019 - 11 seats, 12% vote share. ratio 0.9
So even at peak tactical voting the best they managed was 3 seats per 1% of national vote. This would give them 25-30 seats max on current polling.
The second challenge is what is the LDs positioning now? Traditionally, they tried to position themselves as being in the centre between Con and Lab. This enabled them to pick up anti-Con and anti-Lab votes in different places but this feel apart after the Coalition. They now seem to be positioning as a more explicitly left wing party but how does that differentiate them from the Greens and Lab?
At national level the LDs are the party for high earning Remainders who are too fiscally conservative for Labour and the Greens but too pro EU and socially liberal for the Conservatives.
Locally the LDs also add the Nimby vote in local elections
Comments
Since December 2021 when the policy became systemic and routine the Home 1/
Secretary has exceeded the proper limits of her powers.
The High Court has further ruled that the National Transfer Scheme - the statutory scheme that allows children to be placed in local authority care through a rota system - is enforceable by the Home Secretary.
https://twitter.com/BellaSankey/status/1684512466842034176?s=20
250 would be good from here.
Numerous racecourse bookmakers have revealed they have had accounts closed by banks without explanation. One bookmaker, Graham Thorpe, told the Racing Post he had had 11 accounts associated with him closed, including those of charities and organisations for which he was treasurer.
Farage has claimed his political views were part of the decision for his accounts being closed. Bookmakers believe banks are acting in their case as they are betting businesses that deal in large sums of cash.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/banks-closure-of-racecourse-bookmaker-accounts-described-as-a-scandal-aBBRQ8g1ArP4/
It is not just Farage, and not just woke. It's the AML rules making banks decide some customers are just too much hassle. Even if it is especially the unwoke ones.
There's a list and commentary done by the House of Commons Library;
In the 2019 election however, the number of three-way marginals greatly diminished, and those that did occur were not so concentrated in one part of the UK. 17 seats had a vote-share gap between first and third place of less than 20 percentage points and only three of these had a gap of less than 10 percentage points. The 20 closest three-way marginals in the 2019 General Election are shown in the table below.
The Brexit Party was involved in five of the top 20 three-way marginals. In all five of these seats, Labour won and the Conservatives occupied the other spot in the top three.
In three of the London seats featuring in the top 20, the Liberal Democrats’ vote share appeared to be boosted by the candidacy of high-profile defectors from other parties:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-marginality/
That is, I understand the Labour NEC in May agreed a streamlined process to fast-track selection in some non-priority seats which, due to snap elections in 2017 and 2019, hadn't actually chosen a candidate themselves in many years, causing some discontent among the rank and file. This was a bit of a quid pro quo... the more reliably loyalist regional execs would have a big role in shortlisting, but local parties would at least get a vote on the shortlisted candidates.
So these are the seats subject to that process over the summer/autumn. There are quite a few other seats which Labour clearly won't win... but the local party may already have chosen a favourite son/daughter or already be in the process of selecting under the standard approach.
Small business dealing in large amounts of cash do indeed appear to be targets, despite being entirely legitimate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/35/enacted
(3)" Personal data " means data consisting of information which relates to a living individual who can be identified from that information (or from that and other information in the possession of the data user), including any expression of opinion about the individual but not any indication of the intentions of the data user in respect of that individual.
That last element, in particular, seems distinctly different from GDPR - but I didn't have to implement the latter.
The Lab>Con>Brexit marginals are worth noting - these could be seats that go from Lab to Con next time, against the national swing, and therefore likely to be good value bets. Every election has the 10/1 shots that come in - and the 1/10 dead certs that don’t!
On the same basis, Barnsley East looks tempting, though that's been abolished in the boundary review. The others further down the list (Doncaster N, Barnsley C, Normanton) might be OK with national swing. But worth looking out for.
https://archive.is/HYoab
I blame Walter White’s car wash, for the banking industry now assuming that anyone handling cash must be laundering money.
Lose 3 wickets for 11 runs? No bother, Harry Brook comes in and hits 48 off 41 easy as kiss your hand.
Cash, like cornflakes, has to be lawful and subject to regulation. That's why we have police and food inspectors.
Meanwhile most fraudsters most of the time focus not on cash but more fashionable forms of transaction - see for example the fascinating recent Supreme Court case I mentioned earlier today.
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2023/25.html
My 2013 would still work if I hadn't damaged the screen which was entirely my fault.
By regulation and legislation we are turning more and more people into bodies who have legal duties to operate as policemen. Between them safeguarding and dodgy money have turned huge numbers of professionals into snoopers without discretion over it. I don't think it will end well and it has gone too far.
I look forward to him using his platform and undoubted skills to rail against the gross miscarriages of justice that befell Andrew Malkinson and others, and the corruption of GMP and other police forces.
But I won't hold my breath.
It's light enough to transport and does everything I need.
Apple, and many third parties, have produced training guides for switchers.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204216
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/quick-guide-using-mac-windows-users/
The key consideration is really what you use it for. For what I suspect will be the overwhelming majority of users, either system is an option. For those using a computer for design/creative work, Apple is seen as having a significant edge still. If you’re someone who wants to use a computer for high end gaming, then you really want to stick with a PC.
A big thing was making it so that they couldn’t hide behind the “get a lawyer and we will argue with him on your tab” thing - ask and they have to produce.
After decades on Windows with files all over the shop I thought “this’ll take a couple of days to transfer stuff across and get it organised”.
Not a bit of it - connected the two and within a couple of hours everything was across - and organised. Photos all in one place, documents all in another. Not spread out across multiple sub directories like on Windows.
My one regret was not having done it sooner.
Admittedly I only use a personal Windows laptop to do light editing or as a terminal and do any number crunching and file storage on a full fat Linux server, but I can't say I've had any major issues.
I still have a 10+ year old one that works fine for media and it wasn't that hot when I bought it.
Sitting at home I always use an external keyboard and monitor - easier on the eyes and easier to replace.
IIRC two Lab MPs lost their seats in 1997, and a couple of Tories lost in 2010.
With likely about 15 months to go, I suspect that one of the features of the next election is going to be a low turnout, especially in what we think of as “Red Wall” working-class seats. Scotland is the other big unknown, there’s been good money to be made there in the past few general elections.
Running to the aid of the odious piece of trash Farage .
Brook is seriously riding his luck, and now Moeen injured.
I would have supported Alison Rose resignation if it had been Corbyn or anyone else whose political opinion I reject
Indeed Starmer has endorsed her resignation
I do not support Farage for a moment but I do support his right to confidentiality and fair play
Seems Coutts boss has also resigned just now
But only because I was forced to. The company had a Windows-only policy. Except for the senior management, who insisted on windows boxes, and the IT bods, who could use whatever they wanted without anyone knowing.
" ...The Council of Europe "Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data" became open for signature in 1981. The Convention contained a set of principles to govern data processing, including that there should be fair and lawful obtaining and processing of personal data and storage of data only for specified purposes. In addition, states should not restrict trans-border data flows to other states which signed the Convention. States could only sign up to the Convention where they had national law in place guaranteeing compliance with the standards set out in it.
53. Accordingly, Parliament passed the Data Protection Act 1984 and ratified the Convention in 1985, partly to ensure the free movement of data. The Data Protection Act 1984 contained principles which were taken almost directly from Convention 108 - including that personal data shall be obtained and processed fairly and lawfully and held only for specified purposes."
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2017-2019/0066/17066en04.htm
I don't know where or why the two languages diverged on this.
Free markets and all.
Edit: Also, the Consumers Assn/Which have been questioning this (and other banking issues) for a long time.
It does take a lot of data analysis to make the case, though, given how many accounts there are and how they change - and their various t&cs.
Locally the LDs also add the Nimby vote in local elections
BREAKING: Coutts CEO Peter Flavel Resigns
Another one gone.
Great to watch, but hope Moeen can keep up running. I guess you don’t need to run if you keep hitting the 4s and 6s.