Stop voting for fucking Tories

[dpedin]

Given the full barrels that Farage’s claims re: his bank account received and the reliance on the bank’s initial statements on here, it may be worth revisiting the story in light of today’s revelations…

I think Nat West’s statement that being associated with him risks reputations damage is fairly accurate.

Coutts/Nat West have handled this very badly and the disclosure of personal banking info by the CEO was just dumb! She had no option but to resign given this would have been a sackable offence to a more junior employee. However the alacrity with which the Gov jumped on the bandwagon and took up his pile of utter shite about being 'debanked' (which wasn't true as he was offered a Nat West account) is just scary. Makes you wonder what Farage has on some of our Gov Ministers including the PM for them to jump to his bidding. It is amazing how quickly the PM and Gov can be stirred into action, shame they couldn't show the same urgency on actual important issues such as child poverty, Windrush, Covid Enquiry, etc. They really are desperate for any culture war shite to arise so they can jump on the wagon and distract us from the actual reality of the shite they have created.

[Sandstorm]

Farage has been a NatWest client for 25 years. Personal and business accounts. He only went to Coutts when Natwest told him they had issues with his Euro currency income.
So they encouraged him to move to their other division.

I hate Farage, but he was playing the political fiddle this morning reminding The People that "We own 39% of NatWest after the bank's flagrant greed caused the Crash of 2008 and We bailed them out......it's Our money, People!!"

He's demanding the Chairman and the Natwest Board are replaced at Friday's Annual Shareholder meeting. It could be carnage.
He's a very clever fucker with impeccable timing.

[Paddington Bear]

Given the full barrels that Farage’s claims re: his bank account received and the reliance on the bank’s initial statements on here, it may be worth revisiting the story in light of today’s revelations…

I think Nat West’s statement that being associated with him risks reputations damage is fairly accurate.

Coutts/Nat West have handled this very badly and the disclosure of personal banking info by the CEO was just dumb! She had no option but to resign given this would have been a sackable offence to a more junior employee. However the alacrity with which the Gov jumped on the bandwagon and took up his pile of utter shite about being 'debanked' (which wasn't true as he was offered a Nat West account) is just scary. Makes you wonder what Farage has on some of our Gov Ministers including the PM for them to jump to his bidding. It is amazing how quickly the PM and Gov can be stirred into action, shame they couldn't show the same urgency on actual important issues such as child poverty, Windrush, Covid Enquiry, etc. They really are desperate for any culture war shite to arise so they can jump on the wagon and distract us from the actual reality of the shite they have created.

I think there’s a simpler answer - politicians of all stripes and their families have to go through extra hoops with banks as Politically Exposed Persons and they’re fed up to the back teeth with it. And that’s before you consider the absolute neck of a private bank moralising about society

[SaintK]

Good point, well made!

[sockwithaticket]

Farage has been a NatWest client for 25 years. Personal and business accounts. He only went to Coutts when Natwest told him they had issues with his Euro currency income.
So they encouraged him to move to their other division.

I hate Farage, but he was playing the political fiddle this morning reminding The People that "We own 39% of NatWest after the bank's flagrant greed caused the Crash of 2008 and We bailed them out......it's Our money, People!!"

He's demanding the Chairman and the Natwest Board are replaced at Friday's Annual Shareholder meeting. It could be carnage.
He's a very clever fucker with impeccable timing.

While I'm all for reclaiming the money given to the banks or having more of a say in how they operate given the extent to which public money bailed them out, but I thought all the cash was handed out with essentially zero strings? Thus, no matter how much was spent, 'we' don't own any percentage of Natwest?

ex-City of London trader decrying flagrant greed of banks when it suits him is a bit fucking rich.

[sockwithaticket]

Good point, well made!

Spoiler

Show

I have a lot of time for Darren Jones. Especially as he's keen for the committees to have sharper teeth when it comes to dealing with the fraudsters and incompetents who often sit before them trying to excuse the inexcusable.

[Paddington Bear]

Farage has been a NatWest client for 25 years. Personal and business accounts. He only went to Coutts when Natwest told him they had issues with his Euro currency income.
So they encouraged him to move to their other division.

I hate Farage, but he was playing the political fiddle this morning reminding The People that "We own 39% of NatWest after the bank's flagrant greed caused the Crash of 2008 and We bailed them out......it's Our money, People!!"

He's demanding the Chairman and the Natwest Board are replaced at Friday's Annual Shareholder meeting. It could be carnage.
He's a very clever fucker with impeccable timing.

While I'm all for reclaiming the money given to the banks or having more of a say in how they operate given the extent to which public money bailed them out, but I thought all the cash was handed out with essentially zero strings? Thus, no matter how much was spent, 'we' don't own any percentage of Natwest?

ex-City of London trader decrying flagrant greed of banks when it suits him is a bit fucking rich.

The government owns 39% of their shares, so is perfectly entitled to exercise influence on how the bank is run

[sockwithaticket]

Farage has been a NatWest client for 25 years. Personal and business accounts. He only went to Coutts when Natwest told him they had issues with his Euro currency income.
So they encouraged him to move to their other division.

I hate Farage, but he was playing the political fiddle this morning reminding The People that "We own 39% of NatWest after the bank's flagrant greed caused the Crash of 2008 and We bailed them out......it's Our money, People!!"

He's demanding the Chairman and the Natwest Board are replaced at Friday's Annual Shareholder meeting. It could be carnage.
He's a very clever fucker with impeccable timing.

While I'm all for reclaiming the money given to the banks or having more of a say in how they operate given the extent to which public money bailed them out, but I thought all the cash was handed out with essentially zero strings? Thus, no matter how much was spent, 'we' don't own any percentage of Natwest?

ex-City of London trader decrying flagrant greed of banks when it suits him is a bit fucking rich.

The government owns 39% of their shares, so is perfectly entitled to exercise influence on how the bank is run

Fair enough. Although one might ask why that influence hasn't been used a bit more in favour of regular customers over the last decade or so...

[Biffer]

Farage has been a NatWest client for 25 years. Personal and business accounts. He only went to Coutts when Natwest told him they had issues with his Euro currency income.
So they encouraged him to move to their other division.

I hate Farage, but he was playing the political fiddle this morning reminding The People that "We own 39% of NatWest after the bank's flagrant greed caused the Crash of 2008 and We bailed them out......it's Our money, People!!"

He's demanding the Chairman and the Natwest Board are replaced at Friday's Annual Shareholder meeting. It could be carnage.
He's a very clever fucker with impeccable timing.

While I'm all for reclaiming the money given to the banks or having more of a say in how they operate given the extent to which public money bailed them out, but I thought all the cash was handed out with essentially zero strings? Thus, no matter how much was spent, 'we' don't own any percentage of Natwest?

ex-City of London trader decrying flagrant greed of banks when it suits him is a bit fucking rich.

There were multiple separate things provided to the banking system, it's quite complex. We still own various bonds and equities and it's a bit difficult to figure out the overall picture. Most of the banks paid back the initial cash outlay; NatWest hasn't, has paid back some, but still owes a wad of money back.

But we still own 38% of NatWest.

[Paddington Bear]

While I'm all for reclaiming the money given to the banks or having more of a say in how they operate given the extent to which public money bailed them out, but I thought all the cash was handed out with essentially zero strings? Thus, no matter how much was spent, 'we' don't own any percentage of Natwest?

ex-City of London trader decrying flagrant greed of banks when it suits him is a bit fucking rich.

The government owns 39% of their shares, so is perfectly entitled to exercise influence on how the bank is run

Fair enough. Although one might ask why that influence hasn't been used a bit more in favour of regular customers over the last decade or so...

Absolutely. FWIW in this case the Board gave her 'full confidence' so as to force the government to sack her and keep their own hands clean.

[Yeeb]

Farage has been a NatWest client for 25 years. Personal and business accounts. He only went to Coutts when Natwest told him they had issues with his Euro currency income.
So they encouraged him to move to their other division.

I hate Farage, but he was playing the political fiddle this morning reminding The People that "We own 39% of NatWest after the bank's flagrant greed caused the Crash of 2008 and We bailed them out......it's Our money, People!!"

He's demanding the Chairman and the Natwest Board are replaced at Friday's Annual Shareholder meeting. It could be carnage.
He's a very clever fucker with impeccable timing.

He is a turd that can’t be flushed - but he can be remarkably effective when he wants to be, both as a demagogue rabble rouser and actually getting things done quickly . Can’t help thinking he could have been more use to the world in government instead of a media personality , or that the world would have been better off had that cancer or plane crash got him.

[JM2K6]

I think Nat West’s statement that being associated with him risks reputations damage is fairly accurate.

Coutts/Nat West have handled this very badly and the disclosure of personal banking info by the CEO was just dumb! She had no option but to resign given this would have been a sackable offence to a more junior employee. However the alacrity with which the Gov jumped on the bandwagon and took up his pile of utter shite about being 'debanked' (which wasn't true as he was offered a Nat West account) is just scary. Makes you wonder what Farage has on some of our Gov Ministers including the PM for them to jump to his bidding. It is amazing how quickly the PM and Gov can be stirred into action, shame they couldn't show the same urgency on actual important issues such as child poverty, Windrush, Covid Enquiry, etc. They really are desperate for any culture war shite to arise so they can jump on the wagon and distract us from the actual reality of the shite they have created.

I think there’s a simpler answer - politicians of all stripes and their families have to go through extra hoops with banks as Politically Exposed Persons and they’re fed up to the back teeth with it. And that’s before you consider the absolute neck of a private bank moralising about society

Banking with Coutts means extra hoops for everyone who uses them, it's got nothing to do with politicians. That's the cost of using a private bank. And the moralising seemed to be a fairly dead-eyed commercial calculation about Farage's very public status as a hate-mongerer vs the commercial benefit of him remaining a customer, and how that cost/benefit ratio changed when he paid off his mortgage. Am I missing something extra here?

I would also add that given the stench of corruption around the government and their income streams I don't think those extra hoops are proving to be too onerous!

[Tichtheid]

[Sandstorm]

Everybody knows that Dawn French has Chenin Blanc on her cornflakes?

[Paddington Bear]

Coutts/Nat West have handled this very badly and the disclosure of personal banking info by the CEO was just dumb! She had no option but to resign given this would have been a sackable offence to a more junior employee. However the alacrity with which the Gov jumped on the bandwagon and took up his pile of utter shite about being 'debanked' (which wasn't true as he was offered a Nat West account) is just scary. Makes you wonder what Farage has on some of our Gov Ministers including the PM for them to jump to his bidding. It is amazing how quickly the PM and Gov can be stirred into action, shame they couldn't show the same urgency on actual important issues such as child poverty, Windrush, Covid Enquiry, etc. They really are desperate for any culture war shite to arise so they can jump on the wagon and distract us from the actual reality of the shite they have created.

I think there’s a simpler answer - politicians of all stripes and their families have to go through extra hoops with banks as Politically Exposed Persons and they’re fed up to the back teeth with it. And that’s before you consider the absolute neck of a private bank moralising about society

Banking with Coutts means extra hoops for everyone who uses them, it's got nothing to do with politicians. That's the cost of using a private bank. And the moralising seemed to be a fairly dead-eyed commercial calculation about Farage's very public status as a hate-mongerer vs the commercial benefit of him remaining a customer, and how that cost/benefit ratio changed when he paid off his mortgage. Am I missing something extra here?

I would also add that given the stench of corruption around the government and their income streams I don't think those extra hoops are proving to be too onerous!

Politically Exposed Persons do have extra hoops to jump through even compared with other customers of a private bank - that's just a fact and there's regulation available to take a look at on that if you wish. And yes, the hoops aren't necessarily a bad thing, doesn't stop them being a faff for the people involved, which is what I was saying.

RE: Commercial calculation - 1) who knew Farage banked with Coutts before this blew up? Further, who cared? No one banks with Coutts because of their moral standing. I doubt anyone has actually stopped banking with NatWest because they offered him an account either. 2) I'm sure there's no one else dodgy on Coutts' books, and they'd be willing to open up their client base to show us? 3) Doesn't change the fact that they lied about it and leaked his personal information to the national press, don't have to love the bloke to realise the issue there, and that is the something extra you reference. The CEO issued a grovelling apology, as did the Board, and she's been fired which is a pretty decent indicator they realised they'd fucked up royally.

And I'll repeat - any bank taking any moral stand is fucking rich and I really wish they'd just get on with their job of providing banking facilities and shut the fuck up.

[JM2K6]

I think there’s a simpler answer - politicians of all stripes and their families have to go through extra hoops with banks as Politically Exposed Persons and they’re fed up to the back teeth with it. And that’s before you consider the absolute neck of a private bank moralising about society

Banking with Coutts means extra hoops for everyone who uses them, it's got nothing to do with politicians. That's the cost of using a private bank. And the moralising seemed to be a fairly dead-eyed commercial calculation about Farage's very public status as a hate-mongerer vs the commercial benefit of him remaining a customer, and how that cost/benefit ratio changed when he paid off his mortgage. Am I missing something extra here?

I would also add that given the stench of corruption around the government and their income streams I don't think those extra hoops are proving to be too onerous!

Politically Exposed Persons do have extra hoops to jump through even compared with other customers of a private bank - that's just a fact and there's regulation available to take a look at on that if you wish. And yes, the hoops aren't necessarily a bad thing, doesn't stop them being a faff for the people involved, which is what I was saying.

Right but you're conflating that with Coutts, which is a different story. Claiming this is happening because the politicians hate the PEP stuff is a bit silly; it's clearly a fat bone of culture war nonsense for the Government and its allies to jump on. Which is why it's played out exactly like every other bit of culture war bullshit: it's a right wing cause celebre, and the actual facts are being lost in the dust.

RE: Commercial calculation - 1) who knew Farage banked with Coutts before this blew up? Further, who cared?

The risk was always there, though. That's what it was - a risk assessment.

2) I'm sure there's no one else dodgy on Coutts' books, and they'd be willing to open up their client base to show us?

And Coutts have them because they're worth it. I'm not defending them, but it's pretty clear that Coutts were happy with the risk Farage brought right up until it wasn't much of a commercial benefit to them. Farage is reasonably rare in that there's not many rich people in UK public life who are as visible as him, as well known, and as obviously risky reputation-wise. And if he'd still been commercially important to Coutts none of this would've happened. I'm sure they've binned off other clients in similar circumstances, just not ones willing or able to hit the media megaphone.

3) Doesn't change the fact that they lied about it and leaked his personal information to the national press, don't have to love the bloke to realise the issue there, and that is the something extra you reference. The CEO issued a grovelling apology, as did the Board, and she's been fired which is a pretty decent indicator they realised they'd fucked up royally.

What exactly did they lie about? Genuine question, I want to make sure I'm not basing my opinion on the wrong thing here. Completely agree that they breached confidentiality which is what this resignation is actually about. I can understand their desire to fight back against the media narrative but that ain't the way to do it and it's damaging for all consumers if there's no consequences. The nonsense about "banks are trying to deny service because of our FREE SPEECH" is just a smokescreen and a handy box of ammunition in this fucking never-ending culture war.

And I'll repeat - any bank taking any moral stand is fucking rich and I really wish they'd just get on with their job of providing banking facilities and shut the fuck up.

And I'll repeat - what moral stand did they take _beyond_ the internal risk assessment? Open to the idea that I have indeed missed something here!

[Hal Jordan]

Farage has been a NatWest client for 25 years. Personal and business accounts. He only went to Coutts when Natwest told him they had issues with his Euro currency income.
So they encouraged him to move to their other division.

I hate Farage, but he was playing the political fiddle this morning reminding The People that "We own 39% of NatWest after the bank's flagrant greed caused the Crash of 2008 and We bailed them out......it's Our money, People!!"

He's demanding the Chairman and the Natwest Board are replaced at Friday's Annual Shareholder meeting. It could be carnage.
He's a very clever fucker with impeccable timing.

He is a turd that can’t be flushed - but he can be remarkably effective when he wants to be, both as a demagogue rabble rouser and actually getting things done quickly . Can’t help thinking he could have been more use to the world in government instead of a media personality , or that the world would have been better off had that cancer or plane crash got him.

Only the good die young.

Also, anyone heard him getting shirty with Nick Robinson, who reminded him of his seven election defeats. Thin skinned narcissist.

[SaintK]

Farage has been a NatWest client for 25 years. Personal and business accounts. He only went to Coutts when Natwest told him they had issues with his Euro currency income.
So they encouraged him to move to their other division.

I hate Farage, but he was playing the political fiddle this morning reminding The People that "We own 39% of NatWest after the bank's flagrant greed caused the Crash of 2008 and We bailed them out......it's Our money, People!!"

He's demanding the Chairman and the Natwest Board are replaced at Friday's Annual Shareholder meeting. It could be carnage.
He's a very clever fucker with impeccable timing.

He is a turd that can’t be flushed - but he can be remarkably effective when he wants to be, both as a demagogue rabble rouser and actually getting things done quickly . Can’t help thinking he could have been more use to the world in government instead of a media personality , or that the world would have been better off had that cancer or plane crash got him.

Only the good die young.

Also, anyone heard him getting shirty with Nick Robinson, who reminded him of his seven election defeats. Thin skinned narcissist.

Spot on.

[inactionman]

I think there’s a simpler answer - politicians of all stripes and their families have to go through extra hoops with banks as Politically Exposed Persons and they’re fed up to the back teeth with it. And that’s before you consider the absolute neck of a private bank moralising about society

Banking with Coutts means extra hoops for everyone who uses them, it's got nothing to do with politicians. That's the cost of using a private bank. And the moralising seemed to be a fairly dead-eyed commercial calculation about Farage's very public status as a hate-mongerer vs the commercial benefit of him remaining a customer, and how that cost/benefit ratio changed when he paid off his mortgage. Am I missing something extra here?

I would also add that given the stench of corruption around the government and their income streams I don't think those extra hoops are proving to be too onerous!

Politically Exposed Persons do have extra hoops to jump through even compared with other customers of a private bank - that's just a fact and there's regulation available to take a look at on that if you wish. And yes, the hoops aren't necessarily a bad thing, doesn't stop them being a faff for the people involved, which is what I was saying.

RE: Commercial calculation - 1) who knew Farage banked with Coutts before this blew up? Further, who cared? No one banks with Coutts because of their moral standing. I doubt anyone has actually stopped banking with NatWest because they offered him an account either. 2) I'm sure there's no one else dodgy on Coutts' books, and they'd be willing to open up their client base to show us? 3) Doesn't change the fact that they lied about it and leaked his personal information to the national press, don't have to love the bloke to realise the issue there, and that is the something extra you reference. The CEO issued a grovelling apology, as did the Board, and she's been fired which is a pretty decent indicator they realised they'd fucked up royally.

And I'll repeat - any bank taking any moral stand is fucking rich and I really wish they'd just get on with their job of providing banking facilities and shut the fuck up.

She resigned, she wasn't fired. I work for NWG for an offshore subsidiary and she is - as far as CEOs go - a decent person who has impressed people by her focus on culture. She's made a poor call -she should never break client confidentiality, even if the client themselves have raised it - and has done what she'd expect others to do in a similar situation and bit the bullet.

I work with a number of her ex direct reports, who are now contracting, and she's held in high regard - a point I labour as all this pisses me off as a frog-faced fuckwit has forced out a decent person who has done a lot of good, for no real reason other than pure malevolence.

NWG/Coutts are absolutely in their right to exit customers if their business appetite means they don't want to bank that customer (with obvious exceptions around protected class etc) - there's no god-given right to hold a Coutts account. My understanding is that he didn't meet the ongoing wealth requirement and was offered a standard bank account but spit the dummy. The PEP thing is another factor in assessing appetite, but is a red herring despite Farage bandying allegations about, which is what Alison Rose clarified when she really should have stayed utterly schtum.

[Biffer]

Banking with Coutts means extra hoops for everyone who uses them, it's got nothing to do with politicians. That's the cost of using a private bank. And the moralising seemed to be a fairly dead-eyed commercial calculation about Farage's very public status as a hate-mongerer vs the commercial benefit of him remaining a customer, and how that cost/benefit ratio changed when he paid off his mortgage. Am I missing something extra here?

I would also add that given the stench of corruption around the government and their income streams I don't think those extra hoops are proving to be too onerous!

Politically Exposed Persons do have extra hoops to jump through even compared with other customers of a private bank - that's just a fact and there's regulation available to take a look at on that if you wish. And yes, the hoops aren't necessarily a bad thing, doesn't stop them being a faff for the people involved, which is what I was saying.

RE: Commercial calculation - 1) who knew Farage banked with Coutts before this blew up? Further, who cared? No one banks with Coutts because of their moral standing. I doubt anyone has actually stopped banking with NatWest because they offered him an account either. 2) I'm sure there's no one else dodgy on Coutts' books, and they'd be willing to open up their client base to show us? 3) Doesn't change the fact that they lied about it and leaked his personal information to the national press, don't have to love the bloke to realise the issue there, and that is the something extra you reference. The CEO issued a grovelling apology, as did the Board, and she's been fired which is a pretty decent indicator they realised they'd fucked up royally.

And I'll repeat - any bank taking any moral stand is fucking rich and I really wish they'd just get on with their job of providing banking facilities and shut the fuck up.

She resigned, she wasn't fired. I work for NWG for an offshore subsidiary and she is - as far as CEOs go - a decent person who has impressed people by her focus on culture. She's made a poor call -she should never break client confidentiality, even if the client themselves have raised it - and has done what she'd expect others to do in a similar situation and bit the bullet.

I work with a number of her ex direct reports, who are now contracting, and she's held in high regard - a point I labour as all this pisses me off as a frog-faced fuckwit has forced out a decent person who has done a lot of good, for no real reason other than pure malevolence.

NWG/Coutts are absolutely in their right to exit customers if their business appetite means they don't want to bank that customer (with obvious exceptions around protected class etc) - there's no god-given right to hold a Coutts account. My understanding is that he didn't meet the ongoing wealth requirement and was offered a standard bank account but spit the dummy. The PEP thing is another factor in assessing appetite, but is a red herring despite Farage bandying allegations about, which is what Alison Rose clarified when she really should have stayed utterly schtum.

...and again, it proves the point that Farage carries a risk of reputational damage.

[inactionman]

Politically Exposed Persons do have extra hoops to jump through even compared with other customers of a private bank - that's just a fact and there's regulation available to take a look at on that if you wish. And yes, the hoops aren't necessarily a bad thing, doesn't stop them being a faff for the people involved, which is what I was saying.

RE: Commercial calculation - 1) who knew Farage banked with Coutts before this blew up? Further, who cared? No one banks with Coutts because of their moral standing. I doubt anyone has actually stopped banking with NatWest because they offered him an account either. 2) I'm sure there's no one else dodgy on Coutts' books, and they'd be willing to open up their client base to show us? 3) Doesn't change the fact that they lied about it and leaked his personal information to the national press, don't have to love the bloke to realise the issue there, and that is the something extra you reference. The CEO issued a grovelling apology, as did the Board, and she's been fired which is a pretty decent indicator they realised they'd fucked up royally.

And I'll repeat - any bank taking any moral stand is fucking rich and I really wish they'd just get on with their job of providing banking facilities and shut the fuck up.

She resigned, she wasn't fired. I work for NWG for an offshore subsidiary and she is - as far as CEOs go - a decent person who has impressed people by her focus on culture. She's made a poor call -she should never break client confidentiality, even if the client themselves have raised it - and has done what she'd expect others to do in a similar situation and bit the bullet.

I work with a number of her ex direct reports, who are now contracting, and she's held in high regard - a point I labour as all this pisses me off as a frog-faced fuckwit has forced out a decent person who has done a lot of good, for no real reason other than pure malevolence.

NWG/Coutts are absolutely in their right to exit customers if their business appetite means they don't want to bank that customer (with obvious exceptions around protected class etc) - there's no god-given right to hold a Coutts account. My understanding is that he didn't meet the ongoing wealth requirement and was offered a standard bank account but spit the dummy. The PEP thing is another factor in assessing appetite, but is a red herring despite Farage bandying allegations about, which is what Alison Rose clarified when she really should have stayed utterly schtum.

...and again, it proves the point that Farage carries a risk of reputational damage.

I don't think anyone would have cared if Farage was exited or not, but breaching client confidentiality will certainly have got a few high-wealth individuals more than a little bit twitchy.

[Paddington Bear]

Banking with Coutts means extra hoops for everyone who uses them, it's got nothing to do with politicians. That's the cost of using a private bank. And the moralising seemed to be a fairly dead-eyed commercial calculation about Farage's very public status as a hate-mongerer vs the commercial benefit of him remaining a customer, and how that cost/benefit ratio changed when he paid off his mortgage. Am I missing something extra here?

I would also add that given the stench of corruption around the government and their income streams I don't think those extra hoops are proving to be too onerous!

Politically Exposed Persons do have extra hoops to jump through even compared with other customers of a private bank - that's just a fact and there's regulation available to take a look at on that if you wish. And yes, the hoops aren't necessarily a bad thing, doesn't stop them being a faff for the people involved, which is what I was saying.

RE: Commercial calculation - 1) who knew Farage banked with Coutts before this blew up? Further, who cared? No one banks with Coutts because of their moral standing. I doubt anyone has actually stopped banking with NatWest because they offered him an account either. 2) I'm sure there's no one else dodgy on Coutts' books, and they'd be willing to open up their client base to show us? 3) Doesn't change the fact that they lied about it and leaked his personal information to the national press, don't have to love the bloke to realise the issue there, and that is the something extra you reference. The CEO issued a grovelling apology, as did the Board, and she's been fired which is a pretty decent indicator they realised they'd fucked up royally.

And I'll repeat - any bank taking any moral stand is fucking rich and I really wish they'd just get on with their job of providing banking facilities and shut the fuck up.

She resigned, she wasn't fired. I work for NWG for an offshore subsidiary and she is - as far as CEOs go - a decent person who has impressed people by her focus on culture. She's made a poor call -she should never break client confidentiality, even if the client themselves have raised it - and has done what she'd expect others to do in a similar situation and bit the bullet.

I work with a number of her ex direct reports, who are now contracting, and she's held in high regard - a point I labour as all this pisses me off as a frog-faced fuckwit has forced out a decent person who has done a lot of good, for no real reason other than pure malevolence.

NWG/Coutts are absolutely in their right to exit customers if their business appetite means they don't want to bank that customer (with obvious exceptions around protected class etc) - there's no god-given right to hold a Coutts account. My understanding is that he didn't meet the ongoing wealth requirement and was offered a standard bank account but spit the dummy. The PEP thing is another factor in assessing appetite, but is a red herring despite Farage bandying allegations about, which is what Alison Rose clarified when she really should have stayed utterly schtum.

A few interesting points from both you and JMK I probably won't have time to properly respond to today, but resigning at 1 in the morning a few hours after being given the full confidence of the Board and shortly after their major shareholder called for her to go is being fired, however it ended up being packaged by legal and comms. There's little practical difference between jumping off a piece of wood and walking the plank. It remains an absolutely extraordinary lapse in judgement, particularly given the totally untrustworthy and unscrupulous nature of the man she was dealing with.

[Ymx]

She resigned with a settlement agreement. It’s how it always operates. This doesn’t mean she instigated it, I’m sure the board created the opportunity.

No one should get away with such a terrible GDPR breach. Also to a journalist. What an utter idiot

[Sandstorm]

It remains an absolutely extraordinary lapse in judgement, particularly given the totally untrustworthy and unscrupulous nature of the man she was dealing with.

Farage or the journalist she had dinner with?

[Hal Jordan]

She resigned with a settlement agreement. It’s how it always operates. This doesn’t mean she instigated it, I’m sure the board created the opportunity.

No one should get away with such a terrible GDPR breach. Also to a journalist. What an utter idiot

I agree, even though Farage is a grifting worm and a blight on society.

[inactionman]

Politically Exposed Persons do have extra hoops to jump through even compared with other customers of a private bank - that's just a fact and there's regulation available to take a look at on that if you wish. And yes, the hoops aren't necessarily a bad thing, doesn't stop them being a faff for the people involved, which is what I was saying.

RE: Commercial calculation - 1) who knew Farage banked with Coutts before this blew up? Further, who cared? No one banks with Coutts because of their moral standing. I doubt anyone has actually stopped banking with NatWest because they offered him an account either. 2) I'm sure there's no one else dodgy on Coutts' books, and they'd be willing to open up their client base to show us? 3) Doesn't change the fact that they lied about it and leaked his personal information to the national press, don't have to love the bloke to realise the issue there, and that is the something extra you reference. The CEO issued a grovelling apology, as did the Board, and she's been fired which is a pretty decent indicator they realised they'd fucked up royally.

And I'll repeat - any bank taking any moral stand is fucking rich and I really wish they'd just get on with their job of providing banking facilities and shut the fuck up.

She resigned, she wasn't fired. I work for NWG for an offshore subsidiary and she is - as far as CEOs go - a decent person who has impressed people by her focus on culture. She's made a poor call -she should never break client confidentiality, even if the client themselves have raised it - and has done what she'd expect others to do in a similar situation and bit the bullet.

I work with a number of her ex direct reports, who are now contracting, and she's held in high regard - a point I labour as all this pisses me off as a frog-faced fuckwit has forced out a decent person who has done a lot of good, for no real reason other than pure malevolence.

NWG/Coutts are absolutely in their right to exit customers if their business appetite means they don't want to bank that customer (with obvious exceptions around protected class etc) - there's no god-given right to hold a Coutts account. My understanding is that he didn't meet the ongoing wealth requirement and was offered a standard bank account but spit the dummy. The PEP thing is another factor in assessing appetite, but is a red herring despite Farage bandying allegations about, which is what Alison Rose clarified when she really should have stayed utterly schtum.

A few interesting points from both you and JMK I probably won't have time to properly respond to today, but resigning at 1 in the morning a few hours after being given the full confidence of the Board and shortly after their major shareholder called for her to go is being fired, however it ended up being packaged by legal and comms. There's little practical difference between jumping off a piece of wood and walking the plank. It remains an absolutely extraordinary lapse in judgement, particularly given the totally untrustworthy and unscrupulous nature of the man she was dealing with.

YMX also states this, and I completely agree with you both - she simply should not have followed the course of action she did. Although it's very unfortunate that she's undone by one misjudgement, it really was a biggie.

It's worth considering that other CEOs have weathered storms and tried to bluff it out, she's taken it on the chin. The fact she had confidence of the board tells me that they were looking to batten down the hatches.

[Paddington Bear]

She resigned, she wasn't fired. I work for NWG for an offshore subsidiary and she is - as far as CEOs go - a decent person who has impressed people by her focus on culture. She's made a poor call -she should never break client confidentiality, even if the client themselves have raised it - and has done what she'd expect others to do in a similar situation and bit the bullet.

I work with a number of her ex direct reports, who are now contracting, and she's held in high regard - a point I labour as all this pisses me off as a frog-faced fuckwit has forced out a decent person who has done a lot of good, for no real reason other than pure malevolence.

NWG/Coutts are absolutely in their right to exit customers if their business appetite means they don't want to bank that customer (with obvious exceptions around protected class etc) - there's no god-given right to hold a Coutts account. My understanding is that he didn't meet the ongoing wealth requirement and was offered a standard bank account but spit the dummy. The PEP thing is another factor in assessing appetite, but is a red herring despite Farage bandying allegations about, which is what Alison Rose clarified when she really should have stayed utterly schtum.

A few interesting points from both you and JMK I probably won't have time to properly respond to today, but resigning at 1 in the morning a few hours after being given the full confidence of the Board and shortly after their major shareholder called for her to go is being fired, however it ended up being packaged by legal and comms. There's little practical difference between jumping off a piece of wood and walking the plank. It remains an absolutely extraordinary lapse in judgement, particularly given the totally untrustworthy and unscrupulous nature of the man she was dealing with.

YMX also states this, and I completely agree with you both - she simply should not have followed the course of action she did. Although it's very unfortunate that she's undone by one misjudgement, it really was a biggie.

It's worth considering that other CEOs have weathered storms and tried to bluff it out, she's taken it on the chin. The fact she had confidence of the board tells me that they were looking to batten down the hatches.

Disagree with that - the Board knew the Government would demand she went and kept their own hands clean, giving them political cover.

[tabascoboy]

So even Sunak sticking his nose into it now. Guess it all helps to keep stories like this out of the public memory

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I like this new take on not leaking information they shouldn't and resigning the face of a mistake the Tories have. They've not tried it before, one hopes they stick with it

[Camroc2]

The British government isn't going to try and influence the day to day running of Nat West is it ?

Because that will only lead to the bank going down the shitter.

[dpedin]

Looks like the GB News backer, Fund Manager and avid Brextieer Sir Paul Marshal had shorted Nat West and has made millions out of the collapse in their share price. GB News of course employs Nigel 'Frog Faced' Farage. Also interestingly and I wonder why the UK Gov, who owns 38% of Nat West following previous bail outs were so keen to press the Nat West board and Chairman to see a relatively successful CEO be bounced out of her job so quickly and as a result see the value of their holding fall so much? Also wonder why they did this given the message it sends out to investors in major companies in the UK where the UK Gov takes it upon itself to force a private company's hand in getting their CEO to resign. It all smells a little whiffy to me!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... et%20price.

[SaintK]

Looks like the GB News backer, Fund Manager and avid Brextieer Sir Paul Marshal had shorted Nat West and has made millions out of the collapse in their share price. GB News of course employs Nigel 'Frog Faced' Farage. Also interestingly and I wonder why the UK Gov, who owns 38% of Nat West following previous bail outs were so keen to press the Nat West board and Chairman to see a relatively successful CEO be bounced out of her job so quickly and as a result see the value of their holding fall so much? Also wonder why they did this given the message it sends out to investors in major companies in the UK where the UK Gov takes it upon itself to force a private company's hand in getting their CEO to resign. It all smells a little whiffy to me!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... et%20price.

Non paywall version
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2 ... 2520price

[tabascoboy]

Looks like the GB News backer, Fund Manager and avid Brextieer Sir Paul Marshal had shorted Nat West and has made millions out of the collapse in their share price. GB News of course employs Nigel 'Frog Faced' Farage. Also interestingly and I wonder why the UK Gov, who owns 38% of Nat West following previous bail outs were so keen to press the Nat West board and Chairman to see a relatively successful CEO be bounced out of her job so quickly and as a result see the value of their holding fall so much? Also wonder why they did this given the message it sends out to investors in major companies in the UK where the UK Gov takes it upon itself to force a private company's hand in getting their CEO to resign. It all smells a little whiffy to me!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... et%20price.

Betting on failure, gotta love capitalism - like there's no chance of shenanigans there...

[tabascoboy]

And another day, another High Court ruling of unlawful actions from Braverman's Home Office. And she was Attorney General FFS

[I like neeps]

Looks like the GB News backer, Fund Manager and avid Brextieer Sir Paul Marshal had shorted Nat West and has made millions out of the collapse in their share price. GB News of course employs Nigel 'Frog Faced' Farage. Also interestingly and I wonder why the UK Gov, who owns 38% of Nat West following previous bail outs were so keen to press the Nat West board and Chairman to see a relatively successful CEO be bounced out of her job so quickly and as a result see the value of their holding fall so much? Also wonder why they did this given the message it sends out to investors in major companies in the UK where the UK Gov takes it upon itself to force a private company's hand in getting their CEO to resign. It all smells a little whiffy to me!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... et%20price.

It could be some big conspiracy but regardless she had to go. Bank CEOs can't be briefing journalists on client accounts. That's rule number 1.

[Hal Jordan]

Looks like the GB News backer, Fund Manager and avid Brextieer Sir Paul Marshal had shorted Nat West and has made millions out of the collapse in their share price. GB News of course employs Nigel 'Frog Faced' Farage. Also interestingly and I wonder why the UK Gov, who owns 38% of Nat West following previous bail outs were so keen to press the Nat West board and Chairman to see a relatively successful CEO be bounced out of her job so quickly and as a result see the value of their holding fall so much? Also wonder why they did this given the message it sends out to investors in major companies in the UK where the UK Gov takes it upon itself to force a private company's hand in getting their CEO to resign. It all smells a little whiffy to me!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... et%20price.

It could be some big conspiracy but regardless she had to go. Bank CEOs can't be briefing journalists on client accounts. That's rule number 1.

One shorting incident off the back of Farage being plastered all over the media is, perhaps, coincidence. But it happened previously against the pound when he said Remain had won shortly before the referendum result was announced.

[SaintK]

Mid Bedfordshire Tories have had enough
Still drawing her salary amd maxing her expenses of course.

[I like neeps]

Mid Bedfordshire Tories have had enough
Still drawing her salary amd maxing her expenses of course.

And employing both her daughters as assistants on a cool 50k each.

[Hal Jordan]

Meanwhile, the Home Office's policy of Cruelty is The Policy is yet again ruled unlawful as the High Court decides that the routine use of hotels for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children contravenes the purpose of doing so in emergencies, and for very short periods of time.

[SaintK]