look.its.luke
Well-known member
*You're.
Any time you fancy a chat I'm in block M row Q. Tall bloke with a beard and a bovril. Any seat between 1 and 4.
Given your love for the bible though, I'd suggest turning the other cheek.
Naughty Nigel
- Thread starter Mexboroseasider
- Start date
Any time you fancy a chat I'm in block M row Q. Tall bloke with a beard and a bovril. Any seat between 1 and 4.
Given your love for the bible though, I'd suggest turning the other cheek.
JJpool
Well-known member
So let me get this straight,
He apparently didn't have enough in the account, but it wasn't an issue in the past. People on here think that explains away the whole situation? Wow.
The apparent source from the bank (?) telling the BBC, even though the bank shouldn't be saying anything about his account... Other customers apparently in the same situation falling below the threshold weren't cancelled.
'One of the BBC reporters who broke the story later clarified this was also the case for many Coutts customers who had contacted him saying they were below the criteria but had not been threatened with account closure.
“Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank,” he added.'
Yet the explanation doesn't t explain away being rejected by the other banks, if it was just a simple issue with one the others wouldn't be denying him because he's a pep.
The account offered to him was a personal account, not a business account, so doesn't work the same.
It also doesn't explain why the bank wouldn't provide the information to him as to why it was closed, then none of this would have happened. If it's a simple thing like not meeting the criteria, he'd be advised as such. But then other banks wouldn't be denying him.
As said on the wider issue, it's happening to others, going against the narrative is increasingly being punished.
A slightly different type of attempted shut down is happening here, look at GB news, whether everyonelike it or not, this shouldnt be happening. The hatred of some of those on the left, those who claim to be against hate and want inclusion, but try desperately to shut down views they don't like. Infact they did it before the channel had even said a word. The hypocrisy is unreal.
The farage situation has at least helped gb news launch a campaign to keep cash, which I think is good. I personally don't use it as much as I used to, but the digital currency is open to issues as we've seen and also we're supposed to be inclusive to all so...
As said all along on this thread, it's an issue when people can be easily shut down for saying the wrong thing which is increasingly happening from banks to PayPal, to social media under the guise of misinformation that was actually true, even from pressure groups, it's happening.
He apparently didn't have enough in the account, but it wasn't an issue in the past. People on here think that explains away the whole situation? Wow.
The apparent source from the bank (?) telling the BBC, even though the bank shouldn't be saying anything about his account... Other customers apparently in the same situation falling below the threshold weren't cancelled.
'One of the BBC reporters who broke the story later clarified this was also the case for many Coutts customers who had contacted him saying they were below the criteria but had not been threatened with account closure.
“Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank,” he added.'
Yet the explanation doesn't t explain away being rejected by the other banks, if it was just a simple issue with one the others wouldn't be denying him because he's a pep.
The account offered to him was a personal account, not a business account, so doesn't work the same.
It also doesn't explain why the bank wouldn't provide the information to him as to why it was closed, then none of this would have happened. If it's a simple thing like not meeting the criteria, he'd be advised as such. But then other banks wouldn't be denying him.
As said on the wider issue, it's happening to others, going against the narrative is increasingly being punished.
A slightly different type of attempted shut down is happening here, look at GB news, whether everyonelike it or not, this shouldnt be happening. The hatred of some of those on the left, those who claim to be against hate and want inclusion, but try desperately to shut down views they don't like. Infact they did it before the channel had even said a word. The hypocrisy is unreal.
The farage situation has at least helped gb news launch a campaign to keep cash, which I think is good. I personally don't use it as much as I used to, but the digital currency is open to issues as we've seen and also we're supposed to be inclusive to all so...
As said all along on this thread, it's an issue when people can be easily shut down for saying the wrong thing which is increasingly happening from banks to PayPal, to social media under the guise of misinformation that was actually true, even from pressure groups, it's happening.
Seasider1887
Well-known member
Precisely People are laughing, because it’s happened to Nigel but the point is this type of thing would not be out of place in North Korea, but not England we should all be concerned.So let me get this straight,
He apparently didn't have enough in the account, but it wasn't an issue in the past. People on here think that explains away the whole situation? Wow.
The apparent source from the bank (?) telling the BBC, even though the bank shouldn't be saying anything about his account... Other customers apparently in the same situation falling below the threshold weren't cancelled.
'One of the BBC reporters who broke the story later clarified this was also the case for many Coutts customers who had contacted him saying they were below the criteria but had not been threatened with account closure.
“Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank,” he added.'
Yet the explanation doesn't t explain away being rejected by the other banks, if it was just a simple issue with one the others wouldn't be denying him because he's a pep.
The account offered to him was a personal account, not a business account, so doesn't work the same.
It also doesn't explain why the bank wouldn't provide the information to him as to why it was closed, then none of this would have happened. If it's a simple thing like not meeting the criteria, he'd be advised as such. But then other banks wouldn't be denying him.
As said on the wider issue, it's happening to others, going against the narrative is increasingly being punished.
A slightly different type of attempted shut down is happening here, look at GB news, whether everyonelike it or not, this shouldnt be happening. The hatred of some of those on the left, those who claim to be against hate and want inclusion, but try desperately to shut down views they don't like. Infact they did it before the channel had even said a word. The hypocrisy is unreal.
The farage situation has at least helped gb news launch a campaign to keep cash, which I think is good. I personally don't use it as much as I used to, but the digital currency is open to issues as we've seen and also we're supposed to be inclusive to all so...
As said all along on this thread, it's an issue when people can be easily shut down for saying the wrong thing which is increasingly happening from banks to PayPal, to social media under the guise of misinformation that was actually true, even from pressure groups, it's happening.
JJpool
Well-known member
Looks like for that campaign about not killing cash, ofcom are investigating a complaint.
Not sure who they're hurting with it as it's inclusive and helpful to millions, but whatever, I guess rules are rules...
Ofcom investigates GB News's cash campaign - BBC News
The broadcasting watchdog is looking into a complaint about the network's Don't Kill Cash drive.
www.bbc.co.uk
Bend it like Suddick
Well-known member
fair point
Seasider1887
Well-known member
It’s all part of the plan. They realised with lockdown how easily they can control us. They are coming for our cars, our cash, and freedom.Looks like for that campaign about not killing cash, ofcom are investigating a complaint.
Not sure who they're hurting with it as it's inclusive and helpful to millions, but whatever, I guess rules are rules...
Ofcom investigates GB News's cash campaign - BBC News
The broadcasting watchdog is looking into a complaint about the network's Don't Kill Cash drive.
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
Yes.
That’s right.
Of course they are.
Now close your little peepers.
And sleeeeeepppp……..
(It won’t hurt blossom).
(I promise).
Seasider1887
Well-known member
Just wait until you are locked into your 15 minute city with your culturally enriched new friends. And you won’t be allowed a gas boiler nor a car.
I have a mate in Oxford that is going to have to close his business due to this nonsense. It’s happening slowly.
Last edited:
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
To be honest the thought of never going out and having to speak to people seems quite appealing.
Hopefully social media will be the next thing “THEY” ban as well.
Frankly I wouldn’t put anything past Musk and Suckaturd.
JJpool
Well-known member
Sounds like there's an update on the way re the subject access requests and what they reveal, only fair to hear all sides, I'm sure the... definitely not pre-judging lot on here will agree...
He says the arm of the European Union is a bit longer than he though it was...
It'll be interesting to see what he has revealed.
Jaffa_The_Hut
Well-known member
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
The laws around Politically Exposed Persons have been in effect for around 20 years. I can recall MLROs expressing surprise that British politicians were included as it didn’t seem like a vote of confidence. We were told “the law is the law”. But well done Nigel for finally catching up after two decades.Cash and a cashless society. Well changes happen as IT advances. I’d be quite happy to keep cash personally even through I rarely use it these days. And so long as there are safeguards so that criminals aren’t given a green light to launder ill gotten gains then fine.
So just what are Nigel’s proposals to stop money launderers using cash? I’m sure he must have considered it and have some workable ideas. What are they?
Wizaard
Well-known member
What's his business, gas cars powered by burning cash?
JJpool
Well-known member
No idea.
Cash and a cashless society. Well changes happen as IT advances. I’d be quite happy to keep cash personally even through I rarely use it these days. And so long as there are safeguards so that criminals aren’t given a green light to launder ill gotten gains then fine.
So just what are Nigel’s proposals to stop money launderers using cash? I’m sure he must have considered it and have some workable ideas. What are they?
Is it not an eu law that we should be changing? Clearly it's not right that all the banks are refusing him and I'd say the same of any politician of any persuasion.
Some on this thread said that it was purely because he didn't meet the limit, when it came out many people didn't meet the criteria and didn't get cancelled, even the BBC reporter said the same, then not being accepted by anyone else, clearly there's something else to it.
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
The U.K. AML laws originated with a EU directive and were then brought into U.K. law with our own legislation. But to suggest that it was driven by the EU and we can roll back now because of Brexit is disingenuous to say the least.
If anything it was driven by the US but wherever it all started it’s now global. If any nation tried to roll back on the legislation now would make them a pariah very quickly.
If Farage is seriously suggesting that then he needs to spell out all the implications. Bit like he did with Brexit.
JJpool
Well-known member
Looks like all those who jumped on the bbc's top notch info that he didn't meet the minimum limit backed the wrong horse... it wasn't financial.
Doesn't fit with the banks values.
As I said all along, have the wrong view on the topical issues of the day, risk being shut down as ever more woke corporations cancel people against ever increasing left wing 'values'.
Doesn't fit with the banks values.
As I said all along, have the wrong view on the topical issues of the day, risk being shut down as ever more woke corporations cancel people against ever increasing left wing 'values'.
Jaffa_The_Hut
Well-known member
Spot on mate banks even accused of lying now.
Go on Nige take a law suit out on them.
I wonder where the Farage haters are it’s gone awfully quiet out there?
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
“Racist and xenophobe” wasn’t it?Spot on mate banks even accused of lying now.
Go on Nige take a law suit out on them.
I wonder where the Farage haters are it’s gone awfully quiet out there?
Anyway could you post a link of the full unredacted document please, then we can all have a read and judge for ourselves. I’m sure Nige has made it available.
Thank you.
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
No I didn’t watch the 1pm news on BBC but aren’t they just reporting what Farage said?Post a link?
Take it you haven’t watched the BBC 1pm news then?
I said post a link of the full and unredacted document and then we can all judge whether Farage’s summary is fair. Or whether he’s being a little selective in his reporting. If he’s got nothing to hide then the full document should be in the public domain.
By the way I’m not doubting Coutts replied to his subject access request. I’m sure they have.
Jaffa_The_Hut
Well-known member
I think you’re clutching at straws mate on this one I really do.
It’s pretty much a non event but hey keep up the good work someone on here usually takes it in.
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
So Farage hasn’t released the document then? So we can’t all read it? So we don’t know what it actually says? In full.Can I suggest you go back to the op (post 1) on this thread.
It asks the simple question “was there a link between Chris Bryant’s claim in the Commons that Farage had received £500k from Russia Today/the Kremlin and the closure of his account?”
The only things we know about Coutts response to the subject access request are what Farage has chosen to tell us. But in his broadcast posted above he lets slip that Russia is mentioned “22 times”. He also admits that Chris Bryant’s accusation is mentioned and “played a big part” (or words to that effect) in the bank’s decision.
Any thoughts on that?
JJpool
Well-known member
Yep a lot jumped in and were laughing when the bbc released their wrong information, how quick many were to believe it because it suited their view.Spot on mate banks even accused of lying now.
Go on Nige take a law suit out on them.
I wonder where the Farage haters are it’s gone awfully quiet out there?
It's mad the dossier of things they have against him, including him sharing that funny Ricky Gervais clip about gender.
As I've said all along, the ever more worrying 'not fitting with a companies values' is being used against people more and more. It's a disgrace and if as he says that the company banks go to to check out out how credit worthy people are, if these are starting to monitor social media as suggested, then maybe people should be careful if they happen to go against the banks 'values'.
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
But even in the limited bit that Farage has chosen to share, he’s admitted that his Russia connection is a big part in the Bank’s decision.
The reason Chris Bryant raised it in the House of Commons was he was questioning why Farage hadn’t been included on the sanctions list along with Putin’s oligarchs. We are, after all, fighting a proxy war with Russia as I type.
Can you imagine the posts if this was Corbyn we were discussing?
JJpool
Well-known member
He's released it to the telegraph. Haven't read it myself, it comes up with the subscribe bit. Although if you refresh and stop it you can see.
Can I suggest you go back to the op (post 1) on this thread.
It asks the simple question “was there a link between Chris Bryant’s claim in the Commons that Farage had received £500k from Russia Today/the Kremlin and the closure of his account?”
The only things we know about Coutts response to the subject access request are what Farage has chosen to tell us. But in his broadcast posted above he lets slip that Russia is mentioned “22 times”. He also admits that Chris Bryant’s accusation is mentioned and “played a big part” (or words to that effect) in the bank’s decision.
Any thoughts on that?
Coutts' 40-page dossier on Nigel Farage in full
Document details reasons why bank decided to close former Ukip leader's account
www.telegraph.co.uk
JJpool
Well-known member
The completely untrue claims AFAWK and the bank confirm theres no evidence of and theyll have checked his transactions. Look at all the other stuff mentioned against him that doesn't fit with their valves.
Have you even watched the video... you can't have as you replied to quickly.
If you still can't find this whole thing concerning it says a lot.
Last edited:
Jaffa_The_Hut
Well-known member
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
Yes I’ve watched Farage’s video. That’s how I know he admitted Coutts had mentioned Russia 22 times and that Bryant’s claim in the Commons that Farage had received hundreds of thousands of pounds from RT had played a big part in their decision.
I ask again - can you post a link to the full and unredacted response from Coutts rather than someone’s interpretation of it. Let’s see it and then we’ll have all the facts and we can all judge.
Has Farage released it or not?
ElBurroSinNombre
Well-known member
Revealed: The Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage in full
The 40-page file shows that the bank cited his retweet of a Ricky Gervais joke and his friendship with Novak Djokovic to raise concerns he was 'xenophobic and racist'.
JJpool
Well-known member
Well you had typed your reply and replied in 5 minutes and the video is far longer, so not hard to see why I said you didn't watch it.
They mention the allegations that they themselves say has no basis and also mention tons of other stuff that's 'against their values'... exactly the sort of stuff I and others said was happening, which is concerning.
I've already posted you the link to the telegraph who have been given full access in post 124.
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
I watched the video before I replied. It was there for ages before then.
The link to the Telegraph is behind a pay wall. El Burro has sent the Mail article and it looks as if the full document is embedded in that.
I’ve had a quick glance but it seems to me the bank, like all private businesses, has had regard to the reputational risk of being associated with someone like NF. All businesses do that.
However I shan’t prejudge. I’ll read the document first but first suggestions are it’s pretty damning stuff. Still Farage has put it out there so he must be comfortable with us seeing and commenting on the contents.
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
Cheers. A bit of light reading.Revealed: The Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage in full
The 40-page file shows that the bank cited his retweet of a Ricky Gervais joke and his friendship with Novak Djokovic to raise concerns he was 'xenophobic and racist'.www.dailymail.co.uk
First spot (apart from the “xenophobic and racist” comment) - “He’s seen by many to be a disingenuous grifter”
Jaffa_The_Hut
Well-known member
Cheers. A bit of light reading.
First spot (apart from the “xenophobic and racist” comment) - “He’s seen by many to be a disingenuous grifter”
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
Yeah. I knew you wouldn’t like that bit.
M
Malced
Guest
Not quite how it happened but don’t let the truth get in the way. He was told his account was being closed.
He was left high and dry. He then told Coutts he was going public if they didn’t reverse this decision - only then did they offer a nat west account.
They offered him a personal account but he said he needed a business account. This was declined.
This story has just been on the news. The correspondent said it had United many politicians across party lines. That was encouraging to hear.
We can’t have banks cancelling people for their beliefs and views, legal beliefs and views. We are better than that. Each time we have cancellation it further erodes our freedoms.
I’ve no affinity with farage. But I’ve an affinity with freedom of expression.
It’s dismaying that so many are happy to turn a blind eye or even celebrate it, when it’s done to someone they disagree with politically.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Where is the evidence he's been cancelled for his beliefs, other than what he's said?
Same with Dan Wootton wittering on about dark forces. He IS the dark force, hounding all and sundry, in Caroline Flack's case, literally to death, yet asks for privacy over his misdemeanours. Hypocrite. Live by the sword, etc etc.
M
Malced
Guest
Are you going to retract this post now that it’s clear the bank did indeed close the account due not liking or agreeing with the person involved.
You said they don’t do it. Oh yes they do. Thanks to the freedom of information act we now know it.
Jaffa_The_Hut
Well-known member
M
Malced
Guest
Have you even been following the story?
Wizaard
Well-known member
Not on GB News, no.
M
Malced
Guest
I don’t watch GB News.
It’s on the mainstream media. It’s headlines.
There’s a Coutts dossier he’s obtained under the freedom of information act. I’ll let you look it up. Then you can reconsider if there’s any evidence apart from what he says, as you put it.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Coutts is a private bank. Like a pub landlord, they can do what they want about their customer base. If they don't like you, they don't have to have you on board.
True Conservative values, when you think about it.
On a more serious note, if they think they would be damaged reputationally by association, then they have cause to refuse you. That's not dark forces, or outside pressures at work, it's not wanting to be associated with a grifter with links to tainted Russian money.
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
It’s the Data Protection Act/GDPR not the Freedom of Information Act.
I’ve just started to read the so called “dossier” as I’m waiting for my tea to cook. Fascinating stuff and about 36 pages to go!
On page 3 it’s confirmed they the bank was reviewing NF as long ago as 2018 because of his alleged “Russian Ties”. The coverage he’s had has got worse since the invasion of Ukraine.
He’s been declassified from Higher Risk PEP to Lower risk PEP and will be declassified completely if he remains out of politics until November. Makes all his whining about the PEP rules look pretty silly now.
The bank identify their key risks as:
Reputational risk - NF has a “high profile” and actively courts controversy, this leads to more profile and maintains his presence in the spotlight. (I couldn’t have put it better myself!
).Financial Crime risk - primarily this arises because of the alleged “Russian Connection”.
Reputational risk if we exit - it is likely that the client would “go public” if the bank exited him (the author must have had a crystal ball).
The next bit is the section on racism/xenophobia/BLM/antisemitism. I haven’t read that yet and tea beckons.
But I can see why some posters were so difficult about providing a link to the full dossier, attempting to hide it behind pay walls and so on. Dynamite stuff.
JJpool
Well-known member
Watch the link, it all on there, if you want to understand it.
It's actually laughable and ridiculous some of the things they use to show his values aren't in line worh theirs, including that Ricky Gervais joke clip.
Last edited:
JJpool
Well-known member
Well not sure how you watched a 15 minute video in 5 minutes, unless you're saying you're a GB news fan and had already watched the video...
The telegraph link was the only one I'd seen at that time as he mentioned given them full access.
No matter the side this happened to it should be wrong, but the fact is left wing values are prominent in many institutions. If all it takes to be classed as against the banks values is to be on the right then it's concerning, as left organisations throw labels round like confetti.
JJpool
Well-known member
This whole reputational nonsense, no one knew Farage banked with Coutts until all this came out, so what reputational damage was he doing by being with them?
Please explain.
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
5 minutes? What are you chaffing about now?
You posted the video at 6.52pm yesterday. I replied at 1.49pm today.
JJpool
Well-known member
Concerning if you can't even follow what's happening...
I only posted the video today, the coutts files at 2:41pm, post 122...
Naughty Nigel
Your a proper little keyboard warrior pal *You're. Any time you fancy a chat I'm in block M row Q. Tall bloke with a beard and a bovril. Any seat between 1 and 4. Given your love for the bible though, I'd suggest turning the other cheek.
avftt.co.uk
which you replied to 5 minutes later.
Naughty Nigel
Your a proper little keyboard warrior pal *You're. Any time you fancy a chat I'm in block M row Q. Tall bloke with a beard and a bovril. Any seat between 1 and 4. Given your love for the bible though, I'd suggest turning the other cheek.
avftt.co.uk
The video posted yesterday is a different one, obviously.
You replied to my post 122 with post 123 at 2:46pm, without even watching the video with the evidence on it.
You can't have watched it before replying as you had written the post and replied in 5 minutes and the video is 15 minutes long.
You mentioned about Russia, if you had watched the video you would have seen the bit about the bank running checks and finding nothing of any sort linking to Russia.
Dear oh dear.
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
Why are you attaching posts to your reply that have nothing at all to do with what we’re discussing? I’m not interested in what seat whoever it was might sit in. You’re seriously losing the plot.Concerning if you can't even follow what's happening...
I only posted the video today, the coutts files at 2:41pm, post 122...
Naughty Nigel
Your a proper little keyboard warrior pal *You're. Any time you fancy a chat I'm in block M row Q. Tall bloke with a beard and a bovril. Any seat between 1 and 4. Given your love for the bible though, I'd suggest turning the other cheek.avftt.co.uk
which you replied to 5 minutes later.
Naughty Nigel
Your a proper little keyboard warrior pal *You're. Any time you fancy a chat I'm in block M row Q. Tall bloke with a beard and a bovril. Any seat between 1 and 4. Given your love for the bible though, I'd suggest turning the other cheek.avftt.co.uk
The video posted yesterday is a different one, obviously.
You replied to my post 122 with post 123 at 2:46pm, without even watching the video with the evidence on it.
You can't have watched it before replying as you had written the post and replied in 5 minutes and the video is 15 minutes long.
You mentioned about Russia, if you had watched the video you would have seen the bit about the bank running checks and finding nothing of any sort linking to Russia.
Dear oh dear.
The video I’ve been talking about all day is the one you posted yesterday at 6.52pm (post 116). I replied at 2.05pm today (post 118). I know it takes a lot of fingers but even you can work out that’s longer than 5 minutes. Surely?
Yes you’ve posted another video today but when I replied to that post it was to comment on the first video. I’ve never claimed I watched the second video.
Now that I have viewed the second video I can see that NF has largely repeated the moans he made in yesterday’s video and it adds nothing. Just more hot air and bluster.
Hope that’s cleared up your confusion. Bless your little cotton socks.
JJpool
Well-known member
What are you on about, the links are to post 122 and 123. The text on those links is just showing the 1st post on this page by look its luke and seasider 1887
if you click the links they take you to the posts I'm referring to. You obviously didn't click them, there's a theme here isn't there...You literally replied to the recent post and video I posted today, so any normal person doing that would have watched the video then replied, you couldn't have and didn't.
I asked if you had watched it and you said yes, as it was relevant to thr points you made and if you had watched it you would have known the bank found nothing.
The video adds far more, it includes many more quotes and lots of new information like the Ricky Gervais video they included as being against their values.
Can you never just admit you're wrong?
The fact you call it all hot air and bluster really shows you up.
Why is it some on the left are so far entrenched that they can't admit defeat when it's right there in front of them, very sad.
If it was me I'd say fair enough, wasn't what I thought. No issue.
So no there's absolutely no confusion here, only you replying to a different video then claiming had watched it when you were on about the last one.
Mexboroseasider
Well-known member
Nah. I never claimed to have watched the second video (until this evening). That’s just you making stuff up.What are you on about, the links are to post 122 and 123. The text on those links is just showing the 1st post on this page by look its luke and seasider 1887
You literally replied to the recent post and video I posted today, so any normal person doing that would have watched the video then replied, you couldn't have and didn't.
I asked if you had watched it and you said yes, as it was relevant to thr points you made and if you had watched it you would have known the bank found nothing.
The video adds far more, it includes many more quotes and lots of new information like the Ricky Gervais video they included as being against their values.
Can you never just admit you're wrong?
The fact you call it all hot air and bluster really shows you up.
Why is it some on the left are so far entrenched that they can't admit defeat when it's right there in front of them, very sad.
If it was me I'd say fair enough, wasn't what I thought. No issue.
So no there's absolutely no confusion here, only you replying to a different video then claiming had watched it when you were on about the last one.
Not a surprise of course as that’s what you rightwhingers do all the time (see threads on Dan Wootton and girl identifies as cat). It’s what Nige is doing right now.