[Andy McDandy]

The great thing about democracy is that morons have just as much power as intelligent people. Maybe more, as there are more of them.

[Abernathy]

[Youngian]

We should thank Farage for revealing what really inflames Tory passions; hunger, poverty, environmental catastrophe, NHS, education? No, bank accounts.

[Boiler]

I shouldn't watch stuff like that before bedtime.

[Bones McCoy]

Nigel Farage: BBC apologises to Farage over account closure story

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66288464


I am really angry and upset at Coutts and the BBC apologizing.
Their reports and conclusions were accurate, but their "fair play" instincts let them down.

They've caved in to the pile on from Farage and his fellow travellers.
He and his mob will present this as a victory.
They will dust it off on their next inevitable crusade against the BBC.

If our key state institutions cannot fight their own corner against the grift, they are destroying their own future.

[Abernathy]

I agree. There is no fucking apology required. Definitely not to that grifting racist wankstain.

[Youngian]

To be taken to the cleaners by Farage suggests that banks haven’t improved the calibre of their leadership since they fucked up the global economy. Doesn’t bode well.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

To be taken to the cleaners by Farage suggests that banks haven’t improved the calibre of their leadership since they fucked up the global economy. Doesn’t bode well.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ha ha. Love Richard Vernon.

Coutts couldn't really avoid apologising to Farage for that some of that leaked memo. He still didn't get his account back though.

[Youngian]

Nat West chairman Sir Howard Davies looks like a great and good hack who’s done the rounds. This is just a sample of his jobs. Just getting the hang of Milton Keynes economics and off to another post.

Davies was employed by McKinsey and Company from 1982 to 1987.[3] From 1985 to 1986 he was special adviser to Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson. From 1987 to 1992 he was Controller of the Audit Commission. In 1992 he was appointed director general of the Confederation of British Industry, a position he held until 1995, when he was appointed Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. In 1997 Davies was appointed Executive Chairman of the newly established Financial Services Authority, regulating the whole of the UK financial services industry, serving until 2003.[1]

From 2003 to 2011 Sir Howard was Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science. He stepped down from the position on 3 March 2011 following concern over the institution's decision to accept funding from a foundation controlled by the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif, in the LSE–Gaddafi affair. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_ ... economist)

[mattomac]

I had wondered if it was more to do with the support he has shown for Putin.

Or isn’t that important anymore?

[Crabcakes]

As crappy as Farage obviously is, Natwest/Coutts have absolutely fucked this up as well. Their now-resigned chair should have known better than to discuss a client with journalists. Even if that client is an obnoxious bigot.

[Rosvanian]

Watching the government and the media, especially the BBC, dance to Farage's tune has been sickening. No one with any sense of reason or judgement should now not be able to see that Farage sits at the very heart of "the establishment" that GB News laughably claims to oppose.

[Bones McCoy]

The really sickening thing about this is that Farage and his fellows will present this as vindication.
As though all his claims were true with no embellishment.

A perfect illustration, in the wake of Trump and Johnson that we are dealing with a very different opponent now.
They'll stop at nothing to present their case, and if you "do the decent thing" they'll walk all over you.

There are situations where it's better to not engage, or issue a vanilla "process was followed" presser.
If you're going head to head with them then:
1. Be sure of your facts.
2. Ensure you can not just win, but can publicly monster them in a way it will be spoken about in years to come.
3. Forget all the nice guy stuff, because they don't play by those rules.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

The really sickening thing about this is that Farage and his fellows will present this as vindication.
As though all his claims were true with no embellishment.

A perfect illustration, in the wake of Trump and Johnson that we are dealing with a very different opponent now.
They'll stop at nothing to present their case, and if you "do the decent thing" they'll walk all over you.

There are situations where it's better to not engage, or issue a vanilla "process was followed" presser.
If you're going head to head with them then:
1. Be sure of your facts.
2. Ensure you can not just win, but can publicly monster them in a way it will be spoken about in years to come.
3. Forget all the nice guy stuff, because they don't play by those rules.

This is the new reality. No pearls need to be clutched.

[Crabcakes]

The thing that really sticks in the throat is he probably *has* been unfairly treated in as much as the reasons for having an account closed shouldn’t be disclosed to the press for anyone. It’s also a spectacular Streisand effect - I neither knew nor cared that Farage banked with Coutts. Now I do, and I also know they were happy enough to take his money when he had lots of it, even though his character has been known for decades. If they really wanted to decline him services on grounds of him tarnishing their image, then they’ve managed to tarnish it far more by disengaging with him in such a ham-fisted manner and making everyone aware they gave him an account in the first place.

If it had been kept purely to finances, and the usual client confidentially maintained, this story would be reduced to him whining on GB News rather than national coverage.

[Andy McDandy]

Forgive me if my timeline here is wrong:

Fargle reveals his Coutts account is closed, says it's due to his views etc
NatWest say he failed to meet Coutts criteria, offers him standard account
Journo has dinner with NatWest chief who confirms it is due to Fargle being a cunt
Fargle makes FOI request for documentation, proving the bank do think he's a cunt
NatWest chief denies she confirmed the bank's opinion of Fargle to journo
NatWest chief quits

In which case, yes, she breached client confidentiality if she said that was the bank's considered opinion. But if she was just asked "Fargle - bit of a cunt or a lot of a cunt?", she'd be perfectly free to reply with her personal opinion. Am I missing anything?

[Abernathy]

What has really been turning my stomach is the way that Farage is so obviously fucking loving this. He has been able to play the indignant "victim" yet again, even though all that has actually happened is that he has been mildly inconvenienced by only being able to get a normal bank account, like everybody does, instead of a wanky posh knob's vanity account. He gets to make the Tory government jump through fucking hoops for him all over again.

Yes, the now departing Nat West CEO dropped the ball, but if she hadn't let it slip to Simon Jack (a fine journalist who, to his credit, refused to reveal the source of his story) and been undone by Farage's publicity-garnering FOI request, we'd all be none the wiser, and a lot happier.

What I don't quite get is this : It's long been understood (by me, at any rate) that Coutt's is, by its very nature, an exclusive and selective operation - not just any old twat can bank there (the fucking King has his account there). It seems still to be unclear as to whether Farage really did fall below the financial benchmarks required by Coutt's, but what is as clear as day is that the decision to exclude Farage as a Coutt's client because of "reputational risk" really was a business decision, and a valid one at that.

It's certainly no reason for the wheels of government suddenly to grind into action urgently to legislate that "all must have bank accounts", at the whim of a discredited racist political grifter.

[Bones McCoy]

Forgive me if my timeline here is wrong:

Fargle reveals his Coutts account is closed, says it's due to his views etc
NatWest say he failed to meet Coutts criteria, offers him standard account
Journo has dinner with NatWest chief who confirms it is due to Fargle being a cunt
Fargle makes FOI request for documentation, proving the bank do think he's a cunt
NatWest chief denies she confirmed the bank's opinion of Fargle to journo
NatWest chief quits

In which case, yes, she breached client confidentiality if she said that was the bank's considered opinion. But if she was just asked "Fargle - bit of a cunt or a lot of a cunt?", she'd be perfectly free to reply with her personal opinion. Am I missing anything?

I don't think key facts are missing here.
The bank fucked up, but this isn't proof that Farage actually met the conditions to maintain that account.
Wind back to his dissembling when the facts began to emerge.

Unfortunately the factoid that all will remember is that Farage won (evidence, the others apologised).
This will be extrapolated to three conclusions.
* All frog-man's statements were true.
* The banks (and we know who runs them) are wrong'uns.
* The Conservatives are all decent types who'll help out a chap in trouble.

[Spoonman]

Seriously, how in the actual fuck has all of this been deserving of headline news, with Cunty McCuntface now making demands of the NatWest board? By far the biggest manufactured controversy in the UK so far this decade, if not longer.

Contrast this with the main story on BBC's 6 o'clock news yesterday evening concerning record amounts of homeless people. It's a fucking joke, and no it is not funny.

The really sickening thing about this is that Farage and his fellows will present this as vindication.
As though all his claims were true with no embellishment.

A perfect illustration, in the wake of Trump and Johnson that we are dealing with a very different opponent now.
They'll stop at nothing to present their case, and if you "do the decent thing" they'll walk all over you.

There are situations where it's better to not engage, or issue a vanilla "process was followed" presser.
If you're going head to head with them then:
1. Be sure of your facts.
2. Ensure you can not just win, but can publicly monster them in a way it will be spoken about in years to come.
3. Forget all the nice guy stuff, because they don't play by those rules.

It's a tactic finely honed by Republicans in 'Murica for the last few decades now, not only to tell plenty of people with their national psyche that they're only "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" that should vote for them as anti-establishment rule breakers when they're more "establishment" that a Lighthouse Family CD boxset, but that they play up their supposed anti-establishment credentials by being uncouth & fighting dirty at the drop of a hat. It's why Michelle Obama's talk of "...when they go low, we go high..."was well meaning but ultimately useless.

Also do not forget that the same bastards on this side of the Atlantic, for all their protestations about the "mainstream media" have actually successfully captured it's narritave more than at any point in my lifetime that I can recall. Breaking their control of the narritave will be difficult, but not impossible. They have to be caught off guard, but they are also very good at not falling into such traps.