Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JuliusHMarx]

First topic message reminder :

I am not prone to defending the old firm but what do you mean by not close to CL standard? They are probably pretty similar to other pot 4 teams.

They clearly aren't capable of competing in it, furthermore if they were genuinely Champions League standard they wouldn't have to rely on Russian league expulsion to get in automatically and wouldn't have such a dismal qualifying record against Malmo, Copenhagen, Midtylland etc.

Teams that are CL standard actually appear in it, rather than once every five years. Evidently they are there to make up numbers.
Getting third position is the aspiration and that looks a step too far for Rangers at least and likely Celtic

Fancy editing this one before I go forth and rip the utter Poopie apart point by point?

Not at all. Celtic and Rangers are proving categorically why they are pot 4. They have been terrible.
Unless they do their part in improving the SPL and thus increasing revenue so they can compete at this level they are only ever going to be able to do ok in Europa and Conference, it's clear as day they aren't up to the CL under the status quo.
Not really sure how you can "rip that apart"
Celtic and Rangers are partially responsible for how bad the quality of the domestic League is, but do nothing to improve it. It's self fulfilling and any reasonable OF fan would admit they aren't good enough for the Champions League and unless things change domestically, they never will.
That's pretty reasonable isn't it?

Yes, it comes down to money, but if your teams can't be arsed to improve the product, then expect this every year until your coefficient denudes to the point where automatic qualification doesn't occur.

Rangers and Celtic aren't good enough. It's just a fact.

Ok points
1. Russian expulsion, they were already going to be ahead of Russia in the coefficient. Rangers pretty much over the past 4 seasons dragged the Scottish coefficient from 23rd to 8th FACT
2. Rangers have faced Danish opposition twice since their resurgence, comfortably beating Midtylland in the Europa league qualifying and taking 4/6 points off Brondby in the group stage last season. I can’t and won’t speak about how the other half of the OF have performed.
3. I know this will be painful for you to grasp but the Scottish league is the 8th best league in Europe and in terms of finance is there punching above it’s weight.
4. Rangers were ranked 33rd at the end of last season, at the point of the CL group stage draw they were ranked 29th, had that ranking been used in the CL draw they would have been in POT 3, but for a Ramsay penalty they would have been in pot 1

Saying they can’t compete is utter Love sacks, there is a mile of difference between saying they’ve performed poorly compared to last season and saying they can’t compete. If they ship the same amount of goals in the next 3 games and 0 points then you’d be moving toward a semblance of a point but we’re not there yet are we.

5. Civic.

[super_realist]

I think you’ll find that I mentioned advertisements, ok I never emphasised it in its own right but yes, don’t you enjoy the good dramas that they do occasionally come up with that little bit more because they’re not constantly interrupted by adverts? In terms of other programming I think the U.K. misses Top of the pops on a thursday night, I hate the fact that they decided they could no longer afford to offer blanket coverage of the open. Oh and I find Charlie, Naga and the likes on the breakfast show irritating and watch GMTV instead. So there is a case for saying some things have gone down hill. There is however still hignfy, the occasionally good Panorama, depending on what they’re investigating and their advert free drama output is still rather good. So no I don’t buy the case for abolishing the whole organisation just because some right leaning people don’t like it.

I just watch any ITV dramas on the Hub without adverts so makes no difference to me. The paucity of decent programming is not worth £159 a year. I personally spend less than that and have access to Now TV, Disney+, Prime and Netflix. It has nothing to do with political persuasion, you have a fixation on this.

Perhaps he's referring to the Tory politicians who repeatedly talk about defunding it or reducing/removing the licence fee etc? Don't flatter yourself that he's referring to your good self, S_R or Duty.

Also JAS, of the BBC is as impartial as you say, why would it only be "right wing people" who object to it?

It isn't as you well know. The fact that people of both persuasions complain about this, that and the other that the BBC does suggests that it's probably not far from the correct position.

I don't see the left complaining about it. Why is it only the so called "right" who want it modernised? If the left saw it as "right wing" why aren't they calling for an end to the licence fee too? Funny how the BBC have had to apologise frequently for left wing bias isn't it?

Still find it hilarious you can't defend the BBC as a societal benefit and just pretend you "can't be bothered to debate"

I think you've realised that making the BBC licence an equivalent as tax for providing health and education[/b] was a really absurd comparison.

I made no such equivalence there. I was simply listing other state-funded institutions where someone might reasonably argue why they should fund them if they don't use them. I pay ~£160 p/a for a TV licence and apparently (King's Fund) in 2021 I paid ~£4266 p/a for the NHS.

The "left" probably want it retained even if they don't agree with the positions taken all the time because it's one of the few media organisations that's not right-leaning in all its output. I have no issue with reform of state institutions, the BBC included. Anyway, you're wrong re. "the left" not complaining, but why am I not surprised?

https://www.counterfire.org/article/the-bbc-s-anti-corbyn-bias-shows-it-s-not-fit-for-purpose/
https://www.theweek.co.uk/104905/was-bbc-biased-against-jeremy-corbyn-during-the-election-campaign
https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-complains-to-bbc-director-general-over-slanted-and-biased-election-coverage/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/may/12/bbc-bias-labour-sir-michael-lyons

Etc, etc, etc....

Oh yes you were. You were making a direct comparison to state funded institutions paid for by tax which are demonstrably vital to society and you tried to imply the BBC was on the same sort of level. 
Given that 15 countries in Europe have abolished their licences with no detrimental affect on their societies, I'm at a loss to why you think the current model is so important to uphold.

One of the few that isn't right leaning? You mean like Sky, Mirror, Guardian, Channel 4 who are also not right leaning? Not exactly short of choice are you?

[navyblueshorts]

INW

If routinely naming suspects of sexual offences was shown to improve conviction rates and outcomes for victims I would accept a fairly high rate of mistaken identity cases. Tend to view these things like drugs, you just have to accept some side effects to get the benefit.

If it wasn't possible to know if naming was a benefit I might still cautiously support naming alleged perpetrators because covering this stuff up over the years doesn't seem to have done any good.

Ridiculous. I hope this comes to pass and you're mistakenly accused in the national press. What a stupid position to adopt.

Why are people scared of false accusations? The data shows false accusations of domestic or sexual abuse are very rare.

Doh! Accidental execution of the innocent was probably rare when we had Capital punishment. Not much consolation to the dead and their families etc, eh? You're speaking from a position of complete ignorance, so probably best not to do so at all on this subject?

[superflyweight]

I think you’ll find that I mentioned advertisements, ok I never emphasised it in its own right but yes, don’t you enjoy the good dramas that they do occasionally come up with that little bit more because they’re not constantly interrupted by adverts? In terms of other programming I think the U.K. misses Top of the pops on a thursday night, I hate the fact that they decided they could no longer afford to offer blanket coverage of the open. Oh and I find Charlie, Naga and the likes on the breakfast show irritating and watch GMTV instead. So there is a case for saying some things have gone down hill. There is however still hignfy, the occasionally good Panorama, depending on what they’re investigating and their advert free drama output is still rather good. So no I don’t buy the case for abolishing the whole organisation just because some right leaning people don’t like it.

I just watch any ITV dramas on the Hub without adverts so makes no difference to me. The paucity of decent programming is not worth £159 a year. I personally spend less than that and have access to Now TV, Disney+, Prime and Netflix. It has nothing to do with political persuasion, you have a fixation on this.

Perhaps he's referring to the Tory politicians who repeatedly talk about defunding it or reducing/removing the licence fee etc? Don't flatter yourself that he's referring to your good self, S_R or Duty.

Also JAS, of the BBC is as impartial as you say, why would it only be "right wing people" who object to it?

It isn't as you well know. The fact that people of both persuasions complain about this, that and the other that the BBC does suggests that it's probably not far from the correct position.

I don't see the left complaining about it. Why is it only the so called "right" who want it modernised? If the left saw it as "right wing" why aren't they calling for an end to the licence fee too? Funny how the BBC have had to apologise frequently for left wing bias isn't it?

Still find it hilarious you can't defend the BBC as a societal benefit and just pretend you "can't be bothered to debate"

I think you've realised that making the BBC licence an equivalent as tax for providing health and education was a really absurd comparison.

You're not looking hard enough.  This article took me 10 seconds to find - https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/bbc-bias/

Recent accusations of rightwing bias
Many of those on the left of the political spectrum have taken a different approach in relation to BBC bias. They point to how the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Chris Patten, was Chairman of the BBC Trust from 2011-14.  And they note how for many years, two of the Corporation’s leading politics programmes, the Daily Politics and The Sunday Politics, were both presented by Andrew Neil, who has also served as the Chairman of right of centre magazine, The Spectator.

Moreover in September 2021, it was reported that the current BBC Director General, Tim Davie, had previously been involved with the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Association.  Mr Davie confirmed that in this former life, he had once been a candidate for the local council but failed to be elected.

Other research has suggested that the BBC’s output may be weighted in favour of the right. Although over a decade old, a previous study by Cardiff University found the ratio of right-wing, establishment coverage to be significantly greater than left-wing viewpoints in both 2007 and 2012. Across both periods, Conservative politicians were featured around 50% more often than Labour  politicians on the weekday bulletin BBC News at Six.

What a ridiculous article. Do they not understand that governments of the day out in their own choice as Chair. Convenient they forget Greg Dyke. 
That isn't an example of the output being left or right wing though is it? How many of the presenters are right wing?

It's not the article that's ridiculous, the article is merely highlighting that there are complaints about the BBC from both the left and the right.  I don't know how may presenters are right wing - I've never asked Tess Daly about her political leanings.  

Yet, the point is that you can find examples of where the BBC has shown left wing bias, but can you do the same for right wing views?

I'm not looking for examples of either. What I can see though is that people on both the right and the left complain frequently about the BBC so they're probably just about getting the impartiality thing right. Personally, I'd prefer that they jumped off the fence more often and if some f*ckwit is being a f*ckwit then call him a f*ckwit.

[navyblueshorts]

INW

If routinely naming suspects of sexual offences was shown to improve conviction rates and outcomes for victims I would accept a fairly high rate of mistaken identity cases. Tend to view these things like drugs, you just have to accept some side effects to get the benefit.

If it wasn't possible to know if naming was a benefit I might still cautiously support naming alleged perpetrators because covering this stuff up over the years doesn't seem to have done any good.

Ridiculous. I hope this comes to pass and you're mistakenly accused in the national press. What a stupid position to adopt.

Why are people scared of false accusations? The data shows false accusations of domestic or sexual abuse are very rare.

There speaks someone who has never been falsely accused.

I can relate a story here about one of my partners fellow head teachers who was falsely accused of child protection breaches by a parent who had previously been a teacher. When a teacher or a headteacher for that matter gets accused, they are immediately suspended (innocent until proven guilty don't quite work the same way in education), for most head teachers it's a career ender even if they are found to be completely innocent of all charges levelled against them. Yes they can go back to post eventually and it's usually months, but in the circumstances where a vexatious complainer parent has planted seeds of doubt among parents, governors, staff etc some of whom would have made judgements (because that's human nature) BEFORE any hearings. Many are not prepared to backtrack when they realise what Muppet they've been (that's human nature as well) so the position simply becomes untenable. All because of a false accusation!!

My old geography teacher at secondary school (one of the best teachers I can recall) was ruined, completely, by a demonstrably false and malicious accusation from a pupil in exactly this way. Even when proven to have been innocent of all charges, idiot parents of other kids ruined him and the school didn't back him in the end so he felt pressured to leave. last I heard, he'd re-trained as a chef.

[navyblueshorts]

Oh yes you were. You were making a direct comparison to state funded institutions paid for by tax which are demonstrably vital to society and you tried to imply the BBC was on the same sort of level. 
Given that 15 countries in Europe have abolished their licences with no detrimental affect on their societies, I'm at a loss to why you think the current model is so important to uphold.

One of the few that isn't right leaning? You mean like Sky, Mirror, Guardian, Channel 4 who are also not right leaning? Not exactly short of choice are you?

Oh no, I wasn't, but if it makes you feel superior in this conversation, knock yourself out by all means.

Just because you can name a few other outlets that are, arguably, not right of centre does not make a convincing argument here. The Mirror and Guardian are pretty much the only MSM newspapers that lean any way left, for example. Haven't watch C4 for at least a decade. Sky is more balanced than it used to be, I'll give you that.

[super_realist]

Oh yes you were. You were making a direct comparison to state funded institutions paid for by tax which are demonstrably vital to society and you tried to imply the BBC was on the same sort of level. 
Given that 15 countries in Europe have abolished their licences with no detrimental affect on their societies, I'm at a loss to why you think the current model is so important to uphold.

One of the few that isn't right leaning? You mean like Sky, Mirror, Guardian, Channel 4 who are also not right leaning? Not exactly short of choice are you?

Oh no, I wasn't, but if it makes you feel superior in this conversation, knock yourself out by all means.

Just because you can name a few other outlets that are, arguably, not right of centre does not make a convincing argument here. The Mirror and Guardian are pretty much the only MSM newspapers that lean any way left, for example. Haven't watch C4 for at least a decade. Sky is more balanced than it used to be, I'll give you that.

Well I can't help if you think that just because you don't watch something then it means left wing doesn't exist. 
There is no shortage of left wing media if you want it and can be bothered to avail yourself of it. If you  don't feel inclined to seek it out, then you probably don't have much grounds for complaint on the lack of it.
You've also  got radio like James O Brian or the hectoring  5 Live and hundreds of social media posters on YouTube, Twitter etc.

[JuliusHMarx]

You mean like Sky, Mirror, Guardian, Channel 4 who are also not right leaning? Not exactly short of choice are you?

I think you mean "are we?", given you have many left-wing views.

[Duty281]

You mean like Sky, Mirror, Guardian, Channel 4 who are also not right leaning? Not exactly short of choice are you?

I think you mean "are we?", given you have many left-wing views.

[navyblueshorts]

Oh yes you were. You were making a direct comparison to state funded institutions paid for by tax which are demonstrably vital to society and you tried to imply the BBC was on the same sort of level. 
Given that 15 countries in Europe have abolished their licences with no detrimental affect on their societies, I'm at a loss to why you think the current model is so important to uphold.

One of the few that isn't right leaning? You mean like Sky, Mirror, Guardian, Channel 4 who are also not right leaning? Not exactly short of choice are you?

Oh no, I wasn't, but if it makes you feel superior in this conversation, knock yourself out by all means.

Just because you can name a few other outlets that are, arguably, not right of centre does not make a convincing argument here. The Mirror and Guardian are pretty much the only MSM newspapers that lean any way left, for example. Haven't watch C4 for at least a decade. Sky is more balanced than it used to be, I'll give you that.

Well I can't help if you think that just because you don't watch something then it means left wing doesn't exist. 
There is no shortage of left wing media if you want it and can be bothered to avail yourself of it. If you  don't feel inclined to seek it out, then you probably don't have much grounds for complaint on the lack of it.
You've also  got radio like James O Brian or the hectoring  5 Live and hundreds of social media posters on YouTube, Twitter etc.

What part of so-called 'Mainstream Media' is it that you missed from my post?

Look, this is going nowhere. Let's agree to disagree and move on...

[super_realist]

Those are mainstream, and you can add The Observer to that list as well.

[McLaren]

Victory for the anti false accusation mob today. Giggs apparently didn't headbutt his girlfriend.

[super_realist]

Victory for the anti false accusation mob today. Giggs apparently didn't headbutt his girlfriend.

Actually no Mac. He may well have done, but the jury found insufficient evidence to return a guilty verdict. Being found not guilty, doesn't mean you are innocent.

[McLaren]

You've been trolled super.

[super_realist]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/66230749

Just pathetic.

[JAS]

One of the very few decent and on the face of it competent members of the cabinet is offski at the next election. When somebody like the universally popular (among the grass roots Tories) Wallace decide enough is enough what does that say about the party in general?

Never quite understood why he never stood in the last leadership election.

[super_realist]

One of the very few decent and on the face of it competent members of the cabinet is offski at the next election. When somebody like the universally popular (among the grass roots Tories) Wallace decide enough is enough what does that say about the party in general?

Never quite understood why he never stood in the last leadership election.

I completely understand why he never went for leadership. As a former military man, he can probably spot a sinking ship. 

Is there a political party not in turmoil? Tories, SNP, Labour all badly struggling.

Election is going to be an incredibly low turnout because all parties have alienated their support, and I fear that a Labour party is going to be even worse than this current shambolic bunch. 

If Britain was in a better state, I might return to it, but what would be the point given the current situation and future outlook.

[navyblueshorts]

One of the very few decent and on the face of it competent members of the cabinet is offski at the next election. When somebody like the universally popular (among the grass roots Tories) Wallace decide enough is enough what does that say about the party in general?

Never quite understood why he never stood in the last leadership election.

I completely understand why he never went for leadership. As a former military man, he can probably spot a sinking ship. 

Is there a political party not in turmoil? Tories, SNP, Labour all badly struggling.

Election is going to be an incredibly low turnout because all parties have alienated their support, and I fear that a Labour party is going to be even worse than this current shambolic bunch. 

If Britain was in a better state, I might return to it, but what would be the point given the current situation and future outlook.

You'll no doubt be giving up your passport, and applying for Norwegian citizenship, then? No?

There are probably good people in all of the parties, but I suspect that the compromises made in order to get to the top are too much for many, and also that too many that want to get there are the sort of narcissists that one wouldn't want anywhere near political power. Bit like a golf club committee - too many on one never were anything, are not, and never will be anything and see being a part of one as some sort of validation.
Also think that the expectations and requirements of modern life (i.e. equality of roles, family life, cost of buying a house etc etc) mitigate against someone devoting the necessary time to get into politics in any way seriously before one's either retired, kids have left home, partner has died etc etc.

I don't think turnout at next GE will be that low - too many will come out to ensure the Tory party get a good spanking. We get what we deserve in the long run. Personally, I think there needs to be fundamental change from FPTP to some form of PR, but probably won't happen anytime soon, if at all.

[super_realist]

Takes 7 years Navy to get that. 
Not sure PR will make anything better, they have it in the devolved Scotch parliament, and it's still rotten.

[I'm never wrong]

Anyone else affected by the new electoral boundary changes? I will be. I will be in a new constituency. They've taken bits of Teresa May's and John Redwoods old constituencies so I wonder if I will get either of them, or someone new?

[super_realist]

Don't think either will stand, neither are fans of Sunak

[McLaren]

Takes 7 years Navy to get that. 
Not sure PR will make anything better, they have it in the devolved Scotch parliament, and it's still rotten.

It sucks but the SNP are just so popular they are dominant even under PR.

Clearly PR is a better system if you want a more democratic society.

[super_realist]

Takes 7 years Navy to get that. 
Not sure PR will make anything better, they have it in the devolved Scotch parliament, and it's still rotten.

It sucks but the SNP are just so popular they are dominant even under PR.

Clearly PR is a better system if you want a more democratic society.

I think/hope they are going to get annihilated at the next GE. They've become such a parody but there will always be a large section of the uneducated underclass who will vote for them no matter what even with hapless Hamza Useless in charge.

[JAS]

Anyone else affected by the new electoral boundary changes? I will be. I will be in a new constituency. They've taken bits of Teresa May's and John Redwoods old constituencies so I wonder if I will get either of them, or someone new?

Yep our constituency is being split and our MP (the most successful Tory Education Minister in living memory) is taking the more rural Southern chunk, not sure who we're getting yet or how the Constituency will shape up, Wiltshire in general does tend to be solidly Tory though.

[JAS]

"Man of the people" garnering support from common people for being howfed out of elite bank. How many levels of irony do we actually have here? :-p

[Duty281]

"Man of the people" garnering support from common people for being howfed out of elite bank. How many levels of irony do we actually have here? :-p

It's fantastic stuff. Shining a light into the dodgy banking sector, and exposing the BBC for the charlatans they are.

[super_realist]

"Man of the people" garnering support from common people for being howfed out of elite bank. How many levels of irony do we actually have here? :-p

Regardless of what you think of Farage I don't think it's a Banks place, especially one in which the tax payer owns 39% to cast moral judgement who can and can't have a bank account. I despise Corbyn and that racist Dianne Abbot, but I wouldn't say they couldn't have a bank account because of their views.
Farage was judged on knowing a former US President and Novak Djokovic.  Guarantee that Coutts have customers a lot more dubious and shady than Nigel Farage. Prince Andrew for example will undoubtedly bank there whilst Coutts financed the Queen Mother's dipsomaniac lifestyle. 

It was funny seeing the smug BBC report it was due to his finances and revelling in that, then having to embarrassingly back pedal and offer a grovelling apology to Farage because it was found to be they were discrimination against him. 
It's funny how Banks especially are always so keen to engage in talk of diversity and inclusion, but that doesn't extend to legally held views they might not agree with. 

The infiltration of sad groups like Stonewall and programmes like ESG have led to this. 

It wasn't that long ago that Canada was suspending bank accounts of people who supported truckers and there's plenty of examples of banks suspending/cancelling accounts due to political differences with the account holder. It's insidious and banks have no place to deny accounts for anything but illegal activity or financial impropriety.

[JAS]

Like I said, just so many levels of irony and delicious irony at that. But before anyone goes thinking that I’m siding with the banks over the odious moron herder, think again.  I STILL want to see the chief protagonists in the banking sector that precipitated the 2008 crash GO TO JAIL so when a bank screws up I’m hardly going to make excuses for them am I??
On to the ironies… 1. Farage proports to be anti establishment…yet he banked with Coutts 2. For all the odious things banks have done (irresponsibly acting like Casinos in the 00’s, Mis-selling people PPI, creaming off the interest rate rise by upping borrowing rates by much more than savings rates. Holding files on customers political views) it takes a GDPR breach for a CEO to walk. 3. Farage had actually fallen below the criteria for the account he had so they could just have told him he was no longer eligible on that basis 4. Farage wounds NatWest with the EU conceived GDPR law - Just brilliant :-)

[super_realist]

No, Farage DIDNT fall below the threshold. That was an excuse that Coutts made up to cover up that they'd judged him on his beliefs. The release of information found that  his account balance was not the reason that his account was cancelled. 

The issue is that banks have no place closing your accounts on the basis of your personal beliefs. 
Where has Farage ever claimed to be anti establishment? He worked in the banking sector for 30 odd years, he's very establishment. 

The CEO was sacked not because of GDPR, but because of confidential data being released being against BANKING law, not GDPR

I'm no fan of Farage, but he's been treated badly here.

[superflyweight]

"Man of the people" garnering support from common people for being howfed out of elite bank. How many levels of irony do we actually have here? :-p

It's fantastic stuff. Shining a light into the dodgy banking sector, and exposing the BBC for the charlatans they are.

Also now appears to be shining a light into the dodgy practice of deliberately shorting the share price of an institution partly owned by tax payers and exposing Farage and his bosses for the charlatans they are.

[super_realist]

You think Farage should keep quiet about illegal financial practices to protect a corrupt tax payer owned institution's share price?

NatWest/Coutts have brought this on themselves. It isn't Farage's fault.

[superflyweight]

You think Farage should keep quiet about illegal financial practices to protect a corrupt tax payer owned institution's share price?

No (albeit the actual legitimate reasons for Farage's account being denied to him have been lost in the noise) - but there are less public ways in which to resolve these things and he's done all he can to keep it in the news cycle for as long as possible.

[super_realist]

Why shouldn't he? He's exposing appalling practices and whilst you might laugh at it being Farage, it could be you next.

Why did a bank have a 40 page dossier on ANY customer unrelated to their financial matters? It's a bit East Germany isn't it?
What's next? Can't shop in Tesco because you hold certain views?

[superflyweight]

Why shouldn't he? He's exposing appalling practices and whilst you might laugh at it being Farage, it could be you next.

Why did a bank have a 40 page dossier on ANY customer unrelated to their financial matters? It's a bit East Germany isn't it?
What's next? Can't shop in Tesco because you hold certain views?

I've worked as an in-house lawyer in a couple of banks and also now that I'm back in private practice I act for a number of financial institutions and it's entirely common practice (and indeed required as part of KYC requirements under the Money Laundering Regulations) for banks to hold information on a PEP - which Farage would still be. Without reading the full NatWest report of the reasons for Farage's account being closed, it does seem to me that their failing was that (a) they tried to summarise the reasons and that summary was lacking in detail as to some legitimate concerns about some of his associates and past behaviour and instead they focussed on his political views and (b) Alison Rose tried to be clever and leaked information to the BBC. Ultimately, they should have stayed quiet.

As an aside, I was once threatened by a suspected Russian mafioso based in Rostov-on-Don because I refused to sign off on a loan to him that one of the cowboys in our lending team was trying to push through.

[super_realist]

Why shouldn't he? He's exposing appalling practices and whilst you might laugh at it being Farage, it could be you next.

Why did a bank have a 40 page dossier on ANY customer unrelated to their financial matters? It's a bit East Germany isn't it?
What's next? Can't shop in Tesco because you hold certain views?

I've worked as an in-house lawyer in a couple of banks and also now that I'm back in private practice I act for a number of financial institutions and it's entirely common practice (and indeed required as part of KYC requirements under the Money Laundering Regulations) for banks to hold information on a PEP - which Farage would still be.  Without reading the full NatWest report of the reasons for Farage's account being closed, it does seem to me that their failing was that (a) they tried to summarise the reasons and that summary was lacking in detail as to some legitimate concerns about some of his associates and past behaviour and instead they focussed on his political views and (b) Alison Rose tried to be clever and leaked information to the BBC.  Ultimately, they should have stayed quiet.  

As an aside, I was once threatened by a suspected Russian mafioso based in Rostov-on-Don because I refused to sign off on a loan to him that one of the cowboys in our lending team was trying to push through.      

Information regarding to illegal activities, not what legally held views you have or who your friends are. 
I bet if Coutts were to reveal who had accounts there you'd find a lot worse than Farage.

[McLaren]

racist Dianne Abbot.

Super, are you not even trying to hide your racism now?

[super_realist]

racist Dianne Abbot.

Super, are you not even trying to hide your racism now?

She's on record being racist Mac. Doesn't make me racist to point out that she is.

She's currently is suspended for a racist letter she wrote.

[JAS]

Why shouldn't he? He's exposing appalling practices and whilst you might laugh at it being Farage, it could be you next.

Why did a bank have a 40 page dossier on ANY customer unrelated to their financial matters? It's a bit East Germany isn't it?
What's next? Can't shop in Tesco because you hold certain views?

I've worked as an in-house lawyer in a couple of banks and also now that I'm back in private practice I act for a number of financial institutions and it's entirely common practice (and indeed required as part of KYC requirements under the Money Laundering Regulations) for banks to hold information on a PEP - which Farage would still be.  Without reading the full NatWest report of the reasons for Farage's account being closed, it does seem to me that their failing was that (a) they tried to summarise the reasons and that summary was lacking in detail as to some legitimate concerns about some of his associates and past behaviour and instead they focussed on his political views and (b) Alison Rose tried to be clever and leaked information to the BBC.  Ultimately, they should have stayed quiet.  

As an aside, I was once threatened by a suspected Russian mafioso based in Rostov-on-Don because I refused to sign off on a loan to him that one of the cowboys in our lending team was trying to push through.      

Information regarding to illegal activities, not what legally held views you have or who your friends are. 
I bet if Coutts were to reveal who had accounts there you'd find a lot worse than Farage.

You are stretching to try and defend old Nigel here. Superfly has made a clear case for why information on persons may be held by a bank and it’s to do with AML. The mistake NatWest made was carelessly divulging. That doesn’t make Nige any less of a prick just because the bank have been careless.

[super_realist]

I'm not defending Farage, I'm defending the right to hold a bank account independent of what legally held views you have.
The bank in their documentation cited friendship with Novak Djokovic as part of their justification. That's not acceptable.

[superflyweight]

I'm not defending Farage, I'm defending the right to hold a bank account independent of what legally held views you have.
The bank in their documentation cited friendship with Novak Djokovic as part of their justification. That's not acceptable.

I'm not sure what NatWest were up to and I haven't read their report so unsure as to whether or not they were using friendship with Djokovic as part of their justification. If so, that's crazy! However, these reports are not limited to illegal activities and the banks will do due diligence on PEP's which includes known associates and potential sources of income. I imagine Farage's history on both of those counts is fairly troubling so I'm not sure why they didn't just focus on that.

[super_realist]

Indeed, I'm sure they could justify it if they really wanted to under actual banking rules, but you have to wonder what tje hell they were playing at.

[JAS]

Indeed, I'm sure they could justify it if they really wanted to under actual banking rules, but you have to wonder what tje hell they were playing at.

But that's just typical of modern society, we wonder what an organisation is playing at when holding information on a PEP and carelessly divulging it and demand the Chief Exec's head on a plate because of that. Yet 15 years ago we let slide the fact that the same organisation due to complete and utter hubris, greed and incompetence had to tap us taxpayers for £80bn to stay afloat, something we've ALL been paying for ever since. Let's get things into proportion here. Rose's predecessor Fred Goodwin's carcas should have been strung up on the Royal Mile for everyone that wanted to pelt him with Poopie and yet we let him slip into feather bedded retirement with his massive pension.

...and of course if you listen to your average Tory, they'll now lecture you the lie that Labour ruined the economy in 2008, no they didn't, the banks did. Obviously aided and abetted by hedge fund managers and the like. What was Sunak's job in 2008 again?

[super_realist]

Indeed, I'm sure they could justify it if they really wanted to under actual banking rules, but you have to wonder what tje hell they were playing at.

But that's just typical of modern society, we wonder what an organisation is playing at when holding information on a PEP and carelessly divulging it and demand the Chief Exec's head on a plate because of that. Yet 15 years ago we let slide the fact that the same organisation due to complete and utter hubris, greed and incompetence had to tap us taxpayers for £80bn to stay afloat, something we've ALL been paying for ever since. Let's get things into proportion here. Rose's predecessor Fred Goodwin's carcas should have been strung up on the Royal Mile for everyone that wanted to pelt him with Poopie and yet we let him slip into feather bedded retirement with his massive pension.

...and of course if you listen to your average Tory, they'll now lecture you the lie that Labour ruined the economy in 2008, no they didn't, the banks did. Obviously aided and abetted by hedge fund managers and the like. What was Sunak's job in 2008 again?

Yeah, Gordon Brown didn't sell our gold or loosen banking regulation did he?
Brown admitted he was part of the problem even the Guardian accept it.

[JAS]

Indeed, I'm sure they could justify it if they really wanted to under actual banking rules, but you have to wonder what tje hell they were playing at.

But that's just typical of modern society, we wonder what an organisation is playing at when holding information on a PEP and carelessly divulging it and demand the Chief Exec's head on a plate because of that. Yet 15 years ago we let slide the fact that the same organisation due to complete and utter hubris, greed and incompetence had to tap us taxpayers for £80bn to stay afloat, something we've ALL been paying for ever since. Let's get things into proportion here. Rose's predecessor Fred Goodwin's carcas should have been strung up on the Royal Mile for everyone that wanted to pelt him with Poopie and yet we let him slip into feather bedded retirement with his massive pension.

...and of course if you listen to your average Tory, they'll now lecture you the lie that Labour ruined the economy in 2008, no they didn't, the banks did. Obviously aided and abetted by hedge fund managers and the like. What was Sunak's job in 2008 again?

Yeah, Gordon Brown didn't sell our gold or loosen banking regulation did he?
Brown admitted he was part of the problem even the Guardian accept it.

Jesus I thought you were stretching credibility when you were trying to defend Farage but yep you’ve managed to trump even yourself. Brown was widely credited for averting an even worse meltdown….and since when was the Guardian the accepted goto fact checker, especially from someone like yourself. Brown’s regret was about not undoing the more lunatic aspects of banking deregulation that Thatcher & Reagan ushered in decades earlier. The 2008 crash was actually decades in the making. Obviously other things contributed like the lunacy of self certification mortgages in the US, The birth of the euro (and the impact on bond yields) but above all the unbridled unchecked greed of the banks. The thing was thought to reintroduce better controls to the banking sector would have needed international cooperation and agreement. Doing so in isolation would have caused mass capital flight out of the country. Happy for you to explain the detail and circumstances of the gold sell off and the ACTUAL material impact it had on your average citizen like me and thee.

[super_realist]

Christ Jas, I didn't at ANY time defend Farage. I was criticising the banks for cancelling ANYONE'S bank account on tje basis of their legally held beliefs which have nothing to do with their financial suitability to hold an account 

I mentioned The Graudian because it is a lickspittle for Labour but even they were critical of Brown's influence on banking and his handling thereof in 2008. 
Yes, it was PRIMARILY caused by banking but was greased, at least in part by policies enacted by Brown.

[JAS]

but was greased, at least in part by policies enacted by Brown.

…feel free to elaborate

[navyblueshorts]

Indeed, I'm sure they could justify it if they really wanted to under actual banking rules, but you have to wonder what tje hell they were playing at.

But that's just typical of modern society, we wonder what an organisation is playing at when holding information on a PEP and carelessly divulging it and demand the Chief Exec's head on a plate because of that. Yet 15 years ago we let slide the fact that the same organisation due to complete and utter hubris, greed and incompetence had to tap us taxpayers for £80bn to stay afloat, something we've ALL been paying for ever since. Let's get things into proportion here. Rose's predecessor Fred Goodwin's carcas should have been strung up on the Royal Mile for everyone that wanted to pelt him with Poopie and yet we let him slip into feather bedded retirement with his massive pension.

...and of course if you listen to your average Tory, they'll now lecture you the lie that Labour ruined the economy in 2008, no they didn't, the banks did. Obviously aided and abetted by hedge fund managers and the like. What was Sunak's job in 2008 again?

You were doing so well until the last sentence, too.

Labour were instrumental in setting up the banking regulations that allowed Goodwin etc to do what they did. They had ~11/12 years from 1997 and they absolutely thought these so-called 'Masters of the Universe' should get everything they asked for. Yes, the bankers did the dumb deals that caused the collapse, but politicians (including New Labour) created the conditions that allowed them to do so. Before you suggest it, I don't actually think a Tory Government in the same period would necessarily have done any different, but the fact was that it was New Labour at the helm then.

[super_realist]

Looks like the pointless Commonwealth Games are finally being put down.

Surely no one will even notice.

[navyblueshorts]

Looks like the pointless Commonwealth Games are finally being put down.

Surely no one will even notice.

Bit of a shame, if so. Still, clearly too many bungs and absurd requirements etc needed for hosting any of the big sporting events these days.

[super_realist]

I wouldnt say it was one of the big ones. Always feels a bit of a Poundland event and a Poundland standard. 
Probably something which if it was ever going to continue would need to be spread across a couple of dozen countries and split by sport.

[McLaren]

It's an elite international event. How is it poundland? The competitors are professional athletes. Bit like saying Seria A is poundland because Real or city don't play in it.

[Sponsored content]