Heartofice Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 10 minutes ago, Spockydog said: Professor Xavier has entered the chat. Fine if that’s not what you meant, miscommunication. Irrelevant though, they cannot discriminate based on political opinions, they are still regulated by the FCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denvek Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 6 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Fine if that’s not what you meant, miscommunication. Irrelevant though, they cannot discriminate based on political opinions, they are still regulated by the FCA. The fact that the dossier shows they waited until the mortgage was paid off says to me that, technically, they haven't. It looks bad, certainly, which will be why Farage has got an apology from them now - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66258137 - but note that the apology does not include an offer to give him his account back, only a restatement of the existing offer to transfer to NatWest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 37 minutes ago, Heartofice said: When people refer to private bank in reference to coutts they usually mean it in the context that it is privately owned, therefore can do what it wants. So I disagree. They can though. I don't know anything about this situation, but in general a private entity shouldn't be able to discriminate against someone because of their race, gender, sexual orientation etc., but if they view the individual to be scum, that's their right. And since it's a bank and the person they deem to be a piece of shit's money isn't good, why couldn't they turn him down? Fragile Bird, Gaston de Foix and Prince of the North 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: They can though. I don't know anything about this situation, but in general a private entity shouldn't be able to discriminate against someone because of their race, gender, sexual orientation etc., but if they view the individual to be scum, that's their right. And since it's a bank and the person they deem to be a piece of shit's money isn't good, why couldn't they turn him down? Mmm, the FCA disagrees with you. But thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 (edited) A pub landlord bars a loudmouthed racist wanker from their premises because their bigoted views are upsetting the other customers, negatively affecting public perception of their business. Can't really imagine anyone taking umbrage with the landlord's decision. Well, I can think of one or two. Edited July 20, 2023 by Spockydog Prince of the North and Poobah 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 Just now, Tywin et al. said: They can though. I don't know anything about this situation, but in general a private entity shouldn't be able to discriminate against someone because of their race, gender, sexual orientation etc., but if they view the individual to be scum, that's their right. And since it's a bank and the person they deem to be a piece of shit's money isn't good, why couldn't they turn him down? Right. This is a very US-law centric approach to the situation. Because of our (here, meaning US) long and disgusting history of open racism and apartheid we have laws preventing those participating in the stream of commerce from discriminating on the basis of 'protected' characteristics (i.e., race, sex, sexual orientation etc.). But political views are, in general, not a protected characteristic, (although California is an exception), and a Teamster credit union doesn't have to offer an account to Howard Schultz if it doesn't want. The UK specialized in softly softly white-glove bigotry, and consequently we never enacted such broad ranging laws regulating private conduct. What the FCA Head says, or any apology offered by Coutts, is not really a source of law. I'm still confused for all the outrage what law Coutts is supposed to have violated. I get the government is threatening new legislation, and there is the broader issue of banks (sensibly) avoiding risk by declining to give politically exposed persons bank accounts. It's worth noting that not discrimination based on the content of political views, but based on political activity presenting a greater risk profile. I was chatting with Nicola Sturgeon's husband the other day, and he didn't see the point, but I sort of do really. Tywin et al. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 4 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said: Right. This is a very US-law centric approach to the situation. Because of our (here, meaning US) long and disgusting history of open racism and apartheid we have laws preventing those participating in the stream of commerce from discriminating on the basis of 'protected' characteristics (i.e., race, sex, sexual orientation etc.). But political views are, in general, not a protected characteristic, (although California is an exception), and a Teamster credit union doesn't have to offer an account to Howard Schultz if it doesn't want. The UK specialized in softly softly white-glove bigotry, and consequently we never enacted such broad ranging laws regulating private conduct. What the FCA Head says, or any apology offered by Coutts, is not really a source of law. I'm still confused for all the outrage what law Coutts is supposed to have violated. I get the government is threatening new legislation, and there is the broader issue of banks (sensibly) avoiding risk by declining to give politically exposed persons bank accounts. It's worth noting that not discrimination based on the content of political views, but based on political activity presenting a greater risk profile. I was chatting with Nicola Sturgeon's husband the other day, and he didn't see the point, but I sort of do really. Coutts even mentioned in the dossier that Farage is not much a political risk any more and his profile is much smaller than previously , so that argument doesn’t fly. Either way, they outright said that his values don’t match theirs, they have been pretty explicit as to their reasons. And it seems that NatWest know they fucked up because they just wrote a grovelling apology to Farage, which basically admits guilt. So there you go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 Yeah, such a grovelling apology they reversed their decision. Oh no, wait. They didn't. Fragile Bird 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 21 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Mmm, the FCA disagrees with you. But thanks. And I don't care. I can't tell a black person I'm not going to do business with them. I can tell O.J. Simpson to GTFO of my business because I don't want to be associated with him because it's reasonable not to be want to be seen with a known terrible person. Farage is a known public liar so it's within reason to not want to have a client who is considered shady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: And I don't care. I can't tell a black person I'm not going to do business with them. I can tell O.J. Simpson to GTFO of my business because I don't want to be associated with him because it's reasonable not to be want to be seen with a known terrible person. Farage is a known public liar so it's within reason to not want to have a client who is considered shady. Err.. thanks for your insightful contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 (edited) Guess who's getting a 45% pay rise? King Charles to receive huge pay rise from UK taxpayers Quote King Charles III is to receive a huge pay rise from the UK taxpayer, according to government plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by 45% from 2025. Details of the increase, which comes against the backdrop of a cost of living crisis, were contained in a review of royal funding published by the Treasury on Thursday. It revealed the royal family’s grant is due to increase from £86m to £125m. The monarchy’s annual budget, known as the sovereign grant, is pegged against the profits from a national property portfolio called the crown estate. The review of the royal funding settlement was heavily spun by the Treasury to give the impression that the king would be taking a pay cut so that crown estate funds could instead be spent on public services. In fact, the report reveals the monarchy is due to receive a huge pay increase, although the rise will not kick in for another two years. Next year, the sovereign grant will remain unchanged at £86.3m. However, in in 2025, the king’s public funding will increase by a projected £38.5m, giving the monarchy an annual stipend of £124.8m. In 2026, it will be £126m. An extra £40m a year? Holy fucking shit. Are they actually trying to start a revolution? Edited July 20, 2023 by Spockydog Gaston de Foix 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Which Tyler Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 11 minutes ago, Spockydog said: An extra £40m a year? Holy fucking shit. Are they actually trying to start a revolution? Not specifically, just trying to tank the country, with as much as possible coming into effect once they're in opposition and can attack labour for tory policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 1 hour ago, Spockydog said: Guess who's getting a 45% pay rise? King Charles to receive huge pay rise from UK taxpayers An extra £40m a year? Holy fucking shit. Are they actually trying to start a revolution? Make sure you tell me when the revolution is so I can book the week off work. Or will you need an inside man? I'll start sharpening my pitchforks now. karaddin and Spockydog 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 Some suggested reforms from Count Binface. Count me in… Poobah and ants 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: And I don't care. I can't tell a black person I'm not going to do business with them. I can tell O.J. Simpson to GTFO of my business because I don't want to be associated with him because it's reasonable not to be want to be seen with a known terrible person. Farage is a known public liar so it's within reason to not want to have a client who is considered shady. Truly a remarkable effort to defend a world renowned lying POS who is treated like a lying POS because he is a lying POS. Spockydog and Tywin et al. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 2 hours ago, Spockydog said: Guess who's getting a 45% pay rise? King Charles to receive huge pay rise from UK taxpayers An extra £40m a year? Holy fucking shit. Are they actually trying to start a revolution? "Asked for comment on whether it was appropriate for the king’s pay to increase so significantly amid the cost of living crisis, a Buckingham Palace spokesperson pointed out that the sovereign grant had remained flat at £86m for several years, which she said was a real-terms cut when considered against inflation." If only we extended this logic to junior doctors.... The story is more complicated because the funding formula agreed 10 years ago has given the government and the crown a windfall, but the reality is this remains public money, and giving it to Charlie so he can spend it on saving country houses or flying back-and-forth between his 10 different residences is a massive waste of money. Just once, I'd like to see the royals in something other than 2023 Range Rovers with all the bells-and-whistles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 A tumbrel, perhaps. Zorral 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 Can't wait to hear what Sir Keir thinks of this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 (edited) Edited July 20, 2023 by mormont Gaston de Foix, Tywin et al., horangi and 4 others 2 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted July 20, 2023 Share Posted July 20, 2023 (edited) About my comment on your country’s two child benefit policy: I’m listening to Barbara Tuchman’s pre-WW I history, The Proud Tower, and the incredible tales of what war mongers ran most countries. Lord Lansdowne, in whatever early 1900s year it was, strongly opposed The Old Age Pension bill, saying it would cost as much as a Great War. And war strengthened the moral fiber of the nation, whereas doing something like giving pensions weakened it. Plus ca change…. Edited July 20, 2023 by Fragile Bird Bill, not Act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts