FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Farage and his bank account
Farage and his bank account
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Declared persona no longer grata by his own bank and refused by 8 others. He says it is “establishment revenge” whereas others say that banks protect their own reputation and avoid risk from accusations of being involved in money laundering and/or suspicious transactions. Is there a deeper story to this or is Farage being persecuted for Brexit as he claims." Bad credit history, he should use Experian, that can help get his finances back into shape, of if it’s too bad possibly looking at calling that national debt line. Of course banks protect themselves, they don’t want to give you loans or accounts if you’re not showing you have a good history and score. He could appeal his decision with the banks and ask they look into it. If he can’t get a decision perhaps he can talk to rip off britain or watchdog. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Declared persona no longer grata by his own bank and refused by 8 others. He says it is “establishment revenge” whereas others say that banks protect their own reputation and avoid risk from accusations of being involved in money laundering and/or suspicious transactions. Is there a deeper story to this or is Farage being persecuted for Brexit as he claims." If it was the establishment then why now? He is just grifting again, making a story he can talk about on his show | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage is probably the least trustworthy man in politics. He had a proven record of lying, invention and corruption. The only thing he loves more than telling lies is grabbing a headline or a couple of minutes on TV. " what has your life of Farage on the back of a postage stamp got to do with the bank closing his account? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't like the sound of this at face value. If he can prove he has not broken any laws, the bank in question and the other banks that have allegedly refused him an account need to answer some very tough questions. He has gone public with this, and if he has got something going on he shouldn't then again he needs to answer some very tough questions." I suspect that the fact he has gone full on conspiracy vent mode might suggest the banks might have a valid reason to exclude him, there are avenues to redress such things if he's done nothing untoward.. Deflection and more appealing to his base perhaps.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't like the sound of this at face value. If he can prove he has not broken any laws, the bank in question and the other banks that have allegedly refused him an account need to answer some very tough questions. He has gone public with this, and if he has got something going on he shouldn't then again he needs to answer some very tough questions. I suspect that the fact he has gone full on conspiracy vent mode might suggest the banks might have a valid reason to exclude him, there are avenues to redress such things if he's done nothing untoward.. Deflection and more appealing to his base perhaps.." I would accept that if it was a publicly know thing, but this isn't so no need to bring it out in the open | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have they said why they have closed his account? I don't expect they will make a public statement but they should at least tell the affected person of the reasons. Trouble without declaring anything is now stories are starting to appear of others having their accounts closed. One is saying their account was closed after they questioned why the building society website was full of pride flags. I'm not saying this is true or not but it seems to have brought otherwise unreported events to the news" They tend not to comment in case there is a Police investigation and their comments might then by used in a criminal case which is also not good optics. My feeling is that there is something going on still with Aaron Banks and Russian connections. Considering that Banks supported Farage with accommodation, private security and political funding AND Farage was paid a significant sum by Russia Today, my guess is that Coutts don’t want to take the potential reputational risk of a big investigation and their name being in that investigation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't like the sound of this at face value. If he can prove he has not broken any laws, the bank in question and the other banks that have allegedly refused him an account need to answer some very tough questions. He has gone public with this, and if he has got something going on he shouldn't then again he needs to answer some very tough questions. I suspect that the fact he has gone full on conspiracy vent mode might suggest the banks might have a valid reason to exclude him, there are avenues to redress such things if he's done nothing untoward.. Deflection and more appealing to his base perhaps.. I would accept that if it was a publicly know thing, but this isn't so no need to bring it out in the open" The banks won't state why they are not keen on his custom which given their track record is ironic, bit of a law unto themselves.. His excuse that it's about Brexit is bollocks given money will go where it makes the most money whatever the reasons.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't like the sound of this at face value. If he can prove he has not broken any laws, the bank in question and the other banks that have allegedly refused him an account need to answer some very tough questions. He has gone public with this, and if he has got something going on he shouldn't then again he needs to answer some very tough questions." The counter argument to that is that you are now trying to shame someone into taking you on.. which then screams of entitlement Does this mean I should have scream at Tesco car insurance for not wanting me after I had been with them for 5 years and no claims? At the end of the day they are still private businesses… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't like the sound of this at face value. If he can prove he has not broken any laws, the bank in question and the other banks that have allegedly refused him an account need to answer some very tough questions. He has gone public with this, and if he has got something going on he shouldn't then again he needs to answer some very tough questions. The counter argument to that is that you are now trying to shame someone into taking you on.. which then screams of entitlement Does this mean I should have scream at Tesco car insurance for not wanting me after I had been with them for 5 years and no claims? At the end of the day they are still private businesses… " He put his head above the parapet, if there was a concerted effort to close his accounts for no reason that needs to be known. Equally he has come out swinging and if he has been up to wrong doings then he has only himself to blame when it comes out. He cant scream fire and expect no reaction | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage is probably the least trustworthy man in politics. He had a proven record of lying, invention and corruption. The only thing he loves more than telling lies is grabbing a headline or a couple of minutes on TV. what has your life of Farage on the back of a postage stamp got to do with the bank closing his account?" It means that when Farage says ‘they’ve closed my account because they’re insane jealous pro-European traitors’ we should probably ignore him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Declared persona no longer grata by his own bank and refused by 8 others. He says it is “establishment revenge” whereas others say that banks protect their own reputation and avoid risk from accusations of being involved in money laundering and/or suspicious transactions. Is there a deeper story to this or is Farage being persecuted for Brexit as he claims." This is Coutts. He isn't a random customer out of millions. All banks have to undertake money laundering due diligence. The penalties have become very severe. Of course, at a certain level they can find ways around it, but if Farage is not "that" wealthy, he's probably not worth the risk. If a bank that he is a customer of has chosen to withdraw their services then I imagine another bank carrying out their diligence are unlikely to take a punt on him if they uncover the same concerns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't like the sound of this at face value. If he can prove he has not broken any laws, the bank in question and the other banks that have allegedly refused him an account need to answer some very tough questions. He has gone public with this, and if he has got something going on he shouldn't then again he needs to answer some very tough questions. The counter argument to that is that you are now trying to shame someone into taking you on.. which then screams of entitlement Does this mean I should have scream at Tesco car insurance for not wanting me after I had been with them for 5 years and no claims? At the end of the day they are still private businesses… He put his head above the parapet, if there was a concerted effort to close his accounts for no reason that needs to be known. Equally he has come out swinging and if he has been up to wrong doings then he has only himself to blame when it comes out. He cant scream fire and expect no reaction " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mrs Sunaks non dom bank accounts still open I guess, £12m dividends last year with trading links to Russia, and separately millions off the taxpayer in covid loans and furlough then bankrupted her uk company." As you've been told before, Akshata Murthy isn't a non-dom, and wasn't for the entirety of the last tax year. If she did receive £12m last year, she will have paid full UK tax on it. She never received a penny of COVID loans or furlough. One of the companies that she's a director of did, but that's company money, not her own personal money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You can't do much in society without a bank account. It does highlight the dangers of social credit. Private companies or not, the law needs changing so folk can at least a basic bank account somewhere so they can work and get paid and buy things." That's what everyone wants from a bank accountant. Nearly everyone would also agree with potential money laundering being investigated by the same banks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"By his own admission hes a Politically Exposed Person. Banks have a duty to due diligence where PEPs are concerned. He's been investigated. Farage, without anyone asking him seems to have revealed that the bank have had a look at his fortune and more importantly where it's come from. " Fair summary.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Declared persona no longer grata by his own bank and refused by 8 others. He says it is “establishment revenge” whereas others say that banks protect their own reputation and avoid risk from accusations of being involved in money laundering and/or suspicious transactions. Is there a deeper story to this or is Farage being persecuted for Brexit as he claims." nah, just knock of nigel whinging in a vain attempt to stay relevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well banks are private companies so they are allowed to do business with whoever they choose within reason Is it any different than for example a car insurance company not wanting you to have you as a customer!" Not quite true. There are laws there to protect customers. You need extremely exceptional reasons to close accounts. Such as suspected money laundering, constant breaches of terms and conditions. There are laws in place as every one has a right not tk be discriminated against and transact in manners deemed necessary to modern existence. Its usually only the constant thieves that now get turned away and open building society accounts. Or serious AML fraudsters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well banks are private companies so they are allowed to do business with whoever they choose within reason Is it any different than for example a car insurance company not wanting you to have you as a customer! Not quite true. There are laws there to protect customers. You need extremely exceptional reasons to close accounts. Such as suspected money laundering, constant breaches of terms and conditions. There are laws in place as every one has a right not tk be discriminated against and transact in manners deemed necessary to modern existence. Its usually only the constant thieves that now get turned away and open building society accounts. Or serious AML fraudsters. " The US Supreme Court has ruled that you can discriminate. Ours isn't politically appointed yet, so hopefully such protections will remain in place here. You do not need exceptional reasons to close bank accounts. Not according to the Financial Ombudsman Service, at least: "Businesses that provide bank accounts are generally entitled to close them – just as their customers are. But you should treat your customers fairly. You shouldn’t close an account because of unfair bias or unlawful discrimination. And you shouldn’t usually close an account without giving reasonable notice." The question is if this was due to unfair bias or unlawful discrimination. There is lawful discrimination, of course. If there is a court order, if there is suspicious activity or if you broke the terms of your agreement including false information on opening it. I do not see why they are not obliged to inform you as to why they are closing your account as there is no way of explaining a potential error or misunderstanding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need extremely exceptional reasons to close accounts. Such as suspected money laundering, constant breaches of terms and conditions." So do you think Farage was money laundering? In receipt of dodgy money? BTW your twitter mate Turver has been tweeting in support of Farage! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well banks are private companies so they are allowed to do business with whoever they choose within reason Is it any different than for example a car insurance company not wanting you to have you as a customer! Not quite true. There are laws there to protect customers. You need extremely exceptional reasons to close accounts. Such as suspected money laundering, constant breaches of terms and conditions. There are laws in place as every one has a right not tk be discriminated against and transact in manners deemed necessary to modern existence. Its usually only the constant thieves that now get turned away and open building society accounts. Or serious AML fraudsters. The US Supreme Court has ruled that you can discriminate. Ours isn't politically appointed yet, so hopefully such protections will remain in place here. You do not need exceptional reasons to close bank accounts. Not according to the Financial Ombudsman Service, at least: "Businesses that provide bank accounts are generally entitled to close them – just as their customers are. But you should treat your customers fairly. You shouldn’t close an account because of unfair bias or unlawful discrimination. And you shouldn’t usually close an account without giving reasonable notice." The question is if this was due to unfair bias or unlawful discrimination. There is lawful discrimination, of course. If there is a court order, if there is suspicious activity or if you broke the terms of your agreement including false information on opening it. I do not see why they are not obliged to inform you as to why they are closing your account as there is no way of explaining a potential error or misunderstanding." I can't be arsed reading the rest of your blather. The uk isn't the usa. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need extremely exceptional reasons to close accounts. Such as suspected money laundering, constant breaches of terms and conditions. So do you think Farage was money laundering? In receipt of dodgy money? BTW your twitter mate Turver has been tweeting in support of Farage!" Andrew Neil has too. So Andre Neil must now be a Tufton street stooges and not very clever. Shame you never addressed the actual issues turber raised on pricing. I dont know what farage will be in receipt of. If he takes it to court it will be up to the bank to prove they have had reasonable grounds to shut his account. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need extremely exceptional reasons to close accounts. Such as suspected money laundering, constant breaches of terms and conditions. So do you think Farage was money laundering? In receipt of dodgy money? BTW your twitter mate Turver has been tweeting in support of Farage! Andrew Neil has too. So Andre Neil must now be a Tufton street stooges and not very clever. Shame you never addressed the actual issues turber raised on pricing. I dont know what farage will be in receipt of. If he takes it to court it will be up to the bank to prove they have had reasonable grounds to shut his account. " He won’t take it to court, it’s just another one of his grifts , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 04/07/23 11:33:20]" It will be up to Nigel then to show why 8 institutions have turned him away without reasonable grounds. I'm not sure where coutts announced his. If you jave the link though. Thay would be great. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Coutts have confirmed that Farage had his account closed because he ‘fell below the financial threshold ‘ they also confirm he was offered a normal NatWest account which owns Coutts "Up until yesterday Coutts hadn't commented. Is there an update? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 04/07/23 11:33:20] It will be up to Nigel then to show why 8 institutions have turned him away without reasonable grounds. I'm not sure where coutts announced his. If you jave the link though. Thay would be great. " Simon Jack , BBC, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 04/07/23 11:33:20] It will be up to Nigel then to show why 8 institutions have turned him away without reasonable grounds. I'm not sure where coutts announced his. If you jave the link though. Thay would be great. " He won’t do that, he is grifting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 04/07/23 11:33:20] It will be up to Nigel then to show why 8 institutions have turned him away without reasonable grounds. I'm not sure where coutts announced his. If you jave the link though. Thay would be great. Simon Jack , BBC, "On what he has put. There might be so e serious disclosure issues from coutts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Coutts have confirmed that Farage had his account closed because he ‘fell below the financial threshold ‘ they also confirm he was offered a normal NatWest account which owns Coutts "A lie. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Coutts have confirmed that Farage had his account closed because he ‘fell below the financial threshold ‘ they also confirm he was offered a normal NatWest account which owns Coutts
A lie."Is it ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Coutts have confirmed that Farage had his account closed because he ‘fell below the financial threshold ‘ they also confirm he was offered a normal NatWest account which owns Coutts
A lie."Reported on the BBC | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Coutts have confirmed that Farage had his account closed because he ‘fell below the financial threshold ‘ they also confirm he was offered a normal NatWest account which owns Coutts
A lie.
Reported on the BBC"Coutts didn't say it I suggest you read the article carefully. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Coutts have confirmed that Farage had his account closed because he ‘fell below the financial threshold ‘ they also confirm he was offered a normal NatWest account which owns Coutts "What you said. Vs your source. But people familiar with Coutts' move said it was a "commercial" decision. "The criteria for holding a Coutts account are clear from the bank's website," they told the BBC. Coutts requires its customers to borrow or invest at least £1m with the bank or hold £3m in savings. The bank declined to comment on Mr Farage's account. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fabtastic. Are you just a habitual liar? " https://www.ft.com/content/e81766f7-304a-40b5-bbe2-db1569c8ad65 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Coutts have confirmed that Farage had his account closed because he ‘fell below the financial threshold ‘ they also confirm he was offered a normal NatWest account which owns Coutts
A lie.
Reported on the BBC
Coutts didn't say it
I suggest you read the article carefully."You can split heirs if you like, it’s quite clear what’s gone on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Coutts have confirmed that Farage had his account closed because he ‘fell below the financial threshold ‘ they also confirm he was offered a normal NatWest account which owns Coutts
A lie.
Reported on the BBC
Coutts didn't say it
I suggest you read the article carefully.
You can split heirs if you like, it’s quite clear what’s gone on "He obviously believes Farage, but in his defence , he has stated that ‘Brexit has failed ‘ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up."Apparently saying coutts said it( being a major disclosure problem) Is the same as " an unknown source fsniliar coutts suggesting it'll be because of a lack of funds" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
Apparently saying coutts said it( being a major disclosure problem)
Is the same as
" an unknown source fsniliar coutts suggesting it'll be because of a lack of funds""Of course it's the same thing, why are you trying to split hairs? It's clear to see | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
Apparently saying coutts said it( being a major disclosure problem)
Is the same as
" an unknown source fsniliar coutts suggesting it'll be because of a lack of funds""Farage has admitted that he was offered a natwest account , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
Apparently saying coutts said it( being a major disclosure problem)
Is the same as
" an unknown source fsniliar coutts suggesting it'll be because of a lack of funds"
Farage has admitted that he was offered a natwest account , "No ones disputing that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
Apparently saying coutts said it( being a major disclosure problem)
Is the same as
" an unknown source fsniliar coutts suggesting it'll be because of a lack of funds"
Farage has admitted that he was offered a natwest account ,
No ones disputing that.
"You’re backing Farage, again? Even when he has stated that ‘Brexit has failed’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up."It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed. It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account. Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace "It is a fact he was offered a natwest account It is a fact that Farage tells lies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace "Did the BBC say it is a fact that he failed to meet any financial requirements? As said by Coutts? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
"You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies? You either believe him or you don't? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have noticed all the tufty club stooges (gully included) are all trying to defend Farage "On Twitter | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
Did the BBC say it is a fact that he failed to meet any financial requirements? As said by Coutts?"Nigel himself didn’t dispute the fact that he failed to meet the financial requirements. That’s good enough for me. And I suspect even those defending him know that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
Did the BBC say it is a fact that he failed to meet any financial requirements? As said by Coutts?
Nigel himself didn’t dispute the fact that he failed to meet the financial requirements. That’s good enough for me.
And I suspect even those defending him know that."We're speaking about facts. Is it a fact, is what I asked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
Did the BBC say it is a fact that he failed to meet any financial requirements? As said by Coutts?
Nigel himself didn’t dispute the fact that he failed to meet the financial requirements. That’s good enough for me.
And I suspect even those defending him know that."Indeed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
Did the BBC say it is a fact that he failed to meet any financial requirements? As said by Coutts?
Nigel himself didn’t dispute the fact that he failed to meet the financial requirements. That’s good enough for me.
And I suspect even those defending him know that.
We're speaking about facts. Is it a fact, is what I asked."You missed a question mark in there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
Did the BBC say it is a fact that he failed to meet any financial requirements? As said by Coutts?
Nigel himself didn’t dispute the fact that he failed to meet the financial requirements. That’s good enough for me.
And I suspect even those defending him know that.
We're speaking about facts. Is it a fact, is what I asked."I’m comfortable accepting the BBC report as fact, yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
Did the BBC say it is a fact that he failed to meet any financial requirements? As said by Coutts?
Nigel himself didn’t dispute the fact that he failed to meet the financial requirements. That’s good enough for me.
And I suspect even those defending him know that.
We're speaking about facts. Is it a fact, is what I asked.
I’m comfortable accepting the BBC report as fact, yes. "I'm also happy to accept the BC report as fact. They say "But people familiar with Coutts' move said it was a "commercial" decision." That is not the same as "Coutts said" Hence "Coutts said" is not fact. You can call that 'splitting hairs' all you like, I call it a lie. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
Did the BBC say it is a fact that he failed to meet any financial requirements? As said by Coutts?
Nigel himself didn’t dispute the fact that he failed to meet the financial requirements. That’s good enough for me.
And I suspect even those defending him know that.
We're speaking about facts. Is it a fact, is what I asked.
You missed a question mark in there." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
Did the BBC say it is a fact that he failed to meet any financial requirements? As said by Coutts?
Nigel himself didn’t dispute the fact that he failed to meet the financial requirements. That’s good enough for me.
And I suspect even those defending him know that.
We're speaking about facts. Is it a fact, is what I asked.
You missed a question mark in there."You have a hissy fit earlier when you accused me of doing the same thing you've done here. As I've previously said, you've become the very thing you hate. Enjoy that mate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?"A rock and a hard place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
"‘Brexit has failed ‘ Nigel Farage | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
‘Brexit has failed ‘ Nigel Farage "Is that also fact from a liar? Fucking hilarious | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well banks are private companies so they are allowed to do business with whoever they choose within reason Is it any different than for example a car insurance company not wanting you to have you as a customer! Not quite true. There are laws there to protect customers. You need extremely exceptional reasons to close accounts. Such as suspected money laundering, constant breaches of terms and conditions. There are laws in place as every one has a right not tk be discriminated against and transact in manners deemed necessary to modern existence. Its usually only the constant thieves that now get turned away and open building society accounts. Or serious AML fraudsters. The US Supreme Court has ruled that you can discriminate. Ours isn't politically appointed yet, so hopefully such protections will remain in place here. You do not need exceptional reasons to close bank accounts. Not according to the Financial Ombudsman Service, at least: "Businesses that provide bank accounts are generally entitled to close them – just as their customers are. But you should treat your customers fairly. You shouldn’t close an account because of unfair bias or unlawful discrimination. And you shouldn’t usually close an account without giving reasonable notice." The question is if this was due to unfair bias or unlawful discrimination. There is lawful discrimination, of course. If there is a court order, if there is suspicious activity or if you broke the terms of your agreement including false information on opening it. I do not see why they are not obliged to inform you as to why they are closing your account as there is no way of explaining a potential error or misunderstanding. I can't be arsed reading the rest of your blather. The uk isn't the usa. " Well done revelling in your ignorance then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I worked in this field for 5 years across bookmakers and financial institutions. You have what's known as a braganza duty. The Braganza case [2] involved a substantial departure by the Supreme Court from precedent in the interpretation of contractual provisions [3]. It effectively implied into a commercial contract, over and above the express terms of the contract, a new ‘duty’ akin to the public law concept of ‘Wednesbury reasonabless’ (that is, the requirement that the decision-making process in relation to the exercise of a contractual discretion be undertaken in good faith and not arbitrarily or capriciously). It's a part no bank wishes to take on really. You face discrimination suits, particularly in the protected characteristics as a consumer. Typically it would be hard to justify closing the account to the financial conduct authority. Without proof of fraud or attacking workers etc. " That does appear to sound impressive and difficult to challenge. Are you a lawyer? Lawyers seem to disagree with you, as do the courts. Any straw to clutch at, I suppose, having deliberately ignored the information that outlines the position of the Financial Ombudsman Service because you "can't be arsed". Well done you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
Did the BBC say it is a fact that he failed to meet any financial requirements? As said by Coutts?
Nigel himself didn’t dispute the fact that he failed to meet the financial requirements. That’s good enough for me.
And I suspect even those defending him know that.
We're speaking about facts. Is it a fact, is what I asked.
You missed a question mark in there.
You have a hissy fit earlier when you accused me of doing the same thing you've done here.
As I've previously said, you've become the very thing you hate. Enjoy that mate."1. I didn't have a hissy fit. 2. It was a joke making fun of this section of the forums becoming an endless semantic debate over a missing apostrophe, an "and" instead of an "and/or" etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
"So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram… Have I missed anything? So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high! "Farage, man of the people , anti establishment, having a hissy fit when he can’t bank with the bank of the establishment | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high! "That seems to be the summary. However, Farage can say what he likes and the bank cannot provide anything but a bland statement because they would otherwise be disclosing confidential information. Did anybody notice that over the arguments about who said what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
“nickels for Nigel!”
Cash for cun…………………..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am assuming at that level his courts account probably paid out a higher interest rate than us sleps… The fact he is only telling us that coutts offered him a NatWest account last Thursday is naughty because he has been implying all this time that he couldn’t get any account! He just can’t get an account he feels he deserves… That’s guilt by omission… Welcome to the world of normal people Nigel!!!! Or maybe we can have a fundraiser for him “Funds for farage!” “nickels for Nigel!”
Cash for cun………………….. "He already had his little fundraiser when people paid him £50 each to March for Brexit. Of course he didn’t actually March with them for much of it. He had a campaign bus and popped out when there was a photo op. And then there’s the Brexit party candidates who paid their candidate fee before Nige stood them all down without a refund. Yeah, man of the people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I worked in this field for 5 years across bookmakers and financial institutions. You have what's known as a braganza duty. The Braganza case [2] involved a substantial departure by the Supreme Court from precedent in the interpretation of contractual provisions [3]. It effectively implied into a commercial contract, over and above the express terms of the contract, a new ‘duty’ akin to the public law concept of ‘Wednesbury reasonabless’ (that is, the requirement that the decision-making process in relation to the exercise of a contractual discretion be undertaken in good faith and not arbitrarily or capriciously). It's a part no bank wishes to take on really. You face discrimination suits, particularly in the protected characteristics as a consumer. Typically it would be hard to justify closing the account to the financial conduct authority. Without proof of fraud or attacking workers etc. That does appear to sound impressive and difficult to challenge. Are you a lawyer? Lawyers seem to disagree with you, as do the courts. Any straw to clutch at, I suppose, having deliberately ignored the information that outlines the position of the Financial Ombudsman Service because you "can't be arsed". Well done you "This is the actual case law. What you are seeing above in braganza is an actual legal case. And solicitors don't disagree with me in fact what you quoted above is exactly what bragaza delta with. You do not need exceptional reasons to close bank accounts. Not according to the Financial Ombudsman Service, at least: "Businesses that provide bank accounts are generally entitled to close them – just as their customers are. But you should treat your customers fairly. You shouldn’t close an account because of unfair bias or unlawful discrimination. And you shouldn’t usually close an account without giving reasonable notice." The question is if this was due to unfair bias or unlawful discrimination. There is lawful discrimination, of course. If there is a court order, if there is suspicious activity or if you broke the terms of your agreement including false information on opening it." What Nigel of course is alluding to is discrimination as the reason he ca t open accounts elsewhere and why his account was being closed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am assuming at that level his courts account probably paid out a higher interest rate than us sleps… The fact he is only telling us that coutts offered him a NatWest account last Thursday is naughty because he has been implying all this time that he couldn’t get any account! He just can’t get an account he feels he deserves… That’s guilt by omission… Welcome to the world of normal people Nigel!!!! Or maybe we can have a fundraiser for him “Funds for farage!” “nickels for Nigel!”
Cash for cun…………………..
He already had his little fundraiser when people paid him £50 each to March for Brexit.
Of course he didn’t actually March with them for much of it. He had a campaign bus and popped out when there was a photo op.
And then there’s the Brexit party candidates who paid their candidate fee before Nige stood them all down without a refund.
Yeah, man of the people. "Is he still doing his ‘personalised’ videos ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I worked in this field for 5 years across bookmakers and financial institutions. You have what's known as a braganza duty. The Braganza case [2] involved a substantial departure by the Supreme Court from precedent in the interpretation of contractual provisions [3]. It effectively implied into a commercial contract, over and above the express terms of the contract, a new ‘duty’ akin to the public law concept of ‘Wednesbury reasonabless’ (that is, the requirement that the decision-making process in relation to the exercise of a contractual discretion be undertaken in good faith and not arbitrarily or capriciously). It's a part no bank wishes to take on really. You face discrimination suits, particularly in the protected characteristics as a consumer. Typically it would be hard to justify closing the account to the financial conduct authority. Without proof of fraud or attacking workers etc. That does appear to sound impressive and difficult to challenge. Are you a lawyer? Lawyers seem to disagree with you, as do the courts. Any straw to clutch at, I suppose, having deliberately ignored the information that outlines the position of the Financial Ombudsman Service because you "can't be arsed". Well done you
This is the actual case law. What you are seeing above in braganza is an actual legal case.
And solicitors don't disagree with me in fact what you quoted above is exactly what bragaza delta with.
You do not need exceptional reasons to close bank accounts. Not according to the Financial Ombudsman Service, at least:
"Businesses that provide bank accounts are generally entitled to close them – just as their customers are. But you should treat your customers fairly. You shouldn’t close an account because of unfair bias or unlawful discrimination. And you shouldn’t usually close an account without giving reasonable notice."
The question is if this was due to unfair bias or unlawful discrimination.
There is lawful discrimination, of course. If there is a court order, if there is suspicious activity or if you broke the terms of your agreement including false information on opening it."
What Nigel of course is alluding to is discrimination as the reason he ca t open accounts elsewhere and why his account was being closed.
"He also alluded to French mechanics trying to assassinate him, and before that, he alluded to the U.K remaining in the customs union and/or single market. He even alluded to a second referendum not so long ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I worked in this field for 5 years across bookmakers and financial institutions. You have what's known as a braganza duty. The Braganza case [2] involved a substantial departure by the Supreme Court from precedent in the interpretation of contractual provisions [3]. It effectively implied into a commercial contract, over and above the express terms of the contract, a new ‘duty’ akin to the public law concept of ‘Wednesbury reasonabless’ (that is, the requirement that the decision-making process in relation to the exercise of a contractual discretion be undertaken in good faith and not arbitrarily or capriciously). It's a part no bank wishes to take on really. You face discrimination suits, particularly in the protected characteristics as a consumer. Typically it would be hard to justify closing the account to the financial conduct authority. Without proof of fraud or attacking workers etc. That does appear to sound impressive and difficult to challenge. Are you a lawyer? Lawyers seem to disagree with you, as do the courts. Any straw to clutch at, I suppose, having deliberately ignored the information that outlines the position of the Financial Ombudsman Service because you "can't be arsed". Well done you
This is the actual case law. What you are seeing above in braganza is an actual legal case.
And solicitors don't disagree with me in fact what you quoted above is exactly what bragaza delta with.
You do not need exceptional reasons to close bank accounts. Not according to the Financial Ombudsman Service, at least:
"Businesses that provide bank accounts are generally entitled to close them – just as their customers are. But you should treat your customers fairly. You shouldn’t close an account because of unfair bias or unlawful discrimination. And you shouldn’t usually close an account without giving reasonable notice."
The question is if this was due to unfair bias or unlawful discrimination.
There is lawful discrimination, of course. If there is a court order, if there is suspicious activity or if you broke the terms of your agreement including false information on opening it."
What Nigel of course is alluding to is discrimination as the reason he ca t open accounts elsewhere and why his account was being closed.
"He alluded to Turkey joining the EU and because it is next door to Syria he alluded to millions of immigrants pouring into the UK. He can allude to whatever he likes. I certainly do not care. The Financial Ombudsman Service is very clear on the circumstances under which bank accounts can be closed. You should read it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage must be pleased he still has the pull to draw in the BBC and other msm, and if he could see how he stokes a reaction here he would be over the moon." Grasping | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage must be pleased he still has the pull to draw in the BBC and other msm, and if he could see how he stokes a reaction here he would be over the moon." From his sycophants and apologists..? How sad is he if that's the case eh..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high! "The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage must be pleased he still has the pull to draw in the BBC and other msm, and if he could see how he stokes a reaction here he would be over the moon. Grasping "I have given up on trying to explain my posts or anything else to you as you consistently fail to grasp the meaning over your preconceived biases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage must be pleased he still has the pull to draw in the BBC and other msm, and if he could see how he stokes a reaction here he would be over the moon. From his sycophants and apologists..? How sad is he if that's the case eh.. "I’m not sure he cares if he has apologists, support or not as that is his makeup . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage must be pleased he still has the pull to draw in the BBC and other msm, and if he could see how he stokes a reaction here he would be over the moon. Grasping
I have given up on trying to explain my posts or anything else to you as you consistently fail to grasp the meaning over your preconceived biases. "Thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage must be pleased he still has the pull to draw in the BBC and other msm, and if he could see how he stokes a reaction here he would be over the moon. Grasping
I have given up on trying to explain my posts or anything else to you as you consistently fail to grasp the meaning over your preconceived biases.
Thanks "You’re welcome | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years"Possibly someone at the bank was a big fan and isn't there anymore? Perhaps they have been suggesting that he may wish to take his custom elsewhere for years and have finally shown him the door? Perhaps he's always been a pain in the arse and they've finally had enough and used him not being as rich and successful as he'd like to appear as a reason to get rid of him? We can make up any story that we like, just as he can. The bank cannot make any public disclosures about his circumstances. They may have given Farage a full explanation. They may not have done. According to the Financial Ombudsman Service any bank can close your account without reason as long as they give you reasonable notice of doing so. I, personally, find that suprising. However, in this case there even appears to be a reason so not much concerned as he can have a NatWest account. It may just be that none of the private banks want him because he doesn't actually have much cash. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years
Possibly someone at the bank was a big fan and isn't there anymore?
Perhaps they have been suggesting that he may wish to take his custom elsewhere for years and have finally shown him the door?
Perhaps he's always been a pain in the arse and they've finally had enough and used him not being as rich and successful as he'd like to appear as a reason to get rid of him?
We can make up any story that we like, just as he can.
The bank cannot make any public disclosures about his circumstances. They may have given Farage a full explanation. They may not have done.
According to the Financial Ombudsman Service any bank can close your account without reason as long as they give you reasonable notice of doing so.
I, personally, find that suprising. However, in this case there even appears to be a reason so not much concerned as he can have a NatWest account.
It may just be that none of the private banks want him because he doesn't actually have much cash."I'm only going on the BBC report of his claims so no idea if the 10 years is true or not. Be interesting to see if he backs the claim up but I was thinking that if this account pays better interest and he did not qualify then they may want the difference back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years"Another twist. Other coutts customers say they fall below the allotted thresholds a d jave t had their accounts closed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years
Another twist.
Other coutts customers say they fall below the allotted thresholds a d jave t had their accounts closed.
"Maybe those customers were not in this banking review cycle…… maybe a bank looks at all their customers every couple of years ish I am sure those customers would like to out themselves to coutts for an account review ! I actually now feel some sympathy for coutts as they can’t come out and refute the allegations because of privacy laws (rightly) but customers can accuse the banks of all sorts of things and if a journalist were to go up to them and say “show us your account” I bet the answer would be… god no, that’s private!!!!!! Why should I believe Nigel since he “forgot” to tell us he had actually been given a banking account alternative … because it didn’t suit the narrative that he was trying to spin!! My god!!! You have me feeling sorry for the richest private bank… i feel so dirty now!!!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years
Another twist.
Other coutts customers say they fall below the allotted thresholds a d jave t had their accounts closed.
"Grasping | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years
Another twist.
Other coutts customers say they fall below the allotted thresholds a d jave t had their accounts closed.
"But those claims came from forwarded WhatsApp messages, according o the article. What did you tell me about the reliability of forwarded WhatsApp messages the other day, Morley? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years
Another twist.
Other coutts customers say they fall below the allotted thresholds a d jave t had their accounts closed.
But those claims came from forwarded WhatsApp messages, according o the article.
What did you tell me about the reliability of forwarded WhatsApp messages the other day, Morley? "I am using the same source that fabtastic used. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years
Another twist.
Other coutts customers say they fall below the allotted thresholds a d jave t had their accounts closed.
But those claims came from forwarded WhatsApp messages, according o the article.
What did you tell me about the reliability of forwarded WhatsApp messages the other day, Morley?
I am using the same source that fabtastic used. "You made the claim that these ‘other customers’ were ‘another twist’, did you not? Do you believe these forwarded WhatsApp messages that Farage posted on twitter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years
Another twist.
Other coutts customers say they fall below the allotted thresholds a d jave t had their accounts closed.
But those claims came from forwarded WhatsApp messages, according o the article.
What did you tell me about the reliability of forwarded WhatsApp messages the other day, Morley?
I am using the same source that fabtastic used.
You made the claim that these ‘other customers’ were ‘another twist’, did you not?
Do you believe these forwarded WhatsApp messages that Farage posted on twitter? "These people have been in touch with the original reported of the story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years
Another twist.
Other coutts customers say they fall below the allotted thresholds a d jave t had their accounts closed.
But those claims came from forwarded WhatsApp messages, according o the article.
What did you tell me about the reliability of forwarded WhatsApp messages the other day, Morley?
I am using the same source that fabtastic used.
You made the claim that these ‘other customers’ were ‘another twist’, did you not?
Do you believe these forwarded WhatsApp messages that Farage posted on twitter?
These people have been in touch with the original reported of the story.
"Have they? The piece I read didn’t say that at all. Can you provide a link? The article I read just showed Farage passing forwarded WhatsApp messages off to back him up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years
Another twist.
Other coutts customers say they fall below the allotted thresholds a d jave t had their accounts closed.
But those claims came from forwarded WhatsApp messages, according o the article.
What did you tell me about the reliability of forwarded WhatsApp messages the other day, Morley?
I am using the same source that fabtastic used.
You made the claim that these ‘other customers’ were ‘another twist’, did you not?
Do you believe these forwarded WhatsApp messages that Farage posted on twitter?
These people have been in touch with the original reported of the story.
Have they? The piece I read didn’t say that at all. Can you provide a link? The article I read just showed Farage passing forwarded WhatsApp messages off to back him up.
"Literally the author of the article Tweeting it. I said it was from the same source as fabtastic used. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years
Another twist.
Other coutts customers say they fall below the allotted thresholds a d jave t had their accounts closed.
But those claims came from forwarded WhatsApp messages, according o the article.
What did you tell me about the reliability of forwarded WhatsApp messages the other day, Morley?
I am using the same source that fabtastic used.
You made the claim that these ‘other customers’ were ‘another twist’, did you not?
Do you believe these forwarded WhatsApp messages that Farage posted on twitter?
These people have been in touch with the original reported of the story.
Have they? The piece I read didn’t say that at all. Can you provide a link? The article I read just showed Farage passing forwarded WhatsApp messages off to back him up.
Literally the author of the article Tweeting it.
I said it was from the same source as fabtastic used.
"How have they been in touch? WhatsApp? Can you clarify? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years
Another twist.
Other coutts customers say they fall below the allotted thresholds a d jave t had their accounts closed.
But those claims came from forwarded WhatsApp messages, according o the article.
What did you tell me about the reliability of forwarded WhatsApp messages the other day, Morley?
I am using the same source that fabtastic used.
You made the claim that these ‘other customers’ were ‘another twist’, did you not?
Do you believe these forwarded WhatsApp messages that Farage posted on twitter?
These people have been in touch with the original reported of the story.
Have they? The piece I read didn’t say that at all. Can you provide a link? The article I read just showed Farage passing forwarded WhatsApp messages off to back him up.
Literally the author of the article Tweeting it.
I said it was from the same source as fabtastic used.
How have they been in touch? WhatsApp? Can you clarify? "Go read his tweet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Now people don't want facts.
Apparently it's splitting hairs, being pedantic, using semantics etc.
You actually couldn't make this shit up.
It’s a fact that Farage’s account was closed.
It’s a fact that he didn’t meet the financial requirements for said account.
Now if he’ll just follow through on his repeated promises to leave the U.K, that’d be ace
It is a fact he was offered a natwest account
It is a fact that Farage tells lies
You're basing the fact that he was offered a Natwest account on Nigels say so? Yet say its a fact that he tells lies?
You either believe him or you don't?
A rock and a hard place.
So basically in the world of normal people he wasn’t eligible for a premier account anymore, they offered him a basic savings account and he threw his rattle out of the pram…
Have I missed anything?
So… in the world of “1st world problems” the scale of sense of entitlement on this one is high!
The only thing you have missed is the report also states that when farage admitted he does not meet the criteria he also said that not meeting the criteria has not been a problem for the last ten years so why only a problem now. If the account does pay better interest then he may fall foul of that but maybe can claim that it was up to the bank to enforce the rules for the last 10 years
Another twist.
Other coutts customers say they fall below the allotted thresholds a d jave t had their accounts closed.
But those claims came from forwarded WhatsApp messages, according o the article.
What did you tell me about the reliability of forwarded WhatsApp messages the other day, Morley?
I am using the same source that fabtastic used.
You made the claim that these ‘other customers’ were ‘another twist’, did you not?
Do you believe these forwarded WhatsApp messages that Farage posted on twitter?
These people have been in touch with the original reported of the story.
Have they? The piece I read didn’t say that at all. Can you provide a link? The article I read just showed Farage passing forwarded WhatsApp messages off to back him up.
Literally the author of the article Tweeting it.
I said it was from the same source as fabtastic used.
How have they been in touch? WhatsApp? Can you clarify?
Go read his tweet."I’ve read it. It says they’ve been in touch. No further details than that. I’m just wondering, as you were so quick to pour scorn on WhatsApp messages as evidence previously, whether this holds up to scrutiny, that’s all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The details dont matter. Yountriednto be cock and facetious and it back fired. " Morley, you’ve been done up by your own inconsistencies here. Don’t throw your toys out of the pram, lad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You decided to be facetious and you got it completely wrong. Now stop worming and just say you're happy the article author has now admitted other coutts customers haven't received the same treatment. " Nah uh Morley. You either think foreworded WhatsApp messages are valid or you don’t. Unless of course these customers have contacted the author by other more direct means, in which case I’d be happy to see that evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The details dont matter. Yountriednto be cock and facetious and it back fired. " I must remember ‘the details don’t matter’ the next time you want to pin someone on details. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You decided to be facetious and you got it completely wrong. Now stop worming and just say you're happy the article author has now admitted other coutts customers haven't received the same treatment. Nah uh Morley. You either think foreworded WhatsApp messages are valid or you don’t. Unless of course these customers have contacted the author by other more direct means, in which case I’d be happy to see that evidence." They aren't forwarded WhatsApp messages read his tweet.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The details dont matter. Yountriednto be cock and facetious and it back fired. I must remember ‘the details don’t matter’ the next time you want to pin someone on details. " It's ok wee man. Try harder next time. Actually read the authors tweet. They weren't forwarded WhatsApp messages to him. They were coutts customers getting in touch. Not great from a bbc reporter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The details dont matter. Yountriednto be cock and facetious and it back fired. I must remember ‘the details don’t matter’ the next time you want to pin someone on details. It's ok wee man. Try harder next time. Actually read the authors tweet. They weren't forwarded WhatsApp messages to him. They were coutts customers getting in touch. Not great from a bbc reporter. " How did they get in touch? That’s all I asked. Could they have got in touch via WhatsApp? Again, I’m open to hearing your evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The details dont matter. Yountriednto be cock and facetious and it back fired. I must remember ‘the details don’t matter’ the next time you want to pin someone on details. It's ok wee man. Try harder next time. Actually read the authors tweet. They weren't forwarded WhatsApp messages to him. They were coutts customers getting in touch. Not great from a bbc reporter. How did they get in touch? That’s all I asked. Could they have got in touch via WhatsApp? Again, I’m open to hearing your evidence." It doesn't matter. He said they have been in touch. Eat the humble pie champ. What evidence did people need to hear.in tbe original article? Just that some one with a relationship with coutts said customers can't have accounts.under certain limits. Didn't matter how that person got in touch did it. Didn't matter whether or not they banked with coutts themselves. Take this one on the chin pal. The good fight will come round again for you to fight. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The details dont matter. Yountriednto be cock and facetious and it back fired. I must remember ‘the details don’t matter’ the next time you want to pin someone on details. It's ok wee man. Try harder next time. Actually read the authors tweet. They weren't forwarded WhatsApp messages to him. They were coutts customers getting in touch. Not great from a bbc reporter. How did they get in touch? That’s all I asked. Could they have got in touch via WhatsApp? Again, I’m open to hearing your evidence. It doesn't matter. He said they have been in touch. Eat the humble pie champ. What evidence did people need to hear.in tbe original article? Just that some one with a relationship with coutts said customers can't have accounts.under certain limits. Didn't matter how that person got in touch did it. Didn't matter whether or not they banked with coutts themselves. Take this one on the chin pal. The good fight will come round again for you to fight. " Morley, you can’t even see your own double standards and it’s really quite hilarious. Still, details don’t matter, do they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The details dont matter. Yountriednto be cock and facetious and it back fired. I must remember ‘the details don’t matter’ the next time you want to pin someone on details. It's ok wee man. Try harder next time. Actually read the authors tweet. They weren't forwarded WhatsApp messages to him. They were coutts customers getting in touch. Not great from a bbc reporter. How did they get in touch? That’s all I asked. Could they have got in touch via WhatsApp? Again, I’m open to hearing your evidence. It doesn't matter. He said they have been in touch. Eat the humble pie champ. What evidence did people need to hear.in tbe original article? Just that some one with a relationship with coutts said customers can't have accounts.under certain limits. Didn't matter how that person got in touch did it. Didn't matter whether or not they banked with coutts themselves. Take this one on the chin pal. The good fight will come round again for you to fight. Morley, you can’t even see your own double standards and it’s really quite hilarious. Still, details don’t matter, do they? " There is no double standard from me I said I am happy to go back to the original stance. No rebuttal of the claims of nigel. The same author who originally said a party who works with coutts said there are limits. Also said other had been in touch to say their account hadn't been closed. Same author citing different sources The method of contact didn’t matter. I am happy to not believe either source or believe both for the article. But you can't have it both ways. You can't believe 1 anonymous source contacting the author and not the others who got in contact. You are the one stuck between a rock and hard place here my friend. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a a scenario, Morley. Farage gets his mates to send him some WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Does that fulfil the criteria involved here? I believe it does - I’m not saying it’s what happened, but it’s plausible, no? " Then you're at the same impasse. He isn't a competent reporter who does his due diligence. Because A) coutts never commented B) he never sought out other coutts customers before releasing his story. C) he took the word of a person who has a relationship at face value no further checking D)he hasn't checked the people who got in contact with him. If your defense is that. Hes acted poorly in verifying the other coutts customers. You can't then turn round and use the informant of his original article as reliable. You are having yoir cake and eating it. Maybe try some humble pie instead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a a scenario, Morley. Farage gets his mates to send him some WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Does that fulfil the criteria involved here? I believe it does - I’m not saying it’s what happened, but it’s plausible, no? Then you're at the same impasse. He isn't a competent reporter who does his due diligence. Because A) coutts never commented B) he never sought out other coutts customers before releasing his story. C) he took the word of a person who has a relationship at face value no further checking D)he hasn't checked the people who got in contact with him. If your defense is that. Hes acted poorly in verifying the other coutts customers. You can't then turn round and use the informant of his original article as reliable. You are having yoir cake and eating it. Maybe try some humble pie instead." The point I’m making here Morley, which you’re either missing or ignoring, is that previously you’ve poured scorn on forwarded WhatsApp messages. Now some forwarded WhatsApp messages (with no additional evidence at present) appear to backup your initial claim, you’re willing to accept the story because ‘details don’t matter’ - your words, not mine. It’s ok fella. Can’t win them all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have a read into this a bit further…. There are lots of stories of many others being denied a bank account and have nothing to do with Russian money or poor credit ratings. It appears that if you do not subscribe to a banks work agenda, then you are not welcome… Anyone laughing at this might want to be very careful as this could easily be you next… Freedom of speech….. just watch what you say." Work agenda? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have a read into this a bit further…. There are lots of stories of many others being denied a bank account and have nothing to do with Russian money or poor credit ratings. It appears that if you do not subscribe to a banks work agenda, then you are not welcome… Anyone laughing at this might want to be very careful as this could easily be you next… Freedom of speech….. just watch what you say." If Farage is right, and they’ve closed his account for political reasons, why now? Why not a decade ago (his politics haven’t changed, and arguably his status has only shrunk). His story, like his French mechanic assassin story, makes no sense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here’s a a scenario, Morley. Farage gets his mates to send him some WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Does that fulfil the criteria involved here? I believe it does - I’m not saying it’s what happened, but it’s plausible, no? Then you're at the same impasse. He isn't a competent reporter who does his due diligence. Because A) coutts never commented B) he never sought out other coutts customers before releasing his story. C) he took the word of a person who has a relationship at face value no further checking D)he hasn't checked the people who got in contact with him. If your defense is that. Hes acted poorly in verifying the other coutts customers. You can't then turn round and use the informant of his original article as reliable. You are having yoir cake and eating it. Maybe try some humble pie instead. The point I’m making here Morley, which you’re either missing or ignoring, is that previously you’ve poured scorn on forwarded WhatsApp messages. Now some forwarded WhatsApp messages (with no additional evidence at present) appear to backup your initial claim, you’re willing to accept the story because ‘details don’t matter’ - your words, not mine. It’s ok fella. Can’t win them all. " No one is using forwarded WhatsApp messages that I have referred to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. Are you that ignorant fun fella. Simon Jack hasn't said they're forwarded WhatsApp messages. Hes said peoe who bank with coutts got in touch with him. You have magic'd up the whatsapp messages argument out of nowhere. You're confusing what nigel farage tweeted vs the article author. Make yourself a coffee sit down for 15 minutes. Read the authors tweets. Come back. And admit you've made a mistake." Wow. You really are struggling here aren’t you? I’ll leave you to go back and see if you can work out where you’ve gone wrong, because I’m not explaining it to you again. Let me know when you’ve worked it out, chap. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. Are you that ignorant fun fella. Simon Jack hasn't said they're forwarded WhatsApp messages. Hes said peoe who bank with coutts got in touch with him. You have magic'd up the whatsapp messages argument out of nowhere. You're confusing what nigel farage tweeted vs the article author. Make yourself a coffee sit down for 15 minutes. Read the authors tweets. Come back. And admit you've made a mistake. Wow. You really are struggling here aren’t you? I’ll leave you to go back and see if you can work out where you’ve gone wrong, because I’m not explaining it to you again. Let me know when you’ve worked it out, chap. " You went wrong. There were no WhatsApp messages set to the author He tweeted people got in touch. No mention of WhatsApp. You are very confused about 2 sides The bbc articles authors tweets and what farage tweeted. You've made a up a scenario in your head that farage got these people to contact the author. You dreaming up fantasies isn't proof of anything you poor misguided fool This is embarrassing. Sit this one out. There's some crayons in the corner | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. Are you that ignorant fun fella. Simon Jack hasn't said they're forwarded WhatsApp messages. Hes said peoe who bank with coutts got in touch with him. " This is the crucial area that you’re not understanding. I wonder if condensing it to this couple of sentences is good enough for you to finally work it out? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. Are you that ignorant fun fella. Simon Jack hasn't said they're forwarded WhatsApp messages. Hes said peoe who bank with coutts got in touch with him. This is the crucial area that you’re not understanding. I wonder if condensing it to this couple of sentences is good enough for you to finally work it out?" In fact let me ask you a direct question Morley. Do you know the means of communication between the author of the tweet and these individuals? Has it been revealed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. Are you that ignorant fun fella. Simon Jack hasn't said they're forwarded WhatsApp messages. Hes said peoe who bank with coutts got in touch with him. This is the crucial area that you’re not understanding. I wonder if condensing it to this couple of sentences is good enough for you to finally work it out? In fact let me ask you a direct question Morley. Do you know the means of communication between the author of the tweet and these individuals? Has it been revealed? " Does the means of communication matter, genuinely? A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have told him the same thing, these 'people' are called into question. That's the crux of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. Are you that ignorant fun fella. Simon Jack hasn't said they're forwarded WhatsApp messages. Hes said peoe who bank with coutts got in touch with him. This is the crucial area that you’re not understanding. I wonder if condensing it to this couple of sentences is good enough for you to finally work it out? In fact let me ask you a direct question Morley. Do you know the means of communication between the author of the tweet and these individuals? Has it been revealed? " This doesn't matter. As I stated to you. You were happy that he used a source without describing the means of communication for the original story. The means of communication does not matter in the subsequent follow up. Either you believe both. Or you beleive neither. You have no evidence it was via WhatsApp. You've dreamed it up. So just eat the humble pie and admit your were being facetious and got caught out or you're a hypocrite. You can pick your poison. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. Are you that ignorant fun fella. Simon Jack hasn't said they're forwarded WhatsApp messages. Hes said peoe who bank with coutts got in touch with him. This is the crucial area that you’re not understanding. I wonder if condensing it to this couple of sentences is good enough for you to finally work it out? In fact let me ask you a direct question Morley. Do you know the means of communication between the author of the tweet and these individuals? Has it been revealed? Does the means of communication matter, genuinely? A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have told him the same thing, these 'people' are called into question. That's the crux of it." Exactly. But fun fella. Wants to die on a dumb hill. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. Are you that ignorant fun fella. Simon Jack hasn't said they're forwarded WhatsApp messages. Hes said peoe who bank with coutts got in touch with him. This is the crucial area that you’re not understanding. I wonder if condensing it to this couple of sentences is good enough for you to finally work it out? In fact let me ask you a direct question Morley. Do you know the means of communication between the author of the tweet and these individuals? Has it been revealed? Does the means of communication matter, genuinely? A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have told him the same thing, these 'people' are called into question. That's the crux of it." Yes, the means of communication matters. Farage is a known and proven liar and inventor of stories. Would I put it beneath him to ‘invent’ some other people who support his argument? No I wouldn’t. It would in fact be very much on-brand. Details matter, no matter what Morley May think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. Are you that ignorant fun fella. Simon Jack hasn't said they're forwarded WhatsApp messages. Hes said peoe who bank with coutts got in touch with him. This is the crucial area that you’re not understanding. I wonder if condensing it to this couple of sentences is good enough for you to finally work it out? In fact let me ask you a direct question Morley. Do you know the means of communication between the author of the tweet and these individuals? Has it been revealed? This doesn't matter. As I stated to you. You were happy that he used a source without describing the means of communication for the original story. The means of communication does not matter in the subsequent follow up. Either you believe both. Or you beleive neither. You have no evidence it was via WhatsApp. You've dreamed it up. So just eat the humble pie and admit your were being facetious and got caught out or you're a hypocrite. You can pick your poison. " Morley, I don’t have to admit anything - you’re the one presenting double standards on the forum and now claiming that ‘details don’t matter’ I’m happy to accept these people’s stories once they’re verified. All we have right now is Farage presenting some alleged messages, and a reporter using terminology that doesn’t discount a potential BS trail from British politics most notorious liar. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. Are you that ignorant fun fella. Simon Jack hasn't said they're forwarded WhatsApp messages. Hes said peoe who bank with coutts got in touch with him. This is the crucial area that you’re not understanding. I wonder if condensing it to this couple of sentences is good enough for you to finally work it out? In fact let me ask you a direct question Morley. Do you know the means of communication between the author of the tweet and these individuals? Has it been revealed? This doesn't matter. As I stated to you. You were happy that he used a source without describing the means of communication for the original story. The means of communication does not matter in the subsequent follow up. Either you believe both. Or you beleive neither. You have no evidence it was via WhatsApp. You've dreamed it up. So just eat the humble pie and admit your were being facetious and got caught out or you're a hypocrite. You can pick your poison. Morley, I don’t have to admit anything - you’re the one presenting double standards on the forum and now claiming that ‘details don’t matter’ I’m happy to accept these people’s stories once they’re verified. All we have right now is Farage presenting some alleged messages, and a reporter using terminology that doesn’t discount a potential BS trail from British politics most notorious liar. " So you're a hypocrite then. Glad we got that sorted I had no double standards. I was happy to beleive both or neither story. You dont want to verify the means of communication or the source of the original tweets/ articles assessment. But you do want to verify the source of the subsequent tweet information. That makes you hypocrite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. Are you that ignorant fun fella. Simon Jack hasn't said they're forwarded WhatsApp messages. Hes said peoe who bank with coutts got in touch with him. This is the crucial area that you’re not understanding. I wonder if condensing it to this couple of sentences is good enough for you to finally work it out? In fact let me ask you a direct question Morley. Do you know the means of communication between the author of the tweet and these individuals? Has it been revealed? This doesn't matter. As I stated to you. You were happy that he used a source without describing the means of communication for the original story. The means of communication does not matter in the subsequent follow up. Either you believe both. Or you beleive neither. You have no evidence it was via WhatsApp. You've dreamed it up. So just eat the humble pie and admit your were being facetious and got caught out or you're a hypocrite. You can pick your poison. Morley, I don’t have to admit anything - you’re the one presenting double standards on the forum and now claiming that ‘details don’t matter’ I’m happy to accept these people’s stories once they’re verified. All we have right now is Farage presenting some alleged messages, and a reporter using terminology that doesn’t discount a potential BS trail from British politics most notorious liar. So you're a hypocrite then. Glad we got that sorted I had no double standards. I was happy to beleive both or neither story. You dont want to verify the means of communication or the source of the original tweets/ articles assessment. But you do want to verify the source of the subsequent tweet information. That makes you hypocrite. " I want to see Farage’s claims verified and proven. That’s not hypocrisy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question. Are you that ignorant fun fella. Simon Jack hasn't said they're forwarded WhatsApp messages. Hes said peoe who bank with coutts got in touch with him. This is the crucial area that you’re not understanding. I wonder if condensing it to this couple of sentences is good enough for you to finally work it out? In fact let me ask you a direct question Morley. Do you know the means of communication between the author of the tweet and these individuals? Has it been revealed? Does the means of communication matter, genuinely? A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have told him the same thing, these 'people' are called into question. That's the crux of it. Yes, the means of communication matters. Farage is a known and proven liar and inventor of stories. Would I put it beneath him to ‘invent’ some other people who support his argument? No I wouldn’t. It would in fact be very much on-brand. Details matter, no matter what Morley May think. " I'm not speaking about Farage, I'm speaking about the BBC journalist. Hence, I said 'BBC journalist'. Do the means of communication matter? As far as I'm aware, he hasn't said how these details where communicated to him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. " Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest." The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. " So you made up a scenario. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest." 100% Fun fella is so far down his rabbit hole though and too proud to admit it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest." I literally said it was a hypothesis. ‘You’ve made that up’ - yes. It’s a hypothese. Can you disprove it, with the present evidence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy." The only source we actually know exists is the journalist. The journalist has at no point mentioned WhatsApp | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. So you made up a scenario. " I’ve not once claimed it’s correct, but can you disprove it? Seriously, entertain me. Can you, with present evidence, prove my hypothesis wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy. The only source we actually know exists is the journalist. The journalist has at no point mentioned WhatsApp " I never said he had. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy. The only source we actually know exists is the journalist. The journalist has at no point mentioned WhatsApp I never said he had." I'm trying to engage with you about the journalist, I keep telling you this. You replied: "The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info." Looks to me like you have said he had. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy. The only source we actually know exists is the journalist. The journalist has at no point mentioned WhatsApp I never said he had. I'm trying to engage with you about the journalist, I keep telling you this. You replied: "The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info." Looks to me like you have said he had." No. Farage tweeted the WhatsApp messages, and that’s where this part of the story was born. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy. The only source we actually know exists is the journalist. The journalist has at no point mentioned WhatsApp I never said he had. I'm trying to engage with you about the journalist, I keep telling you this. You replied: "The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info." Looks to me like you have said he had. No. Farage tweeted the WhatsApp messages, and that’s where this part of the story was born. " The journalist said he personally received communication. Fuck Farage, I don't care what he's saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy. The only source we actually know exists is the journalist. The journalist has at no point mentioned WhatsApp I never said he had. I'm trying to engage with you about the journalist, I keep telling you this. You replied: "The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info." Looks to me like you have said he had. No. Farage tweeted the WhatsApp messages, and that’s where this part of the story was born. " This part of the story has no baring on the journalist story. Other than what fun fella has made.up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy. The only source we actually know exists is the journalist. The journalist has at no point mentioned WhatsApp I never said he had. I'm trying to engage with you about the journalist, I keep telling you this. You replied: "The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info." Looks to me like you have said he had. No. Farage tweeted the WhatsApp messages, and that’s where this part of the story was born. The journalist said he personally received communication. Fuck Farage, I don't care what he's saying." And all I’ve asked Morley is to confirm (if he knows) the means of said communications. Because until that’s verified, we have no way of knowing that the comms weren’t invented by mates of Farage - as I said clearly, I think a BBC journo would be better than that, but I’m wary of anything that Farage is involved with, such is his history of invention and playing the victim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy. The only source we actually know exists is the journalist. The journalist has at no point mentioned WhatsApp I never said he had. I'm trying to engage with you about the journalist, I keep telling you this. You replied: "The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info." Looks to me like you have said he had. No. Farage tweeted the WhatsApp messages, and that’s where this part of the story was born. This part of the story has no baring on the journalist story. Other than what fun fella has made.up. " Morley, let’s cut to the chase. Can you at present, disprove the hypothesis I set? Yes or no will suffice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy. The only source we actually know exists is the journalist. The journalist has at no point mentioned WhatsApp I never said he had. I'm trying to engage with you about the journalist, I keep telling you this. You replied: "The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info." Looks to me like you have said he had. No. Farage tweeted the WhatsApp messages, and that’s where this part of the story was born. The journalist said he personally received communication. Fuck Farage, I don't care what he's saying. And all I’ve asked Morley is to confirm (if he knows) the means of said communications. Because until that’s verified, we have no way of knowing that the comms weren’t invented by mates of Farage - as I said clearly, I think a BBC journo would be better than that, but I’m wary of anything that Farage is involved with, such is his history of invention and playing the victim. " So answer the questions. A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating Farage fell below limits. Should we believe him? A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating others have had accounts closed. Should we believe him? If we do believe him, Should we call into question the integrity of those communications? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy. The only source we actually know exists is the journalist. The journalist has at no point mentioned WhatsApp I never said he had. I'm trying to engage with you about the journalist, I keep telling you this. You replied: "The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info." Looks to me like you have said he had. No. Farage tweeted the WhatsApp messages, and that’s where this part of the story was born. The journalist said he personally received communication. Fuck Farage, I don't care what he's saying. And all I’ve asked Morley is to confirm (if he knows) the means of said communications. Because until that’s verified, we have no way of knowing that the comms weren’t invented by mates of Farage - as I said clearly, I think a BBC journo would be better than that, but I’m wary of anything that Farage is involved with, such is his history of invention and playing the victim. So answer the questions. A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating Farage fell below limits. Should we believe him? A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating others have had accounts closed. Should we believe him? If we do believe him, Should we call into question the integrity of those communications?" As I said, the initial source we know is from within the banking industry, and one article suggested within Coutts. The second sources? We know nothing about them. I hope the journo has done his job and verified all of these sources, but at present we just don’t know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy. The only source we actually know exists is the journalist. The journalist has at no point mentioned WhatsApp I never said he had. I'm trying to engage with you about the journalist, I keep telling you this. You replied: "The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info." Looks to me like you have said he had. No. Farage tweeted the WhatsApp messages, and that’s where this part of the story was born. The journalist said he personally received communication. Fuck Farage, I don't care what he's saying. And all I’ve asked Morley is to confirm (if he knows) the means of said communications. Because until that’s verified, we have no way of knowing that the comms weren’t invented by mates of Farage - as I said clearly, I think a BBC journo would be better than that, but I’m wary of anything that Farage is involved with, such is his history of invention and playing the victim. So answer the questions. A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating Farage fell below limits. Should we believe him? A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating others have had accounts closed. Should we believe him? If we do believe him, Should we call into question the integrity of those communications? As I said, the initial source we know is from within the banking industry, and one article suggested within Coutts. The second sources? We know nothing about them. I hope the journo has done his job and verified all of these sources, but at present we just don’t know. " So you won't answer the questions, no drama, it doesn't help us understand you're position on it though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy. The only source we actually know exists is the journalist. The journalist has at no point mentioned WhatsApp I never said he had. I'm trying to engage with you about the journalist, I keep telling you this. You replied: "The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info." Looks to me like you have said he had. No. Farage tweeted the WhatsApp messages, and that’s where this part of the story was born. The journalist said he personally received communication. Fuck Farage, I don't care what he's saying. And all I’ve asked Morley is to confirm (if he knows) the means of said communications. Because until that’s verified, we have no way of knowing that the comms weren’t invented by mates of Farage - as I said clearly, I think a BBC journo would be better than that, but I’m wary of anything that Farage is involved with, such is his history of invention and playing the victim. So answer the questions. A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating Farage fell below limits. Should we believe him? A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating others have had accounts closed. Should we believe him? If we do believe him, Should we call into question the integrity of those communications? As I said, the initial source we know is from within the banking industry, and one article suggested within Coutts. The second sources? We know nothing about them. I hope the journo has done his job and verified all of these sources, but at present we just don’t know. So you won't answer the questions, no drama, it doesn't help us understand you're position on it though. " I literally answered the question. Don’t blame me if you don’t understand a fairly basic point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Until more evidence arrives, I see nothing out there to disprove the hypotheses below. Farage gets his mates to send him some (fake) WhatsApp messages explaining that they’ve not had their accounts closed despite not having enough funds. Farage tweets this. A journo gets in touch with Farage and asks if he can speak with these people. And Farage gets his (fake) mates to WhatsApp the journo with their stories. Is this what happened? I’d like to think not, because a journo should have higher standards than that - (and I suspect a BBC journo will) But am I about to accept Farage’s story on face value? No way. He’s left a 40 year trail of bullshit behind him, and I have no reason to suspect he’s telling the truth now. Except that isn't what the journalist said happened. You've definitely made that up. I was right in the first place. A BBC journalist says someone told him Farage fell below limits, he's to be believed. The same BBC journalist says other have contacted him re. account closures, those people should be called into question. That's hypocrisy at its finest. The source who said he’d fallen below limits was said to be from within Coutts/the industry. The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info. That’s not hypocrisy. The only source we actually know exists is the journalist. The journalist has at no point mentioned WhatsApp I never said he had. I'm trying to engage with you about the journalist, I keep telling you this. You replied: "The sources defending Farage stem from WhatsApp messages with no further info." Looks to me like you have said he had. No. Farage tweeted the WhatsApp messages, and that’s where this part of the story was born. The journalist said he personally received communication. Fuck Farage, I don't care what he's saying. And all I’ve asked Morley is to confirm (if he knows) the means of said communications. Because until that’s verified, we have no way of knowing that the comms weren’t invented by mates of Farage - as I said clearly, I think a BBC journo would be better than that, but I’m wary of anything that Farage is involved with, such is his history of invention and playing the victim. So answer the questions. A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating Farage fell below limits. Should we believe him? A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating others have had accounts closed. Should we believe him? If we do believe him, Should we call into question the integrity of those communications? As I said, the initial source we know is from within the banking industry, and one article suggested within Coutts. The second sources? We know nothing about them. I hope the journo has done his job and verified all of these sources, but at present we just don’t know. So you won't answer the questions, no drama, it doesn't help us understand you're position on it though. I literally answered the question. Don’t blame me if you don’t understand a fairly basic point. " You may think you did but you really didn't. They're all simple yes/no answers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
