FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > BBC journalist sources re. Farage bank
BBC journalist sources re. Farage bank
Jump to: Newest in thread
I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?"
For me you beleive both or neither. You can't have your cake and eat it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
For me you beleive both or neither. You can't have your cake and eat it.
"
I agree but I'm intrigued to see other thoughts and thinking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?"
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story! "
Nope, this thread is focusing on the journalism.
Specifically what we should believe from said journalist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?"
**CORRECTION**
Others haven't had accounts closed despite falling below said limits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
Nope, this thread is focusing on the journalism.
Specifically what we should believe from said journalist."
Has farage refuted what the journalist has said…. He could do that if he wanted to by showing the public his bank statements….
I mean…. If farage thought his reputations was being ruined he could always sue for defamation!
See… farage story has changed… it’s gone from “the don’t want me as a customer and no one does either!” When they basically offered him a downgraded bank account…. To now “well coutts have changed the rules!”
He isn’t saying the journalists is incorrect… because I am betting that the journalist probably has receipts to back up the reporting!
Do you think a bbc lawyer hasn’t seen enough evidence they wouldn’t be sued to kingdom come! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
Nope, this thread is focusing on the journalism.
Specifically what we should believe from said journalist.
Has farage refuted what the journalist has said…. He could do that if he wanted to by showing the public his bank statements….
I mean…. If farage thought his reputations was being ruined he could always sue for defamation!
See… farage story has changed… it’s gone from “the don’t want me as a customer and no one does either!” When they basically offered him a downgraded bank account…. To now “well coutts have changed the rules!”
He isn’t saying the journalists is incorrect… because I am betting that the journalist probably has receipts to back up the reporting!
Do you think a bbc lawyer hasn’t seen enough evidence they wouldn’t be sued to kingdom come! "
You're trying to change the narrative of the thread.
I'm not saying the journalist is lying. I'm asking 3 simple questions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm truly amazed anyone cares about farage and his bank account to be honest..."
True, unfortunately he is playing the victim to get sympathy for his next grift though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story! "
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
Nope, this thread is focusing on the journalism.
Specifically what we should believe from said journalist.
Has farage refuted what the journalist has said…. He could do that if he wanted to by showing the public his bank statements….
I mean…. If farage thought his reputations was being ruined he could always sue for defamation!
See… farage story has changed… it’s gone from “the don’t want me as a customer and no one does either!” When they basically offered him a downgraded bank account…. To now “well coutts have changed the rules!”
He isn’t saying the journalists is incorrect… because I am betting that the journalist probably has receipts to back up the reporting!
Do you think a bbc lawyer hasn’t seen enough evidence they wouldn’t be sued to kingdom come! "
Thisnks not what the thread is about.
It'd about the veracity of the journalist for some posters.
Everything was originally gospel without need for validation. When he tweeted another side. Suddenly the sources became unreliable and we needed to verify things.
We either trust the journalist on both circumstances or not at all surely? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the bank asks him to leave then he should leave , surely nige , more than anyone knows that leave means leave "
Erm...just FYI.
Not interrogating the actions of businesses who only ask a certain subset to leave might be called something.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither."
Do you believe everything that Farage says?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do you believe everything that Farage says? "
We're not talking about what Farage said. We're talking about what the journalist said  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
"If the bank asks him to leave then he should leave , surely nige , more than anyone knows that leave means leave
Erm...just FYI.
Not interrogating the actions of businesses who only ask a certain subset to leave might be called something.
"
,,,,, strange how uncle nige seems to get upset when "he" is asked to leave |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If the bank asks him to leave then he should leave , surely nige , more than anyone knows that leave means leave
Erm...just FYI.
Not interrogating the actions of businesses who only ask a certain subset to leave might be called something.
"
That would depend on their T’s and C’s. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither."
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist. "
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try. "
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
"
Do we know for certain his original source was a coutts staff member? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
Do we know for certain his original source was a coutts staff member?"
Nobody has conformed it was a Coutts staff member as far as I’m aware, reports said it was ‘an insider’ and one said it was a staff member.
The problem comes through Farage’s involvement. He’s so historically full of shit that nothing he says or is involved in can be relied upon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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 the journalist works for a large cooperation I would expect that both stories had to go through the same scrutiny and only be published if they met the required standards. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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 the journalist works for a large cooperation I would expect that both stories had to go through the same scrutiny and only be published if they met the required standards. "
You’d certainly like to think so, but it wouldn’t be the first time the beeb had screwed up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
Do we know for certain his original source was a coutts staff member?
Nobody has conformed it was a Coutts staff member as far as I’m aware, reports said it was ‘an insider’ and one said it was a staff member.
The problem comes through Farage’s involvement. He’s so historically full of shit that nothing he says or is involved in can be relied upon. "
If it wasn't a coutts staff member then it has no legitimacy.
The problem does not come from Carage because we're not speaking about Farage, we're speaking about the journalist. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
Do we know for certain his original source was a coutts staff member?
Nobody has conformed it was a Coutts staff member as far as I’m aware, reports said it was ‘an insider’ and one said it was a staff member.
The problem comes through Farage’s involvement. He’s so historically full of shit that nothing he says or is involved in can be relied upon.
If it wasn't a coutts staff member then it has no legitimacy.
The problem does not come from Carage because we're not speaking about Farage, we're speaking about the journalist. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said."
The notion that you can remove Farage from the conversation given his history of lying, is ridiculous. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
Do we know for certain his original source was a coutts staff member?
Nobody has conformed it was a Coutts staff member as far as I’m aware, reports said it was ‘an insider’ and one said it was a staff member.
The problem comes through Farage’s involvement. He’s so historically full of shit that nothing he says or is involved in can be relied upon.
If it wasn't a coutts staff member then it has no legitimacy.
The problem does not come from Carage because we're not speaking about Farage, we're speaking about the journalist. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said.
The notion that you can remove Farage from the conversation given his history of lying, is ridiculous."
The notion that you can include him when I'm saying fuck what Farage said, I'm interested in the journalism is, quite frankly ridiculous.
Farage has absolutely nothing to do with the journalist or his sources.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
Do we know for certain his original source was a coutts staff member?
Nobody has conformed it was a Coutts staff member as far as I’m aware, reports said it was ‘an insider’ and one said it was a staff member.
The problem comes through Farage’s involvement. He’s so historically full of shit that nothing he says or is involved in can be relied upon.
If it wasn't a coutts staff member then it has no legitimacy.
The problem does not come from Carage because we're not speaking about Farage, we're speaking about the journalist. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said.
The notion that you can remove Farage from the conversation given his history of lying, is ridiculous.
The notion that you can include him when I'm saying fuck what Farage said, I'm interested in the journalism is, quite frankly ridiculous.
Farage has absolutely nothing to do with the journalist or his sources.
"
It wouldn’t be the first time a journo had fallen for Farage’s shit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
Do we know for certain his original source was a coutts staff member?
Nobody has conformed it was a Coutts staff member as far as I’m aware, reports said it was ‘an insider’ and one said it was a staff member.
The problem comes through Farage’s involvement. He’s so historically full of shit that nothing he says or is involved in can be relied upon.
If it wasn't a coutts staff member then it has no legitimacy.
The problem does not come from Carage because we're not speaking about Farage, we're speaking about the journalist. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said.
The notion that you can remove Farage from the conversation given his history of lying, is ridiculous.
The notion that you can include him when I'm saying fuck what Farage said, I'm interested in the journalism is, quite frankly ridiculous.
Farage has absolutely nothing to do with the journalist or his sources.
It wouldn’t be the first time a journo had fallen for Farage’s shit. "
I'll leave it there, you refuse to answer the questions so we'll get no further and just have the usual merry go round. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
Do we know for certain his original source was a coutts staff member?
Nobody has conformed it was a Coutts staff member as far as I’m aware, reports said it was ‘an insider’ and one said it was a staff member.
The problem comes through Farage’s involvement. He’s so historically full of shit that nothing he says or is involved in can be relied upon.
If it wasn't a coutts staff member then it has no legitimacy.
The problem does not come from Carage because we're not speaking about Farage, we're speaking about the journalist. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said.
The notion that you can remove Farage from the conversation given his history of lying, is ridiculous.
The notion that you can include him when I'm saying fuck what Farage said, I'm interested in the journalism is, quite frankly ridiculous.
Farage has absolutely nothing to do with the journalist or his sources.
It wouldn’t be the first time a journo had fallen for Farage’s shit.
I'll leave it there, you refuse to answer the questions so we'll get no further and just have the usual merry go round. "
Indeed. Debate on your narrow terms or not at all.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Anyhoo, my prediction is that this story will vanish in a day or two, because Farage is a lying shyster who’s just stirred up a bit of media after he’d been under the radar for a while.
Maybe he’ll invent another assassination attempt next. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
Do we know for certain his original source was a coutts staff member?
Nobody has conformed it was a Coutts staff member as far as I’m aware, reports said it was ‘an insider’ and one said it was a staff member.
The problem comes through Farage’s involvement. He’s so historically full of shit that nothing he says or is involved in can be relied upon.
If it wasn't a coutts staff member then it has no legitimacy.
The problem does not come from Carage because we're not speaking about Farage, we're speaking about the journalist. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said.
The notion that you can remove Farage from the conversation given his history of lying, is ridiculous.
The notion that you can include him when I'm saying fuck what Farage said, I'm interested in the journalism is, quite frankly ridiculous.
Farage has absolutely nothing to do with the journalist or his sources.
It wouldn’t be the first time a journo had fallen for Farage’s shit.
I'll leave it there, you refuse to answer the questions so we'll get no further and just have the usual merry go round.
Indeed. Debate on your narrow terms or not at all.
"
No. Debate on the subject stated in the OP. Still waiting for answers, so far, no one has been forthcoming. I think I know why |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ammskiMan
over a year ago
lytham st.annes |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
Do we know for certain his original source was a coutts staff member?
Nobody has conformed it was a Coutts staff member as far as I’m aware, reports said it was ‘an insider’ and one said it was a staff member.
The problem comes through Farage’s involvement. He’s so historically full of shit that nothing he says or is involved in can be relied upon.
If it wasn't a coutts staff member then it has no legitimacy.
The problem does not come from Carage because we're not speaking about Farage, we're speaking about the journalist. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said.
The notion that you can remove Farage from the conversation given his history of lying, is ridiculous.
The notion that you can include him when I'm saying fuck what Farage said, I'm interested in the journalism is, quite frankly ridiculous.
Farage has absolutely nothing to do with the journalist or his sources.
It wouldn’t be the first time a journo had fallen for Farage’s shit.
I'll leave it there, you refuse to answer the questions so we'll get no further and just have the usual merry go round.
Indeed. Debate on your narrow terms or not at all.
No. Debate on the subject stated in the OP. Still waiting for answers, so far, no one has been forthcoming. I think I know why "
If you know why,what’s the point of the thread |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
Do we know for certain his original source was a coutts staff member?
Nobody has conformed it was a Coutts staff member as far as I’m aware, reports said it was ‘an insider’ and one said it was a staff member.
The problem comes through Farage’s involvement. He’s so historically full of shit that nothing he says or is involved in can be relied upon.
If it wasn't a coutts staff member then it has no legitimacy.
The problem does not come from Carage because we're not speaking about Farage, we're speaking about the journalist. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said.
The notion that you can remove Farage from the conversation given his history of lying, is ridiculous.
The notion that you can include him when I'm saying fuck what Farage said, I'm interested in the journalism is, quite frankly ridiculous.
Farage has absolutely nothing to do with the journalist or his sources.
It wouldn’t be the first time a journo had fallen for Farage’s shit.
I'll leave it there, you refuse to answer the questions so we'll get no further and just have the usual merry go round.
Indeed. Debate on your narrow terms or not at all.
No. Debate on the subject stated in the OP. Still waiting for answers, so far, no one has been forthcoming. I think I know why If you know why,what’s the point of the thread "
Because 'I think', that means I'm not 100% positive. I was hoping someone could answer them and give me something to ponder. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
Do we know for certain his original source was a coutts staff member?
Nobody has conformed it was a Coutts staff member as far as I’m aware, reports said it was ‘an insider’ and one said it was a staff member.
The problem comes through Farage’s involvement. He’s so historically full of shit that nothing he says or is involved in can be relied upon.
If it wasn't a coutts staff member then it has no legitimacy.
The problem does not come from Carage because we're not speaking about Farage, we're speaking about the journalist. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said.
The notion that you can remove Farage from the conversation given his history of lying, is ridiculous.
The notion that you can include him when I'm saying fuck what Farage said, I'm interested in the journalism is, quite frankly ridiculous.
Farage has absolutely nothing to do with the journalist or his sources.
It wouldn’t be the first time a journo had fallen for Farage’s shit.
I'll leave it there, you refuse to answer the questions so we'll get no further and just have the usual merry go round.
Indeed. Debate on your narrow terms or not at all.
No. Debate on the subject stated in the OP. Still waiting for answers, so far, no one has been forthcoming. I think I know why If you know why,what’s the point of the thread
Because 'I think', that means I'm not 100% positive. I was hoping someone could answer them and give me something to ponder."
Not a chance that’s going to happen, people here are so anti a person they couldn’t give 2 f**ks if they’re innocent or guilty as long as they get a puppet show |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
The notion that you can remove Farage from the conversation given his history of lying, is ridiculous.
The notion that you can include him when I'm saying fuck what Farage said, I'm interested in the journalism is, quite frankly ridiculous.
Farage has absolutely nothing to do with the journalist or his sources.
"
That’s incredibly nieve…. Farage is the one who tried to make this a public interest story with a skewed account of what has happened…
If any journalist can disprove an account of what has happened then it’s basically whistleblowing,
As long as he got the information legally… which he would have otherwise it would not have gotten past the bbc lawyers to publish the claim then the actions of the journalist are above board
Like we said, and you are determined not to listen to try and score some sort of imaginary point, farage response was not to deny the report! It was to change the account! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The notion that you can remove Farage from the conversation given his history of lying, is ridiculous.
The notion that you can include him when I'm saying fuck what Farage said, I'm interested in the journalism is, quite frankly ridiculous.
Farage has absolutely nothing to do with the journalist or his sources.
That’s incredibly nieve…. Farage is the one who tried to make this a public interest story with a skewed account of what has happened…
If any journalist can disprove an account of what has happened then it’s basically whistleblowing,
As long as he got the information legally… which he would have otherwise it would not have gotten past the bbc lawyers to publish the claim then the actions of the journalist are above board
Like we said, and you are determined not to listen to try and score some sort of imaginary point, farage response was not to deny the report! It was to change the account! "
Like I said, you're trying to change the narrative of the thread.
I'm speaking purely about the 2 statements made by the journalist.
My questions really are simple yes/no answers.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
Again.. you are not listening… the key words are “public interest”
So the journalist cannot out people if they are coming forward anonymously claiming the same thing has/hasn’t happened unless they make themselves known publicly
And here lies the beauty of WhatsApp… anonymity ….. or throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks depending on your viewpoint!
Farage made it a story by outing himself.. and lying about the circumstances, probably this journalist (and others) were trying to find out if his original account was true
If it was… then the story doesn’t deviate from his
But his account wasn’t true then the journalist has every right to challenge the allegations with the evidence that he has… which he did! And was legal…
So… yet again…. Farage isn’t disputed the evidence.. he (like you) is changing the narrative! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
Let’s try this in language that even you will understand and why farage is important to the story (even though you want to stick your finger in your ear)
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating Farage fell below limits. Should we believe him?"
Yes… for two reasons
A) it would not have gotten past a BBC lawyer to publish the report if he did not have reputable evidence and/or sources
B) farage (here we go again) has NOT disputed the report.. his response was to change the story!
"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?"
Yes we should believe the journalist,
should we question the integrity of the journalist?
Well he has not said anything that isn’t true so far so he probably has evidence that would support the further claims ……but unless those people come forward publicly they cannot be named…
outing random people for losing their coutts account is not a public interest story …. Farage made HIS a public interest story by the allegations he made in regards to why his account was downgraded! And his allegations were false |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let’s try this in language that even you will understand and why farage is important to the story (even though you want to stick your finger in your ear)
I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating Farage fell below limits. Should we believe him?
Yes… for two reasons
A) it would not have gotten past a BBC lawyer to publish the report if he did not have reputable evidence and/or sources
B) farage (here we go again) has NOT disputed the report.. his response was to change the story!
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?
Yes we should believe the journalist,
should we question the integrity of the journalist?
Well he has not said anything that isn’t true so far so he probably has evidence that would support the further claims ……but unless those people come forward publicly they cannot be named…
outing random people for losing their coutts account is not a public interest story …. Farage made HIS a public interest story by the allegations he made in regards to why his account was downgraded! And his allegations were false "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let’s try this in language that even you will understand and why farage is important to the story (even though you want to stick your finger in your ear)
I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating Farage fell below limits. Should we believe him?
Yes… for two reasons
A) it would not have gotten past a BBC lawyer to publish the report if he did not have reputable evidence and/or sources
B) farage (here we go again) has NOT disputed the report.. his response was to change the story!
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?
Yes we should believe the journalist,
should we question the integrity of the journalist?
Well he has not said anything that isn’t true so far so he probably has evidence that would support the further claims ……but unless those people come forward publicly they cannot be named…
outing random people for losing their coutts account is not a public interest story …. Farage made HIS a public interest story by the allegations he made in regards to why his account was downgraded! And his allegations were false "
Imagine accusing me of not listening whilst failing to see the point I'm making until this reply.
And then saying 'that even you will understand', do you feel like you're more intelligent than I?
You have now answered the question.
We should believe the journalist on both points. Thank you.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Let’s try this in language that even you will understand and why farage is important to the story (even though you want to stick your finger in your ear)
I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating Farage fell below limits. Should we believe him?
Yes… for two reasons
A) it would not have gotten past a BBC lawyer to publish the report if he did not have reputable evidence and/or sources
B) farage (here we go again) has NOT disputed the report.. his response was to change the story!
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?
Yes we should believe the journalist,
should we question the integrity of the journalist?
Well he has not said anything that isn’t true so far so he probably has evidence that would support the further claims ……but unless those people come forward publicly they cannot be named…
outing random people for losing their coutts account is not a public interest story …. Farage made HIS a public interest story by the allegations he made in regards to why his account was downgraded! And his allegations were false
Imagine accusing me of not listening whilst failing to see the point I'm making until this reply.
And then saying 'that even you will understand', do you feel like you're more intelligent than I?
You have now answered the question.
We should believe the journalist on both points. Thank you.
"
Do I feel I am more intelligent than you…. Nope
What others were trying to say to you is why farage himself was integral to the answer to the question you were posing and you were either blindly dismissing them and/or blinkered/fixated solely on the journalist…
The journalist is not the central part of the story… it is the farage false accusation |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let’s try this in language that even you will understand and why farage is important to the story (even though you want to stick your finger in your ear)
I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating Farage fell below limits. Should we believe him?
Yes… for two reasons
A) it would not have gotten past a BBC lawyer to publish the report if he did not have reputable evidence and/or sources
B) farage (here we go again) has NOT disputed the report.. his response was to change the story!
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?
Yes we should believe the journalist,
should we question the integrity of the journalist?
Well he has not said anything that isn’t true so far so he probably has evidence that would support the further claims ……but unless those people come forward publicly they cannot be named…
outing random people for losing their coutts account is not a public interest story …. Farage made HIS a public interest story by the allegations he made in regards to why his account was downgraded! And his allegations were false
Imagine accusing me of not listening whilst failing to see the point I'm making until this reply.
And then saying 'that even you will understand', do you feel like you're more intelligent than I?
You have now answered the question.
We should believe the journalist on both points. Thank you.
Do I feel I am more intelligent than you…. Nope
What others were trying to say to you is why farage himself was integral to the answer to the question you were posing and you were either blindly dismissing them and/or blinkered/fixated solely on the journalist…
The journalist is not the central part of the story… it is the farage false accusation "
Nope, you're still missing the point.
I don't care about Farage, I care about the journalist.
It was put to me that we should believe the journalist on his first tweet that someone 'in the know' did indeed tell him Farage fell below the threshold.
It was then put to me that we shouldn't believe the people who contacted the journalist who are below the threshold that haven't had accounts closed because they could be 'Farage friends'.
I'm struggling to see why we should believe his first source is good but subsequent ones aren't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"“Farage is a grifting dodgy cunt”
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk"
We know that but what do you think to my questions?
Or is it a case that we can't talk about this subject because Farage is a cunt? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You need to be aware that the people behind it have an agenda of some sort.
The journalists agenda is to break some news before anyone else in order to boost their profile. So how much checking have they done as to the integrity of the "facts".
The person feeding the journalist the information, if they are indeed an inside source then are fundamentally untrustworthy as they will be breaking their employment contract by doing this. So they are motivated by their politics or money or both.
So while I suspect it may be true I'm stuggling to care one way or another. I'm only writing this out of boredom while Im supposed to be working and the irony isn't lost on me that I am also probably breaking my employment contract by spending time on Fab during work hours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try. "
Discretion / discrimination potayto potarto |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
I know what he said. That’s why I asked if we knew ‘for certain’.
I just don’t think Farage is above telling porkies to journalists (and getting others to do the same).
Do we know for certain his original source was a coutts staff member?
Nobody has conformed it was a Coutts staff member as far as I’m aware, reports said it was ‘an insider’ and one said it was a staff member.
The problem comes through Farage’s involvement. He’s so historically full of shit that nothing he says or is involved in can be relied upon.
If it wasn't a coutts staff member then it has no legitimacy.
The problem does not come from Carage because we're not speaking about Farage, we're speaking about the journalist. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said.
The notion that you can remove Farage from the conversation given his history of lying, is ridiculous.
The notion that you can include him when I'm saying fuck what Farage said, I'm interested in the journalism is, quite frankly ridiculous.
Farage has absolutely nothing to do with the journalist or his sources.
It wouldn’t be the first time a journo had fallen for Farage’s shit.
I'll leave it there, you refuse to answer the questions so we'll get no further and just have the usual merry go round.
Indeed. Debate on your narrow terms or not at all.
No. Debate on the subject stated in the OP. Still waiting for answers, so far, no one has been forthcoming. I think I know why If you know why,what’s the point of the thread "
To highlight hypocrisy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let’s try this in language that even you will understand and why farage is important to the story (even though you want to stick your finger in your ear)
I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
A BBC journalist says he's had communication stating Farage fell below limits. Should we believe him?
Yes… for two reasons
A) it would not have gotten past a BBC lawyer to publish the report if he did not have reputable evidence and/or sources
B) farage (here we go again) has NOT disputed the report.. his response was to change the story!
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?
Yes we should believe the journalist,
should we question the integrity of the journalist?
Well he has not said anything that isn’t true so far so he probably has evidence that would support the further claims ……but unless those people come forward publicly they cannot be named…
outing random people for losing their coutts account is not a public interest story …. Farage made HIS a public interest story by the allegations he made in regards to why his account was downgraded! And his allegations were false
Imagine accusing me of not listening whilst failing to see the point I'm making until this reply.
And then saying 'that even you will understand', do you feel like you're more intelligent than I?
You have now answered the question.
We should believe the journalist on both points. Thank you.
"
Praise the Lord. We got a straight answer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
Discretion / discrimination potayto potarto"
That’s not true though.
Of course if Farage has some evidence that he’s been discriminated against I’m sure he’ll be happy to demonstrate it, stand-up character that he is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
Discretion / discrimination potayto potarto
That’s not true though.
Of course if Farage has some evidence that he’s been discriminated against I’m sure he’ll be happy to demonstrate it, stand-up character that he is. "
Farage is an expert at fooling the foolish |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
It's about how we believe the journalist.
For some.
When he was originally being quoted in another thread he had reliable sources and it didn't matter how they messaged.
Now that he's interacted with other coutts holders.
Suddenly we need to know those messages how they were communicated otherwise they aren't to be believed.
A complete double standard.
Should we agree you either believe both tweets from the same reporter or neither.
Do we know for certain that the second set of comms were from Coutts customers?
It’s a valid question, whether you like it or not. It could be cleared up quickly by either the individuals or the journalist.
Well he said
"Thank you to the Coutts customers who have been in touch saying they fall below financial thresholds but unlike Farage have not been threatened with account closure. Clearly a lot of discretion available to the bank."
The questions still stand should you wish to answer them? Doubt you will but we can try.
Discretion / discrimination potayto potarto
That’s not true though.
Of course if Farage has some evidence that he’s been discriminated against I’m sure he’ll be happy to demonstrate it, stand-up character that he is.
Farage is an expert at fooling the foolish "
Whether he does or doesn't, it begs the question why others haven't had accounts closed for being below the threshold.
I'm sure the journalist will update us as to why soon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Farage is an expert at fooling the foolish
Says the man that regularly quotes Farage as an expert.
That has never happened, try again "
True.
Farage has never been quoted as an expert in any field  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Farage is an expert at fooling the foolish
Says the man that regularly quotes Farage as an expert.
That has never happened, try again
True.
Farage has never been quoted as an expert in any field "
Exactly, I did in a ask why Farage had stated that Brexit had failed though, that might be the reason for his confusion |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage is an expert at fooling the foolish
Says the man that regularly quotes Farage as an expert.
That has never happened, try again
True.
Farage has never been quoted as an expert in any field
Exactly, I did in a ask why Farage had stated that Brexit had failed though, that might be the reason for his confusion "
You regularly quote Farage in 'Brexit has failed', you agree with that assertion.
There were no questions asked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage is an expert at fooling the foolish"
"Says the man that regularly quotes Farage as an expert."
"That has never happened, try again"
How about here:
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1475273#message_35897260
And here:
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1475273#message_35897353
And here:
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1475273#message_35897818 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
Nope, you're still missing the point.
I don't care about Farage, I care about the journalist.
It was put to me that we should believe the journalist on his first tweet that someone 'in the know' did indeed tell him Farage fell below the threshold.
It was then put to me that we shouldn't believe the people who contacted the journalist who are below the threshold that haven't had accounts closed because they could be 'Farage friends'.
I'm struggling to see why we should believe his first source is good but subsequent ones aren't."
So now we get to the conversation part of the thread…. The journalist in the first tweet likely had more than one source to confirm the story ( I am guessing it would not have gotten past the BBC lawyers based on just the one source)
Whereas the 2nd example he got the information through anonymous people…so unless those sources make themselves known publicly it harder to report
It’s the classic example that you get in a journalism class where you have to answer in an essay “is it reasonable to ever report an affair “ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"You need to be aware that the people behind it have an agenda of some sort.
The journalists agenda is to break some news before anyone else in order to boost their profile. So how much checking have they done as to the integrity of the "facts".
The person feeding the journalist the information, if they are indeed an inside source then are fundamentally untrustworthy as they will be breaking their employment contract by doing this. So they are motivated by their politics or money or both.
So while I suspect it may be true I'm stuggling to care one way or another. I'm only writing this out of boredom while Im supposed to be working and the irony isn't lost on me that I am also probably breaking my employment contract by spending time on Fab during work hours."
Is the journalists source really fundamentally untrustworthy… or are they whistleblowing in the public interest?
Because then in your mind the farage account of what happened would have blindly gone unchallenged … |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Farage is an expert at fooling the foolish
Says the man that regularly quotes Farage as an expert.
That has never happened, try again
How about here:
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1475273#message_35897260
And here:
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1475273#message_35897353
And here:
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1475273#message_35897818"
You obviously can’t read, but thanks for spending your time trawling through all my posts , |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's an issue that is only in the public domain because an attention-seeking individual raised it. But isn't really important, partly based on the difference between an elite account holder and the vast majority of the mass population demographics and also as it's a commercial relationship, entirely at the discretion of the business.
There's lots of hearsay but this man has only raised supposition, as he has no evidence about his own predicament. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?"
Coutts will not confirm any closures of accounts due to privacy.
A journalist will not reveal sources unless the sources agree.
Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account and that he had been offered a standard NatWest account.
So, the journalism is "believable" on these counts as confirmed by the subject of the article. Farage is therefore pertinent in establishing this.
This means that further reporting by that journalist is, on balance, also likely to be accurate.
Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
This makes it very likely that others have had their accounts closed to also be "believable". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage is an expert at fooling the foolish"
"Says the man that regularly quotes Farage as an expert."
"That has never happened, try again"
"How about here:
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1475273#message_35897260
And here:
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1475273#message_35897353
And here:
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1475273#message_35897818"
"You obviously can’t read ..."
I can read well enough to see that you keep quoting Nigel Farage, using his words as evidence to support your points. Which bits do you think I was reading incorrectly?
"... thanks for spending your time trawling through all my posts"
No need to thank me, they weren't hard to find. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Farage is an expert at fooling the foolish
Says the man that regularly quotes Farage as an expert.
That has never happened, try again
How about here:
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1475273#message_35897260
And here:
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1475273#message_35897353
And here:
https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1475273#message_35897818
You obviously can’t read ...
I can read well enough to see that you keep quoting Nigel Farage, using his words as evidence to support your points. Which bits do you think I was reading incorrectly?
... thanks for spending your time trawling through all my posts
No need to thank me, they weren't hard to find."
It’s all about context , but thanks again for taking the time to re read all my posts
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy."
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably."
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Nope, you're still missing the point.
I don't care about Farage, I care about the journalist.
It was put to me that we should believe the journalist on his first tweet that someone 'in the know' did indeed tell him Farage fell below the threshold.
It was then put to me that we shouldn't believe the people who contacted the journalist who are below the threshold that haven't had accounts closed because they could be 'Farage friends'.
I'm struggling to see why we should believe his first source is good but subsequent ones aren't.
So now we get to the conversation part of the thread…. The journalist in the first tweet likely had more than one source to confirm the story ( I am guessing it would not have gotten past the BBC lawyers based on just the one source)
Whereas the 2nd example he got the information through anonymous people…so unless those sources make themselves known publicly it harder to report
It’s the classic example that you get in a journalism class where you have to answer in an essay “is it reasonable to ever report an affair “"
Both first and second sources are anonymous to us, not the journalist.
I would assume that he carried out any due diligence before publishing that second tweet.
As I've already stated, it begs the question why these sources in the second tweet have not had their accounts closed, yet Farage (and others) have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Coutts will not confirm any closures of accounts due to privacy.
A journalist will not reveal sources unless the sources agree.
Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account and that he had been offered a standard NatWest account.
So, the journalism is "believable" on these counts as confirmed by the subject of the article. Farage is therefore pertinent in establishing this.
This means that further reporting by that journalist is, on balance, also likely to be accurate.
Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
This makes it very likely that others have had their accounts closed to also be "believable"."
I had to correct my OP, you may have missed it.
The sources in the second tweet were that they HAVEN’T had their accounts closed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit "
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again…"
What Starmer says or does has no bearing on Farage being a bullshitter, does it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again…
What Starmer says or does has no bearing on Farage being a bullshitter, does it? "
Nope, but it does on who you decide to criticise or not criticise based on their BS….
hypocritical? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again…
What Starmer says or does has no bearing on Farage being a bullshitter, does it?
Nope, but it does on who you decide to criticise or not criticise based on their BS….
hypocritical? "
I’ll happily criticise u-turns by Starmer, but let’s not pretend they’re the same as inventing an assassination attempt by a mechanic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again…
What Starmer says or does has no bearing on Farage being a bullshitter, does it?
Nope, but it does on who you decide to criticise or not criticise based on their BS….
hypocritical? "
[puts on my Morleyman costume] “that is not relevant to this discussion”  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy."
"Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably."
"It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows? "
Agreed, it could be any of those things. Or it could be that a Farage-hating employee decided to close his account on a whim. We'll likely never know.
My point is that either explanation is plausible, and we simply don't have any method of determining what's true and what isn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again…
What Starmer says or does has no bearing on Farage being a bullshitter, does it?
Nope, but it does on who you decide to criticise or not criticise based on their BS….
hypocritical?
[puts on my Morleyman costume] “that is not relevant to this discussion” "
Just as Farage is not relevant to this discussion but plenty of people want to make him so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again…
What Starmer says or does has no bearing on Farage being a bullshitter, does it?
Nope, but it does on who you decide to criticise or not criticise based on their BS….
hypocritical?
[puts on my Morleyman costume] “that is not relevant to this discussion”
Just as Farage is not relevant to this discussion but plenty of people want to make him so."
Without Farage’s story telling, this wouldn’t exist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again…
What Starmer says or does has no bearing on Farage being a bullshitter, does it?
Nope, but it does on who you decide to criticise or not criticise based on their BS….
hypocritical?
[puts on my Morleyman costume] “that is not relevant to this discussion”
Just as Farage is not relevant to this discussion but plenty of people want to make him so.
Without Farage’s story telling, this wouldn’t exist."
You're still not listening. I have at no point referred to what Farage may or may not have said. He is not relevant to this discussion |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again…
What Starmer says or does has no bearing on Farage being a bullshitter, does it?
Nope, but it does on who you decide to criticise or not criticise based on their BS….
hypocritical?
[puts on my Morleyman costume] “that is not relevant to this discussion”
Just as Farage is not relevant to this discussion but plenty of people want to make him so.
Without Farage’s story telling, this wouldn’t exist.
You're still not listening. I have at no point referred to what Farage may or may not have said. He is not relevant to this discussion "
Oh I’m listening alright. I’m just disagreeing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again…
What Starmer says or does has no bearing on Farage being a bullshitter, does it?
Nope, but it does on who you decide to criticise or not criticise based on their BS….
hypocritical?
[puts on my Morleyman costume] “that is not relevant to this discussion”
Just as Farage is not relevant to this discussion but plenty of people want to make him so.
Without Farage’s story telling, this wouldn’t exist.
You're still not listening. I have at no point referred to what Farage may or may not have said. He is not relevant to this discussion
Oh I’m listening alright. I’m just disagreeing."
If you were listening you'd know I don't care what Farage has said, this is purely about what the journalist said.
Are you sure you're listening?
This thread has fuck all to do with Farage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again…
What Starmer says or does has no bearing on Farage being a bullshitter, does it?
Nope, but it does on who you decide to criticise or not criticise based on their BS….
hypocritical?
[puts on my Morleyman costume] “that is not relevant to this discussion”
Just as Farage is not relevant to this discussion but plenty of people want to make him so.
Without Farage’s story telling, this wouldn’t exist.
You're still not listening. I have at no point referred to what Farage may or may not have said. He is not relevant to this discussion
Oh I’m listening alright. I’m just disagreeing.
If you were listening you'd know I don't care what Farage has said, this is purely about what the journalist said.
Are you sure you're listening?
This thread has fuck all to do with Farage."
No, you desperately want this thread to have fuck all to do with Farage, but that’s unrealistic.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again…
What Starmer says or does has no bearing on Farage being a bullshitter, does it?
Nope, but it does on who you decide to criticise or not criticise based on their BS….
hypocritical?
[puts on my Morleyman costume] “that is not relevant to this discussion”
Just as Farage is not relevant to this discussion but plenty of people want to make him so.
Without Farage’s story telling, this wouldn’t exist.
You're still not listening. I have at no point referred to what Farage may or may not have said. He is not relevant to this discussion
Oh I’m listening alright. I’m just disagreeing.
If you were listening you'd know I don't care what Farage has said, this is purely about what the journalist said.
Are you sure you're listening?
This thread has fuck all to do with Farage.
No, you desperately want this thread to have fuck all to do with Farage, but that’s unrealistic.
"
And yet you still refuse to answer simple question so you've added nothing to the thread.
All ask you another simple one, see if you struggle.
Am I speaking about the journalist and his tweets? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again…
What Starmer says or does has no bearing on Farage being a bullshitter, does it?
Nope, but it does on who you decide to criticise or not criticise based on their BS….
hypocritical?
[puts on my Morleyman costume] “that is not relevant to this discussion”
Just as Farage is not relevant to this discussion but plenty of people want to make him so."
Garage is relevant if one of the things that he has done is confirm that his account sits below an acceptable threshold and that he is not being denied banking services as he can have a NatWest one.
His comments are material to the viracity of the reporting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Coutts will not confirm any closures of accounts due to privacy.
A journalist will not reveal sources unless the sources agree.
Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account and that he had been offered a standard NatWest account.
So, the journalism is "believable" on these counts as confirmed by the subject of the article. Farage is therefore pertinent in establishing this.
This means that further reporting by that journalist is, on balance, also likely to be accurate.
Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
This makes it very likely that others have had their accounts closed to also be "believable".
I had to correct my OP, you may have missed it.
The sources in the second tweet were that they HAVEN’T had their accounts closed."
The point still stands. If other people have not had their accounts closed for falling below the threshold then there is no particular reason to doubt it based on the journalism.
There may be other reasons for Farage's account being closed. We do not know. He is grand standing and the bank cannot say.
What we do know is that he can have a bank account if he wants one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Coutts will not confirm any closures of accounts due to privacy.
A journalist will not reveal sources unless the sources agree.
Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account and that he had been offered a standard NatWest account.
So, the journalism is "believable" on these counts as confirmed by the subject of the article. Farage is therefore pertinent in establishing this.
This means that further reporting by that journalist is, on balance, also likely to be accurate.
Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
This makes it very likely that others have had their accounts closed to also be "believable".
I had to correct my OP, you may have missed it.
The sources in the second tweet were that they HAVEN’T had their accounts closed.
The point still stands. If other people have not had their accounts closed for falling below the threshold then there is no particular reason to doubt it based on the journalism.
There may be other reasons for Farage's account being closed. We do not know. He is grand standing and the bank cannot say.
What we do know is that he can have a bank account if he wants one."
I'm not doubting the journalist at all.
The 'people who haven't had accounts closed' have had their integrity questioned.
These people have come via the journalist, not via Farage, hence I don't actually feel he's relevant in the discussion.
There may be numerous reasons for his account being closed. That's why I'm trying to square, if journalists says one thing (farage fell below limits) we accept his source is solid, with if the same journalist says something else (other people haven't had accounts closed) we call into question his sources.
It just doesn't sit right and tells me that people don't actually care, they just hate Farage (that's their right) and will try to twist and twist to suit a narrative. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
I believe that this will be investigated by the relevant people. I would expect that the bank would also investigate how private information found its way to a journalist. It's not going to do their reputation any good. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story! "
Nat West withdrew the offer shortly after offering it.Coutts spoke to the Financial Times and the BBC revealing Farage's account fell below its deposit threshold(so bollocks to "privacy")but still refuses to give Farage a reason.Its standard practice that if an account falls below a limit,the customer is informed so that they can pay in/transfer funds from elsewhere.No such courtesy/practice has been extended to Farage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Coutts will not confirm any closures of accounts due to privacy.
A journalist will not reveal sources unless the sources agree.
Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account and that he had been offered a standard NatWest account.
So, the journalism is "believable" on these counts as confirmed by the subject of the article. Farage is therefore pertinent in establishing this.
This means that further reporting by that journalist is, on balance, also likely to be accurate.
Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
This makes it very likely that others have had their accounts closed to also be "believable".
I had to correct my OP, you may have missed it.
The sources in the second tweet were that they HAVEN’T had their accounts closed.
The point still stands. If other people have not had their accounts closed for falling below the threshold then there is no particular reason to doubt it based on the journalism.
There may be other reasons for Farage's account being closed. We do not know. He is grand standing and the bank cannot say.
What we do know is that he can have a bank account if he wants one.
I'm not doubting the journalist at all.
The 'people who haven't had accounts closed' have had their integrity questioned.
These people have come via the journalist, not via Farage, hence I don't actually feel he's relevant in the discussion.
There may be numerous reasons for his account being closed. That's why I'm trying to square, if journalists says one thing (farage fell below limits) we accept his source is solid, with if the same journalist says something else (other people haven't had accounts closed) we call into question his sources.
It just doesn't sit right and tells me that people don't actually care, they just hate Farage (that's their right) and will try to twist and twist to suit a narrative."
I don't like Farage.
I don't have a contrary position on the journalist. Both are possible.
I don't think the new information makes Farage's position any less self-serving and out of touch for a "man of the people" anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Well coutts won’t officially confirm the story because of …. Privacy
And we could ask farage to release his bank statements to confirm his side of the story , but he won’t because he will claim….. privacy
And we could ask the people on the WhatsApp group to have their statements independently verified but they won’t because … privacy
But what we DO know if that farage wasn’t entirely truthful because he said no one offered him a bank account when he has an offer from NatWest! And the only reason that NatWest would have been able to confirm that would be if he hasn’t taken them up on it… because if he was a customer they would have cited…. Privacy!
So rather than the focus being on the BBC journalist… shouldn’t the focus be on Nigel twisting the narrative but not telling the entire story!
Nat West withdrew the offer shortly after offering it.Coutts spoke to the Financial Times and the BBC revealing Farage's account fell below its deposit threshold(so bollocks to "privacy")but still refuses to give Farage a reason.Its standard practice that if an account falls below a limit,the customer is informed so that they can pay in/transfer funds from elsewhere.No such courtesy/practice has been extended to Farage."
Odd. There appears to be no article to suggest that Coutts spoke to the FT at all.
Link? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Coutts will not confirm any closures of accounts due to privacy.
A journalist will not reveal sources unless the sources agree.
Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account and that he had been offered a standard NatWest account.
So, the journalism is "believable" on these counts as confirmed by the subject of the article. Farage is therefore pertinent in establishing this.
This means that further reporting by that journalist is, on balance, also likely to be accurate.
Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
This makes it very likely that others have had their accounts closed to also be "believable".
I had to correct my OP, you may have missed it.
The sources in the second tweet were that they HAVEN’T had their accounts closed.
The point still stands. If other people have not had their accounts closed for falling below the threshold then there is no particular reason to doubt it based on the journalism.
There may be other reasons for Farage's account being closed. We do not know. He is grand standing and the bank cannot say.
What we do know is that he can have a bank account if he wants one.
I'm not doubting the journalist at all.
The 'people who haven't had accounts closed' have had their integrity questioned.
These people have come via the journalist, not via Farage, hence I don't actually feel he's relevant in the discussion.
There may be numerous reasons for his account being closed. That's why I'm trying to square, if journalists says one thing (farage fell below limits) we accept his source is solid, with if the same journalist says something else (other people haven't had accounts closed) we call into question his sources.
It just doesn't sit right and tells me that people don't actually care, they just hate Farage (that's their right) and will try to twist and twist to suit a narrative.
I don't like Farage.
I don't have a contrary position on the journalist. Both are possible.
I don't think the new information makes Farage's position any less self-serving and out of touch for a "man of the people" anyway."
As I stated I really don't care about Farage or his self serving accounts of the way things have gone.
My focus was more on why the second source(s) are having their integrity questioned.
The reason I'm miffed is because I believe IF we believe the journalist has done his due diligence on the first source, then we should believe he's also done it for any subsequent source(s).
Although, it does then beg the question why some (Farage and others) have had closures for a reason that others haven't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?
Coutts will not confirm any closures of accounts due to privacy.
A journalist will not reveal sources unless the sources agree.
Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account and that he had been offered a standard NatWest account.
So, the journalism is "believable" on these counts as confirmed by the subject of the article. Farage is therefore pertinent in establishing this.
This means that further reporting by that journalist is, on balance, also likely to be accurate.
Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
This makes it very likely that others have had their accounts closed to also be "believable".
I had to correct my OP, you may have missed it.
The sources in the second tweet were that they HAVEN’T had their accounts closed.
The point still stands. If other people have not had their accounts closed for falling below the threshold then there is no particular reason to doubt it based on the journalism.
There may be other reasons for Farage's account being closed. We do not know. He is grand standing and the bank cannot say.
What we do know is that he can have a bank account if he wants one.
I'm not doubting the journalist at all.
The 'people who haven't had accounts closed' have had their integrity questioned.
These people have come via the journalist, not via Farage, hence I don't actually feel he's relevant in the discussion.
There may be numerous reasons for his account being closed. That's why I'm trying to square, if journalists says one thing (farage fell below limits) we accept his source is solid, with if the same journalist says something else (other people haven't had accounts closed) we call into question his sources.
It just doesn't sit right and tells me that people don't actually care, they just hate Farage (that's their right) and will try to twist and twist to suit a narrative.
I don't like Farage.
I don't have a contrary position on the journalist. Both are possible.
I don't think the new information makes Farage's position any less self-serving and out of touch for a "man of the people" anyway.
As I stated I really don't care about Farage or his self serving accounts of the way things have gone.
My focus was more on why the second source(s) are having their integrity questioned.
The reason I'm miffed is because I believe IF we believe the journalist has done his due diligence on the first source, then we should believe he's also done it for any subsequent source(s).
Although, it does then beg the question why some (Farage and others) have had closures for a reason that others haven't."
Perhaps he's rude to people? Perhaps he demands too much attention from staff? Perhaps he doesn't use enough of the banks services to make them any money?
Do you want the bank to make the information as to why his account was specifically closed public?
Again, only information from one side is available and it now appears that this original story may have been a little disingenuous.
I don't believe Farage a fraction that of the journalist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai & Nottingham |
It’s not really news this happens all the time when you shift money around. Barclays for example close your premier If you drop below 80K a year. , HSBC World require min 50K a month.
Premier, wealth accounts and premium benefit cards all complete for your money and will close you if you dint use them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You need to be aware that the people behind it have an agenda of some sort.
The journalists agenda is to break some news before anyone else in order to boost their profile. So how much checking have they done as to the integrity of the "facts".
The person feeding the journalist the information, if they are indeed an inside source then are fundamentally untrustworthy as they will be breaking their employment contract by doing this. So they are motivated by their politics or money or both.
So while I suspect it may be true I'm stuggling to care one way or another. I'm only writing this out of boredom while Im supposed to be working and the irony isn't lost on me that I am also probably breaking my employment contract by spending time on Fab during work hours.
Is the journalists source really fundamentally untrustworthy… or are they whistleblowing in the public interest?
Because then in your mind the farage account of what happened would have blindly gone unchallenged … "
Of those two points, I would say the source has disclosed someones private business and they have done that for either financial or political reasons or perhaps even both. For them to be in a position of knowledge of whats happened means they are most likely a an employee of the Bank and have therefor broken a confidentiality clause which Im pretty sure will be part of their employment conditions so I would class them as untrustworthy.
The second point regarding just taking Farages word for whats happened is moot as without his affairs becomming public knowledge he would have made any such statements at all.
The above statements assumes that the source is the bank employee however its more likely there are a chain of people in between but ultimately I'd say a bank employee has spilt the beans and I dont consider that whistleblowing rather more like a breach of trust. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"You need to be aware that the people behind it have an agenda of some sort.
The journalists agenda is to break some news before anyone else in order to boost their profile. So how much checking have they done as to the integrity of the "facts".
The person feeding the journalist the information, if they are indeed an inside source then are fundamentally untrustworthy as they will be breaking their employment contract by doing this. So they are motivated by their politics or money or both.
So while I suspect it may be true I'm stuggling to care one way or another. I'm only writing this out of boredom while Im supposed to be working and the irony isn't lost on me that I am also probably breaking my employment contract by spending time on Fab during work hours.
Is the journalists source really fundamentally untrustworthy… or are they whistleblowing in the public interest?
Because then in your mind the farage account of what happened would have blindly gone unchallenged …
Of those two points, I would say the source has disclosed someones private business and they have done that for either financial or political reasons or perhaps even both. For them to be in a position of knowledge of whats happened means they are most likely a an employee of the Bank and have therefor broken a confidentiality clause which Im pretty sure will be part of their employment conditions so I would class them as untrustworthy.
The second point regarding just taking Farages word for whats happened is moot as without his affairs becomming public knowledge he would have made any such statements at all.
The above statements assumes that the source is the bank employee however its more likely there are a chain of people in between but ultimately I'd say a bank employee has spilt the beans and I dont consider that whistleblowing rather more like a breach of trust."
Alternatively the only way for someone who cares bout the reputation of their organisation to defend against accusations. They did not say what Farage's finances were, they just pointed out the publicly available terms which prompted a question to be asked.
The outcome is that Farage's accusations are turning out not to be quite what he has made them out to be.
His deposits have fallen below the threshold. Apparently for an extended period.
He can have a bank account, just not a posh one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If coutts,ft and BBC did discuss his accounts. Then they will be heavily fined for breaking the data protection act.so put your hatred for farage to one side and ask yourself have i done a data protection course at work of course you all have companies are terrified of being fined which can be in the millions. Also i dont care if its farage or anybody else its wrong to close anybody accounts without a reason even if their beliefs is different from you or i |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
We don't know how far below and for how long Farage was below minimums. He suggests ten years.
It is believable that he has been lower and longer than others.
Farage also has added risks as a pep so added costs. It may be that he or his company has a market against him. (Seems NatWest would take on his personal but not business account.) That adds to costs.
I wonder how many of the other courts customers were PEPs
All in all I can believe the top level for coutts is commercial reasons, driven by some very specific factors that then lead to others saying no.
And so both parts of the journalism is correct. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"If coutts,ft and BBC did discuss his accounts. Then they will be heavily fined for breaking the data protection act.so put your hatred for farage to one side and ask yourself have i done a data protection course at work of course you all have companies are terrified of being fined which can be in the millions. Also i dont care if its farage or anybody else its wrong to close anybody accounts without a reason even if their beliefs is different from you or i "
Not sure what the lecture is about.
Nobody has revealed anything about Farage's account details except Farage to the best if my knowledge. Do you have any other information?
It is completely legal to close anyone's account for any reason according to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
It is a legal requirement to close bank accounts in some circumstances.
It is a commercial decision to close bank accounts in other circumstances. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Farage has confirmed both that he did not have the funds to meet the requirements for his account ... Courts have a published policy of financial requirements to hold an account for, we must assume, good reason. It is reasonable to assume that they act on their policy.
Farage has also said that he didn't meet their published requirements for several years beforehand, and that no action was taken. That would mean that it's not reasonable to assume that Coutts enforce their policy rigourously. It also makes one wonder what changed to make them start enforcing. It could be accident, or it could be specific to him. There's enough evidence to suggest that the bank may not have been acting honourably.
It could be that an audit has taken place and someone has decided they need to more rigorously enforce their policy. Maybe they always had ‘wiggle room’ with the values but Farage has fallen below the accepted leeway. Maybe he called them on the phone and had a row with them and had his account closed because of his attitude. Who knows?
What we do know is that Farage isn’t a reliable source, given his history of bullshit
Remember that history of bullshit comment when SKS back pedals on his latest pledges, yet again…
What Starmer says or does has no bearing on Farage being a bullshitter, does it?
Nope, but it does on who you decide to criticise or not criticise based on their BS….
hypocritical?
[puts on my Morleyman costume] “that is not relevant to this discussion” "
No it's not.
So _irldn.
How do you feel about OP? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can't believe this thread is still going am losing the will to live..
We can't believe no 1 answered the OP"
if I understand it OP was saying some journalists were reporting farage had his account closed because it was below mins and other joitnos had spoken to clients who hadn't.
If so, I believe both can be true. Hence my answer.
Farage may have had even smaller balances and / or for longer.
Or the cost of farage is higher.
The banks have discretion.
If you want private banking stick to their minimums. At least then you have one leg to stand in when youtubing foul play. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"I wish there was a faepalm emoji
Why?
Because no one can answer the very simple point/ question first posed."
Several people have answered the OP directly.
You are no more likely than anyone else to stick to a topic than anyone else. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can't believe this thread is still going am losing the will to live..
We can't believe no 1 answered the OP"
When did you become more than one person..? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't believe this thread is still going am losing the will to live..
We can't believe no 1 answered the OPif I understand it OP was saying some journalists were reporting farage had his account closed because it was below mins and other joitnos had spoken to clients who hadn't.
If so, I believe both can be true. Hence my answer.
Farage may have had even smaller balances and / or for longer.
Or the cost of farage is higher.
The banks have discretion.
If you want private banking stick to their minimums. At least then you have one leg to stand in when youtubing foul play. "
Op was about the 1 single journalist who originally said 1 person with a relationship with coutts said saidnit must have been because of the deposit limits. People on the threads took it for gospel.
Then the exact same reporter said other coutts customers had been in contact and said they'd not had their account closed even though they didn't meet the limits.
Suddenly the sources the reported was using couldn't be trusted and we needed to know how they got in contact etc.
Op is questioning why we are choosing when to blelieve a reporter and their sources. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can't believe this thread is still going am losing the will to live..
We can't believe no 1 answered the OPif I understand it OP was saying some journalists were reporting farage had his account closed because it was below mins and other joitnos had spoken to clients who hadn't.
If so, I believe both can be true. Hence my answer.
Farage may have had even smaller balances and / or for longer.
Or the cost of farage is higher.
The banks have discretion.
If you want private banking stick to their minimums. At least then you have one leg to stand in when youtubing foul play.
Op was about the 1 single journalist who originally said 1 person with a relationship with coutts said saidnit must have been because of the deposit limits. People on the threads took it for gospel.
Then the exact same reporter said other coutts customers had been in contact and said they'd not had their account closed even though they didn't meet the limits.
Suddenly the sources the reported was using couldn't be trusted and we needed to know how they got in contact etc.
Op is questioning why we are choosing when to blelieve a reporter and their sources."
I get that. And I can believe both. The bank said it was a commercial decision. Farage had less than minimums. Ergo consistent story. Afaik the bank didn't say that it was because they had below min and they have a hard policy on this. The source simply gave extra credence to the banks position.
I can't answer for anyone who took a different view on the journos. I wasn't here for that og thread. Probs with directing questions to those ppl directly...
I will leave the thread here as clearly was aimed at specific ppl! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
To be clear (as I wasn't in my first post) I'm going for both stories being true. If correct it does pose some questions but mostly for the bank and account holders, both of which can state privacy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?"
Yes
Yes
Yes
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I've asked the following questions but not getting an answer so I'm putting this out to the wider community.
These are simple yes no questions, which will then enable us to break the answers down and hopefully have a proper discussion.
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?"
The statement was attributed to Coutts bank. Not sure if they said it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It looks like the journalist was accurately reporting the information that came from his source. It seems that we can believe what he says.
Looking back I see a lot of people that will either have to avoid this thread, or admit that they got it wrong earlier.
I'll start by admitting that when I said "We'll likely never know", I was wrong. We found out almost straight away.
Who would like to be next? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It looks like the journalist was accurately reporting the information that came from his source. It seems that we can believe what he says.
Looking back I see a lot of people that will either have to avoid this thread, or admit that they got it wrong earlier.
I'll start by admitting that when I said "We'll likely never know", I was wrong. We found out almost straight away.
Who would like to be next?"
Tbf, in the end there were a few who did answer.
The issue was the people who refused to answer because it would show them up.
I felt all along if we believed the journo on count 1 (turned out to be true) then we should also believe him on count 2 (not confirmed by journo but also true). People were all too happy to believe count 2 was 'just farage grifting'.
Why? Because 'Farage is a cunt', nothing more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It looks like the journalist was accurately reporting the information that came from his source. It seems that we can believe what he says.
Looking back I see a lot of people that will either have to avoid this thread, or admit that they got it wrong earlier.
I'll start by admitting that when I said "We'll likely never know", I was wrong. We found out almost straight away.
Who would like to be next?
Tbf, in the end there were a few who did answer.
The issue was the people who refused to answer because it would show them up.
I felt all along if we believed the journo on count 1 (turned out to be true) then we should also believe him on count 2 (not confirmed by journo but also true). People were all too happy to believe count 2 was 'just farage grifting'.
Why? Because 'Farage is a cunt', nothing more."
100%
As stated. Soe people seem to have disappeared instead of putting their fork in the humble pie and having a taste. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"It looks like the journalist was accurately reporting the information that came from his source. It seems that we can believe what he says.
Looking back I see a lot of people that will either have to avoid this thread, or admit that they got it wrong earlier.
I'll start by admitting that when I said "We'll likely never know", I was wrong. We found out almost straight away.
Who would like to be next?"
similar here. I said yes to both questions but also said they could hide behind privacy laws stopping the facts coming out. As you say it unravelled far quicker than expected |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
Reading back through this thread is a truly wonderful experience. The usuals being carefree, diving in with hatchets and spouting spurious reports that were created for those who are not easily led.. A masterpiece of a thread, there for all to see
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Reading back through this thread is a truly wonderful experience. The usuals being carefree, diving in with hatchets and spouting spurious reports that were created for those who are not easily led.. A masterpiece of a thread, there for all to see
"
fair play for rereading. I got bored.
Fabio nailed it. Our "trust" depends on both the journo and the quality of the source.
We were shown to be correct to trust the journo in case one. They reported their credible source accurately. The source however wasn't giving the full picture.
I've lost track of what case two were, but would continue to hold reservations unless the journo said they had seen evidence. That's not me dsitrusting the journo more less than the first case, but being cynical of the source until I something more to back it up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Reading back through this thread is a truly wonderful experience. The usuals being carefree, diving in with hatchets and spouting spurious reports that were created for those who are not easily led.. A masterpiece of a thread, there for all to see
fair play for rereading. I got bored.
Fabio nailed it. Our "trust" depends on both the journo and the quality of the source.
We were shown to be correct to trust the journo in case one. They reported their credible source accurately. The source however wasn't giving the full picture.
I've lost track of what case two were, but would continue to hold reservations unless the journo said they had seen evidence. That's not me dsitrusting the journo more less than the first case, but being cynical of the source until I something more to back it up. "
I wasn't bored, far from it! Reading some of the comments actually made laugh, a ripper of a thread |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Reading back through this thread is a truly wonderful experience. The usuals being carefree, diving in with hatchets and spouting spurious reports that were created for those who are not easily led.. A masterpiece of a thread, there for all to see
fair play for rereading. I got bored.
Fabio nailed it. Our "trust" depends on both the journo and the quality of the source.
We were shown to be correct to trust the journo in case one. They reported their credible source accurately. The source however wasn't giving the full picture.
I've lost track of what case two were, but would continue to hold reservations unless the journo said they had seen evidence. That's not me dsitrusting the journo more less than the first case, but being cynical of the source until I something more to back it up. "
I get you wanting to hold out until seeing 'evidence', that's never gonna happen though, the journo isn't gonna give up any sources.
You should check out the piece in the Guardian in which the author says they are a 4-figure Coutts account holder. I must stress, THE GUARDIAN of all publications. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Reading back through this thread is a truly wonderful experience. The usuals being carefree, diving in with hatchets and spouting spurious reports that were created for those who are not easily led.. A masterpiece of a thread, there for all to see
fair play for rereading. I got bored.
Fabio nailed it. Our "trust" depends on both the journo and the quality of the source.
We were shown to be correct to trust the journo in case one. They reported their credible source accurately. The source however wasn't giving the full picture.
I've lost track of what case two were, but would continue to hold reservations unless the journo said they had seen evidence. That's not me dsitrusting the journo more less than the first case, but being cynical of the source until I something more to back it up.
I get you wanting to hold out until seeing 'evidence', that's never gonna happen though, the journo isn't gonna give up any sources.
You should check out the piece in the Guardian in which the author says they are a 4-figure Coutts account holder. I must stress, THE GUARDIAN of all publications. "
I've always said I'm uncomfortable with when t&cs were invoked. That isnt this thread tho. That said, this author sounds like he doesn't use the full coutts suite of bells and whistles. If coutts calculate a personalised value then he's probably okay.
Back to topic, I'm not expecting a full revelation but id hope if someone says a senior source in a bank, they aren't bullshitting.
If their source is some people have phoned in saying they are coutts I will be wary unless there's a suggestion this has been ratified. I'd hope the guardian have done some checking of the author.
We also ignore the source here. And pay no attention if they are going against their normal position or not  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
