Yambo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 10:46 am
Quite simply what was wrong with the bank simply asking to speak to him, in confidence to discuss their thoughts and feelings? Why did my bank not call me or email me and ask me to call them regarding the issues they had?
I suspect in your case the answer is simple; it costs money and regular punters like you and I don't warrant the expense! 'course, dealing with your situation downstream somewhat eroded their savings....but it's part and parcel of 'free' banking and giant monolithic organisations.
In Farage's case it sounds like they wanted to get rid of him anyway (e.g. "would not look to renew on a commercial basis"...."extra costs" etc.) and they presumably thought there was nothing he was gonna say to change the situation. S'not like they'd expect him to reverse his stance on a load of topics?
I don't disagree with the general sentiment that Banks hold loads of power now though, but as above things are moving around to check that.
Yambo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 10:46 am
Quite simply what was wrong with the bank simply asking to speak to him, in confidence to discuss their thoughts and feelings? Why did my bank not call me or email me and ask me to call them regarding the issues they had?
I suspect in your case the answer is simple; it costs money and regular punters like you and I don't warrant the expense! 'course, dealing with your situation downstream somewhat eroded their savings....but it's part and parcel of 'free' banking and giant monolithic organisations.
Lol! Yep, it must cost a fortune to send me an email asking me to call an 0800 number so that we can discuss their concerns. What do you reckon, £20 tops?
I wonder if the bank's bean counters have made the point that throwing me a Monkey for my 'inconvenience' and eventually losing me as a customer, my telling the world and his dog how shit they are etc. is actually a more expensive way of dealing with customer issues?
They didn't opt in for the "how much is this actually going to cost you?" add in. In fact they probably did but all the savings elsewhere make up for it
BTW despite all your story I'd still bank with Santander I don't BTW, but I would. Not because I don't believe you, but because I don't think HSBC, Lloyds, Barclays, Nat West et al are any different.
It's the typical left, the lust for hate, they'll shout 'Nigel defenders!', because they can't see past the person who has at that time been affected, too dim to realise that this could happen to them or someone they know also. These are the same sort of people who are too dim to use an online service to get a visa and instead will sit there and say that there freedom of movement was taken away.
The only freedom which has been taken away was taken by themselves, the freedom to think about things and dig a little deeper into the truth. The shouty shouty 'shut him down' political side will just shout 'conspiracy', whilst they rode the largest conspiracy during the run up to the referendum, thinking that their little unimportant worlds were going to collapse.
Mr. Dazzle wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2023 12:51 pm
Can I just point out Coutts' commitee were actually correct. Farage was a reputational risk.
Not really, he's a non entity these days, he's not an even MP, he's just a customer. They provide a banking service, they're nothing more than that.
Do you honestly think that filthy rich people would not want the glamour and benefits of Coutts just because of another filthy rich person there who has an account isn't well liked by the crazy shouty people with uni degrees who live off the bank of mummy and daddy?
Last edited by Ant on Tue Jul 25, 2023 12:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
'course there was, they're a brand and they have to win customers just like any other business. If people think they're a horrible bunch of people they're less likely to use said business, simplifying somewhat.
The existence of the "Reputational Risk Comittee" suggests to me they weigh the odds of how much money a customer brings in vs. how much brand damage they might do. Farage presumably fell foul of scales tipping against him, although I freely admit that is just an assumption. S'how it reads to me.
You couldn't really make it up, "Reputational Risk Comittee" saw choice, freedom, a legally allowed democratic view and vote as something they didn't want in a customer - in the words of Larry Ginekar.....sounds a bit 1930s Germany to me......
The lesson here is, if you want controversial opinions you have to be rich enough to hold them. Which I don't think should really be a lesson to anyone?
So it does still come back to Coutt's supposed original reason for dumping Farage...not rich enough.
Just like any of these wild fires - locals usually are aware of a strong chemical smell. Still, climate change, pull down statues and smash the place up innit.
Just like any of these wild fires - locals usually are aware of a strong chemical smell. Still, climate change, pull down statues and smash the place up innit.
In Italy protected wild areas lose their status if they burn down in forest fires. Not sure if it's the same elsewhere, but there will always be some intent on making a few quid out of others' misery.
I don't BTW, but I would. Not because I don't believe you, but because I don't think HSBC, Lloyds, Barclays, Nat West et al are any different.
