Debanking

[JackyJoll]

If things hadn’t gone Hitler’s way in the early 1930s, he wouldn’t have been a “genius.”

[mangocrazy]

I remember watching news clips on the night of the referendum result and Farage was clearly gobsmacked by the result. I think a large part of that was the dawning realisation that he would lose his cash cow and pulpit as an MEP due to the UK leaving the EU. His 'having cake and eating it' time was at an end.

[Screwdriver]

Just to remind everyone, at no point was Farage not going to have a bank account, he was just downgraded from a prestige account to a normal one. Happens to normal people all the time.

That is simply not true. You're either making it up or assuming "the banks" wouldn't dare reveal their contempt for the British public and the democratic process.

See if you can find a shred of evidence for your statement among the reams of documentary evidence he was ousted from Coutts without any option for a regular Natwest account at the same time as ALL of the other banks refused to offer him an account. You know, like a cartel.

Among the so called apologies and self-sacking scapegoats, a trail of communications were uncovered including top banking personnel joking (?) that they would kick Farage out of the UK, leaking personal information to the BBC and of course as if we didn't know it, Farage being a PEP with views they just didn't like.

[JamJar]

Just to remind everyone, at no point was Farage not going to have a bank account, he was just downgraded from a prestige account to a normal one. Happens to normal people all the time.

That is simply not true. You're either making it up or assuming "the banks" wouldn't dare reveal their contempt for the British public and the democratic process.

See if you can find a shred of evidence for your statement among the reams of documentary evidence he was ousted from Coutts without any option for a regular Natwest account at the same time as ALL of the other banks refused to offer him an account. You know, like a cartel.

Among the so called apologies and self-sacking scapegoats, a trail of communications were uncovered including top banking personnel joking (?) that they would kick Farage out of the UK, leaking personal information to the BBC and of course as if we didn't know it, Farage being a PEP with views they just didn't like.

It is true

https://www.ft.com/content/e81766f7-304 ... 1569c8ad65

[Mussels]

That's behind a paywall but I suspect it says he was offered a normal account. This seems to be disputed by Farage.

Mr Farage also disputed the fact that he was offered a NatWest account at the time his Coutts accounts were withdrawn. He says the offer of a NatWest account came late last week.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66097039
Of note in there is the BBC's correction that his politcs was part of the decision and this cracker from Coutts:

Coutts said it did not comment on individuals' accounts.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Coutts said it did not comment on individuals' accounts.

Any more.

[gremlin]

Well, some good news...

Ex-NatWest boss Alison Rose loses out on £7.6m after Nigel Farage row

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67377140

[Mr. Dazzle]

Well, some good news...

Ex-NatWest boss Alison Rose loses out on £7.6m after Nigel Farage row

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67377140

What, so now we're punishing people for not doing their jobs properly too?! Whatever next.

[Cousin Jack]

Well, some good news...

Ex-NatWest boss Alison Rose loses out on £7.6m after Nigel Farage row

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67377140

What, so now we're punishing people for not doing their jobs properly too?! Whatever next.

It is even worse than that, she is not getting her bonus after she broke the rules. If you don't deserve a bonus for ignoring the rules the financial industry will collapse.

[Mussels]

Well, some good news...

Ex-NatWest boss Alison Rose loses out on £7.6m after Nigel Farage row

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67377140

What, so now we're punishing people for not doing their jobs properly too?! Whatever next.

I'm still waiting for the company to be punished.

[Treadeager]

Astonishing that she wasn't found guilty of misconduct, which would have cost her a further £2.4M . Did she not flagrantly breech the privacy/dat protection rules ?

[Cousin Jack]

Astonishing that she wasn't found guilty of misconduct, which would have cost her a further £2.4M . Did she not flagrantly breech the privacy/dat protection rules ?

Yes, but the old boy network works for girls too at that level. Having CEO's held to account, that will never do.

[Count Steer]

Well, some good news...

Ex-NatWest boss Alison Rose loses out on £7.6m after Nigel Farage row

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67377140

What, so now we're punishing people for not doing their jobs properly too?! Whatever next.

I'm still waiting for the company to be punished.

That's an interesting one. What is 'the company'? The execs at any particular time? The other staff, the shareholders, the customers etc. I've worked for companies that, when I left, weren't anything like when I joined (not me guv! ). How do you punish something that is a sort of 'thing', you can't put a company in jail or send it to the gallows. I assume you mean some people should be punished? If so, who?

[Cousin Jack]

What, so now we're punishing people for not doing their jobs properly too?! Whatever next.

I'm still waiting for the company to be punished.

That's an interesting one. What is 'the company'? The execs at any particular time? The other staff, the shareholders, the customers etc. I've worked for companies that, when I left, weren't anything like when I joined (not me guv! ). How do you punish something that is a sort of 'thing', you can't put a company in jail or send it to the gallows. I assume you mean some people should be punished? If so, who?

As I am sure you know, companies are legal 'people', and they can be fined. Jailing them is difficult, but a big enough fine usually gets the message through. For a company the size of NatWest it needs to be many 00s of £Ms, which will help the Treasury a bit too.

[Count Steer]

I'm still waiting for the company to be punished.

That's an interesting one. What is 'the company'? The execs at any particular time? The other staff, the shareholders, the customers etc. I've worked for companies that, when I left, weren't anything like when I joined (not me guv! ). How do you punish something that is a sort of 'thing', you can't put a company in jail or send it to the gallows. I assume you mean some people should be punished? If so, who?

As I am sure you know, companies are legal 'people', and they can be fined. Jailing them is difficult, but a big enough fine usually gets the message through. For a company the size of NatWest it needs to be many 00s of £Ms, which will help the Treasury a bit too.

But if that fine payment comes out of the company coffers aren't you just punishing the shareholders and customers? It's like regulators fining utility companies rather than the execs (I'll park water companies on this one) - in the end it's the shareholder and customer that suffer. Anyway, so you think they should fine all the execs because the head honcho went rogue?

[Cousin Jack]

In an ideal world I would hit the Directors in the pocket and spare the rest They (directors) appoint the CEO, and should hold him/her to account. Unfortunately i am not sure the law allows this.

[Count Steer]

In an ideal world I would hit the Directors in the pocket and spare the rest They (directors) appoint the CEO, and should hold him/her to account. Unfortunately i am not sure the law allows this.

Ah, OK. So 'the company' is the board. When a company is fined ie water companies for polluting rivers etc or other utilities failing supply requirements, the fine should come directly from the boards pockets? I'd quite like to agree with that.

So, when the EU fines Apple for a few billion, the directors should pay the fine?

[Cousin Jack]

In an ideal world I would hit the Directors in the pocket and spare the rest They (directors) appoint the CEO, and should hold him/her to account. Unfortunately i am not sure the law allows this.

Ah, OK. So 'the company' is the board. When a company is fined ie water companies for polluting rivers etc or other utilities failing supply requirements, the fine should come directly from the boards pockets? I'd quite like to agree with that.

So, when the EU fines Apple for a few billion, the directors should pay the fine?

Yes, as directors they appoint the CEO, set the company strategy, and hold the CEO to account in following that strategy.

At least, that is what I do as a company director. If I just abdicate and let the CEO lead the company into stupid risks I should get penalised. Seems fair to me. Alternatively if I set a foolish strategy that put the company in that position, again I should take the hit.

Obviously the EU is unlikely to collect all its billions, but the principle seems right to me.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Shareholders gotta take the rough with the smooth IMO (saying that as a shareholder in many companies!).

I didn't do anything at all to earn those dividends. Zip. Nada. People seem to forget when you buy a share (not including the IPO) precisely zero pounds of what you paid for the share goes to the company*.

So I expect dividends for doing the square root of FA. I should expect to stomach the cost of fines too.

Utilities are a different matter. IMO they shouldn't be private companies with share holders (or indeed, profit) at all.

*unless you actually bought it off the company, yes it gets complicated

[Count Steer]

In an ideal world I would hit the Directors in the pocket and spare the rest They (directors) appoint the CEO, and should hold him/her to account. Unfortunately i am not sure the law allows this.

Ah, OK. So 'the company' is the board. When a company is fined ie water companies for polluting rivers etc or other utilities failing supply requirements, the fine should come directly from the boards pockets? I'd quite like to agree with that.

So, when the EU fines Apple for a few billion, the directors should pay the fine?

Yes, as directors they appoint the CEO, set the company strategy, and hold the CEO to account in following that strategy.

At least, that is what I do as a company director. If I just abdicate and let the CEO lead the company into stupid risks I should get penalised. Seems fair to me. Alternatively if I set a foolish strategy that put the company in that position, again I should take the hit.

Obviously the EU is unlikely to collect all its billions, but the principle seems right to me.

So, anyone that appoints someone is responsible for everything the appointee does, be it boards and CEOs or anyone that appoints an underling. I have to admit I flinch a bit when the hounds of social media call for, and often get, the heads ie the MD/CEO when some grunt 7 layers below cocks up, because it happened 'on their watch'.

I'm not sure I'd agree to be reduced to penury if I was the dissenting voice on the board when a CEO was selected but I still got hit with a fine when they chummied up with a reporter.