It's all very worrying. I've been a bit upset reading the UK news recently - I may have got confused about one or two things, but it is very worrying.
For a start, there seems to be an uncontrolled flood of people trying to close their accounts at Coutts, the approved Niche Banker for Toffs, in the aftermath of a spat between that organisation and one of their less prominent customers, an individual who appears to me to be a rather pointless little con-man and attention seeker. Let us call him Customer F, for the purposes of this post. It could be that the press have been keen to find an alternative story to draw public attention away from the recent English by-elections, but it does seem to have got well out of proportion.
Normally, I have very little sympathy for bankers of any sort, but managers have now resigned, and HM Government have become involved. Public apologies are forthcoming. Goodness me. To be honest, I couldn't give a monkey's, but then I can't claim that I understand these things.
I was speaking to my friend Asif, who runs a small general store in a neighbouring village, and he was surprisingly forthright on the subject of being able to choose who he does business with. Obviously, says Asif, it would not be acceptable to refuse to serve someone because of their race, or religion, or gender, or any of that stuff, but he assures me that if the said Customer F were to enter his shop he would throw him out, whether or not he wished to buy anything. A matter of decency, says Asif. Self respect.
Asif also mentions that Customer F may owe a good number of public apologies himself, but no mention has been made of this. I confess I didn't follow all of his argument; if anything I am even more confused than I was before.
I hope they can all be friends again soon, and I don't have to read anything more about the matter.
I shall chuckle quietly, yet knowingly, in my little corner . . . H
ReplyDeleteTee hee....
DeleteI confess your summary of the personality of "Customer F" is very apt. I thought he'd vowed to leave for Trumpland?
ReplyDeleteWhat I found puzzling was that the basis for refusing his custom was that he held xenophobic, homophobic and misogynistic views - which facts have never been denied - but that it is now an issue of freedom of speech and / or views so important that HM Government have felt necessary to comment on......
Far be it from me to infer some self-interest here? Are certain members worried it will set a trend and that advocating the deportation of people without regard to law may result in their (no doubt ample) bank accounts being closed?
It would be such a hardship to extract funds from all those offshore accounts to pay for......let's leave it there shall we?
When last I looked I thought nationally, sexual orientation and gender were topics that it was important to tread carefully around; now it seems however offensive your views are on such things, you are still entitled to a bank account (even though you would happily deny such things to the targets of your ire), but not it seems if you are poor.....
As you say, is this newsworthy when the news announced the numbers of homeless people, especially children, quite aside from those actually on the streets.....?
Neil
I guess this episode is mostly just silly, but there are some odd paradoxes present. It is probably unfortunate that it came out that Coutts's internal briefing note mentioned that "many feel" that Customer F is an "ingenuous grifter" (however amusing that might be), but we are getting close to Thought Police scripting here. It is certain that you will have your own internal view of people with whom you do business, but apparently there are limits. You can see he might be offended - on the other hand, my private view that he is first and foremost an irritating little twat does not seem to carry any weight at all. Quote me to anyone you like.
DeleteMy favourite irony in this lot is that Customer F has made much noise in the past about freedom of speech, and I think he got off light when the bank's own rights were challenged. He must now be in something of a cleft stick; it seems unlikely that he and Coutts will patch up any kind of working relationship, but along with expressing some spite he will be forced to abandon any imagined prestige associated with being their client. Tough.
I can hardly believe that Nigel Who has managed to get himself back in the papers, though I have to say that in his place I would feel more than a little humiliated. My long-dead Preston Grannie used to warn against listening in to other people's conversations, or reading their diaries - you are very unlikely to learn anything good about yourself.
I'd love to kick Customer F in the crackers. That's all I have to say.
ReplyDeleteRay - this is splendid.
DeleteFor a while, I was having ridiculous fantasies about setting up a brand new retail bank, just so that I could refuse him an account, but then I thought how much I would be prepared to pay to watch your suggestion being played out.
From there I began to wonder how much we could raise for humanist (woke) causes by offering the public the opportunity to take part in a sponsored cracker-kicking session. I'm still thinking about this - I'm not making much progress, but I'm enjoying thinking about it.
I received a note by email from Prof De Vries, a resident of the EU.
ReplyDeleteHe is mostly interested in the bank itself; Coutts is a subsidiary of NatWest, who were substantially bailed out in 2008 by the UK Treasury, at a time when the entire British retail bank industry was in danger of collapsing completely. A series of tranches of the NatWest shares held by the Treasury have been sold off over the years, the most recent raising £1.26Bn and reducing the proportion of the shares which are still held by the Govt to something under 40%. The price received per share in this latest privatisation instalment was rather less than half the 500p per share that was paid in the orginal bail-out, so the Professor wonders how UK taxpayers feel about the investment return on this use of public money for the bail-out, just who it was that owned NatWest during these years of astonishing management bonuses, and minimal support for their business and private customers, who the shareholders now are, and therefore just whose collective opinion of Customer F is being discussed.
He also wonders if anyone has a view on whether the new shareholders actually care tuppence about the future of NatWest, or its customers.
I’m happy to contribute a small sum to a “kick Nige in the crackers” fund. Perhaps Ray would indicate how much he’s prepared to do it for? Maybe we could set up a crowdfunding thingy if the cost is beyond the means of my meagre purse?
ReplyDeleteThis is the kind of entrepreneurial spark we are looking for - thanks for this. I had thought of everyone paying to get a shot at it, but if Ray can take on all the labour then that simplifies the organisation a lot.
DeleteI received a further email note, this time from a Mr Outraged of Tunbridge Wells, who drew my attention to an article in the Telegraph
ReplyDeletehttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/07/26/paul-marshall-hedge-fund-nets-millions-bet-against-natwest/
which highlights the fact that a business colleague of Customer F has been involved in short selling NatWest stock and stands to make some millions of pounds if the shares fall in value.
I did some further reading online, and also mailed a mate who works on the finance desk of one of the less trashy newspapers, and it seems there are mutterings that the pantomime rage of F himself (demanding the sacking of NatWest's board), the astonishing involvement of the Government and the inappropriate level of publicity might suggest that the accidental leak of the story to the BBC in the first place might be part of an orchestrated scam to get NatWest's shares tumbling nicely, and that there may be all sorts of people involved. I have nothing further to say, really, and very little interest in conspiracy theories, but this does smell a bit. Do you think the overacting might be a giveaway? Did Dame Alison take a dive?
Heaven forfend. Nothing to see here.
Customer F, if I am have identified him correctly, is a horrible little fascist prat and you would not have to pay me anything to cause him grievous bodily harm, assuming I am still up to such activity. The whole storm in a teacup is Bollox and should not have been reported in the first place because who cares if he is offended, he offended most thinking people by orchestrating the colossal cock up of Brexit...and Dame Alison should not have apologised, she should have said she and the bank stuck by everything they had said about the odious scumbag!
ReplyDeleteHi Keith, it is good that we give the chap so match benefit of the doubt. Shall I put you down for 30 Scots smackeroonies? For no reason, I am reminded that one of the UK TV stations asked viewers for suggestions how they could improve the (bloody awful) ratings for the live debates (might have been the 2019 election) and one of the suggestions was "kick boxing". I have always cherished this idea.
DeletePersonally, given his antipathy to Europe and (I suspect) particularly the French - I would like to see him go three minutes with a member of the CRS!
DeleteI think pretty much everything worth saying about this storm in a teacup caused by that odious F-%^&%^%*^& has been said and I can think of nothing worth adding so I shall only say - a most enjoyable discussion. Thank you all. It made me chuckle quite a lot and given the state of the world (and especially this country) that is impressive. :-)
ReplyDeleteI note that Customer F made some public utterance to the effect that banks should protect the confidentiality of their customers details. I am not at all interested in his opinions, really, but on this occasion I think I agree. I sincerely wish that I had never heard about his stupid bank account, and I hope that I never hear about it again. May he live in peace, a long way from where I live, and may he have no future influence - surely we've had enough of that tripe by now?
Delete