“Prejudiced and nasty” Nigel Farage…

[MangetoutsaysGetOutMan]

… doesn’t understand irony.

If some posters genuinely cannot understand what the story is at this point, and that this is not about my ‘supporting’ the ghastly Farage but pointing out how Nat West’s own unregulated EDI ‘rules’ have led to this utter fiasco where Farage gets an apology and the BBC and Nat West are in the deep shit, then there is no point in trying to explain or engage any further.

Yours, a Morning Star reader.

this episode and the dismal handling of it by Coutts and the BBC have managed to bring farage back into the spotlight (just as he was fading into obscurity) with a cause people can sympathise with. People who dislike farage and think he’s a malign influence on public life (I am one of these) have more reason to be pissed off than anyone.

"Discrimination is bad! Unless it's against someone I don't like."

It's not even about Coutts any more. The CEO in the frame is the CEO of Nat West - the bank part-owned by the public. And the BBC is paid for by the licence fee levied on the public.

So far the picture we have is of public-funded institutions running amok with stupid made-up EDI rules, egregious breaches of confidentiality, and potential breaches of the law. It looks like one of these institutions misled another, to further its underhand agenda.

It's a bloody disgrace, compounded by the fact that the person getting the apology isn't the women or the priest or the charity adversely affected, but 'Behold A Man!' Farage.

Those who thought this story merely involved laughing at his embarrassing downfall as a purity test could maybe apply some critical thinking skills; and think beyond the person to the events and the principles here.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people - Eleanor Roosevelt.

Nicely put, @AutumnCrow ! A good summation of the situation.

That Nigel Farage has come out of this better than the others shows how irritated people are with elite or public institutions imposing the idea of wrong think on anyone who is not like them.

The BBC have managed to wriggle out of it, they are good at closing ranks.

Here's the BBC again, spending licence fee payers' money on politically harassing female football players over the BBC's pet EDI made-up-category topic:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jul/25/bbc-apologises-lgbtq-rights-question-morocco-captain-womens-world-cup

Here's the BBC again, spending licence fee payers' money on politically harassing female football players over the BBC's pet EDI made-up-category topic:

Whao! I know it is probably just wanting to bring LGBTQ+ stuff into everything, but it also has a whiff of the idea that a woman who plays football must be a lesbian, doesn't it?

Fucking hell. The person asking that question is a stupid arse. Did they really think that the team captain could give an honest answer without putting herself or team mates at risk and how is it not political? And why is it anyone's business anyway?

To the point that you would run roughshod over free speech and allow financial and corporate exclusion for political views - I don't support or like forage but I do support free speech.

He may be a racist but if you support cancelling free speech and removal of services on the basis of political or religious reviews then you are more akin to a fascist.

Yup. And this story is reported by the Guardian that is itself EDI-ed right up its own arse, so maybe the penny is finally starting to drop that there are other pressing human rights out there, such as women's human rights to the freedom to play sport without being politically harassed by the BBC.

The irony is it's banks that have historically shafted people so now to portray themselves as the custodians of the moral compass is totally laughable .

I’m not sure what you think the BBC has done wrong? They had a reliable and senior source; they checked the story with the source who was happy with it; they ran the story.
Source then turns out to be full of shit; BBC retracts and apologises.
not their fault - but NatWest should be roasted by the FCA over this IMHO

Hmm. Did the BBC check the story with the actual subject of the story? Did they just decide to disbelieve him, because Farage?

I have said repeatedly on this thread that even nasty racists like NF need banking services. I have said even paedophile need banks

Imagine that sports reporter asking any male players who they are having sex with or their opinion on who their team mates are having sex with.

Its a little shame she did not say she was there in a professional capacity to answer football questions not to start rumours about people she worked with.

New development, from Andrew Neil on X:

Nat West CEO Alison Rose admits she was source for misleading BBC story about Nigel Farage’s Coutts bank account and says it was “serious error of judgment”. Bank’s board clearly not happy with her and says it could be reflected in her future remuneration. But insists it still has “full confidence” in her. Translation: gone by Christmas.

She won't be there that long. She will find a "new opportunity" somewhere else within a couple of months, I bet.

CEO of Stonewall?

‘I was not part of the decision-making process to exit Mr Farage’

This is in Alison Rose’s statement. Is ‘exit’ frequently used in corporate speak as a verb to sack someone? It’s the first time I’ve seen it. Maybe the same intern who wrote the Coutts document on NF has been let loose on this statement too.

Wow. She should be gone by the weekend, surely?
You can't be any bank's head honcho, can you, if you're going to shoot your mouth off and spill the beans regarding your customers'/clients' financial info after a few sherries?

Well I wonder how the BBC will digest the latest from labour who have done a sudden u turn on self ID. Only because they've realised they'll get a kicking at the general election similar to Uxbridge over ULEZ.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66299705

Is this the Bank's equivalent of the Football Club Chairman having full confidence in the Manager who is then sacked 48 hours later?

Alison Rose should be sacked immediately, this is surely a serious breach of data shooting your mouth off to a BBC journalist about a client?

Ha at translation

Imagine that sports reporter asking any male players who they are having sex with or their opinion on who their team mates are having sex with.

Another one who should face the sack, how fucking dare he ask that question. The BBC make everything about LGBTQ, or more realistically TQ.

That reporter was well aware not only of the extremely personal nature of the question but also the awful position he put the captain of the Morocco team in and he just didn't fucking care because as far as the BBC are concerned it is all about the LGBTQ++++++ and they don't give a toss about women.