The parts of the #CouttsFiles they don’t want you to see 🧵: They show Farage was let go for commercial reasons.
1. In November 2022 Coutts was concerned about the “reputational risk” of Farage (ie others wouldn’t want to bank with them) but recommended keeping him on anyway: https://t.co/aJwdsufUR6twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
2. The Risk committee was also concerned about “reputational risk” (this is an important business criteria in a service industry. Rich people who don’t like your reputation will go to your competitors). But they agreed to keep him on *while he met the commercial criteria*:
3. Farage’s mortgage with Coutts was keeping him within the commercial criteria. So Coutts essentially made a decision not to give Farage special treatment (ie keeping him on despite not meeting the cc) because doing so might damage the business.
4. Coutts noted that 1. Farage’s business didn’t align with their values, and 2. His “economic contribution” (I.e. the commercial criterion - Coutts requires customers to have a provide a certain financial value) was low. *But decided to keep him on anyway*:
5. Coutts noted that the repayment of Farage’s debts to the bank (expected in 2023) would mean that his economic contribution fell further (ie another commercial criterion).
6. It was only once Farage’s mortgage was repaid, and his economic contribution consequently fell below the required level, that Coutts let him go. This was clearly believed to be a *commercial* decision.
7. It appears the only impact Farage’s political views had was that Coutts decided it would be too much of a reputational risk to give him special treatment (ie to keep him on without a sufficient economic contribution). This seems to confirm the original BBC debunking of the… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
8. Please note - none of this is to make a political point. But it is important that our public discourse is based on reality. Regardless of our political views we should be able to debate based on truth.
@politics @UN_Women Does the movement support women?
In my view, harassment of Imane Khelif and Anna Harrold for the crime of winning at sports while not seeming girly enough shows the GC movement is not about women's rights but about enforcing an archaic stereotype of femininity.
@politics @UN_Women Is it based on expertise?
Not according to the courts. In two cases high profile GC activists Maya Forstarter and Helen Joyce purported to give “expert evidence”.
How significant is the Prince Harry judgment? It’s about more than Piers Morgan and the Mirror. It exposes a fundamental breakdown at the heart of British society and politics.
Here’s my 4 key takeaways: 🧵
#phonehacking #PiersMorgan #PrinceHarry #Mirror
1. It’s a big win.
Coverage will say he didn’t win every allegation but he was never going to. Given evidence was allegedly concealed, the claim was always going to require a degree of speculation.
It’s not just a win for Harry, there were 100+ claimants - it’s big money /2
2. It’s bad news for a lot of powerful people.
A. The press:
It’s not just Piers Morgan - a raft of individuals across the media were implicated in hacking by the judge.
Yesterday I spoke to MPs about the fundamental issues with the Rwanda Bill and why it can’t be “saved” by amendment.
Here’s my 4 key problems with the Rwanda Bill 🧵
#RwandaTreaty #HumanRights #Immigration
1. The Constitutional Problem:
The Bill uses legislation to change facts. The very definition of “power is truth”. While parliament has previously asked courts to assume facts unless proven otherwise, it has never legislated to reverse a finding of fact. /2
Parl is institutionally incapable of being an objective fact finder. MPs haven’t been given the evidence scrutinised by the court or the time to consider it. This fundamentally undermines the separation of powers which is why previous govts have always restrained themselves /3