I don't know, but if you publish a defamatory document that has been seen by a few people, so several million see it, it must be harder to claim your reputation has been harmed by the initial publication.
Blup
Farage
- Thread starter securespark
- Start date
- Status
Blup
Sponsored Links
This nugget i found in the Times...
More than 10,000 people have joined a Facebook group 'NatWest closed down my account' - 600 in a couple of days after this story broke. A business owner from South-West London created the account in 2020 after his work and personal accounts were closed down two days before Christmas. He was given no reason for the closure and when he asked how he was supposed to eat a NatWest worker told him to go to a food bank.
Maybe Farage should join them?
More than 10,000 people have joined a Facebook group 'NatWest closed down my account' - 600 in a couple of days after this story broke. A business owner from South-West London created the account in 2020 after his work and personal accounts were closed down two days before Christmas. He was given no reason for the closure and when he asked how he was supposed to eat a NatWest worker told him to go to a food bank.
Maybe Farage should join them?
This puts me in mind of a former work colleague, who was having a very heated phone conversation with his bank.
"My family have banked with you for forty years; I'll make sure that we take our business elsewhere!" was the sort of thing he was shouting down the blower.
After the call had finished, I asked him what it was all about.
He was thousands overdrawn, and the bank were not being too enthusiastic about extending his facility further
He didn't take it well, when I pointed out that he was hardly bargaining from a position of strength......
Some people are so deluded, it's laughable
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,421
- Reaction score
- 2,784
- Country
You my be forgetting why he published the content of the subject access report? He claimed to have been de-banked on political grounds, it appears that the CEO of the bank briefed the BBC that it was on wealth/commercial grounds. The report corrected the error. The report has unsubstantiated allegations, which the bank has now distanced itself from.
His reputation was harmed by the BBC article, not the dodgy dossier. The dodgy dossier was used to take a decision about his fitness to bank with the "prestigious" bank. You do not need 40 pages to say client X no longer meets the commercial criteria to bank with us.
It does look like some good is coming from this, beyond the likely compensation heading to NF
City minister summons bank bosses over 'de-banking' after Farage account closure
Andrew Griffith has requested the bosses of numerous banks, building societies and digital challengers to hear how firms will reassure customers they will not be de-banked "for their lawful expression".
Sponsored Links
Nonsense. What rep? What was defamatory?
Perhaps I should start a different group - 'NatWest WONT close down my account!'
I used to bank with them years ago and I have one account with just 3 pence in it. Tried closing it online on numerous occasions with no luck. Read up on it again this morning after seeing some posts on here and it says you need a zero balance so I transferred the 3 pence out of it and……still no difference!
Last edited:
The bank apologised for some of tne language, “deeply inappropriate” is not the same as defamatory, neither it nor the bbc have accepted or acknowledged liability.You my be forgetting why he published the content of the subject access report? He claimed to have been de-banked on political grounds, it appears that the CEO of the bank briefed the BBC that it was on wealth/commercial grounds. The report corrected the error. The report has unsubstantiated allegations, which the bank has now distanced itself from.
His reputation was harmed by the BBC article, not the dodgy dossier. The dodgy dossier was used to take a decision about his fitness to bank with the "prestigious" bank. You do not need 40 pages to say client X no longer meets the commercial criteria to bank with us.
It does look like some good is coming from this, beyond the likely compensation heading to NF
City minister summons bank bosses over 'de-banking' after Farage account closure
Andrew Griffith has requested the bosses of numerous banks, building societies and digital challengers to hear how firms will reassure customers they will not be de-banked "for their lawful expression".news.sky.com
Blup
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,421
- Reaction score
- 2,784
- Country
Nobody is going to accept publicly that they defamed someone until a deal has been done and then they might still never accept it.
Reposted:
But to repeat, there is no requirement for defamatory material to be put in the public domain, for it to be defamatory. It merely needs to exist, be distributed, in this case some decisions taken on the face of it and as a result damages occurred. The BBC headline was inaccurate and they have accepted that. There could even be an argument of malicious falsehood. Remember the banks said, they do not close bank accounts on lawfully held political views, it turned out they commissioned a report on NF and on the basis of his lawfully held political views opted to put him on a glide path out, but refusing renewal of his mortgage and thus putting him outside the commercial viability rule.
Its all a bit hypocritical that a bank which is intended to be exclusive is champion inclusivity.
BBC corrected inaccurate reporting and the bank distanced itself from the report (as much as it can).
Reposted:
Corrections and Clarifications
The BBC's responses to editorial, technical and corporate issues.
www.bbc.co.uk
But to repeat, there is no requirement for defamatory material to be put in the public domain, for it to be defamatory. It merely needs to exist, be distributed, in this case some decisions taken on the face of it and as a result damages occurred. The BBC headline was inaccurate and they have accepted that. There could even be an argument of malicious falsehood. Remember the banks said, they do not close bank accounts on lawfully held political views, it turned out they commissioned a report on NF and on the basis of his lawfully held political views opted to put him on a glide path out, but refusing renewal of his mortgage and thus putting him outside the commercial viability rule.
Its all a bit hypocritical that a bank which is intended to be exclusive is champion inclusivity.
BBC corrected inaccurate reporting and the bank distanced itself from the report (as much as it can).
Last edited:
Still dragging their heels on an apology though, I think that may change in the next few days.
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2021
- Messages
- 2,416
- Reaction score
- 339
- Country
They would need to be very careful how they word it 'cos an apology can be taken as an admission of guilt, which is why apologies are often withheld.
.
You're assuming that the lengthy detailed nuanced report is defamatory. Nothing has happened that changes the position that far-rage was exited for commercial considerations - the ending of his mortgage, there was no other additional reason to keep him on. Perfectly reasonable position for an elite bank to take. The beebs story is entirely defensibleNobody is going to accept publicly that they defamed someone until a deal has been done and then they might still never accept it.
Reposted:
Corrections and Clarifications
The BBC's responses to editorial, technical and corporate issues.www.bbc.co.uk
But to repeat, there is no requirement for defamatory material to be put in the public domain, for it to be defamatory. It merely needs to exist, be distributed, in this case some decisions taken on the face of it and as a result damages occurred. The BBC headline was inaccurate and they have accepted that. There could even be an argument of malicious falsehood. Remember the banks said, they do not close bank accounts on lawfully held political views, it turned out they commissioned a report on NF and on the basis of his lawfully held political views opted to put him on a glide path out, but refusing renewal of his mortgage and thus putting him outside the commercial viability rule.
Its all a bit hypocritical that a bank which is intended to be exclusive is champion inclusivity.
BBC corrected inaccurate reporting and the bank distanced itself from the report (as much as it can).
Exclusivity and inclusivity are not incompatible.
Blup
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,421
- Reaction score
- 2,784
- Country
Absolutely not. Apologies cannot be seen as an admission of guilt in civil action
w00t?
What?
- Status
Sponsored Links
