Partial view of the Westminster swamp

 

Aaand …. she’s gone: the NatWest CEO Dame Alison Rose has resigned last night. That was quick! The leading articles in this morning’s print editions are still only demanding that she goes. Meanwhile, good old BBC staff choose to go with the Greek “wildfires” rather than the Alison-Rose story: “Newspaper headlines: ‘The fight for Rhodes’ as wildfire crisis deepens” (link). I wonder if ‘staff’ would’ve gone with the NatWest story if the grauniad had used it for their leading article …

I am taking a closer look into the online reports in the DT (paywalled link) and The Times (link, paywalled) because, for the record, there are some more admissions from her and the BBC which are indicative of the rotten state of this country’s institutions. Firstly, the summary from Dame Alison Rose’s ‘excuse letter’:

“Explaining what she had told Mr Jack, Dame Alison said in her statement: “Believing it was public knowledge, I confirmed that Mr Farage was a Coutts customer and that he had been offered a NatWest bank account. Alongside this, I repeated what Mr Farage had already stated, that the bank saw this as a commercial decision.” She insisted she had not revealed “any personal financial information” about Mr Farage but admitted: “I left Mr Jack with the impression that the decision to close Mr Farage’s accounts was solely a commercial one.” (paywalled link)

It’s an utterly stunning example of ‘how to weasel out’ by claiming innocence or at least ignorance. So she thought it was ok to ‘confirm’ that this de-banking was for ‘commercial reasons’ because Mr NF had said so? Was she unaware of that ‘dossier’ compiled by the bank’s ‘reputational risk’ department? The answer is yes, as she herself acknowledges in her letter:

“Rose denied being part of the decision-making process to “exit” Farage as a customer. She said the decision was made by Coutts. She said she was informed in April that the decision was “for commercial reasons” and added that at the time of her discussions with Jack she was not “in receipt” of the dossier Coutts had compiled.” (link, paywalled)

So she ‘knew nuthin’ about nuthin’ but ‘knew’ Mr NF’s de-banking was for commercial reasons, just one of those things. She was ‘informed in April’ but seems to have been blissfully unaware that homelike like Nigel Farage might not take this lying down, that there would be repercussions. She also believed that her ‘revelation’ couldn’t possibly be a “personal financial information”. She was oh-so innocent thinking that this BBC journalist wouldn’t use her little piece of gossip. All this begs the question: how competent was she as CEO?

This is the caliber of our top bankers: cosily gossiping to journalists while ‘unaware’ that their gossip would be used. And we ‘trust’ people like that to run the finances of our country? Moreover, this begs the question if her woke attitude had trickled down the ranks, permitting staff to de-bank those less prominent that Mr NF. Worse: this seems to be the ‘culture’ in other banks as well.

And then there’s good old Auntie Beeb, now desperately trying to save their own skin, with ‘sources’ telling The Times:

“BBC sources accused Rose of “double standards” and insisted Jack had gone back to her to double check the facts before he published his story. “She stood by it,” they said. “She knew it was coming even though it wasn’t right — or the whole story at least.” (link, paywalled)

I wonder why Mr Jack actually ran this story when he, or at least ‘BBC sources’, knew ‘it wasn’t right’. He or those BBC ‘sources’ apparently didn’t try to find out if that Rose gossip was actually, factually correct. It seems that nowadays our MSM journalists only ‘fact-check’ if their ‘sources’ are fine with being quoted, anonymously. There’s more – this is delicious:

“A senior BBC source said: “We would question why she was able to breach client confidentiality as the source but then NatWest hid behind client confidentiality when we were in the firing line for reporting the story. Confidentiality seems to be a flexible concept as far as NatWest is concerned in this case.” (link, paywalled)

I love it! The BBC being caught in the ‘confidentiality’ trap! Will they now ask if ‘confidentially’ is generally a flexible concept’, used by all of Whitehall and institutions such as banks and the NHS when we peasants ask for information on decisions having been made which affect us personally? Moreover, it seems that she and the Natwest board only moved after a rather direct reminder by the Banking Regulator that ‘they stood ready to act.” (link, paywalled). What else have they been hiding if this scared them?

And finally, there’s a sweet little poll, running in The Times as I write. It asks: “Should banks be free to drop customers whose views they disagree with?” (link, paywalled). Sadly, 21% of readers think this is fine. However, not even the august Times hacks recognise that the question is utterly wrong! Do they, do the readers not understand that banks shouldn’t even know the views of their customers, never mind de-banking them for their views?

May I respectfully and humbly ask if certain politicians, thrown out of their jobs as MPs for ‘sexual harassment’ or anti-semitic views, have been de-banked? If not – why not? Also: will the little people who’ve been de-banked now receive apologies and satisfaction? If not – why not? And: will the ‘financial authorities’ demand that all these ‘dossiers’ banks hold on their customers views be shredded? If not – why not?

That’s all I have for today. There’s more to this stench arising from the Westminster swamp which I for one won’t let go just yet. It’s good that, thanks to the Silly Season, other ‘news’ won’t distract us. Have a good day.