It's a new tactic.A combination fiscal stimulus and electoral policy, all brought to you courtesy of the new, facelifted, nationalised and bailed-out 'Brown Bank'.D
Political opinion is sensitive personal data. Anyone called Kevin Dunion or Richard Thomas?
very simple innit? They're trying to convert everyone who receives any form of benefit to open bank accounts and hey presto, only people who vote Labour will be allowed to open one...So vote for us starve. (and whilst the honest majority have to jump through hoops to perform any sort of financial activity the true money launderers will continue untroubled, but why worry in the increasingly disgusting socialist utopia?)
The story has moved on.In think its a significant story (the 'excuse' might need some serious perusal) but it 'seems' that is a cock up rather than a conspiracy.Not that this says much for the management and common sense of RBS or the abilities of the FSA if their requests can be misinterpreted in this way.
It's a cock up, was the operator wearing a Red Nose?
No update, Diz. You disappoint me...
Just thinking that, as Nelson's backtracked, you'd update your readers...Nelson ::UPDATE: Just to be clear, I agree with the Coffee Housers who say this is cock-up and not conspiracy. But the FSA say this Politically Exposed Person (PEP) is simply part of anti-fraud toolkit (it has been for years, apparently) so there is no requirement to ask it of every new client. RBS took it upon itself to pose this question, around the time of its state ownership. I'm sure the timing was also a coincidence. I accept it was a blunder, magnified by the attempts of its baffled call center staff to interpret the question. But whatever the explanation, whether it be accident or design, consider the end result: we have a state-owned bank asking clients if they are "politically exposed". And that just won't do.Sadly, it's not the grand conspiracy, but a complete misinterpretation of an FSA guideline. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/About/What/financial_crime/money_laundering/peps/index.shtml
Read the thread over at Iain's.
You may thing is weird, but only North Ireland with its Fair Employment Act 1976 protects against political discrimination in the UK.
Ahhh we have that old chestnut about how I'm supposed to ensure I read everything about a story online and, putting life on hold, update it. if i don't then it is some sort of disservice?Slight problem of course. i didn't say there was a grand cobnspiracy now did I? As with the other occassional times you post a comment here you've essentially allowed your own bias to cloud you and thus have assumed you know what I really meant. So lets look at the facts of this post for second.1. The title asked a question it did not make an affirmative statement.2. The title is factually accurate in the formation of the question. 3. No where in the post does it state that RBS are doing XY or Z, it simply plays the video/audio and asked a reasonable question.4. I then commented that the question was outrageous. It remains so. classic case of call centre monkey dumbfuckery.5. i linked to Fraser's original post which contains the update about it all just being a cock-up anyway.6. This blog has a number of posts each day and frankly I forget about them once a few have gone by.7. I have no obligation to you or anyone else to publish an update. if someone wants to read the txt you pasted in they can click the fucking link. Readers are not fucking idiots and Im too lazy.8. You can bugger off now thanks.
Ah dizzy, You never fail to be predictable... always a rise, never much effort!Re. #8 You could always ignore me!BTW. I didn't say that you did say there *was* a grand conspiracy, now did I?* *using your own patent slippery logic there, see?You shouldn't be so touchy, old bean.
Also, you (in arguing that I read too much into what YOU wrote), have read too much into what I wrote!Read my post again. Thanking you in advance. :o)
You never fail to be predictable... always a rise, never much effort!Rise? Effort? You addressed me directly saying given it is my blog I'm going to make a point of replying to you if you talk to me directly. Especially more so, as my comment policy makes clear, if your comments try to tell me what I ought to be doing. Added to that of course your one of the more self-righteous political bloggers out there.As for reading too much into your comments, your first one states that I should have updated the post and you are disappointed that I have not - the implication of course being that I am somehow misleading people by not doing it. An inference to be sure by later backed up by your follow up and use of the terms "backtracked" and the need to stress to me directly that "sadly its not the grand conspiracy".As for ignoring you, why would I do that when you addressed me directly stating your disappointment? Of course, I;m perfectly willing to accept that you weren't disappointed for the reasons Ive given, but only you can confirm that. So tell me, why were you disappointed that I had not put an update in? Why was putting an update in important? What did not putting an update in mean to you precisely?I happily await your response however, as I do have a life and its the weekend, please understand that like your original comments, it may be the case that I feel the need to rise to them so much that they do not get published for a number of hours possibly exceeding 12 because even though I read them on my phone I can't be arsed until I'm ready too.
Post a Comment