-
Weak. It was obviously such a hot potato that nobody should have given an interview. The only safe thing to do was a written statement approved by the board. But there's a lot more to come out. We don't know who agreed the lie that Farage was rejected for not having enough money, or who decided his politics were a reputational risk, or whether this policy was applied to other customers, or who leaked the memo to Farage. What a nightmare. Hard to believe that Flavel and Rose are the only ones at fault. What about Davies? He must have known about the reputational risk policy. Maybe the person who leaked the memo stands to gain by moving into one of the vacated posts. Maybe this person is a rabid Ukipper. Lots of the super rich are Brexiters. You'd think Coutts would be the perfect home for Farridge.
nick_h.-
lines starting with a 'greater than' denote quoted text
The meno wasn't leaked, he did a date request and they supplied it
don't know who agreed the lie that Farage was rejected for not having enough money,
This was commentators jumping to conclusions, he was told he was let go for commercial reasons, the CEO confirmed at the dinner he was let go for commercial reason's as farage had already put that out there. The memo confirms the decision to close his account was due to commercial reasons. Commentators incorrectly assumed the commercial reason related to him not having sufficient money.
At no point was he debanked as he was offered alternative options within the group.
greentricky
She claims she thought she was only confirming things that Farage had already put in the public domain