|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 27, 2023 14:30:37 GMT
Well, gone on. How many should have been instantly dismissed? You made the claim now back it up! Without to much thought Johnson, Raab, Braverman, etc etc. Raab? What did he do to warrant instant dismissal? What did Braverman do? What did Johnson do ? Who are etc etc ? Facts dear boy, facts, as you always keep insisting on. |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Post by oldie on Jul 27, 2023 14:39:36 GMT
Without to much thought Johnson, Raab, Braverman, etc etc. Raab? What did he do to warrant instant dismissal? What did Braverman do? What did Johnson do ? Who are etc etc ? Facts dear boy, facts, as you always keep insisting on. Seriously? Johnson lied and was charged by the police. Raab was found, after investigation, to be guilty of bullying and in breach of the ministerial code. Braverman was found to be also in breach. Braverman also failed the intelligence test, at the level required to have ministerial responsibility. A joke, but with underpinnings. You could add Truss, Kwarteng, Rees-Mogg and the poisoned dwarf. Oh and the bloke with the caricature wig |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 27, 2023 14:39:37 GMT
Yep, it was obviously a Commercial decision to cancel his account  No that's called political pressure. Does it not occur to you Nobby to ask why so many Tory political figures are backing Farage? Oh and you may find this interesting or of course ignore. In April the Times and Bloomberg announced that 'Marshall Wace has taken a £155.6 million ($193 million) short position against NatWest Group Plc, the largest-ever disclosed short against the British bank since records began in 2012.
The latest disclosure to the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority shows the hedge fund increased its bet against the lender on March 23, bolstering its position from 0.51% as of March 10, representing about 0.61% of the taxpayer-backed bank.
Short sellers sell borrowed securities in hope to buy them back at lower prices and pocket the difference as profit. Marshall Wace’s strategies are typically market neutral meaning such positions are usually offset by long positions elsewhere.'Today - www.standard.co.uk/business/gb-news-owner-s-firm-makes-millions-as-natwest-shares-slide-b1097128.html#r3z-addoorGB News owner’s fund makes millions from short position as NatWest shares slide
Marshall Wace holds a 0.59% short position in NatWest, which has delivered gains of close to £12 million in the past weekA hedge fund led by the owner of GB News has made millions from shorting NatWest stock as the bank’s shares fell in the wake of the controversy over Nigel Farage’s bank account.
Sir Paul Marshall’s hedge fund Marshall Wace has a 0.59% short position in NatWest, according to regulatory filings first unearthed by the Telegraph. The fund has held a short position against NatWest since the Spring, and has pared back its bets slightly in recent months.NatWest shares have lost 8.4% of their value in the past week as the company has come under fire for how it handled Nigel Farage’s account with exclusive bank Coutts. That represents close to £2 billion in market capitalisation, meaning Marshall Wace has gained around £11.7 million in that time period by betting against the bank.Guess who Nigel Farage works for. Guess who gains the longer he keeps this matter alive. Just like with Brexit and investors like the disgraced Crispin Odey making millions from shorted positions.. The whole affair is starting to really stink. C'mon Terry, it's a Hedge Fund. This is what they do everyday. Don't forget the term Hedge means that they have also bet the other way somewhere, as in 'hedging their bets'. They would have lost some money on the other side of their bet, but probably still made an overall profit, yes. They took the short position in April, long before this blew up, and anyway, it wasn't Farage who engineered this but only the actions of the bank ! Do you really thing they Shorted Nat West three months before the Farage case blew up because they knew that Coutts were going to cancel his account? To link the owners of GBnews with Farage working for them is a pretty desperate attempt at guilt by association. My personal opinion is that Shorting should be banned. It's a disgusting way to make money. |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,978 
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jul 27, 2023 14:39:52 GMT
Well, gone on. How many should have been instantly dismissed? You made the claim now back it up! Without to much thought Johnson, Raab, Braverman, etc etc. The ministers we believe may have broken the code are listed below. Click on the names to find out what they did or are alleged to have done: Kemi Badenoch Suella Braverman James Cleverley Michael Gove Chris Heaton-Harris Jeremy Hunt Alister Jack Robert Jenrick Johnny Mercer Andrew Mitchell Dominic Raab Mel Stride Rishi Sunak Ben Wallace Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson were fined. But of course the arbiter of the Ministerial Code is the Prime Minister. Johnson also made it easier for MPs so that they didn't need to resign.... probably as there were so many! And of course if your name is Priti Patel or Sue Ellen Braverman you can get sacked and then reappointed. news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-changes-ministerial-code-so-those-who-breach-it-dont-have-to-quit-or-face-sack-12622599 |
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Post by oldie on Jul 27, 2023 14:41:47 GMT
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 7,516
|
Post by oldie on Jul 27, 2023 14:43:59 GMT
No that's called political pressure. Does it not occur to you Nobby to ask why so many Tory political figures are backing Farage? Oh and you may find this interesting or of course ignore. In April the Times and Bloomberg announced that 'Marshall Wace has taken a £155.6 million ($193 million) short position against NatWest Group Plc, the largest-ever disclosed short against the British bank since records began in 2012.
The latest disclosure to the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority shows the hedge fund increased its bet against the lender on March 23, bolstering its position from 0.51% as of March 10, representing about 0.61% of the taxpayer-backed bank.
Short sellers sell borrowed securities in hope to buy them back at lower prices and pocket the difference as profit. Marshall Wace’s strategies are typically market neutral meaning such positions are usually offset by long positions elsewhere.'Today - www.standard.co.uk/business/gb-news-owner-s-firm-makes-millions-as-natwest-shares-slide-b1097128.html#r3z-addoorGB News owner’s fund makes millions from short position as NatWest shares slide
Marshall Wace holds a 0.59% short position in NatWest, which has delivered gains of close to £12 million in the past weekA hedge fund led by the owner of GB News has made millions from shorting NatWest stock as the bank’s shares fell in the wake of the controversy over Nigel Farage’s bank account.
Sir Paul Marshall’s hedge fund Marshall Wace has a 0.59% short position in NatWest, according to regulatory filings first unearthed by the Telegraph. The fund has held a short position against NatWest since the Spring, and has pared back its bets slightly in recent months.NatWest shares have lost 8.4% of their value in the past week as the company has come under fire for how it handled Nigel Farage’s account with exclusive bank Coutts. That represents close to £2 billion in market capitalisation, meaning Marshall Wace has gained around £11.7 million in that time period by betting against the bank.Guess who Nigel Farage works for. Guess who gains the longer he keeps this matter alive. Just like with Brexit and investors like the disgraced Crispin Odey making millions from shorted positions.. The whole affair is starting to really stink. C'mon Terry, it's a Hedge Fund. This is what they do everyday. Don't forget the term Hedge means that they have also bet the other way somewhere, as in 'hedging their bets'. They would have lost some money on the other side of their bet, but probably still made an overall profit, yes. They took the short position in April, long before this blew up, and anyway, it wasn't Farage who engineered this but only the actions of the bank ! Do you really thing they Shorted Nat West three months before the Farage case blew up because they knew that Coutts were going to cancel his account? To link the owners of GBnews with Farage working for them is a pretty desperate attempt at guilt by association. My personal opinion is that Shorting should be banned. It's a disgusting way to make money. "To link the owners of GBnews with Farage working for them is a pretty desperate attempt at guilt by association." Is it? Or is it reality? |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,978
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jul 27, 2023 14:46:05 GMT
C'mon Terry, it's a Hedge Fund. This is what they do everyday. Don't forget the term Hedge means that they have also bet the other way somewhere, as in 'hedging their bets'. They would have lost some money on the other side of their bet, but probably still made an overall profit, yes. They took the short position in April, long before this blew up, and anyway, it wasn't Farage who engineered this but only the actions of the bank ! Do you really thing they Shorted Nat West three months before the Farage case blew up because they knew that Coutts were going to cancel his account? To link the owners of GBnews with Farage working for them is a pretty desperate attempt at guilt by association. My personal opinion is that Shorting should be banned. It's a disgusting way to make money. Of course Nobby it is purely a coincidence. Do you not wonder why he keeps the matter going? Don't you even question people's motives. Your faith in and support for Farage is pretty amazing. And yet you would question the motives of everyone else who says anything against him. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 27, 2023 14:50:36 GMT
Raab? What did he do to warrant instant dismissal? What did Braverman do? What did Johnson do ? Who are etc etc ? Facts dear boy, facts, as you always keep insisting on. Seriously? Johnson lied and was charged by the police. Raab was found, after investigation, to be guilty of bullying and in breach of the ministerial code. Braverman was found to be also in breach. Braverman also failed the intelligence test, at the level required to have ministerial responsibility. A joke, but with underpinnings. You could Truss, Kwarteng, Rees-Mogg and the poisoned dwarf. Oh and the bloke with the caricature wig Johnson - Fined for an offence that ranks lower than a speeding ticket. Are you suggesting that anyone in the country should be dismissed from their jobs if they get a speeding ticket? Raab - Was NOT found guilty of bullying. That is a lie. He resigned because he had promised to do so if found guilty of anything. He was found guilty of ‘unreasonably aggressive conduct’ which constituted banging his fist on the table and also telling a Civil Servant that his work wasn't good enough. Braverman - Once again the bullying accusations are total nonsense in the real world. "Braverman also failed the intelligence test" - What? Have you been watching fantasy island again? Sorry, but Truss & JRM, just what have they done to be instantly dismissed? Just because you have a personal dislike for someone Oldie it doesn't mean they have to be sacked! Facts dear boy, facts. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 27, 2023 14:55:35 GMT
Seriously Terry, just read through the so-called list of Breaches. Is there a single one that warrants instant dismissal? If you are going to put up these links then please explain why each person listed there should have been sacked. |
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 2,543
|
Post by trymer on Jul 27, 2023 15:11:06 GMT
Oh god...they live amongst us Thinks he's a god now. Bacchus no doubt. |
|
trymer
Joined: November 2018
Posts: 2,543
|
Post by trymer on Jul 27, 2023 15:14:34 GMT
I have noticed that certain people keep using the same phrases time after time ( literally dozens of times).
Far right = anyone that they dont agree with so they dont like them.
The wealthy = people with more money than themselves so they dont like them either.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,978
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jul 27, 2023 15:31:32 GMT
Seriously Terry, just read through the so-called list of Breaches. Is there a single one that warrants instant dismissal? If you are going to put up these links then please explain why each person listed there should have been sacked. With respect Nobby, and I do have a lot of respect for you, when you revert to me you just pick one item from what I have written and ignore other comments. Life is too short and I do try to provide links which is more than you, Bas or others do. If you want me to go through every case while you just ignore most of what I write and don't respond is a waste of time. It's pointless discussing if all you do is brush any supported link aside without addressing it. That is not debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 27, 2023 17:01:02 GMT
Sorry Terry, but I'm assuming you think all these people should have faced Instant Dismissal, as that was what was being discussed! I'm not ignoring it. In fact I did read the link which is why, if you read what these alleged breaches were, you'd come to the conclusion that most of the 'charges' are just nonsense.
|
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jul 27, 2023 17:09:44 GMT
Peter Flavel,CEO of Coutts has resigned.
Farage absolutely wacks another 6!
Right out of the ground!
🙂
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,978
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jul 27, 2023 18:22:47 GMT
Sorry Terry, but I'm assuming you think all these people should have faced Instant Dismissal, as that was what was being discussed! I'm not ignoring it. In fact I did read the link which is why, if you read what these alleged breaches were, you'd come to the conclusion that most of the 'charges' are just nonsense. At the time of most of their actions the rule was to resign. Johnson changed that to protect his own. It used to be that rules were obeyed and protocols, traditions and constitutions followed. Johnson and Rees Smugg changed all that. They recognised that the Tories could do what they liked without any comeback. And their backers would be happy for it. Breaches of 'gentlemen's agreements' have no punishment. Honesty and integrity mean nothing. I guess if you think a law/regulation is not worth obeying, why obey any? Obviously the army saw it that way when you were in it eh Nobby? How many orders did you disobey because you thought they weren't important. |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,978
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jul 27, 2023 18:24:35 GMT
I have noticed that certain people keep using the same phrases time after time ( literally dozens of times). Far right = anyone that they dont agree with so they dont like them. The wealthy = people with more money than themselves so they dont like them either. I have noticed that certain people keep using the same phrases time after time ( literally dozens of times). Far left/woke = anyone that they dont agree with so they dont like them. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Jul 27, 2023 19:02:22 GMT
Sorry Terry, but I'm assuming you think all these people should have faced Instant Dismissal, as that was what was being discussed! I'm not ignoring it. In fact I did read the link which is why, if you read what these alleged breaches were, you'd come to the conclusion that most of the 'charges' are just nonsense. At the time of most of their actions the rule was to resign. Johnson changed that to protect his own. It used to be that rules were obeyed and protocols, traditions and constitutions followed. Johnson and Rees Smugg changed all that. They recognised that the Tories could do what they liked without any comeback. And their backers would be happy for it. Breaches of 'gentlemen's agreements' have no punishment. Honesty and integrity mean nothing. I guess if you think a law/regulation is not worth obeying, why obey any? Obviously the army saw it that way when you were in it eh Nobby? How many orders did you disobey because you thought they weren't important. It is a 'code', not laws. As I said, just read the breaches committed by that list of people. It's mainly trivial. We were talking about instant dismissal. Are you saying that all those on that list should have been dismissed? If you check you'll also find that under the previous Labour government many of them also breached the code of conduct. It's nothing new and certainly not an instant dismissal offense. In the military it is perfectly normal, and at times correct, to question and argue against orders. It's a myth that people just follow orders. Orders are always up for discussion, based on the circumstances obviously. |
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jul 27, 2023 19:16:21 GMT
'Corporate woke'.
A bucket of sick.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,978
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jul 27, 2023 19:29:50 GMT
At the time of most of their actions the rule was to resign. Johnson changed that to protect his own. It used to be that rules were obeyed and protocols, traditions and constitutions followed. Johnson and Rees Smugg changed all that. They recognised that the Tories could do what they liked without any comeback. And their backers would be happy for it. Breaches of 'gentlemen's agreements' have no punishment. Honesty and integrity mean nothing. I guess if you think a law/regulation is not worth obeying, why obey any? Obviously the army saw it that way when you were in it eh Nobby? How many orders did you disobey because you thought they weren't important. It is a 'code', not laws. As I said, just read the breaches committed by that list of people. It's mainly trivial. We were talking about instant dismissal. Are you saying that all those on that list should have been dismissed? If you check you'll also find that under the previous Labour government many of them also breached the code of conduct. It's nothing new and certainly not an instant dismissal offense. In the military it is perfectly normal, and at times correct, to question and argue against orders. It's a myth that people just follow orders. Orders are always up for discussion, based on the circumstances obviously. Under the previous Labour Government David Blunkett resigned for conflicts of interest. There were few others that I can find. What is astonishing here is that it has become the norm under this Government, whether such breaches are large or not, and we are now so accustomed to people breaching it that it has become almost irrelevant. And it has become the norm when they do finally resign, they then get a new job quite quickly. |
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,978
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jul 27, 2023 19:31:37 GMT
'Corporate woke'. A bucket of sick. See my reply to Trymer! |
|
