I ignore any such claim until the PEP factor is definitively confirmed or refuted. "He also claimed that he was refused custom by a variety of other banks. That suggests that it's not one system rejecting him, automated or not." The same set of regulations will result in the same sets of behaviours in a system implementation. Whatever the decision maker for N banks are, a sys engineer would expect to see a large subset off common factors in the rationale sets. “Could foreign governments from Ukraine or China or wherever else it may be, could they be pumping money into, you know, the accounts of corrupt politicians." Such schemes are actually easy to do,. A simple example would be of a politician who publishes a book or a video documentary. They sell millions. If the sales are massively skewed to overseas nations where the politician does not speak the same language, nor is held in particularly high esteem, then alarm bells immediately start ringing. We also know from the likes of the "wu mao" in China, that you could even potentially try and disguise the nation (although Amazon etc no doubt hold the IP addrs on customer registration, so some geo mapping or VPN detection would be possible if requested) . " ... " I suspect the actual reason is mainly PEP, with a fair bit of political pressure thrown in for good measure. With such a high profile case, the public interest is now to see what % of each applied.
Why would him being a PEP be important now, though? Surely this has been the case for decades? The same is true of his alleged Russian links, such as his visits to the Russian embassy. Would Chris Bryant pointing out that he worked for RT really trigger this? It was over a year ago and it was already public knowledge for years before that. George Galloway, Alex Salmond and Jeremy Corbyn don't seem to have had the same issue.
The "good faith" argument is that the transaction profile for Farage is : 1. such that PEP costs/penalties now are / would be too much to bear 2. far in excess of the above mentioned people Either way, this one is now too high profile. The last thing those involved can afford is tis shown that political animus was the actual driving force.
That was what I was asking, though. What has driven the costs/penalties up recently? Nothing public. Not that I can think of, anyway.
Who knows ?? A "good faith" argument merely requires the possibility being considered, and if true, for those involved to show tis so. As things stand, I currently suspect a combo of : 1. PEP compliance 2. Something substantially bad about Farages' financial dealings incoming, and those who are / could be linked wanting to get well clear (athough how all implied banks would know this is another topic ... ) 3. Political animus against Farage
Don't think you have to look beyond this. The sudden 'getting ahead of the story' by Fartage can really only mean one thing: something big, brown and smelly is coming down the pipe. Otherwise, there are no other obvious changes in his political and business grifting that would have suddenly interested the banking hierarchy.
Oh ****ing hell, the Birbalsingh creature is kicking off again - and demonstrating once again she can;t read worth ****
There's the indication that this is Luke Akehurst's doing Why do I suggest that? Well, just scroll down to the St Mary's ward results, which is the ward where Neal Lawson was suggesting cross-party cooperation, and looks whose name just so happens to be in third place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Oxford_City_Council_election Luckily that bitter little turd isn't in charge of selecting candida...oh ****ing hell, that's exactly what he's in charge of
Oh no, absolutely not, nobody mug Lozza for the contents of his bank account if they see him first thing Monday morning
On the subject of how it would be awful if somebody was assaulted in the street... please log in to view this image
