RuamRudy

60-70-80 is the sort code for Gov Bnkg Serv Br under Nat West. Wikipedia states: "On 14 February 2020, it was announced that RBS Group was to be renamed NatWest Group, taking the brand under which the majority of its business is delivered." If this is insufficient to convince you then I am not sure what else anyone can do.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of ULEZ, it isn't going to be a significant factor in shaping the voting intentions of the majority of the UK electorate. No amount of islamophobia and Sadiq bashing is going to return the disillusioned middle to the conservatives any time soon.

Go to www.sortcodes.co.uk and you can enter the sort code and get it's details. I think this should allay your concerns.

I don't know about joining up but I got a letter from the fraud dept at RBS because I used my credit card abroad (I was expecting it). I called the number on the letter - that's when the lady answered with 'Nat West'. I said to her that I was expecting to speak to RBS and she said that they were the same.

Whilst I don't agree with you that banks are obligated to deal with obnoxious customers, history has shown that there is no such thing as an ethical or honest bank. Dirty money or clean, they don't care where it came from. So I would have thought that Farage would have been welcomed at any UK bank. I can only assume, therefore, that it was a petty attack on him personally - and I can easily understand such motives. I don't necessarily condone their action but I can't help but feel a bit of schadenfreude.

I have an RBS account and had to call them up last week - the woman who answered announced that I was calling the Nat West. Same same.

A 45% increase in funding would be outrageous at any time, but when we are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, this does nothing but underline the total contempt that Charles Windsor has for the people of the UK. A man as shameless as he is useless.

Irrelevant to the rest of England though.

I don't think that the UK can claim the moral high ground when it comes to supporting Afghans who put their lives on the line for the west. Afghanistan: UK has abandoned Afghan people, says senior MP

A clever response from Ukraine - any ship in the black sea heading to Russian or Crimean ports to be considered as supporting the Russian war efforts and therefore legitimate targets. Whether they take direct action or not, this will surely make shipments to the region uninsurable.

Are you implying that I am a journalist at the Daily Mail? I would be very careful if I were you.

My particular issue with your post is that the scrutiny of the likes of farage or Tory miscreants is almost non-existent in comparison. Compare the hysteria and demands to name Edwards with the ongoing (over 2 years) investigation into multiple allegations of rape against a Tory MP. Why is that case not whipping up even more wall to wall 24 hour outrage?

Murdoch has been brainwashing the far right for years into believing that the BBC was their enemy and must be shutdown; now he is using the Scum to do just that, getting his far right drones out with their pitchforks. Rupert Murdoch told PM he MUST get rid of the BBC while 'bouncing Wilfred on his knee' during visit to his country house, says Boris Johnson's sister

The article is light on details of the employees who have lost their jobs, but they have my sympathies. But in this case, the enemy is not the asylum seekers but the company that runs the hotel and the government that has spent years decimating workers' rights.

I suspect that the prevalence of risky behaviour amongst successful and high profile men is high. I don't know if it's related to the pressure they feel under or a sense of arrogance and entitlement, but Max Clifford, himself a risk taker, had an extensive list of secrets of the stars.

I agree - but two wrongs don't make a right.

This is a different case to the Scum's story, I think? In this particular case, it seems that the young person threatened Edwards with public exposure, to which he responded with anger. How is the young person a victim here?

Your assertion of this person as a victim seems at odds with their own assessment of their situation. I assume that you are unaware of their identity. Would it also be fair to assume that they were in a better position to determine their victimhood than you?

My point is a lot more recent than yours - in fact both stories emerged last week, but the more serious allegation seems to have been entirely ignored by the media.

Why should it concern you at all? If he isn't breaking the law, is he not allowed a private life?

Who is the victim? Claims against BBC presenter are ‘rubbish’, says letter from young person’s lawyer, BBC reports https://www.theguardian.com/media/live/2023/jul/10/bbc-investigation-suspended-presenter-police-latest-updates?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

I disagree that it's off topic but feel free to report it again. The discussion is about allegations of sexual impropriety by public figures. You are convinced that there is a conspiracy to protect the one who has been publicly named - the correlation with the allegations against Osborne are possibly inconvenient for the hard right, but they are totally on topic.

He sent adults messages that they now say were flirtatious and inappropriate but didn't complain about at the time. And he sent a message containing expletives to a 20-something when the 20-something threatened to blackmail him? If that's enough to get the pitchfork mob out, a former chancellor must be beside himself with worry this week.

You may have become aware of the story only in the last few days, but it's several months since the mother of the alleged victim went to the police - oh, sorry, not the police but the Scum. Surely the first stop of any mother, concerned about a crime being perpetrated against their child, would be the police? Or is all this simply a fabricated attack on the BBC, previously held held back until an opportune moment arose, and now unleashed to ensure that George Osborne's wedding went off unsullied?

Are you familiar with the details of the investigation that the Met has undertaken? Do you know how many manhours of policing have been expended on this? It certainly gained a lot more publicity than the other high profile person accused last week of sexual impropriety. It beggars the question of why the Sun sat on the story for so long. Might it be that rather than a conspiracy between the Met and the BBC to protect Edwards, it was a conspiracy between Rupert Murdoch and the Nasty Party to protect a former senior government minister?