a very cool kid wrote: » What's to stop his kids getting bank accounts tomorrow and sending him money in that case?
wicklowstevo wrote: » funny that are you sure ? I have a trading account through revolut and I didn't have to answer any invasive questions ….. then again im not a public rep
wicklowstevo wrote: » Hmm so a politician has managed to make it easier for fraud and money laundering eh ? and you think that's a good days work ?
smurgen wrote: » But they don't have them. That's the point. Could understand info sharing between banks if they had.
a very cool kid wrote: » It shouldn't make a difference, if they have the capacity to channel funds to him, the financial institutions involved need to be aware
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why did they apologise and why are they changing their systems?
FrancieBrady wrote: » That sure escalated quickly. Dear me, just because you have been left looking a bit silly, no need to go over the top.
Hạ Long Bay wrote: » Where did Revolut state they did apologies and that they are changing their systems?
wicklowstevo wrote: » care to clarify about what you mean there francie ?
FrancieBrady wrote: » They didn't. Doherty published his interaction with them, after they asked him on the tweet to contact them.
Hạ Long Bay wrote: » Ah ok I would have expected some kind of press release from Revolut after this landmark change of policy. Suppose we will have to stick with the what Pearse says version now.
FrancieBrady wrote: » He raised the concern, they asked him to contact them. He says there was a satisfactory outcome - an apology and a change to systems. A good days work for any politician, no?
Hạ Long Bay wrote: » I contacted them today as well saying my balance was a bit low. They apologized and lodged 10k to my account. A good days work for a poster on boards?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, if it happened. Would it be a good days work for a politician if he got an apology and a change to systems? Yes or no, will do.
Hạ Long Bay wrote: » Yes, if it happened.
smurgen wrote: » Anyone has the capacity to do anything. Questioning where they get the information is legitimate. I'd be more concerned of our current Taoiseach having received developers money into his wife's bank account personally but that's just me.
Deleted User wrote: » It's mighty that an Irish TD has got one of the unicorns of fintech to make changes to their obligations around PEP! Well done to Pearse. This is yet another nothingburger in fairness, but Pearse should just stop being so outraged about everything, and feeling the need to go off on one on Twitter to gather a load of likes. The software Revolut use for AML and KYC purposes probably picked up a name, and displayed a name that was the same as one of his kids. The tech behind it is called social graphing, and I'd agree it's creepy as feck. SF could make hay with exposing the sinister tech behind it, especially if they still like using 'burner' phones.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Are they like phones that go missing during an inquiry?
Kivaro wrote: » Sinn Fein announced this morning that they are supporting teachers in their demands to be vaccinated as a profession and not by age. Vaccination by age is the medical and scientific guidance issued all over the world since age is the defining factor in Covid-19 risk, and not profession. The Sinn Fein leadership know that teachers will be eager to reflect their anger at not getting their own way in the next general election, so this looks like a vote-getting stunt. Sein Fein has been abysmal during this pandemic, especially with their zero-Covid approach and their statements about locking us down further with even more draconian restrictions on a small country that already has the tightest restrictions on the planet, along with countries like North Korea.
Fionn1952 wrote: » This thread is rapidly turning into throwing ****e at a wall and seeing if anything could possibly stick. It really undermines legitimate criticism of SF and their policies when it is being completely drowned out by roaring about every piece of insignificant nonsense as if it's in any way meaningful.
RandomName2 wrote: » Insignificant? Well I think it's important to remember that Conor Murphy will not name the IRA members he talked to about the abduction, torture, and murder of Paul Quinn. His hands were so badly mutilated that his family couldn't put rosary beads in them. This isn't ancient history. Conor Murphy is currently an MLA in Sinn Fein and asked his buddies in the IRA (Murphy was formerly a member) about information relating to Paul Quinn's torture and murder. Murphy has assured us that the IRA had nothing to do with it and that Quinn was a criminal who got what was coming to him. He will not disclose any additional information. Though eventually pressured into withdrawing his statement saying that Paul Quinn was a criminal, he still refuses to name the IRA members he talked to about the murder. That was a cross-border abduction and murder by a group of 8-10 people, from a republican area, which the victim's family firmly believe was related to the IRA. I think it is important to remember that Murphy says that the IRA are not guilty. Some people won't find it important though.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Who has said in the PSNI or Gardai what 'information' he has given? Links please? 'Withholding information' is a chargeable offence, if he is withholding information WHY hasn't he been charged. In short - is this trial by internet again? Murphy nor anyone else is not duty bound to reveal info just to satisfy boardsies or the general public. Again, the independent monitoring body set up by the two sovereign governments have very clearly said the 'IRA' was not involved. How come they are not in the dock too?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0c95fbacfd3f8db330cceee65321bca3.svg)
