Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Branton Red on July 19, 2023, 10:19:02 pm
-
Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right and a key facet of democracy.
Voltaire "I wholly disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it”
Einstein "laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man may present his views without penalty there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire population."
That "spirit of tolerance" should apply to the "entire" population including the corporate world and banking industry.
Is society losing that "spirit of tolerance" in how it treats people with whom many "wholly dissaprove" of what they say?
-
The Farage (who imo is a bellend but still) saga on this is downright dangerous I think. Banking shouldn't take simple political views in to consideration really. What's next and where's the line?
-
What has all that waffle got to do with Farage's bank account? It was closed because he didn't have enough money in it required to keep it open. Or are you swallowing Farage's cancel culture gobshitery?
-
Has this report that Farage claims vindicates him actually been released? Because all I've seen is selective claims about what it says by him and the Telegraph.
If it was the slam dunk that they say it us, you'd think they'd publish the whole thing, no?
Given that Farage hasn't published it, and that he and the Telegraph have reputations as long as your arm for being economical with the truth, I think we'd be well advised to stay healthily sceptical.
-
Think carefully about the language here.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1681419511491362820
Account was closed "after" they said that. Not "because" they said that.
-
Has this report that Farage claims vindicates him actually been released?
Yes here it is
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12314423/The-Coutts-Farage-dossier-bank-admitted-ex-Ukip-leader-DID-meet-commercial-criteria-used-tweet-Ricky-Gervais-trans-joke-Novak-Djokovic-ties-decide-odds-position-inclusive-organisation.html
Knock yourself out
What has all that waffle got to do with Farage's bank account? It was closed because he didn't have enough money in it required to keep it open. Or are you swallowing Farage's cancel culture gobshitery?
Glyn
See page 3 of the report attached above "the client's EC (Economic Contribution) is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
Page 1 "The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."
Coutts appear to have briefed the BBC on the 'lack of money' line after the story first broke. The documentation of the reasons for their decision show this to have been a lie. Notwithstanding breaking GDPR and client confidentiality.
Like Billy I was sceptical when the story broke. I've only commented on this after Coutts reasoning has been published. You on the other hand appear to have swallowed Coutts face-saving excuse making at face value.
Care to re-read and comment on my 'waffle' in light of the actual facts?
-
The Farage (who imo is a bellend but still) saga on this is downright dangerous I think. Banking shouldn't take simple political views in to consideration really. What's next and where's the line?
Exactly can any bank be allowed to close anyone's account on the back of their politics?
Should supermarkets bar people for shopping with them due to their political views?
Can solicitors refuse to represent people due to disagreeing with their opinions - so reducing/making more difficult access to justice?
This is setting a very dangerous precedent for our freedoms.
-
Oh also if you believe in basic biology or religion your account is cancelled, see the vicar whose account was closed by Yorkshire building Society
Excellent article here but the best quote.... "After decades in bed with money launderers, swindlers and sub-prime lenders, who’d have thought it would be a retired vicar from the Lake District that would prick the banking industry into developing a social conscience?"
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/columnists/banks-would-be-better-off-cancelling-parts-of-their-own-culture-first-david-behrens-4208963
-
Has this report that Farage claims vindicates him actually been released?
Yes here it is
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12314423/The-Coutts-Farage-dossier-bank-admitted-ex-Ukip-leader-DID-meet-commercial-criteria-used-tweet-Ricky-Gervais-trans-joke-Novak-Djokovic-ties-decide-odds-position-inclusive-organisation.html
Knock yourself out
What has all that waffle got to do with Farage's bank account? It was closed because he didn't have enough money in it required to keep it open. Or are you swallowing Farage's cancel culture gobshitery?
Glyn
See page 3 of the report attached above "the client's EC (Economic Contribution) is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
Page 1 "The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."
Coutts appear to have briefed the BBC on the 'lack of money' line after the story first broke. The documentation of the reasons for their decision show this to have been a lie. Notwithstanding breaking GDPR and client confidentiality.
Like Billy I was sceptical when the story broke. I've only commented on this after Coutts reasoning has been published. You on the other hand appear to have swallowed Coutts face-saving excuse making at face value.
Care to re-read and comment on my 'waffle' in light of the actual facts?
My apologies, I wasn't aware of this document when I replied.
However, if you're going to quoye the phrase "on a commercial basis" as meaning there was no political basis to back a decision, I presume you'd agree with what it says on page 1, that they would refuse to renew the mortgage "on a commercial basis" as meaning that wasn't done on a political basis either?
-
The Farage (who imo is a bellend but still) saga on this is downright dangerous I think. Banking shouldn't take simple political views in to consideration really. What's next and where's the line?
Exactly can any bank be allowed to close anyone's account on the back of their politics?
Should supermarkets bar people for shopping with them due to their political views?
Can solicitors refuse to represent people due to disagreeing with their opinions - so reducing/making more difficult access to justice?
This is setting a very dangerous precedent for our freedoms.
It's not a precedent at all. Businesses have been free to decide who they want to do business with for years. You can't force them to unless there is anti-discrimination legislation in place for certain circumstances. Just try to open a new bank account when you're on benefits and you'll find that out for yourself.
Did those companies who refused to deal with Apartheid-era South African companies suppress anyone's Freedom Of Speech as your OP seems to say that you think Coutt's are doing to Farage? As far as I know Farage is still completely free to say whatever he wants and continues to do so regardless of what Coutts do.
-
The Co-operative bank have an ethical banking policy that is available for anyone to read and explicitly details trading activities that they will not allow their money to be invested in. There is nothing improper in that and it in no way impedes anyone's ability to speak as they wish.
In that regard, Coutt's bank is doing nothing different. They aren't gagging Farage, and as far as I am concerned the willingness to allow ethical values to shape your business policies is something to be applauded.
-
The Co-operative bank have an ethical banking policy that is available for anyone to read and explicitly details trading activities that they will not allow their money to be invested in. There is nothing improper in that and it in no way impedes anyone's ability to speak as they wish.
In that regard, Coutt's bank is doing nothing different. They aren't gagging Farage, and as far as I am concerned the willingness to allow ethical values to shape your business policies is something to be applauded.
It's totally different. Coop and probably Coutts won't deal with business who are manufacturing arms etc, probably won't deal with anyone or group who is explicitly homophobic. That's totally different to what's going on here. Farrge liked a tweet from Gervais and also supported Djokovic anti vac stance. These have been explicitly written as amongst the reasons
You don't get it do you. These rosy little do good businesses who paint their pretty rainbows everywhere only once a month.... yet use child sweat shops and do business with China who persecute Muslims... Are having the nerve to tell you what you should and shouldn't think and telling you what's ethical. It's laughable
-
Has this report that Farage claims vindicates him actually been released?
Yes here it is
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12314423/The-Coutts-Farage-dossier-bank-admitted-ex-Ukip-leader-DID-meet-commercial-criteria-used-tweet-Ricky-Gervais-trans-joke-Novak-Djokovic-ties-decide-odds-position-inclusive-organisation.html
Knock yourself out
What has all that waffle got to do with Farage's bank account? It was closed because he didn't have enough money in it required to keep it open. Or are you swallowing Farage's cancel culture gobshitery?
Glyn
See page 3 of the report attached above "the client's EC (Economic Contribution) is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
Page 1 "The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."
Coutts appear to have briefed the BBC on the 'lack of money' line after the story first broke. The documentation of the reasons for their decision show this to have been a lie. Notwithstanding breaking GDPR and client confidentiality.
Like Billy I was sceptical when the story broke. I've only commented on this after Coutts reasoning has been published. You on the other hand appear to have swallowed Coutts face-saving excuse making at face value.
Care to re-read and comment on my 'waffle' in light of the actual facts?
Thanks for that Branton.
May I refer you to page 39 and ask what is wrong with a company making that decision?
-
Has this report that Farage claims vindicates him actually been released?
Yes here it is
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12314423/The-Coutts-Farage-dossier-bank-admitted-ex-Ukip-leader-DID-meet-commercial-criteria-used-tweet-Ricky-Gervais-trans-joke-Novak-Djokovic-ties-decide-odds-position-inclusive-organisation.html
Knock yourself out
What has all that waffle got to do with Farage's bank account? It was closed because he didn't have enough money in it required to keep it open. Or are you swallowing Farage's cancel culture gobshitery?
Glyn
See page 3 of the report attached above "the client's EC (Economic Contribution) is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
Page 1 "The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."
Coutts appear to have briefed the BBC on the 'lack of money' line after the story first broke. The documentation of the reasons for their decision show this to have been a lie. Notwithstanding breaking GDPR and client confidentiality.
Like Billy I was sceptical when the story broke. I've only commented on this after Coutts reasoning has been published. You on the other hand appear to have swallowed Coutts face-saving excuse making at face value.
Care to re-read and comment on my 'waffle' in light of the actual facts?
Thanks for that Branton.
May I refer you to page 39 and ask what is wrong with a company making that decision?
Would you want to live in a world where your custom can be refused based on your political views?
-
Nc.
That is not what this is about. That is what it is being set up as. But read that p39 and have a think.
Since you ask about me, I'll tell you a little story about my experience.
I was heavily involved in left wing politics as a student. I was also a very good student. Graduated top of my year.
I applied for 7 jobs. Got interviews with 6 companies and every one of them offered me a job, all of them with very attractive salaries.
One company rejected me without interview. They were a member of the Economic League (look it up).
That's what happens in a free market economy. Companies have a certain amount of freedom to choose with whom they want to do business. In this case, Coutts, having carefully assessed the numerous controversies that Faragechas deliberately whipped up, decided that he wasn't giving them enough business to compensate for the shit they got by being associated with him.
-
Has this report that Farage claims vindicates him actually been released?
Yes here it is
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12314423/The-Coutts-Farage-dossier-bank-admitted-ex-Ukip-leader-DID-meet-commercial-criteria-used-tweet-Ricky-Gervais-trans-joke-Novak-Djokovic-ties-decide-odds-position-inclusive-organisation.html
Knock yourself out
What has all that waffle got to do with Farage's bank account? It was closed because he didn't have enough money in it required to keep it open. Or are you swallowing Farage's cancel culture gobshitery?
Glyn
See page 3 of the report attached above "the client's EC (Economic Contribution) is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
Page 1 "The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."
Coutts appear to have briefed the BBC on the 'lack of money' line after the story first broke. The documentation of the reasons for their decision show this to have been a lie. Notwithstanding breaking GDPR and client confidentiality.
Like Billy I was sceptical when the story broke. I've only commented on this after Coutts reasoning has been published. You on the other hand appear to have swallowed Coutts face-saving excuse making at face value.
Care to re-read and comment on my 'waffle' in light of the actual facts?
Thanks for that Branton.
May I refer you to page 39 and ask what is wrong with a company making that decision?
Would you want to live in a world where your custom can be refused based on your political views?
About as much as I'd want to live in a world where I'd be forced to have dealings with someone I don't want to deal with.
-
Has this report that Farage claims vindicates him actually been released?
Yes here it is
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12314423/The-Coutts-Farage-dossier-bank-admitted-ex-Ukip-leader-DID-meet-commercial-criteria-used-tweet-Ricky-Gervais-trans-joke-Novak-Djokovic-ties-decide-odds-position-inclusive-organisation.html
Knock yourself out
What has all that waffle got to do with Farage's bank account? It was closed because he didn't have enough money in it required to keep it open. Or are you swallowing Farage's cancel culture gobshitery?
Glyn
See page 3 of the report attached above "the client's EC (Economic Contribution) is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
Page 1 "The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."
Coutts appear to have briefed the BBC on the 'lack of money' line after the story first broke. The documentation of the reasons for their decision show this to have been a lie. Notwithstanding breaking GDPR and client confidentiality.
Like Billy I was sceptical when the story broke. I've only commented on this after Coutts reasoning has been published. You on the other hand appear to have swallowed Coutts face-saving excuse making at face value.
Care to re-read and comment on my 'waffle' in light of the actual facts?
Thanks for that Branton.
May I refer you to page 39 and ask what is wrong with a company making that decision?
Would you want to live in a world where your custom can be refused based on your political views?
About as much as I'd want to live in a world where I'd be forced to have dealings with someone I don't want to deal with.
You already do live in that world, see the family run bakery who were sued and hounded because they didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding based on their religious values. It's one way traffic, comply with the views of the regime or get cancelled
-
Has this report that Farage claims vindicates him actually been released?
Yes here it is
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12314423/The-Coutts-Farage-dossier-bank-admitted-ex-Ukip-leader-DID-meet-commercial-criteria-used-tweet-Ricky-Gervais-trans-joke-Novak-Djokovic-ties-decide-odds-position-inclusive-organisation.html
Knock yourself out
What has all that waffle got to do with Farage's bank account? It was closed because he didn't have enough money in it required to keep it open. Or are you swallowing Farage's cancel culture gobshitery?
Glyn
See page 3 of the report attached above "the client's EC (Economic Contribution) is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
Page 1 "The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."
Coutts appear to have briefed the BBC on the 'lack of money' line after the story first broke. The documentation of the reasons for their decision show this to have been a lie. Notwithstanding breaking GDPR and client confidentiality.
Like Billy I was sceptical when the story broke. I've only commented on this after Coutts reasoning has been published. You on the other hand appear to have swallowed Coutts face-saving excuse making at face value.
Care to re-read and comment on my 'waffle' in light of the actual facts?
Thanks for that Branton.
May I refer you to page 39 and ask what is wrong with a company making that decision?
Would you want to live in a world where your custom can be refused based on your political views?
About as much as I'd want to live in a world where I'd be forced to have dealings with someone I don't want to deal with.
You already do live in that world, see the family run bakery who were sued and hounded because they didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding based on their religious values. It's one way traffic, comply with the views of the regime or get cancelled
Much better in the days when landlords would put up "No Dogs, No Irish, No Blacks" signs in the window, no?
-
Has this report that Farage claims vindicates him actually been released?
Yes here it is
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12314423/The-Coutts-Farage-dossier-bank-admitted-ex-Ukip-leader-DID-meet-commercial-criteria-used-tweet-Ricky-Gervais-trans-joke-Novak-Djokovic-ties-decide-odds-position-inclusive-organisation.html
Knock yourself out
What has all that waffle got to do with Farage's bank account? It was closed because he didn't have enough money in it required to keep it open. Or are you swallowing Farage's cancel culture gobshitery?
Glyn
See page 3 of the report attached above "the client's EC (Economic Contribution) is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis"
Page 1 "The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."
Coutts appear to have briefed the BBC on the 'lack of money' line after the story first broke. The documentation of the reasons for their decision show this to have been a lie. Notwithstanding breaking GDPR and client confidentiality.
Like Billy I was sceptical when the story broke. I've only commented on this after Coutts reasoning has been published. You on the other hand appear to have swallowed Coutts face-saving excuse making at face value.
Care to re-read and comment on my 'waffle' in light of the actual facts?
Thanks for that Branton.
May I refer you to page 39 and ask what is wrong with a company making that decision?
Would you want to live in a world where your custom can be refused based on your political views?
About as much as I'd want to live in a world where I'd be forced to have dealings with someone I don't want to deal with.
You already do live in that world, see the family run bakery who were sued and hounded because they didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding based on their religious values. It's one way traffic, comply with the views of the regime or get cancelled
I'd prefer we just cancelled Farage for being xenophobic and stoking up the country with his false claims.
-
The Co-operative bank have an ethical banking policy that is available for anyone to read and explicitly details trading activities that they will not allow their money to be invested in. There is nothing improper in that and it in no way impedes anyone's ability to speak as they wish.
In that regard, Coutt's bank is doing nothing different. They aren't gagging Farage, and as far as I am concerned the willingness to allow ethical values to shape your business policies is something to be applauded.
It's totally different. Coop and probably Coutts won't deal with business who are manufacturing arms etc, probably won't deal with anyone or group who is explicitly homophobic. That's totally different to what's going on here. Farrge liked a tweet from Gervais and also supported Djokovic anti vac stance. These have been explicitly written as amongst the reasons
You don't get it do you. These rosy little do good businesses who paint their pretty rainbows everywhere only once a month.... yet use child sweat shops and do business with China who persecute Muslims... Are having the nerve to tell you what you should and shouldn't think and telling you what's ethical. It's laughable
Read the title of this thread, AjA, then you may see who between us isn't getting it.
-
Very disconcerting this how a bank can unilaterally do this.
But I do fear it will become the norm, especially when we go to a cashless society.
Speak out against the prevailing agenda? Bam ! Chip turned off until you behave.
Scary precedent
-
Very disconcerting this how a bank can unilaterally do this.
But I do fear it will become the norm, especially when we go to a cashless society.
Speak out against the prevailing agenda? Bam ! Chip turned off until you behave.
Scary precedent
A quite bizarre reading of the situation.
He's been offered an account with the Nat West parent company.
It'd really help discussing this if folk would focus on the facts of what has happened, rather than extrapolate it into this sort of nonsense.
He HASN'T been chucked into bank-less penury because of his beliefs. A private and very exclusive bank has taken the decision that there is a reputational risk associated with how he acts in public, in particular (read the report - the great majority of it focuses on this) the extent of his links with an enemy state with whom we are currently de facto at war. They've decided, on balance, that he's not rich enough and profitable enough to them to balance out the potential risk to their reputation that goes with him.
And their parent company has offered him another account with a less exclusive bank.
-
Nc.
That is not what this is about. That is what it is being set up as. But read that p39 and have a think.
Since you ask about me, I'll tell you a little story about my experience.
I was heavily involved in left wing politics as a student. I was also a very good student. Graduated top of my year.
I applied for 7 jobs. Got interviews with 6 companies and every one of them offered me a job, all of them with very attractive salaries.
One company rejected me without interview. They were a member of the Economic League (look it up).
That's what happens in a free market economy. Companies have a certain amount of freedom to choose with whom they want to do business. In this case, Coutts, having carefully assessed the numerous controversies that Faragechas deliberately whipped up, decided that he wasn't giving them enough business to compensate for the shit they got by being associated with him.
Was it REALLY necessary in your post to mention that you graduated top of your year?
For the record, I have a ‘Cycling Efficiency’ award & a swimming certificate for ‘Completing a full width’ at St.James’ swimming baths.
They may be displayed above the mantelpiece but I would NEVER use them to ‘big myself up’ on this forum.
A slice of humble pie wouldn’t come amiss for you me thinks.
-
Nc.
That is not what this is about. That is what it is being set up as. But read that p39 and have a think.
Since you ask about me, I'll tell you a little story about my experience.
I was heavily involved in left wing politics as a student. I was also a very good student. Graduated top of my year.
I applied for 7 jobs. Got interviews with 6 companies and every one of them offered me a job, all of them with very attractive salaries.
One company rejected me without interview. They were a member of the Economic League (look it up).
That's what happens in a free market economy. Companies have a certain amount of freedom to choose with whom they want to do business. In this case, Coutts, having carefully assessed the numerous controversies that Faragechas deliberately whipped up, decided that he wasn't giving them enough business to compensate for the shit they got by being associated with him.
Look I think Farage is a horrible man. There are lots of horrible people. But I don’t think that means they a fair game to have their bank accounts closed down.
Yes free market, companies can do what they please but this shouldn’t be apologised for or encouraged or else it becomes a bit of a slippery slope.
I would guess that your active role in that politics was more relevant to the role you were applying for? Was it in business? That’s a bit different.
What “shit” were they getting for being associated with him? Why would anyone know who NF’s bank was?
Has George Galloway had his bank account closed down for being pro-Russia? Or maybe next it will be someone like Corbyn for being “controversial”.
-
Nc.
That is not what this is about. That is what it is being set up as. But read that p39 and have a think.
Since you ask about me, I'll tell you a little story about my experience.
I was heavily involved in left wing politics as a student. I was also a very good student. Graduated top of my year.
I applied for 7 jobs. Got interviews with 6 companies and every one of them offered me a job, all of them with very attractive salaries.
One company rejected me without interview. They were a member of the Economic League (look it up).
That's what happens in a free market economy. Companies have a certain amount of freedom to choose with whom they want to do business. In this case, Coutts, having carefully assessed the numerous controversies that Faragechas deliberately whipped up, decided that he wasn't giving them enough business to compensate for the shit they got by being associated with him.
Was it REALLY necessary in your post to mention that you graduated top of your year?
For the record, I have a ‘Cycling Efficiency’ award & a swimming certificate for ‘Completing a full width’ at St.James’ swimming baths.
They may be displayed above the mantelpiece but I would NEVER use them to ‘big myself up’ on this forum.
A slice of humble pie wouldn’t come amiss for you me thinks.
This thread isn't about cycling thro cones,or paddling from one side of the pool to the other without filling your trunks.
Maybe if it was,your point would be valid.
-
Nc.
That is not what this is about. That is what it is being set up as. But read that p39 and have a think.
Since you ask about me, I'll tell you a little story about my experience.
I was heavily involved in left wing politics as a student. I was also a very good student. Graduated top of my year.
I applied for 7 jobs. Got interviews with 6 companies and every one of them offered me a job, all of them with very attractive salaries.
One company rejected me without interview. They were a member of the Economic League (look it up).
That's what happens in a free market economy. Companies have a certain amount of freedom to choose with whom they want to do business. In this case, Coutts, having carefully assessed the numerous controversies that Faragechas deliberately whipped up, decided that he wasn't giving them enough business to compensate for the shit they got by being associated with him.
Was it REALLY necessary in your post to mention that you graduated top of your year?
For the record, I have a ‘Cycling Efficiency’ award & a swimming certificate for ‘Completing a full width’ at St.James’ swimming baths.
They may be displayed above the mantelpiece but I would NEVER use them to ‘big myself up’ on this forum.
A slice of humble pie wouldn’t come amiss for you me thinks.
I'm not bigging myself up. If you choose to read it that way, that's your lookout.
I'm pointing out how unusual it was that the one company who rejected me without an interview was a key player in the Economic League. I thought that was bleeding obvious, but I guess you can't control the approach that other people bring to these discussions.
-
It would be interesting to see it tested in court. Its questionable at best.
What are we saying next, sorry you might have a few quid but you don't like Boris Johnson so you can't fly business class on our flight? That's not too different. I'm not sure not aligning politically is justification if he meets the financial parameters.
-
NC.
I've no idea what shit Coutts were or were not getting. All I've done is read the report that you kindly linked to. They were clearly concerned about some of Farage's outbursts affecting their reputation.
I suspect their concern was not about what thee or me thought about them, but about what their wealthy clients thought.
They were also particularly concerned about Farage's possible financial links with an enemy state. I suspect there was a concern that they might find themselves in a bit of bother legally if it did ever turn out that Farage was a Kremlin asset.
-
Nc.
That is not what this is about. That is what it is being set up as. But read that p39 and have a think.
Since you ask about me, I'll tell you a little story about my experience.
I was heavily involved in left wing politics as a student. I was also a very good student. Graduated top of my year.
I applied for 7 jobs. Got interviews with 6 companies and every one of them offered me a job, all of them with very attractive salaries.
One company rejected me without interview. They were a member of the Economic League (look it up).
That's what happens in a free market economy. Companies have a certain amount of freedom to choose with whom they want to do business. In this case, Coutts, having carefully assessed the numerous controversies that Faragechas deliberately whipped up, decided that he wasn't giving them enough business to compensate for the shit they got by being associated with him.
Was it REALLY necessary in your post to mention that you graduated top of your year?
For the record, I have a ‘Cycling Efficiency’ award & a swimming certificate for ‘Completing a full width’ at St.James’ swimming baths.
They may be displayed above the mantelpiece but I would NEVER use them to ‘big myself up’ on this forum.
A slice of humble pie wouldn’t come amiss for you me thinks.
I’d expect a 7 year old to have those awards on display above the mantelpiece, but an adult wow!
-
Very disconcerting this how a bank can unilaterally do this.
But I do fear it will become the norm, especially when we go to a cashless society.
Speak out against the prevailing agenda? Bam ! Chip turned off until you behave.
Scary precedent
A quite bizarre reading of the situation.
He's been offered an account with the Nat West parent company.
It'd really help discussing this if folk would focus on the facts of what has happened, rather than extrapolate it into this sort of nonsense.
He HASN'T been chucked into bank-less penury because of his beliefs. A private and very exclusive bank has taken the decision that there is a reputational risk associated with how he acts in public, in particular (read the report - the great majority of it focuses on this) the extent of his links with an enemy state with whom we are currently de facto at war. They've decided, on balance, that he's not rich enough and profitable enough to them to balance out the potential risk to their reputation that goes with him.
And their parent company has offered him another account with a less exclusive bank.
Not as bizarre as the bank taking the decision to unilaterally disregard free speech and kick him out because he upsets a few lefty snowflakes.
It will come out in the wash, why they have done it, and then it's going to get sketchy, I suspect powerful left leaning shareholders and people in positions of power have leant on the bank.
Something tells me that if Jeremy corbyn was booted out, a few on here wouldn't be as quick to defend the bank.
It applies to both right and left here, if the woke agenda suddenly swings the opposite way then far left people would equally be in trouble.
The issue is how they are able to do this to people, just because they go against the prevailing agenda.
-
You already do live in that world, see the family run bakery who were sued and hounded because they didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding based on their religious values. It's one way traffic, comply with the views of the regime or get cancelled
That's a wonderful example. Care to remind everybody what the result of that case was?
-
Very disconcerting this how a bank can unilaterally do this.
But I do fear it will become the norm, especially when we go to a cashless society.
Speak out against the prevailing agenda? Bam ! Chip turned off until you behave.
Scary precedent
A quite bizarre reading of the situation.
He's been offered an account with the Nat West parent company.
It'd really help discussing this if folk would focus on the facts of what has happened, rather than extrapolate it into this sort of nonsense.
He HASN'T been chucked into bank-less penury because of his beliefs. A private and very exclusive bank has taken the decision that there is a reputational risk associated with how he acts in public, in particular (read the report - the great majority of it focuses on this) the extent of his links with an enemy state with whom we are currently de facto at war. They've decided, on balance, that he's not rich enough and profitable enough to them to balance out the potential risk to their reputation that goes with him.
And their parent company has offered him another account with a less exclusive bank.
Not as bizarre as the bank taking the decision to unilaterally disregard free speech and kick him out because he upsets a few lefty snowflakes.
It will come out in the wash, why they have done it, and then it's going to get sketchy, I suspect powerful left leaning shareholders and people in positions of power have leant on the bank.
Something tells me that if Jeremy corbyn was booted out, a few on here wouldn't be as quick to defend the bank.
It applies to both right and left here, if the woke agenda suddenly swings the opposite way then far left people would equally be in trouble.
The issue is how they are able to do this to people, just because they go against the prevailing agenda.
You know the argument has been completely lost and debased when words like leftys(sic),woke and snowflake get churned out.
-
Watch out, he'll be accusing you of unilaterally disregarding his free speech!
-
'Lefty, woke snowflakes' in a bank only millionaires can join!!!
-
'I would like to personally reiterate our offer to you of alternative banking arrangements at Nat West.'''
So he was never cancelled then. They just gave him a different account. Farage lying (and some people lapping it up)
- who'd a thunk it'!
https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1682062458448408577
-
'I would like to personally reiterate our offer to you of alternative banking arrangements at Nat West.'''
So he was never cancelled then. They just gave him a different account. Farage lying (and some people lapping it up)
- who'd a thunk it'!
https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1682062458448408577
-
'I would like to personally reiterate our offer to you of alternative banking arrangements at Nat West.'''
So he was never cancelled then. They just gave him a different account. Farage lying (and some people lapping it up)
- who'd a thunk it'!
https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1682062458448408577
The naive,or those peddling right wing conspiracy theories.
-
This, from a banking journalist at that well known woke lefty snowflake nest of vipers, Bloomers, sums it up.
https://twitter.com/PaulJDavies/status/1682008296616607747
It's depressing how often folk with right wing views get disconnected their critical faculties and go Pavlovian whenever Farage or the like click their fingers.
This ISN'T a matter of vital human rights. It's just another attempt to open up a front in the Culture War, by an attention-obsessed man with a brilliant knack for knowing how to wind up the easily led.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66258137
-
You already do live in that world, see the family run bakery who were sued and hounded because they didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding based on their religious values. It's one way traffic, comply with the views of the regime or get cancelled
Farage of course famously supported the rights of this bakery in this case.
That is; he thought it was fine for a business to be able to discriminate on who its customers were based on those customers political views (support of LGBTQ rights) - if he disagreed with the customers political views.
https://twitter.com/SamFowles/status/1681972023029841920
-
You already do live in that world, see the family run bakery who were sued and hounded because they didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding based on their religious values. It's one way traffic, comply with the views of the regime or get cancelled
That's a wonderful example. Care to remind everybody what the result of that case was?
Small business won the case and I know exaclty where you're going with that but that isnt my point. Small business decided who it did/did not want to do business with and won. Large business has now done the same and lost. But here is the crux of the matter for me and the difference.....
...that small business has always and will always have that view. They will not be shifted from that view. They have their reasons and they wont cahnge because the populist mob want them to....thats the exact opposite of large business these days. The large business flip flops from whatever is in vogue to be "outraged" about and they dare to try take moral high grounds pretending they are morally superior when they arent....
COUTTS dont you dare pretend you've got morals and tell me I cannot bank with you because I dont belive in the vax or I dont believe in changing genders YET you help rich people avoid paying taxes. NIKE dont you dare pretend you're morally sueprior to me because you've got a rainbow on your shirts YET you do business with China who basically have modern day concentration camps. The list is endless of companies and celebrities telling me what I should and should not believe while they do the opposite and it HAS TO STOP
-
You already do live in that world, see the family run bakery who were sued and hounded because they didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding based on their religious values. It's one way traffic, comply with the views of the regime or get cancelled
Farage of course famously supported the rights of this bakery in this case.
That is; he thought it was fine for a business to be able to discriminate on who its customers were based on those customers political views (support of LGBTQ rights) - if he disagreed with the customers political views.
https://twitter.com/SamFowles/status/1681972023029841920
it is completely different and have said why above
-
The bank has apologised. They admitted they were wrong.
End of matter.
-
Thanks for all the replies. Sorry if I don't have time to respond to your particular point.
I can't help thinking a large number of you are reacting to who is involved here not what is involved. And that you might have expressed a very different view if the individual involved was more your cup of tea.
I agree with the Guardian (hardly a Farage supporting outlet) "It is surely possible to disagree profoundly with Farage’s views on most issues and find Coutts’ stance alarmingly illiberal."
Just to clarify NatWest haven't offered Farage banking on the same terms - they've only offered a personal account, not a business account as well - as he had with Coutts.
The reputational risk argument used by Coutts is clearly nonsense. Could anyone tell me who Boris Johnson or Philip Schofield bank with? And if you can what damage has been done to said bank on their very public comeuppances?
They've got rid of Farage because they don't like his views - the documentation (and they've gone to town on it) is clear.
Now I don't particular care about the impact on Farage here personally. He's big enough, rich enough and has a big enough platform not to be impacted - if anything this has grown his platform.
But if as a society we believe it is anyway acceptable (legality is a separate issue) for banks to close customers accounts on the back of their political opinions then that is very dangerous for freedom of speech.
It provides a significant disincentive for people to speak out; get involved in politics; campaign on issues - if they have or are aware they could have their bank account closed off the back of this - and the impact on credit ratings etc.
I'll go back to my OP and a very clever man's view expressed in 1940 (the date is signifcant) "in order that every man may present his views without penalty there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire population" (and that includes banks).
-
They've apologised for calling him out for what he is,and being caught.
-
PayPal cancelled the account of the Free Speech union last year only to reinstate it after a backlash.
-
Smogg defending Farage, now where does Smogg have his bank accounts?
-
You already do live in that world, see the family run bakery who were sued and hounded because they didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding based on their religious values. It's one way traffic, comply with the views of the regime or get cancelled
That's a wonderful example. Care to remind everybody what the result of that case was?
Small business won the case and I know exaclty where you're going with that but that isnt my point. Small business decided who it did/did not want to do business with and won. Large business has now done the same and lost. But here is the crux of the matter for me and the difference.....
...that small business has always and will always have that view. They will not be shifted from that view. They have their reasons and they wont cahnge because the populist mob want them to....thats the exact opposite of large business these days. The large business flip flops from whatever is in vogue to be "outraged" about and they dare to try take moral high grounds pretending they are morally superior when they arent....
COUTTS dont you dare pretend you've got morals and tell me I cannot bank with you because I dont belive in the vax or I dont believe in changing genders YET you help rich people avoid paying taxes. NIKE dont you dare pretend you're morally sueprior to me because you've got a rainbow on your shirts YET you do business with China who basically have modern day concentration camps. The list is endless of companies and celebrities telling me what I should and should not believe while they do the opposite and it HAS TO STOP
Who ever said Coutts were doing this out of morals?
You're like Don Quixote tilting at windmills.
They are a bank for millionaires. They thought that being associated with a skint rabble router, and possible enemy state asset might be bad for business.
When did anyone bring morals into it?
-
You already do live in that world, see the family run bakery who were sued and hounded because they didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding based on their religious values. It's one way traffic, comply with the views of the regime or get cancelled
Farage of course famously supported the rights of this bakery in this case.
That is; he thought it was fine for a business to be able to discriminate on who its customers were based on those customers political views (support of LGBTQ rights) - if he disagreed with the customers political views.
https://twitter.com/SamFowles/status/1681972023029841920
it is completely different and have said why above
Course it is. Because it's different political opinions he agrees/disagrees with.
They can go to another bakery. He can go to another bank.
What he can't do is go to another bank that only 5% of the county are actually eligle to use. The 'man of the people' is having a fit because he is a snob and doesn't want to use a bank that ordinary people use.
-
You already do live in that world, see the family run bakery who were sued and hounded because they didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding based on their religious values. It's one way traffic, comply with the views of the regime or get cancelled
That's a wonderful example. Care to remind everybody what the result of that case was?
Small business won the case and I know exaclty where you're going with that but that isnt my point. Small business decided who it did/did not want to do business with and won. Large business has now done the same and lost. But here is the crux of the matter for me and the difference.....
...that small business has always and will always have that view. They will not be shifted from that view. They have their reasons and they wont cahnge because the populist mob want them to....thats the exact opposite of large business these days. The large business flip flops from whatever is in vogue to be "outraged" about and they dare to try take moral high grounds pretending they are morally superior when they arent....
COUTTS dont you dare pretend you've got morals and tell me I cannot bank with you because I dont belive in the vax or I dont believe in changing genders YET you help rich people avoid paying taxes. NIKE dont you dare pretend you're morally sueprior to me because you've got a rainbow on your shirts YET you do business with China who basically have modern day concentration camps. The list is endless of companies and celebrities telling me what I should and should not believe while they do the opposite and it HAS TO STOP
So if that small business isn't the same scenario as Coutts...then why the f**k did you bring it up as if it was in the first place??
That's a hell of a long reverse ferret that I can't be bothered to read.
-
Thanks for all the replies. Sorry if I don't have time to respond to your particular point.
I can't help thinking a large number of you are reacting to who is involved here not what is involved. And that you might have expressed a very different view if the individual involved was more your cup of tea.
I agree with the Guardian (hardly a Farage supporting outlet) "It is surely possible to disagree profoundly with Farage’s views on most issues and find Coutts’ stance alarmingly illiberal."
Just to clarify NatWest haven't offered Farage banking on the same terms - they've only offered a personal account, not a business account as well - as he had with Coutts.
The reputational risk argument used by Coutts is clearly nonsense. Could anyone tell me who Boris Johnson or Philip Schofield bank with? And if you can what damage has been done to said bank on their very public comeuppances?
They've got rid of Farage because they don't like his views - the documentation (and they've gone to town on it) is clear.
Now I don't particular care about the impact on Farage here personally. He's big enough, rich enough and has a big enough platform not to be impacted - if anything this has grown his platform.
But if as a society we believe it is anyway acceptable (legality is a separate issue) for banks to close customers accounts on the back of their political opinions then that is very dangerous for freedom of speech.
It provides a significant disincentive for people to speak out; get involved in politics; campaign on issues - if they have or are aware they could have their bank account closed off the back of this - and the impact on credit ratings etc.
I'll go back to my OP and a very clever man's view expressed in 1940 (the date is signifcant) "in order that every man may present his views without penalty there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire population" (and that includes banks).
What a load of rubbish. You have bought into Farage's b*****lks without even bothering to check the accuracy and truth of it.
He had a mortgage with Coutts and paid it off. Once it was paid off he stopped putting his money into Coutts and fell below their threshold to be a customer.
They offered him different account that he is too much of a snob to accept without wining about it. End of.
Couple of long twitter threads here that explain it in detail:
https://twitter.com/SamFowles/status/1681919318085234693
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1681684254101495808
-
Bemusing how the Left in recent years have defended Big Pharma and now banking corporations instead of people’s individual rights and freedoms. Quite the 180.
-
Aesop said that “A man is known by the company he keeps”.
I think that we have all known people that we wouldn’t want to be associated with.
-
Bemusing how the Left in recent years have defended Big Pharma and now banking corporations instead of people’s individual rights and freedoms. Quite the 180.
Have I got the individual right and freedom to have a Coutt's account whether they want me to have one or not? That's nice to know. Sign me up, I've a spare fiver I can put in it start the account.
-
Bemusing how the Left in recent years have defended Big Pharma and now banking corporations instead of people’s individual rights and freedoms. Quite the 180.
It's OK, NC. They're getting used to life under Keith, and everything he stands for.
No wonder Mick Lynch is p*ssed off with him.
-
Bemusing how the Left in recent years have defended Big Pharma and now banking corporations instead of people’s individual rights and freedoms. Quite the 180.
It's OK, NC. They're getting used to life under Keith, and everything he stands for.
No wonder Mick Lynch is p*ssed off with him.
Oh dear. You two seem to have confused your threads.
This one is about NF and his bank account.
It's got bag all to do with your posts.
-
What a load of rubbish. You have bought into Farage's b*****lks without even bothering to check the accuracy and truth of it.
He had a mortgage with Coutts and paid it off. Once it was paid off he stopped putting his money into Coutts and fell below their threshold to be a customer.
They offered him different account that he is too much of a snob to accept without wining about it. End of.
Couple of long twitter threads here that explain it in detail:
https://twitter.com/SamFowles/status/1681919318085234693
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1681684254101495808
Wilts
FYI my views are based on reading articles from a wide range of sources, including the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph, and actually reading the Coutts dossier myself. Here it is: -
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12314423/The-Coutts-Farage-dossier-bank-admitted-ex-Ukip-leader-DID-meet-commercial-criteria-used-tweet-Ricky-Gervais-trans-joke-Novak-Djokovic-ties-decide-odds-position-inclusive-organisation.html
And not based on extracts and opinions sourced from a Twitter Groupthink bubble. And you have the nerve to suggest I can't think for myself!
You've not done the courtesy of explaining exactly what I wrote was rubbish and why. But allow me to extend that courtesy to you as I can systematically show with evidence that every word of your post is complete and utter Rubbish!
Sam Fowles in Nov 2022 Coutts were “seeking approval to continue the relationship”
Rubbish! Fact: they closed his Account down less than 6 months afterward.
“subject to annual reviews”
Rubbish! The accounts were closed within 12 months and no annual review took place – otherwise it would be included in the dossier under the law.
“has a mortgage.......which on a commercial basis we would not look to renew”
Ok but irrelevant rubbish! Farage didn't look to renew the mortgage it was paid off – as both sides agree.
He then completely ignores a few lines down from there: -
"The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."
And the several pages worth of Farage's opinions Coutts take exception too. Still think I'm talking rubbish?!
Frances Coppola. Yes Coutts confirmed "the client's EC (Economic Contribution) is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis" in November 2022.
But nowhere does it state that his EC was going to be/became negative after he paid his mortgage. Which seems a strange omission if it were true. She is incorrect and yes talking Rubbish!
Yes it states he would no longer be a “criteria client” and that the “relationship [was] below commercial for some time”. But they're not the same thing.
As Simon Jack (BBC journalist) tweeted - after breaking the story, briefed by Coutts, that the account was closed due to a lack of funds* - many Coutts customers maintain Accounts after falling below the commercial threshold (inc Farage himself “for some time”).
* The BBC themselves now admit that particular story and headline were “incorrect”.
Page 36 clearly states the bank accounts was closed very shortly after the mortgage was paid off. Therefore your assertion that “Once it was paid off he stopped putting his money into Coutts” is clearly baseless Rubbish!
Natwest only offered Farage a personal account, not a business account as well - as he had with Coutts. As confirmed in the Telegraph who quote Coutts as writing in a communication to Farage after offering a personal account “your business account issue remains unresolved.”
If you can find evidence that Coutts has subsequently offered a business account please supply it.
Otherwise your implied assertion that they offered him Nawest services on the same basis is Rubbish!
-
Bemusing how the Left in recent years have defended Big Pharma and now banking corporations instead of people’s individual rights and freedoms. Quite the 180.
It's OK, NC. They're getting used to life under Keith, and everything he stands for.
No wonder Mick Lynch is p*ssed off with him.
Oh dear. You two seem to have confused your threads.
This one is about NF and his bank account.
It's got bag all to do with your posts.
I’ve enjoyed your thoughtful and insightful posts recently. Please keep it up.
-
Bemusing how the Left in recent years have defended Big Pharma and now banking corporations instead of people’s individual rights and freedoms. Quite the 180.
It's OK, NC. They're getting used to life under Keith, and everything he stands for.
No wonder Mick Lynch is p*ssed off with him.
Oh dear. You two seem to have confused your threads.
This one is about NF and his bank account.
It's got bag all to do with your posts.
I’ve enjoyed your thoughtful and insightful posts recently. Please keep it up.
Good. I certainly will do, if you manage to keep on topic.
-
Bemusing how the Left in recent years have defended Big Pharma and now banking corporations instead of people’s individual rights and freedoms. Quite the 180.
It's OK, NC. They're getting used to life under Keith, and everything he stands for.
No wonder Mick Lynch is p*ssed off with him.
Oh dear. You two seem to have confused your threads.
This one is about NF and his bank account.
It's got bag all to do with your posts.
I’ve enjoyed your thoughtful and insightful posts recently. Please keep it up.
Many thanks for plagiarising my quote too,that really is some compliment.
Maybe I'll get a like from a little lap dog for that one!
-
Bemusing how the Left in recent years have defended Big Pharma and now banking corporations instead of people’s individual rights and freedoms. Quite the 180.
It's OK, NC. They're getting used to life under Keith, and everything he stands for.
No wonder Mick Lynch is p*ssed off with him.
Oh dear. You two seem to have confused your threads.
This one is about NF and his bank account.
It's got bag all to do with your posts.
I’ve enjoyed your thoughtful and insightful posts recently. Please keep it up.
Many thanks for plagiarising my quote too,that really is some compliment.
Maybe I'll get a like from a little lap dog for that one!
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
-
Bemusing how the Left in recent years have defended Big Pharma and now banking corporations instead of people’s individual rights and freedoms. Quite the 180.
It's OK, NC. They're getting used to life under Keith, and everything he stands for.
No wonder Mick Lynch is p*ssed off with him.
Oh dear. You two seem to have confused your threads.
This one is about NF and his bank account.
It's got bag all to do with your posts.
I’ve enjoyed your thoughtful and insightful posts recently. Please keep it up.
Many thanks for plagiarising my quote too,that really is some compliment.
Maybe I'll get a like from a little lap dog for that one!
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Thoughtful and insightful is exactly what I posted about a week ago to another poster.
Do please keep it up.
It looks like we are on the same page.
-
Bemusing how the Left in recent years have defended Big Pharma and now banking corporations instead of people’s individual rights and freedoms. Quite the 180.
It's OK, NC. They're getting used to life under Keith, and everything he stands for.
No wonder Mick Lynch is p*ssed off with him.
Oh dear. You two seem to have confused your threads.
This one is about NF and his bank account.
It's got bag all to do with your posts.
I’ve enjoyed your thoughtful and insightful posts recently. Please keep it up.
Many thanks for plagiarising my quote too,that really is some compliment.
Maybe I'll get a like from a little lap dog for that one!
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Thoughtful and insightful is exactly what I posted about a week ago to another poster.
Do please keep it up.
It looks like we are on the same page.
I’d rather argue with Billy, at least I can learn something from him.
-
Bemusing how the Left in recent years have defended Big Pharma and now banking corporations instead of people’s individual rights and freedoms. Quite the 180.
It's OK, NC. They're getting used to life under Keith, and everything he stands for.
No wonder Mick Lynch is p*ssed off with him.
Oh dear. You two seem to have confused your threads.
This one is about NF and his bank account.
It's got bag all to do with your posts.
I’ve enjoyed your thoughtful and insightful posts recently. Please keep it up.
Many thanks for plagiarising my quote too,that really is some compliment.
Maybe I'll get a like from a little lap dog for that one!
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Thoughtful and insightful is exactly what I posted about a week ago to another poster.
Do please keep it up.
It looks like we are on the same page.
I’d rather argue with Billy, at least I can learn something from him.
-
Bemusing how the Left in recent years have defended Big Pharma and now banking corporations instead of people’s individual rights and freedoms. Quite the 180.
It's OK, NC. They're getting used to life under Keith, and everything he stands for.
No wonder Mick Lynch is p*ssed off with him.
Oh dear. You two seem to have confused your threads.
This one is about NF and his bank account.
It's got bag all to do with your posts.
It looks like we were sh*te at Scunny today.
Oops, I'm posting on the wrong thread again. Silly me.
-
Let's try and keep on track. Back to the original thread rather than trying to deflect from it.
The debate is about the NF and his bank account.
• On the same topic, he added: “Maybe it’s because I’ve got so many women pregnant over the years that I have a different view [of maternity leave].”
• On his political idols, he said: “As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin. The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant.”
Why any bank or business would go nowhere near him is understandable.
-
What a load of rubbish. You have bought into Farage's b*****lks without even bothering to check the accuracy and truth of it.
He had a mortgage with Coutts and paid it off. Once it was paid off he stopped putting his money into Coutts and fell below their threshold to be a customer.
They offered him different account that he is too much of a snob to accept without wining about it. End of.
Couple of long twitter threads here that explain it in detail:
https://twitter.com/SamFowles/status/1681919318085234693
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1681684254101495808
Wilts
I see the BBC have apologised to Farage www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66288464 on the reason for his bank account being closed.
"The journalist behind the report was given misleading information from a source he trusted. That source said politics had nothing to do with the bank's decision-making process and that Mr Farage's account was being closed only for commercial reasons. That was not correct.
Reporters have to be able to trust their sources.......In this case, that trust broke down."
I wonder if you would extend similar apologies to myself having accused me of talking "a load of rubbish" and effectively being unable to think for myself??
-
What a load of rubbish. You have bought into Farage's b*****lks without even bothering to check the accuracy and truth of it.
He had a mortgage with Coutts and paid it off. Once it was paid off he stopped putting his money into Coutts and fell below their threshold to be a customer.
They offered him different account that he is too much of a snob to accept without wining about it. End of.
Couple of long twitter threads here that explain it in detail:
https://twitter.com/SamFowles/status/1681919318085234693
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1681684254101495808
Wilts
I see the BBC have apologised to Farage www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66288464 on the reason for his bank account being closed.
"The journalist behind the report was given misleading information from a source he trusted. That source said politics had nothing to do with the bank's decision-making process and that Mr Farage's account was being closed only for commercial reasons. That was not correct.
Reporters have to be able to trust their sources.......In this case, that trust broke down."
I wonder if you would extend similar apologies to myself having accused me of talking "a load of rubbish" and effectively being unable to think for myself??
The information you put up was factually incorrect.
The reason Farage's account was closed was because it had fallen below Coutts limit. As explained in those threads. He was offered another account with them instead - without the qudos of Coutts.
The bank and BBC have apologised for what they said about Farage when they closed his account. NOT for being factually incorrect about why his account was closed.
I have never accused you of being able to think for yourself - so apologies if you thought I had. But you have bought into Farage's propaganda over this.
-
Read my quote from the BBC again and come back to me and ...... nah I won't bother.
It seems some people can never look beyond their own prejudicial fixed views even when the actual facts that totally contradict them are placed right under their nose.
-
Very strange reaction from the BBC.
This, from the very report that Farage published makes it crystal clear that Farage didn't meet Coutts's commercial criteria for retention.
https://twitter.com/SamFowles/status/1681922319529254912?s=20
Coutts clearly say that in pretty much exactly those words. They then say, as a secondary point that given Farage's public image, their low commercial return from his business ain't worth it.
So the core of the BBC story (that it was a commercial decision) is clearly right.
The apology tweeted by the BBC journalist Simon Jack sounds like it was dictated to him by his managers. They've thrown him under the bus on this one. Looks to me like he's written a story that is broadly correct and his bosses have shite it and hung him out to dry.
-
Those woke,loony left, snowflakes at the BBC are at it again.
If the old NF was on fire, I wouldn't pish on him.
I would however have a very pleasurable, long number 2.
-
Very strange reaction from the BBC.
This, from the very report that Farage published makes it crystal clear that Farage didn't meet Coutts's commercial criteria for retention.
https://twitter.com/SamFowles/status/1681922319529254912?s=20
Coutts clearly say that in pretty much exactly those words. They then say, as a secondary point that given Farage's public image, their low commercial return from his business ain't worth it.
So the core of the BBC story (that it was a commercial decision) is clearly right.
The apology tweeted by the BBC journalist Simon Jack sounds like it was dictated to him by his managers. They've thrown him under the bus on this one. Looks to me like he's written a story that is broadly correct and his bosses have shite it and hung him out to dry.
A bizarre, contrived opinion based on blinkered prejudice. This is the real world not a fairytale or silly American film yet you're oh so certain on the baddy here.
The BBC "It is clear that the story...turned out to be inaccurate." "Reporters have to be able to trust their sources...In this case, that trust broke down."
It's baffling how anybody could read the Coutts dossier and not conclude that Farage's politics was a major factor in their decision to close his account e.g.: -
"The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."
Read that again. Then think. Replace NF with your name if it helps or the name of a vicar expressing disagreement with pride flags in his bank. Actually think. For yourself. Acceptable? Chilling?
This isn't about Farage but how the bank has behaved.
I disagree with Farage's politics. I disagree with the vicar on pride flags. I often disagree with your politics. But I believe each of you, and everyone, has a right to air their opinions and to air them free from persecution.
I agree with Voltaire. Either you're in favour of freedom of speech for everyone even those you fundamentally disagree with. Or you're not in favour of freedom of speech at all. There is no middle ground.
-
Read my quote from the BBC again and come back to me and ...... nah I won't bother.
It seems some people can never look beyond their own prejudicial fixed views even when the actual facts that totally contradict them are placed right under their nose.
Why, what's the BBC got to do with NatWest's decision to drop Farage from Coutts? And what have my 'prejudiced views' got to do with that decision. It is there, in black and white for you and explained fully in the link I posted earlier.
But for clarity I will post it again now. The image is page 10 of the Coutts memo Farage published, EC = Economic Contribution (the amount he was putting into the bank)
As long as the EC was positive, Coutts was happy to continue banking Farage despite the reputational risks. So what has happened to change that?
The excerpt above says that when the mortgage was paid off "in 24 months' time", the EC would fall significantly. This is because the bank would no longer be receiving interest payments.
Farage has now paid off that mortgage. The EC has therefore fallen
The bank was willing to tolerate any reputational risks arising from Farage's political behaviour as long as his EC was positive. But once the EC had turned negative, there was no longer any reason for it to do so.
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1681684254101495808
A rich Farage - no problem with his views. A poor Farage - on your way, here's another account.
It's there in the Memo. Whatever my 'prejudiced views'.
-
Wilts
I've already responded in depth to these points (and the others you made previously) in reply 56 above.
Ta
-
Wilts
I've already responded in depth to these points (and the others you made previously) in reply 56 above.
Ta
They are not my points Branton.
They are an explanation of the relevant excerpt from the Coutts memo highlighted in the image.
When Farage had a high EC he was tolerated by the bank. When his EC fell he wasn't. If he was still paying a large EC into Coutts he would still be a customer.
It's the EC that is important. Everything else is propoganda. Or 'prejudiced views'.
-
Nowhere in the dossier does it state that his EC was going to be/became negative after he paid his mortgage. Which seems a strange omission if it were true.
Yes it states he would no longer be a “criteria client” and that the “relationship [was] below commercial for some time”. But they're not the same thing.
As Simon Jack (BBC journalist) tweeted - after breaking the story, briefed by Coutts, that the account was closed due to a lack of funds* - many Coutts customers maintain Accounts after falling below the commercial threshold (inc Farage himself “for some time”).
* The BBC themselves now admit that particular story and headline were “incorrect”.
Natwest only offered Farage a personal account, not a business account as well - as he had with Coutts. As confirmed in the Telegraph who quote Coutts as writing in a communication to Farage after offering a personal account “your business account issue remains unresolved.”
Why is that if this were only a commercial decision based on wealth as you suggest?
If you can find evidence that Coutts has subsequently offered a business account please supply it.
-
Branton
When you were calling my opinion "bizarre" and "contrived", did you actually look at the link I posted?
The one from Farage's own report?
The one that says clearly and unambiguously that "The relationship has been below commercial criteria for some time"?
I'm assuming not, because if you had done, you'd not be making silly responses like the ones you've made here.
-
Billy
Did you read my quotes from the BBC? Or the quote from the dossier I gave which I'll repeat: -
"The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."
I did read the link. It included "upon review of Nigel's past public profile and connections" and "risk factors including accusations of links to Russia, controversial public statements which were felt to conflict with the bank's purpose."
And yet you still maintain this has nothing to do with their views on his opinions?!
Should banks be allowed to close Accounts on the basis of unsubstantiated rumour (Russia) or on the basis that they find their customers' opinions controversial (whilst acknowledging elsewhere they are not illegal)?
As for reputational risk and associated cost. 2 points: -
1) Are you aware of who Boris Johnson and Phillip Schofield bank with?
2) They state several times in the document that they won't close the Accounts till the mortgage is paid off - and that is what happened.
The cost of such reputational risk is clearly deemed to be lower than the value of the close-to-end-of-term mortgage.
Which kind of undermines the argument on this being a commercial decision.
I've answered the point on commercial criteria in my response to Wilts in my previous post.
-
Branton
If you did carefully read the link I posted then you'll know that, in the message sent around the company by the person who appears to have made the decision, Coutts showed Farage the door because his commercial worth to them was not worth the perceived reputational risk.
Agreed?
Because if you don't agree that that is what they said, I'm not sure there's any further point to this exchange. Because it IS what they said.
-
Branton
If you did carefully read the link I posted then you'll know that, in the message sent around the company by the person who appears to have made the decision, Coutts showed Farage the door because his commercial worth to them was not worth the perceived reputational risk.
Agreed?
Because if you don't agree that that is what they said, I'm not sure there's any further point to this exchange. Because it IS what they said.
No I don't agree. I think I've worked out the error you're making. I don't think you have read the link you posted carefully.
Regard what the senior staff member says on 13/3 in reply - I'll underline the relevant bit: -
"Noted and OK to proceed according to the previously approved exit plan."
The reasoning you cite in the 10/3 memo is not the basis for the decision as the decision had already been approved previously.
The basis for the decision being approved therefore has to be the recommendations of the earlier pages long November report. (Has to be as it would be illegal for the bank to exclude paperwork from a Subject Access Request - and there is nothing else).
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12314423/The-Coutts-Farage-dossier-bank-admitted-ex-Ukip-leader-DID-meet-commercial-criteria-used-tweet-Ricky-Gervais-trans-joke-Novak-Djokovic-ties-decide-odds-position-inclusive-organisation.html
And just a reminder of what that November report said in the opening page setting out the reasoning for their recommendations
"The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."
And that was the stated reason behind closing the bank accounts which was "previously approved" by senior staff.
Agreed?
-
Farage has now got a new windmill to tilt at, he wants the stop banks having the power to decide who they want to do business with.
He wants to have his freedom of speech but wants to take away the banks' freedom to listen.
-
Farage has now got a new windmill to tilt at, he wants the stop banks having the power to decide who they want to do business with.
He wants to have his freedom of speech but wants to take away the banks' freedom to listen.
Farage was fading into the background until this bank decided to reinvigorate him in the public eye.
Is it not a banks main responsibility to allow suitable clients with the required criteria to bank with them, safe in the knowledge that they will have full client confidentiality and not have their personal and private information bandied about at dinner parties with media lags?
For this very fact the CEO had to go, along with anyone else party to their mutterings.
-
There are plenty of banks who specify a particular amount which has to be held in their accounts otherwise it is not permitted to hold one with them.
-
Them snowflakes and their cancel culture.
-
Farage has now got a new windmill to tilt at, he wants the stop banks having the power to decide who they want to do business with.
He wants to have his freedom of speech but wants to take away the banks' freedom to listen.
Farage was fading into the background until this bank decided to reinvigorate him in the public eye.
Is it not a banks main responsibility to allow suitable clients with the required criteria to bank with them, safe in the knowledge that they will have full client confidentiality and not have their personal and private information bandied about at dinner parties with media lags?
For this very fact the CEO had to go, along with anyone else party to their mutterings.
It was Farage who made it a public issue, not the bank.
-
1) Are you aware of who Boris Johnson and Phillip Schofield bank with?
[/quote]
I am. I used to have a house mate that used the same bank.
He would have a couple of mags to stimulate,then leave his monetary deposit in a test tube.
-
Farage has now got a new windmill to tilt at, he wants the stop banks having the power to decide who they want to do business with.
He wants to have his freedom of speech but wants to take away the banks' freedom to listen.
Farage was fading into the background until this bank decided to reinvigorate him in the public eye.
Is it not a banks main responsibility to allow suitable clients with the required criteria to bank with them, safe in the knowledge that they will have full client confidentiality and not have their personal and private information bandied about at dinner parties with media lags?
For this very fact the CEO had to go, along with anyone else party to their mutterings.
It was Farage who made it a public issue, not the bank.
In whatever manner Farage capitalised on it, is breaking client confidentiality by the CEO with their mates not making it public?
-
Branton
This just does not stand up.
"And just a reminder of what that November report said in the opening page setting out the reasoning for their recommendations
"The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation."
And that was the stated reason behind closing the bank accounts which was "previously approved" by senior staff."
Every single section of that report that discusses formal decisions to kick Farage out explicitly states that he didn't meet the commercial criteria for continued business, and that he represented a reputational risk to the bank.
It states that in simple, unambiguous text on the very page of the report that you took that quote from.
-
It seems some people can never be willing to admit to being wrong.
I note no acknowledgement of the error you made in your insistence on quoting a memo provably sent long after the decision was made and approved.
"The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation. This was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and Purpose."[note not commerce]
How am I misinterpreting that? Please explain to me so I can understand.
That's on the summary page of the report underlying the decision and is followed immediately by an explanation of the process to be followed to close the Accounts.
-
Every single section of that report that discusses formal decisions to kick Farage out explicitly states that he didn't meet the commercial criteria for continued business
Go on then. Give me an example.
Page 3 states "the client's EC (Economic Contribution) is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis."
Where does the report contradict that?
-
It seems some people can never be willing to admit to being wrong.
Even when you prove them conclusively to be wrong with evidence and explanation they still insist on being right.
I note no acknowledgement of the error you made in your insistence on quoting a memo provably sent long after the decision was made and approved.
"The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation. This was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and Purpose."[note not commerce]
How am I misinterpreting that???????
That's on the summary page of the report underlying the decision and is followed immediately by an explanation of the process to be followed to close the Accounts.
But hey ho!
Go on.
What does the report state IMMEDIATELY after that?
-
It seems some people can never be willing to admit to being wrong.
Even when you prove them conclusively to be wrong with evidence and explanation they still insist on being right.
I note no acknowledgement of the error you made in your insistence on quoting a memo provably sent long after the decision was made and approved.
"The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation. This was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and Purpose."[note not commerce]
How am I misinterpreting that???????
That's on the summary page of the report underlying the decision and is followed immediately by an explanation of the process to be followed to close the Accounts.
But hey ho!
Go on.
What does the report state IMMEDIATELY after that?
"After expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client"
Not being a criteria client is not the same as saying his EC (Economic Contribution) is no longer sufficient to retain on a commercial basis.
As they acknowledge it is on Page 3 - but nowhere state it will no longer be after the mortgage is paid. Tellingly.
This is different to the "commercial criteria" it is stated he has been below for "some time" on page 36 i.e. some time meaning for significant period before the mortgage was repaid not immediately on it becoming repaid.
As I've stated before with evidence many Coutts customers retain their Accounts despite falling below the commercial criteria for opening an Account.
Try again.
-
Arg!
They made a judgement that because his economic value was so low, it wasn't worth the reputational damage they judged that they'd face if he went off on one again.
That's my point! It's SO clear! The line that they hoped him out solely (or even primarily) because they disagreed with his politics (which is how this is being spun) is simply nonsense.
Ask yourself this. Why didn't they take this action when he was economically beneficial to them?
-
The frustration is mutual believe me. I'll ask my 2 questions again.
"The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation. This was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and Purpose."[note not commerce]
How am I misinterpreting that? Please explain to me so I can understand. It doesn't mention his economic value or reputational damage.
You state "Every single section of that report that discusses formal decisions to kick Farage out explicitly states that he didn't meet the commercial criteria for continued business"
Give me an example.
And PS your last post is contradicting yourself - you now admit he was economically beneficial to them.
-
Dear God.
There are two and only two statements in that report that refer to a DECISION, rather than opinions being kicked around.
Both of them note him being below the commercial criteria. Both discuss that in the context of reputational risk to the bank. Neither of them mention inclusivity or values.
It is just ridiculous to insist that economic value wasn't an issue.
As for your last paragraph, I haven't got a clue what you're on about. I'm contradicting nothing. I'm saying that presumably Farage WAS economically worthwhile to Coutts at some point, and they didn't hoy him out then, values, inclusivity and Purpose or nor.
That's my whole point.
-
Dear God.
There are two and only two statements in that report that refer to a DECISION, rather than opinions being kicked around.
Both of them note him being below the commercial criteria. Both discuss that in the context of reputational risk to the bank. Neither of them mention inclusivity or values.
It is just ridiculous to insist that economic value wasn't an issue.
As for your last paragraph, I haven't got a clue what you're on about. I'm contradicting nothing. I'm saying that presumably Farage WAS economically worthwhile to Coutts at some point, and they didn't hoy him out then, values, inclusivity and Purpose or nor.
That's my whole point.
Please can you quote those 2 statements and refer to where they are in the document.
It's surely ridiculous to insist that disagreement with his political opinions wasn't an issue. Given the quote I keep repeating and you are failing to acknowledge or explain away.
"The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation. This was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and Purpose."
It is provable that the November 2022 report is the one that the bank acted on and approved.
-
I wonder why Coutts ever engaged in debate over this.
Why didn't they invoke the 'we can't comment on individual account issues due to customer confidentiality' defence?
Fortunately I doubt it's going to put off any of us from opening a Coutts account.
-
I’ve closed mine off the back of this.
-
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23634951.rbs-shuts-account-scotlands-equalities-commissioner/
Another example.
-
I wonder why Coutts ever engaged in debate over this.
Why didn't they invoke the 'we can't comment on individual account issues due to customer confidentiality' defence?
Fortunately I doubt it's going to put off any of us from opening a Coutts account.
Have I missed summat, cos if it's Farage and Cnutts Bank I will understand and say they should have kept him
-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/28/gina-miller-true-and-fair-party-monzo-bank-account
And another. Gina Miller this time. Interested to hear your thoughts Billy and Wilts.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/28/gina-miller-true-and-fair-party-monzo-bank-account
And another. Gina Miller this time. Interested to hear your thoughts Billy and Wilts.
I've got absolutely zero opinion on it.
They have rules that they don't accept accounts from political parties. They've applied the rules. What's the story?
-
Thanks for pointing out these other instances nc.
This is very concerning for anyone who genuinely believes in freedom of speech and democracy.
I wonder what justification they have for closing the account of a Equalities and Human Rights Commissioner?
As bad as YBS closing down a vicar's account due to his disagreement with Pride flags I wonder? (see reply 7)
And Gina Miller is correct (someone who btw I disagreed with very strongly back in 2016-9).
If all banks refused to have political parties as customers what would that mean for our democracy?
She claims 9 banks turned her party down previously. Monzo is the 10th. And they can now only rely on a 'small institution' to bank with. I wonder, in that case, if they're getting the service they require from their 11th choice bank?!
Perhaps the Government should supply banking services through NS&I if the private sector are acting in this way?
-
Well fascinatingly, every other political party in the country, from the Tories to Count Binface manages to find someone to bank with, so presumably there isn't actually a crisis of democracy going on.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/28/gina-miller-true-and-fair-party-monzo-bank-account
And another. Gina Miller this time. Interested to hear your thoughts Billy and Wilts.
Gina Miller voicing concerns about democracy !!!
Well Well Well .
-
Well fascinatingly, every other political party in the country, from the Tories to Count Binface manages to find someone to bank with, so presumably there isn't actually a crisis of democracy going on.
Ah the voice of corporate banking strikes again! Only 1 political party struggling to find someone to bank with being ok in your view?!
But oh no! Whoops! Here's another example news.sky.com/story/metro-bank-accused-of-closing-account-over-brexit-by-reform-uk-leader-12926002
Also it seems Monzo has history on this - refusing the Chancellor of the Exchequer a bank account no less www.ft.com/content/91f4e6fb-1ddd-4dd4-a0b9-1fa8b988658a
Some more examples here on religious grounds www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/27/muslim-leaders-decry-double-standard-of-farage-bank-account-closure-furore
Plus a couple of examples from Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle bottom of the same article.
-
Branton
The Tory party banks with Santander.
Did Miller's party try them?
I think you are getting a little confused on the facts here.
You're confusing "struggling to find a bank among a small cohort of niche specialist banks" with "struggling to find a bank".
I'm genuinely bemused at how some folk overplay a story.
-
Branton
The Tory party banks with Santander.
Did Miller's party try them?
I think you are getting a little confused on the facts here.
You're confusing "struggling to find a bank among a small cohort of niche specialist banks" with "struggling to find a bank".
I'm genuinely bemused at how some folk overplay a story.
Billy
Please provide evidence that Miller's party was only looking for banking services amongst "niche specialist banks".
When being turned down by TEN separate banks.
-
Branton
Please provide evidence that she tried banks that all the other political parties bank with without problem, and I'll join you on the barricades.
-
Thought not.
Probably best not to belittle other people's opinions and claim they're confused about the "facts" before then wholly making up "facts" to support your own views in the very next breath!
-
Branton
Do you REALLY think Miller has gone to banks that take the accounts of other parties and been told to do one?
The reason I strongly suspect she was fishing around niche little shi-shi banks is because that was the sort of bank that she had banked with, before the bank realised they'd taken on a political party's account against their own policies.
I'm fascinated in what you think is the issue here.
-
2 people have problems with their banks and it's headline news, Govt involved, people losing their jobs. Farages boss makes a killing selling short after all the hype mmmmm!
Is there anything else in the news or not, that perhaps the Govt could be involved in to be headline news and where heads might roll ?
-
Here we go.
This is what it's really all about.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1685200188741185536?s=20
Just close your eyes and imagine the Cabinet meetings.
Braverman, Sunak, Shapps and a dozen non-entities you've never heard of all shouting "Down with Woke Capitalism" from spittle-flecked mouths because they have literally no other idea what to do about actually...y'know...running the country.
-
Branton
Do you REALLY think Miller has gone to banks that take the accounts of other parties and been told to do one?
The reason I strongly suspect she was fishing around niche little shi-shi banks is because that was the sort of bank that she had banked with, before the bank realised they'd taken on a political party's account against their own policies.
I'm fascinated in what you think is the issue here.
I think you're getting a little confused on the difference between fact and supposition.
A baseless supposition as it happens.
Monzo is hardly a "niche little shi-shi bank". It has 7.5 million customers in the UK and is the UK's 7th largest bank in terms of customer numbers (it was the 10th bank Miller's party applied to join).
www.finder.com/uk/monzo-statistics
-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/28/gina-miller-true-and-fair-party-monzo-bank-account
And another. Gina Miller this time. Interested to hear your thoughts Billy and Wilts.
She's gone to the wrong bank and opened up an account with another bank. It's what they story says!
Just like Farage. They closed one account because he wasn't putting enough money into it - and offered him another. That he didn't like because anyone could have one and he doesn't want to bank with the same bank ordinary people bank with.
-
It's all woke I tell you:
https://www.indy100.com/news/nigel-farage-newsnight-coutts-bank
-
And a thread on Farage's company accounts - showing he doesn't have enough money to qualify for a Coutts account? Or if he does it is not being declared as income so...
https://twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/1685291951405350912
Still if some people wish to believe prejudice and opinion over facts, figures and economics, what can you say.
-
It is horrendous that peoples banking details are published in the public domain.
-
Branton
Do you REALLY think Miller has gone to banks that take the accounts of other parties and been told to do one?
The reason I strongly suspect she was fishing around niche little shi-shi banks is because that was the sort of bank that she had banked with, before the bank realised they'd taken on a political party's account against their own policies.
I'm fascinated in what you think is the issue here.
I think you're getting a little confused on the difference between fact and supposition.
A baseless supposition as it happens.
Monzo is hardly a "niche little shi-shi bank". It has 7.5 million customers in the UK and is the UK's 7th largest bank in terms of customer numbers (it was the 10th bank Miller's party applied to join).
www.finder.com/uk/monzo-statistics
Fair play. I'd never heard of it. Looking into it, it does seem a little odd that it claims to have the business of 1 in every 10 men, women and infants in the country, but with an operating profit of about £20 per customer.
I assumed it was a small, specialist business bank. But I should have checked. My mistake.
That doesn't in any way change my central point. That every single other political party in the country manages to find a bank that will take their business, so the idea that we are falling into a black hole of anti-democratic practice is stretching it a fraction.
-
Billy
Thanks for that correction. You might be right that there is a legitimate reason why Miller's party was rejected by 10 banks.
Their may be a legitimate reason behind the banks decisions in all the instances I and others have outlined on this thread - and several others that the media have uncovered since this story broke.
Given the apparent scale I'm concerned this isn't the case however and many non-public figures may be affected as well.
We'll find out I imagine in due course.
There is a common theme with many of the stories of bank closures in that the banks gave little notice period, there was no reasoning given for their decision and no right of appeal. Which is wrong regardless of the banks reasoning.
I believe having a bank account is a necessity in the modern world. Everybody, regardless of opinion, should have the right to a bank account. That banks are providing a public service under licence from the state. Therefore banks should not have the right to reject customers because they disagree with their views.
Having a bank account closed is a major inconvenience and I imagine could be stressful and embarrassing.
If banks are closing Accounts due to disagreeing with people's views * this would discourage people from entering politics, remaining in politics, campaigning on issues or simply airing their views.
You're welcome to be sceptical (you may be proven right) but you appear to me to be simply dismissive (inc coming up with excuses for the banks). Is that because this story has broken from the Right of politics? As for me this is a non-partisan issue.
* And the instance involving the vicar and YBS (reply 7) shows this has and therefore can happen.
-
It is horrendous that peoples banking details are published in the public domain.
Yes that's why the CEO & Chairman had to resign from Coutts.
As for their business information that is publically available via Companies House as with all UK companies (such as Doncaster Rovers).
But if they dont' get their wealth from their declared businesses - where does it come from?
-
Branton - a lot of 'ifs' in that last post to Billy.
You are the one saying that it's happening. It's up to you to show us.
It may be, I have no idea but would like to see the evidence to make a judgement. It appears not to be the case with that article you shared about Gina Miller and is certainly not the case with Farage having his account closed by Coutts.
-
Branton - a lot of 'ifs' in that last post to Billy.
You are the one saying that it's happening. It's up to you to show us.
It may be, I have no idea but would like to see the evidence to make a judgement. It appears not to be the case with that article you shared about Gina Miller and is certainly not the case with Farage having his account closed by Coutts.
But if it is happening then you agree in principle that it would be very concerning for freedom of speech and our democracy?
I think the scale/lack of scale of the issue will come to light in time. So we'll see.
On Gina Miller the worrying issue for me is that her party has been rejected by 10 different banks. I very much doubt she is lying to come out in support of Nigel Farage!
On Farage I'm a little bored of the argument as we're going round in circles but the Coutts document states in black and white: -
"The Committee did not think continuing banking NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation. This was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and Purpose."
Therefore it is beyond dispute that his views being at odds with the banks was at the very least considered in Coutts decision making process. Which alone is surely wrong.
-
It is horrendous that peoples banking details are published in the public domain.
Yes that's why the CEO & Chairman had to resign from Coutts.
As for their business information that is publically available via Companies House as with all UK companies (such as Doncaster Rovers).
But if they dont' get their wealth from their declared businesses - where does it come from?
I’m aware that business detailed can be seen at Companies House wilts but I was talking about peoples banking circumstances.