Freedom of speech ref Nigel Farage's bank accounts

[ncRover]

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.

[Iberian Red]

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.

[ncRover]

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.

[Iberian Red]

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.

[scawsby steve]

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.

[Iberian Red]

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.

[Branton Red]

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??

[wilts rover]

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.

[Branton Red]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Iberian Red]

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.

[Branton Red]

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.

[wilts rover]

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'.

[Branton Red]

Wilts

I've already responded in depth to these points (and the others you made previously) in reply 56 above.

Ta

[wilts rover]

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'.

[Branton Red]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Branton Red]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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 Red]

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?

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

[danumdon]

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.

[drfchound]

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.

[DonnyOsmond]

Them snowflakes and their cancel culture.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

[Iberian Red]

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.

[danumdon]

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[Branton Red]

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.

[Branton Red]

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?