You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I’m fairly happy that any business should be able to exclude whoever they want, provided it’s not based on a protected characteristic.
Political beliefs are a protected characteristic, so the banks in this case are potentially on dodgy ground, and should have done a cya exercise to make sure they had a real reason to boot him out. Which tbf they probably did as he's pretty low-profile these days compared to 5 years ago
Sorry 5lab, political beliefs are not a protected characteristic - from the gov.uk website
Types of discrimination ('protected characteristics')
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:age
gender reassignment
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or on maternity leave
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation
Political beliefs are a protected...
I get that... But I don't think the bank said specifically it's his political beliefs.
They did mention potential dodgy Russian money...
That's not really a political thing, that's 'is this customer a potential fraud/money laundering risk?'
Can we as a business keep this customer in good faith given the regulatory requirements of due diligence etc.
Natwest/Coutts have kinda opened themselves up for attack here though.
It would have been far more prudent of them to simply say nothing at all in public, or at least only say things in direct response to what Nigel chose to make public himself. i.e :
'we offered you an account with natwest, what's your problem?'
"Looks like one or two on here were way off the mark."
And continue to be so it seems...
As some Greek philosopher one said, - "Do you hate your enemies more than you love the truth?."
Is no one curious as to what other persons and organisations have had their accounts closed recently?
Or is this just a p***ing competition to see which pound shop Frankie Boyle can come up with the most witty Nigel Farage insult?
As some Greek philosopher one said, – “Do you hate your enemies more than you love the truth?.”
So what is the truth here which you are implying has been ignored?
Is no one curious as to what other persons and organisations have had their accounts closed recently?
I'd be fascinated to know, but the banks aren't allowed to discuss it, so unless they make a fuss like Farage did, we are unlikely to find out.
Unless you have something to share?
According the the Guardian many MPs and others have had accounts refused for political risk
I think what Inkster is saying and unfortunately I agree is that whilst most right thinking individuals dislike our little frog faced fiend and what he has helped do to the country, that doesn’t really counter the hypocrisy from NatWest bearing in mind how many dictators, mobsters, royal nonces and dodgy hedge fund managers still have bank accounts with them.
Badly handled all round really.
"I’d be fascinated to know, but the banks aren’t allowed to discuss it, so unless they make a fuss like Farage did, we are unlikely to find out.
Unless you have something to share?"
Did you catch Newsnight 5 minutes ago? Konstantin Kisin (comedian and podcaster) just came out and explained that the same thing has happened to him.
I wasn't aware of this when I posted my comment 25 minutes ago, which either suggests that soon, others might start making a fuss or that I am in fact a pound shop Nostradamus.
The whole fiasco could be turned into something for good...
I mean.. what does an 'elite' bank like Coutts offer anyone over a standard banks account other than prestige and bragging rights? better interest rates? more favorable returns on certain investment vehicles/mechanisms, free specialist investment/tax advice?
None of these things are particulary desireable for a society as the playing field becomes un-level, favoring the affluent, to the detriment of those less afluent.
But whilst the likes of Farage control the narrative, well, we all know that particular play book!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/26/sunak-hunt-uk-natwest-alison-rose
It is understood that NatWest was in regular communication with the Treasury throughout the discussions, and that it was notified of the board’s original decision to back Rose before the statement endorsing her was released. There was no pushback from ministers or Treasury officials at that time, they added.
The Guardian has been told that there was a change in position only after the release of NatWest’s statement – even though its contents had been discussed with officials – resulting in the Treasury putting in calls to the bank’s board to voice its lack of confidence in Rose. Without support from its largest shareholder, the board reversed its decision.
“So why intervene in the Coutts-Farage case? It’s about power. The power Farage seems to have over the Tories and the lack of it that everyday workers and customers have.”
So the chief executive of NatWest Group is sacked on the orders of a Tory government, before the City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority is allowed to follow the due process, just to keep Nigel Farage happy.
Shocking but maybe predictable. As is the backing they are receiving from the leader of the Labour Party:
In a contrast to the position taken by Labour’s shadow chancellor, the party’s leader, Keir Starmer, expressed sympathy for Farage, saying NatWest had “got this one wrong” and that it was right for Rose to go.
Not only is the Labour leader publicly expressing sympathy for Nigel Farage but he is also backing Tory politicians unacceptable interference with the due process.
Multiple sources accepted that Rose’s days may have been numbered given the importance of banking confidentiality, but her chaotic exit was unnecessary.
An FCA source echoed the concerns, saying the government “should have allowed due process,” noting that NatWest had committed to an independent review of how it handled the former Ukip leader’s banking and confidentiality.
You would have thought that a former DPP understood the supremacy of the due process over kangaroo courts.
Did you catch Newsnight 5 minutes ago? Konstantin Kisin (comedian and podcaster) just came out and explained that the same thing has happened to him.
So who is denying the truth? With your quote from "some Greek philosopher" you seemed to suggest that the truth was being denied.
"So who is denying the truth? With your quote from “some Greek philosopher” you seemed to suggest that the truth was being denied."
Yes I did didn't I....
You might find evidence for that over the last 7 pages of this thread.
It seems like some truths are now becoming apparent that had previously been occluded.
That truth was being occlused owing to a collective wallowing in schadenfreude, rather than a converstion about the ethical matter in question.
So you can't give any specifics then. Just a general accusation that the truth was being denied without providing any evidence. Which I imagine would be relatively easy if, ironically, it was true.
Nigel Farage claims that Couttes has closed his account and another 10 banks have refused him an account. He claims it is due to his political veiws although he also admits that he hasn't satisfied Couttes wealth criteria for years.
I don't think any of those claims by Farage have been seriously challenged on here.
that doesn’t really counter the hypocrisy from NatWest bearing in mind how many dictators, mobsters, royal nonces and dodgy hedge fund managers still have bank accounts with them.
NatWest have offered him an account, just not one in their prestige arm.
The fact others with 'dodgy' backgrounds are - doesn't sit right but presumably they have a better balance of value to risk.
Hypocritical - maybe. It's a bank for the very rich, why are we surprised they are ethically bankrupt!
Not only is the Labour leader publicly expressing sympathy for Nigel Farage but he is also backing Tory politicians unacceptable interference with the due process.
I'm not sure he has expressed sympathy for Farage, everything is being spun here. Though his lack of (reported) clarity reinforces the impression that he's a useless weather vane.
The CEO was sacked for leaking customer information. Any bank employee would be. She didn’t have to quit because they'd declined Farages business, which is the spin being put on it.
The sooner someone calls out the government and press spin and sticks to the facts, the better.
The PRA are useless so any chat they may have with NatWest will likely be nothing more than symbolic.
Not true in my experience. Conversations between FI’s and PRA on conduct risk are not symbolic and can have very severe consequences for the bank.
So, Farage’s boss at GB news is involved with a hedge fund that has been shorting NatWest stock for months and after yesterday’s fall in share price earned a few million quid. Strange coincidence or just lucky perhaps.
Edit:Reading a bit more most likely just lucky but having thought before that nobody gained from this whole affair it does appear there are winners after all
I’m not sure he has expressed sympathy for Farage
I was just using a term used by the Guardian as I know that what the Guardian claims to be true is rarely challenged on here.
I get it. We all hate Farage.
However - banking services are fundamental to be involved in society in any meaningful way. Banks witholding or withdrawing their services to individuals is a clear fundamental danger to the fabric of democratic societies - which is the real reason for the hoo-ha over this.
Farage is an opportunist, yes, but he's aware of the above and and is exploiting the opportunity to create noise about banking overreach. Whilst I doubt his motivations are anything other than selfish and self-serving, the bigger picture is that he's actually doing us all a favour - which is why parliamentarians are getting involved.
Holding abhorrent views cannot be a barrier to holding a bank account. (As opposed to being abusive to staff members). If the reasons for this aren't immediately clear and obvious to you then you're having a hard life (and making everyone's life around you harder) by being unconsciously incompetent every minute of the day.
🙂
However – banking services are fundamental to be involved in society in any meaningful way. Banks witholding or withdrawing their services to individuals is a clear fundamental danger to the fabric of democratic societies – which is the real reason for the hoo-ha over this.
He is allowed an account, just not the poncy one he wanted
However – banking services are fundamental to be involved in society in any meaningful way. Banks witholding or withdrawing their services to individuals is a clear fundamental danger to the fabric of democratic societies – which is the real reason for the hoo-ha over this.
One more time for those at the back. Natwest DID offer him an account, just not the exclusive fancy pants Coutts account. Just as they would not offer me, or 95% of the rest of the population a Coutts account.
which is why parliamentarians are getting involved.
Involved? They are interfering with the investigation being carried out by the City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority. And this is a government that believes in self regulation and light touch for financial services.
I'll remind you of the situation. 10 banks have refused Farage an account one bank, the NatWest, has offered Farage an account, the chief executive of that bank has been sacked by the government because Farage isn't happy.
How is that doing us/me a favour?
@ernielynch - the answer is in my post. Maybe try to understand why the denial of banking services for holding views people don't like is very dangerously anti-democratic.
The fact that this is actually a topic of discussion now is the favour.
Eff Farage. But banks need bringing in line on this. (And I don't hate banks, I work in one and am well aware of the legislation they work under).
denial of banking services holding views people don’t like is very dangerously anti-democratic.
Yes it is, luckily that's not happened here
Yes it is, luckily that’s not happened here
That's arguable given apparently 10 (or so) banks turned him down. But again, eff Farage - there's plenty of stuff coming out of the woodwork that shows it's clearly happening.
Maybe try to understand why the denial of banking services holding views people don’t like is very dangerously anti-democratic.
Banking has nothing to do with democracy, they are pretty much the poster child for capitalism, this whole issue was a simple solution the bank did a cost benefit analysis, the lack of any financial benefit of having Farage as a customer against the negativity of having him as a customer, they do these decisions all the time, they aren't some 'woke' organisation that are doing some press on this, they didn't even mention it, it has all been Farage, even today i read him going on about 'how do i pay my gas bill', well you take the Natwest account they offered and they'll transfer all your bill payments over, the muppet is trying to glean as much press as possible for this.
That’s arguable given apparently 10 (or so) banks turned him down.
It's not, the bank he banks with now have offered him a bank account. He just wants a special bank account for special people - being as he is, Y'know; a man of the people, an ordinary bloke....
@argee:
Banking has nothing to do with democracy
I refer the honourable gentlemen to my original post.
It’s not, the bank he banks with now have offered him a bank account. He just wants a special bank account for special people – being as he is, Y’know; a man of the people, an ordinary bloke….
*sigh* Still talking about Farage? Oh well.
Two points:
- Ten banks turning him down indicates smoke, potentially fire. But who cares, it's Farage.
- All of the other stuff coming out is absolutely screaming fire. < This is all I care about.
If you need this issue to be about Farage, then fine. But you seem to be steadfastly ignoring the actual important stuff.
Edit: To be clear - the important stuff being that banks are factoring in the views that people hold before offering them banking services. This cannot be allowed. If we legislate on this then they won't be able to hide behind "reputational damage". Banking is a fundamental service in a modern economy, not just a voluntary thing you interact with. You choose your brand, but we should legislate their terms of business.
Have I missed something or has this allegation of being turned down by ten banks only come from farage, and he's not named them?
And what sort of accounts was he applying for, for example a barclays current account with a debit card, or a barclays premier business account?
And the others?
Probably needs another thread called "denial of banking services to persons and organisations other than Nigel Farage."
Agree 100% with chevy with regards the danger to democracy that this issue presents.
Nat West have behaved appallingly. HSBC will be the next bank with their heads on the chopping block, some of their actions have been even more aggregious.
Farage is only the beginning of this story.
the important stuff being that banks are factoring in the views that people hold before offering them banking services. This cannot be allowed.
According to the beliefs of the people screaming most loudly about this, it's exactly how the market should work. They're absolutely fine with a Christian baker refusing to make a cake celebrating Gay marriage. They say it's a fundamental right for a business to be able to chose who it does business with. so, the same thing should operate here, a bank should be able to refuse custom. No bank should be forced to keep a customer just becasue no one else will have them (and again, that's not what's happened here)
If you need this issue to be about Farage, then fine
Farage is making it about himself, everyone else is just watching
As I understand there has been no denial of banking services. There has been a denial of a banking service. Personally have no issue with this as long as its not on the basis of discrimination. Pretty sure I would be denied the same service due to a lack funds rather than risky political views.
Good question, especially important when someone like Farage is concerned,
Absolutely Mattyfez.
It is already an obligation to offer a basic bank account so to all those that say it's clear what's happening - what accounts has he asked for and who has said no. The banks can't say it - that leads to resignations for breaking confidentiality - and Nige seems quite facts-lite on this. Just a headline.
If the reasons for this aren’t immediately clear and obvious to you then you’re having a hard life (and making everyone’s life around you harder) by being unconsciously incompetent every minute of the day.
I'm more concerned that it's not me, it's you? What specifically don't you get?
HSBC will be the next bank with their heads on the chopping block, some of their actions have been even more aggregious.
If you're going to throw clever words about at least look them up first. And in fact, just don't use them. As a supporter of plain English, just say it in words everyone can follow - 'some of their actions have been even worse' or 'outstandingly bad'
On that - what? What have HSBC done (of relevance to this or similar, not just 'being a bank' in general)
Have I missed something or has this allegation of being turned down by ten banks only come from farage, and he’s not named them?
And what sort of accounts was he applying for, for example a barclays current account with a debit card, or a barclays premier business account?
I was about to ask the same question.
I could apply for 10 multi-millionaire only accounts and get, rightly, refused for failing to meet the criteria, is that anti-democratic?
"Have I missed something"
Yes.
No bank should be forced to keep a customer just becasue no one else will have them
In this day and age not having a bank account would be a serious problem for most people.
Hence why there is the law requiring the largest banks to offer a basic banking option to all.
For Farage he seems to have failed both the wealth and the tosser checks.
So cant blame Coutts for downgrading him to the plebs bank.
@squirrelking:
I could apply for 10 multi-millionaire only accounts and get, rightly, refused for failing to meet the criteria, is that anti-democratic?
If you're refused for being poor. No. If you're rich and you're refused because you hold views the bank doesn't align with, yes.
As I've made really very clear indeed and, ignoring the Farage sideshow, is the whole basis for the hoo-ha.
I suspect you get that, but you see my name and want to "disagree". So you've spun up a straw-man argument to disagree with, despite me being very clear indeed. However, maybe I'm being generous that you're just being pointlessly truculent, rather than being on the lowest rung of the pyramid.
Hence why there is the law requiring the largest banks to offer a basic banking option to all.
And as far as we know, that is the case with farage.
We only know two facts in this case;
- He was refused/kicked out of a posh Coutts account
- He was offered a standard Natwest account (same bank for arguments sake)
Everythng else is what Farage has said, you know the guy that made that fake campaign/poster of immigrant queues at our borders, so he's got form for telling outright lies.
I wonder why he's not naming and shaming these other institutions? is it because they'd have him in court for libel faster than you can say 'stop the boats!'?
I'm no fan of the banking sytstem, belive me, so I have no points to score from sticking up for 'them'.
If you’re rich and you’re refused because you hold views the bank doesn’t align with, yes.
What about
- if you're rich by normal standards, but now your mortgage has finished still not rich enough to meet our combined wealth vs PITA-ness making sure your money is sufficiently clean to be plausibly deniable.
- if you're clearly a wrong-un but so fantastically wealthy it's worth holding our nose for.
I don't know but suspect if Farage was a multi-billionaire he could hold whatever views he wanted, it'd be worth the hassle for them and this wouldn't have happened. But when you're just under the line AND create lots of work.
:facepalm:
I suspect you get that, but you see my name and want to “disagree”. So you’ve spun up a straw-man argument to disagree with, despite me being very clear indeed. However, maybe I’m being generous that you’re just being pointlessly truculent, rather than being on the lowest rung of the pyramid.
Are you and Edukator the same person? Because you sure as hell have the same persecution compex, I wasn't even talking to you!
"What about"
Don't you mean whataboutism?
Did any of you defending farage / castigating nat west read the guardian link? many folk get refused bank accounts in similar situations
I know of lots of accounts that have been closed for reasons that appear to me to be politically motivated. The information is out there if your search extends beyond the Guardian.
Farage was merely the zit that popped. He went public because of the political clout he has. He can exploit the situation to his advantage where others couldn't.
Having your bank account closed without explanation (or justification) makes you look, and feel like a criminal, of you're not a public figure like Farage then there is little to nothing you can do. It will effect your livlehood, your reputation, your bisiness (if you run one) and put a stain on your name when you seek another account or seek to take out a loan.
You will not be able to defend your reputation because the bank won't tell you why they closed your account. There is no due process, that is why the government is getting involved.
But hey, Nigel Farage...
I'm castigating NatWest because a member of staff broke customer confidentiality and the board thought that was excusable.
Maybe. But in the absence of some facts all we can do is surmise. On that competence hierarchy, it's sound analysis on the back of facts that may subsequently be incorrect, but which seem to be 'more likely than not'
let's just circle around what we know.
Farage no longer meets the wealth threshold for a Coutt's a/c
He has some activities that are both unsavoury (views, legal but not to everyone's taste) but also some that are just dodgy (unaccounted Russian money, etc.)
On the basis of all those things Coutt's have declined to offer him an account; instead they offered him a Natwest account.
Banks are by law required to offer a basic account to all customers. And will be absolutely aware of this.
Farage has claimed that 10 banks turned him down.
So what conclusion do you draw, using rational thought on incomplete facts.
- that he's lying
- that he asked for special accounts that the banks decided (as Coutts did) that he didn't qualify for - on what basis, we don't know.
- the banks actually broke the law and didn't even offer basic ones.
I'm inclined to discount the last - as i said the banks will be well aware of the law in this, and probability of one doing it is small, that probability^10 is miniscule.
Which leaves the top two. Only he and the banks know, and for obvious reasons the banks can't say. So after all considerations I predict he's either lying about being refused, or has asked for things the banks have decided he doesn't qualify for. Which then asks why - and leads to the 'whatabouts'
It might be conscious incompetence if subsequently some of these facts turn out to be wrong (eg: maybe the banks did all break the law and refuse to offer a basic account), but it is a purely logical train of thought, not a stab in the dark.
I get your point, that refusing him an account purely because he's a racist probably isn't right. But refusing him, or anyone else, an account because of the balance between the value to the bank and the the effort required to manage it - that's just a commercial decision. As i said - if he was a billionaire I suspect the answer would be different.
I wonder too what the impact is on other customers. Would many / any take their accounts elsewhere because they don't want to bank at the same place as someone they don't agree with. Is that a factor in the decision?
I know of lots of accounts that have been closed for reasons that appear to me to be politically motivated.
What does 'appear to you' mean? Did you have any access to eg: transactions that may have created governance issues, or just their views?
And what sort of bank accounts. were they offered basic ones in return?
That’s arguable given apparently 10 (or so) banks turned him down. But again, eff Farage – there’s plenty of stuff coming out of the woodwork that shows it’s clearly happening.
FARAGE WAS NOT DENIED A BANK ACCOUNT HE DIDNT BEED TO ASK 10 OTHERS BECAUSE HE WAS OFFERED A REGULAR NATWEST ONE AT THE TIME
He failed the wealth test AND as a PEP his political profile was taken into account, as I understand it none of that was illegal - it was leaking his details to the BBC that was the only transgression here- even though he released a document confirming it!
Whats mind boggling is that the right wing media & the Tory party all the way up to the PM all went in balls deep to defend him, happy to spread the lie he was debanked because of his polictics
I cant think of many other people who can count on that level of support from the elites!
"let’s just circle around what we know."
You're circling around what you know, not what 'we' know,
Having your bank account closed without explanation
But that's not what happened. And the people that are complaining the loudest about it believe that banks should be able to behave like that anyway.
Farage has clout with the majority shareholders of the bank who're more than happy to make it a thing becasue they're desperate.
Having your bank account closed without explanation (or justification) makes you look, and feel like a criminal
The NatWest once closed an account of mine without any announcement nor explanation, I certainly didn't feel like a criminal.
It was during the the Tory recession of the early 1990s when construction work collapsed. I managed to continue working but my day rate was massively cut. My pay cheques were being swallowed up by a small but persistent overdraft so to be able to access some money I started paying some cheques into a building society. When the NatWest saw the drop of money going into my account they obviously decided to cut their losses and closed my account without any notice.
Unfortunately I wasn't able to get the Chief Executive of the NatWest sacked. So perhaps you have a point and Nigel Farage is doing me a great favour even if it is 30 years later.
However I didn't particularly feel hard done by - I don't see banking as one of the caring professions. And as previously mentioned it didn't make like a criminal, just another victim of failed Tory economic policies.
"What does ‘appear to you’ mean?"
Appears to me as it does to those who have had their accounts closed, in that the reasons that the accounts were closed were not divulged, so they (and I) can only suppose.
So yes, I am guessing that many people and organisations that have had their accounts closed have had them closed for political reasons.
Only time will tell wether my guess or your guess proves to be right.
I'm also guessing that many posting on here will have egg on their face in the near future when more information about this is forthcoming.
Strangely considering they have done no wrong, the CEOs of both NatWest and Coutts have resigned.
Strangely considering they have done no wrong, the CEOs of both NatWest and Coutts have resigned.
The CEO of Natwest did do something wrong when leaking the information.
As for the Coutts CEO. You think they had much choice with the pressure the tories were placing them under? They should have kept to the normal wrong doings such as supporting money laundering, tax evasion, ppi mis selling etc.
I look forward to the tories showing the same rapid response when it comes to their own next scandal.
Strangely considering they have done no wrong, the CEOs of both NatWest and Coutts have resigned.
Strangely the Chief Executive of the NatWest was sacked by Tory politicians without due process from Financial Conduct Authority.
Holding abhorrent views cannot be a barrier to holding a bank account
If i had a shop and a customer souted views i found abhorent - or lies, in the case of Farage - I'd refuse to serve him. I don’t see why banks should be different.
His freedom of speech is not compromised. But freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from consequences. If he doesn’t like it, he needs to reconsider if his views are appropriate, or **** off and find somewhere who will put up with them.
And again, this seems to have "coincided" with a tightening of banking regs around sources of income.
I know of lots of accounts that have been closed for reasons that appear to me to be politically motivated. The information is out there if your search extends beyond the Guardian.
Then provide some links to back up your view. "Do your own research" is not the usual great response on here, and I'm a little surprised to see you take that line, you are usually better in these discussions than that.
Edited to add
You will not be able to defend your reputation because the bank won’t tell you why they closed your account
You can get a Subject Access Request, like Farage did.
Strangely the Chief Executive of the NatWest was sacked by Tory politicians without due process from Financial Conduct Authority.
Nothing to do with the FCA, straightforward disciplinary matter
"You can get a Subject Access Request, like Farage did."
As I suspect a lot of people are doing right now...
Trying to keep it short and sweet morecash so apologies for the 'do your own research' line that I admit I'm taking. I'm not trying to win an argument with anyone, I know when I'm outnumbered so I'm just leaving a marker saying I think this situation is way bigger than one individual and will probably extend beyond the banks to include other institutions.
My own point of reference is the Arts Council, who have behaved in a similar fashion to Nat West and the like for a number of years and are now finding themselves in court. Too many people in positions of influence within institutions have been making decisions in an executive fashion based on their personal morality and ideas of good and bad, when in fact they don't have the executive or legal authority to do so.
I think this situation is way bigger than one individual
Of course it is. Its about brexit and Farages hold over the tories
@morecashthandash:
If i had a shop and a customer souted views i found abhorent – or lies, in the case of Farage – I’d refuse to serve him. I don’t see why banks should be different.
I agree with you on your shop (and people who don't want to make gay cakes). But banking services are different. The role they play means they aren't just simple private companies. Hence the enhanced regulations they work under that are massively different from your average Irish bakery.
If you can't understand why banks should be different, I can't help ya. You could write books on the subject so a forum isn't a place for people who just don't "get" it.
It all boils down to "why" questions again doesn't it:
But banking services are different. The role they play means they aren’t just simple private companies. Hence the enhanced regulations they work under that are massively different from your average Irish bakery
its a good job that farage wasnt debanked then, just downgraded to a plebs account
its a good job that farage wasnt debanked then, just downgraded to a plebs account
Well yes but as a fearless fighter against the elite he needs to be treated like one of the elite.
Whats the difference between Nigel Farage and a jet engine ?.
Jet engines can stop whining.
If you can’t understand why banks should be different, I can’t help ya.
Farage hasn't been denied banking facilities. He's been denied a bank acct at a branch of a bank that has criteria that it can apply at their discretion. The same bank have offered him a normal bank acct. Farage (well know man of the people) is upset becasue he can no longer tell people that he has a Coutts acct.
Given that we only have Farage's word (a known liar) that he's been denied accts at other banks, all the noise about him being the victim of a political witch-hunt is just that; noise.
The people that are making it about the thing it's not about are normally more than happy for businesses to act exactly how they want to, could not give a shit how banks behave and given that normal folks have their accts closed every day for loads of reasons makes it obvious that they only care because Farage is popular with a sub-set of their party and they are desperate to look good to that sub set.
That's the start middle and finish of this story, everything else is comment.
Nothing to do with the FCA, straightforward disciplinary matter
So why were the FCA involved if it had nothing to do with them?
And why do Tory politicians who claim to be opposed to government interference in industries, not least financial services, get involved in a straightforward disciplinary matter?
Someone else obsessed with Farage eh @Kimbers? I specifically stated that lots of people have come out of the woodwork - and the banks have clearly admitted that <span style="text-decoration: underline;">personal views are being taken into account</span> when deciding whether to serve customers.
THAT is the thing that is unacceptable and anti-democratic.
I give zero effs what happens to NF. I give an eff that banks are free to act like that - and that is why parliament is getting involved and will likely further legislate at some point - because to do otherwise means we end up like China. They've changed some rules already, and they're investigating if banks are drawing up blacklists of people who hold controversial views - with a view of further regulation.
If you don't understand why, then I refer you to Mr Feynman above...
Nothing to do with the FCA, straightforward disciplinary matter
You must work in a different industry to me.
Any disciplinaries here would need HR and lawyers involved to make sure it gets done legally.
It isnt done by having anonymous briefings that the largest shareholder has "serious concerns" which then forces the board into a corner.
and Farages hold over the tories
Can you explain this alleged hold that a member of Reform UK, a political party without one single MP and only six councillors in the whole of the UK, has over the Tories?
The Tories could and should tell him to **** off. Especially as his party has pledged to stand a candidate against every Tory candidate in the UK next general election.
Someone else obsessed with Farage eh Kimbers?
the thread is literally about farage!?!
its a good job that farage wasnt debanked then, just downgraded to a plebs account
Actually he was discriminated against by the bank on products available to him based on his political views. That’s quite rightly illegal. The bank tried to cover this up claiming commercial reasons and this has now spectacularly blown up on them.
NF is definitely not everyone’s cup of tea for sure but ask yourself whether you are ok with people being discriminated against for political views?
Wings Over Scotland blogger also debanked.
Nice guardian article describing it. Basically they placate him out of fear of what he will do with his followers.
The Tories could and should tell him to **** off.
of course they should - but they are scared of his political power which he holds because of the huge numbers of followers. I'll let you talk to my aunt and cousin who think he is a hero and if he told them not to vote tory they wouldn't
Or are the tories using this fiasco to put some of their cronies on the board of Nat West, if any of them resign
They basically need Farage to do what he did last time out - muster the populist scumbag vote, but only stand in seats where it hurts Labour. That's why Downing St have basically forced out two banking CEOs on his behalf. Obviously, he'll not be satisfied with that, because his whole grift is based on grievance, so I'm wondering now who he'll target next, and whether the Tories will back him there as well. I reckon Sunak might be prepared to bin a minister if Farage wanted him to.
It's pathetic, but the governing party is basically UKIP now, and by extension, figures like Farage pretty much set its agenda. Sunak has already made it clear that he intends to campaign on division and culture war, so none of this is surprising.
Actually he was discriminated against by the bank on products available to him based on his political views. That’s quite rightly illegal. The bank tried to cover this up claiming commercial reasons and this has now spectacularly blown up on them.
Thats not true though, is it?
he was denied the account because he didnt meet the wealth criteria:
his mortgage was ending and they were no longer getting interest payments from him,
they saw his views as a risk to their reputation
& they were worried about his association with Russia (whether that was to do with dodgy russian money I dont know)
All of which was detailed in his SAR
If it had been exclusively based on his political views then yes that would have been wrong, even then being downgraded because of a worry about reputational risk is not the same as being denied an essential service
I’ll let you talk to my aunt and cousin who think he is a hero
No thanks.
Whatever your aunt and cousin say Reform UK does not have one single MP, is unlikely to have one after the next general election, so won't in any way have any influence or be able to support a Tory minority government, and in reflection of how little public support they have nationwide, they only have 6 council seats.
The Tories could easily afford to tell Nigel Farage to **** off, if they wanted to. He has no hold over them.