You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The hold is the threat of standing candidates against the tories and / or telling his followers not to vote tory.
So why were the FCA involved if it had nothing to do with them?
They just made a comment following Rose's statement, but following that statement it was clear to anyone that NatWest's position was untenable and it is quite correct for the Treasury and 10 Downing Street to point out they were being blithering idiots. The Board changed its mind and no doubt crossed ts and dotted is with the lawyers and Rose was gone in the early hours of the next day.
If anything brings an institution into disrepute, it is trying to hang onto a CEO who has breached client confidentiality - the fact the story she spun was incorrect as well only adds to her folly.
It is not a threat. Reform UK has pledged to stand in every seat next general election. With Keir Starmer now Labour leader, instead of Corbyn, Farage no longer considers a Labour government something that he can't live with.
telling his followers not to vote tory.
Why doesn't he tell his followers to vote for him? 7 times he has stood for a Westminster seat 7 times he has failed.
Presumably he forgot to tell his followers to vote for him?
But banking services are different. The role they play means they aren’t just simple private companies
Which is why banks have to offer everyone a basic account. No one is stopped from having access to banking.
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,
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/ge2019-brexit-party-impact/#:~:text=In%20the%202019%20election%2C%20the,strategy%20doubled%20Johnso n's%20parliamentary%20majority.
In particular:
It's not about the number of MPs that Reform will get (they won't get any), it's about leaching votes away from Labour in key constituencies and reducing the size of their overall majority. The Tories have probably tactically accepted that they are out soon, but want to restrict the size of the majority and aim to overturn it after one term of a Labour government.
It is not a threat. Reform UK has pledged to stand in every seat next general election.
Brexit Party initially threatened to stand in every seat in 2019.
https://www.politico.eu/article/farage-brexit-party-to-contest-every-seat-in-uk-election/
With Keir Starmer now Labour leader, instead of Corbyn, Farage no longer considers a Labour government something that he can’t live with.
I'm sure that privately, he holds lots of views, but this is his opportunity to squeeze the Tories and use the threat of candidates in their LibDem marginals to get what he wants, which is exposure, influence and being wooed by senior Tories.
Actually he was discriminated against by the bank on products available to him based on his political views. That’s quite rightly illegal.
Prove it.
Why doesn’t he tell his followers to vote for him? 7 times he has stood for a Westminster seat 7 times he has failed.
Presumably he forgot to tell his followers to vote for him?
Its obvious to nearly everyone that Farage has never had the power to get MPs and win elections, he has the power to stop the Tories getting seats and winning elections.
I'm not so sure the closet Tory voters won't disappoint us come the next election, Farage helping the Tories may be the difference between a minority government, or at least avoiding a complete wipeout.
the fact the story she spun was incorrect as well only adds to her folly.
so he did meet the financial requirements?
If anything brings an institution into disrepute, it is trying to hang onto a CEO who has breached client confidentiality
Who says that by following due process they were "trying to hang onto a CEO"?
the fact the story she spun was incorrect as well only adds to her folly.
The claim that Farage did not fulfill the wealth criteria was not incorrect. He fully admits himself.
She certainly should not have breached client confidentiality though, obviously.
I'm sure it was a nice article by the Guardian tj
I mentioned the Arts Council earlier. Last month someone who I went to college with and has worked for them for 15 years was hounded out of their job (for expressing a 'protected characteristic') . She took them to court and won.
I went to the Guardian to see how they reported on it and was disgusted by what I saw. Her case was very significant, you might even call it a test case yet the Guardian chose to print a very short article which gave as much space to the Arts Councils response as it did any details of the case and failed to speak to my friend, effectively cancelling her. They considered it a victory for the Arts Council because they weren't found guilty on all the counts of harassment, (just the main one!).
The Telegraph, Daily Mail and GB News actually interviewed her and reported on the facts of the case.
To see probably the most progressive person I knew when I was back in college hung out to dry like that by the Guardian was truly shocking. To see her having to go to the right wing press (which I'm sure she never imagined having to do) to get a fair hearing was a bit of a watershed moment for me.
The Guardian is lying to you. Ask yourself tj, was that Guardian furnishing you with all of the facts or just offering a perspective on events?
Who says that by following due process they were “trying to hang onto a CEO”?
The immediate problem was resolved quickly and correctly - nothing else needed to happen.
The claim that Farage did not fulfill the wealth criteria was not incorrect.
But it wasn't the complete reason so it was incorrect by omission - which is why everyone has apologized to him.
this is his opportunity to squeeze the Tories and use the threat of candidates in their LibDem marginals to get what he wants, which is exposure, influence and being wooed by senior Tories.
It is not a threat!!!
Reform UK have very clearly stated that there will be no election pact with the Tories as there was at the last general election when there was real threat to the status quo.
And yes of course Reform UK has the potential to have a devastating effect on Tory votes in marginal seats next general election.
Which is precisely why the Tories should be doing everything possible to reduce the standing of Reform UK's best known member, not rallying behind him!
They just can't resist backing a bigot in trouble!
The Guardian is lying to you. Ask yourself tj, was that Guardian furnishing you with all of the facts or just offering a perspective on events?
I'm missing the connection to people being denied a bank account, but its been a long day already...
The immediate problem was resolved quickly and correctly – nothing else needed to happen.
So you don't support due process?
And all this nonsense about doing stuff properly!?!?
You must have been quite a fan of the Boris Johnson years!
The Guardian is lying to you. Ask yourself tj, was that Guardian furnishing you with all of the facts or just offering a perspective on events?
are we sure its the guardian thats lying here @inkster or did you read a different one?
this article quite clearly states what she said & doesn't seem like its cancelling her?
Fahmy, who failed in two claims of victimisation, said: “I am delighted to have won my claim of harassment. It cannot be acceptable that people like me, who believe people can’t change their sex, are subjected to harassment at work. And worse still, that employers encourage and collude in this behaviour.
“People in the arts, and especially women, are facing a tide of bullying with spurious accusations of transphobia, and many are frightened to speak out as they risk public cancellation. Institutions like the Arts Council need to be held accountable when they are biased and enable harassment of gender-critical people. I hope my case has woken up leaders in the arts as to what’s going on.”
An ACE spokesperson said: “There was nothing in the judgment to support the accusation of institutional bias. We are reflecting on the judgment which upheld two allegations of harassment in relation to a petition set up by a junior member of staff who no longer works for us, and we note the tribunal’s acknowledgment of steps taken by us to disable the petition and address the incident at the time.”
Reform UK have very clearly stated that there will be no election pact with the Tories as there was at the last general election when there was real threat to the status quo.
And yes of course Reform UK has the potential to have a devastating effect on Tory votes in marginal seats next general election.
Which is precisely why the Tories should be doing everything possible to reduce the standing of Reform UK’s best known member, not rallying behind him!
The likes of Tice and Farage are well known for their integrity and keeping to their word. 🙂 The fact that the Tories are desperate to woo them should be taken as evidence that they know the actual candidate situation may be flexible.
Reform can easily find a reason (or make one up) why they suddenly won't be standing everywhere. I'd expect them to invent some reason why Labour are a threat to everything we hold dear, and why they will be focusing their efforts on defeating the red menace etc...
At the last election, Brexit Party were struggling to find the money, and even the candidates, to contest every seat. I see no reason why things will be different for Reform.
So you don’t support due process?
I believe in checks and balances - but there was no need here. If Rose had stayed on then the FCA would rightly have wanted to know that her conduct met the requirements of someone in her position - once she was gone that need disappeared. I understand the Information Commissioner will look at the breach to see if further action needs to be taken about NatWest and I imagine the FCA will look at possible breaches of its rules with the result that NatWest may be fined and Rose may be sanctioned in a personal capacity.
Thats not true though, is it?
he was denied the account because he didnt meet the wealth criteria:
That was the reason given which then turned out to be untrue.
That was the reason given which then turned out to be untrue.
As far as I am aware it is correct.
With the end of his mortgage he dropped beneath the limits at which point they decided to end his accounts.
If he had been suitably wealthy they would have held their noses or if he hadnt been a tosser they may well have ignored the wealth check for a while.
he failed both checks though.
The fact that the Tories are desperate to woo them should be taken as evidence that they know the actual candidate situation may be flexible.
They are not trying to woo Nigel Farage! It is simply a knee jerk reaction from a right-wing government on the ropes whose last desperate attempt to cling onto power seems centred on creating a culture war.
Reform can easily find a reason (or make one up) why they suddenly won’t be standing everywhere.
LOL! Reform UK do not have a single MP, the idea that they are not desperate for some sort of representation in parliament is ridiculous!
The only reason the Brexit Party withdrew their candidates from marginal seats last general election was because of the threat that Corbyn posed and because Boris Johnson promised them brexit. Today Starmer poses no threat to the establishment and Rishi Sunak has nothing to offer Reform UK.
That was the reason given which then turned out to be untrue.
You and mefty keep saying it was untrue, but according to the SAR which Farage himself made public it was absolutely true, and would have been enough on its own for them to close his account - it meant that he no longer complied with the Ts and Cs. But the SAR also showed that they discussed his views, and called him xenophobic and racist - I note that he is not denying that he is both of those things. As others have said, they didn't close his account because of his views, it was because he didn't meet the criteria. If he didn't have those views, they might have been inclined to cut him some slack on the Ts and Cs, but since he did, they didn't. That is pretty much proved by the fact that they offered him a plebs account, despite him being a xenophobic racist. If they were kicking him out because of his views, they would want to cut all ties, not still have him as a customer.
The internal report said he met the commercial criteria for a Coutts account at the point he had a mortgage with them. Once that was paid off, he no longer met the commercial criteria. So they considered whether using their discretion to continue to offer him the product was what they wanted to do, or whether he posed a reputational risk.
He has not been left without an account, just offered a different account with the same banking group.
If I sign up for a current account or a savings product which requires that I pay in a certain amount monthly, and then I don't, I would normally be transferred to a different product.
I'm sure the FCA will take a view on this, I don't think there has been breach of their code of conduct in terms of fairness other than the confidentiality issues. Obviously, if he doesn't get what he wants from the FCA, Farage will demand, and probably be gifted, the resignation of its chair...
The Guardian is lying to you. Ask yourself tj, was that Guardian furnishing you with all of the facts or just offering a perspective on events?
🤯
You don't say, maybe they should teach that in early secondary school! Oh wait, they do...
To see probably the most progressive person I knew when I was back in college hung out to dry like that by the Guardian was truly shocking. To see her having to go to the right wing press (which I’m sure she never imagined having to do) to get a fair hearing was a bit of a watershed moment for me.
If it's the case linked then it really doesn't take much imagination to see why they'd be all over that story like a rash.
No it is not. Basic lack of understanding. Its been tested in the courts IIRC
Kimbers,
You have just implied that I am a liar. There is a difference between me accusing the Guardian of lying and calling a forum member a liar.
The article you posted confirms what I said.
A third of the article is given over to the Arts Council point of view.
All they did was quote what was Denise said to the assembled media after the case was one. They did not interview her.
The reason they didn't interview her is because had they done so, Denise would have talked about the actual details of her complaint and they would have had to print it.
No facts pertaining to the case were mentioned in that article. The facts were hidden from view. That's why it meets my threshold for cancelling.
"If it’s the case linked then it really doesn’t take much imagination to see why they’d be all over that story like a rash."
Yea, that is the case in question and you're quite right of course.
Obviously you wouldn't want to pollute yourself by going to any at those right wing outlets who actually reported the facts and interviewed the plaintiff (she lost hr job remember). Just as well we have the Guardian to do our thinking for us by not reporting the facts or interviewing the plaintiff.
Im waiting to see how much money farage made shorting NatWest shares knowing he was going to create this hullabaloo
OK, so I'll concede that the nature of Farage's view has had a higher impact on the decision than just being a PITA and not worth the effort for the yield on his account.
Next question - what follows? Are football clubs not going to be allowed to eject and ban fans that express their racist or homophobic views - free speech, y'know. Why can they choose their admission criteria and not banks?
It's frustrating that in mishandling the situation Natwest have enabled the "farage is a victim" stuff and lent weight to the people who can't tell the difference between losing a privilege you are not entitled to, and being unfairly discriminated against. It gets misrepresented as a single simple right vs wrong situation rather than the more nuanced thing that it is.
It's such a pity that PZL-104 Wilga was so well built. It would've saved everyone so much in the long run.
🛩💥
so those of you that are upset by farage losing access to a privilege in his [posh bank accounts what about all those others? Equally upset?
The Tories could easily afford to tell Nigel Farage to **** off, if they wanted to. He has no hold over them.
Same could have been said of Cameron and brexit.
The tories are petrified of the far right for some reason.
The tories are petrified of the far right for some reason.
Perhaps it is the growing number of MPs that the far right have which is petrifying the Tories?
The Tories aren't scared of the far right, it is the Left and the thought of a left-wing government that petrifies them.
As their reaction to Jeremy Corbyn becoming leader of the Labour Party proved.
Currently their greatest enemy is their own ineptitude and incompetence.
The reason is simple. If farage stands candidates agaisnt them they will lose seats.
Ernie. Its back to your Brexit blind spot
Loosely related, it had passed me by that the Telegraph (and Spectator) is now owned by Lloyds (bank), after the Barclay brothers defaulted on a loan.
Telegraph has been going gangbusters against NatWest/Coutts and in support of Farage- wonder whether the new owners will try to discourage. Tory's are also starting to be a bit upset at the prospect of a bank owning the paper, especially at this stage in the election cycle.
Our old mate IDS said (my bold)
What is vital in the course of this sale is that the identities of any people trying to buy the paper are made public early on in the process. That matters not just for Conservatives but for all people who respect independent news reporting.”
Patten:
“It’s in the interests of democracy and our public education that the buyers understand the responsibility of owning a great newspaper. We should never forget that evidence-based facts and the transparency demanded by good newspapers are crucial ingredients in every liberal democracy.”
While I do enjoy reading some of the paper 'evidence-based facts' and 'independent news reporting' are not really phrases that spring to mind with much of their political or social reporting.
The tories are petrified of the far right for some reason.
Because they can take away many of their voters if they aren't nasty and bigoted enough. Simple.
No it is not. Basic lack of understanding. Its been tested in the courts IIRC
Instead of IIRC go and remember your source for once.
Tory’s are also starting to be a bit upset at the prospect of a bank owning the paper, especially at this stage in the election cycle.
IIRC, those quotes are as regards the group being effectively merged into either of the Mail or Murdoch groups (or other options) when it is sold, not concern about how it is being run by the receivers appointed by the bank in the meantime.
Because they can take away many of their voters if they aren’t nasty and bigoted enough. Simple.
Perfect! split the right wing voting base and let's get a more sensible and progressive gov/colab in power.
chrismac
Im waiting to see how much money farage made shorting NatWest shares knowing he was going to create this hullabaloo
Isn't this his boss at GBeebies' game?
See also shorting the pound at the referendum...
Political beliefs and if they fall under protected characteristics is complex.
https://www.harpermacleod.co.uk/insights/political-beliefs-and-the-equality-act-2010/
Errmm- that does not show what you think it does. thats one decision in an employment tribunal that does not set precedent.
from @db's link
this belief was one which was genuinely held; was worthy of respect in a democratic society; and it was not one which conflicted with the fundamental rights of others
The guy in question had been dismissed (he claimed) for being a leftie. Note the point about not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others - that is a requirement of the Act. It is unlikely that racism and xenophobia would pass this test.
If farage stands candidates agaisnt them they will lose seats.
Reform UK will stand candidates against the Conservatives, the idea that they will do the Tories any favours is ridiculous.
Ernie. Its back to your Brexit blind spot
Give it a rest ffs. You trot that out every time that you run out of things to say. Try to be imaginative and think of something else you say.
I don't have any "Brexit blind spot". Your problem is that you want to connect everything with Brexit.
Brexit has happened and that is why Nigel Farage has become a political irrelevance. A few years ago he was riding high when ukip actually came first in one nationwide local elections. Today they have just 6 councillors nationwide (Reform UK that is, ukip don't have any) and no MPs, and of course no MEPs.
Nigel Farage obviously still craves the limelight, but he is a political has been. The Tories rallying behind him has nothing to do with brexit. It is just another example of the Tories shooting themselves in the foot to add to the growing list.
Obviously Nigel Farage wants you to believe that his attention seeking argument with 11 different banks is all to do with his stance on brexit, so well done you for falling for it, but the idea that they have only just found out now what veiws on brexit are is ridiculous.
and there is your blind spot showing again. Its very obvious. You support brexit but are strongly anti racist. this gives rise to cognitive dissonance. YO do not want to be seen as supporting Farage. . Its really really obvious. Most of your political analysis is very good. Get anywhere near brexit and all logic goes out of the window. Its a huge an obvious blind spot you have. Same as yo cannot accept that xenophobia is the main driver for brexit
farage is not a political irrelevance hence the tories running scared of him. If he stands candidates against the tories he cuts their vote and loses them seats.
Brexit is not over yet. We are still part way thru the process. the worst is yet to come It will be a huge issue at the GE because of the damage it is doing and the damage that will be even more apparent once we put the import controls in place we legally should have done years ago
Edit - and the reason I keep banging on about brexit is because of the huge damage its done to the country and the way it is a key factor in so many of our issues - from the cost of living crisis to inflation to collapsing balance of payment to destruction of UK industry, shortage of nurses, shortage of agricultural workers etc etc etc
Instead of IIRC go and remember your source for once.
@tonyF1 it was you who was asked for proof, so far you've come up with "religion and beliefs" which is absolutely not proof that political beliefs are a protected characteristic.
Obviously you wouldn’t want to pollute yourself by going to any at those right wing outlets who actually reported the facts and interviewed the plaintiff (she lost hr job remember). Just as well we have the Guardian to do our thinking for us by not reporting the facts or interviewing the plaintiff.
@inkster no, I wouldn't. Ever.
YO do not want to be seen as supporting Farage. . Its really really obvious.
I have no idea what you are talking about! Farage isn't the only politician that I don't support. If I don't talk highly of him it isn't because I don't want to be seen supporting him, it is because I have an extremely low opinion of him.
Does Farage even still support brexit? I thought he had changed his mind and is now considering living abroad as post-brexit Britian is, according to him, shite?
I will carry on slagging Farage off not because I give a monkeys whether you think I support him or not but because I think that he is a nasty right-wing racist bigot. Actually I know that he is.
Obviously you wouldn’t want to pollute yourself by going to any at those right wing outlets who actually reported the facts and interviewed the plaintiff
Sorry for being sceptical, but I don't believe that the Mail has any interest in presenting an unbiased case either, whether they interview and report or not.
I respect your friend's right to her views, and membership or support of the LGB alliance. Her call. But certainly from my knowledge and peripheral experience of the LGB Alliance, their published position as inclusive and the reality and behaviour of their members is substantially different. It was formed in opposition to Stonewall's policies on trans issues, maintains positions on treatment for young Trans people that I find 'very troubling', and they seem to do very little to keep members and supporters the right side of the published position.
I won't link because I don't want to funnel clicks but the Mail's reporting on the recent challenge by Mermaids of LGB Alliance's charitable status is clear on its position - the headline is "A lesson in tolerance for the toxic trans lobby"
I'm worried it's the thin end of the wedge - for the Mail to be coming out as supportive of LGB issues sounds like progress; in reality I suspect it's divide and conquer and if they can split the T+ off, then they'll move to the next.
AsI said Ernie - huge blind spot
1) you support brexit
2) you are anti racist and loathe farage ( I didn't say you supported him, I said you don't want to be seen as supporting him)
3) you deny racism had anything to do with brexit
this creates a cognitive dissonance as the cause you support is mainly motivated by racism and has been hugely damaging. You hate having this pointed out hence your attacks on anyone who points out the damage of brexit which despite your protestations is not over nor have we seen the worst of it yet
this leads you to be totally blind to the realities of brexit and the logical inconsistencies of your position
I know you wont accept this but its so obvious
I'll not try to explain this again - but I am not going to stop calling out brexit and the brexiteers when it pervades everything politically and socially in the UK and is at the core of much of the difficulties the UK is in. so just ignore me.
You hate having this pointed out hence your attacks on......
What I hate is your constant attempts to derail threads away from the subject matter to yet again bang on about brexit.
You managed a couple of hours ago to bring brexit onto this thread out of absolutely nowhere. No one was even discussing brexit when you decide to accuse me of having a "Brexit blind spot"
This was how you did it:
The reason is simple. If farage stands candidates agaisnt them they will lose seats.
Ernie. Its back to your Brexit blind spot
I am fully aware that Reform UK standing candidates will put the Tories at a serious disadvantage next general election. In fact it is only me that has focused on the stupidity of Rishi Sunak backing Nigel Farage. There is no "brexit blind spot".
What I don't agree with you on is that Reform UK will stand down candidates to help the Tories, again it has nothing to do with a "brexit blind spot".
And finally I don't believe that Couttes closed Nigel Farage's account because of his stance brexit. Yes I know that he claims they did but Farage became leader of ukip 20 years ago, his views have been public knowledge for a very long time. You believe this is all intertwined with brexit, I don't. Nor do I have any blind spot - I can see brexit very clearly.
@theotherjohn,
I certainly didn't go to the Daily Mail for an unbiased perspective. I first went to the Guardian bit they didn't publish any details so I went on a Google search and the Mail (and GB News) popped up.
I respect your right to your opinions in the same way as you respect my friends right to hers, only I'm guessing that no one has hounded you out of your job and orchestrated a hate campaign against you for your opinions.
My friend was not a member of the LGB alliance. An emergency meeting was called by a director at the Arts Council, where he announced that funding was being withdrawn from the LGB alliance because they were 'far right transphobes'. This was done without due process and had no precident, it was merely the opinion of one director.
In that teams meeting (of 400) my friend merely questioned that decision, (that's all). No one spoke up in her defence but over 100 of them comtributed to an internal email petition pitted against her. Some of the language thrown in her direction was disgusting.
She formally objected to the petition but the Arts Council kept the petition (and thus the harassment) up for a further 24 hours. It was on that basis that she won her case for harassment.
If you support Mermaids position in all this then that's fine but if you hold another position do you think it's fair to have a campaign of harassment organised against you and for you to be hounded out of your job? Do you think it's fair to try and have the charitable status of another charity removed purely because you don't agree with them?
And back on topic, do you think that it is right that Wings Over Scotland (another gender critical organisation) had their bank account closed?
As you mention, many of these organisations were set up in opposition to the position that Stonewall took regarding the trans issue. Could it be that Stonewall are using the influence they have within government and large organisations to persecute those who question their belief?
You believe this is all intertwined with brexit, I don’t. Nor do I have any blind spot – I can see brexit very clearly.
makes my point.
Only in yours and Nigel Farage's head. You obviously agree with him that the Couttes story is all tied in with his support for brexit.
The point is that Brexit is inextricably intertwined with all political action in the UK, Farages power over the tories is all about brexit which is why the tories supported him in this. Brexit is the key to much of the troubles of the UK and you refuse to acknowledge the place brexit and Farage have in UK political discourse.
YO keep on claiming Farage has no influence or power when its clear he holds considerable political power as the custodian of " the one true brexit" which is why the tories run so scared of him. He has huge influence over the tory vote and a fair bit over labours vote
Yo also keep onclaiming brexit is over and done when we have not even finished leaving yet and further damage is yet to come from it
You want to shut down all discussion of brexit and pretend it has no influence on UK politics now when it is the single most important thing in UK politics and will remain so for years because it pervades every aspect of UK politics and because its so hugely damaging
YOu may not want to be faced with this which is why you try to shut it down
@tonyF1 it was you who was asked for proof, so far you’ve come up with “religion and beliefs” which is absolutely not proof that political beliefs are a protected characteristic.
Lot to unpack in your response but here goes 😀
You don’t consider political beliefs count as beliefs?
You ask for proof and it’s been provided from gov.uk but it doesn’t suit your narrative.
Your view seems to be discrimination is fine as long as it’s not a protected characteristic.
You quote TJ who still can’t remember (like always) his source for his IIRC.
I’m guessing that no one has hounded you out of your job and orchestrated a hate campaign against you for your opinions.
Not directly but I know of folks in a similar situation to us who have had some nasty experiences at events where supporters of LGBA / marching under their flag have gone way beyond their stated position to the point of threats of violence, etc., against parents of trans teenagers. I have no reason to believe their supporters would behave any different to me and my wife in a similar situation.
So in that respect then I too question whether LGBA should have charitable status, and I'd have been tempted to challenge your friend on that view too. Would I have signed a petition and 'hounded her out' - I'd like to think not but I have opinions of LGBA and their supporters that are difficult to reconcile. If someone was aligning themselves to eg: racist organisations at my work I'd be pretty quickly complaining to HR about it and expecting action to be taken.
It's a tricky one though - firstly how much responsibility does the organisation have for the individuals that support it; second it's a balance between whether being pro something automatically makes you anti the opposite. Would we allow a pro-white organisation to have charitable status because it doesn't specifically have an anti-black agenda on their website and aims, but then when their membership hijacks their marches for that purpose just accept it's individuals doing it? When football club fans make racist or homophobic chants, we fully expect the club to identify and ban them, and fine the clubs for failing to control them - what's different?
FWIW I support the position that their status was challenged, but I wouldn't say i support Mermaids - we left that Org because they were too pro / experiences early on in my son's (aaarghhh, can't think of a better word so I'm going to say it.....) 'journey' concerned us as parents. The challenge was heard and ruled, not sure I agree but that's what it was.
Interesting diversion but not the point of this topic - I was using the same point as you to illustrate that even if they reported more of that case, I don't think the RW press are neutral either.
Do I think it's right that WoS had his account closed (or that vicar that came out anti-pride) - No. If the law says everyone is entitled to a bank account then that's the law. Would I object if the law was different - IDK but possibly not. While as a base position I subscribe to the same as (attributed to) Voltaire; in reality there are some views I find so divergent to my own that I do struggle with the right to hold them.
So back to Farage (and I know others want to broaden this to general) - I restate what I said yesterday, after reflection and more analysis, I defend the right for the bank to make decisions on special accounts based on a effort-reward matrix including how much hassle and bad press they will get by managing that account. However (and the on reflection bit) I think Coutts possibly / probably put too much weight on Farage's views - at least in their somethingion. At the same time, he is dodgy AF, Russian money, etc., and didn't meet the wealth threshold either.....if they hadn't gone in so big on the views being misaligned and had simply said that after analysis the effort-reward balance no longer supports him as a customer, it would have been hard to argue against.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/09/14/lgb-alliance-transphobia-charity-history/
You managed a couple of hours ago to bring brexit onto this thread out of absolutely nowhere.
It's a thread about Nigel Farage, it has Brexit to the core written through it from post #1.
Brexit has damaged my business, cost the business money and made it more difficult to run, if NF came in I would refuse service based purely on his hand in Brexit. I would be essentially refusing service based on political beliefs.
You don’t consider political beliefs count as beliefs?
Well, from reading the follow report from an industrial tribunal quoted above, the law was not intended to cover political beliefs, although ONE tribunal seem to think it did, but its not binding and so still undecided.
If it was intended to cover political beliefs, you have the situation where the law protects people from racist discrimination AND protects people who espouse racism as a political belief.
Which given that racist behaviour is a sacking offence in most workplaces these days, is an interesting one.
Edit: though given that the tribunal quoted relates to DWP, and the civil service has separate rules about political activity and views, it's not a great sample of one anyway.
You want to shut down all discussion of brexit
What a daft comment. I couldn't give a monkeys how much you want to discuss brexit. The referendum was about 7 years ago and if you want to discuss brexit every day for the next 7 years then that's up to you, why would it bother me?
What I wouldn't rather you didn't do though is constantly derail threads by shoehorning brexit into every discussion and then accuse me of having a blind spot because I don't believe that it is appropriate. Maybe occasionally try a different argument?
Yes Nigel Farage wants to claim that Couttes decision is all tied in with his support for brexit, and is milking it for all it's worth by trying to scare people into believing that they might have their bank accounts closed if they voted Leave. And you want to equally milk it for all it's worth and claim the whole Couttes debacle is tied up with brexit. But it doesn't make either of you right.
Brexit has damaged my business, cost the business money and made it more difficult to run, if NF came in I would refuse service based purely on his hand in Brexit. I would be essentially refusing service based on political beliefs.
But it is not the reason that Couttes closed Nigel Farage's account. You might have a personal vendetta against Farage because of brexit but it doesn't mean that the NatWest has.
No it doesn't, but would or could I be prosecuted for refusing a service to a customer based on political beliefs. When those beliefs have had a greater negative impact on my business?
The whole argument goes around and around in circles.
NF is only in the news, in this thread, because of his political beliefs around Brexit. To dismiss Brexit as irrelevant to the thread is short sighted at best.
Looks like Gina Miller has been debanked too. Would be pretty funny to see her and Farage running a campaign to fix this together 🤣
What needs to be fixed? 🤷♂️
Neither had accounts closed based on political beliefs....
To dismiss Brexit as irrelevant to the thread is short sighted at best.
And to back Farage's claims that it is to do with his support for brexit is daft.
If reputational considerations played a part, which it appears to have, it is that they believed he is a xenophobic chauvinistic racist.
Two sides of the same coin and none of us here have backed Farages claims. What I said was Farage has the tories running scared of his political power which only exists because of brexit.
I find myself agreeing with ernie.
But, of course, he does forget to point out that:
support for brexit
goes hand in glove with...
xenophobic chauvinistic racist
What I said was .....
Yeah I know what you said but I nevertheless don't agree with you.
Farage is an odious twerp not worth a sentence to talk about. Anyway seems more to this story and not a surprise that he is/was a banker:
JeZ
sorry just got back to this one @inkster your threshold for 'cancelling' is absolute nonsense
they literally reported the judges verdict on her victory & her statement after the judgement
if the guardian article was genuinely biased against her it would have pointed out that the LGB Alliance was set up at 55 tufton street , presumably (who knows they are notoriously opaque) funded by the same farage funding clowns expressly to stir up these culture war issues
from the LGB alliance because they were ‘far right transphobes’. This was done without due process and had no precident, it was merely the opinion of one director.
and its not just the opinion of 1 director
https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/08/23/lgb-alliance-far-right-extremist-group-gpahe/
bully and harassing her has no place and she rightly won ger tribunal, but you cant cry bias when you yourself are not being upfront
this has gone rather OT, but it all comes back to culture war nonsense, its fascinating how much seems to be funded by the same organisations....
the LGB Alliance was set up at 55 tufton street
Now that is interesting and does nothing to allay my fears that it's their supporters rather than them with the anti-trans agenda.
@morecashthandash:
Which is why banks have to offer everyone a basic account. No one is stopped from having access to banking.
This is completely irrelevant. It's clear you don't know what a "basic bank account" actually is. The basic bank account is a fee-free bank account that the biggest banks have to offer customers. It's nothing to do with people having access to it but is a mandatory commercial offering. If you don't meet their criteria then you don't get it.
This is about their criteria involving personal views - which is unacceptable. @Kerley is wilfully ignoring that. Which is why we'll end up legislating to specifically to exclude banks taking people's political or personal views into account - so they can't hide behind the "reputational risk" bullcrap.
Banks are taking personal views into account when deciding whether to bank someone or not. It should be financial suitability and fraud/money laundering and whether someone is on a sanction list. End of.
People are being de-banked because of personal views.
This is about their criteria involving personal views – which is unacceptable.
This is about their criteria involving personal views – which is unacceptable.
Coutts and other banks like it (Hoares for instance) have long worked exactly like this, and up until this point the Tory party (or the banking ombudsman for that matter) couldn't have given less of a shit about it. There's nothing stopping Farage from having a normal bank acct at [what amounts to] a different branch to the one he's currently at, he just doesn't want it.
Banks are taking personal views into account when deciding whether to bank someone or not. It should be financial suitability and fraud/money laundering and whether someone is on a sanction list. End of.
We know that this is what Coutts did. That they also had a dossier on Farage becasue he is a PEP, and the source of his money is/was shady, is, under the current law, perfectly legal. (which is why presumably they didn't break the law and offered him alternative facilities.)
Fact: It's important to remember given the way some folks are trying to make this about the thing that its not about. Nat West are content to continue to have Farage as a customer.
There's a BBC reports that suggest the banking ombudsman has 1400 complaints in the last year about bank accounts being closed, although obviously we have no idea how many (if any) were closed specifically because of personal views. without that we cannot know if;
People are being de-banked because of personal views
You can laugh about it @kelvin, or you can deny it @nickc - but there's enough smoke that parliament is investigating whether banks are drawing up blacklists of people who hold views which don't align with their corporate views.
As banks are a fundamental pillar of our western democracies this IS unacceptable - hence the actions being taken.
When Coutts have a record that the odious prick Nigel Farage has "racist, xenophobic..." whatever views - then they're at the very least making a record of those views (which in itself is "not on" (am I allowed to use "not on" @Kelvin or is there another glib video in the offing?) and likely taking those views into account.
We all hate Farage. But if that fact doesn't give you cause for concern then you're the proverbial ostrich.
Coutts won’t give me a bank account either, and I see no reason to be up in arms about it at all. NatWest will have me though (because my mortgage is with them). All a fuss about nothing. That their discussion of him internally included reference to him being perceived as racist and xenophobic means nothing really. If the law is changed to mean reference to “politics” can’t be discussed internally, then it won’t be… fine… but it’ll change nothing… the same decisions will be made to protect the bank, without any internal reference to the nature of the obvious risk posed to the bank by the “politics” of individuals balanced with the amount of business they are worth to it. That assessment will still need to be made, just not with the same straight forward language being used and recorded. They’ll keep taking a risk to their reputation with extremely well off customers, and not take the same risk for those less well off (or at least not giving them enough business to be worth the risk).
or you can deny it
Once again, he has not been de-banked because of his personal views, Nat West are happy to offer him a bank account. There's 1400 complaints about acct closures and we just have no idea whether they are because of personal views. So far from "denying it" what I've actually said is 1. It hasn't happen in this case, and 2 we just don't know.
(which in itself is “not on”)
Farage is a PEP, not only is it "on" it's a requirement.
but there’s enough smoke that parliament is investigating whether banks are drawing up blacklists of people who hold views which don’t align with their corporate views.
The Govt are only showing any interest because a folk hero to a part of their party has been [in their opinion] slighted. That's the start middle and finish of this story. I will bet you an overdraft facility that this govt would be more than content if say; JTO campaigners or asylum seekers have had their accounts closed, this is purely a political story that affects one of their own.
but there’s enough smoke that parliament is investigating whether banks are drawing up blacklists of people who hold views which don’t align with their corporate views.
Guessing we will never see that those blacklists (not a good term to use anymore by the way!) or whether they even exist at all.
Lot to unpack in your response but here goes 😀
You don’t consider political beliefs count as beliefs?
As a protected characteristic, no. Which is what we're talking about since you were the one who said he was illegally being discriminated against.
You ask for proof and it’s been provided from gov.uk but it doesn’t suit your narrative.
Nope, you provided a list of protected characteristics with no further info as to whether political beliefs count. "Beliefs" on it's own means nothing, the context it's set in is clearly supposed to incorporate the non-religious believers (scientologists etc.).
Your view seems to be discrimination is fine as long as it’s not a protected characteristic.
I didn't say that, I'm disputing your assertion that discriminating against someone's political beliefs is illegal.
You quote TJ who still can’t remember (like always) his source for his IIRC.
No, I quoted you. I haven't quoted TJ anywhere in this exchange.
So as I said, prove it. If it's a protected characteristic or even illegal in its own right there must be loads of proof out there, fill your boots.