Natwest Bank hates trans widows

Yeah, overstepping their remit (although the corporate sector is encouraged to have a 'social conscience' these days) but that wishy-washy sentence is the only nod in the direction of women and women's rights in the whole document - and they are too custard cowardly to even use the word WOMEN.

I read that as...
We support the removal of the two year requirement.
We support the removal of spousal consent.
However, we need clarification to balance all aspects of EA10.

I can’t work out if this is the ultimate bland, fits all, suits non statement. Or, we just don’t want our butts sued - push it up the line.

Although I am confused what impacts there are from this on banks? I hold accounts in both my maiden and married name. As long as the bank can ID you, why do they need to be involved with GRC?

its a standard lobbying tactic for charities with this model of influencing

the named champion at Natwest is probably someone on the Board "Director of Diversity and Inclusion" or some such who will have asked the head of diversity and inclusion or similar for the organisation to draft a response from Natwest. Job done. I guarantee that 95% of the people in Natwest dont know this submission even exists, let alone what it says.

The final sentence in the screenshot is one I can get behind, and is what we've been asking for surely?
That all protected characteristics remain equally protected (including sex!!!)

Yes, but why did they feel they should submit a response to this in the first place? Maybe pressure from groups within NatWest? Reading it again I see what you're saying.

Did Stonewall ask all their Champions to make a submission? You can see how it works, can't you? Get a company to pay for training that promotes a particular ideology, and to continue to pay to use your logo, and then having established your particular ideology throughout the organisation, get that organisation to lobby on your behalf.

That's an interesting and plausible suggestion!

I cancelled my NatWest years ago as they funded animal testing but I'm pleased to see that decision reflect well on me now, decades before I had even an inkling on what was coming!

I hope a journalist is looking at the submissions.

The final sentence in the screenshot is one I can get behind, and is what we've been asking for surely?
That all protected characteristics remain equally protected (including sex!!!)

I read this last night and was utterly baffled by this submission. How does GRA reform affect a bank?

NatWest is a Stonewall Champion, isn't it?

Did Stonewall ask all their Champions to make a submission? You can see how it works, can't you? Get a company to pay for training that promotes a particular ideology, and to continue to pay to use your logo, and then having established your particular ideology throughout the organisation, get that organisation to lobby on your behalf.

NatWest is a friggin bank. It should concentrate on dealing with money not telling 51% of the population to suck it up buttercup. How dare they. Honestly they can go do one.

But that screenshot does not give unconditional support for removing the spousal veto to me...
Quite the opposite.

It refers to possible conflicts with the rights of others (ie trans widows) and requests that these are considered.
"Need" is a strong word.
"Whilst we would..." is conditional.

I don't have a NW account, but if I did, I would close it and tell them why.
This needs to be publicised.

Talk about overstepping their remit!!

Sorry, I see you have given the link.

WTAF? Is that in the submissions to the WESC?

I've been thinking about opening a new bank account and Nat West is the only bank with a branch anywhere near where I live — but obviously now I'll find an alternative. Thanks for revealing this. Is there a bank out there that's focussed on women and their needs?