AIBU to tell you that First Direct closed bank account of gender critical blogger

[Snorkers]

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1673371351942307840

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1673371351942307840.html

Who's next? What other beliefs are no longer allowed to partake in society?

Wings is, and always has been a despicable misogynist.

Wings is, and always has been a despicable misogynist.

That's not evidence though, is it?

@TheKeatingFive There's over 10 years of it online. Do your own research.

There's over 10 years of it online. Do your own research.

You made the assertion, so you provide the evidence.

I bank with Nationwide.

I am usually not shy about expressing my opinions on this topic. Not long ago they ran an ad which was essentially celebrating the inclusion of trans women in women's sport, something I fundamentally disagree with.

But I don't live in the UK anymore, I moved to the EU. Quite a few UK banks have closed the accounts of their EU resident customers, and I'm not sure whether the ones which still provide banking services to EU resident customers will allow you to open a new account if you do not live in the UK.

If Nationwide close my account and send me a cheque for my (quite substantial) closing balance, I will not be able to bank it anywhere.

So I feel it is not safe for me to give this kind of feedback.

For the love of god will someone tell me what a person will do to manage if they have no bank account and clearly lots and lots of businesses are moving to cashless? How will you actually live if the government move us on to a cashless society?

To add to my previous post, if Nationwide were any other type of business I would remove my own custom and give them feedback as to why. I have done this with many other businesses which engage in political activism I do not wish to support.

But I can't really manage without banking services. No one can.

I am in a position of relative power over ordinary businesses in the sense that I can choose whether to give them my money or not. I have no power over banks because I do not have this choice and because they can properly fuck up my life if they choose not to provide their services to me.

That's why I think banks have a greater responsibility not to discriminate against any of their customers than other businesses.

Where did you see that he was asked for feedback or recieved a settlement? The articles I've seen so far suggest he proactively wrote to YBS to complain about their messaging around Pride, using their online feedback portal, not that they asked him to comment.

Interestingly, I see the reverend runs a business where christians can meet to discuss relgion, renewal and worship. I wonder if I write to him to complain about his messaging around christ if he will he let me join his meetings in future? Do you think he'd give me a platform to express my deeply held belief that organised religion is both idiotic and dangerous or is it only his beliefs that should be considered and shared wherever he wants?

In either case here's a nice free tip for anyone worried about this sort of thing.

"Keep your mouth shut unless you're in an appropriate setting."

I'm not sure why so many people still believe that they have a right to express their views to anyone, anywhere, at anytime. The equality act only protects beliefs, not views or opinions, and only if they meet a certain criteria. Freedom of expression does cover views and opinions but, it only protects from interference from state (and even then there are limitations), it doesn't give you carte blanche to say what you want without consequence.

In short you do not have a right to say what you want in any setting without facing potentially negative consequences.

Why would you want to join the meetings of a religious group whose views you disagree with?

It's not like this is something you need to do.

Unlike, say, have a place to store your money and the ability to, you know, pay for stuff.

Perhaps the media you read is part of your problem?

I like to read a wide range of outlets to try and get a better picture.

You seem a bit triggered, maybe have a cup of tea and a sit down?

You can't. That's why the activists are going for the banks. The Denton's document detailed that they needed to get into all the organisations and institutions so that they could control the public and private sphere. This is a feature, not a bug.

Well so far I've read articles from the Telegraph, Mail, Express, Times, and on the FSU's own LinkedIn page, none of which have mentioned anything about being him asked for feedback or a settlement. I'd like to get a left leaning viewpoint but it appears to be mainly right leaning outlets running with this story. But I am always happy to read far and wide so please share your links and ill gladly read them.

It's very interesting that rather than engage with any of the points I raised in reply to your previous post you've chosen to try and minimise and dismiss me as triggered, why is that? I appreciate being challenged isn't always fun but don't you want to defend your views?

Are you really not spotting the irony in your question??

I wouldn't really want to join a meeting with a religious group whose views I don't share. I also wouldn't think it were my place to write to them and complain about their views or how they conduct their business.

So why did the reverend feel the need to do just that? He could have just stayed quiet and campaigned for his beliefs in an appropriate setting.

Presumably, he has been able to open a bank account elsewhere already, to deposit that alleged settlement, so all he needs to do in future is not express his views about how a business conducts itself or choose a bank that aligns with his views (although i would imagine even they do not want customers writing in moaning about how they operate constantly).

I mean it took me less than 10 seconds of googling to find Kingdom Bank, "a UK based Christian bank that offers Christians a unique way to steward their money with Kingdom values" which sounds perfect for such a pious individual.

Calvin Robinson from GB news, in his Twitter has a link to the Vicar discussing the feedback form, it also was in newspapers coverage.

This one https://twitter.com/calvinrobinson/status/1675274090649714694?

Have had a listen and the vicar himself says "YBS have always been sending stuff out to it's members, saying give us your feedback, how are we doing, we want to hear from you. You know this kind of stuff, so just before June kicked off it was noticeable that they were going to push pride, the pride lgbtq thing for the month of June. So I thought well OK I'll give them some feedback". So it doesn't sound as though YBS were out asking for feedback or opinions on their commitment to Pride at all.

I suppose you could argue that by canvassing customers in general you open yourself to this sort of thing but in my experience companies tend to ask for feedback on their services and the like, not on their corporate partnerships.

He also doesn't mention any settlement offer, rather that he'd just like them to apologise.

I must admit I thought there was some quite delicious irony in the end where he says he'd like people to write to YBS and warn them to not "go down this rabbit hole of having a particular world view, a particular set of values, because you're going to alienate a lot of customers". The hypocrisy of a religious devotee saying that is quite staggering really.

Then it should be easy for you to provide an example or two. Otherwise you're just posting unsupported, even libellous, allegations.

His website is www.wingsoverscotland.com and his Twitter handle is @ WingsScotland. It's all open to the public, there's no cost to view his blog, he doesn't carry advertisements, so gains nothing from your clicks and views. He produces excellent, researched and evidenced journalism - one of his stories was the start of current police investigations into SNP finances.

I would urge everyone to go have a look for his misogyny and homophobia.

He also doesn't mention any settlement offer, rather that he'd just like them to apologise.

This case, the one where activists sent rape and death threats, was the one where a settlement was reached, you are mixing up cases, easy enough as there as so many.

https://christianconcern.com/news/christian-charity-paid-over-20000-compensation-for-bank-account-closures/

I must admit I thought there was some quite delicious irony in the end where he says he'd like people to write to YBS and warn them to not "go down this rabbit hole of having a particular world view, a particular set of values, because you're going to alienate a lot of customers". The hypocrisy of a religious devotee saying that is quite staggering really.

I am guessing the Vicar is a boomer, when he grew up the majority world view would have been his, it has been for a very long time. He will be quite accepting of a falling away from Christ as is happening, it says that happens nearer the end in the Bible.

The newer world views may seem quite set to some. I very much doubt Gender identity is going to be around in 2000 years as the main religion.

You think ministers of the country's official religion àpeople who don't believe humans can change sex should be required to seek out niche financial institutions if they want to participate in the economy?

What the...?

You think ministers of the country's official religionàpeople who don't believe humans can change sex should be required to seek out niche financial institutions if they want to participate in the economy?

What the...?

Personally I don't agree with the Anglican church. I have to say many Catholics are looking on (we have our own issues in our church) at the woke new religion takeover of the CoE after they took our buildings and land when they were the new religion.

I still think that the man has the right to his own beliefs, nobody wants a return to Tudor times.

This talk of the woke wanting those who don't agree joining niche financial institutions and exclusion from standard across to money if they don't join the woke way - quite Biblical.

I was being a little facetious; I know that the majority of British people aren't religious.

But it's not as if the Anglican minister being denied banking services is from some bizarre and hateful cult. His views are mainstream.

And for what it's worth, I don't think even people from bizarre and hateful cults should be denied banking services.

I really don't understand this attitude at all. I think its quite scary how unconcerned we are to give up rights that people have fought hundreds of years for. It's like free speech and people's rights can be put aside just because you don't like the beliefs of the man concerned.

If the guy went into a garden centre and expressed loudly that all their plants are manky and always are, so the garden centre banned him, I wouldn't bothered. You can live without plants and, anyway, there are loads of other garden centres he can go to.

But that's not the same with banks. Banks have made it that you can't live without a bank account. They've encouraged and incentivised cashless shops. I remember when they announced that cheques were being phased out. Ultimately, they had to row back on that but you can see how the wind is blowing. I live in a small town and we now have one bank that opens two mornings, 9-12, a week. To bank you need to be able to go online and some people can't do that. The banks have taken so much control of our lives, they should have an equal amount of responsibility on their shoulders. Because in many ways, banks are part of the state. They are controlling and directing how we handle one of the most important things in any society, money. They've made it's you can't live without them, that they are vital to your existence in uk society. And the banks run a sort of cabal so when you get refused at one bank, the others don't want to touch you either.

They have such immense power over our lives. They shouldn't have the right to close a bank account of someone because they don't like them or their views. They shouldn't have the ability to do that. And people like you who say everyone should just keep their opinions to themselves are setting up a scary future. That no one can fight or protest against an issue they don't agree with. You should be able to contact companies and express your views at their policies. Banks are entitled to ignore you but they shouldn't be entitled to blow up your life over it. The power imbalance is huge.

I've said before, it's like universities.

They ban Jacob Rees Mogg.
Thats OK, I don't like his politics.
They ban Boris Johnson.
That's OK. I don't like his politics and he's a tosser.
They ban JK Rowling.
That's OK, I...Wait a minute, thats shocking. I agree with her. They shouldn't be banning people.

We're now in a situation where not only can banks close your account, but they're not even obligated to give you a clear reason and evidence for that opinion. You can't reason with them or fight against them or prove yourself innocent because you have no idea why it's happened. And people shrug their shoulders and assume the customer must be at fault. But it could happen to any one us, indeed it has happened to some of us, and what happens to us then?

This.

Totally agree with you Grace. Really there is nobody that can argue with your statement. x