Yorkshire Building Society closing accounts down on people with views that don't agree with their policy

[Summer2023hasarrived]

So the story goes that if you have a view on Brexit or LGBTQ?+ that isn't inline or in agreement with the people that know what view is right at The Yorkshire Building Society then they can close your account?

AIBU - stick to the day job and provide mortgages and savings

YABU - they can decide if the values of their customers don't align to shut them down

I think it is outrageous. I said it on the Nigel Farage thread, the only reason banks should be closing accounts is because someone has, or they have strong reasons to believe they have, committed a financially related criminal offence such as money laundering or fraud, or the bank account is being used to fund terrorist activities.

It is not for woke bank staff to decide that someone should not have access to a bank account because they are brexity (which I am not) or believe in single sex spaces (which I do). It is particularly hypocritical in the Barclays case as they refused to get out of South Africa during the apartheid era. It is also completely irrelevant to the day to day operation of the account.

I don't believe it's to do with RT.

I think it goes beyond that tbh.

He IS a risk for any bank.

I think it is outrageous. I said it on the Nigel Farage thread, the only reason banks should be closing accounts is because someone has, or they have strong reasons to believe they have, committed a financially related criminal offence such as money laundering or fraud, or the bank account is being used to fund terrorist activities

Do you know why he has had his accounts closed?

He doesn't know.
You don't know.
I don't know.

So you are outraged at something you don't know the facts about?

Surely you should know all the facts about something before being outraged about it?

cakeorwine

You don't have to campaign to make other people's children sterile, you don't have to campaign to force others to tell biological lies, you don't have to campaign to harm vulnerable women and girls by making mixing sex spaces.

If you want to debate that, then why not start a thread about it?
I am sure you will get some takers.

Do you know why he had his account closed?
He doesn't
You don't

This thread is just jumping to conclusions based on something Farage thinks.

Not read the full thread.

If this was true it would be outrageous.

However, it is very. very unlikely to be true.

Much more likely that people have made anonymous donations to controversial organisations, and the banks have closed the accounts because the source of the money is untraceable.

Barclay's track record on Apartheid is irrelevant here. The banks have turned a blind eye to money lending in the past and have been forced to show they are taking it seriously. Anyone who has tried to open a bank account recently will know how difficult it has become.

Don't believe everything you read in any of the papers, but particularly not the Mail, which has a track record of twisting a grain of truth into a whole different narrative.

Don't believe everything you read in any of the papers, but particularly not the Mail, which has a track record of twisting a grain of truth into a whole different narrative

I am sure some people are already targeting the building society, posting on its Facebook page, using Twitter, maybe emailing them based on what they've read.

It's so easy to write an article to get people upset and to get people to react.

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

Registering opinions is miles away from sending rape and death threats on someone and their family.

Yorkshire building society requested customers opinions then closed down an account because they didn't like his legally protected beliefs. Why bother with feedback forms of what you really want is only weather vein opinions that match yours this week.

No, you don't have to, but you might be argued to have the right to, on the grounds of, oh what's the term, that's right, free speech.

You also don't have to spend years campaigning for the people of your country to impose economic sanctions on their own country; to whip up xenophobia; to deny climate change; or to support far-right candidates for power in the USA, France and Germany; but I suppose Farage has the right to do so under the same grounds.

If banks are denying him services just because of his views, that is unfair; but, as both Farage and the Daily Mail are notorious liars, I suspect that it may be more a matter of how he uses his money,

No, I used an extreme example to illustrate your black and white interpretation is flawed. You stated that political beliefs are protected under the equality act, I demonstrated that is not always the case.

For a belief to be considered a belief and protected under the Equality Act it must;

1. Be Genuinely held.

2. Be a belief rather than an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.

3. Be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.

4. Attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

5. Be worthy of respect in a democratic society – not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Political beliefs are especially difficult to define under the act because of points 2-5. Nigel Farage might argue his accounts has been closed because of his deeply held brexit belief, but it would be just as easy to argue that this is a view not a belief (especially as he's publicly admitted brexit has failed) or that this belief doesn't pertain to a substantial aspect of human life.

It's gets even more complex because beliefs can be played off against each other and businesses have freedom of contract. Take Triodos bank as an example, they have set themselves up as an ethical bank with specific beliefs under pinning their operations. Part of this requires individuals to meet additional criteria (above legal requirements) in order to be eleigbe for a business account, specifically around transparency and responsible business practices.

They will not give an account to someone who has connections with tax havens (unless haven't they can demonstrate that this does not exist to minimise tax liability) or with a wide range of sectors including fossil fuels, factory farming, mining, to name a few.

So a Nigel Farage or a Jacob Reese-Mog or a Rishi Sunak wouldn't not be able to open up a business account with them and there's no discrimination about it even if they all have deeply held political beliefs about free market capitalism and fiscal conservatism.

Are you arguing that Tiodos should be forced to work with anyone, even those diametrically opposed to their ethos and if so why do Triodos' beliefs not deserve equal consideration in your mind?

I suspect Ferage heard about Barclays giving out compensation and he has muddied the water after. I am no fan of the man.

Ferage he wasn't trying to change things into a whole new ideology, he wanted to return things to pre 1973.

As regards travel to the USA, a degree of political intolerance has always been present. It's very difficult to get in if you have ever been a supporter of a communist party. And people like Trump and De Santis would like to make this even tougher:

Trump Wants to Keep 'Communists' and ‘Marxists’ Out of the US. Here’s What the Law Says (usnews.com)

And concerns about Islamist terrorism have led to increasing difficulty of travel for people from Muslim countries: under all recent presidents but most especially Trump.

I think it highly unlikely Biden will win re-election. So the idea that misgendering will end up barring you from entry to the UK is one I find hard to believe will ultimately happen.

Who gets the Republican nod is what scares me more. But in a different way.

How many of you know that to travel to the US on an ESTA, you have to provide details of ALL social media accounts?

Is that new? Because dd and I went last year and didn't need to do this.

Looks like they want the top 5

"The online application requires your personal data, and from 2020 you must include social media ID from five popular platforms if you used them in the past five years. US Custom and Border Protection will use the information to screen your profile more efficiently and quickly. The most significant benefit from the mandatory online presence field is the faster processing of the application."

Information found in social media will enhance the vetting process and may be used to review ESTA applications to validate legitimate travel, adjudicate VWP ineligibility waivers, and identify potential threats. If you choose to answer these questions and an initial vetting by CBP indicates possible information of concern or a need to further validate information, a highly trained CBP officer will have timely visibility of the publicly available information on those platforms, consistent with the privacy settings the applicant has chosen to adopt for those platforms, along with other information and tools CBP officers regularly use in the performance of their duties.
For example, social media may be used to support or corroborate a traveler's application information, which will help facilitate legitimate travel by providing an additional means to adjudicate issues related to relevant questions about identity, occupation, previous travel, and other factors. It may also be used to identify potential deception or fraud. Social media may help distinguish individuals of additional concern from those individuals whose information substantiates their eligibility for travel.

I am absolutely sure we didn't do that. Whoops. We went last year and dd stayed for 2 months.

Given my views on Trump, I am sure some Border people wouldn't have let me in when he was in power.....

Can't remember mine.

Don't have logins on my phone either.

All just logged in.

I have created hundreds over the years. Especially when I was in IT Strategy and everyone was hyped up about such things.

Are they "mine" ?

And if they are, what does it say that the fake LinkedIn profiles I created have more colleagues and friends that I ever had. And that's before you start with the number of Facebook profiles my fake profile appears to know.

Maybe if I was going to America, I shouldn't be me. Perhaps "Corinne Stockheath" would suit me. Although I'm not sure about the big C ? Could be confusing on a thread like this.

I applied for an ESTA in 2021 and the social media element was optional.

Anyone who used social media to, say, coordinate terrorist activity wouldn't be daft enough to put those account details down on their ESTA form anyway.

Why would you share your social media accounts for an ESTA? What would they do if you don't bother or 'forget' some?

Nigel Farage is a PEP.

his bank may have asked him to provide details of his full wealth and where he got it. If he didn’t, they are entitled to close his accounts.

I bet he refused to provide the info, knowing they’d close his account- so he could publicly make a fuss.

it is standard for PEPs to be asked for this.

I had a PEP with the Yorkshire many years ago. Then they changed it to an ISA. Perhaps he needs to open an ISA. Then he might be ok.

This! Banks are all about making money and covering their arses. Obviously Nigel Farage having an account with them puts them at a risk that is unacceptable to them - and it couldn't happen to a more worthy person - snivelling little self serving Trump supporting racist little shithead that he is.

There are also Unexplained Wealth Orders.

And generally, if you are found in possession of a few grand you can't explain, you're losing it, matey boy.