“Prejudiced and nasty” Nigel Farage…

[MangetoutsaysGetOutMan]

… doesn’t understand irony.

Highly selective, and she also misrepresent what was actually in the document… she says:

The excerpt above says that when the mortgage was paid off "in 24 months' time", the EC would fall significantly

What the document actually says, which if you read it you can see with your own eyes, is:

the repayment of the debt however will mean the EC is likely to fall significantly in 24 months

Subtle, but different. Likely means possibly/probable but not definite. The EC for Coutts includes deposit value as well as debt. He claims his deposit value meant he still qualified even after the end of the mortgage term. I don’t know what her agenda is but she seems to have wilfully misrepresented what is actually written.

MangetoutsaysGetOutMan
How do you pronounce Garage and is that the same way you pronounce Farage?

Probably not pronounced the same - I thought his ancestors were Huguenots.

But at the end of the day the banks are a business so if they don't want to take his business they don't have too.

AdamRyan NF’s views have been known for years so why did they accept him as a customer in the first place?

So he’s not English then?

Did they come over by boat?

The Huguenots? Well, it was the 16th century, so probably not by EasyJet.

You still don't get it do you, it's not about NF, what if The banks decide they don't like your beliefs after all they are very fickle with their ethics.

I do get it, I just disagree with you. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am thick, thanks!

EasyOar.

It is hilarious that some on here think banks of all organisations should be moral arbiters. We the taxpayer own part of Nat West group/Coutts because of their immoral behaviour prior to 2008. And no private cos don't have the right to deny service unless there is a very good reason not just prejudice - there are countless legal cases proving this. But by dint of the taxpayer having a big stake I wouldn't count Coutts as a private company anyway.

I never stated you were thick, that's your own words calling yourself that.

But imagine if they stopped you having a bank account because of your views. I'm guessing you have no problem with that.

Agreed. I have donated to Rachel Meade's crowd funder for her employment tribunal against Social Work England and Westminster City Council. God knows what sort of marker I have now on my account, shared to and by organisations like CIFAS, especially as I supported Maya Forstater and Allison Bailey.

Even as these women win, other women are being unlawfully characterised as 'bigots' by EDI-ed companies.

So now Andrew Neil has posted his opinion of what has happened, and how disingenuous Coutts have been:

I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now.
It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July).
Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts.
On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.”
The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him.
So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.”
The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out)
Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter.
“The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]:
After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.”
So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.

I'm wodering if I might be de-banked for donating to the Donkey Sanctuary or Four Paws. I know I'm being facetious, but it does seem very 1984, doesn't it?

Where do you draw the line for your personal life choices?

If You want to buy food exactly what information should You be providing to the self-checkout machine before You are allowed to finish your transaction?

PS if you have savings or a pension (paying taxes) I can bet that somewhere along the line your decision is providing financial support for something "unethical"

Wonder if the rise in the 'donate to our current charity' at the till point when you pay at the till is being monitored for who you say yea or nay to?

I do get it, I just disagree with you. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am thick, thanks!

Nordicrain who else do you think should have their bank account closed?

I thought that was a joke as a morality department does not exist.

How is these questions even remotely relevant?

You’re whinging about one rich man feeling hard done by because he can’t have a bank account with an elite bank that requires you to be a multimillionaire and has to get a regular commoner bank account with Nat West while literally dismissing the dire straits of tens of thousands of legal U.K. residents who not only cannot get any bank account but cannot access healthcare, rent and home or get/keep their jobs due to Home Office incompetence.

That’s white privilege in action.

No, it's dangerous because a bank can decide that if any customer has an opinion that an individual/team working at the bank don't like then the account can be closed. The views held could be totally normal, lawful views , but if some person at a bank doesn't like them, then you are out.
Most people want a bank to perform a specific function, namely to look after money, to offer financial advice as required and pay bills, direct debits etc as instructed. I don't need or want a moral lecture, I don't want to have to explain my opinions on any topic when I contact them. I wouldn't expect my bank to ask me' Well Lois, what do you think about the situation in Ukraine, or the Middle East?'. It's not their job to police my thoughts or opinions and once we go down road, where will it stop? What about people on here who give their opinions on men in women's sports etc, is that next?

What about people on here who give their opinions on men in women's sports etc, is that next?

It probably is already.

Thing is - who decides what's 'unethical'?

What if we have banking CEOs who are militant vegans. They think n eating meat is 'unethical'. Should they get to cancel your account based on your meat eating?

If not, why is this ok?

Ethics are subjective and arbitrary

Oh really. Who decides what is "unethical"? Coutts had a huge Pride flag on their shopfront in July. In the Subject Access Request documents they mentioned Nigel Farage daring to retweet a Ricky Gervais joke about women with penises. Is that "unethical"? Should every women who posts in Mumsnet's Feminism: Chat forum be denied a bank account?

Ethics are subjective and arbitrary.

Indeed, since Coutts allowed Pinochet but not Farage.

Exactly!

People who can't see this are so short sighted, or blinded because they don't like Nigel Farage. If it were right wing banks banning leftist people, would that be OK then?!