“Prejudiced and nasty” Nigel Farage…

[MangetoutsaysGetOutMan]

… doesn’t understand irony.

That would have to be based on written proof supplied to the meeting.
So a staff member A would have to be willing to say NF said and/or did X.

NF has a legal right to access that report with all staff member names including Individual A, being redacted by the bank
NF then has the right to seek a redress from the bank and the Individual A.
So NF gets a court order for the individual to be named as A and to appear in Court.

The banks legal team use the first line of defence is "We employed Individual because we believe s/he passes the FCa''s standard for honesty and that could therefore trust Individual's written report however we accept that as we were not there we chould have made a mistake in trusting the word of Individual"
That legal team are paid by the bank.

The Individual has to prove that the report is true and pay for a legal team to mount a defence from her/his own money.

If NF wins the bank payout from bank profits, Individual A pays from her/his personal assets.

Catch up matey. You’re about 3 days behind.

The news is also making it clear Coutts is a private bank.

'private banking is personalized financial services and products offered to the high-net-worth individual (HNWI) clients of a retail bank or other financial institution. It includes a wide range of wealth management services, and all provided under one roof'

So while not disagreeing that it is a dangerous precedent for your bank to decide whether or not you are acceptable ethically as a customer if a private company decides they don't want to do business with you surely that is up to them. But my bank is not a private company, its a limited company with public stock holders. So surely its comparing apples and pears to equate a user of a private bank with bog standard me using a public corporation for my banking?

A "private bank" is still a bank. It is still a company. And human rights laws apply to them as well...

Is this new 'values' posturing and moral policing by NatWest Group an attempt to rehabilitate its tattered reputation after recent scandals e.g. its dreadful treatment of small business customers, and a case of serious money laundering? I remember there was a lot in the media about the small business one at the time.

A couple of headlines give the gist:
"NatWest to refund £600,000 to businesses forced to open costly accounts" and
"FCA launches proceedings against NatWest over alleged money laundering" - press reports state that it pleaded guilty and was fined £265m.

Yes, we too can do searches of media and find things. These reports are from 2021 and 2022.

I agree with Qbish - it's still a bank and it is granted its banking licence by the PRA/FCA which are overseen by the Treasury. If they didn't like NF, they didn't have to accept him in the first place but seeing as they did, and he's a been a long standing customer, what has changed to make Coutts behave in this way? They've behaved very badly and it has backfired. It's weird to think that NF is the good guy here!

Human rights laws don’t, but equality and discrimination law do. And the FCA principles do, including the duty to act with integrity in the conduct of business. Not sure how leaking details of Farage’s affairs to the press sits with that. Awks

Still wonderful where all the wokeys are. They seem to have gone awfully quiet.

Yes, sorry, equality law. It seems to me that he has been discriminated against for his beliefs, and conversely, going by Coutts' explanation of why he was debanked, there has been a massive breach of confidentiality.

Indeed.

Catch up matey. You’re about 3 days behind.

Thank goodness. I'm pleased as punch not to be 'up to date' on this story.

Only because it's not going your way.

I have no idea where this thread is going.

Can we get it to 1000 posts?

15 pages, only 25 to go…

I think the NF/Coutts issue has highlighted how dangerously unregulated the whole inclusion & diversity industry is. It is quite alarming how much power the edi industry has over large organisations & the impact it has on wider society. You only have to look at Stonewall to see how much malign influence it has had recently. People are scared of complaining in case they are branded bigots. I hope things will change for the better.

@MangetoutsaysGetOutMan happy to help out 😀

@Rookie93

It is not an "independent"private bank it is owned by Nat West so it is a a defacto bank branch of NW limited company with public shareholders with a posh branding which allows NW to charge more fees etc.
You could (in theory) buy a share in Coutts directly from NW in a private transaction.

The directors are hired at an annual general meeting and instructed to manage the business. You get to turn up to vote with your one share. NW shareholders get to vote by their appointed delegates, the NW Board. The board you and NW hired, hire (and fire) staff to run the day to day business.

When Nat West paid for the Coutts using the shareholder money the Directors/CEO of Nat West had an obligation to make sure that as a subsiduary company Coutts carries out its business using the same methods any as any of the NW departments carrying out the same business. If NW did not have to do this they could buy a dodgie bank and let it break any terms of the new bank's banking licence and "go oops, that nughty lot of directors, what did they get up to? We are just the silly owner [ie not professional banking staff]". You with your single share, are not as "responsible" because you are not a licenced banking institution who should be experts in the field and able (with a legal obligation) to have hire professionals.
So as far as any Oopsie goes with Coutts banking licence ultimate responsibility lies with the NW board.
Once NW owned the business it instructs Coutt's directors to follow the banking law while adopting the NW ethos. For NW the safe option is take the "NW Rule Book of how NW do business" and get the Coutts to replace NW with Coutts.
NW has to use the best possible business methods available to comply with its banking licence. If Coutts had a "business method G" which was a better way to following the law NE should replace their "business method F" with the Coutts method Business method G should then be the only method all staff use.
NW will hire an Internal Audit department to make sure that there is only one version of the Rule Book and that it is being followed.
All staff reporting lines should roll up to the NW board who answer to the shareholders at the AGM
Agenda question could include :
Why an asset that NW owns has lost its banking licence and has no economic value any more.
Why NW are loosing profit/dividend to fines.
Why NWs own banking licence is under review ..... this still costs money as it involves an external audit (paid indirectly as the industry as a whole pay for it via earned imcome/pre-profit) of the methods the bank use (looking at the paperwork and the people). Direct cost is Internal Audit needs to be able to do the same work but faster as the NW Board need to find solutions (and excuses) to any problems which will be found.
If the shareholders dont like the answers from the board they have the option of sacking the board and appointing new ones who start sacking staff

It includes a wide range of wealth management services, and all provided under one roof'

Any NW customer with a matching financial profile could access much the same unbranded products and services but the "counter staff" at the local NW branch would not be upselling these because the majority of customers in most branch would not have the matching financial profile. So the rich customer names would pop up on various the sales list of multiple non-counter teams (fancy boat/wine collection insurance team, high risk investment team etc.) and the team/computer would call or send out marketing material.

So surely its comparing apples and pears

So the wealth committee staff in a NW and Coutts branch should following the same methodology on NF's customer account. If the NW CEO sent the data to both commitee both should produce the same result. If not the NE CEO has a problem of getting pears from Coutts when she was due apples.

What I object to is the fact that Sunak has the time to comment on this essentially minor issue but not, for instance, to give his views on the Boris Johnson motion let alone to turn up to vote on it. He's also notably quiet on a number of more important issues, including doing anything effective about climate change or the economy.

why are you bothering to contribute then?! Bizarre response

I get what you're saying but, thing is, the unregulated EDI racket industry has permeated every corner of this nations public life to the point of social engineering in the civil service, schools and in police forces. And now banks.

I think women have known for a while that the government wouldn't act on the EDI scandal until it started affecting men, but here we are at last.

Very true @AutumnCrow

You are suprised that a politician is willing to comment on a political figure being refused banking services for holding political opion?

Google his family and guess who's bank account has a higher risk rating attached.

When that politician can't find time to comment on issues of national importance, absolutely.

It is his work / life balance

Him being worried about not being able to pay for his (very expensive) lifestyle is personal.

Him being worried about you, a voter's, expecation on political standards in office is just work. He can afford not to work.

If you think that the banks deciding to introduce a social credit score is not of major national importance to you, you need to think about why you as a tax payer now own a big chunk of the UK banking system.
Hint it was not bought as an investment.

EDI is the company proving that they are a good citizens/ person and it costs the owners (you) money with no financial return.

The banks are allowed to use an individualised financial credit rating to protect their core business and it costs the owners (you) money with benefits. At a minimum more loan value is recovered and interest produces profitability.
Staff get handed the rules which were written based on laws made by people you were allowed to (not) vote for and elect.

The EDI department sets up an individualised social credit rating to protect their "core business" (whatever they decide is core SJW value) and it costs the owners (you) money with what benefit? Removing paying customers who's moral values don't match the SJWV?
The bank EDI get to roll that across all customers. How will your water company or the local food shop prove that they as customers, are approved good citizens without applying some type of test to you? That would be a bank account and any other SJWV their EDI employees decide is their core business. Then the employee in the water company gets the top job in the bank EDI guess whay happens next?

All the while the EDI staff are looking for higher pay and promotions because each year they have come up with another SJWV rule that you have to live upto.

And "Boris whatever" is living proof that if some people can do, they will do.

People can understand that problem, so any of his comments are safe because most voters have bank accounts and most voters believe if they want to join a relegion they should be allowed to pick the religion and not to be forced into public worship out of fear.

this is nuts, I’m sorry. The PM has commented on lots of different matters, including this one. It isn’t his fault that you would prefer that he didn’t.