“Prejudiced and nasty” Nigel Farage…

[MangetoutsaysGetOutMan]

… doesn’t understand irony.

I am struggling to care about this story. Mostly I resent it meaning that Farage is on my telly again after a blissful period of forgetting his existed.

Maybe you'll care about it when you, or someone you love, or an organisation you support, is debanked?

Ha indeed!
From the Guardian:
A Coutts spokesperson said the bank could not comment on the case in detail due to client confidentiality rules. “However, it is not Coutts’ policy to close customer accounts solely on the basis of legally held political and personal views. Decisions to close an account are not taken lightly and involve a number of factors including commercial viability, reputational considerations and legal and regulatory requirements.

If Coutts had taken the view that NF represented a regulatory risk (Russian money etc) or a commercial risk, then I assume that the rules on client confidentiality would preclude them from saying so in terms.

Use an archive site. It’s quite simple. MN doesn’t seem to like the links but you can google how to do it.

How are the staff in these organisations making the decisions which have such a negitave impact on the immigrants who do not have the financial ability to pay for legal and other assistance?

Are the staff more likely to be less or extra dilligent when they suspect they would have to explain their decision to a Judge in the middle of a public courtroom?

Is it that staff are applying criteria in accordance to the strict letter of law or are staff adding in rules and standards based on their own Moral Values?

He no longer meets the bank’s criteria. Not difficult to understand.

Must be embarrassing for him, the world knowing he’s no longer wealthy enough. Good.

I think you may be a bit behind the curve there.

Sure. Want to post your bank account details? Whilst you’ve still got one…

How about the list to answer my second question?

I am increasingly thinking that angry remainers don't look too deeply into the issues of life.🤔

And the world knows it, how embarrassing.

Good heavens do keep up…if, according to Coutts, he doesn’t qualify financially it’s because he no longer has debt with Coutts as he’s paid off his huge mortgage. I imagine that means he’s pretty wealthy.

ThisTimeIts
”I am increasingly thinking that angry remainers don't look too deeply into the issues of life.🤔”

Hahaha, the delicious irony 🤣 Of course, NF devotees looked deeply into every aspect of potential Brexit and didn’t just swallow his nasty, racist bullshit hook, line and sinker.

ThisTimeIts · Today 10:29
AutumnCrow · Today 10:27

I think you may be a bit behind the curve there.

And the world knows it, how embarrassing”

No. Publicly supporting NF and his sort is embarrassing.

I meant about the BBC and Coutts. This story is not good for the BBC, and NF’s SARNed documents published in the Telegraph and elsewhere overnight are troublesome for both the bank and the BBC.

😂another issuing insults to cover up their shame at not having retained any information on this thread. How many times have people said they are not Farage fans? I have second hand embarrassment for her, it's obvious some people require to be instructed what is right think, as someone earlier said, some people can't be helped.

Businesses are free to have 'values'.

What seems to be a new development is the need for customers to share these values.

Which seems pretty weird to me. How aligned do you have to be? On what topics? If the CEO of a bank became a militant vegan, for example, would it be acceptable to ditch meat eaters on the grounds of 'values'?

Banks accommodate convicted criminals, so why is it acceptable to cancel people who have views they disagree with?

The question is where does this end? You may not like or agree with Farage, but if you think this is fine, it's only a matter of time before your own views fall foul of someone in power.

This story is not good for the BBC, and NF’s SARNed documents published in the Telegraph and elsewhere overnight are troublesome for both the bank and the BBC.

Agreed. They're both coming out of this appallingly.

Both of these orgs need to keep the focus on what they are there to do. A) Objective, factual reporting or B) managing people's money. It is not acceptable for either of them to be trying to shape the narrative according to what they 'value'

People have had it easy. The BBC gets money pretty much regardless of bias and Coutts seems to have been overrun by really poor quality thinking.

By those who wrote it and those who approved it

A Coutts spokesperson said I get well paid to read what ever our legal wrote and the bank could not nolonger comment on the case in detail due to our legal team explaining to senior staff that a senior staff member 'may' have already breached client confidentiality rules, and got found out in a very public way. Even thought our senior staff have produced a written document ( which is now in the public domain and the Jury pool can read it before any Court case), our legal defence for our decision will be : “However, it is not Coutts’ policy to close customer accounts solely on the basis of legally held political and personal views.
[ Please note that although we are legally limited in how we now sell this decision to the Jury pool we are still also going to use this statement to try cast a slur on the customer by inferring that it ok, " he was asking for it". ]
Decisions to close an account are not taken lightly and involve a number of factors including commercial viability, reputational considerations and legal and regulatory requirements.

People need to understand that a customer fills in a load of data when they open an account then each time a customer makes a financial transaction they provide a maping point to their lives.
Eg In store purchase gives a geographical location. Say you have to meet with a non-local friend/family member for coffee once every six month. You each have to travel.
You both bank at the same bank so the bank can place you both at a (unique) time and place on a regular schedule.
The bank don't like the lifestyle/politics of who you are meeting.
Staff have decided that anybody who ticks "that box" looses their account.
How do You as a customer prove that the regular meetings are not proof that You fit into "that box"?
Why should You have to worry about being put in "that box" too, when there is no legal requirement for the staff to create "that box"?

If they are refusing a mortgage or bank account of family. How do you know your grandfather isn't on a Twitter verified account retweeting Tennis players and Ricky Gervais? If you are both getting in rounds during family meals, using your card and share a name, you could be cancelled. Throw in a Netflix subscription - you could have watched Ricky Gervais and are finding him.

That threshold is maintaining borrowings or investments of more than £1m, or more than £3m in savings

Article here from 2011;

Coutts has issued updated guidelines which require new clients to have access to investible assets of £1 million as opposed to the £500,000 figure which has been in place over the past decade...

The change in policy will not affect clients already with Coutts.

https://citywire.com/wealth-manager/news/coutts-doubles-client-threshold-to-1-million/a487853

SwedishEdith
Worth watching Newsnight from last night where he had it calmly explained to him, by a banking expert who had read the paper in full, why Coutts may have let him go. He'd paid off his mortgage in full.

Did you spot that the banking expert describes herself as a 'remoaner' in her Twitter profile (your link)?

She didn't sound very 'calm' when Farage appeared on Newsnight in May.
She tweeted:
WHY IS NIGEL FARAGE ON # Newsnight???
WHY WAS HE EVEN ON NEWSNIGHT?

She has also tweeted: Bye-bye, Nige. and Shut up, Nige. etc.

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

Can't stand the man but allowing banks to restrict services because they don't agree with someone's perfectly legal (if deeply unpleasant) views is a very slippery slope.

some might call it karma.

I think it's great that commercial organisations are willing to say no to money where they find someone unethical.