Natwest Bank hates trans widows

[TinselAngel]

How on earth does it come within the remit of a bank to have any position whatsoever on how trans widows exit their marriage?

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17527/pdf/

I've been thinking about opening a new bank account and Nat West is the only bank with a branch anywhere near where I live — but obviously now I'll find an alternative. Thanks for revealing this. Is there a bank out there that's focussed on women and their needs?

WTAF? Is that in the submissions to the WESC?

Sorry, I see you have given the link.

Talk about overstepping their remit!!

I don't have a NW account, but if I did, I would close it and tell them why.
This needs to be publicised.

But that screenshot does not give unconditional support for removing the spousal veto to me...
Quite the opposite.

It refers to possible conflicts with the rights of others (ie trans widows) and requests that these are considered.
"Need" is a strong word.
"Whilst we would..." is conditional.

NatWest is a friggin bank. It should concentrate on dealing with money not telling 51% of the population to suck it up buttercup. How dare they. Honestly they can go do one.

NatWest is a Stonewall Champion, isn't it?

Did Stonewall ask all their Champions to make a submission? You can see how it works, can't you? Get a company to pay for training that promotes a particular ideology, and to continue to pay to use your logo, and then having established your particular ideology throughout the organisation, get that organisation to lobby on your behalf.

I read this last night and was utterly baffled by this submission. How does GRA reform affect a bank?

The final sentence in the screenshot is one I can get behind, and is what we've been asking for surely?
That all protected characteristics remain equally protected (including sex!!!)

I cancelled my NatWest years ago as they funded animal testing but I'm pleased to see that decision reflect well on me now, decades before I had even an inkling on what was coming!

I hope a journalist is looking at the submissions.

Did Stonewall ask all their Champions to make a submission? You can see how it works, can't you? Get a company to pay for training that promotes a particular ideology, and to continue to pay to use your logo, and then having established your particular ideology throughout the organisation, get that organisation to lobby on your behalf.

That's an interesting and plausible suggestion!

The final sentence in the screenshot is one I can get behind, and is what we've been asking for surely?
That all protected characteristics remain equally protected (including sex!!!)

Yes, but why did they feel they should submit a response to this in the first place? Maybe pressure from groups within NatWest? Reading it again I see what you're saying.

@Shedbuilder

NatWest is a Stonewall Champion, isn't it?

Did Stonewall ask all their Champions to make a submission? You can see how it works, can't you? Get a company to pay for training that promotes a particular ideology, and to continue to pay to use your logo, and then having established your particular ideology throughout the organisation, get that organisation to lobby on your behalf.

that's absolutely how it works. Stonewall will have emailed all their 'champions' telling them that this was happening. They will have been asked to write in and probably been given some template answers

the named champion at Natwest is probably someone on the Board "Director of Diversity and Inclusion" or some such who will have asked the head of diversity and inclusion or similar for the organisation to draft a response from Natwest. Job done. I guarantee that 95% of the people in Natwest dont know this submission even exists, let alone what it says.

its a standard lobbying tactic for charities with this model of influencing

I read that as...
We support the removal of the two year requirement.
We support the removal of spousal consent.
However, we need clarification to balance all aspects of EA10.

I can’t work out if this is the ultimate bland, fits all, suits non statement. Or, we just don’t want our butts sued - push it up the line.

Although I am confused what impacts there are from this on banks? I hold accounts in both my maiden and married name. As long as the bank can ID you, why do they need to be involved with GRC?

Yeah, overstepping their remit (although the corporate sector is encouraged to have a 'social conscience' these days) but that wishy-washy sentence is the only nod in the direction of women and women's rights in the whole document - and they are too custard cowardly to even use the word WOMEN.

@AuntyFungal yes, that's how I read it too. They're saying they support transpeople not having to get spousal consent etc but they're also saying they don't want protected rights to be removed. I'd put it tentatively into the pro woman camp rather than trans camp but mostly it's a bland attempt to cover all bases.

but that wishy-washy sentence is the only nod in the direction of women and women's rights in the whole document - and they are too custard cowardly to even use the word WOMEN.

YY.

Did Stonewall ask all their Champions to make a submission? You can see how it works, can't you? Get a company to pay for training that promotes a particular ideology, and to continue to pay to use your logo, and then having established your particular ideology throughout the organisation, get that organisation to lobby on your behalf.

It's a neat trick. Doing Stonewall's work for them when it's nowhere near their remit. Why are these organisations so credulous?

We ought to worry just as much about the credulousness of several members of the WESC.

I can't work out why a bank would need to have an opinion on the mechanisms of how people end their marriages, beyond the practicalities of how they deal with bank accounts

Is it part of their business plan?

But it reads like a hostage statement

Leaving aside the question of why a bank feels the need to say anything on this matter, most of that actually seems quite sensible, except they probably have no clue whatever about the ramifications of the parts they say they're 'supportive' of.

There really does need to be more awareness of the position transwidows are put in. I assume Tinsel and others have submitted their evidence, and profoundly hope it's read and understood. But it seems overdue for the mainstream media to shed clear light on this.

I think this is quite a useful example of the way in which Stonewall is influencing. It's a demonstration of how openly Stonewall is attempting to influence policy through third parties and an indication of how deeply it's embedded in business culture.

I've sent it to my GC MP who's immediately understood what it represents.

Like others, I'm quite heartened to see that final sentence. Seems to me that someone in NatWest has moderated the response and is trying to dial back the wokeness.

I'm going to Tweet NatWest about it from a semi-positive 'Glad to see that NatWest supports the EA2010. It's such a shame that you can't openly and actively support the right of spouses whose partners transition to leave their marriages if they wish to do so.'