Monzo: another boycott opportunity

[Pluvia]

I had no idea that Monzo was a trans-crazy organisation. Archived link to the Telegraph article revealing the bank's commitment to trans activism.

http://archive.today/g7ZcX

Monzo is the worst rated of all banking apps so a very easy one to boycott.

‘Nothing of value was lost’ as the kids are wont to say.

https://community.monzo.com/t/which-ranks-monzo-last-for-app-security/127852/2

I think it ranks low on security purely because it doesn't require a passcode access balance info.

Sadly, I think that SARs to any organisation would reveal the same sort of thing. TRAs are embedded in every organisation, and while they are a minority people who are aware of the issues are too scared to say anything.

From the article:

It [Monzo] described maternity leave as “primary caregiver leave”.

Sexist nonsense

They can increase their credit rating if they increase their ESG score. A company that doesn't need many loans doesn't need to be woke.

TRAs are embedded in the regulatory bodies e.g. FSA. Banks are required to listen to the regulators. They have targets and best practices for diversity and inclusion along side things to prevent money laundering and fraud.

I had no idea. Surely FSA should just be concentrating on the financial viability of an organisation?

They've been like like this for years, see Twitter link here to me 4.5 years ago.

They've been anti-women since day dot - nothing males a better woman than a man.

That was my gut response, but I think that while it might make sense to separate out the ratings, actually it is generally good to have these organisations that monitor and control industries to also focus on its policies and its discriminatory practices. I think there should be an oversight in the case of a bank with sexist policies (shared accounts directed to men, mortgages based on men's earnings, all the classics, etc.) and that having this sort of industry oversight has a benefit over just making all clients and staff have to sue directly. So that's reasonable and good in principle.

Here the problem comes that what is being pushed is bad for women and that many companies are coming out with contempt towards women (also with contempt towards customers in general). There's a problem with regulatory capture, but I think the idea of a regulator which has to also concern itself with conditions for staff and the way companies operate beyond 'are you doing [thing your company is set up to do] correctly' had merit.

Sheldon Mills, who only stood down as Chair of Stonewall fairly recently (ie was there during the years of 'adding the T') is a senior management figure at the FCA.

Perhaps there was no conflict of interest, but it would not be unreasonable for banks to assume they had to toe the line on TWAW.