First Direct and Natwest closing bank accounts for political reasons inc being gender critical

[Snorkers]

Apprently First Direct have closed the account of the Wings over Scotland founder for his beliefs (He's Gender Critical), and Coutts, owned by Natwest, closed Nigel Farage's account.
Whatever you think of Nigel Farage he is entitled to a bank account.

This is really worrying.

I bank with First Direct. I am gender critical. Do I need to hide my beliefs to keep my bank account? Will tey stop me getting access to my money?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12249755/Nigel-Farage-claims-three-loved-ones-bank-accounts-closed-Brexit.html

Don't confuse the issue of Farage with banks closing accounts for views they don't like.
With Farage there is DEFINITELY a massive backstory he's not telling

@RedToothBrush Do you still believe this in light of the most recent disclosures?

Wow ! you really know how to rub it in.

Yes, those "at the back" as you put it - at the back for resources, support and help with living - yes, keep on telling them they are doing poor wrong and really need to worry about the plight of rich, white men.

Before worrying about whether a bank will close your account for some perceived peccadillo, some folk worry about having 2 pennies to put into a bank account. Any bank account.

Come back when you can show how this is affecting poor people now. Well more than worrying if they can get shoes for their children for school in September.

Sorry I'm not team Farage - somehow I suspect he will come out OK. He always does. Unlike someone who's meter needs feeding and who spent their last money on formula.

I don't understand your point.

Yes there is a cost of living crisis and a lot of people are struggling to make ends meet. This is a bad thing, we can all agree.

However, what has that got to do with whether or not banks can choose to close accounts of people they don't like? Are you saying we should ignore this undermining of democracy until we sort out the problem of wealth inequality? Because that could take a really long time!

It's not only rich people that use banks, most people have a bank account and would be royally stuffed if it were withdrawn without warning - for a start where would people get their universal credit paid into if they didn't have a bank account? I'm not sure you can access benefits without one.

I just don't get your point.

It is not about whether or not we agree with Farage (I think he's awful btw).

Freedom of thought, speech and democracy isn't free if its only for people you agree with.

Y'know, I think it's awful that evidence has come to light that Farage's account was closed.

There wasn't that evidence before. It's good it's come out.

I think it's appalling they didn't admit this initially. It only serves to lend itself to conspiracy theories and ultimately it's give much hot air to the very politics that these banks want to silence. It's a self defeating tactic.

Farage does still have dubious connections - that's even more reason to treat his case more carefully.

That doesn't take away from those dubious connections. But Coutts hide behind that for weeks before the truth has come out.

No one should have their account closed because of wrong think. They should have it closed if they are laundering. And I'll stick by that point.

No, when I said those at the back, I wasn't referring to people who are struggling financially I also didn't say they were doing poor wrong, that is your interpretation and to be honest I'm struggling to see your point, in relation to my posts. When I said those at the back, I meant people who are struggling to hear what is being said. It's entirely possible to be concerned about the behaviour of big banks and also be concerned about the issues facing poorer people in the UK. Yes Farage will come out of this fine, he will probably even make some capital out of it. Interestingly it would be poorer people or those with less resources who wouldn't be fine if their bank did the same to them. Because they will have far less options available to them. Like I said, this isn't just about farage.

I think the people I know on Universal Credit are much more worried about where the next meal will come from; whether they can heat their house; and whether they can cloth their kids than they are the travails of Nigel Farage who has quite frankly done fuck all to make their (or anyone elses) lives better.

Doesn't UC get paid into bank accounts? Farage has just proved that the recipients you know could one day express a belief and the next day find they can't access money for meals or heat or clothes. Then they, and you, will hopping up and down asking why something wasnt done about this before. Farage might be famous and someone they don't like. But it happens to non famous people and maybe one day the bank won't like UC recipients.

Someone on UC will be in a far worse position than Farage if a virtue-signalling bank decides they don't like the cut of their jib, closes their account and, as a result, they cannot open another bank account.

Those who are already most vulnerable have most to lose from this creeping authoritarianism. The Government does not need to follow China and institute a Social Credit System when the banks - THE BANKS - are deciding who deserves to get paid and pay cashless.

UC does not have to be paid into a Bank and there are other ways to pay bills but FFS see the bigger picture.

It's not about Farage - it's about the unofficial "Morality Police" in financial institutions making lives difficult for anyone they don't like. They don't need to have broken any law, although it helps if they have an internet presence that the Morality Police can stalk.

Related to someone the banks don't like? That's a pity, you can't open an account either. This is happening already.

I despair that there are people on here whose parents or grandparents fought a war, who have relatives who lost their lives so we didn't have to live under a fascist regime, and yet who are so complacent about this creeping authoritarianism.

Freedom isn't a "given", it's something that has to be constantly guarded and fought for. It should not be lightly surrendered because it is a lot harder to get back. There are always officious people who like to make rules for other people to live by and, sadly, even more people who enjoy enforcing them.

The way the banks are behaving is anti-democratic and not in line with legislation. Every time an institution decides to "go beyond the law" to advance its own interests, such as ESG rating or Stonewall ranking, it is acting undemocratically and in some cases breaking the law. Let them get away with it and it won't stop there.

Authoritarianism is not a good direction of travel. It has never led to a happy place for the majority of people and the poorest, most powerless, who are barely surviving always suffer most.

Well said.
Banks deciding to close down accounts based on “wrong” beliefs of the account holders is deeply undemocratic and frankly quite scary.
Nothing to do with “I don’t like Farage anyway” and “some people have other worries”.
It could affect those people too.

I think it's appalling they didn't admit this initially. It only serves to lend itself to conspiracy theories and ultimately it's give much hot air to the very politics that these banks want to silence. It's a self defeating tactic.

RedToothBrush they didn’t admit it initially as they knew that loads of people -such as yourself - would automatically think Nigel Farage was in the wrong. Coutts must be quite stupid if they think he - and others who’ve had their accounts closed for wrongthink - would just lie down under it.
This reminds me of the fantasist Carl Beech who accused various military and Tory bigwigs of all sorts of atrocities including murder and despite gaping holes in the story people rushed to believe him.

I said that it was important to know the background to Farage. And I stand by it because it's also about his motives in terms of how he handles this going forward.

I didn't have to reply here and I didn't have to acknowledge that it's appalling. But I very much believe that. Even if it is Farage.

You are seeking to 'get one over'.

I said there was no evidence and it's right that it's now come to light. We could not say it was because of his beliefs in the absence of evidence. We can only speculate on the basis if the evidence presented to us.

I ultimately believe in transparency and freedom of speech is very much part of that. That requires us to seek evidence and truth regardless of political belief.

But Farage supporters must acknowledge that his associations ALSO form part of this conversation regardless of what's now come to light too.

Paypal and Etsy too. (Although Etsy has no problem with merchandise saying "stab terfs").

https://twitter.com/triggerpod/status/1570097217146613763?t=FwZml2klKPjEanutv24x7w&s=19

But Farage supporters must acknowledge that his associations ALSO form part of this conversation regardless of what's now come to light too.

I'm not a Farage supporter but I did support him when he first announced this was happening because he's not the first it's happened to. Furthermore, he gave very full information. However, there were many who didn't like Farage who mocked him nbd those of us who believed him based purely on their dislike of him. If, say, Jess Phillips had announced it had happened to her, I'm ready sure most of those people who disbelieved Farage would have believed her.

That's what's worrying. That Farage was judged, not on the information he was giving, but on the his politics. If that committee had not kept such great meeting notes, people would still be giving the benefit of the doubt to Coutts and calling Farage a liar.

That's what's worrying. That Farage was judged, not on the information he was giving, but on the his politics. If that committee had not kept such great meeting notes, people would still be giving the benefit of the doubt to Coutts and calling Farage a liar.

They still are - there’s a poster on another thread about this saying that Farage’s evidence is ‘selective’, and before Coutts were proved to have lied the BBC and people on here were keen to blame NF.

If someone poor was outspoken on sex equality and safeguarding, like Lisa Muggeridge was for a while, they too could have their account closed. And unlike Farage, a poor person would have no other financial resources with which to challenge the bank or even survive to the end of the week.

Andrew Marr is discussing this on LBC atm.

https://www.gov.uk/payment-exception-service

To get benefits without a bank account, you have to jump through hoops, including being able to prove identity for each payment and each payment being a maximum of £100. The system is not designed for people without bank accounts any more, the days of cashing your Giro at the Post Office are long gone.

I missed it. When I tuned in, they were into dentistry.

What did they say about the banks? Any sign from anyone that they're going to do anything about it? Or even just make enquiries?!

Did Andrew Marr admit Coutts lied?

There was someone from the FCA saying that it was likely that they would be asked to investigate.
AM was honest about his dislike of NF, but pretty outraged at the bank.
Iain Dale is about to talk about it at 7pm.
I listen to LBC whilst cooking dinner, so I only catch certain topics.

You were completely in the wrong. End of.

But Farage supporters must acknowledge that his associations ALSO form part of this conversation regardless of what's now come to light too

Let's hope that Coutts' reputational management bods are looking at all their customers with similar rigour and we hear about who else they've shitcanned and why, then.

Now Farage has put out a statement saying he looked at opening a new account at seven or eight other banks. All said no. Why? That's not just because of his views.

RedToothbrush are you certain it wasn’t ‘just because of his views’ that the other banks refused to let open accounts?
That was the reason why Coutts closed his account - why should it not be the same with the other banks.

Thanks. I'll have a listen. The Financial ombudsman, who's meant to be standing up for the customers, should be getting involved.

Iain Dale gets it.