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

I'm not sure about the deputy editor of the FT, though. He was sort of veering down the road that Coutts were in the right. When it was quite clear from those documents that they weren't getting rid of him for financial reasons. They decided in November they were going to exit him in July. Jenkins of the FT said that's because he'd fall below the threshold. But they couldn't know that then. He might have had work coming in that meant he'd never fall below the level.

Financial people. They'll stick together. 😏

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.

Yes. it would be good if a highup from Coutts could be interviewed and asked to explain the bank’s decision.

The speed and ruthless efficiency with which this ideology has exerted its influence and frightening levels of dominance is unprecedented as far as I can see. Not even the establishment have ever equaled anything like this.

Who, why, how?

And where do they get their overwhelming degree of degree of power from?

Sinister isn't even the word. It's an incredibly dark force. I don't think I am exaggerating.

Iain actually used the word "Orwellian".

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.

This. Come the fuck on. People on UC will be the easiest targets for this bullshit.

Indeed. And Coutts' reputation has been severely damaged by their actions. FFS, until this blew up who even knew that NF banked with them? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

Looks like there are more revelations to come.

Coutts said that NF had told people he banked with them and they are so arrogant that they think that everyone would remember it. They wrote in their report that it was a risk to kick him out because he would likely go public and it could damage their reputation. So they got one thing right!

But even if everyone knew he banked at Coutts, so what? When Shipman killed 250 people, did people go, "What bloody bank is he at, then? I'm pulling my money out of there!" And doesn't Coutts operate in Qatar? That's such an enlightened place. I wonder how that aligns with their core values? 🙄

Exactly!
Why is it apparently only people holding GC views who are being sanctioned?

(Slightly off topic, but it's the same with the social media pile ons of JKR etc. Virtue signallers won't even play a video game based on her books. But do they apply this degree of rigor in boycotting other media that doesn't align with their values? What about refusing to watch films directed by the rapists Roman Polanski or Harvey Weinstein? Why is it that their art isn't considered tainted?why is it only GC views that need to be punished, and not the actual reprehensible actions of others)?

Has anybody seen what the additional material is / was that Farage was referring to?

To be fair, it's not just GC views. Its a variety if things, including people doubting global warning and not interested in going net zero. So I guess someone who recycles wrong doesn't align with their values and should be given the heave ho, too.

But even if everyone knew he banked at Coutts, so what.

Apparently Pinochet banked at Coutts so the bank seems to be a bit inconsistent in who it allows and doesn’t allow.

Coutts to people who think women don't have dick and men don't have cunts: off you fuck.

Coutts to actual genocidal dictators: welcome to Coutts.

JFC.

But he probably thought trans women are women, so that's OK.

This article contains the 40 pdf pages in jpeg format, if that's what you mean

I’m interested as to why Alison Rose and her colleagues thought they’d get away with cancelling NF and then lying about it.
Did they think ‘oh well, he’s unpopular with all right thinking people so no one will stand up for him’ or do they think ‘we are so powerful and important that we can do what we like’?
It reminds me of Max Mosley & the News of the World in that that News International obviously thought MM would be so embarrassed and humiliated that he’d go and live in the Falkland Islands. It obviously never occurred to them that he’d fight back (which ended with the News of the World closing down).

Alison Rose has now written NF an apology.But still offering a Nar West account not Coutts.

twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1682061613174603778?t=LCaDQNXVDo9Xp6AfT5wi-A&s=19

Copy of letter

So the CEO is wriggling out of accepting responsibility. So who did kick NF out of the bank? Also, why, as a pp said, is she not offering to reopen his account at Coutts rather than NatWest?
What happens if NF refuses to accept her apology?

"comments made about yourself"

So they're still being ruled by babies, then

Bloody reflexive pronoun, too. Can't run a bank, can't write decent English either.

they do not reflect the view of the bank

Well, it was written by an employee of the bank and presumably agreed/signed off by other employees of the bank.

If its not the banks view, is she saying action is taken on accounts based on the views and perceptions of individual employees, and that the bank has no responsibility for that?

If its not the banks view, is she saying action is taken on accounts based on the views and perceptions of individual employees, and that the bank has no responsibility for that.

I hope Alison Rose has to answer that question - along with a lot of other questions.

Well, it was written by an employee of the bank and presumably agreed/signed off by other employees of the bank

Presumably over a lengthy period, as they were monitoring his SM and media presence, and apparently no-one said, hang on, isn't this a bit over the top? Rose is backpedalling fast enough to power a small town.

NF should get them for cyber stalking, as well.

That was another standout point.

40 pages of things that don't reflect the bank's views. Where it's assessed they have no legal reason to bin him. But they do anyway.

Of course those can't be the bank's views!!!