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

What on earth did Coutts think they were doing. They even knew that Farage going public was a significant risk.

I mean in "debanking" an ex politician with a strong media platform in the first place. Now it's opened up a huge banking scandal.

Its good. It was a scandal that needed to happen. Banks pay very little attention to their more vulnerable customers, including those with no access to the internet, or who have a Power of Attorney. Presumably because they can't make much money from them.

Access to banking is now almost a necessity. Real thought needs to be given to how banks operate in regards to their wider customer base. Inclusivity is NOT rainbows during pride month. It is about access for everyone.

Let us all thank Farage....

Completely agree but I doubt it's something the banking industry welcomes!

putting a rainbow behind your logo on linked in and trying to pressure your employees into putting pronouns in their email signatures is a lot easier and cheaper though innit?

Yes, bank's have non executive risk committees as part of the board structure.

I doubt very much they had risk of "tanking the share price as a result of the CEOs prejudice on the risk register.

We call them all Neddies for a reason.

https://www.natwestgroup.com/who-we-are/board-and-governance/board-and-committees/board-risk-committee.html

The Nodding Neddies.

There are a lot of people that have been targeted with banking closures. There’s a report in the Racing Post (I work in horse racing) today to say that a number of on-course bookmakers have had their accounts closed with no explanation in recent months.

Now whether you agree with gambling or not is neither here nor there, these are legitimate businesses who have to comply with strict money laundering legislation in order to be able to operate. One bookmaker not only had his own personal and business accounts closed, but also accounts for charities and organisations where he was a signatory.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/britain/banks-closure-of-racecourse-bookmaker-accounts-described-as-a-scandal-aBBRQ8g1ArP4/

@CaveMum that is shocking. Is anyone trying to find out the justification?

@EdithStourton MP Philip Davies, who is part of the Parliamentary group for horse racing is on the case and the bookmakers association have meetings with the Treasury Minister Andrew Griffiths lined up.

Funnily enough, the bank that shut down all the accounts for the bookmaker I mentioned above was NatWest. Definitely something fishy going on there.

@Hepwo

*Yes, bank's have non executive risk committees as part of the board structure.

I doubt very much they had risk of "tanking the share price as a result of the CEOs prejudice on the risk register.

We call them all Neddies for a reason.*

Very shocking @CaveMum

This really has opened a can of worms hasn't it?

Hopefully the scandal will mean changes for the better but it probably won't happen in a hurry.

@CaveMum I hope they get somewhere.

Head of Coutts has now also resigned

Coutts Bank boss quits over Farage account row www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66328666

The BBC still struggling to relay the facts, as opposed to what they want the facts to be.

The BBC reported that it was closed because he no longer met the wealth threshold for Coutts, citing a source familiar with the matter.
However, Mr Farage later obtained a report from the Bank which indicated his political views were also considered.

No mention of who "the source familiar with the matter" was, and that she had to resign over it because of the claim by the BBC, from her own leak, that it was because he didn't have enough money!

It is rather lacking in detail. Rather astoundingly so.

She had to resign because she talked about a client’s account to a journalist.

There may be other reasons, but breaching client confidentiality is inexcusable.

Two things I've noticed about the BBC coverage. The first is that on the day the scandal properly broke, Farage's reveal of the SAR, the BBC coverage changed radically over the course of a day from minimisation to, at bedtime, "this might be rather serious". The second is that different parts of BBC News are handling this differently from relatively straightforward reporting to heavily spun.

I agree, @Needmoresleep but the reason Simon Jack, the BBC journalist, apologised to Farage himself is that it was a misrepresentation.

It is odd. It is a point that some of the Labour front bench don't seem to have grasped either.

The detail does not matter. Whether she was presenting a correct picture or spinning.

Pure and simple. She breached confidentiality and acted unprofessionally. That was unsurvivable. Something the Chair did not understand, but a fact that the major shareholder, ie the Government, did.

Sorry if this has been covered earlier in the thread, but this was just published today.

I suspect other organisations with internal messaging systems are not different, but in view of banks thinking they can close bank accounts because (some of) those working their dont like the politics of a customer, this is more than a concern.

Once again, we are witnessing private corporations claiming to practice ‘inclusion’ through the medium of ‘exclusion’. This is not only illogical and hypocritical. It is dangerous.

https://www.jamesesses.com/p/exclusive-evidence-reveals-big-bank

They're helpfully providing us with a glimpse into the future under Labour!

This is genuinely frightening. Thanks for posting! A brief excerpt:

However, it has now been discovered that Monzo staff have been making derogatory and disparaging remarks on their internal communication channels about people who have concerns with gender ideology, including senior members of staff using the term ‘TERF’ (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) - a derogatory term often used to describe those with gender critical beliefs, particularly women.
This first came to light earlier in the year after Anders (not his real name) decided to publicly challenge Monzo’s LinkedIn posts during ‘Transgender Awareness Week’. Monzo’s posts celebrated the implementation of ‘gender neutral toilets’ and ‘preferred pronouns’, as well as changing the name of maternity leave to ‘primary caregiver leave’. Monzo are known generally for being extremely vocal about their support for ‘LGBTQ+’.

Anders responded to these posts on LinkedIn, raising his concerns about the impact such policies would have on staff and customers, particularly women.
However, he noticed in the following weeks that Monzo staff were repeatedly looking at his LinkedIn profile. Sensing something strange, Anders submitted a Subject Access Request to Monzo for his personal data. It revealed a number of shocking things.

Monzo employees were taking his information from LinkedIn without his knowledge and posting it on their internal staff forums, open for all to see,

It goes on to get much worse. GC women need to be careful it seems.