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

Perhaps you could it the Hitler theory of politics. If you deny ordinary people a voice as the right thinking, left leaning establishments in the UK and US have done, people are liable to support anyone who articulates their frustrations. Trump gave a good impression of speaking for the people, whilst at the same time reducing the tax burden on the rich. Our Nigel has just been handed his soapbox.

There are lots of strands, but trying to tell people that men can become women and that they were "hateful" if they refused to agree, is a good place to start. Business leaders do not have to be thought leaders. They just need to run businesses well, mindful of ethical restrictions imposed by others (eg Governments or regulators.) Not least because they do not seem to be very good at reading the room.

Yes. Linking two DM articles in one day will probably get me banned from MN, but they ran an article on him yesterday.

Many a true word spoken in jest. I’d be interested to see the results of a mumsnet plebiscite: ‘should Daily Mail readers be banned from this site?’

Should people who still read the Guardian be banned from this board?

Actually it depends on whether MN should take a NatWest type position and only provide a service for those whose views accord with their own "correct" thinking. If so many of us would have abandoned the site years ago.

The source added: “We are not ruling out supervisory action. We are in touch with NatWest but we are awaiting the outcome of NatWest’s own review. We are certainly not ruling out further intervention with the bank. But we also want to look at how widespread this might be. We are taking a close interest.”
The source said that while the FCA did have the power to launch criminal inquiries it would likely go down the route of a “civil” investigation. The FCA’s powers are extensive and can even include withdrawing a firm’s authorisation to operate as well as banning individuals from working in the regulated financial sector."

Maybe the FCA aren't really fit for purpose anymore.

This quote screams: 'I hope NatWest can pacify us enough so we don't have to act, we don't really want to have to do anything to upset the status quo, but we'll just put a statement so it seems we at least look like we are concerned enough to act'

There is too much external scrutiny now for FCA fudge.

Not least within the sector itself. People working in banks are managed by them in great detail in terms of regulatory reporting. They are going to be managed back on this. I've noticed that the high street banking sector differs culturally to non consumer banking, in terms of left v right leaning. We are going to hear more from the sections of the sector that have been micromanaged by these hypocrites in leadership and regulators.

www.fca.org.uk/firms/consumer-duty

Stonewall have spent years infiltrating all our public institutions. It will take years to turn the tanker around. At least some brave women in the UK are fighting.

The FCA are as corrupt as the rest of them.

It does remind of the time when my local branch of Barclays went nuts for Pride flags and posters of TQ+ employees in the windows and then the next month announced they were closing down. Banks are all talk about diversity, equality and inclusion but their actions are always about making people redundant, making life difficult for their most marginalised customers and sodding the ethics if they can make money from some questionable industry or dodgy regime.

I've lost count of the times I have been told how stupid I am for judging actions over words.

Sort of off topic, but picking up on comments up thread.

First the appalling lack of service to not only older people, but people with disabilites, that they just brush aside on the basis of (to put it crudely) young people will be alive longer and they are okay with online banking.

Secondly, if they are making that much profit (not forgetting some of them only exist because taxpayers bailed them out) why cant they use profits to keep local branches open?

Its just baffling. Is there no onus on them, that as part of the social fabric of society, they should be obliged to provide a service to all.

I think part of this is this complete fixation that many businesses have (and the BBC!) that what suits a young life style is all that matters.

And that seems to include allowing a financial service to think it is more important to be "in tune" with young people and their beliefs (eg self id etc.) even at the expense of being professional and providing the best service to all customers.

I had never heard of Monzo before.
The Spectator round up email states:

"Monzo bank closedd_ an account belonging to Gina Miller’s True and Fair party. The bank says it doesn’t accept accounts for political parties, trusts and clubs."

So the Remainers enjoyed the schadenfreude as Coutts closed Farage's account. Now it seems they are on the receiving end!

And does this statement from the bank mean ALL political parties, trusts and clubs? So a village croquet club isn't welcome ?
It's all a bit ridiculous - one wonders who is welcome. What a way to run a bank. Are there enough wealthy people/businesses who meet their standards to keep the money coming in?

Surely banks need to meet legal requirements of not enabling money laundering etc. and beyond that be available to all?

Cross post @IwantToRetire
You said it better!

And that seems to include allowing a financial service to think it is more important to be "in tune" with young people and their beliefs (eg self id etc.) even at the expense of being professional and providing the best service to all customers.

At the risk of sounding old perhaps this is the what young people working in banks consider professionalism and the best service.

Sitting in a branch waiting for elderly people to come in is boring. The best service is not one that's boring for the provider to endure. Jobs must be about the employees satisfaction first. We survey their job satisfaction every year and promise we will improve it!

If their job satisfaction is improved by excluding bigots, do it. I mean you can say no Tories in your dating apps, social media, social life, so why should you have to serve them in your job. That's not satisfying, debanking them is though. It's great fun apparently and very professional to remove bigots.

I mean you can say no Tories in your dating apps, social media, social life,

Give it time ...

And it gets better

Farage tweets his support to Gina Miller who in turn thanks him.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1684916350207066112

The world has turned on its head.

There's shared parental leave, my neighbours DD went back to work very quickly as she was the higher earner and her husband effectively had her maternity leave. He wasn't on paternity or adoption leave, I suppose primary caregiver would apply to him.

Truly, something I'd never thought I'd see!

From an article today by Kemi Badenoch:

very uneasy reading this month that NatWest Group had closed the account of Professor Lesley Sawers. Why had this accomplished businesswoman, appointed an OBE for services to equalities and business, had her bank account closed after 25 years? Dr Sawers happens to sit on the board of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The implication was that she had lost her account for speaking about contentious issues such as transgender rights and women-only spaces. Yet it’s her job to talk about these things.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4860875-kemi-badenoch-diversity-obsession-has-led-to-kafkaesque-madness-kb-for-pm

NF has had both his bank accounts - business and personal -restored at Coutts. I hope all the other debanked folk are similarly treated.
I expect there will be more stories to come.

The latest on the Nat West/Farage debacle

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/23/natwest-chief-alison-rose-pay-package-bank-nigel-farage-coutts

A 12-month notice period!! After being "forced to resign"!! She's laughing all the way to and from the Bank!

"NatWest Group’s ousted chief executive Alison Rose is in line for a pay package worth more than £2.4m, despite being forced to resign last month over a scandal linked to the threatened closure of Nigel Farage’s bank accounts.

The bank, which is 38.5% owned by the taxpayer, said it would continue to pay Rose while she served a 12-month notice period, as stipulated in her employment contract.

That includes a near-£1.2m cash salary, £115,566 in pension payments, and around £1.2m of NatWest shares. It will also give Rose access to about £26,250 worth of benefits, which can include a company car and chauffeur, life assurance, and personal security, and she could still receive bonuses on top of her fixed pay package. Last year, NatWest was criticised for handing her a £5.2m pay package."

Then this!

"Meanwhile, the banking group also confirmed the pay arrangements for Rose’s temporary replacement, Paul Thwaite, who is serving as chief executive for at least 12 months. NatWest said Thwaite could be in line for a pay package worth more than £4.86m.

That includes a £1.05m salary, and £1.05m worth of NatWest shares. He can also earn up to £1.05m worth of bonuses and up to £1.58m worth of shares as part of a separate reward scheme. That is on top of £105,000 in pension payments, and £26,250 in personal benefits that can include a personal driver.

He could also be in line for additional bonuses related to his previous role as head of the group’s commercial banking arm."

These monsters, and all the other absolute fuckers running banks, foreclose on small businesses and deliberately destroy them and treat people on low earnings and benefits like shit, then have the cheek to close the accounts of anyone whose views "do not align with their values"!

What decent person would want to "align with the values" of these people?

"Love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" - that is the sort of thing, in terms of values, that I learnt at Sunday School, before I was old enough to go to "big school" when I was five.

Thing is though, if this Bank is owned 38% by taxpayers, we are not saying, "Hey! We will pay you stupid amounts of money if you shit on us!"

So why is the Government allowing them to be paid obscene amounts of money to shit on us?!

More importantly, how can we make the Government use that leverage to stop them?

It doesn't answer that question but this has reminded me that a friend told me she only ever uses credit unions, not banks or building societies, so I'm going to look into that. So at least these utter shites won't benefit from a penny of my money.

It also happened to Lesley Sawers the Equality and Human Rights Commissioner for Scotland