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

Well quite. See also Sheffield City Council and the tree debacle.

As for the RNLI, the revelations about them (sexist behaviour) today are quite troubling (although not the reason Suella or Farage don't like them!)

I am not sure I agree.

If the argument is that women need seperate sport because they are, on average, not as strong as men, it seems understandable that if you are going out in a howling gale where strength is essential, men might be preferred.

Twitter is strange at present. When I could view, I saw Lawrence Fox tweet about more political accounts being closed.

There may be two seperate groups, PEP and gender critical.

HSBC has done it to Wings Over Scotland too. And look who their Head of Financial Tracking is!

As the old saying goes, "A politician uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost. More for support than for illumination".

Nowadays, alongside politicians we can add journalists, social media commenters, etc.

And the boys from Trigg. What did they do?
Let's be honest here if this was 2015 and the translobby where still in the box and none of that was going on, most people here on the left here would be OK with Farage having his account closed. It's only because we now see how it can directly affect us that people are starting to wake up.

For me it was seeing what happened in Canada. Even people who donated to the truckers were getting their accounts frozen and doxxed. You can't just say "oh well I don't like him, therefore he deserves it" IMO, because one day that will be you. Or me.

If I kick off with my bank (as I did last week with Virgin Media, through sheer frustration at not being able to WFH as despite numerous calls my Internet is still shit - yes, I'm not proud and yes, I shouldn't have been rude) does that mean I can be cut off? What would happen if my mortgage provider didn't agree with my views? Would my loan my called in? It's a really scary prospect as without a bank account we are cut off from society. How would I be paid my salary? How would I pay for energy and other services? How would I be able to feed myself and my family?

I think people who say "well don't be a twat" are being disingenuous. What if I end up being a twat because of dementia? What if I've had a bad day and later regret my outburst? Maybe, I'm worried about my daughter who has health issues which aren't getting treated, my mother's got a whole plethora of health issues, I get abuse in my own job, I'm worried about my adult children with their own mental health issues, my dog has a spinal problem, I spend up to 3 hours a day on the M62, I don't always feel loving and caring. I try my best, but if I ever have a bad day and am rude to my bank or say something they don't agree with I can get cancelled? And what if we're receiving monumentally bad service and no resolution, are we not allowed to express our dissatisfaction?

Because the statement from Yorkshire Bank did say that they would close down the account of customers who were rude, abusive or discriminatory. Who decides what's classed as rude, abusive or discriminatory?

For me it was seeing what happened in Canada. Even people who donated to the truckers were getting their accounts frozen and doxxed. You can't just say "oh well I don't like him, therefore he deserves it" IMO, because one day that will be you. Or me.

Absolutely, this is a red line for me.

Who decides what's classed as rude, abusive or discriminatory?

As @RedToothBrush says, there needs to be an independent appeal panel, which reviews decisions because, at the moment, there is no real scrutiny.

I work in a public-facing job (GP). The level of abuse we get from some of the public is astounding - including bringing weapons into Reception, the worst racist abuse imaginable etc. We can remove patients from our list but only after warnings, unless they do something violent enough to involve the police coming to surgery. So most people at risk of being removed have the opportunity to change their behaviour.

Anyone removed can just register at another surgery, unless they have been violent, in which case they still have access to a GP but through a special practice. Banking needs similar safeguards. I would defend banks' right to protect their staff from violence and racist abuse etc, but there needs to be some sort of option, even for people who have been violent. An act of violence cannot disqualify you from being able to participate in normal life, beyond any prison sentence you receive.

Discriminatory is nonsense because it is perfectly legal to think that men are better than women, Pakistanis are better than Indians, straight people are better than gay, or whatever. I would disagree with all those views, but people are free to hold them. Unless they lead clients to be significantly abusive to a member of staff, clients' views should be irrelevant to their bank.

Who decides what's classed as rude, abusive or discriminatory?

Your answer is in this article.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12255015/Soldier-saved-lives-Afghanistan-forced-quit-Army-agreeing-men-women.html

I read that and commented several hours ago. But even the daily mail seems to be holding back the free speech as comments have not updated in several hours.

As the headline piece I'm sure it will have lots of commenters and whilst they need to review and remove the truly inappropriate I can't believe they've had 0 comments since 4am. They had mine, which was quite measured, at least.

Have the TRAs taken over completely?

The moderators will probably come back online shortly, and you’ll see a flood of comments.

Are they moderators or censors?

It's the DM so hopefully the former but other online news eg the wokedian, I think it's becoming the latter

Right, so gender identity ideology is supported by the banks, the army, the police, universities, students, anarchists, the Church of England, all the global technology companies, the Labour Party, the Green Party, Liberal Democrats, the unions, the NHS, local government, supermarkets, all major global corporations, leisure centres and private health clubs (with the honourable exception of Bannatyne), Girlguiding, the Women’s Institute, Oxfam, La Leche League, the Breastfeeding Network, Jo’s Trust, makers of menstrual products and cat treats, there must be more that I have missed here…

What an amazing unifying force… bringing together all these disparate groups which previously might have been in conflict with each other.

I don’t really get how the most marginalised thing is still working so well for them.

This post stuck out to me originally and it still does now, however many posts on. We need full transparency on this issue. Especially when - as a PP has just done - you compile even a short list of those in thrall to gender identity ideology.

Once the women have been silenced and the children harmed, what cause will be next up for spreading like knotweed, or is that cause already underway and simply yet not obvious?

She hasn't said she will write here, but I rather hope she does. Baroness Nicholson:

https://twitter.com/baronessnichol/status/1675424392573059072?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

In all seriousness should I find another way to pay my monthly direct debit to sex matters than from my main bank account ?

I want to support them but they'll be one of the first in line if banks start targeting so called hate groups I'd imagine

Or am I overthinking

Can't tell in these scary new times

I think people who say "well don't be a twat" are being disingenuous

Well quite - because what if your banking provider is the one being the twat? One person could shut down a lot of accounts.

Of course now you know why cryptocurrencies had to be demonised ....

How is this "discrimination" determined? Because that could quite easily include anyone at all potentially who has a view different to that of whoever determines what is and isn't discrimination

When discussing the problems of sweeping online surveillance and data mining (turbocharged with AI) with students, they usually respond with ’but it’s okay because I don’t do anything wrong’.

The overturning of Roe v Wade in the US and flurry of restrictive and punitive state anti abortion laws was a stark illustration of how what’s deemed ‘wrong’ can change v quickly. One year searching online for an abortion clinic is not doing anything wrong and suddenly the next year it is.

The overturning of Roe v Wade in the US and flurry of restrictive and punitive state anti abortion laws was a stark illustration of how what’s deemed ‘wrong’ can change v quickly. One year searching online for an abortion clinic is not doing anything wrong and suddenly the next year it is.

It's not this government I am afraid of. It's the next.

Was the mantra I learned growing up.

Just seen this on twitter. Shades of Twiiter etc moderation? Does financial tracking attract the same kind of people and are they starting to flex their muscles. It really does need clamping down on now before it takes hold.

When discussing the problems of sweeping online surveillance and data mining (turbocharged with AI) with students, they usually respond with ’but it’s okay because I don’t do anything wrong’.

When ID cards were being debated under the Blair govt, the line being trotted out was 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear.' I recall someone on a SM site pointing out that we don't know who has control over the definition of 'nothing.' And if we don't know wh controls that definition, we have no control over how it might be defined. The same applies to the definition of 'wrong.'

At the same time that poster quoted Bruce Schneier saying '“Once the technology is in place, there will always be the temptation to use it. And it is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state.” Just as applicable today, IMO. Probably even more so, with the capabilities of AI.

https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/07/mission_creep_when_e.html

Does financial tracking attract the same kind of people and are they starting to flex their muscles

Again, this is an interesting illustration of how proponents of gender ideology have been quick to emulate/piggyback on wider progressive issues, organisations, and strategies. For example, for some time now environmentalists switched from lobbying govts (often doing the minimum) to putting pressure on the financial sector realising that’s where the true power lies. Perhaps it is this strategy of pressuring/using financial leverage that we’re now seeing being used to silence those opposed to GI? And seemingly much more effectively than the environmentalists have been able to be.