Could you be 'de-banked' for being gender-critical?

[heckmuffin]

I'm sure Nigel Farage has very few fans here. However, in the light of his bank, Coutts, closing his bank accounts due to his political beliefs, could this happen to gender-critical women too?

Farage has obtained documents from Coutts which make it clear that the bank gave him the boot because his views didn't align with their 'inclusive' purpose.

I wonder if GC women such as Posie Parker have had similar issues? Or if this is something that could happen? Believing in humans being a sexually dimorphic species is, as we all know, 'not inclusive'.

Not for the first time I've questioned how these people on television and radio get hired, when it appears their IQ is well below that of the population mean.

I expect it"s because their views align with those of people running most tv snd radio outlets.

They're hired / booked for their perceived right-think, not their intellect.

Well, yes. After all, everything he has said so far has proved to be true. People, like yourself, called him a liar but it's written in black and white. On the other hand, Coutts has revealed information they shouldn't, then we learn that information was a lie, and in their documents they say they want him gone for 'x' reason but they'll do it under the pretext of reason 'y'. Again dishonest.

And, of course, Coutts have never denied they only offered a current account.

I have no idea, based on all these facts, why I'd disbelieve Farage but instead make out Coutts were offering something that, in fact, even they have never claimed they've done. Why do you? Why is it more important to you that Farage is lying than Coutts? Why is it, after Farage has present black and white evidence as to what happened, you'd rather persist in your position that Farage has lied about everything?

I have no idea, based on all these facts, why I'd disbelieve Farage but instead make out Coutts were offering something that, in fact, even they have never claimed they've done. Why do you? Why is it more important to you that Farage is lying than Coutts? Why is it, after Farage has present black and white evidence as to what happened, you'd rather persist in your position that Farage has lied about everything?

Perhaps because it requires a massive shift in perception. If your entire view of NF is built around him being a chancer, a liar, a racist and a xenophobe, believing him not only takes a 180 degree turn in belief, it also, in some people's minds, actually aligns them with him. If you believe that he's a corrupt chancer then everything's going to be seen through that filter and inconvenient stuff like Coutts keeping a dossier on him and all the rest of it will be waved aside because in those minds, it's not Coutts who are the villains here.

If you believe that he's a corrupt chancer then everything's going to be seen through that filter

Even if you believe that, why on earth do you think someone wouldn't treat a "corrupt chancer" badly?

"I think this person is horrible, and no decent person should have anything to do with him. And it's utterly implausible to suggest anyone would discriminate against him!"

How do you hold those two ideas in your head at once?

Surely you should have settled for some mild initial scepticism about his claim, and reassessed once you saw the documents. Worked for me...

I expect it"s because their views align with those of people running most tv snd radio outlets.

Yes.

And the EU, Civil Service and nearly all the MPs in the main parties

He's produced evidence for the other claims, not for this one. And he is a racist and a xenophobe. And a liar? Remember £350 million on a bus?
If banks are suspicious of financial irregularities they aren't allowed to let the subject know. It's called 'tipping off' and can result in a prison sentence .

Sky usually try to have one left leaning and one right leaning person and as they need people who can produce instant opinions these tend to be journalists eg from the Mail, Mirror etc. I find Susie Boniface and Zoe Williams really hard to watch as they have a sneery, superior way of opining but Sonia Sodha and Christina Patterson are GC and cheer me up.

Maybe. I believed him because what he said aligned with what I've read other saying over the past few years. If someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum, like Jeremy Corbyn had said the same had happened to them, I'd have believed them equally.

But I do accept those stories might have passed others by. However, my argument is with people who aren't reassessing now they've read the documents. They're still insisting he's lying even though you can see in black and white he's not. You've only got to read some posts on here to see people incapable or unwilling to accept the truth purely because this is Nigel Farage.

To put the record straight, the £350 million slogan was the work of Dominic Cummings, not Nigel Farage.

And the full dossier released by Cotts itself makes no mention of finding financial irregularities and says it found no evidence of Russian links.

The left like Cummings now he stabbed Boris in the back

They’re fickle there too

Banks keep 'dossiers' on everybody. It's a legal requirement. Especially business people. There's a.thing called the Proceeds Of Crime Act that means that people's accounts have to be carefully scrutinised.
Farage is the very definition of a PEP.
Courts is a private company. If they want to turn customers away that's their prerogative.
If the government want banking services to be compulsory maybe there should be a national banking service.

So Zoe Williams long term Guardian columnist

Sonia Sodha -and I quote from her Wiki page here..

.She was a senior adviser to Ed Miliband when he was Leader of the Opposition.

Christina Patterson same thing...

Christina Mary Patterson (born 1963) is a British journalist. Now a freelancer, she was formerly a writer and columnist at The Independent.[

All centre left so far

Susie Boniface is Fleet Street Fox and wrote for the Mirror

Maybe if they included Meghan McCain, Nerelle Jacobs, Allison Pearson or even Sarah Vine it might look a bit more balanced

Even the CEO realised they’d fucked up and apologised

It seems only a few left on mn defending it all to the end.

She always is. Must be the only person on the planet besides whom rod liddle can appear to advantage.

Large amounts of the material revealed as a result of the DSAR was nothing to do with financial crime risk. You are talking shite.

The bank broke their obligation of confidence and lied to the BBC. That has been proved.

And everything Farage originally said, which you thought he was lying about, has proved to be true.

And yet you'd still choose to believe he was offered a business account even though he hadn't lied about anything else and Coutts hasn't disagreed with his claim. Nor have they put anywhere in writing that they're now offering a business account, just facilities.

The bank committee clearly stated in November 2022 that although Chris Bryant (a proven liar who already had to go to court and apologise for lying under Parliamentary privilege) had made that allegation under parliamentary privilege, there was no evidence of that in his accounts. They already cleared him of that as far as Coutts was involved.

Seriously, why are you so determined to believe that Coutts, despite them publicly apologising to Farage for the inappropriate treatment he has received, are in the right? I think when you're so invested in hating a person as much as you seem to be, so that you can't stand back from a situation and acknowledge the truth, as written in black and white, then you really need to step away because that's out of the ordinary behaviour. I can think of a few public figures I can't bear and others I love, but neither of these emotions would stop me acknowledging the truth when faced with evidence that I can see with my own eyes.

I can think of a few public figures I can't bear and others I love, but neither of these emotions would stop me acknowledging the truth when faced with evidence that I can see with my own eyes

This is a recurring problem with certain groups and individuals these days. They are insistent on dragging the rest of us kicking and screaming along on their fairy-tale and get v upset when we prefer to stick to facts.

Sarah Vine is on sometimes, also Carol Malone. The ones that stick in my mind are the annoying ones or the GC ones!

If the government want banking services to be compulsory maybe there should be a national banking service

Having a bank account is to all intents and purposes compulsory. Try living without one.

He's produced evidence for the other claims, not for this one. And he is a racist and a xenophobe. And a liar? Remember £350 million on a bus?

So because he's a racist and a xenophobe he can be treated badly and never given the benefot of the doubt - like some sort of national scapegoat?

If banks are suspicious of financial irregularities they aren't allowed to let the subject know. It's called 'tipping off' and can result in a prison sentence

Well aware of the money laundering rules, thanks, and the dossier tried its damndest to pin something like that on him vis a vis Russian money. If they could have accused him outright of ML they would have.

Banks keep 'dossiers' on everybody. It's a legal requirement. Especially business people. There's a.thing called the Proceeds Of Crime Act that means that people's accounts have to be carefully scrutinised

Do you have back up for this requirement on the banks to hold dossiers on everyone, please? because I'm not aware of it and to put it mildly, I don't care for that if it's true. It sounds a bit Stasi like, frankly.

@beguilingeyes You are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. Be careful though. Next thing you will believe that with enough oestrogen, all the XY cells in the human body will become XX.

It isn’t true. There do have to be additional AML checks on PEPs. That is to do with monitoring financial crime risk. There is no requirement under AML laws to monitor and critique a clients political views.
there are people nope just telling flat out lies to justify what has happened here; when even the bank itself has acknowledged it was wrong. It’s quite remarkable. Utter madness.

there are people nope just telling flat out lies to justify what has happened here; when even the bank itself has acknowledged it was wrong. It’s quite remarkable. Utter madness

What's even more remarkable is the people repeating those flat out lies when others on here have proved to them that they are. Long time since I did GDPR training but doesn't the information kept have to be only what's necessary for the operation of the account?

And it has to be transparent and consented to. I posted one of the data protection principles from GDPR that is still part of our domestic legislation on the other thread about this.

The BBC has had to apologise to Farage for its story about the closure of his account. Lots of apologising, in fact.

Check your stories more carefully and don't slavishly follow the wrongthink Stasi, would be my advice.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66288464