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'.

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

Very well put. Now the BBC have apologised does that mean NF can’t sue them?

From what I can gather so far, Farage has accepted the BBC's apology, but is still going after NatWest for giving the Beeb er, inaccurate information.

That makes sense. There's limited pressure Farage can apply to the BBC because they'll go to the very end to protect their source and they'll be supported by the courts.

NatWest, however, has no such shield. They're in the wrong and if the right kind of pressure is applied they'll open up about what they were up to.

Farage's complaint against NatWest now is that they disclosed his private information to the BBC rather than that the information was inaccurate, I think. It does seem like a clear breach of confidentiality.

This is a thread by someone who has read the entire 'dossier'. Coutts ended the relationship for commercial reasons, which is entirely within their rights. They're an exclusive private bank. I wouldn't get an account there either, short of a lottery win.

Check out this thread at Thread Reader App. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1683479542713794566.html

As for keeping his information and the GDPR... KYC is an ongoing process and has to be re-done regularly. As a PEP Farage would be done annually.

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

The BBC gets away with a lot of bias. They have settled into having that ease and advantage

This is a thread by someone who has read the entire 'dossier

Well, either the whole thing is a big nothingburger and the people on this thread who have also read the dossier have got the wrong end of the stick and the BBC have just issued an abject apology for no reason at all, or that random Twitter user is glossing over some stuff. Gosh, I wonder which it is.

So there are nine pages of internal risk discussion. What are the other thirty one about that Coutts felt the need apologise for?

The trouble is the bulk of the information they have collected and retained is nowt to do with AML risk. It might be stuff that sends the average guardian reader screaming for smelling salts and a chaise longue but that’s not actually what the PEP regime is about.

It might be stuff that sends the average guardian reader screaming for smelling salts and a chaise longue but that’s not actually what the PEP regime is about

Nothing to do with AML either. Incidentally ML is reckoned to be between 2 and 5% of global GDP. All the banks are going to be facilitating it, whether they realise it or not. Coutts included. They'd know all about that, of course

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-coutts-fine-idUKBRE82P0BL20120326

I've thought right from the start of this that it's fairly clear that Coutts know that much of the money sloshing about in Farage's account comes from shady sources, but they can't outright state this without causing a potential legal clusterfuck, but nor can they continue to operate his account knowing what they know either.

Closing his account with some vague nonsense about him not being a suitable customer is the perfect way to get this money off their books, and rid themselves of a potential headache.

Why people are so desperate to believe Farage, a man who has made a career out of spewing utter nonsense and lies, and also, that a bank has suddenly developed a concern for 'cultural' issues when all any of them care about is protecting profit, is totally beyond me.

I've thought right from the start of this that it's fairly clear that Coutts know that much of the money sloshing about in Farage's account comes from shady sources, but they can't outright state this without causing a potential legal clusterfuck, but nor can they continue to operate his account knowing what they know either.

Eh? What are you on about?

Nothing in the Coutts dossier says there was anything illegal or any "shady money".

Nor does thd Reuters story make snh mention of Farage.

The Coutts dossier does say plainly that the reason the bank wanted rid of Coutts because his views "do not align with our values".

FFS.
snh = any
Second Coutts = Farage

This is quite entertainingly bonkers.

Nothing in the Coutts dossier says there was anything illegal or any "shady money"

As I said, they can't outright state that, especially not publicly, without landing themselves in a legal shitstorm. I doesn't mean it isn't the case though.

Eh? What are you on about?

Just Farage's long-standing links to Russia, various Russian oligarchs, Putin's regime, the people who funded most of the utterly ridiculous Brexit propaganda his party churned out.

It's established fact the Conservatives are up to their necks in utterly filthy Russian money. Do you honestly think an even bigger charlatan like Farage is squeaky clean?

Not nearly as bonkers as suggesting a bank closed someone's account because they were 'gender critical', but this is where we are on this website.

Did you read it? they could find no evidence for the Russian money apart from something said under parliamentary privilege that the MP in question has declined to repeat outside Parliament. And I bet they looked long and hard to find if there was any evidence, too.

So your answer to what you regard as incredible and unsubstantiated claims is to post some of your own which are more to your political taste (despite being arguably defamatory)?
put the signs out. Genius at work here.

He's not the first person it has happened to. But this is the first time that a bank has had to admit doing it. I'm so glad they chose NF (although regretful as to the trouble it's caused him) as he fought back, bringing this to full daylight at last, because it's been happening to different people.

I don't know where you've been. But I'm willing to bet you are a person who gets their news from a few sources.

A couple years ago someone in the comic-nerd-verse had their Paypal account - with hundreds of thousands of customers money frozen. They couldn't pay their customers and they couldn't send out orders for unprocessed payments. This person was also a right wing influencer, trying to create comic content with right leaning values. I couldn't stand him, too egotistical for me, but I would just check in occasionally.

That person was well known in his niche and it made a ripple on SM. But he wasn't famous. I don't know how it got resolved, or the eventually excuse paypal came up with, but I know he was turning to legal means at the time. Then there was the Canadian Truckers. The Triggernometry guys. Quite a few lesser knowns inbetween.

Just because you don't like a person, doesn't mean it can't happen to them and this has been going on for a few years now. This time we have proof.

Wake up and be concerned.

I've thought right from the start of this that it's fairly clear that Coutts know that much of the money sloshing about in Farage's account comes from shady sources

If Coutts accepted money from shady sources then they didn't do their due diligence in understanding the source of his funds before accepting them.

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/anti-money-laundering/source-of-funds-clean-or-consistent-with-risk

According to the Telegraph, Rose has admitted she was the BBC source for the leak at the dinner. Whatever happened to Banker Confidentiality?

BREAK: Natwest CEO Dame Alison Rose confesses she was source of incorrect Farage story:

"I recognise that in my conversations with Simon Jack of the BBC, I made a serious error of judgment in discussing Mr Farage’s relationship with the bank. "

Board retains "full confidence"

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1683881220810190858?t=ICu7n-CDkLkK29MVCsIImg&s=19

Howard Davies, chair of Natwest, suggests Rose will lose bonus:
“As she recognises, she should not have spoken in the way she did. This was a regrettable error of judgement on her part. The events will be taken into account in decisions on remuneration at the appropriate time"

“However, after careful reflection the Board has concluded that it retains full confidence in Ms Rose as CEO of the bank
“Board is clear that the overall handling of the circumstances surrounding Mr Farage accounts has been unsatisfactory, with serious consequences for the bank."

So bank CEO doesn't know the meaning of client confidentiality. The thing that's drummed into you when you work for a bank, that clients info is sacred and you don't blab, even to family.

Presumably this is what happens when bankers (and others) become concerned with social justice issues rather than the law and running an ethical business.
So many apologies - and interesting that despite all the frothing, none of them have come from Farage.