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'.

Didn't they offer him an account with Nat West?

It's not even a part fib. It's a total lie. It says in the dossier that since he's had his PEP classification lowered, he meets the requirements to stay on at the bank. But when his mortgage ends, they'll exit him then as a commercial decision.

They offered him a basic current account. But that doesn't meet his requirements because he needs a business account.

This!!!

Yes. I rather think of the gestures of these banks etc. as being collaborators (or actors) with the nuPuritans with no tolerance at all of diversity of thought or reality . Orgs such as the banks can so easily mark up points by adopting the mantle they know will go down well amongst certain powerful groups. And, to blazes with the rights of others.

It is not just in the UK either. Dutch feminist group 'voorzij' (headed by Caroline Fransson, I think) had their bank account with 'Bunq' suspended for being a women's group who know their biology. An online bank, methinks, with a board at that time consisting of (to me) three self-righteous chappies. Also, I seem to recall some blurb about how they were eager to get 30% 'women' on board. However, it now seems to consist of 6 chappies.

I wonder if their site (along with other similar banks and orgs) are 'washed' with acceptable slogans. Posturing, ideologically acceptable, groupthink.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66247057

Thank you for that link Arabella.

The document - which the BBC has not seen a copy of - makes disclosures including:

That’s pretty implausible since the document is available in several newspapers.

Coutts said, "However, it is not Coutts' policy to close customer accounts solely on the basis of legally held political and personal views."

I think it is. 🤔 But why should that be even partly a reason?

The Coutts document contains several paragraphs about conspiracy theories and accusations about NF receiving money from Russia but then says:
There is no further evidence to back up the claims made by [third-party personal data removed].

Presumably this document was put together by an intern, but you’d have thought someone might have checked it before sending it to the board of directors.

It read l7ike a report had been sent to the board, or whoever, prior to this report. Because somewhere it said that the previous report (they didn't use that word) was quite right to mention something but there was no proof it was true.

Someone has gone through his twitter feed. They've just closed NatWest in my town and if I were a client and discovered they'd inconvencied me so they could save money to afford to monitor NF's twitter account, I'd be pretty mad.

And trying to claim that Courts, an ultra-exclusive private wealth-management business for the extremely rich, is "woke" is ridiculous, and just a slightly desperate new front in the culture war.

So ridiculous that Coutts' own internal documents explicitly say that that is what they are doing...

Amazing how PPs like you line up to accuse NF of misinformation, while yourselves misrepresenting or ignoring the evidence that Coutts themselves have now provided.

Read what Coutts said. Then get back to us.

NatWest now have a duty to answer:

• Who determined and who approved the 'values' of the bank on which its political tests are based?
• Were shareholders (the owners of the bank) consulted about these values and tests, including the Government, which still owns almost 40 per cent of NatWest? Or are they just the political preferences of bank executives? Were taxpayers or account-holders consulted? If not, why not?
• Who instigated and who compiled the report into Farage?
• Were the CEO and/or the chairman of NatWest involved in the decision to 'debank' Farage? If not, who took the final decision? Were the boards of either bank involved?
• How many other accounts have you terminated on political grounds or because the client doesn't accord with your 'values'?
• Will you publish a detailed explanation of your values and political tests so clients (and potential new customers) can judge if they risk falling foul of them?
• If you voted for Brexit, like or admire Trump, believe that mothers are mothers (and not a 'parent who has given birth') and think immigration should be curtailed, are you welcome at Coutts or NatWest?
• Do you hold accounts for any political figures or officials involved in undemocratic regimes or operating in territories where human rights are not properly respected?
• Do you hold accounts for clients with criminal records, including those who have been prosecuted for tax evasion?
• When Farage first claimed you were closing his accounts, you briefed the BBC and the Financial Times, two media companies you knew to be hostile to Farage, that it was simply a case that he wasn't wealthy enough to continue to bank with you. Your own dossier explicitly says that is not the case — that Farage meets the economic tests for an account. Did you lie to the BBC and FT?
• Do you accept, as a publicly quoted company, regulated by the state and still partly owned by it — and having received many billions of taxpayers money in bail-outs — that you have an obligation to answer these questions? If not, why not?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-12316921/This-new-form-McCarthyism-writes-ANDREW-NEIL-Coutts-decision-dreadful-sinister-deceitful-manner-taken-worse-Farage.html

Yet someone managed to leak the untruth that the account was terminated on purely financial grounds.
Farage has won this one I’m afraid, at least at this point. Hands down. Courts look like gurning wankers.

Coutts of course. For the courts I have the utmost respect

If banks behave in this way then we should be able to take it as read that the clients they retain are all people and organisations of whose opinions and actions they wholeheartedly approve ......... which would be very interesting.

This is a great example of how Twitter Brain has infected large organisations. Absolute fuckwits.

Exactly this. Even the most addled guardian reader wasn’t trying to claim banks are responsible for the opinions of their customers. The other banks must be spitting.

I assume Prince Andrew is a customer?

It is well known that NF and the Brexit campaign was funded directly by the Russians which NF continues to deny. It’s horrifying that while this is the case, he has been exited from Coutts on the grounds of diversity/inclusion! Could they be wanting to protect themselves from the loss of Russian money so using this as a cover? But then why do this at all? If it truly is due to his GC beliefs then this is an unbelievable attack on GC views and surely not legal to discriminate in this way? Can’t feel any sympathy for the man but agree that this is worrying.

As I said upthread, Coutts has a reputational management unit, so that implies that they monitor customers who might bring them into disrepute, not just Farage. Let's face it, bank have been fined for money laundering (HSBC, £ 1.9 BILLION, IIRC for facilitating the drugs cartels) so they're not all all above bending the rules they're supposed to apply and accommodating the morally and financially dubious.

And yet they waited until his mortgage was paid off before closing his account.

So if he has had Russian Money and we all know about it, are Coutts in receipt of Russian funds from the mortgage payments and should they cancel themselves?

Yes, this is exactly why it is so idiotic for banks to behave in this way, even if they are only concerned with their own interests.

So if he has had Russian Money and we all know about it, are Coutts in receipt of Russian funds from the mortgage payments and should they cancel themselves?

Does seem to suggest that it's not where the money comes from but the opinions you hold and the company you keep that bothers Coutts. Someone upthread suggested that an intern might have written that report and no-one else checked it; which if true is a definitely management failure. I'm willing to put money on Coutts thinking Farage would roll over and accept their decision.

The City basically runs on Russian money. If they're cancelling NF, I hope they're also cancelling the accounts of all those Magic Circle law firms, accountants, and estate agents who have got rich on the rouble?

"When Farage first claimed you were closing his accounts, you briefed the BBC and the Financial Times, two media companies you knew to be hostile to Farage, "

Oh, my aching sides. BBC hostile to Farage?! They platformed him, more than anyone. He's been on Question Time 35 times FFS! As far back as 2000, when he was only a lowly MEP and not leader of anything.