• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Nigel Farage and that bank account...

Status
Not open for further replies.

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,494
Location
Taunton or Kent
Mod Notes: Posts #1 - #79 originally in this thread.

So when it's an privileged unelected grifter in trouble, there is swift Government action. But anyone else, including striking workers and/or anyone else struggling to pay bills, it's a long disruptive fight for pittances:


Ministers will make it harder for banks to close accounts after the dispute between ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage and Coutts.
Banks will be forced to explain and delay any decision to close an account under the new rules, the Treasury said.
Customers will also be able to challenge account closures more easily, it added.
It comes after Mr Farage alleged Coutts had targeted him because of his political views.
However, the bank had said the account closure was a commercial decision.
Under the new rules, banks will have to give a notice period of 90 days before closing an account, giving account holders more time to appeal against the decision.
They will also have to spell out why they want to close an account, making it easier for customers to challenge closures.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
So when it's an privileged unelected grifter in trouble, there is swift Government action. But anyone else, including striking workers and/or anyone else struggling to pay bills, it's a long disruptive fight for pittances:


Eh? I don't get your comparison.

In the case of Nigel Farage, while accepting there seems to be some muddiness about what exactly motivated Coutt's Bank and it's possible that Nigel Farage has somewhat misrepresented what has happened, the broad issue appears to be that the bank closed Nigel Farage's account and was motivated to do so, at least in part, by disagreement with Nigel Farage's political views. There's also some indication that this isn't the only case in which banks have acted in this way. That seems to me to raise a wider issue that does urgently need addressing: Whatever you think of Farage's views, if people start getting denied access to basic financial services that are necessary to function in modern society, purely on account of their holding political opinions that other people find objectionable, then it should be obvious that is a direct threat to democracy and free speech.

On the other hand, whatever your sympathies might be with people who are on strike, it's equally obvious that people having financial difficulties or struggling to pay bills does not pose a threat to free speech. It's an entirely different problem.

Also worth noting that modifying banking regulation to ensure banks don't close accounts for political reasons, in order to protect our democracy, is mostly cost-free and economically neutral, and probably doesn't require that much work - so there isn't really any good reason for the Government not to quickly deal with that. On the other hand giving people wage rises - which seems to be what you are saying the Government should do - is not economically neutral: It requires the Government to find lots of money from somewhere, which must mean one of (1) higher taxes, (2) cuts in services, or (3) more borrowing which is likely to lead to more inflation, making everyone who hasn't been given a pay rise even worse off. There are therefore pretty good reasons for any sensible government to hesitate about doing that.

I think you're comparing two things that are not remotely comparable.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,035
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
In the case of Nigel Farage, while accepting there seems to be some muddiness about what exactly motivated Coutt's Bank and it's possible that Nigel Farage has somewhat misrepresented what has happened, the broad issue appears to be that the bank closed Nigel Farage's account and was motivated to do so, at least in part, by their disagreement with Nigel Farage's political views There's some indication that this isn't the only case in which banks have acted in this way. That seems to me to raise a wider issue that does urgently need addressing: Whatever you think of Farage's views, if people start getting denied access to basic financial services that are necessary to function in modern society purely on account of their holding non-mainstream political opinions, then it should be obvious that is a direct threat to democracy and free speech.

Nobody is denying Farage access to basic financial services. NWG's CEO has even re-iterated the offer of a standard NatWest account in her letter of apology to Farage. That may be a topic to be explored in a different thread. Personally if it were me I'd have told Farage to bugger off and get a Revolut account, but this is one of a million reasons why I'm not running a bank..
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Nobody is denying Farage access to basic financial services. NWG's CEO has even re-iterated the offer of a standard NatWest account in her letter of apology to Farage. That may be a topic to be explored in a different thread. Personally if it were me I'd have told Farage to bugger off and get a Revolut account, but this is one of a million reasons why I'm not running a bank..

The CEO of Nat West is a liar.

In her mealy mouthed so called "apology" to Nigel Farage she said that it is not the bank's policy to close accounts based on the political views of the account holder, but if you read the document produced as a result of Mr Farage's subject request, that is exactly why they did close his account.

Not only that, but they lied about the reason for the account closure to, yes you've guessed it, the BBC.

And the only reason they are offering Mr Farage an account with Nat West now is because of the bad publicity that has been generated.

Other people, who do not exactly agree with Nigel Farage politically, and have been affected, think this is wrong.


Why Nigel Farage and Stuart Campbell losing their bank accounts is worrying​


IT’S hard to feel sympathy for Nigel Farage. It’s easy to assume that if he’s had the smirk wiped off his face, someone must have done something right.

When he declares that “life in the United Kingdom is now becoming completely unliveable because of the levels of prejudice against me”, a reasonable first response is “boo hoo”.

It’s also worth remembering that he has a TV show to promote. But set aside those reactions to the news that the former Ukip leader claims to have had his bank accounts closed without explanation, and that seven other UK banks won’t touch him with a barge pole.

“If they can do it to me, they can do it to you too,” he insists, while suggesting that a significant contributing factor may have been Labour MP Sir Chris Bryant standing up in Parliament and saying that Farage had been paid more than £500,000 from the Russian state in 2018 alone – a claim Farage strongly rejects, insisting the figure quoted was his firm’s total income for the year and did not include a penny from the state broadcaster Russia Today.

Never say never, but I think it’s quite unlikely that an MP will ever use parliamentary privilege to – erroneously or otherwise – accuse me or you of taking half a million pounds from Russia.

So let’s also leave that hyperbole aside too and consider other reasons why we should perhaps be concerned about Farage’s plight, which he says risks making life so difficult that it renders him a “non-person”.

“To my knowledge, I don’t think anybody has been treated like me in the world of politics,” he declared, but others have been quick to come forward with stories about banking problems affecting not just politicians but their relatives too.

Daily Mail journalist Dominic Lawson wrote about the difficulty he faced when trying to open a bank account for his daughter because of her connection to his father Nigel Lawson, the former Tory chancellor, who at that point was sitting in the House of Lords.

To clarify, the banks don’t have a blanket prejudice against right-wing men named Nigel.

Lawson senior had been designated a “politically exposed person”, the term used to refer to those in public positions who (along with their relatives) might be considered a higher-than-average risk for involvement in corruption or money laundering.

Dominic Lawson did eventually manage to open an account for his daughter, after “exhaustive form-filling” and “much toing and froing”.

He says that MP Charles Walker, who has campaigned for sitting UK politicians to be “de-risked”, knows of 10 current MPs who have had their bank accounts closed – a high enough number, surely, to give pause to anyone weighing up the pros and cons of a political career.

Farage was not the only divisive character to raise banking-related concerns last week.

Stuart Campbell, the Wings Over Scotland blogger, tweeted in characteristically sweary fashion that his personal current and savings accounts had been unexpectedly closed and that he only learned this when his card was declined at a supermarket.

Unlike Farage, he was able to swiftly open a new account with a different bank, but was left puzzling over why he had been declared persona non grata by his previous bank and why it had made little or no effort to communicate with him about this important decision.

“Was it political?” he tweeted. “Was it to do with Wings’ very public stance on gender, after the fiasco of PayPal pulling their services from the Free Speech Union and other similar incidents from woke financial service providers?”

Days later it was reported that Yorkshire Building Society had closed the account of a church leader after he responded to a request for feedback by questioning how the institution was marking Pride Month.

Rev Richard Fothergill says he wrote “a couple of paragraphs” questioning whether the efforts were “a waste of energies” and raising “serious ethical problems with the transsexual agenda ... impacting children”, adding a link to a news report about drag queen story hours.

Fothergill was surprised to later receive a letter telling him that his relationship with the bank had “irrevocably broken down” and his account was to be closed.

On being contacted by The Times, the building society insisted it “never close savings accounts based on different opinions regarding beliefs or feedback provided by our customers” and does so only if a customer “is rude, abusive, violent or discriminates in any way”.

I’m sure we can all agree that bank staff should not have to tolerate rude, abusive or violent customers, but that final part seems open to broad interpretation.

Fothergill sent his views directly to his building society, so it’s pretty clear this is what triggered the account closure, but might other institutions be casting a wider net to find examples of their customers behaving in what they consider to be a discriminatory way? Might rude or abusive words posted on Twitter be grounds for being ditched as a customer?

Regardless of your personal feelings about Farage, Campbell or Fothergill, or the issues on which they either campaign or just spout forth, it would be good to have answers to those questions.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,494
Location
Taunton or Kent
Eh? I don't get your comparison.

In the case of Nigel Farage, while accepting there seems to be some muddiness about what exactly motivated Coutt's Bank and it's possible that Nigel Farage has somewhat misrepresented what has happened, the broad issue appears to be that the bank closed Nigel Farage's account and was motivated to do so, at least in part, by disagreement with Nigel Farage's political views. There's also some indication that this isn't the only case in which banks have acted in this way. That seems to me to raise a wider issue that does urgently need addressing: Whatever you think of Farage's views, if people start getting denied access to basic financial services that are necessary to function in modern society, purely on account of their holding political opinions that other people find objectionable, then it should be obvious that is a direct threat to democracy and free speech.

On the other hand, whatever your sympathies might be with people who are on strike, it's equally obvious that people having financial difficulties or struggling to pay bills does not pose a threat to free speech. It's an entirely different problem.

Also worth noting that modifying banking regulation to ensure banks don't close accounts for political reasons, in order to protect our democracy, is mostly cost-free and economically neutral, and probably doesn't require that much work - so there isn't really any good reason for the Government not to quickly deal with that. On the other hand giving people wage rises - which seems to be what you are saying the Government should do - is not economically neutral: It requires the Government to find lots of money from somewhere, which must mean one of (1) higher taxes, (2) cuts in services, or (3) more borrowing which is likely to lead to more inflation, making everyone who hasn't been given a pay rise even worse off. There are therefore pretty good reasons for any sensible government to hesitate about doing that.

I think you're comparing two things that are not remotely comparable.
I'm comparing the difference in apparent Government response and priority, not the substance of the two issues.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,035
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
In her mealy mouthed so called "apology" to Nigel Farage she said that it is not the bank's policy to close accounts based on the political views of the account holder, but if you read the document produced as a result of Mr Farage's subject request, that is exactly why they did close his account.
I do wonder if there's an element of communication lacking between the head of NWG and the head of Coutts which is, ultimately, just a wealth management business unit of a much larger organisation. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if Rose wasn't actually aware of what was going on with Farage and his status. If she did know about this all along and if there is a wider problem not just with wealth management customers but also amongst us normal folk with standard bank accounts then of course it needs further investigation.

I personally suspect there's more to this than meets the eye with regards Farage and what he claims to be the order of events. The only certain thing that comes out of Farage's mouth is the stink of stale beer and fag smoke. Everything else is up for debate.
 

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,593
The CEO of Nat West is a liar.

In her mealy mouthed so called "apology" to Nigel Farage she said that it is not the bank's policy to close accounts based on the political views of the account holder, but if you read the document produced as a result of Mr Farage's subject request, that is exactly why they did close his account.

Not only that, but they lied about the reason for the account closure to, yes you've guessed it, the BBC.

And the only reason they are offering Mr Farage an account with Nat West now is because of the bad publicity that has been generated.

Other people, who do not exactly agree with Nigel Farage politically, and have been affected, think this is wrong.

The subject access request reveals that at some point recently they've had a meeting about whether him having an account reflects well on the bank. It doesn't reveal that that was the reason for the closure. He fairly clearly no longer met the criteria for having an account, which was the primary reason for the closure. The meeting may well have just been deciding if there were other factors which made him worth keeping on as a customer even though he isn't rich enough, and on balance he clearly isn't.
 

Gloster

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
13,011
Location
Up the creek
Now I will make clear that I find Farage a thoroughly unpleasant and unappetising person, but he has the right to have a bank account like everybody else, except if he has been involved in various forms of financial or related misbehaviour, which I am not aware that he has. However, lots of people have lost their bank accounts over the years for various reasons, some very trivial, and nobody with influence has cared a jot or done a thing, but the moment the right’s darling is threatened with losing his account (*) they go completely bananas and demand action. I find that to be rank hypocrisy, but no more than one expects nowadays: special treatment for our chums and ***** to you plebs.

Coutts sees itself as the top peoples’ bank with a select clientele (something I have very mixed feelings about). If they feel that his words and actions are below the standards that they expect of their clients to an extent that their association with him could damage their reputation, why can they not ask him to take his money elsewhere?

* - Did they actually deny him a bank account in any part of the group or did they merely request that he move his account to a run-of-the-mill NatWest branch? If that is true, then he still would have had a bank account, just one he can’t boast about so much.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,103
Location
Redcar
Now I will make clear that I find Farage a thoroughly unpleasant and unappetising person, but he has the right to have a bank account like everybody else, except if he has been involved in various forms of financial or related misbehaviour, which I am not aware that he has.
He was offered a NatWest account! There's no suggestion (other than by those for whom it is convenient to suggest) that he was going to be left in the position of being unbanked. Simply that he, for whatever reason, was no longer welcome to be a customer of Coutts.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
He was offered a NatWest account! There's no suggestion (other than by those for whom it is convenient to suggest) that he was going to be left in the position of being unbanked. Simply that he, for whatever reason, was no longer welcome to be a customer of Coutts.

Nigel Farage was only offered a Nat West account after he complained publicly about the closure of his Coutts account.


He said he had been offered a NatWest account on June 29 after he complained publicly about losing his accounts, adding he has been given a postponement of a few weeks before his Coutts accounts are closed

There was no offer of a Nat West account before June 29th, and Nigel Farage was refused a new account by several other UK banks.

So Nigel Farage would have been debanked if he hadn't made the issue public, and the only reason he has been offered a Nat West account is that the bank know they are in the wrong about this.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,103
Location
Redcar
Nigel Farage was only offered a Nat West account after he complained publicly about the closure of his Coutts account.




There was no offer of a Nat West account before June 29th,
Fair point, I wasn't clear on the timeline.

and Nigel Farage was refused a new account by several other UK banks.
Which banks? Surely they should be named and subject to the same ire?
So Nigel Farage would have been debanked if he hadn't made the issue public, and the only reason he has been offered a Nat West account is that the bank know they are in the wrong about this.
Not sure I buy that a) someone like Farage only has one bank account (I have more than one and I'm hardly the sort that ends up in a position to open a Coutts account!) nor that b) the only reason they've offered one is that they're in the wrong. It's sounded rather more complicated from what I've skimmed. But I'm not paying that much detail to be fair. Seems rather like a storm in a tea cup.
 

takno

Verified Rep - Traksy
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,593
Nigel Farage was only offered a Nat West account after he complained publicly about the closure of his Coutts account.




There was no offer of a Nat West account before June 29th, and Nigel Farage was refused a new account by several other UK banks.

So Nigel Farage would have been debanked if he hadn't made the issue public, and the only reason he has been offered a Nat West account is that the bank know they are in the wrong about this.
They made him an offer of a NatWest account when he complained that he couldn't get an account elsewhere. There isn't any indication that NatWest refused him an account, just that he hadn't asked to stay with the group
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,960
Location
Ely
They made him an offer of a NatWest account when he complained that he couldn't get an account elsewhere. There isn't any indication that NatWest refused him an account, just that he hadn't asked to stay with the group

If Farage is to be believed - and so far he's been more honest on this than NatWest - no-one has offered him a replacement *business* account though, including NatWest.

Indeed, if NatWest accept that they've made a mistake, which they appear to be trying to do with their apology this evening, then why don't they offer him his Coutts accounts back? And setting out what disciplinary action they will be taking against those people who filled the data into the report Farage got from them earlier in the week, as (apparently) they don't reflect the opinion of the company?

But even if they did, would anyone really want to try to maintain a professional relationship with an organisation that has called you a 'disingenuous grifter'? And an organisation that is monitoring your actions down to the level of logging that you've liked a Ricky Gervais video on twitter, and that you have interviewed the family of Novak Djokovic? And why are banks wasting time and money - as NatWest is partly owned by the taxpayer, *our* money - doing this sort of thing?

Even the Guardian tonight are reporting this as a 'massive PR disaster' for Coutts, and I think it is fair to say they are not exactly Farage fans! (Interestingly they are also explicitly saying that it was Alison Rose, chief executive of NatWest, that was responsible for briefing the BBC that the reason he was being removed was because he didn't meet the financial criteria. If that's true, she'll have to go).
 
Last edited:

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
If man-of-the-common-people Farage were to be allowed to continue with Coutts, then the bank should be renamed Uncouths. :D Never forget the man emanates from Pratts Bottom, despite his denials.
 

Enthusiast

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,226
If man-of-the-common-people Farage were to be allowed to continue with Coutts, then the bank should be renamed Uncouths. :D Never forget the man emanates from Pratts Bottom, despite his denials.
I don't think he does. I believe he was born in the village of Downe. Pratts Bottom is a similar small settlement, but a couple of miles east along the A21, on the London/Kent border. He still lives nearby, just south of Downe, between Berry Street and Luxted.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,927
Location
First Class
If Farage is to be believed - and so far he's been more honest on this than NatWest - no-one has offered him a replacement *business* account though, including NatWest.

Indeed, if NatWest accept that they've made a mistake, which they appear to be trying to do with their apology this evening, then why don't they offer him his Coutts accounts back? And setting out what disciplinary action they will be taking against those people who filled the data into the report Farage got from them earlier in the week, as (apparently) they don't reflect the opinion of the company?

But even if they did, would anyone really want to try to maintain a professional relationship with an organisation that has called you a 'disingenuous grifter'? And an organisation that is monitoring your actions down to the level of logging that you've liked a Ricky Gervais video on twitter, and that you have interviewed the family of Novak Djokovic? And why are banks wasting time and money - as NatWest is partly owned by the taxpayer, *our* money - doing this sort of thing?

Even the Guardian tonight are reporting this as a 'massive PR disaster' for Coutts, and I think it is fair to say they are not exactly Farage fans! (Interestingly they are also explicitly saying that it was Alison Rose, chief executive of NatWest, that was responsible for briefing the BBC that the reason he was being removed was because he didn't meet the financial criteria. If that's true, she'll have to go).

If I recall correctly Mike, you’re rather left-wing and not exactly a fan of Farage? You clearly however understand right and wrong and are able to see the bigger picture here, unlike some apparently……

For what it’s worth, I’d like to think I’d reciprocate if say John McDonnell or Diane Abbott were to be treated in such a manner.

It’s getting late so I’ll climb down off my moral high horse for now!
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
I don't think he does. I believe he was born in the village of Downe. Pratts Bottom is a similar small settlement, but a couple of miles east along the A21, on the London/Kent border. He still lives nearby, just south of Downe, between Berry Street and Luxted.
I think he was born in Farnborough Hospital, but I might be wrong. When I had a bookshop in Orpington he was beginning to make a name for himself and I certainly recall being told by someone local that he'd grown up in Pratts Bottom. In any case, Farnborough Hospital (now renamed) is in Locks Bottom, so, one way and another, he's always been associated with asses.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,960
Location
Ely
If I recall correctly Mike, you’re rather left-wing and not exactly a fan of Farage?

I still think I've somewhat left-wing - I supported Corbyn quite enthusiastically in 2017 and 2019, and I probably would still if he were Labour leader, despite strong misgivings over how he approached covid issues - but like many all over the political spectrum, I feel rather homeless now. Much/most of the left seem to have (rather rapidly) abandoned most of the principles I think are the most important - being anti-censorship and pro-free speech, being pro-individual freedom, being anti-war, being sceptical of big business and specifically big pharma. Often it is voices on the 'right' filling those gaps now, which is interesting. You end up with the spectacle yesterday in the US Congress of Democrats trying to censor one of their own (RFK Jr) at a congressional hearing into, err, censorship - while the Republicans are the ones arguing for listening to what he has to say. The situation in the UK (eg. in Starmer's Labour party) is rather similar. Everything has got rather odd recently.

And yes, I'm not a fan of Farage, as I've pointed out on here a number of times, but I have to say he's done very well here - he took a big risk by going public, but - admittedly mostly due to some very poor decisions by Coutts and, to a lesser extent, the BBC - he's come out of this rather well and has managed to change the agenda in a way few others can.

It should all be about principle and policy, not personalities. That's one very important lesson I got, at least partly, from admiring Tony Benn for many years.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,605
Often it is voices on the 'right' filling those gaps now
Are they? Or are they just saying they are? Many of the "free speech" lot on the right seem to be more like "free speech as long as it is what I like".
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,960
Location
Ely
Are they? Or are they just saying they are? Many of the "free speech" lot on the right seem to be more like "free speech as long as it is what I like".

Yes, that's certainly the case, and they should be ignored just as those on the left who do so. 'Many' is not all however, and some do the right thing and stick up for free speech in the abstract even if they don't agree with the sentiment expressed (the 'Voltaire' approach).
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,695
Location
Scotland
In the case of Nigel Farage, while accepting there seems to be some muddiness about what exactly motivated Coutt's Bank and it's possible that Nigel Farage has somewhat misrepresented what has happened, the broad issue appears to be that the bank closed Nigel Farage's account and was motivated to do so, at least in part, by disagreement with Nigel Farage's political views. There's also some indication that this isn't the only case in which banks have acted in this way. That seems to me to raise a wider issue that does urgently need addressing: Whatever you think of Farage's views, if people start getting denied access to basic financial services that are necessary to function in modern society, purely on account of their holding political opinions that other people find objectionable, then it should be obvious that is a direct threat to democracy and free speech.
Nobody was denied "basic financial services". He was offered a different bank account.

I find it more dangerous to society that commercial decisions of who companies want to do business with are being overruled by the government. If the government wants to ensure that everyone has a right to banking access then the government should set up a bank of last resort.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Nobody was denied "basic financial services". He was offered a different bank account.

Nigel Farage was only offered a personal account from Nat West, and not a business account.

And the offer of a personal account was only made after he complained to the press.

If he had kept quiet he would have been denied basic financial services, as his request to open an account at several other banks was also refused.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,695
Location
Scotland
If he had kept quiet he would have been denied basic financial services, as his request to open an account at several other banks was also refused.
I rather suspect he wasn't requesting a basic bank account, since those can only be denied on the basis of failed identity checks or suspicion of fraud/illegal activity.
Can you be refused a basic bank account?
You can be refused a basic bank account if:
  • you do not pass an identity check or immigration check
  • the bank suspects you of fraud or financial crime
The bank should give you a reason in writing unless they suspect fraud or financial crime.
Source: https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/benefits/basic_bank_accounts_with_no_credit_check

So in all likelihood he wasn't being denied basic financial services, he was being denied the specific account that he wanted.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
This (i.e. mission creep) is why it’s unlikely to become a non-issue in my opinion.


Ordinarily I’d agree, but banking is a highly regulated industry and Coutts acted improperly.

Regardless of one’s personal view of Farage, he was the victim here and was quite right to call the bank out.

The irony is that if Coutts hadn't closed Nigel Farage's bank account, none of this would have come out, not even the fact that Nigel Farage was a client of Coutts in the first place.

Coutts wanted to protect its reputational risk. Yet its actions have achieved exactly the opposite, not least because the chairman of the bank is the prime suspect in leaking Nigel Farage's personal banking information to a journalist at the ever so impartial BBC.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
2,439
If he had kept quiet he would have been denied basic financial services, as his request to open an account at several other banks was also refused.
We don't know what other banks he approached, or what type of account he was trying to open. Without that information it is impossible to draw the conclusion that he was being denied basic financial services.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
The irony is that if Coutts hadn't closed Nigel Farage's bank account, none of this would have come out, not even the fact that Nigel Farage was a client of Coutts in the first place.

Coutts wanted to protect its reputational risk. Yet its actions have achieved exactly the opposite, not least because the chairman of the bank is the prime suspect in leaking Nigel Farage's personal banking information to a journalist at the ever so impartial BBC.

He was put on Coutts annual reputational risk review register because he was repeatedly boasting of being a Coutts customer, if he hadnt been boasting he wouldnt have brought the bank into disrepute by association with him. His freedom of information request found a 36 page dossier compiled about him by the bank that documented xenophobic and racist political comments, close financial association with Russia, Trump and Djokovic and he failed to meet the financial requirements of holding an account, he was also contrary to his accusations not classed as a Politically Exposed Person having been downgraded due to his no longer being a credible politician (though the report warns there was a risk of him re-entering politics).
Second its legal precedence in the UK that a company can refuse business with someone whose views they dont agree with after that bakers won their appeal in the High Court that they should be able to refuse an order for a cake decorated to promote homosexuality, he wasnt refused a personal banking account which is a protected right, but a commercial banking account.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,960
Location
Ely
He was put on Coutts annual reputational risk review register because he was repeatedly boasting of being a Coutts customer, if he hadnt been boasting he wouldnt have brought the bank into disrepute by association with him.

I must have missed the masses of muilti-millionaires saying 'well, I was going to put my money into Coutts, and I wasn't put off by the revelations about Pinochet or Mubarak or the Italian mafia having accounts there, but now that I've discovered that Nigel Farage banks there, I don't feel that I can'. It doesn't seem terribly likely, does it?

His freedom of information request found a 36 page dossier compiled about him by the bank that documented xenophobic and racist political comments, close financial association with Russia, Trump and Djokovic

Trump was the president of (supposedly) our closest political ally. Why shouldn't he have associated with him?

As for Djokovic - I asked this above, but why is Farage going to interview the family of a tennis mega-star something that a bank should remotely be interesting in investigating? (And, as Coutts is 38% owned by the taxpayer, why are they wasting *our money* doing so?)

Second its legal precedence in the UK that a company can refuse business with someone whose views they dont agree with after that bakers won their appeal in the High Court that they should be able to refuse an order for a cake decorated to promote homosexuality, he wasnt refused a personal banking account which is a protected right, but a commercial banking account.

He's not been offered a business account yet by anyone though. How is he supposed to run his business? (And he's far from the only person denied a business bank account. For one, see the Reclaim Party, who just got over 2.5% in the Uxbridge by-election and are a fully-registered political party, but nevertheless can't get a business account to process memberships etc.)
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,103
Location
Redcar
Trump was the president of (supposedly) our closest political ally. Why shouldn't he have associated with him?
If Rishi Sunak had close financial associations with Biden I'd be concerned. Being friendly with the presendent of an important ally is one thing but having a financial relationship feels iffy in the extreme. Quite apart from having ties to Russia which I hope we can all agree is something of a hostile state.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
Can't say I've been following the Farage story closely but I do look at Peter Oborne's Twitter from time to time

This popped up. Over a week old but interesting nonetheless


"NF helps Muslims with bank accounts"

(Given the government is looking at being in rules to say that everyone will have to be given a reason why they are refused a bank account, and they are most likely to be refused banking services).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top