Nigel Farage and that bank account...

[A0]

Anti-Brexiteer Gina Miller has had her "True and Fair" party's account with Monzo closed without explanation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66328098

The key difference here though is this is the closure of an organisations account not an individual and different rules do apply there.

A number of organistions have had their accounts closed in recent years by various banks. The equality legislation which prevents discrimination does not extend to companies or organisations, only individuals.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2023 ==

I can't wait for Farage to invite Miller onto his GB News show to discuss how unfair it is she's been denied banking facilities.

It's not *her* as an individual - it's her political party - and as I keep explaining, there are different rules with regard to companies and organisations, not least the fact the equality legislation which prohibits discrimination on the basis of certain protected characteristics, only applies to an individual. So a bank can decline to accept an account application from an organisation with whom it does not agree.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2023 ==

Anyone like me who scours a few newspapers, both in print format and online, most days including financial pages and money problem advice knows that there have been numerous cases of banks withdrawing accounts etc without forewarning or explanation. with far more devastation than Farage has ever experienced in his overprivileged life. The Telegraph and Mail have been to the fore, but never seem to have considered trying to make it a political issue until the man from Pratts Bottom blew his top. BBC Radio 4's You and Yours has also featured some egregious examples over the years, but the political class looked the other way.

For a start, almost certainly some of Farage's accounts of what actually happened are at least partially untrue, Indeed, Farage himself has admitted in the past that he's not a details person and prefers a broadbrush interpretation of the 'truth.' Dame Alison Rose will be in no position to deny any of his statements now, and the board will be running far too scared to defend themselves in public now. The main political parties too will be gathering their collective skirts around them. We'll probably have to wait almost a fortnight for the next Private Eye to glean any more than froth.

Bit in bold - because in those cases, the people in question didn't have well known, well publicised political views which it seemed likely (and was justified in the document Nat West released) had a bearing on the decision Nat West took. And that's a breach of the equality legislation - you can't discriminate against people because of their views, even if you disagree with them. And that's the way it should be - because otherwise, one day, you may find you are being discriminated against because of your views.

One thing Farage has helpfully highlighted (I don't have any particular liking for him as an individual) is the way to use a Subject Access Request to find out how the bank has assessed whether to remove an individual's banking facilites. By highlighting that and putting it in the public domain how to use this, it will give anyone who's seen their accounts closed a way to understand the rationale and potentially whether they have been discriminated against. It appears 10,000 people have joined a Facebook group giving the details of how to do this - if even 10% of them have a legitimate case, then that's a pretty disturbing number.

 

[MotCO]

When are we all going to realise that Farage is simply an attention seeker who tries to re-invent himself every time there's a chance that he might become irrelevant? I've no time for the BBC's Nick Robinson, but he was absolutely right when he called Farage out as failure regarding becoming an MP.

Sorry, but this odious character has had a disproportionate amount of coverage in the media and it's high time that his oxygen supply was cut off. This isn't about people being "de-banked"; this is all about Nigel. It's highly unlikely that he only has one bank account anyway.

To be clear, I agree that personal details should not have been divulged and Coutt's is very much in the wrong, but let's not kid ourselves.

..is by far and away the best summary of what's actually going on here. Thank you for posting that @GusB. Am 100% in agreement.

I could not disagree more. I accept that Nigel Farage likes being in the spotlight, but the issue about being debanked is a very serious issue which he has highlighted. It has been asked why he only raised this issue when he was debanked, and not when others had been in that position. I did not know that debanking was an issue, and until you are in that position, you do not really appreciate the difficulties this causes. You can't be paid your salary, you can't pay your taxes, you can't get credit cards, you can't buy anything etc etc. He has raised this issue because he can - it takes a lot of strength to raise your head above the parapet - and is trying to find out how widespread an issue this is; it is not just a Nigel issue, but he is standing up for everyone who has been debanked.

Someone else highlighted that Gina Miller had her bank account closed. I am not a fan of hers in any way, but I find this equally wrong. I accept that Monza may not operate accounts for political parties, but I hope she has got a bank account arranged with someone. As I noted in a previous post, the day political parties or protest groups are not able to open a bank account for legal activities is a bad day for democracy.

 

[dosxuk]

It's not *her* as an individual - it's her political party - and as I keep explaining, there are different rules with regard to companies and organisations, not least the fact the equality legislation which prohibits discrimination on the basis of certain protected characteristics, only applies to an individual. So a bank can decline to accept an account application from an organisation with whom it does not agree.

And how is this different to Farage? He hasn't had his personal account closed, it was a business account.

 

[A0]

And how is this different to Farage? He hasn't had his personal account closed, it was a business account.

It was both - he had both a personal and business account.

Key points from Coutts' dossier on Nigel Farage

The 40-page document reveals all of the evidence Coutts accumulated about Nigel Farage to feed back to its Wealth Reputational Risk Committee. They decided that his mortgage, professional and personal accounts would be "exited" from July 2023.

news.sky.com

Key points from Coutts' dossier on Nigel Farage​

The 40-page document reveals all of the evidence Coutts accumulated about Nigel Farage to feed back to its Wealth Reputational Risk Committee. They decided that his mortgage, professional and personal accounts would be "exited" from July 2023.

So his personal account and mortgage are the reason he can claim discrimination.

 

[MotCO]

And how is this different to Farage? He hasn't had his personal account closed, it was a business account.

It was both actually, but Natwest offered him a personal account (eventually), but no business account.

 

[duncanp]

It was both actually, but Natwest offered him a personal account (eventually), but no business account.

And Nigel Farage was only offered a Nat West personal account after he complained publicly about it.

Meanwhile, here is another story to prove the issue of de-banking is not just about Nigel Farage, despite what some people would have you believe.

The fact that Nat West will not reconsider their decision, nor even discuss the reasons for the account closure, is simply unacceptable.

We apologise for the inconvenience, but our decision is final and we’re not able to discuss this decision with you or provide you with any further information in relation to our decision-making.”

Decorated colonel faces ruin after NatWest shut accounts over Saudi links

Baz Melia accuses bank of destroying business by pulling plug on financial dealings in Middle East

www.telegraph.co.uk

Decorated colonel faces ruin after NatWest shut accounts over Saudi links​

Baz Melia accuses bank of destroying business by pulling plug on financial dealings in Middle East

A retired colonel who runs a veterans’ suicide prevention programme has had his NatWest Group bank accounts shut down over his financial dealings in the Middle East.

Baz Melia, a recipient of the MBE, has accused the bank of destroying his business after it pulled the plug on his credit cards while he was travelling in the United Arab Emirates meeting clients.

A few days later, in March this year, he received a letter from the bank telling him his accounts were being closed down as well.

Mr Melia, 58, said he had been given no explanation for why the NatWest Group accounts were shut but suspects it is linked to the counter-terrorism and security company Sanam Technology Ltd, which he set up with a Saudi-based business partner.

Mr Melia said: “What NatWest have done is stop me from having any personal life whatsoever. They have brought my life to a complete catastrophic end. By closing the accounts, they have put me in real jeopardy. We now risk losing the family home we’ve been in for 28 years.”

His accounts – both with NatWest and its sister bank Royal Bank of Scotland – were closed in May after he was given 60 days notice. He said that weekend he was forced to go to his local supermarket and rummage in the food bank.

His wife and children’s accounts have also been shut down. “I found myself going to the food bank at Sainsbury’s the weekend they switched off all our accounts,” said Mr Melia.

He has managed to open accounts with another high street bank but he says it has come too late for his business. He has lost prospective clients in the Middle East, the problem caused on a trip to the region in the spring when he suddenly found himself unable to pay for hotels and internal flights and travel. One possible deal slipped through his fingers as a result, he explained.

“It only happened when I was in the Middle East,” said Mr Melia. “The only thing I can think is the Saudi connection. It must be a red flag country. I presume that meant they had issues with me taking money from them.”

Mr Melia retired from the military with the rank of lieutenant colonel after “just shy” of 40 years. He was awarded an MBE in the Queen’s birthday honours list in 2014 for services to youth development, with the award given to him by the then Prince of Wales, now the King.

In 2021, he was appointed head of Always a Rifleman, a programme set up by The Rifles infantry regiment to give support to veterans struggling with their mental health and welfare. His job is to reach out to veterans at risk of suicide, offering round-the-clock support.

In a letter from the Royal Bank of Scotland, dated March 14, the bank wrote: “While we thank you for choosing to bank with us, we regret to inform you that following a recent review, we have decided to cease our banking relationship with you. This means you’ll have to make other banking arrangements outside of the NatWest Group.”

The letter gave him until May 13 – 60 days later – to sort out other arrangements.

It concluded: “We’ve reached this decision to close your account(s) after careful consideration and in accordance with our terms and conditions. We apologise for the inconvenience, but our decision is final and we’re not able to discuss this decision with you or provide you with any further information in relation to our decision-making.”

NatWest Group said it could only comment if Mr Melia gave the bank permission to talk about his case.

 

[A0]

And Nigel Farage was only offered a Nat West personal account after he complained publicly about it.

Meanwhile, here is another story to prove the issue of de-banking is not just about Nigel Farage, despite what some people would have you believe.

The fact that Nat West will not reconsider their decision, nor even discuss the reasons for the account closure, is simply unacceptable.

As posted above, what Farage has usefully highlighted is the way to extract information from the bank, using the Subject Access Request mechanism - many more people are going to be aware of this and hopefully will use it.

 

[duncanp]

As posted above, what Farage has usefully highlighted is the way to extract information from the bank, using the Subject Access Request mechanism - many more people are going to be aware of this and hopefully will use it.

Nigel Farage has highlighted the way in which the banks are acting as a law unto themselves.

This has got to change.

 

[ainsworth74]

As posted above, what Farage has usefully highlighted is the way to extract information from the bank, using the Subject Access Request mechanism - many more people are going to be aware of this and hopefully will use it.

That will of course only work if the reasons for refusing to provide that information isn't related to the legal requirements bank face in terms of anti-money laundering and fraud investigations.

Nigel Farage has highlighted the way in which the banks are acting as a law unto themselves.

It's a problem, but as @crablab pointed out a lot of the issue is due to the regulatory and legal requirements that banks are under. Certainly when it comes to being cagey about why they're freezing and closing accounts (in some cases anyway!).

 

[A0]

That will of course only work if the reasons for refusing to provide that information isn't related to the legal requirements bank face in terms of anti-money laundering and fraud investigations.

I agree - but equally if it's a direct consequence of the bank's "social policies" then it will have to declare that and that may well leave them open to challenges due to discrimination.

 

[Lost property]

There will be a very bitter irony if Farage, of all people, starts on the discrimination trail

 

[DustyBin]

And how is this different to Farage? He hasn't had his personal account closed, it was a business account.

Putting aside the fact that his personal account was also closed, the difference is that Farage's business account was his own, not that of a political party. Personally, I'm not comfortable with political parties being de-banked either, but Monzo have provided a clear explanation for their actions (eventually). There's no ambiguity; they simply don't provide accounts to political parties of any persuasion, rightly or wrongly.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Putting aside the fact that his personal account was also closed, the difference is that Farage's business account was his own, not that of a political party.

Is that possible? I'd have thought that a business account would normally need to be opened in the name of an actual registered company - or some other organisation, rather than a person. I guess if you're running as a sole trader, you might wish to open a separate account to keep your business finances away from your personal finances, but even then I'd have expected it to be cheaper to just open a 2nd personal account, which you happen to use for your business stuff.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with political parties being de-banked either, but Monzo have provided a clear explanation for their actions (eventually). There's no ambiguity; they simply don't provide accounts to political parties of any persuasion, rightly or wrongly.

There is an interesting dilemma here. On the one hand, in a free country, you could argue that any person or business ought to have the right to decide for itself who it chooses to do business or not to to do business with. But on the other hand, if as a result of multiple businesses exercising that right and choosing not to do business with certain individuals or groups, people are deprived of the ability to live normal lives or not to be able to engage in legitimate political activity, then that's not acceptable. Clearly you need some kind of balance between the two. Like you I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea of political groups being debanked.

 

[DustyBin]

Is that possible? I'd have thought that a business account would normally need to be opened in the name of an actual registered company - or some other organisation, rather than a person. I guess if you're running as a sole trader, you might wish to open a separate account to keep your business finances away from your personal finances, but even then I'd have expected it to be cheaper to just open a 2nd personal account, which you happen to use for your business stuff.

That was poor wording on my part, apologies. I meant the account was that of a registered company that Farage owns (as opposed to a political party).

There is an interesting dilemma here. On the one hand, in a free country, you could argue that any person or business ought to have the right to decide for itself who it chooses to do business or not to to do business with. But on the other hand, if as a result of multiple businesses exercising that right and choosing not to do business with certain individuals or groups, people are deprived of the ability to live normal lives or not to be able to engage in legitimate political activity, then that's not acceptable. Clearly you need some kind of balance between the two. Like you I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea of political groups being debanked.

I agree.

 

[MikeWM]

Personally, I'm not comfortable with political parties being de-banked either, but Monzo have provided a clear explanation for their actions (eventually). There's no ambiguity; they simply don't provide accounts to political parties of any persuasion, rightly or wrongly.

They probably ought to have *mentioned* that to Miller though - a big part of the problem here appears to be that they didn't bother to do so, just as they didn't with Farage and indeed many other cases now being reported.

I've mentioned previously the fact that Laurence Fox's Reclaim Party hasn't been able to secure a bank account for two years now. Business/political accounts clearly need to be protected along with individuals, currently they clearly are not.

 

[DustyBin]

They probably ought to have *mentioned* that to Miller though - a big part of the problem here appears to be that they didn't bother to do so, just as they didn't with Farage and indeed many other cases now being reported.

Oh absolutely; they appear to have erroneously allowed her party to open an account, and then failed to provide an explanation as to why they later closed it. The situation has been poorly handled, and is frankly a bit embarrassing from the banks perspective.

I've mentioned previously the fact that Laurence Fox's Reclaim Party hasn't been able to secure a bank account for two years now. Business/political accounts clearly need to be protected along with individuals, currently they clearly are not.

Again, I agree.

 

[A0]

Putting aside the fact that his personal account was also closed, the difference is that Farage's business account was his own, not that of a political party. Personally, I'm not comfortable with political parties being de-banked either, but Monzo have provided a clear explanation for their actions (eventually). There's no ambiguity; they simply don't provide accounts to political parties of any persuasion, rightly or wrongly.

Bit in bold - and that's no different to the Co-operative Bank's long standing position on not offering banking services to companies involved in gambling for example.

Where it's a commercially based decision and applied equally i.e. the Co-operative don't offer to gambling companies, Monzo don't offer to political parties - that's fine, because equality legislation doesn't apply to commercial relationships, it does however apply to an individual's ability to access goods and services and makes it clear that a service provider cannot discriminate against an individual.

 

[MikeWM]

I can't wait for Farage to invite Miller onto his GB News show to discuss how unfair it is she's been denied banking facilities.

Farage has tweeted (or 'X'ed, or whatever) in support of Miller today. She's been a guest on GBNews before, so I wouldn't rule it out

 

[duncanp]

Farage has tweeted (or 'X'ed, or whatever) in support of Miller today. She's been a guest on GBNews before, so I wouldn't rule it out

Nigel Farage's tweet contains a link to an article in The Guardian.

It is not just about Nigel Farage, despite what some on the left of the political spectrum might think.

It depends whether you are interested in what is right, rather than who is right.

Gina Miller voices fear for democracy over closure of her party’s bank account

Access to banking for new parties needed in ‘functioning democracy’, says campaigner after Monzo decision

www.theguardian.com

Gina Miller voices fear for democracy over closure of her party’s bank account​

Access to banking for new parties needed in ‘functioning democracy’, says campaigner after Monzo decision

The anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller has said “we don’t have a functioning democracy” if new political parties cannot access banking services, after she was told her own party’s account would be closed.

The government and financial services watchdog must step in, she said, to ensure new parties and MPs can access banking to be able to operate.

Miller said it was a “bigger issue” than the closure of Nigel Farage’s bank account, which led to a row resulting in the resignations of the top bosses at NatWest and Coutts.

Miller, who came to prominence bringing legal cases over Brexit, was told earlier this month by Monzo that her True and Fair party’s account would close in September.

She was told in a message on the bank’s app but was given no explanation.

Monzo has since said it does not accept any political parties and that the account was opened erroneously as it was not categorised as such in the application.

Nine banks had turned down the True and Fair party before it got the account with Monzo in November 2021, according to Miller.

She told the PA news agency: “That is the bigger issue, the fact that as a new insurgent political party you have no access to banking services, which is extraordinary in a democracy.”

The party has now found a small institution to bank with but, Miller says: “What if they turn around in future and say: ‘Well, actually, we’ve decided for no reason that because you’re a political party, you can’t have a bank account’?

“I think the government and the FCA [Financial Conduct Authority] have got to step in straight away because if this happened – we lose our account in September for Monzo, and then another bank or our new provider decides that they will use this same rule saying: ‘Oh well, we don’t accept political parties’ – then we in effect won’t exist.

“We wouldn’t be able to operate because we wouldn’t have any access to any banking services.”

Concerns over de-banking have mounted after Farage said his account with Coutts was shut down because it disagreed with his political views.

The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, weighed in to say his government was taking “tough action” to protect the free speech of banking customers.

The NatWest chief executive, Dame Alison Rose, stepped down this week after both Downing Street and the Treasury expressed their “serious concerns” about her conduct after she admitted to being the source of an incorrect BBC report on the former Ukip leader’s finances.

Miller noted that Farage had been offered an alternative account with NatWest and said her case pointed to wider issues.

“What I’m saying is actually even bigger than that, which is: how can we have a proper functioning democracy if we can’t have new parties or new elected people?”

She also raised concerns about newly elected MPs being de-banked due to lenders using rules around politically exposed persons (PEP) in a “dysfunctional way”.

Her True and Fair party is standing nine candidates in the next general election, with Miller running against the Tory former minister Chris Grayling in Epsom and Ewell.

The financial regulator is looking into whether PEP rules, over anyone considered to be higher risk because of their political connections, are applied too rigorously by banks amid concerns many British politicians are denied accounts.

Monzo said: “Like lots of banks, we do not accept any political parties as Monzo Business customers, in the same way that we don’t currently accept trusts, clubs and a range of other organisations.

“In this case, the account wasn’t originally categorised as a political party.

“After this was identified and corrected, the customer was given notice that the account would be closed. We recognise that this experience will have been frustrating for the customer and we’re sorry for that.”

There is no suggestion Monzo factored Miller’s political views into its decision.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Nigel Farage's tweet contains a link to an article in The Guardian.

One thing in that link you quoted does look worrying:

Nine banks had turned down the True and Fair party before it got the account with Monzo in November 2021, according to Miller.

 

[najaB]

And individual's personal views are just that - their personal views - and it is not permissable to deny service on the basis you "don't like their views".

The moment they use their platform as a public figure to express those views widely - for example, having a programme on a news channel - they cease to be purely personal.

 

[GusB]

The moment they use their platform as a public figure to express those views widely - for example, having a programme on a news channel - they cease to be purely personal.

Indeed. I'd also question the fact that the owner of said news platform made a few pounds from the drop in the value of NatWest shares - all entirely co-incidental, of course

GB News owner’s fund makes millions from short position as NatWest shares slide

Marshall Wace holds a 0.59% short position in NatWest, which has delivered gains of close to £12 million in the past week

uk.finance.yahoo.com

A hedge fund led by the owner of GB News has made millions from shorting NatWest stock as the bank’s shares fell in the wake of the controversy over Nigel Farage’s bank account.

Sir Paul Marshall’s hedge fund Marshall Wace has a 0.59% short position in NatWest, according to regulatory filings first unearthed by the Telegraph. The fund has held a short position against NatWest since the Spring, and has pared back its bets slightly in recent months.

NatWest shares have lost 8.4% of their value in the past week as the company has come under fire for how it handled Nigel Farage’s account with exclusive bank Coutts. That represents close to £2 billion in market capitalisation, meaning Marshall Wace has gained around £11.7 million in that time period by betting against the bank.

Those gains will only exist on paper until Marshall Wace cashed out of its short position, though. They are also a drop in the ocean for Marshall Wace, which manages almost £50 billion worth of assets.

The fall in share price was mostly due to the exit of Dame Alison Rose as CEO, after she revealed that she had leaked information that led to an inaccurate BBC report on why Coutts had closed Farage’s account.

Farage presents a show on Marshall’s GB News. On his show on Wednesday, he called for the Government, which owns 38.6% of NatWest, “to appoint a new temporary board to take control of this bank.”

Marshall has an estimated net worth of £680 million, and is widely seen as a likely bidder for the Telegraph, which has also been a major supporter of Farage and critic of NatWest leadership during the controversy.

According to the Telegraph, the decision to bet against NatWest was likely made by a computer based on analysts’ reports, rather than being linked to any association with Farage.

 

[DustyBin]

The moment they use their platform as a public figure to express those views widely - for example, having a programme on a news channel - they cease to be purely personal.

This is exactly the position in which Gary Lineker found himself.

I (strongly!) disagree with Lineker’s political views, however I wouldn’t want to see him de-banked or otherwise denied access to services, as firstly it’s just wrong, and secondly it’s the top of a very slippery slope.

I know some will struggle to accept it, and even if they do they’ll question his motives, but Farage has done everyone a favour here.

 

[A0]

The moment they use their platform as a public figure to express those views widely - for example, having a programme on a news channel - they cease to be purely personal.

That's not what the law says - so much as you might wish it did, the law does not make a distinction between private individuals who are and are not in the public eye. And that's how it should be.

Indeed. I'd also question the fact that the owner of said news platform made a few pounds from the drop in the value of NatWest shares - all entirely co-incidental, of course

GB News owner’s fund makes millions from short position as NatWest shares slide

Marshall Wace holds a 0.59% short position in NatWest, which has delivered gains of close to £12 million in the past week

uk.finance.yahoo.com

Another case of "lets build a conspiracy based on a headline" - if you bothered to read the article you'd find the fund in question ises computer algorythms to "bet" on shares and the short on NW shares was actually done back in March.

I suspect they took a similar position on *all* banks - if you look at the shares of Lloyds, Barclays and HSBC over the past 6 months you'll see all are down and all started falling in Feb / Mar - almost certainly related to economic reasons - when people have less money, they invest or save less and borrow more and higher interest rates affects borrowers - fewer borrow due to the cost, some existing borrowers may struggle to repay.

This is exactly the position in which Gary Lineker found himself.

I (strongly!) disagree with Lineker’s political views, however I wouldn’t want to see him de-banked or otherwise denied access to services, as firstly it’s just wrong, and secondly it’s the top of a very slippery slope.

I know some will struggle to accept it, and even if they do they’ll question his motives, but Farage has done everyone a favour here.

The difference about Lineker is he is employed by an organisation which has very strict rules on its staff, particularly presenters, about being impartial. He is paid alot of money by this organisation, yet seems to be permitted to "break" rules others are expected to adhere to. He wasn't being discriminated against because of his views (anyone expressing clear political views would be treated the same way) - the issue was he was expressing his views publicly when holding a certain position. Senior Civil Servants are in the same position, so it's not just the BBC which has this requirement.

The only common thing with the Farage / Nat West case is Lineker breaking rules and being allowed to that others are expected to obey - which Alison Rose did when she discussed Farage's banking arrangements with a BBC journo which if a junior clerk at a branch had done, would have lead to their dismissal - not resignation.

 

[DustyBin]

The difference about Lineker is he is employed by an organisation which has very strict rules on its staff, particularly presenters, about being impartial. He is paid alot of money by this organisation, yet seems to be permitted to "break" rules others are expected to adhere to. He wasn't being discriminated against because of his views (anyone expressing clear political views would be treated the same way) - the issue was he was expressing his views publicly when holding a certain position. Senior Civil Servants are in the same position, so it's not just the BBC which has this requirement.

The only common thing with the Farage / Nat West case is Lineker breaking rules and being allowed to that others are expected to obey - which Alison Rose did when she discussed Farage's banking arrangements with a BBC journo which if a junior clerk at a branch had done, would have lead to their dismissal - not resignation.

Just to be clear, I was only drawing the parallel in regard to people using their status and platform to air their views. The fact that Lineker may or may not have been in breach of BBC rules is a separate matter; neither him nor Farage should be de-banked or similar as a result.

 

[A0]

Just to be clear, I was only drawing the parallel in regard to people using their status and platform to air their views. The fact that Lineker may or may not have been in breach of BBC rules is a separate matter; neither him nor Farage should be de-banked or similar as a result.

Bit in bold - completely agree.

 

[cb a1]

I find myself somewhat torn on this issue. I have, for many years, banked with a specific bank because its principles align well with my own principles. I have extended this to, for example, the specific funds that my private pension is invested in, my mortgage lender, etc. I believe that as individuals, we should have the choice to do our business with businesses which accord to our values and principles.

Conceptually though, all banks could decide that their principles exclude a cohort of the public such that they have nowhere left to bank. In a perfectly competitive world, new banks could then set themselves up to provide services for said cohorts, however it's not a perfect world and the bar to set up a new bank is high. Whilst I wouldn't quite class a bank account as a fundamental human right, not having a bank account does pretty much exclude you from participating in society.

 

[Silenos]

equality legislation doesn't apply to commercial relationships, it does however apply to an individual's ability to access goods and services and makes it clear that a service provider cannot discriminate against an individual.

Except for religious reasons, and I would have to agree that while I think Farage is a despicable individual, he isn’t the devil.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It is worth saying a lot of the "de-banking" complaints I see, at least online, are specifically from people who have engaged in lets say some questionable financial activities, or at least have a pattern of transactions that looks a little suspect to say the least! E.g. most of the complaints I've seen on reddit, especially last year, were around crypto and NFT related transactions getting people's accounts blocked or closed.

So it is worth considering that not all cases of "de-banking" are like the ones being described. Especially as if the account closure is due to financial activities, then often the bank legally can't say much anyway. And that is not a bad thing unless you want to encourage money laundering and the like.

 

[A0]

Except for religious reasons, and I would have to agree that while I think Farage is a despicable individual, he isn’t the devil.

No, religious belief is a protected characteristic, you can't discriminate against somebody because of their faith or religious beliefs.