Nigel Farage and that bank account...

[Silenos]

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

You can discriminate against someone based on your religious belief. For example, a pharmacist can refuse to provide contraception, based on their faith.

 

[WelshBluebird]

You can discriminate against someone based on your religious belief. For example, a pharmacist can refuse to provide contraception, based on their faith.

Unless that discrimination is because of someone else's protected characteristic (e.g. a pharmacist can't refuse to serve a gay couple based on their faith).
I'd also suggest that someone who does, even legally, discriminates based on their faith like that maybe isn't a good fit for the job they are in and should find a new one (especially in your example, as providing contraception is very much something that a pharmacist is expected to do as part of their day to day job - if they won't, then that will require other staff to pick up those tasks).

 

[A0]

You can discriminate against someone based on your religious belief. For example, a pharmacist can refuse to provide contraception, based on their faith.

I don't think that's correct. If your employer sells a certain set of products, you would be expected to sell those without exception. That said a Catholic run pharmacy would be in its rights not to stock or sell contraceptives, in the same way a Jewish butchers won't stock pork products or a Muslim run shop might only stock and sell halal meat.

The only allowance is on age grounds where an under 18 cannot sell alcohol.

 

[Silenos]

I don't think that's correct. If your employer sells a certain set of products, you would be expected to sell those without exception. That said a Catholic run pharmacy would be in its rights not to stock or sell contraceptives, in the same way a Jewish butchers won't stock pork products or a Muslim run shop might only stock and sell halal meat.

The only allowance is on age grounds where an under 18 cannot sell alcohol.

No, according to GPhC guidance a pharmacist is entitled to refuse to supply contraception (including emergency contraception, which in my view is a much more contentious issue given the need for rapid use) on grounds of conscience, i.e. religious faith. However, they are supposed to inform the patient where they can obtain it, whether that be from another pharmacy or another pharmacist in the same pharmacy.

I'd also suggest that someone who does, even legally, discriminates based on their faith like that maybe isn't a good fit for the job they are in and should find a new one (especially in your example, as providing contraception is very much something that a pharmacist is expected to do as part of their day to day job - if they won't, then that will require other staff to pick up those tasks).

I would completely agree

 

[najaB]

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.

Go back and read what I posted. I never said that they cease to be personal views, I said that they cease to be purely personal views.

The management of every company has an obligation to protect the value of the company, and brand reputation is a huge component of that brand. One of the main contributors to brand reputation is the public perception of links between the brand and public personalities.

Long story short, the executive management team of any bank with shareholders would be obliged to terminate the banning relationship with someone who, in their opinion, has a high potential to damage their band, even if just by association. I have no doubt that some, possibly all, of the executive management at NatWest agree with Farrage's views, but they know to not say the quiet part out loud.

 

[MotCO]

Long story short, the executive management team of any bank with shareholders would be obliged to terminate the banning relationship with someone who, in their opinion, has a high potential to damage their band, even if just by association. I have no doubt that some, possibly all, of the executive management at NatWest agree with Farrage's views, but they know to not say the quiet part out loud.

But this assumes that everyone knows Farage banks with Coutts. Until that information is made public, there can be no damage to their brand.

There was an earlier post saying that Farage made known that he banked with Coutts, but that was back in 2018 or thereabouts. There was nothing to say that he still banked there.

 

[najaB]

Until that information is made public, there can be no damage to their brand.

Given their target clientele, "public" doesn't mean widely disseminated via the mass media.

 

[Falcon1200]

But this assumes that everyone knows Farage banks with Coutts. Until that information is made public, there can be no damage to their brand.

Would the kind of people inclined, and able, to bank with Coutts really be put off because Farage had an account there? Especially given that they should, in theory, have no way of knowing who does and who does not have an account there.

 

[DerekC]

The management of every company has an obligation to protect the value of the company, and brand reputation is a huge component of that brand. One of the main contributors to brand reputation is the public perception of links between the brand and public personalities.

I wonder if it's really about value protection. My experience of banks in the past five years is that they are totally driven by risk aversion, to the point where customers are regarded as of zero importance in the rush to tick every single possible box, the absence of which might fail to pass some rule or other. Farage was clearly regarded as a risk and was treated accordingly. The real question is - was he denied banking facilities completely? I don't get the impression that he tried very hard to find an alternative. He was angry and saw the opportunity for some woke-bashing publicity. The Coutts and Nat West dropped themselves in it beyond his wildest dreams, I suspect!

 

[MotCO]

I wonder if it's really about value protection. My experience of banks in the past five years is that they are totally driven by risk aversion, to the point where customers are regarded as of zero importance in the rush to tick every single possible box, the absence of which might fail to pass some rule or other. Farage was clearly regarded as a risk and was treated accordingly. The real question is - was he denied banking facilities completely? I don't get the impression that he tried very hard to find an alternative. He was angry and saw the opportunity for some woke-bashing publicity. The Coutts and Nat West dropped themselves in it beyond his wildest

He has said that he has been refused bank accounts by something like 10 banks, so would argue that this is proof that he has tried hard to get a bank account. I think that he was at the end of his tether and was going to take time out from GBNews to try to resolve his banking arrangements.
What else do you suggest he should do?

 

[Silenos]

He has said that he has been refused bank accounts by something like 10 banks, so would argue that this is proof that he has tried hard to get a bank account. I think that he was at the end of his tether and was going to take time out from GBNews to try to resolve his banking arrangements.
What else do you suggest he should do?

Interesting that he has neither named nor pursued those other banks, though. You would think that if he were genuinely concerned about the issue of debanking, he would want to pursue them with more vigour than NatWest, who did in the end offer him banking facilities. After all it’s not so much of an issue if bank A declines your account when you have a choice of 10 others (I didn’t even think there were that many).

 

[MotCO]

Interesting that he has neither named nor pursued those other banks, though. You would think that if he were genuinely concerned about the issue of debanking, he would want to pursue them with more vigour than NatWest, who did in the end offer him banking facilities. After all it’s not so much of an issue if bank A declines your account when you have a choice of 10 others (I didn’t even think there were that many).

He didn't even name Coutts - he was being very discreet about all the banks.

He may well be pursuing the other banks - he just has not made it public. He doesn 't announce everything he does.

 

[najaB]

He has said that he has been refused bank accounts by something like 10 banks, so would argue that this is proof that he has tried hard to get a bank account.

He hasn't, however, made it clear specifically what type of accounts he applied for. The banks were well within their rights to decline any kind of 'special' account he might have tried to open.

 

[jon0844]

He didn't even name Coutts - he was being very discreet about all the banks.

He may well be pursuing the other banks - he just has not made it public. He doesn 't announce everything he does.

He named Coutts as his bank in at least one interview some time ago, so people absolutely did know who he was talking about.

 

[Silenos]

He didn't even name Coutts - he was being very discreet about all the banks.

He may well be pursuing the other banks - he just has not made it public. He doesn 't announce everything he does.

He cannot be taken seriously as a campaigner against debanking if he is not prepared to delineate the extent of the problem. Ten specialist City banks would be one thing, ten high street/online banks another.

 

[jon0844]

I suspect he made the ten banks up, but we'll never know. His only success has been getting some resignations after people leaked private information.

It hasn't got him his account back because, for now, they're still sticking to their guns.

He will continue to campaign until he gets what he wants, so I don't believe for one second it's a crusade on behalf of others - although he'll use that if he thinks it helps him.

 

[duncanp]

It hasn't got him his account back because, for now, they're still sticking to their guns.

He will continue to campaign until he gets what he wants, so I don't believe for one second it's a crusade on behalf of others - although he'll use that if he thinks it helps him.

But the Nigel Farage affair is the tip of a very big iceberg, in which the banks are closing up to 1,000 accounts per day, often for very spurious reasons and with little or no explanation.

When Nigel Farage and, er, Gina Miller agree on something, you know there is substance behind the issue they are highlighting.

Not only that, but The Guardian, of all papers, has published an article which backs up what Nigel Farage is saying.

UK banks are closing more than 1,000 accounts every day

Nigel Farage calls for royal commission as data shows big jump in customers being ‘debanked’

www.theguardian.com

UK banks are closing more than 1,000 accounts every day​

Nigel Farage calls for royal commission as data shows big jump in customers being ‘debanked’

Banks are closing more than 1,000 accounts every working day, according to new data that has fuelled the growing row over so-called “debanking” and prompted Nigel Farage to call for a royal commission to investigate what he said was a scandal.

Hours after the former Ukip leader revealed he was spearheading a website to campaign on behalf of people whose accounts had been shut, data revealed a big jump in the numbers of customers dumped by their bank.

The figures, obtained through a freedom of information (FoI) request made to City watchdog the Financial Conduct Authority and first reported in the Mail on Sunday, revealed that in 2016-17, just over 45,000 accounts were shut by banks.

The total has increased every year since, climbing to just over 343,000 accounts in 2021-22 – representing well over 1,000 for every business day of the week.

When people or organisations have their bank accounts closed, they often receive little or no explanation as to why this has happened, though the banks sometimes say it is due to concerns over financial crime such as money laundering and fraud.

Farage used a subject access request to discover that, despite initial denials by NatWest subsidiary Coutts, his political views had played a part in the closure of his account.

There has already been a huge fallout from Farage’s case. Dame Alison Rose, the chief executive of NatWest Group, eventually stood down in the wake of the row after she revealed she had been the source of a BBC story claiming that Farage’s account had been closed for commercial reasons.

She was soon followed out of the door by Peter Flavel, chief executive of Coutts. Farage also wants NatWest Group’s chair, Sir Howard Davies, to stand aside.

The new data will heap further pressure on NatWest, Coutts and banks in general to explain what has been happening.

Speaking to the media on Sunday, Farage said he would be happy to have a royal commission set up to examine the problem, “provided it happened quickly”. Other rightwingers have rallied around him, adding weight to his call to hold the banks to account.


“I’ve just been inundated by small businesses, by folk all round the country. People in absolute fear, terror, lives being ruined, thousands of businesses being closed. These are people who have done nothing wrong whatsoever,” he told GB News, where he works as a presenter.

It is estimated that almost 90,000 individuals have been categorised as “politically exposed persons”, leading to some politicians or their families being turned down by banks. These include some MPs and other figures deemed to potentially be at risk of abusing their positions for private gain.

On Friday the anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller called on the FCA and government to step in to ensure new parties and MPs can access banking services. This came after digital bank Monzo informed her recently that her True and Fair party’s account would close in September.

At the other end of the political spectrum, pro-Brexit groups have reported similar problems.

Over the weekend the energy secretary Grant Shapps revealed that he and his family had been victims of debanking because he is a politically exposed person. Shapps reportedly said that one bank had demanded 18 years’ worth of payslips before it would let him be a customer.

Most of those who have been affected by these issues are not in the political spotlight, but are ordinary people trying to go about their lives or run businesses.

Some seemingly found themselves debanked because they held perfectly legal cryptocurrency or gambling accounts. Others who were not born in the UK have found their accounts shut down, often after making or receiving payments from abroad.

A few weeks before the Farage story broke, the Guardian revealed how a retired social worker who had spent the past year doing humanitarian work across Ukraine had her account suddenly shut by Lloyds.

Fiona Hancock was left with no access to her £5,000 balance made up of savings and pension payments. Without explanation, Lloyds sent a cheque for her balance to her UK address, which was housing Ukrainian refugees.


Until now the banks have often hidden behind money-laundering regulations to refuse to say why an account has been closed.

Commenting on the data, the FCA said increased monitoring by banks might explain some of the increase in account closures. There are about 75m accounts in the UK.

It said: “We know that the total number of customers that banks have ceased doing business with for financial crime reasons is less than 0.2%. Tackling financial crime remains a priority of the FCA.

“We have seen firms increase their monitoring of accounts over the past couple of years, which may account for the increase in the figures.”

The government has announced plans to change the rules around bank account closures – including a requirement for banks to give longer notice of an impending shutdown.

“In some cases banks are legally prevented from telling customers why an account has been closed,” said Tina McKenzie, policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses.

“But where possible, they should be told, so that if there has been a misinterpretation or misunderstanding, it can be swiftly resolved.”

 

[jon0844]

Yes, he's highlighted that banks close accounts and have done for some time. Not that he ever said anything about it before.

However, so far, he hasn't changed anything and if he got his bank account back I suspect he'd never mention it again.

 

[duncanp]

Yes, he's highlighted that banks close accounts and have done for some time. Not that he ever said anything about it before.

However, so far, he hasn't changed anything and if he got his bank account back I suspect he'd never mention it again.

He has forced the resignation of two senior management executives at Nat West, and has spurred the government into changing the rules around account closures, to give people more notice and to give people a reason.

When parliament returns in the autumn, you may well find that more happens on this issue.

After the next election there may be a large number of newly elected Labour MPs, and current Labour MPs who are backbenchers may be promoted to ministerial positions.

Those people who are quietly smirking because Grant Shapps and his family, as well as Jeremy Hunt, are having issues with their bank,won't be quite so pleased if similar things happen to Angela Rayner, David Lammy, Wes Streeting, Annelise Dodds.... etc.

 

[MotCO]

Yes, he's highlighted that banks close accounts and have done for some time. Not that he ever said anything about it before.

Unless you are in the position of having no bank account, you do not realise the impact and implications. Now he has first hand experience, he has put his head above the parapet (others haven't had the guts) and is fighting for all who have been debanked.

He is setting up a website to collect information on how widespread this problem is. That doesn't sound like someone who is only trying to sort out their own banking arrangements.

 

[duncanp]

Unless you are in the position of having no bank account, you do not realise the impact and implications. Now he has first hand experience, he has put his head above the parapet (others haven't had the guts) and is fighting for all who have been debanked.

He is setting up a website to collect information on how widespread this problem is. That doesn't sound like someone who is only trying to sort out their own banking arrangements.

Perhaps part of the issue is that anyone speaking up for someone who has been debanked in the past is liable to have their own bank account closed.

Not only is it unacceptable for someone, whoever they are, to be debanked in today's increasingly cashless society, it is also unacceptable for banks to give no explanation whatsoever and hide behind money laundering legislation.

Nigel Farage also highlighted that Nat West lied about the reason for his account closure, and leaked confidential personal information to the BBC.

 

[A0]

I wonder if it's really about value protection. My experience of banks in the past five years is that they are totally driven by risk aversion, to the point where customers are regarded as of zero importance in the rush to tick every single possible box, the absence of which might fail to pass some rule or other. Farage was clearly regarded as a risk and was treated accordingly. The real question is - was he denied banking facilities completely? I don't get the impression that he tried very hard to find an alternative. He was angry and saw the opportunity for some woke-bashing publicity. The Coutts and Nat West dropped themselves in it beyond his wildest dreams, I suspect!

Bit in bold - that's not correct - he went on the record stating he'd tried several other banks and his applications were declined.

Nat West have behaved appallingly in this caase - they thoroughly deserve the poor publicity they're now getting. And for the CEO to brief a journalist about an individual's banking arrangements is outrageous - if a junior clerk in a branch had done so, they'd have been dismissed - those basic standards apply to everyone from the shop floor to the boardroom.

Personally speaking, I had the misfortune to deal with Nat West a couple of years back when I was the Treasurer of a charitable body - they were, without doubt, the most incompetent bank I've ever dealt with, utterly archaic in their ways of working. From that experience I would *never* use them for my personal banking and would give pretty much every other product they offer a very, very wide berth.

 

[MikeWM]

He named Coutts as his bank in at least one interview some time ago, so people absolutely did know who he was talking about.

Perhaps it is another indicator of the terribly poor state of modern journalism, but I didn't see a single person - either in the mainstream media or indeed on social media - *confirm* that the bank in question was Coutts, between his original video being released and the BBC story/fabrication that his issues were due to not having enough money in his account (one for the 60-strong 'BBC Verify' unit to investigate perhaps, once they've stopped ridiculing people on social media for mis/disinformation that turns out to be true).

There was speculation on twitter that it was Coutts, but no-one seemed able to prove it. So I don't believe it was well-known at all initially. I agree there was an interview that showed the answer, but I didn't see anyone actually dig it up or link to it in that first week.

I suspect he made the ten banks up, but we'll never know.

Based on what? And do you think Gina Miller made the nine banks up in her story?

Whatever one thinks of him (and I point out, once again, I'm not a fan myself), Farage been shown to be honest so far in this affair. He's had time to try multiple banks, and the first thing you would do if you were told your bank was closing your account would be to try to open another (and then another...) And of course once you've failed to get multiple bank accounts in a short period of time, you're going to fail credit checking and so almost certainly any further applications would fail anyway.

 

[A0]

I suspect he made the ten banks up, but we'll never know. His only success has been getting some resignations after people leaked private information.

It hasn't got him his account back because, for now, they're still sticking to their guns.

He will continue to campaign until he gets what he wants, so I don't believe for one second it's a crusade on behalf of others - although he'll use that if he thinks it helps him.

Bit in bold - rubbish. If you've had your account closed it will be on your credit file, so when any other bank considers your application they'll run a credit check on you and ask if you've ever had an account closed - which will count against you. If you bother to check when you apply for house or car insurance, you'll see there's a question 'Have you ever had a policy cancelled by the provider' - same when you apply for a credit card or a bank account.

And I can easily think of 10 banks he could have applied to - HSBC, Lloyds, Barclays, Santander, TSB, Nationwide, Monzo, Starling, Bank of Ireland (provide Post Office Money's accounts), Virgin, Metro - that's just off the top of my head.

 

[Silenos]

And I can easily think of 10 banks he could have applied to - HSBC, Lloyds, Barclays, Santander, TSB, Nationwide, Monzo, Starling, Bank of Ireland (provide Post Office Money's accounts), Virgin, Metro - that's just off the top of my head.

Indeed, but since we don’t know what kind of account he was looking for, it could just as easily have been Warburg, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Salomon Bros, Credit Suisse, Chase Manhattan, Lazards, Rothschilds, Capstone and China International.

 

[jon0844]

I know how the systems work but he could say 10, 100 or a million. Did he actually apply to ten? If he did, he could name them. If he didn't and assumes they'd say no, he couldn't.

Some people are so trusting of this person!

And, again, he told the world who he banked with so people doing some checks new. Just as people knew who this BBC person was from The Sun story early on.

The same reason people know who most people in such stories are, thanks to not just Twitter but Reddit and forums, where people who work in various trades will talk. Heck, like we often get inside information on this forum for rail related incidents.

If Nigel does go on and actually changes anything (and we can be sure we now know the exact reason everyone else is denied an account) then fair play. I can't imagine the Government doing sod all besides giving one soundbite, but again let's wait and see.

 

[sprunt]

Those people who are quietly smirking because Grant Shapps and his family, as well as Jeremy Hunt, are having issues with their bank,won't be quite so pleased if similar things happen to Angela Rayner, David Lammy, Wes Streeting, Annelise Dodds.... etc.

Al the Labour MPs you've listed here are already PEPs by virtue of being MPs and are subject to exactly the same enhanced customer due diligence checks as Grant Shapps and Jeremy Hunt. Perhaps Shapps and Hunt should have spoken up when the government of which they were a member introduced the current rules.

 

[jon0844]

I think this Government is looking to be everyone's friend, and play dumb about being responsible for almost all the problems we're suffering right now.

So they won't mention they were behind such changes to banking rules, or that the Tories forced London to extend ULEZ (now pretending that the Government loves the motorist and would let people drive anything, anywhere), or that the TfL can't subsidise the outboundary Travelcards.

With an election looming, they will say whatever it is they think people want to hear. I doubt Rishi is going to do anything at all, except make bold promises. How is he doing with inflation, interest rates and dealing with the boats? (Not looking for an answer to derail this thread btw!).

 

[sprunt]

I think this Government is looking to be everyone's friend, and play dumb about being responsible for almost all the problems we're suffering right now.

"The Conservatives believe that people should accept responsibility for their actions. No, not like that!"

 

[duncanp]

Al the Labour MPs you've listed here are already PEPs by virtue of being MPs and are subject to exactly the same enhanced customer due diligence checks as Grant Shapps and Jeremy Hunt. Perhaps Shapps and Hunt should have spoken up when the government of which they were a member introduced the current rules.

Whilst I haven't looked through all the details of the PEP regulations, I would have thought that becoming a government minister requires some extra checks, or at least a more stringent application of existing rules.

Also the PEP rules were introduced by an EU directive, so we only had limited influence in what they contained.

Now that we are no longer members of the EU, we are free to change the rules as we see fit, and I sure that Gina Miller for one will be grateful for this.

The point also remains that there will be a considerable number of newly elected Labour MPs after the next election who will become PEPs, and therefore subject to extra checks on their bank accounts, for the first time.

The other issue is an overzealous application of the regulations. Does a PEP really need to provide 18 years worth of payslips to his bank, as was requested of Grant Shapp's sons, who are 19 and 22? It is almost as if the bank are asking PEPs for documentation that they know is impossible to provide, so that they can then refuse to provide banking services.