Is that true? If so, why isn't Khan apportioning the blame rather than taking the full hit and trying to defend a flawed 'consultation'?
-
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...
- Thread starter brad465
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
A copy of the letter, from Grant Shapps, has been published in numerous places. I have no idea why the Mayor isn't shifting the blame back to the Tories. Or indeed pointing out that ULEZ was something our ex-PM was behind originally.
The thing is, ULEZ isn't a bad thing. If Sadiq was to get involved, he'd be in a really awkward position. If he says it's all down to Grant Shapps and the Tories, does that mean he's against ULEZ? If he's against it, why not scrap it. But if he's for it, then why blame the Tories?
Ultimately, the Tories are playing a game. They can pretend to be the ones against it, and pro-motorist, while not having to deal with the problem.
Looks like Coutts have been embarrased into letting Nigel Farage keep his account.
Presumably they hope that by keeping the account open, any wider inquiry into the practice of debanking people for spurious reasons will go away.
Presumably they hope that by keeping the account open, any wider inquiry into the practice of debanking people for spurious reasons will go away.
The irony is that they debanked him to for reasons of "reputational risk".
So that went well, didn't it?
Thing is, in a lot of cases it isn't a matter of banks 'hiding' behind anti money-laundering legislation, but rather that the law doesn't allow them to say anything.
What I meant is that they are closing accounts for reasons other than money laundering, and then hiding behind the fact that the law doesn't allow them to say anything (about money laundering) to avoid saying anything about the real reasons for closing the account.
BananaRepublic
Member
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 825
Nigel Farage has been mentioning the issue of de-banking for quite some time, before he broke the news of his personal difficulties, the other week.
He’s also been warning about the risks of a digital currency, which amongst other dangers, would make not only de-banking, but de-monetising a real risk to any citizen who may be deemed, correctly or incorrectly, to have transgressed some arbitrary line.
He has regularly warned about the insidious application of similar rules or policies to those being applied by banks today and other ”social judgements“ being passed on individuals, by not only banks, but government bodies and other institutions, that could end up with a de facto, social credit scoring system, whether by accident or design.
Everything you spent your money on, would be visible to the system.
There would be no privacy from those who would pass whatever judgement on you.
The current de-banking issue, should serve as a warning.
He’s also been warning about the risks of a digital currency, which amongst other dangers, would make not only de-banking, but de-monetising a real risk to any citizen who may be deemed, correctly or incorrectly, to have transgressed some arbitrary line.
He has regularly warned about the insidious application of similar rules or policies to those being applied by banks today and other ”social judgements“ being passed on individuals, by not only banks, but government bodies and other institutions, that could end up with a de facto, social credit scoring system, whether by accident or design.
Everything you spent your money on, would be visible to the system.
There would be no privacy from those who would pass whatever judgement on you.
The current de-banking issue, should serve as a warning.
Last edited:
nlogax
Established Member
Farage has been a crypto flag waver for years now. Shouldn't be a surprise to anyone watching this current attempt to stay in the spotlight.
Has he accepted their offer of a bank account? Would you in his shoes?
Or is the offer of banking facilities to try to minimise the risk of Farage suing them?
BananaRepublic
Member
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 825
Apparently, the new, temporary CEO of Coutts has made personal contact with Farage.
All his accounts remain open, which he has thanked him for.
He has also served, or is about to serve a legal notice requesting/ demanding formal apologies, recompense for his already large legal costs in dealing with this case and compensation for the slur on his character and reputation.
You may laugh at the last, but the smirk will be on the other side etc, because Coutts alternative would be even costlier and more damaging.
Also the question of data protection breach’s hasn’t been publicly aired. That isn’t a civil matter.
If Farage goes down that route, it’s more likely to be an open and shut case with regard to law.
.
Last edited:
I think that Coutts will try and negotiate a settlement with Nigel Farage, because the one thing they want to avoid is being taken to court, particularly over the data protection breach.
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,226
The reason Mayor Khan is not doing that is because it is not true. Here are the minutes of London Assembly (Mayor’s Question Time) – Thursday 21 July 2022:
Mayor Khan was asked who was the decision maker on the expansion of ULEZ to encompass the whole of London. Page 26:
Neil Garratt AM: Thank you, Chair. For the proposal to expand the ULEZ to the whole of London, who is the decision maker to do that or not do that?
Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Me.
Neil Garratt AM: It is your decision whether that proceeds or not?
Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London): Yes
Mayor Khan takes pride in the introduction of London-wide ULEZ and the idea that he would deflect the glory he expects to be bestowed upon him for his achievement - even if he could - is a non-runner.
The letter from Grant Shapps referred to the initial expansion of ULEZ from its original boundary (the inner London congestion zone) to the North and South Circular Roads. It was written on 14th May 2020 (with relevance to the TfL emergency funding up to October that year) and the extension to the N/S Circular roads was implemented on 25th October 2021.
Not that it matters as far as the latest expansion goes, but it was the Mayor's proposal and his decision in 2021 to expand ULEZ to the N/S Circular Roads, to raise extra money for TfL. It was not a requirement from the government. Mr Shapps' letter was simply confirming what had been agreed. The Mayor's subsequent decision to expand ULEZ to the whole of London was also not a requirement of the TfL deal. In fact, the government explicitly told the Mayor in the final settlement letter (August 2022) that he was not allowed to use the bailout money on ULEZ expansion.
Last edited:
DerekC
Established Member
The conclusion that Mr Farage would like us to jump to is that thousands of people are having their accounts closed for their political views. However we have no idea whether that is true. It assumes that:
a) The numbers in thousands and tens if thousands being thrown around are not having their accounts closed for a legitimate reason in banking financial terms (remember that there are many legitimate reasons for a bank closing your account)
b) People are actually being "debanked" - in other words they have their account closed by one bank and all the others refuse to deal with them too. I suspect the numbers are arrived at just by adding up the accounts closed by each bank individually.
b) People aren't being "debanked" for a valid reason in terms of legislation - e.g. that they are engaged in money laundering or terrorism
Or, as happened to my parents who now live overseas, they don't respond to [Brexit induced] identity checks in time.
Killingworth
Established Member
That is another story. 25 years ago we lived in a much less regulated world, 60 years ago less still. Back then most banks didnt routinely record a date of birth when an account was opened. You might be known simply as John Smith and that was fine. But your birth was registered as Nathan Grantchester John Smith. All payments were nade to John Smith.
Once identity checks werre completed you'd probably find your account was N G J Smith and woe betide any attempts to pay in a cheque payable to J Smith. Cursed parents! You're now Nathan Smith, like it ir not.
Many long established customers who werre very well known to branch staff when their accounts wwre opened have been driven to distaction by this. Add to that the onerous conditions banks now have to apply after Brexit and they're no longer happy to administer accounts for those living overseas The number who have been told to close such accounts is unknown but must be considerable. But thats a subject.for another thread.
By selecting Farage's accounts for closure Coutts knew they were dealing with fire. They had a dossier of 'evidence' which was largely tittle tattle. Putting themselves in a position where it might have to be publicly divulged was inept.
Their feeble explanation of his accounts not meeting their qualification criteria was hard to justify even if true. As time passes many accounts fall outside the latest qualitication terms. They are 'managed' away over time, usually because charges are levied in such a way to reducec their attraction to the customer. If you want to retain the account you'll have to pay more for it Coutts must deal with such situations quite frequently.
Once they'd asked Farage to find alternative bankers it seems they offered a NatWest account. OK, that might be a way to manage it away but here we get to the playing with fire element. The decision wasn't taken at a low level. That file was relied on.
So now we get to Alison Rose at a social event being drawn into the case. No comment should have been her response even if she knew the full story. Aa a professional banker she must have known that. Trying to brazen it out made it worse. Her board must have been shocked to find the sutuation they were now in She seems to have been an excellent CE and it's understandable that they wanted to keep her.
Farage, a man I can't stand, has managed to reveal a number of faults in Coutts, NatWest and probably other bank's systems and practices.. It shouldn't be for him to lead a crusade against banks. That's a role for the regulatary bodies.
Should he receive financial compensation? Legally he may pursue that claim. Great work for lawyers. An out of court settlement is most likely - once Nigel has squeezed as much publicity out of it as he can to match his best interests. That could take some time.
The difficulty banks have with the secercy requirements of money laundering legislation make closure requests very hard to administer. Freedom of information and subject access requests add more complexity. This case doesnt make that any easier but may make it fairer if both banks and customers become clearer on what can and cant be recorded and divulged..
More evidence that people are being de-banked because a financial institution doesn't approve of perfectly lawful activities.
I know that many people may not approve of hunting, but providing a hunt complies with the provisions of the Hunting Act 2004, it is a perfectly lawful activity, and the organisers should not have banking facilities and payment services denied to them, particularly with no notice or explanation, as is the case here.
Nigel Farage was quite right when he said that his case was the tip of the iceberg.
www.telegraph.co.uk
I know that many people may not approve of hunting, but providing a hunt complies with the provisions of the Hunting Act 2004, it is a perfectly lawful activity, and the organisers should not have banking facilities and payment services denied to them, particularly with no notice or explanation, as is the case here.
Nigel Farage was quite right when he said that his case was the tip of the iceberg.
Hunts banned from taking card payments in latest example of de-banking
SumUp machines turned off during fundraisers after clubs were being placed on list of restricted businesses
www.telegraph.co.uk
SumUp isn't a bank.
nlogax
Established Member
Indeed. No FSCS protections at all. It doesn't count.
They may not be a bank, but no-one should be denied payment services just because the service provider doesn't approve of your perfectly lawful activities.
Not being able to take card payments because can seriously affect a business or organisation, especially in today's increasingly cashless society, and it has the same effect on the organisation as if their bank account was closed.
GusB
Established Member
I don't have an issue with such organisations being de-banked, and if I was a business owner I'd seriously be thinking about reputational damage if I was associated with them. I'm not entirely convinced that their activities are "perfectly lawful", but that's a discussion for a separate thread.
Equally, no private business should be forced to provide services to groups involved in activities that the company doesn't support or wish to be associated with - provided they do so in a clear, non-discriminatory and unambiguous manner.
Last time I checked, fox hunting isn't a protected characteristic.
While I basically agree with this, I'd say what about utility companies? Should the water company be able to shut off my water if they don't like my politics?
I think there are two solutions to squaring this circle : either banks should be legally treated more like utility companies, or government should have a 'bank of last resort' that offers services (personal and business) to everyone regardless of ideology.
nlogax
Established Member
I'd opt for the former. No-one should be denied utilities and basic banking should be a fundamental right of UK residents.
Governments really shouldn't be in the permanent business of running last-resort banking services. It remind me of the plot of a specific The Thick of It episode in which Roger Allam's character swears like an absolute trooper. Naturally I can't quote it here..
They already are. The nine largest banks have to provide basic bank accounts to anyone who applies, as long as they pass identity checks and aren't applying fraudulently. If they decline to open an account they have to provide a justification for the decision.
Does this apply to business accounts as well as personal accounts?
Nope. Businesses aren't treated as people and have limited rights.
So if no bank wants to open an account with a legal hunting group, what does that group do?
Why should non-popular groups affect the brand of a bank? Unless it was publicised, then who would know who banked with whom? If the non-popular group was only undertaking legal activities, and generated profits for the bank, should the bank be worried? Do people move bank accounts just because their bank offers an account to a group who disagree with? What about all the accounts the banks have with groups you do agree with - do you move your account because of one group, and ignore all the other groups you do agree with?
You could probably add other groups to the list. For example, abortion clinics, animal testing labs, etc, or to the other extreme, if Just Stop Oil was not supported by eco-supporters, then it, too, may find it difficult to find a bank.
Why should non-popular groups affect the brand of a bank? Unless it was publicised, then who would know who banked with whom? If the non-popular group was only undertaking legal activities, and generated profits for the bank, should the bank be worried? Do people move bank accounts just because their bank offers an account to a group who disagree with? What about all the accounts the banks have with groups you do agree with - do you move your account because of one group, and ignore all the other groups you do agree with?
- Status