Closing Nigel Farage’s bank account

[jeremyp]

What is going on? Nige is complaining that he is being persecuted for supporting Brexit.

[Outrider]

What is going on? Nige is complaining that he is being persecuted for supporting Brexit.

He was supporting Brexit a decade ago, but they've decided to close his accounts now? Or, given recent events, is it more likely that they've found links to something Russian?

O.

[ad_orientem]

He was supporting Brexit a decade ago, but they've decided to close his accounts now? Or, given recent events, is it more likely that they've found links to something Russian?

O.

Something to do with money from RT, I think.

[Nearly Sane]

Hmmm... another 'dodgy dossier'?


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

[ad_orientem]

Love seeing him cry on Twitter about this. I wonder if I could bottle his tears?

[Nearly Sane]

Love seeing him cry on Twitter about this. I wonder if I could bottle his tears?

The problem is that if he has had the account closed for the reasons explained, it's quite scary.

[jeremyp]

Hmmm... another 'dodgy dossier'?


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

“ Apparently, I'm a risk to them. I have virtually no links of any kind to Russia whatsoever. ”

Virtually no links?  That means some links.

[Nearly Sane]

“ Apparently, I'm a risk to them. I have virtually no links of any kind to Russia whatsoever. ”

Virtually no links?  That means some links.

And? If, and I emphasise the if, the dossier has been compiled by Coutts, then they've spent time assessing him retweeting a tweet by Ricky Gervais, and being friendly with Novak Djokovic.

In addition, if the briefing from those involved to the BBC simoly stated that it was due to lack of funds, then the dossier in its entirety, including anything about Russian links,  is for what?

[jeremyp]

And?

Farage is admitting there that he has links with a country that is currently attempting to erase the existence of another sovereign state. I don't think he should have done that.

Farage admitted that his bank account doesn't technically meet Coutt's requirements and hasn't for a while. They were basically letting him keep it as a favour. That means they can withdraw the favour at any time and for whatever reason.

[Nearly Sane]

Farage is admitting there that he has links with a country that is currently attempting to erase the existence of another sovereign state. I don't think he should have done that.

Farage admitted that his bank account doesn't technically meet Coutt's requirements and hasn't for a while. They were basically letting him keep it as a favour. That means they can withdraw the favour at any time and for whatever reason.

So what is the point of the dossier? And what relevance is whatever links Farage has to Russia if they are not related to the reason for the withdrawal of the account?

[jeremyp]

So what is the point of the dossier?

Having read it, it looks like an internal report documenting their assessment of Farage's suitability as a customer.

And what relevance is whatever links Farage has to Russia if they are not related to the reason for the withdrawal of the account?

Farage's links to Russia, which is a gangster state, pose an obvious risk.

[Aruntraveller]

The Coop bank once denied me its services. I'm sure it was because I was a member of the Labour Party.

Seriously, are we really being sucked in by Nige's claim to martyrdom?

Banks have been refusing services to people for the last decade and not a peep out of the politicians - but now Nige's feelings are hurt we're all shouting slippery slope. Do me a favour. The slippery slope has been there for ordinary people for a long time.

https://tinyurl.com/Hefaraggo

I note Natwest have apologised to Farage. Howabout everyone else, or is it only high profile twats that get an apology?

[jeremyp]

Somebody else on another forum characterised the dossier as

It's not

"Nigel Farage can't have one of our accounts because he is an *******"

but rather:

"Nigel Farage can't have one of our accounts because he paid off the loan and doesn't have enough in the account AND BY THE WAY he is an *******".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14123168#post14123168

[Nearly Sane]

I think Rose's resignation was inevitable once she admitted she was the source of the BBC report


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66309080

[Dicky Underpants]

The Coop bank once denied me its services. I'm sure it was because I was a member of the Labour Party.

The Co op once spoke to me of their virtuous attitude concerning allowing anyone a current account. Their Cashminder current account is their basic account available to supposedly everyone whose credit rating is compromised in some way (as mine was over the late payment of a water bill). I got an account with no problem, but they strenuously refused one to a friend of mine, who may have been a bit wayward, but certainly no criminal.
I think bank employees make their rules up as they go along, and certainly high ranking officials would have no qualms in doing so. I shed no tears for Fartage, but the basic details of this episode sound a bit dodgy.

[Aruntraveller]

Newsthump apologising in its own inimitable way:

https://newsthump.com/2023/07/26/newsthump-issues-formal-apology-in-light-of-latest-nigel-farage-revelations/

[Nearly Sane]

Hmmm....


https://archive.vn/uIchu

[jeremyp]

Newsthump apologising in its own inimitable way:

https://newsthump.com/2023/07/26/newsthump-issues-formal-apology-in-light-of-latest-nigel-farage-revelations/

The worst thing about this whole affair is that Farage seems to have won even though he was wrong and people have apologised to him.

[Nearly Sane]

Be interesting to see what Farage says about this


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

[ProfessorDavey]

Something that concerns me a little over this is the issue of double standards.

Soon the Farage case, the key issue seems to be that someone should not be denied a service (in this case banking) on the basis of their legitimate political opinions. Yet this didn't seem to apply in the Asher's cake case when the bakery denied a service (producing a cake) because they disagreed with the legitimate political opinions of the people wanting that service. Why is that different - seems in both cases people were being denied a service because of the political opinions they held, but the latter was deemed OK cos of religion!?!

To an extent there is a clearer case for reputational damage in the banking. Presumably had Ashers made the cake there would have been no requirement for them to add their logo etc and frankly the cake would be gone in days so no real likelihood that they'd be somehow linked to the people with the political opinions and by inference the opinions themselves. Not the case for banking where every time Farage used his debit card Coutts would be clearly linked with Farage.

[Nearly Sane]

Something that concerns me a little over this is the issue of double standards.

Soon the Farage case, the key issue seems to be that someone should not be denied a service (in this case banking) on the basis of their legitimate political opinions. Yet this didn't seem to apply in the Asher's cake case when the bakery denied a service (producing a cake) because they disagreed with the legitimate political opinions of the people wanting that service. Why is that different - seems in both cases people were being denied a service because of the political opinions they held, but the latter was deemed OK cos of religion!?!

To an extent there is a clearer case for reputational damage in the banking. Presumably had Ashers made the cake there would have been no requirement for them to add their logo etc and frankly the cake would be gone in days so no real likelihood that they'd be somehow linked to the people with the political opinions and by inference the opinions themselves. Not the case for banking where every time Farage used his debit card Coutts would be clearly linked with Farage.

The equivalent would be Asher's refusing to make a cake because of the views of those asking for it to be made
 Had they done so, they wouldn't have been successful.

[jeremyp]

Something that concerns me a little over this is the issue of double standards.

Soon the Farage case, the key issue seems to be that someone should not be denied a service (in this case banking) on the basis of their legitimate political opinions. Yet this didn't seem to apply in the Asher's cake case when the bakery denied a service (producing a cake) because they disagreed with the legitimate political opinions of the people wanting that service. Why is that different - seems in both cases people were being denied a service because of the political opinions they held, but the latter was deemed OK cos of religion!?!

To an extent there is a clearer case for reputational damage in the banking. Presumably had Ashers made the cake there would have been no requirement for them to add their logo etc and frankly the cake would be gone in days so no real likelihood that they'd be somehow linked to the people with the political opinions and by inference the opinions themselves. Not the case for banking where every time Farage used his debit card Coutts would be clearly linked with Farage.

The issue is fundamentally different. Asher's refused to bake a cake with a message on it supporting gay marriage. The sexual orientation and political opinions of the person who asked for it was irrelevant.

Nigel Farage isn't asking the banks to put out messages supporting his views, he just wants them to give him a bank account. If political views were protected characteristics, he would be within his rights to complain (not to Coutt's because he also didn't meet their financial requirements).

[ProfessorDavey]

The issue is fundamentally different. Asher's refused to bake a cake with a message on it supporting gay marriage. The sexual orientation and political opinions of the person who asked for it was irrelevant.

Nigel Farage isn't asking the banks to put out messages supporting his views, he just wants them to give him a bank account. If political views were protected characteristics, he would be within his rights to complain (not to Coutt's because he also didn't meet their financial requirements).

I'm not really sure they are fundamentally different in principle. In effect both involved a person being refused a service because of their political opinions. I think it is pretty clear that someone asking for a cake supporting gay marriage is doing so because they ... err ... support gay marriage. And I don't think Ashers had a policy of refusing to bake any cake with a message that is a political belief - so the reason they refused in this case was because they disagreed with the political belief of the person asking for the service.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not really sure they are fundamentally different in principle. In effect both involved a person being refused a service because of their political opinions. I think it is pretty clear that someone asking for a cake supporting gay marriage is doing so because they ... err ... support gay marriage. And I don't think Ashers had a policy of refusing to bake any cake with a message that is a political belief - so the reason they refused in this case was because they disagreed with the political belief of the person asking for the service.

Except that that is explicitlt not what tha case is based on.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except that that is explicitlt not what tha case is based on.

I'm not really talking about the case per se (which was about discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation) but on the general principle - but there does seem to be double standards. Perhaps in the Ashers cake case they should have made a case on the basis of discrimination on the grounds of belief rather than on the grounds of sexual orientation.