Alison Rose Nat West

My not so inner cynic was wondering what sort of fat pay-off she’d get, and sure enough, the front page of today’s Times says she ‘could get millions’. 🤬

CrochetBliss

Farage is an extremely unpleasant person. She shouldn’t have been fired from a job she wholly deserved

Absolutely nothing to do with her gender identity.

Don’t you understand the importance of client confidentiality, however obnoxious the client, and that she breached that confidentiality? By speaking to a journalist of all people. Someone who makes such a grave error of judgement most certainly does not deserve to remain in post, male or female.

growstuff

Sago

It’s good she has gone, the rest of the board that supported her should now go.

So you'd sack all the boards of the banks which have allegedly refused Farage an account, would you?

Growstuff Farage was discriminated against because of his politics, he did have sufficient funds to merit a Coutts account.

Rose breached confidentiality and her board who supported her obviously felt that was OK.

Interesting that Coutts who are bankers to the Royal Family didn’t publicly shame Prince Andrew and close his account.

I don’t think Coutts have the moral high ground here. An article in the Guardian points out it offered its services to a Brunei Royal later accused of embezzlement. Prince Andrew banks with them so does Piers Morgan.

They employed Harry Keogh later alleged to have harassed female colleagues.

They were fined 6.5 million Swiss francs for money laundering and 8.75 million for handling proceeds of crime. So obviously not that fussy are they

If being considered unpleasant is a reason for debanking, then nobody would have a bank account.

Everybody has someone that doesn’t like them and thinks they are unpleasant 😳

CrochetBliss

Farage is an extremely unpleasant person. She shouldn’t have been fired from a job she wholly deserved

Absolutely nothing to do with her gender identity.

How would you feel if your finances were published in the media? It has nothing to do with Farage, it is the principle.

CrochetBliss

Farage is an extremely unpleasant person. She shouldn’t have been fired from a job she wholly deserved

Absolutely nothing to do with her gender identity.

She wasn’t fired. She resigned.
Quite rightly!

Good grief, some of these posts are unbelievable. How anyone can try to justify what has happened to many people in the UK re the closing of, or refusing of bank accounts is totally beyond me. The banks have been behaving unethically for years. Have you all forgotten that banks including Coutts had to be bailed out by the tax payer but a few years ago?
It’s really not about Farage, although it’s difficult to avoid seeing the glee some people clearly feel about what has happened to him. It’s about the banks! And their behaviour and their decisions to police our political views. Farage has simply brought to light the social engineering the banks are trying to effect in the UK.

Farage is an extremely unpleasant person. She shouldn’t have been fired from a job she wholly deserved

Absolutely nothing to do with her gender identity.

growstuff

Lathyrus

What other mistakes?

Heading an organisation, and presumably approving, the drawing up of dossiers on a number of clients, examining their political views and personal values. And then approving the “debanking” of those clients whose views were not in agree with herself and members of the board.

Mistake? I wouldn’t call it that.

That wasn't a mistake from the bank's point of view. Farage's account was no longer commercially viable once his mortgage was paid off and he didn't meet the eligibility criteria for being a Coutts customer.

Are you suggesting that all the CEOs of the banks who have allegedly refused Farage an account should be sacked too?

My concern isn’t particularly with Farage but with the compilation of dossiers on a an undisclosed, but it appears, large number of clients. Based not on their financial status but on their political and social viewpoints.

Again I’m not concerned what that viewpoint might be.

The underlying ethos that this is acceptable or even desirable in a banking institution has to be challenged at the highest level. Or the next step is a similar ethos at the highest level.

And that should alarm anyone with a knowledge of 20th Century history.

So, to answer your question. Yes. I do think the CEOs and Boards of any bank that has refused or closed a personal account on the grounds of political views should be dismissed.

She broke a cardinal rule of banking. You don't gossip about customers. Full stop. She should have resigned at once. It doesn't matter who the client is.

Primrose53

Casdon

I do think she made a very serious error in breaching client confidentiality and it was right for her to resign.

My opinion of Farage’s malign influence on the UK is unchanged, but I recognise that even the arch bellend can get one thing right.

You just can’t help yourself can you? There is absolutely no need for your second paragraph and it just shows you in a very poor light.

My opinion is as valid as yours Primrose53, and you are in no position to censor what I, or anybody else says.

A major mistake that even a clerk on a bank desk would not be expected to make. Confidentiality is confidentiality. No concessions should be made because she was a woman, it just adds to the conception we are air brains. People who backed her like Racheal Reeves have put themselves into question about their keeping confidentialities as well.

Nigel Farage is launching a website tomorrow inviting everyone who has been denied a bank account to tell their story.
When this is done all the cases/facts will be presented to parliament.
He is also offering advice as to who you go to/ what written evidence is your right to see.

Tizliz

She didn’t just give out confidential information but acknowledges that it was inaccurate, and told this to a BBC reporter.

It wasn't inaccurate (and that's not what she acknowledged), but it wasn't the whole picture. Farage didn't give the whole picture either.

This is becoming Trumpian. Repeat something often enough and people will accept it as truth.

Sago

It’s good she has gone, the rest of the board that supported her should now go.

So you'd sack all the boards of the banks which have allegedly refused Farage an account, would you?

She didn’t just give out confidential information but acknowledges that it was inaccurate, and told this to a BBC reporter.

Lathyrus

What other mistakes?

Heading an organisation, and presumably approving, the drawing up of dossiers on a number of clients, examining their political views and personal values. And then approving the “debanking” of those clients whose views were not in agree with herself and members of the board.

Mistake? I wouldn’t call it that.

That wasn't a mistake from the bank's point of view. Farage's account was no longer commercially viable once his mortgage was paid off and he didn't meet the eligibility criteria for being a Coutts customer.

Are you suggesting that all the CEOs of the banks who have allegedly refused Farage an account should be sacked too?

Casdon

I do think she made a very serious error in breaching client confidentiality and it was right for her to resign.

My opinion of Farage’s malign influence on the UK is unchanged, but I recognise that even the arch bellend can get one thing right.

You just can’t help yourself can you? There is absolutely no need for your second paragraph and it just shows you in a very poor light.

Yes it's important to remember that, if Trump says the world is round I will agree with him. I think that's a skill that is disappearing.

I do think she made a very serious error in breaching client confidentiality and it was right for her to resign.

My opinion of Farage’s malign influence on the UK is unchanged, but I recognise that even the arch bellend can get one thing right.

It’s good she has gone, the rest of the board that supported her should now go.

Primrose53

Even the lowliest bank clerk knows from Day 1 at work that the most important part of their job is confidentiality! If they don’t comply it is instant dismissal.

She was paid a massive £5.2 million per annum so yes she made a massive mistake and should have been sacked so resigning was the right thing to do.

I could reply to growstuff’s post about it not being illegal nor unethical but I am not going to waste my breath because they are just trying to get a final jab in to Nigel Farage, because all their other false comments about him over the last week have been disproved.

Exactly that, Primrose!!

FranA

I had never heard of her before today. I am a NatWest customer. I did a quick google search on her. Having done that, my first opinion is that she should not have been pushed out of a job that she has spent a working lifetime on. So why? I appreciate that she made a mistake even saying that NF was a customer. However that is a minor mistake. I don’t know what she gains by resigning but I guess she isn’t poor. As a female customer for now in this 37% owned bank from the day I left school (bank ownership notwithstanding). Having now told the world who I bank with I am now off to investigate the £200 bank swap deals; for no other reason than I hate to see the woman at the top of her game being forced out by a load of male politicians.

She was the cause of her own downfall. Confidentiality is governed by law. Data protection. Banking is about money, not social engineering, or political bias.

Whitewavemark2

Emily Maitless described Farage’s behaviour as populist where

“The power of the populist is, somehow, to turn utter entitlement into victimhood.”

Exactly!

Quite.

But Farage is, surely, entitled to the same degree of client confidentiality, as anyone else - regardless of his populist ramblings?

You can't change the principle just because your customer is a PITA.

She might not have disclosed the actual £sd status of his account, but as we are now all familiar with the financial requirements for banking with Coutts - she has in fact given out TMI.