I love GB News

M&S are displaying these pride banners but have been fined for not paying the minimum wage to their lowest paid staff.

www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-fines-wh-smith-ms-others-not-paying-minimum-wage-2023-06-20/

Whitewavemark2

Primrose53

Whitewavemark2

I rather suspect though that it is the money from Russia that did for Farage.

Particularly in the current climate, although I think the run up to Brexit needs careful scrutiny, and known Russian interference.

You have no evidence of this and Farage says he only ever received two very small payments for appearing on Russian TV. I am sure he would not come on TV and lie about that because, he, more than anybody knows what happens when the knives are out.

I think he should be applauded for bringing the fact into the open that he …. And his family ….. have had their bank accounts closed because it has now encouraged others to come forward and say the same. Maybe they were too embarrassed to come forward before but I think we will hear a lot more in the near future about others who have been similarly de-banked.

£500000 that we know of - maybe small to Farage, but not to most people. But of course if you think about it he would consider it small given what he needed to have a Coutts account.

And the fact that he had “brought it into the open”. Merely shows that he is trying to get his story and ducks lined up.

He has done this before and he found it worked - that time amongst others it relates to money he received from Aaron Banks. But now I suspect the majority of people couldn’t give a toss and those that do are in a tiny minority.

I wish you would stop trotting out these lies about NF receiving that ridiculous amount from Russia!

Labour MP Chris Bryant came up with this load of rubbish which unfortunately a few people like you believed. Farage said all he ever received was a very small (4 figure amount) for 2 x Russian TV appearances.

I know this is not what you want to hear because it wrecks your agenda!

👀 this is on-going as we know from the Trump stuff recently.

I believe that businesses are expected to sign up to a directive to display their support for economic, social and environmental measures. Enshrining their support for diversity for example, even when that is just a lip service and some corporations will flout the very essence of what they purport to support. To give one example, The Disney Corporation capitulated to China's demands to airbrush British, Black actor John Boyega's image out of the Star Wars Posters.

Stonewall are one of the organisations driving aspects of this fairly new proselytising along. When you are part of a "minority" group who have infiltrated large corporations, schools, government departments now all banging on ad infinitum about gender diversity, drawing the public's attention to it, by way of rainbow flags on websites and offices, I imagine one can take heart in the fact that, whilst still being part of a minority, that minority now has the upper hand. At times given the no platforming and other drastic measures taken towards any dissenting attitudes on a whole range of subjects from gender to Brexit, it appears the once marginalised have become judge and jury on any individual who would seek to question the motives behind the roll out of these new orthodoxies. That somewhat came into play when we heard the recording of the teacher who was heard to say to the pupil "whatever gave you the idea there are only two genders" A point of view many of us share, whilst we might agree there are many perspectives as to how many genders there are, most subscribe to the fact that there are only two biological ones. Witness too, the vilification of the doctor, who had served in Afghanistan, merely liking a tweet his wife had sent to him regarding Helen Joyce, herself a pariah, along with the many other notable women who oppose Stonewall's stance on gender. Now the banks are gunning for those who seek to question all of this. Farage aside, as stated up thread, he could well be our very own version of Hunter Biden in his financial dealings, I have no idea, but I imagine all will be revealed at a later stage. In the meantime it does appear that this is nothing new, it has been happening for a while, but as Farage does state you really can't operate in today's world without a bank account, you become a non person.

maddyone

A good point ronib. Is the Yorkshire BS acceptable to you Whitewave? You may wish to consider changing to a different BS.

With regard to Farage, why now? What has happened that his accounts are being closed now? He’s been campaigning for years, ages before the referendum so why now? Plus he says his family’s accounts have been closed. Why? The bank needs to tell us but of course they won’t. They would cite confidentiality of course.

That is why I am E-mailing the building society.

With regard to Farage.

You have no idea and never will regarding what the bank has discovered and when.

As far as Farage himself is concerned I would not trust him no further than I could throw him. His word cannot be believed.

For my part, I am glad that they are carrying out their legal duty.

It should be a legal requirement that financial institutions like banks and building societies should tell the account holder in writing WHY they are closing their account.

Someone earlier said there are just two cases ….. well, they’re wrong. There have been several more and it’s been going on for quite a while but people have not made it public.

Not just 2, Dominic Lawson has given an interview about his 28 year old daughter, Dominica being refused a back account.

An absurd reason given about her deceased grandfather, Nigeria, murmurings about money laundering or funding a drugs cartel.
She's been having a terrible trial to get anywhere.

Seems unfair

maddyone

A good point ronib. Is the Yorkshire BS acceptable to you Whitewave? You may wish to consider changing to a different BS.

With regard to Farage, why now? What has happened that his accounts are being closed now? He’s been campaigning for years, ages before the referendum so why now? Plus he says his family’s accounts have been closed. Why? The bank needs to tell us but of course they won’t. They would cite confidentiality of course.

If there is an issue with his, or anybody else’s accounts would you seriously expect the banks and building societies to make it public though maddyone? If they did it would be breaking all the rules. Stories are being invented to fill the void, not least on here. I hope further investigation reveals what is actually happening to stop all the speculation and rumour.

A good point ronib. Is the Yorkshire BS acceptable to you Whitewave? You may wish to consider changing to a different BS.

With regard to Farage, why now? What has happened that his accounts are being closed now? He’s been campaigning for years, ages before the referendum so why now? Plus he says his family’s accounts have been closed. Why? The bank needs to tell us but of course they won’t. They would cite confidentiality of course.

Ww2 but are you a politically exposed person? Do you hold strong religious views on what constitutes marriage ? I guess you should be acceptable to the Yorkshire BS but the point is - is the Yorkshire BS acceptable to you?

Actually thinking about it I have a savings account with them if very long standing.

I shall drop them an E-mail I think, asking what is going on.

So far we know of just two people whose bank accounts have been closed.

The first was Nigel Farage when he apparently announced it on television. I don’t think anyone would be surprised to find out that he is involved in some sort of shenanigans regarding money from all sorts of dodgy sources and fraudulent dealings.
So it is absolutely no surprise that the banks have decided that they won’t touch him with a barge pole.

The second, which only came to light after Farage’s announcement, is a vicar(?).
Now if as he claims that he was kicked out because he ventured to express an opinion, then this is indeed concerning. However all is not lost as it is a Building Society as apposed to a bank and I’m sure it’s members are able to express alarm and force their Society to reinstate the vicar if indeed it proves to be the case. They own the building society which is quite different to a bank of course.

And yet we have members here who believe we freedom of speech. I suppose we do as long as it’s what the thought police want to hear 🤔

We need to be careful if we have a politically exposed member of the family.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12256943/Its-not-just-Nigel-Farage-daughter-blocked-opening-bank-account.html

Recent cases that were successful were forstater, bailey and julie bindel. The first two were employment cases, the last was against Nottingham university, I think it was, they banned a speech by her bless them and had to pay damages.
I think refusing service on the grounds of belief would be an interesting case.

Gender critical views come under protected belief that was the basis for the forstater case.

Galaxy

If what is reported is true and I dont know the case, he may have been abusive for all I know but we can only go on what's reported, then he will have a strong case. There are numerous people who will be able to advise him.
People who hold GC beliefs are I am afraid just going to have to continue to use the legal system till companies understand the ruling from the forstater case.

What will he have a 'strong case' for, Galaxy?

Banks (and most Building Societies are banks these days, apparently) have no legal obligation to accept or continue with an account.

They can be held to account for discrimination, but that is only discrimination on the usual grounds, race, sex, religion.

I shouldn't think the priest has much to go on in that respect.

TerriBull

Reported in yesterday's Times, it seems the Vicar, who fell foul of The Yorkshire Building Society, merely responded on line when he was invited to give a general feedback, and in that feedback he gave a polite rebuttal of trans ideology that they were actively promoting on their website. In their letter to him he was told that "they had a zero tolerance approach to discrimination and that their relationship had irrevocably broken down" He told the Times "I wasn't aware that our relationship had a problem, they are a financial house, they are not there to do social engineering, I think they should concentrate their efforts on managing money" So there you have it! If invited to comment on a company's website, make sure you keep those thoughts to yourself, as free speech is no longer a given, having sleepwalked into a parallel universe sometime in the not so distant past, now such criticisms, observations even, fall outside the very strict parameters of what is acceptable these days.

I saw the Vicar on TV discussing this and he was a very nice, politely spoken, perfectly reasonable man. He rightly said that nowadays it is the norm to receive questionnaires or feedback forms asking us to reply. I do it all the time myself! It’s our opportunity to tell them what we like and dislike and how they could improve. I always say exactly what I think. 😝

just remembered I complained about poor service at Barclays and got £25 back and a few years ago one of my accounts vanished off line with First Direct and I complained and I think I got £50 for that.

Ah Whitewave we agree on something. Greece is wonderful. We’re on Lefkada island and it’s very pretty.

If what is reported is true and I dont know the case, he may have been abusive for all I know but we can only go on what's reported, then he will have a strong case. There are numerous people who will be able to advise him.
People who hold GC beliefs are I am afraid just going to have to continue to use the legal system till companies understand the ruling from the forstater case.

or discriminates in any way

So filling in a questionnaire saying you disagree with a company's views on issues which are nothing to do with banking or finance is grounds for closing their account.

Treading a dangerous path.

I dont know about this case but discrimination was thrown about in the Maya Forstater case. The company have just had to pay out a hundred grand.

This is the Building Society’s reply.

We never close savings accounts based on different opinions about beliefs or feedback from customers. We only ever close an account if a customer is rude, abusive, violent or discriminates in any way, based on the specific facts, comments & behaviour in each case

But - he does point out that it is merely a bank, they have their views, he has his views, both have expressed them BUT they have nothing whatsoever to do with a financial agreement between them.

Of course, if he went into a branch and started abusing members of staff who were gay, transgender, that would be different.

But being refused a bank account because of the fact that he and the bank disagree about something which has nothing whatsoever to do with banking is treading a very dangerous path indeed.

Who is the silly man WW? Surely not the vicar, we don't know the actual wording of his complaint, in any case he made very salient points when he precied what he did say.

Symbolism carries a lot of weight in some cases, it often represents a culture, religion that is not shared by all. I'm sure many would object to crosses all over the place, bearing in mind we live in not only a multi religious but a largely secular society.