Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
The DT headline news today is that Nigel Farage's bank, Coutts, unilaterally shut down his bank account with them, not, as they said originally because his assets fell below a minimum figure but because:
He doesn't align with our values He is seen as zenophobic and racist. He is considered by many to be a disingenuous grifter. Being associated with NF represents a material and ongoing reputaional risk to the bank
So now you know, we have a a new set of self-appointed censors in the land. Hold the wrong political views - and thats it, your bank account will be closed down.
And why should they stop at political views? Will the banks start closing the bank accounts of any one with contentious ethical or religious views, or because they are in the public eye for some aspect of their behaviour.
Will Huw Edwards, Philip Schofield, Katie Price, Prince Harry have their bank accounts closed down because the banks, who daily process millions, if not billions of £s for drug dealers, corrupt members of corrupt regimes, whose people starve while they stash £millions away in secret bank accounts, consider that the above named ^do not align with their values'
Who gave the banks, and when, the right to censor what we do and what we think and withdraw, that absolute essential of life today - a bank account - because someone's political or other views offend their delicate consciences?
Kandinsky, you have posted the comment I was about to make. I agree, it is chilling.
Kandinsky
Whitewavemark2
Your obsession/ hatred of Nigel Farage is actually quite worrying.
I don’t that she is ‘obsessed’!
The man is arguably the most influential politician of our age.
And many people think that he has pretty much ruined the country.
I think that all scrutiny of him should be encouraged and applauded
I recommend this book - ‘Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics’ by Peter Geoghegan
growstuff
PS. I don't remember that Farage has campaigned in the past for all the millions of people in the country who can't get a bank account.
No, but he has opened the whole thing up for everybody else!
It is now up to them how they pursue this.
It is a massive thing to have done.
“The man is arguably the most influential politician of our age.”
In a bad way yes, someone at Coutts went too far giving reasons for ending account, that individual obviously went outside his professional remit. I’m sure there are plenty of others with Coutts accounts that are controversial and have a questionable reputation worse than Farage.
M0nica
WWM2 We all know that Farage is a throughly unpleasant man, whose personal and political views are abhorrent to most right thinking people like us! The same applies to Andrew Tate, Boris Johnson, Lawrence Fox and a whole slew of clebrities whose private actions - when they become public, prove that they are sigularly unpleasant people.
But in this modern world a bank account is as necessary as a water supply to your home, the provision of gas and electricity and a whole host of other services.
If you think banks should rigidly screen potential customers to ensure that they reach agreed standards of probity - who will agree on what those standards are.
If banks can do this, why shouldn't water companies decide that they will not supply water to such people, or energy companies turn the electricity and gas supply.
It would take us back to the 1960s when communist governments removed people from their jobs if they displeased and Prime Ministers (Dubchek) end up working as tree-planters in remote forests. Or like China duringbthe Great Leap Forward when anyone with eductaion was sent to work in the fields.
Is that sort of political control what your really want, just hidden behind a facade of not liking Farage and thinking he should be denied services available to all citizens of this country.
You are not talking to the right person. I do not have sufficient evidence to form an opinion about banks withdrawing banking facilities to their customers.
I have very briefly outlined the legal requirements etc, and I tend to agree that these requirements are correct.
With regard to Farage, I note that Coutts opinion as to his risk for them coincides with my opinion of his character.
You need to talk to someone else about banks and accounts, as I see it as a non-story atm and have therefore nothing to say on the matter.
08:03Kandinsky
Whitewavemark2
Your obsession/ hatred of Nigel Farage is actually quite worrying.
I agree, clearly something wrong with a person who has this amount of hate for a person they have probably never met
Wwm2. I can’t believe you spent so long compiling and listing all that anti Farage stuff! 😱 I haven’t read a word of it and I suspect others haven’t either so I fear you might be talking to yourself.
I know there are people out there who will never, ever get over the fact that he got Brexit done or that the majority of people who voted, voted to leave the EU.
You have to get over things to move forward. 👍
09:09Primrose53
I agree, Nigel Farage is thinking of suing Coutt's for deformation of character perhaps he should have a look on here, 🤔
Primrose and others, I’m pretty certain that WW said that she’d copied and pasted her Farage report from Led by Donkeys
Defamation, Nicenanny
I used to work in the finance sector, in a private institution (which is what Coutts is, regardless of NatWest’s ownership).
All banks, private and so-called ‘high-street’ risk assess customers and potential customers. High street banks like Nat West are obliged to provide basic banking services, except to people who fail basic risk management tests such as identity, financial crime or immigration status. Other banks do not have this obligation.
High net worth individuals tend to get risk checked more often and more deeply as they have more likelihood of being in a position to facilitate large scale financial crimes.
The dossier Farage obtained was a risk management assessessment. It showed that he was considered a risk to the bank. Managing and mitigating high risk accounts costs more.
The dossier shows that, although Coutts considered Farage high risk (and thus expensive) he was paying them enough (certainly via a mortgage, perhaps in conjunction with other fees) to make it worth the additional cost of managing the risk no matter what his politics and personal beliefs were. Thus, a hard-headed, pragmatic business decision: we despise you, but you meet our business conditions and earn us money, so we will keep you.
What changed was not Farage’s politics or his personal beliefs, and it would be laughable to suggest Coutts suddenly acquired a new set of ethics. The change was Farage’s financial position vis-a-vis Coutts: he repaid the mortgage, which meant his financial relationship with Coutts dipped below the minimum their terms and conditions require, and he was also no longer making them more than he was costing them.
So Coutts did what any similar financial institution (or business, really) would do: it dropped an unprofitable customer who didn’t comply with their financial terms of doing business.
I was impressed with Ms Rose’s letter yesterday. I’m even more impressed now that it seems a number of people believe it’s a heartfelt apology. It isn’t. Think of it as being the the non-apology you make when you’ve snapped at a child: I’m sorry I was cross, but my decision was right, and all your temper tantrums have changed nothing; you still can’t have a fizzy drink, but you can have water. Now hush.
And, FGS, Farage had not been de-banked. He’s been offered the same bank account 95% of us have quite happily.
Lily flower’s post nailed it.
WWM2 was adamant that NF’s account had been closed due to the large sums of Russian money that had been paid into his account and repeatedly posted such along with her assertion that he’s a lying scoundrel and it’s about time he had his comeuppance.
As it’s now been revealed Coutts have lied and apologies are being offered WWM2 has resorted to listing all of NF’s diabolical behaviour and repeats her assertion that this is a non story and has been inflated by NF to keep him in the spotlight.
I’m too busy to list all other comments by GN members along the same lines but as Lilyflower and others have said this is shocking and it scares me that some have so much hatred (and it is hatred) of NF they are blind to what’s happening here.
I agree that Lilyflower’s post was excellent.
I can’t stand Farage, but I’m struggling to understand the business with the banks
Oh, and in response to a query about Farage and business banking with Coutts: you can’t have a business account there if you don’t have a personal account with them.
09:41FannyCornforth
Defamation, Nicenanny
that as well 😊
Thanks Siope
That makes a lot of sense.
Siope
I used to work in the finance sector, in a private institution (which is what Coutts is, regardless of NatWest’s ownership).
All banks, private and so-called ‘high-street’ risk assess customers and potential customers. High street banks like Nat West are obliged to provide basic banking services, except to people who fail basic risk management tests such as identity, financial crime or immigration status. Other banks do not have this obligation.
High net worth individuals tend to get risk checked more often and more deeply as they have more likelihood of being in a position to facilitate large scale financial crimes.
The dossier Farage obtained was a risk management assessessment. It showed that he was considered a risk to the bank. Managing and mitigating high risk accounts costs more.
The dossier shows that, although Coutts considered Farage high risk (and thus expensive) he was paying them enough (certainly via a mortgage, perhaps in conjunction with other fees) to make it worth the additional cost of managing the risk no matter what his politics and personal beliefs were. Thus, a hard-headed, pragmatic business decision: we despise you, but you meet our business conditions and earn us money, so we will keep you.
What changed was not Farage’s politics or his personal beliefs, and it would be laughable to suggest Coutts suddenly acquired a new set of ethics. The change was Farage’s financial position vis-a-vis Coutts: he repaid the mortgage, which meant his financial relationship with Coutts dipped below the minimum their terms and conditions require, and he was also no longer making them more than he was costing them.
So Coutts did what any similar financial institution (or business, really) would do: it dropped an unprofitable customer who didn’t comply with their financial terms of doing business.
I was impressed with Ms Rose’s letter yesterday. I’m even more impressed now that it seems a number of people believe it’s a heartfelt apology. It isn’t. Think of it as being the the non-apology you make when you’ve snapped at a child: I’m sorry I was cross, but my decision was right, and all your temper tantrums have changed nothing; you still can’t have a fizzy drink, but you can have water. Now hush.
And, FGS, Farage had not been de-banked. He’s been offered the same bank account 95% of us have quite happily.
Thank you Siope, that’s probably the most reasoned post I’ve seen on this thread. I knew there was a subtext but I don’t know enough about how banking works to put it into words, whereas you clearly do.
I used to work in the finance sector, in a private institution (which is what Coutts is, regardless of NatWest’s ownership).
But Nat west is 1/3 owned by public? And owns Coutts?
fancythat
*I used to work in the finance sector, in a private institution (which is what Coutts is, regardless of NatWest’s ownership).*
But Nat west is 1/3 owned by public? And owns Coutts?
It is a private bank, not part owned by the public. It’s no doubt completely separated from public ownership within the Nat West accounts and liabilities.
Casdon
Siope
I used to work in the finance sector, in a private institution (which is what Coutts is, regardless of NatWest’s ownership).
All banks, private and so-called ‘high-street’ risk assess customers and potential customers. High street banks like Nat West are obliged to provide basic banking services, except to people who fail basic risk management tests such as identity, financial crime or immigration status. Other banks do not have this obligation.
High net worth individuals tend to get risk checked more often and more deeply as they have more likelihood of being in a position to facilitate large scale financial crimes.
The dossier Farage obtained was a risk management assessessment. It showed that he was considered a risk to the bank. Managing and mitigating high risk accounts costs more.
The dossier shows that, although Coutts considered Farage high risk (and thus expensive) he was paying them enough (certainly via a mortgage, perhaps in conjunction with other fees) to make it worth the additional cost of managing the risk no matter what his politics and personal beliefs were. Thus, a hard-headed, pragmatic business decision: we despise you, but you meet our business conditions and earn us money, so we will keep you.
What changed was not Farage’s politics or his personal beliefs, and it would be laughable to suggest Coutts suddenly acquired a new set of ethics. The change was Farage’s financial position vis-a-vis Coutts: he repaid the mortgage, which meant his financial relationship with Coutts dipped below the minimum their terms and conditions require, and he was also no longer making them more than he was costing them.
So Coutts did what any similar financial institution (or business, really) would do: it dropped an unprofitable customer who didn’t comply with their financial terms of doing business.
I was impressed with Ms Rose’s letter yesterday. I’m even more impressed now that it seems a number of people believe it’s a heartfelt apology. It isn’t. Think of it as being the the non-apology you make when you’ve snapped at a child: I’m sorry I was cross, but my decision was right, and all your temper tantrums have changed nothing; you still can’t have a fizzy drink, but you can have water. Now hush.
And, FGS, Farage had not been de-banked. He’s been offered the same bank account 95% of us have quite happily.Thank you Siope, that’s probably the most reasoned post I’ve seen on this thread. I knew there was a subtext but I don’t know enough about how banking works to put it into words, whereas you clearly do.
I second that, and exactly how I understood the situation.
Casdon
fancythat
I used to work in the finance sector, in a private institution (which is what Coutts is, regardless of NatWest’s ownership).
But Nat west is 1/3 owned by public? And owns Coutts?It is a private bank, not part owned by the public. It’s no doubt completely separated from public ownership within the Nat West accounts and liabilities.
That turns out to be a long link!
For anyone who can be bothered, it is the Gov Uk website about Coutts. Or at least, the accounting part of it.
Blooming heck, what a link!
I thought for a minute, it was a shopping link or something. It has the a word in the first line of it!
WWMk2 yet Coutts didn't feel any need to eject Farage during all that time, so what has changed?
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
