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?
We are also in the case of NF talking about Business accounts which again may not apply to the majority here.
Where a Business account is concerned, particularly with large amounts coming and going from international sources, I do not think banks can be TOO careful about ensuring their customers are squeaky clean.
Have we actually had sight of the documents? Is it an unfortunate discussion on top of his finance issues or the reason.
Just asking.
Not happy if the latter.
Doesnt appear that the documents have been widely seen.
They need to be, for the masses to start to take things seriously. Else it can all be dismissed again.
dilysthegradener Do you work for Coutts?
Someone' political, personal or ethical values should be of no interest to a bank. Their interest is whether the person is finacially sound and is not doing anything criminal or banned by the government of the country they are operating in.
The values come in when the banks are making decisions over where they invest money. But decisions on who to let open an account should be made on strictly financial and legalalities only.
Once we accept that the banks can act as censors and exclude people from a basic need in this modern world, where does it stop? Will utility companies refuse to supply services? GPs de register patients, remember GPs are private partnerships and have on a contractual agreement with the NHS.
growstuff
I'd better be careful what I say about the Chinese government.
Mr Zuckerberg banned me twice. He informed me that if I persisted in my comments it would be a lifetime ban.
My comments were indirectly pointing to the government.
DillytheGardener
Nigel Farage is a ghastly man and banks aren’t obliged to serve customers with conflicting values. He can put his money elsewhere with a bank that doesn’t mind his particular brand of vitriol and hate.
It’s good to know, then that Coutts have the same values as Prince Andrew, wouldn’t you agree 🤔
This is probably not relevant to this case, but I have always tried to use banks with ethical policies, e.g. that they don't invest in unethical businesses such as weapons manufacturers; companies that fund rain-forest destruction.
They also don't provide bank accounts for such companies. So banks do have a choice in who holds bank accounts with them.
ffoxygloves When this issue first arose Dominic Lawson wrote an article in the DM saying that his adult daughter who has Downes Syndrome was refused a bank account with, I think, Nat West because her grandfather the late Nigel Lawson was a 'Politically Exposed Person' .
A similar account was refused for the same reason when she and her mother went to open an account for a charity they had set up to help people with Downes Syndrome into the workplace. Presumably the Charity Commissioners were satisfied that all was properly established and that neither mother or daughter were unsuitable to run a charity.
You say Where a Business account is concerned, particularly with large amounts coming and going from international sources, I do not think banks can be TOO careful about ensuring their customers are squeaky clean., but the documents supplied by Coutts show quite clearly that this was not the case in NF's case. It was based solely on his personal profile.
The banks track record on crime and corruption is very patchy. They seem to happily handle the accounts of corrupt political dictators and their cronies, and would, no doubt still been serving Russian political Oligarchs assicated with Pitin were it not for government sanctions.
For those who might want to hear what Nigel Farage had to say.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ZQ3pC_HQU
Banks are not censuring what we say.
They are choosing their customers.
Now, I’m not saying that this is the case, or indeed desirable, but it may be that Coutts values a certain type of customer, who, it may have found do not like like to be associated with Farage.
MerylStreep
growstuff
I'd better be careful what I say about the Chinese government.
Mr Zuckerberg banned me twice. He informed me that if I persisted in my comments it would be a lifetime ban.
My comments were indirectly pointing to the government.
It is becoming increasingly easier, to see what "side" people are on.
Could be that Prince Andrew had a word in their ear. Nigel Farage has made some scathing comments 👏👏 about the Prince.
"Banks are not censuring what we say."
No. But if the Farage thing is correct, and what others are saying, they seem to act on it. Sometimes.
So potatoes, potaatoes.
And as M0nica says, where should it end?
GPs, water, child benefits, education?
fancythat
"Banks are not censuring what we say."
No. But if the Farage thing is correct, and what others are saying, they seem to act on it. Sometimes.
So potatoes, potaatoes.
As things stand at the moment - that is their prerogative. We live in a free market economy, and that is apparently what people desire. So the state has no business interfering in banking activities.
But this wasn't a decision on choosing, NF was already a customer and had been for some years. When they decided to close all his accounts. before that did anyone know NF banked with Coutts? Would it have had any effect on your opinion of the bank?
It is the deselection that is worrying. Although, again bank accounts are private affairs. Banks do not advertise who their customers are, in fact they are, rightly, very careful about releasing names. they should have a clear list of financial/legal criteria and should not stray beyond it.
It is the creeping censorship of people's entirely legal views by non-governmental groups, many self appointed, like Stonewall that concern me. Now we have banks making decisions over who should and should not be given bank accounts. You cannot function in this modern age without a bank account.
WWM2 What would your reaction be, if it was Jeremy Corbyn or Keith Starmer who had had banking facilities withdrawn?
fancythat
And as M0nica says, where should it end?
GPs, water, child benefits, education?
No - see my post above. What you have quoted are to a greater or lesser extent under state control so this will not happen in these services.
monica why pick on those two? I suspect that you are making assumptions because of my criticism of the current government.
Nevertheless my answer would be exactly the same. How could it be different?
Lovetopaint037
I might be wrong but isn’t Coutts known for handling the Royal Family’s finances. It has always had this squeaky clean reputation and if Farage has been mouthing off about the King then it can be understood they want to disassociate themselves from him.
Really. The moral keepers of our speech. You are only allowed to say what we agree with, otherwise you can't use our services. Look at that in another context, you can't use our shop, as we read what you said on social media, and we'll spread word to other shops so you can't use them either. This is happening to people country wide, not just politicians.
So the state has no business interfering in banking activities.
I assume the state should and does.
So, how come Nigel Lawsons granddaughter who suffers from Downs Syndrome has been rrefused a bank a count on the grounds that her grandfather was PEP??!! Who from Coutts informed the BBC of NF's bank account closure. Surely this can't be right in a democracy such as ours, or up till now, thought was ours? It cannot be the business of the Bank to decide who or who cannot bank with them because of their political views or even worse, their grandfather's political views. I wonder if Waitrose will take this attitude and ban those who don't fit politically? Best to be like a communist country and confine conversation to the weather, as clearly walls have ears.
At some point, some people will have to decide which "side" they are really on.
Minimising and clever words will not continue to hide their true thoughts.
So hypocritical. Courts’ own reputation wouldn’t bear close inspection.
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.
