Because a huge chunk of the Press is owned by Right-Wing Brexit Supporters, like the owners of The Sun, The Times, The Mail and The Telegraph.
Yes - everyone should have access to a basic bank account, and I believe the Co-op Bank and Halifax have an agreement with the Government to provide one of those. Farage is more than welcome to setup one of those. However, Banks are also private businesses and they also have a right to choose who they do business with.
There is indeed a story here. Farage made a Subject Access Request which revealed that Coutts didn’t want him as a customer because of his views and values, which didn’t match the culture that Coutts was trying to promote. It wasn’t just because he was too poor for Coutts, as they’ve previously claimed.
Banks should not have the right to turn customers away for political reasons, so the government is, quite rightly, looking into amending banking licences so that they can’t do that.
Farage admitted he doesn’t meet the requirements for Coutts. That’s 100% a reason to close his account, they don’t need any other (they didn’t even need that - banks can close an account for any reason that isn’t protected in law).
The rest is just fluff and nonsense, and probably made up, given farage’s tenuous connection with the concept of truth.
Why not? They are at the end of the day a business and should be able to decide whether they want to trade with someone or not.
The fact he could’ve got another account elsewhere means he’s made this 10000x more nuclear than needed. No surprise given he’s a massive Narcissist.
I will say that Coutts handled this epically poor by the way.
I don’t like linking to this rag, but they have the data amongst the billion ads
Better link now courtesy of @HoldenCarver
Stick ‘12ft.io/’ after the // and before the www in the link, that’ll send it through a proxy which should avoid giving them a direct link and resultant metrics (other proxies are also available).
To be fair, they didn’t want him as a customer because he didn’t meet the requirements to be a customer. They could have made an exception, as they sometimes do, but decided not to after looking at him as a PEP whose views could potentially have an impact on the reputation of the bank.
On the other hand, this is the same bank which had no qualms accepting a suitcase containing a million Euros which originated from Qatar. I guess if you are going to be king your status as a PEP is of less importance.
Personally I have no time for Coutts (full disclosure: they refused me an account back in the 80s in a very nice hand written letter) or Farage.
My water and electricity suppliers are private companies… should they be able to disconnect customers because of how they vote?
Access to a bank account might not be quite as important as running water, but it’s not far behind.
That said, I’d find it pretty strange if my local supermarket started refusing people for their political views (unless they were promoting them in the supermarket). It’s none of their business. For whatever reason, Coutts seem to have forgotten that.
The only reason that could possibly be true is a fraud marker, and even then basic bank accounts exist.
Just to say that Coutts released a statement today.
In a new statement issued on Thursday, a Coutts spokesperson acknowledged the “substantial interest” in the Farage case but said it could not comment in detail because of customer confidentiality obligations.
However, they stressed “it is not Coutts’ policy to close customer accounts solely on the basis of legally held political and personal views”.
Coutts added: "Decisions to close an account are not taken lightly and involve a number of factors including commercial viability, reputational considerations, and legal and regulatory requirements.
"We recognise the critical importance of access to banking. When it became clear that our client was unable to secure banking facilities elsewhere, and as he has confirmed publicly, he was offered alternative banking facilities with NatWest. That offer stands.“
Just watched the issue being discussed on BBC lunchtime news, and looked for the most relevant article:
A couple of things stand out:
But economist Frances Coppola told the same programme that “having read the report, I actually don’t think that’s the reason why they closed his account. The report makes it clear that the reason they closed the account was that Nigel paid off his mortgage and the house was released as a security and that brought him below the criteria for an account at that bank.”
A third party economist notes that the actions of Courts are not unreasonable. I trust their analysis over the unavoidably biased view of the involved parties.
Banks would also be required to explain why an account is being shut, and give a longer notice period, under tougher rules to be brought in.
I can’t actually disagree with this, but I hope the government balance this new requirement against previous requirements properly. It would absolutely suck for a bank if they told a customer more because of the new requirements - but then got punished for ‘tipping off’ or otherwise breaching existing requirements.
And finally, this however would be an overreach
licences could be stripped
Banks are allowed to choose who they work with, threatening them with stripping of licences at this point is chilling.
Well we can only go off what he says of course, but who’s to say the many other banks of the UK wouldn’t have actually said no. Since I don’t see any of them publicly saying this.
No way a conservative government is going to make a law to force banks or any company to take people as customers. The whole stuff about stripping licenses is playing to the audience.
Increasing notification requirements (within the tipping off rules) seems sensible.
That isn’t quite what I said, or at least what I meant.
If a business want’s to do business with you then they should. Equally, if they don’t then as long as there are alternative options, I don’t see why not personally. If there are legitimate reasons for no longer wanting that customer, they should still have the choice
I can appreciate this is a very, very dangerous spiral however so I am not proposing the above as a final solution. Just a thought perspective.
I respect this perspective, but I’d take the unspoken potential reality of other banks over someone who regularly lied about “benefits” of Brexit. It’s the same as believing Trump is telling the truth about a rigged election IMHO.
I completely see your point, just that I don’t think it will ever align to mine. I still respect it though.
According to Farage - yes. He was very vocally supportive of a bakery in Northern Ireland which refused on religious grounds to bake a cake in celebration of a gay marriage
They actually can’t because political beliefs are a protected characteristic.
That’s why they had another reason - he didn’t meet the criteria. That he was a controversial (to say the least) figure meant they weren’t going to turn a blind eye to that as they apparently have in the past, but it’s likely if he’d kept enough deposited with them the review would never have happened.
They aren’t protected under the Equality Act (if that is what you are referring to).
Religion or Belief is protected, but Belief is defined as
any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
That’s a very poor comparison. Water and electricity are essential utilities and we wouldn’t be able to manage if they were disconnected. Weddings cakes aren’t essential, so if you couldn’t get one it would hardly be the end of the world.
But this is a Coutts account though, it’s not like there wouldn’t be alternatives.
The narrative was that he was offered one with NatWest - there seems to be confusion or conflicting reports about whether this was offered from the start, or after he went public with it.
But there had been stories for weeks already that he had been denied accounts with several other banks, which is why I think this whole thing goes deeper than just the Coutts account. If he’s been denied from a swathe of other banks too, then surely that suggests there’s something else at play (there were suggestions of money laundering, and ties to Russia). Or is every other bank universally denying him an account on the same grounds as Coutts are saying?
I think it’s being spun as he’s being hard done by and treated unfairly, but if other banks have also denied him I don’t think it’s as simple as that.