Political views are protected as a valid philosophical belief.
Well, Coutts aren’t really saying that… Farage is… but I find it difficult to believe that every bank is refusing because of who he is… he’s toxic as hell but nobody in any bank said ‘he has money, we like money!’?
2 Likes
This is one of those cases where the headline says one thing, the article says something slightly different.
A political belief can be a philosophical belief in the same way that veganism can be a philosophical belief. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they are in every case, whereas religious beliefs are.
2 Likes
In farages case they almost certainly are.
He doesn’t just vote ukip occasionally… he is ukip (or reform or whatever they’re called these days).
I would argue veganism always is by its nature, though.
It would be for him to argue his case, but he is a complex character who is opposed to immigration. But not always.
UKIP policy in 2015 was that any business would be allowed to discriminate against gay customers on grounds of belief.
3 Likes
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
3 Likes
And this wouldn’t be politically motivated my ministers, now would it? 
1 Like
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I agree, and I think Coutts have a case to answer here, although it seems to me that it’s most likely been a very badly-handled case around a customer who hasn’t met commercial thresholds for a while, rather than outright political intervention. But I think, when the issue in question is one of the customer’s character, it’s fair to call out blatant hypocrisy.
1 Like
I can call him a hypocrite - because he is - and still believe that Coutts may have been wrong to close his account - which I do.
1 Like
At least it will stop half the posts on this community…
9 Likes
I can imagine it’ll become a very generalised thing.
“We dont like your account activity”
vs
“We are closing your account because you receive £59 from Bob and then sent it to Sue, whom we have evidence of being a scammer”
At the moment, it’s more a “it’s a commercial decision and we can’t tell you why”.
It’ll drive less posts on the revolut pages I guess 
2 Likes
Not the bit that said “I think Coutts have a case to answer here”?
Which was merely a statement of fact, without any opinion whatsoever. But if you wanted to assign one to it, then go for it. I’m out.
The Telegraph quote her letter in full:
Dear Mr Farage,
I am writing to apologise for the deeply inappropriate comments about yourself made in the now published papers prepared for the Wealth Committee. I would like to make it clear that they do not reflect the view of the bank.
I believe very strongly that freedom of expression and access to banking are fundamental to our society and it is absolutely not our policy to exit a customer on the basis of legally held political and personal views. To this end, I would also like to personally reiterate our offer to you of alternative banking arrangements at NatWest.
I fully understand yours and the public’s concern that the processes for bank account closure are not sufficiently transparent. Customers have a right to expect their bank to make consistent decisions against publicly available criteria and those decisions should be communicated clearly and openly with them, within the constraints imposed by the law.
To achieve this, sector wide change is required, but your experience, highlighted in recent days, has shown we also need to put our own processes under scrutiny too. As a result I am commissioning a full review of the Coutts processes for how these decisions are made and communicated, to ensure we provide better, clearer and more consistent experience for customers in the future.
The review will be reporting to me as NatWest Group CEO.
I welcome the FCA’s reviews of regulatory rules associated with Politically Exposed Persons, and we will implement the recommendations of our review alongside any changes that they or the Government makes to the overall regulatory framework.
Yours sincerely,
Alison Rose.
4 Likes
Seems newsthump were reading this thread…
3 Likes
Maybe I’ve totally made this up but wasn’t one of the hallmarks of the BBC that they require like 2 or 3 confirmations before they report on things like this? So it was always that BBC News might be slow, but it was always trusted to be right.
2 Likes
I don’t know why but the cynic in me feels the source just didn’t like farage and didn’t realise would cause this much fuss.
1 Like
If that’s the case (and it might be!) that was really obtuse of them. It would be an almost certainty that he would make it all about him and pursue anyone that said otherwise
4 Likes
Saw this thread on Twitter today, from someone who has actually read the Coutts report on Farage:
As ever, worth reading the whole thread. But here are some highlights:
They made a commercial decision, anticipated Farage may not be happy, and determined to treat him fairly at every stage. They were at pains not to have the issue turn into a political football.
And yet Farage did so anyway. In which circumstances, the apology letter is also political rather than genuine, as they have little to apologise for given the reading of the report. Clearly they’ve determined that making the story go away as quickly as possible is better than being right.
ETA: for anyone who wants to do their own research,
4 Likes