This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Coutts VS Nigel Farage
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 Glazier#1  21 Jul 23 10.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I find it laughable that banks are banning customers because they don't like their views. Considering the number of serious criminals, dictators, money launderers etc. who have accounts with UK banks I am amazed at how fussy they are over hurty words. The bank I worked at allowed the brother of the President of Mexico to open an account with one billion or 100 million dollars (I can't remember). It never occurred to anyone to ask where the money came from as the guy was basically broke and unemployed before his brother became President but hey ho. Absolutely. Hypocrisy
Edited by Badger11 (21 Jul 2023 7.25am)
|
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 21 Jul 23 10.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
My take on it is that Farage might be making noises about potentially leading a Refrom charge for the 2024 election. Suspect that once we get into September effectively battle commences fully (the Blair and Starmer roadshow from earlier this week was the opening salvo). This stunt from Coutts, who no doubt offer banking services to the very WORST of people, is about humiliating Farage by way of trying to do his knees before that. Coutts is 100% the Establishment retail bank of choice. The idea that they did this off their own back with no other motives in mind is beyond ludicrous. Even this 'climb-down' is a bit of farce. Effectively it is a warning. Telling Farage that if you try and f*** with the plan, then you are going to be effectively kicked into touch. You had your fun with Brexit, got all your nice little speaking engagements and so on but actually try to mess with the succession of Starmer to the throne and you are finished. I think it's more basic than that. Coutts have bought into the Stonewall ideology of the world and even displayed Pride banners outside their HQ. Farage is lapping it up and his supporters are no doubt saying it's a conspiracy I just think it's Coutts playing up to the Woke brigade and I bet they now bitterly regret it. Banks should not be activists if they want to keep their clients.
One more point |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 21 Jul 23 10.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
Christ. The Parrot is at it again Independent bank decides to kick customer out for its own reasons shocker Technically it can do what it wants, unless it gets called out publicly and is forced to wind back and grovel I don't agree with it but at the end of the day it's a privately run corporation not a community bank. Besides, there are new rules coming in to favour account holders. 90 day warnings about closure and the right to appeal etc. Although it should be a basic right to have access to banking services regardless of background it's currently not the case. Could you be any more naive?
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 11.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
Yep and they have now made a grovelling apology. BBC misreported it ( really!) but are yet to apologise. CEO of Coutts had lunch with a BBC journalist the day before the story broke. The only apology I saw was for the use of some terminology in their internal documents. The government now proposes stricter requirements on how such matters are communicated, with a right for anyone impacted to be able to challenge and request a review. None of which, so far as I can see, changes the fundamental right of a bank to decide their own rules on the size of deposits or how they determine who are their target customers and who aren’t. This wasn’t clever PR by the bank and doubtless there has been some red faces internally but their right to do it remains intact. Whether it actually benefits Farage is another question. It is red meat to those who think like him, but to everyone else it only goes to confirm what they think of him. That he is an insufferable prick. I doubt whether he will have gained any support as a result of this publicity stunt.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 21 Jul 23 11.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The only apology I saw was for the use of some terminology in their internal documents. The government now proposes stricter requirements on how such matters are communicated, with a right for anyone impacted to be able to challenge and request a review. None of which, so far as I can see, changes the fundamental right of a bank to decide their own rules on the size of deposits or how they determine who are their target customers and who aren’t. Whether it actually benefits Farage is another question. It is red meat to those who think like him, but to everyone else it only goes to confirm what they think of him. That he is an insufferable prick. I doubt whether he will have gained any support as a result of this publicity stunt. Except that lots of Coutts customers have come forward to say they also no longer meet the financial requirements and yet their accounts are still intact. I think Coutts would have a hard time in court proving that the decision was solely financial especially with the smoking gun that is the document and that is why they have apologised.
One more point |
|
eagleman13  On The Road To Hell & Alicante 21 Jul 23 1.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Seems the bbc have done it again, 'errors in reporting' . . . [Link]
This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise. |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 21 Jul 23 2.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eagleman13
Seems the bbc have done it again, 'errors in reporting' . . . [Link] Yup don't expect them to apologise for sloppy unprofessional journalism, hey it's Farage....
One more point |
|
| georgenorman 21 Jul 23 2.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The only apology I saw was for the use of some terminology in their internal documents. The government now proposes stricter requirements on how such matters are communicated, with a right for anyone impacted to be able to challenge and request a review. None of which, so far as I can see, changes the fundamental right of a bank to decide their own rules on the size of deposits or how they determine who are their target customers and who aren’t. This wasn’t clever PR by the bank and doubtless there has been some red faces internally but their right to do it remains intact. Whether it actually benefits Farage is another question. It is red meat to those who think like him, but to everyone else it only goes to confirm what they think of him. That he is an insufferable prick. I doubt whether he will have gained any support as a result of this publicity stunt. This from someone who said that the company involved in the 'gay cake' case were obliged to take homosexual rights activist, Gareth Lee, as a customer. Your double standards are of course not unexpected. Edited by georgenorman (21 Jul 2023 2.25pm)
|
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 21 Jul 23 2.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
Sets a very dangerous precedent when a bank closes your account based on your political views. No one should be cancelled, or have thier accounts closed based on any political views. whether you are left, right or center. Cant understand why some people are backing the bank here. Because it's Farage if it was a Trans person they would be demonstrating outside of the bank. Double standards and hypocrisy all round. This does matter as we are moving to a cashless society people will need a bank account same as they need electricity.
One more point |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 21 Jul 23 2.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
in sympathy with Nigel, i have removed my 100 million quid from Coutts.
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 21 Jul 23 2.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
Sets a very dangerous precedent when a bank closes your account based on your political views. No one should be cancelled, or have thier accounts closed based on any political views. whether you are left, right or center. Cant understand why some people are backing the bank here. The bank can accept or decline who they want. They would also have a policy relating to Reputational Risk, whereby a client could affect their relationship with other customers. My bank once declined the financing of a printing press because of the contracts the company had to print soft core p*** mags (top shelf stuff). Bizarrely the local government was happy to give them a grant. Where the Farage episode breaks down is that he was already a customer and other customers in a similar position were not contacted to say that their accounts were closing for the same reason.
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
| silvertop Portishead 21 Jul 23 2.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eagleman13
Seems the bbc have done it again, 'errors in reporting' . . . [Link] Yes of course that's what this is all about. The BBC. Honestly, you lot! On actual topic I am no farage fan but Coutts have shot themselves in both feet. A child molester will have his bank account still there when he gets out of prison. To single out one man for his politics is chilling. Had they a policy of software automatically sending letters to any customer whose figures fall below the threshold farage would have no argument. Incidentally how did Farage make his £millions?
|
|
| PalazioVecchio south pole 21 Jul 23 2.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
This does matter as we are moving to a cashless society....
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| eaglesdare 21 Jul 23 3.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
The bank can accept or decline who they want. They would also have a policy relating to Reputational Risk, whereby a client could affect their relationship with other customers. My bank once declined the financing of a printing press because of the contracts the company had to print soft core p*** mags (top shelf stuff). Bizarrely the local government was happy to give them a grant. Where the Farage episode breaks down is that he was already a customer and other customers in a similar position were not contacted to say that their accounts were closing for the same reason. Wasn't long ago that banks and employers would not allow black people to have accounts go inside restaurants, bars etc... What's your opinion on this? Should banks also have a right to decline based on ones skin color? It's discrimination in all forms.
|
|
| Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 21 Jul 23 3.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by eaglesdare
Wasn't long ago that banks and employers would not allow black people to have accounts go inside restaurants, bars etc... What's your opinion on this? Should banks also have a right to decline based on ones skin color? It's discrimination in all forms. I’m not sure that skin colour is relevant in today’s world relating to bank accounts. I didn’t come across it in four decades of working in banking. I can only guess that Coutts may have had pressure from customers who don’t hold the same views as Farage and they gambled that losing one customer was better than upsetting more than one. I agree that any form of discrimination relating to banking is undesirable and should be illegal but different banks have different target audiences, so there is a degree of acceptance by some for a particular person and not by others.
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 5.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Except that lots of Coutts customers have come forward to say they also no longer meet the financial requirements and yet their accounts are still intact. I think Coutts would have a hard time in court proving that the decision was solely financial especially with the smoking gun that is the document and that is why they have apologised. That they have the right doesn't mean they are obliged to exercise it. There were obviously reputational considerations in play with Farage for which their right to cancel was a smokescreen but that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. I don't think any court would be interested in something like this. Farage hasn't been materially impacted. Other banks exist. He obviously likes to think he is important enough to have the prestige of a Coutts account and they disagree.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| georgenorman 21 Jul 23 5.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That they have the right doesn't mean they are obliged to exercise it. There were obviously reputational considerations in play with Farage for which their right to cancel was a smokescreen but that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist. I don't think any court would be interested in something like this. Farage hasn't been materially impacted. Other banks exist. He obviously likes to think he is important enough to have the prestige of a Coutts account and they disagree. Yet you don't allow the bakery in the 'gay cake' case to have that right.
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 6.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
This from someone who said that the company involved in the 'gay cake' case were obliged to take homosexual rights activist, Gareth Lee, as a customer. Your double standards are of course not unexpected. Edited by georgenorman (21 Jul 2023 2.25pm) I thought about exactly that as a comparison before making the comment and wondered if someone like you would try to use it. There is though a fundamental difference between the two events. In one someone is being asked to make something for someone else, but objected to words they were contracted to use as decoration. The cake was not the property of the baker. Only the ingredients were. They were not endorsing views. They were piping icing. In this case, the bank account itself is the property of the bank. They are not touching the money in it. That remains the property of Farage and will be returned to him. The bank offers a standard product with set terms and conditions. Fail to comply and they can refuse your business. The baker offers a service for a fee and should not be free to discriminate on matters that conflict with equality legislation. If they refused to put any wording on cakes they would be OK. Selectively refusing wording and they aren't. They are discriminating. In my opinion. The Supreme Court disagreed, but I continue to believe they are wrong. Perhaps Farage believes that the scope of anti-discrimination protective legislation ought to be extended to include self-righteous presenters on GB News.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.