As is often the case with you, what you say is simply not true. You have made various, predictable attacks on Farage but have not shown that he was hypocritical in relation to the Coutts affair.

As is often the case with you, what you say is simply not true. You have made various, predictable attacks on Farage but have not shown that he was hypocritical in relation to the Coutts affair.

That you cannot see it is as predictable as the sun rising this morning.

I just double-checked. There wasn't a single word about the subject of the thread. Not one! It was in response to a comment of mine but was entirely criticising me and not addressing the content of the comment in any way at all.

It was 100% ad hominem, something you are very frequently guilty of. It seems you just cannot help yourself. Maybe you need to find some help elsewhere?

For the umpteenth time in this thread, Farage was not debanked because Coutts has an opinion on his views. That they described those views in the internal document that was acquired and circulated by Farage doesn't change that fact. Farage has spun it that way, for his own reasons, but it isn't true.

Describing him as they did was simply part of the process of constructing the rationale for why an association with him could lead to reputational damage.

Perhaps that's too subtle a difference for some to understand, but it is the vital difference between what Farage suggests, and the truth.

Millions of citizens may well agree with Farage. There are after all 60 million of us. Many more millions don't and for that, I give a hearty sigh of relief.

I don’t think he is a xenophobic racist on a personal level.

I think he courts xenophobic racists with his rhetoric and propaganda.

Once again, why won't Nat West suffer the same reputational damage by holding his account?

I just double-checked. There wasn't a single word about the subject of the thread. Not one! It was in response to a comment of mine but was entirely criticising me and not addressing the content of the comment in any way at all.

It was 100% ad hominem, something you are very frequently guilty of. It seems you just cannot help yourself. Maybe you need to find some help elsewhere?

For the umpteenth time in this thread, Farage was not debanked because Coutts has an opinion on his views. That they described those views in the internal document that was acquired and circulated by Farage doesn't change that fact. Farage has spun it that way, for his own reasons, but it isn't true.

Describing him as they did was simply part of the process of constructing the rationale for why an association with him could lead to reputational damage.

Perhaps that's too subtle a difference for some to understand, but it is the vital difference between what Farage suggests, and the truth.

Millions of citizens may well agree with Farage. There are after all 60 million of us. Many more millions don't and for that, I give a hearty sigh of relief.

I think you are being pedantic over the use of a phrase. That people are arguing about freedom of speech being a concern doesn't mean the argument has any merit. As I said previously it is spurious. It's clearly untrue as the past week has demonstrated. That what Farage says is at the base of what has happened does not mean his ability to say it has been negatively impacted. If anything it has been amplified.

It's no more true than if someone argued that Harry Kane plays for Palace. The arguing would exist, but not the argument.

I expressed my opinion about the government's intervention in my previous comment. I think it's regrettable and politically motivated. What Sunak said is obviously true, but what is also true is that this isn't what has happened to Farage. He hasn't lost his account because of his views. It was removed by the bank because of their concerns about being associated with them. That's their decision. No one should be forced to be friends with someone they don't choose to be. This is no different.

I have thought that Sunak, and particularly Hunt, have been doing a good job given the appalling mess they inherited from Johnson and Truss. Not enough to save them at the next GE but enough to allow the Tories to survive and recover when a complete wipeout looked possible. Their fawning to Farage indicates just how much the Tories still fear him, and that is seriously unhealthy.

This is from Wiki.

After submitting a subject access request in July, Farage published a 40-page internal document from the bank, which contained minutes from a meeting of the bank's Wealth Reputational Risk Committee on 17 November 2022, describing Farage as a "disingenuous grifter" who promoted "xenophobic, chauvinistic and racist views", and said his "views were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation", with "risk factors including... controversial public statements which were felt to conflict with the bank’s purpose"