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.

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.

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.

They might both be regarded as discriminatory by some but one is definitely legally discriminatory whilst the other ought not to be, in my opinion, despite the Supreme Court holding that it was on a point of law.

Farage wasn’t discriminated against because of his political beliefs. His account was closed by the bank for failing to meet their requirements. That this was probably used as a smokescreen to cover their fear of reputational damage is beside the point. It wasn’t illegal discrimination.

I would doubt whether Corbyn would aspire to having an account with Coutts, let alone admitting he is wealthy enough to get one, but in the unlikely circumstance that he did then the bank closing it for whatever reason they decide is fine by me. Their bank. Their account.

Any baker, Halal or anything else, has no right to refuse work because of what a client asks to be iced, so long as it’s legal. It’s not their cake. If they offer to bake cakes to order for reward then they cannot discriminate. If they cannot accept that then they must stop offering the service.

I honestly believe your last paragraph is totally wrong. Any person running a business has the right to refuse work from / to serve a potential customer . My father ran a shop for many years, he was entitled to refuse to serve anyone, if he so wished. Of course, these were in the days before Woke took over

I most certainly do believe it. Don’t worry though about insulting me.

Insults from you, or from any of the others who enjoy hearing echoes of their own out of sync views here, are all treated as solid confirmation that a sore point has been touched.

If I had a £1000 for every ad hominem I have received here I could buy Palace a new striker.

They might both be regarded as discriminatory by some but one is definitely legally discriminatory whilst the other ought not to be, in my opinion, despite the Supreme Court holding that it was on a point of law.

Farage wasn’t discriminated against because of his political beliefs. His account was closed by the bank for failing to meet their requirements. That this was probably used as a smokescreen to cover their fear of reputational damage is beside the point. It wasn’t illegal discrimination.

I would doubt whether Corbyn would aspire to having an account with Coutts, let alone admitting he is wealthy enough to get one, but in the unlikely circumstance that he did then

Any baker, Halal or anything else, has no right to refuse work because of what a client asks to be iced, so long as it’s legal. It’s not their cake. If they offer to bake cakes to order for reward then they cannot discriminate. If they cannot accept that then they must stop offering the service.

So let’s take an example based on your last paragraph. Got approached by a potential client who I know is on the Sex Offenders register. As long as what he wants me to do is legal, I’ve no right to refuse based on your argument.

Wonder how you would feel about that person wanting to rent a house from you? if they fulfilled every legal criteria. You’re offering a place to stay in exchange for reward, so couldn’t refuse them.

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.

Edited by Badger11 (21 Jul 2023 7.24am)

Edited by Badger11 (21 Jul 2023 7.25am)

You haven’t read the judgement have you?

The SC held that the Ashers did not discriminate, whilst the County and Appeal courts disagreed. The difference was the application of very specific laws and nothing “blindingly obvious”. That’s just your prejudice speaking.

My contention all along is that the cake was never the property of Ashers, but of their client. Therefore their only interest was in the ingredients and not in any wording.

I don’t think this was really tested by the SC who looked only at whether they possessed the judiciary power to rule on the case.

This though is a settled, for now, issue and not directed related to Farage. If it did you would be arguing against yourself.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (22 Jul 2023 9.40am)