Who do you think you are ?

I’m explaining nothing to you. It’s a waste of time .

You carry on defending the indefensible.

Old, Ungifted and White

The previous two guilty verdicts were overturned on a specific point.

That doesn’t mean there was no discrimination. They did not claim reputational damage to their business. They refused for personal reasons alone. Reasons that the SC decided were lawful. Which I accept they have the right to determine but believe an error which will eventually require primary legislation to correct.

This is completely different to the Farage/Coutts event.

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.

You are claiming to know better because of personal experience, which I don’t have and am willing to learn from.

Up to you. I have offered the opportunity to explain. If it’s refused then there is nothing more I can do.

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.

Correct.

I’m not wasting any more of my time on you

Old, Ungifted and White

Coutts stand accused of that, here and in the court of public opinion. I think it’s incorrect and whilst their behaviour and responses have been terrible the original motivation was not.

Ashers did though do it.

Defined discrimination is unlawful. That something slips through a definition doesn’t mean it’s not discrimination.

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.

Not the Board. I was referring to those who sit on the committees making the assessments.

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.

No doubt people will draw their own conclusions from that. As I do.

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.

Ok, lets settle on those in Coutts who made the decision to dump Farage. My original comment still applies.

This is from the Guardian who are hardly fans of Farage.
Mention of reputational damage is conspicuous by it's absence.

You don’t have to be a semiotician to see that the bank, with a background in offshore tax avoidance, was guilty of virtue-signalling when it closed his account because of his political beliefs. That error was compounded by Rose briefing a BBC journalist with false information about Farage.

I have also read the Guardian’s reporting on this and noted that they, along with all the MSM, are taking this line.

I wonder though if it will last and whether some quiet reflection produces a more objective approach.

That Coutts were “virtual-signalling” is undoubtedly true. As is that Farage’s political beliefs lie at the base of the reasoning. What is not being explained at all is the mid-way step of why these things matter to the bank. Which isn’t because they disapprove of them for their politics but disapprove of them because of the potential impact on their bottom line.

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.