I am doing my best to ignore comments from you, on the basis that they are always so devoid of reality that no comment is necessary. This is really no different.

However, I will just point out that the reason Farage had his account closed was stated by the bank as being because he failed to meet their criteria.

That may well have been a fig-leaf to hide the underlying reason of concerns about their reputation being damaged by having any kind of association with him, but that is irrelevant.

The bank is entitled to close any account. It's their account. It has zilch to do with democracy. Farage hasn't had the ability to express himself in whatever way he wishes impacted. The media have reported it. I wished they had ignored it as an unimportant personal event, but they bought into the Farage mock outrage.

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.

There appears to have been some internal documents, I assume recovered via a Subject Access Request, suggesting he was not someone in line with the Bank's ethos

May well be that having fallen out of the Bank's requirements, they looked into whether they wanted to give him dispensation and decided they didn't really see him as a great ambassador for their brand. Given the lies he and BoJo told on so many occasions that would not be a surprise.

The point about Farage no longer meeting the threshold is actually not true. According to the article I read in the Guardian which quoted the report Farage was "due" to pay back a mortgage at which point he would then fall below the threshold.

As this was a future event he did meet the criteria at the point they chose to close his account.

Coutts could have reminded Farage of the threshold and invited him to discuss further investment opportunities however they chose not do do so because they didn't like his opinions.

One more point

Of course you will. So would all remainers !

Coutts won't have an opinion on his opinions.

They have a concern about the opinions of their customers on his opinions.

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.

Dangerous scenario if true. So, if some of the public have accounts with UK banks that provide Islamic compliant accounts, should the bank close those to potentially pacify those that think Shira law is unpleasant?

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

So those others had it coming iyo. No recourse is fine then is it? Just maybe some had a case but not the platform to question it. My god this is like a loop ! Have you considered doing a bit of water boarding for entertainment !

Edited by cryrst (24 Jul 2023 5.07pm)

The bastion of truth the gold standard of impartial journalism ...

Lol

One more point

I was thinking about the Washington Post and Watergate.

The editor refused to publish anything unless it was corroborated and on the record, it meant that WP was bullet proof when the White House tried to deny it.

The standard of journalism in this country is woeful, they just take what they are fed and act on it depending on their politics.

I expect that from the tabloids but the BBC? Did it not not occur to the journalist over his nice cosy lunch that he was being fed BS for dinner.

Why did his editor not tell the journalist we need proof if we get this wrong Farage will make a meal of it.

Sigh Woodward and Bernstein they aint.

One more point

Sorry but this is a ridiculous statement. Why would their customers know he banked there unless they made it public? If they did, a breach of confidentiality. As I said before I wonder how many Saudis have millions stashed away in the vaults of Coutts? What are their customers opinions on them