You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Coutts VS Nigel Farage
September 21 2023 12.39pm

Coutts VS Nigel Farage

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 4 of 79 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

 

View Behind Enemy Lines's Profile Behind Enemy Lines Flag Sussex 21 Jul 23 3.32pm Send a Private Message to Behind Enemy Lines Add Behind Enemy Lines as a friend

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.

Iím not sure that skin colour is relevant in todayís world relating to bank accounts. I didnít come across it in four decades of working in banking. I can only guess that Coutts may have had pressure from customers who donít 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.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 5.30pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 21 Jul 23 5.43pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 6.02pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 21 Jul 23 6.06pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

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 won't insult you intelligence by suggesting that you actually believe in what you have said here.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Helmet46's Profile Helmet46 Flag Croydon 21 Jul 23 7.50pm Send a Private Message to Helmet46 Add Helmet46 as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

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.

This is tosh. Both are discriminatory or neither are. That heís a presenter on GB News is not relevant. He has been discriminated against because of his political beliefs. Thatís OK according to your post. So youíd be happy if the bank had turfed Jeremy Corbyn out for his left wing beliefs? Youíd also, I assume, not back, say, a Halal Cake Maker if they refused a message on a cake that fundamentally went against their religious beliefs? Just trying to understand if youíre consistent. If you are then fair play. I personally believe they are both in the wrong.

Edited by Helmet46 (21 Jul 2023 8.03pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag The garden of England 21 Jul 23 8.06pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines

Iím not sure that skin colour is relevant in todayís world relating to bank accounts. I didnít come across it in four decades of working in banking. I can only guess that Coutts may have had pressure from customers who donít 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.

You came across your 2nd line on employment priorities though right !?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 10.31pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Helmet46

This is tosh. Both are discriminatory or neither are. That heís a presenter on GB News is not relevant. He has been discriminated against because of his political beliefs. Thatís OK according to your post. So youíd be happy if the bank had turfed Jeremy Corbyn out for his left wing beliefs? Youíd also, I assume, not back, say, a Halal Cake Maker if they refused a message on a cake that fundamentally went against their religious beliefs? Just trying to understand if youíre consistent. If you are then fair play. I personally believe they are both in the wrong.

Edited by Helmet46 (21 Jul 2023 8.03pm)

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 wasnít 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 wasnít 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 itís legal. Itís 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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Spiderman's Profile Spiderman Flag Horsham 21 Jul 23 10.36pm Send a Private Message to Spiderman Add Spiderman as a friend

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 arenít.

This wasnít 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.

So why did they allow him to open the account in the first place? As far as I know he has not changed his views. I wonder how many Saudis, Qatariís, Russians, despots have accounts with Coutts.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 10.42pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

I won't insult you intelligence by suggesting that you actually believe in what you have said here.

I most certainly do believe it. Donít 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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Spiderman's Profile Spiderman Flag Horsham 21 Jul 23 10.46pm Send a Private Message to Spiderman Add Spiderman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

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 wasnít 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 wasnít 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 itís legal. Itís 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

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 23 10.47pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Spiderman

So why did they allow him to open the account in the first place? As far as I know he has not changed his views. I wonder how many Saudis, Qatariís, Russians, despots have accounts with Coutts.

I donít know any more than you do but guess account opening doesnít hit the desk of senior management but periodic reviews will throw up potential problems.

I would hope this incident has caused a very thorough review of who holds accounts and whether any are held by nominees to disguise the real beneficial owner.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (21 Jul 2023 11.01pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 4 of 79 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Coutts VS Nigel Farage