Nigel Farage cries persecution, nobody wants to be his banker after ties to Russia

Danzy

The terms and conditions argument doesn't really stand because it requires one to believe that a bank like this didn't ask if the customer wanted a New mortgage or further investments, that it is standard procedure to close accounts with out speaking to the customer about further options.

By definition any mortgage that is closed out puts the investor of that mortgage out of terms and conditions.

If they can show they treated him the Same as all others, Easy for them to do, then they can end the story in one hour.

They can't because that approach is not done by any barely functional business, nevermind a long established bank

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120883709#Comment_120883709

Its the main and only question. Does he or does he not. If he doesn't then he has no legitimate reason to insist on services.

The fact that you seem incapable of answering it is very telling of you confidence in his finances.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884039#Comment_120884039

No, I answered your question in full.

Tony EH

I see some people are still struggling with the concept of exclusivity.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884049#Comment_120884049

You did nothing of the sort. Has he got the necessary cash to maintain an account. Even basic high street banks impose cash limits on accounts - there are basic accounts which are closed to you if you have limited cash.

I am well used to your avoidance of answering direct and simple questions at this stage. Do you think it makes you look clever dancing around the issue.

Shoog

Has Farage enough deposit or loans to have an account with Coutts ????

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884075#Comment_120884075

It wasn't stated in the dossier, so we can reasonably conclude that Farage did have sufficient funds.

Commercial viability and sufficient funds are two entirely separate questions.

What we can say for absolutely certain is that his political views formed the primary basis upon which his account was cancelled.

You support that, I don't. That's the difference.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-liberal-case-for-nigel-farage/

After ‘it’s not happening’, ‘it may be happening, but for different reasons’, and ‘would it be such a bad thing if it was happening?’, we have finally arrived at the ‘it’s happening and it’s a good thing’ stage of the Nigel Farage banking story.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884127#Comment_120884127

What we can say with almost absolute certainty is that the ending of his Mortage triggered a review of his account since it caused him to fall below their viability criteria. At this point they had the option to keep his account open if they thought he would bring in valuable custom. Part of the decision they made was based upon his character which they had a perfect right to do as a private company.

So in answer to my own question - he doesn't have enough wealth (£3 Million on deposit) or loans/investments (£1 Million) to qualify for the account he had. If you disagree with this financial assessment please provide evidence to show that he met those requirements.

ancapailldorcha

Even the preview of that link has lies in it. Even for the British press, the Spectator is sh*t.

nachouser

Can someone pm me when he has his water or leccy cut off. Then, I might care.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884147#Comment_120884147

No, it isn't.

I speak as a creature of the right and I intentionally read The Guardian to learn about arguments against my position.

Having an echochamber of opinions and labelling The Spectator as "****" suggests that you have no intention of changing any opinion you have. According to you, you're never wrong. Ever.

That's a profound weakness, not a strength.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884127#Comment_120884127

It wasn't stated in the dossier, so we can reasonably conclude that Farage did have sufficient funds.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120883474#Comment_120883474

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884142#Comment_120884142

No, it’s still not happening.

Far right racist has account closed because he’s not worth ultra exclusive banks time anymore was the story then and is the story now.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884253#Comment_120884253

I said "reasonably" conclude.

As usual, nuance is overlooked in favour of scoring points.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884274#Comment_120884274

I think Farage is an ar5ehole of the highest order but he doesn't seem to have been treated fairly by the bank.

If he didn't have enough money in the bank to warrant being kept on, they could have informed him of that fact and allowed him to make alternative arrangements such as depositing more money with them, getting another mortgage etc. They did not do that. They just closed shop.

Instead they compiled a dossier on his private and not so private beliefs and decided he wasn't for them.

From a neutral's point of view (me), it does look like the bank made the decision for political reasons and not for financial reasons.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120883399#Comment_120883399

Erm, Farage is free to have a halifax account. So what human rights issue is he facing? He's not allowed a fancy service that the elite get?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120883474#Comment_120883474

I'm calling bullshit here, George Soros conspiracy theories have largely been anti-semitic. He's portrayed as an elite puppetmaster that's secretly controlling the world, that's an anti-semitic trope. Don't take my word for it though. The likes of the American Jewish Committee say as much.

"Farage said Soros sought “to undermine democracy and to fundamentally change the makeup, demographically, of the whole European continent”."

That fits the criteria of evil puppetmaster controlling the world.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120883709#Comment_120883709

He's applying for a specialist service that is focused on prestige. Weighing both his value as a client and reputational risk is what they did. The fact he fell below a threshold and poses a reputational risk because of his rather horrible views is somewhat hilarious more than anything. Based on my reading if he was a wealthier far right racist they would be more likely to retain him as it would be a more profitable relationship in spite of risk.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120882906#Comment_120882906

Djokovic is a pretty well establish right wing loon. Antivax and has hung around with some genocidal maniacs over the years, even appearing sympathetic towards them. He met up with one of the Paramilitary leaders that was responsible for the Srebrenica massacre back in 2021. Just because he's a sports star doesn't mean he's incapable of being far right and he's a controversial figure in tennis as a result of his positions.

Also in relation to the other 9 bank accounts, if they're all boutique banks. That's more comedy than anything else. I'm also guessing since he's fallen below the Coutts threshold, he's automatically ineligible for them by default.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884402#Comment_120884402

Djokovic is a pretty well establish right wing loon.

No, he isn't.

A perfectly healthy professional athlete refusing to take a vaccine does not make him far-right.

This is ridiculous. And Farage having conversations with his brother doesn't say much either.

It's crazy how normal and legitimate positions are characterised as far-right just because some people are unhappy about it.

Danzy

As the Guardian headline on the story said monumental PR disaster.

It was from a corporate risk advisory firm Chair's comment on the story.

“It is a monumental PR disaster – entirely of the bank’s own making – that will go down in history,” said Justin Doherty, chair of the reputation risk advisory firm Hemington.

He goes on to say that the firm's centuries crafted reputation has ironically been trashed by the risk committee of the Bank.

This is in the Guardian, probably the least welcome place Farage could go.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884419#Comment_120884419

He is known for hanging out with the likes of Milan Jolovic and Milorad Dodik(a genocide denier no less). So while he may not openly express views on it, he associates with right wing genocidal scumbags. Jumping into antivaxxing is the least of his issues.

astrofool

I'd imagine Coutt's are regretting ever taking him on as a client and the likes of his ilk won't be taken on again.

The fact that 9(!) other, likely boutique, banks wouldn't take him on (before all this publicity) either is hilarious and likely vindicates Coutt's dropping him.

They seem confident the reason was his financial means rather than his xenophobic racism (as the banks likely have a lot others of these on the books).

Everything farage has touched, from the brexit disaster, his political parties, his impotence as an MEP, to everyone who does business with him, has turned to sh!t.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884127#Comment_120884127

It WAS stated in the document, multiple times and you've also been told that multiple times.

It says clearly and repeatedly that on the closure of his Mortgage account he would no longer meet the the Economic Contribution requirements to hold an account with Coutts.

That is the reason he was dropped, simple as that

As a PEP the bank were required to keep track of his activities and given the nature of the investment based business they run they would also maintain a detailed "risk assessment" file for every single customer they have, not just Farage.

Farages file has details of all his "risks" - His public statements, his known opinions and associations and so on.

Those "risks" were acceptable as long as he had enough money flowing through his Coutts accounts.

Once he didn't , they weren't, so they closed his account

Not because of his politics, but because of his bank balance.

I'm not sure why people are struggling to understand this.

astrofool

He's likely to be off the PEP list soon anyway due to his political failures.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884568#Comment_120884568

Because they don't want to understand it.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884568#Comment_120884568

If someone didn't meet the Economic Contribution, then why have a 40 page dossier on him. Wouldn't one or two sentences cover it if it was based on his Economic Contribution?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884608#Comment_120884608

They are obliged to have a profile of him by law, don't overthink what's a really simple situation.

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120883508#Comment_120883508

What law did it break?

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884608#Comment_120884608

They have those dossiers on every single one of their customers.

That's just how it works for investment banks.

If a bank loans you a chunk of money you can be damn sure they will have a file on you keeping track of your ability to pay back that loan. They will be checking for risks all the time, especially for high profile people.

"What are the chances that this person might get caught up in a public scandal that would tank their business and mean we wouldn't get paid back?" and so on.

Banks don't give a damn about their customers politics, they care about "risk", which for them is the risk of losing money.

In the case of Farage, the risk was acceptable while he had a mortgage that he was paying back.

Once that was finished the risk to their profits was too much so they closed his account.

I guarantee that Coutts have customers far worse that anyone might imagine Nigel Farage could ever be and they couldn't care less about those people and their behaviours, because they make enough money from them to not care.

The bottom line is that Farage did not lose his account because of his politics, he lost it because he was no longer profitable.

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120884383#Comment_120884383

The bank made the decision from a risk perspective - specifically, the risk that they will potentially lose out on clients by having a negative reputation due to having a client who is known for racist, xenophobic comments and has a reputation for being a grifter.

These aren’t some privately held beliefs that he’s being persecuted for - he is well known for everything the bank put in their review, it’s how he makes his living.

Is the bank really treating him unfairly by taking into account his public reputation when deciding whether to keep him on as a client?

brickster69

ICO has been asked to investigate. Depends what happens but not a great look for a bank that prides itself on discretion and is the accused of breaking client confidentiality.

The BBC reporter and Natwest Ceo both declined to comment when asked if the were sat together at lunch a few hours before the same reporter released his comments.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1682797733189410817