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

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903599#Comment_120903599

I can say quite confidently that his political beliefs formed a basis for his account closure.

That's always been my sole focus.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903547#Comment_120903547

More lies. The money claim is proven by the dossier. I'm not going to waste my time on your linkdump.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903624#Comment_120903624

It is not what you have said repeatedly - which is that he had sufficient funds to maintain his account.

You have asserted something which you have no facts to base your statement on, but lets be clear - he has insufficient funds and we know this because both Coutts and Nigel Farage have confirmed it.

Nermal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903298#Comment_120903298

Why should it be legal for him to be denied any of those services on the basis of his political opinions and activism?

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903656#Comment_120903656

Because private clubs have rules and standards within the limits of clearly defined law.

If you don't agree its a private club please apply for an account and report back how you get on.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903656#Comment_120903656

Did you even read the post you quoted?

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903656#Comment_120903656

So a bank has to do business with him even though they feel his association with them may cost them money?

This isn’t the bank hacking his account to find some privately held beliefs. This is an elitist organisation that puts huge resources managing its accounts compiling detailed information to review how much risk he’s worth to determine if they want to keep him as a client.

Farages job is public political outrage. It’s a hollow argument to suggest the bank are targeting him simply for things he thinks.

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903699#Comment_120903699

So a bank has to do business with him even though they feel his association with them may cost them money?

I seem to be missing something with this narrative. How would people even know he was banking with them in the first place, for him to cause them this supposed brand harm?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903642#Comment_120903642

If the story was that Farage had insufficient funds and this was the basis upon which they cancelled his account, this thread wouldn't even exist. It would be a non-story because it would be uncontroversial.

But that's not what happened.

We had the CEO of NatWest brief the BBC that Farage was "insufficiently wealthy". Dame Alison had to resign because this version was considered "inaccurate and incomplete". In other words, she lied and covered up the truth of what actually happened with Farage's account.

Those two words -- inaccurate and incomplete -- refer to the political dimension of the decision to unbank Farage, and the 40-page dossier that spells out how "his values do not align with that of the bank" and its "inclusive" nature.

By all means keep repeating the falsehood that Farage is poor. Almost everyone else has moved on and established the accurate and complete picture why Farage lost his bank account.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903713#Comment_120903713

Its stated in the dossier on which they made the decision - so I call BS on your whataboutary.

But lets go round the merry go round again, does Farage have enough funds to support an account at Coutts, its a simple YES or NO.

And despite all the apologies no one who has apologiesed has changed their stance on his funds been insufficient.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903707#Comment_120903707

Coutts didn't provide a shred of evidence in the dossier that any business with them was rejected on the basis that Nigel Farage had an account with them.

Not a drop of evidence.

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903707#Comment_120903707

It was a publicly known association, link to the times from 2019:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/everyman-farage-banks-with-coutts-09jkrm2k9

TomTomTim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903739#Comment_120903739

Fair enough. I wish you'd post an article that I could actually read though, as I've no idea how this became public knowledge.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903730#Comment_120903730

I answered your point at length a short time ago, and it's quite clear that you have simply ignored what I said.

This is my answer; I won't repeat it again.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903713#Comment_120903713

Nermal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903685#Comment_120903685

Once again, helplessly and repeatedly confusing the argument over what is with what ought to be.

While it is greatly pleasing that people are being fired from the 'inclusive organisation' that happily managed the business of Pinochet and Mubarak, it is not enough. The law should be changed. Regulated entities should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of legal political expression.

Breaking news that Coutts CEO Peter Flavel has now resigned, the latest scalp that Nigel has claimed from this scandal.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1684553681965056002?t=Nv6w_c9-HMDoKYPZ4Ajfdg&s=19

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903847#Comment_120903847

All you have stated is your belief that it was an insignificant factor. That doesn't make it so and it doesn't allow you to state it without been challenged on its lack of truth.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903857#Comment_120903857

I don't agree that clubs or businesses should be forced to accept the custom of people who they consider to be both to poor and to contravercial to do business with. As I have stated before its a very slippery slope when private individuals or organisations are compelled to do business with people who they have a principled objection to and for that very reason it will not become law since it represents a state enforced removal of freedom of choice.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903713#Comment_120903713

Aside from your continued repetition of claim that it's a "lie" that Farage had insufficient funds when he himself has confirmed that fact and that he has not been "unbanked" - that has been explained to you in painful detail many many times.

The story "exists" because Nigel Farage waited until almost 9 months after Coutts told him they were closing his accounts to go on Social Media and claim without a shred of evidence that the banks were all conspiring to force him out of the UK because of his role in Brexit.

The truth is that he was insufficiently wealthy AND he has a big mouth which he uses explicitly stir up controversy for the latest right-wing cause of the day. It's his deliberate courting of public controversy that is the source of his "risk" to the Banks.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903894#Comment_120903894

Yet the dossier could not substantiate that any business was lost because of their association with Nigel Farage. Decades of association with Farage, yet not one scintilla of evidence he was causing practical damage to the bank.

No evidence, nothing!

Instead, they spend all their time talking about matters such as trans rights, Novak Djokovic, and BLM.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903923#Comment_120903923

Your changing your stance now that your original position is shown to be indefensible.

What we are seeing here is that a basic irrefutable fact is inconvenient for your narrative of persecution so you refuse to even acknowledge that facts existence. Really all this confirms to anyone who has encountered your debating style before - is that you are intellectually dishonest.

Padraig Mor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903641#Comment_120903641

The dossier literally does not say anything of the sort. Just because you don't like the man (I'm certainly not a fan of Brexit, but he's entitled to his beliefs) you don't need to keep parroting untruths that the entire media now accept were false.

Linkdump? LOL, it's a single link to a story in today's edition of a reputable broadsheet newspaper - but that's right, don't "waste your time" on someone completely innocent debanked because she used to be married to someone controversial.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903923#Comment_120903923

Are you suggesting that they should breach the confidence of more customers by sharing what accounts were closed or what people declined to do business with them?

Their view was that he represented a risk of loss , not a certainty nor that he was already causing them loss but a RISK .

Dropping him was insurance against what they viewed was an increased likelihood of him causing them harm. Saying they couldn't prove loss is like saying that anyone who has never had a house fire shouldn't be allowed have home insurance.

You keep going on about a "lack of proof" from the bank without holding your Avatar to the same standards - Where is Farages proof that it's a vast conspiracy to force him out of the UK because of Brexit for example?

Where are your repeated cries for that evidence to be brought forth into the light?

brickster69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903859#Comment_120903859

Farage's wrecking ball is just getting warmed up lads. Natwest AGM in the morning, let's see what the shareholders think about the chairman of the board that backed the CEO who personally broke the rule of client confidentiality to the media whilst having lunch.

Tip of the iceburg lads.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903988#Comment_120903988

It's says something exactly of that sort.

The document explicitly says on multiple occasions that Farage no longer met the "Economic Contribution" requirements for an account once his Mortgage was completed. Unless you want the document to say the words "Farage is too poor" , I think it's perfectly reasonable to take the "not meeting the Economic Contribution requirements" means that he doesn't have enough money for Coutts.

And no one in the Media "accepts it as false" in fact even the BBC , the media organisation at the centre of the issue still has the point about Farages wealth being a key factor in the decision in their published articles

It's not the ONLY factor, which was what Rose suggested in her conversation with Simon Jack , but it was absolutely categorically a factor in the decision to close the account.

archfi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903859#Comment_120903859

'Nothing to see here'

'Nothingburger'

etc etc 😁

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120903390#Comment_120903390

Why couldn't Farage accept the offer of a Natwest bank account?

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120904068#Comment_120904068

Why would he allow the gangsters running the bank get away with it?

The solution to everything in life isn't always let people walk over you.

brickster69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120904027#Comment_120904027

What ? You mean pages and pages of Farage's history in politics, statements and beliefs had no bearing in the decision to get shot of him. Why even mention and dicuss everything then ? All they had to do was say when Farage's mortgage get's paid off we will close his account.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120904014#Comment_120904014

Who ever the new CEO is will be replacing the compliance and regulations team as well.