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

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926322#Comment_120926322

Explain please.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926253#Comment_120926253

I'm not "sceptical" about her intentions , I have no opinion, other than she was wrong to discuss customer information that was at that time still private.

When challenged about it , she said she thought that the information she provided was already in the public domain - It wasn't, so she made an error and has paid the price.

Farages publication of the document confirmed that he did not have enough funds to maintain an account with Coutts , it also showed that they felt that his public activities which happen to all be political in nature, represented a reputational risk to the bank.

It is absolutely factually accurate to say "Nigel Farage doesn't have enough money to meet Coutts Financial requirements and we made a Commercial decision to close his account".

It is however incomplete information to not have provided the underlying additional reasons for the "commercial decision" which is that his public behaviours represented a reputational and thereby a commercial risk to the bank.

She shouldn't have given ANY information to the Journalist but the information she gave was not wrong , it was incomplete - It would have been worse had she given all the details to the Journalist to be honest. That would have been an even larger breach of customer privacy.

All this pearl clutching about "lies" and "dishonesty" and "iniquitous behaviour" is more than a little over the top to be honest.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926301#Comment_120926301

They were wrong to make the information available and the language used in the document wasn't great.

Not wrong , but poorly worded and lacking "polish" for the want of a better term.

I also think they failed in not responding promptly to Farage and giving him the details/reasoning behind the decision to close the account etc.

Farage talked about not getting a reply to a number of requests for information.

In my view they handled the process badly , not the underlying decision.

Had they handled the communications better they could have avoided Farages public melt-down and catastrophizing.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926326#Comment_120926326

Its his job to ensure that the contravercies like this do not happen on his watch. He is supposed to know what is happening in all departments at all times by ensuring adequate reporting and monitoring is taking place. I would imagine that on review of the dossier he would have considered its tone unprofessional and that if made public would reflect badly on the bank. I doubt he would have disagreed with the decision though.

growleaves

The Guardian newspaper's wealth correspondent reported that Coutts' "reputation is at risk".

"The affair, say crisis management experts, risks “destroying Coutts’s reputation, if not its entire business”."

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/jul/20/farage-affair-is-a-monumental-pr-disaster-for-exclusive-bank-coutts

People in the banking industry seem to think its a big deal reputationally even as boardsies downplay it.

Of course boardsies want there to be no downside risk to ransoming people's financial access against political conformity.

However that isn't the case. Read the business papers' coverage of the reputational aspect.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926400#Comment_120926400

And it's the handling of the issue rather than the decision itself that is the source of the impact, which the article clearly calls out.

People aren't happy that Rose talked and rightly so and they didn't move to shut Farage down quickly by dealing with him directly and giving their reasons.

The last line of the article is absolutely correct

“They should have put a blanket on the fire when it first ignited. Instead they’ve thrown petrol on it.”

By not responding to Farage quickly and clearly 8/9 months ago , they left a vacuum which Farage filled with hot-air.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926301#Comment_120926301

Probably involved in the decision to disclose info to the press then.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926439#Comment_120926439

In the dossier they called Farage a “disingenuous grifter”.

Even if that is how you view a customer, would you write it down on a piece of paper or PC screen where it would be seen by someone?

The political criteria and the way it was laid out and "weighed" as part of the decision is not just a detail. To anyone who doesn't hate Farage bitterly (many people) its a major part of the scandal.

While they might not have been technically unlawful or unjustified in closing his account as such, the fall-out is not around legal technicalities only.

You seem to me to be blinded by your own political prejudices.

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926400#Comment_120926400

Justin Doherty isn’t in the banking industry - he’s an issues management consultant(and one who loves the word woke by the looks of it).

Coutts reputation has undoubtedly taken a hit, I don’t think it’s possible to argue otherwise, but it’s hyperbolic in the extreme to suggest it will destroy its whole business.

Nigel has his account back now so in a couple of weeks it will go back to business as usual, with the majority of the outraged still unable to bank with them.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926463#Comment_120926463

Many people behaved unprofessionally. Everyone who was shown to have acted unprofessionally resigned.

None of that invalidates the decsion they made and the reasons they made it with regard to Farage. Anyone who supports Farage is outraged - but what does that tell us - people are tribal.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926480#Comment_120926480

A "Reputation and issues management" consultant. Connected to the banking industy through his work, though not of it.

"and one who love the word woke"

Don't we all?

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926485#Comment_120926485

The decision was at least partly informed by (unprofessionaly expressed) political criteria. Farage's views are mostly ordinary enough however much they make prim people wince.

The angle I'm coming is I don't want political tests mixed with commercial criteria. I'm not a British nationalist or Brexiteer.

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926463#Comment_120926463

They said there is a public perception of him as a disingenuous grifter - they didn’t accuse him of being anything directly.

It’s an important distinction - what other people think of him may affect our business adversely, essentially.

And it dispels the idea that people are being targeted by their beliefs, but rather what they’re known for, and what an association with that person could mean for future business.

ancapailldorcha

Nonsense. The angle is that Farage should be above the rules that the rest of us must abide by.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926522#Comment_120926522

Its really not about his politics - its about the fact that he is seen to represent an unsavoury approach to the world. If he held all of those views in private and didn't make it his business to court a certain type of contraversy he would undoubtedly have been fine (apart from the inescapable fact that he was to poor to be a customer).

If Farage was not commercially viable and posed a reputational risk to Coutts, they wouldn't have reinstated his accounts.

And no, it wasn't to "silence" Farage going forward.

Because when Farage was told he would recieve the accounts back, he launched a litigation lawsuit which he intends to pursue. There is no silencing.

Farage was never a reputational risk. He was never commercially unviable.

Danzy

https://www.wsj.com/articles/coutts-bank-u-k-nigel-farage-alison-rose-peter-flavel-a31c7f31

The wall Street journal writing about the problems when the sanctimony of the woke class gets involved in finance. They couldn't care less about Farage but are pointing out the damage it does to the business, nevermind the wrongs and abuses against the customers.

Thousands have already joined the campaign n against account closed and no explanation or reasoning.

Organize, fight back.

As the song goes..

" What they could not kill,

Went on to organize,

Went on to organize."

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926550#Comment_120926550

They did it to shut him up. Simple as that. He still has insufficient funds - they just used the discretion they always had to ignore that and his unsavoury character. At this stage its pure cost benefit, if we give him his account back will he bore of his new crucade and drop it.

If Farage is litigating he has made his first big mistake - what is he claiming ? That Coutts liabelled him ?

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926463#Comment_120926463

I think they said that he was "viewed" as a "disingenuous grifter" which probably isn't altogether inaccurate in terms of it being a widely held public perception, but you are absolutely correct - Having it in writing is very poor.

As I said that the time when Farage released the document , the language used is very poor and I have no doubt that they would have preferred to have written it differently in more "Parliamentary language" as it were.

To summarise -

• They had every right to make the decision they made for the reasons they gave, however they have made an absolute balls of doing it.
• The review document was incredibly poorly written and not at all "sanitised" as you would have expected a document like that to be.
• It appears that they basically tried to ignore Farage when he was looking for answers hoping he would just go away , that was a significant mistake. It's always a mistake when dealing with any customer complaints , but it's an even bigger one when you are dealing with someone with a large media bull-horn.
• Once it went public , they further compounded the issue by continuing to try to minimise and avoid the issue.
• Rose made it much worse by talking to the BBC Journalist and releasing private information, that's probably the biggest source of damage to a bank that pretty much exists solely to help the elite keep their activities private.

In short , an originally valid decision that was subsequently handled incredibly badly and they ceded the ground to Farage by trying to ignore him rather than meeting him head on.

whisky_galore

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120784604#Comment_120784604

This. 100%

Plenty of firms and individuals that did and are still doing business with Russia to this day and nothing said. This is personal though.

Not a Farage fan and couldn't care less about him.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926602#Comment_120926602

It has always been about public reputation not "politics".

Banks don't give a toss who or what you are , they care about profits.

The Banks care what their other customers think , they themselves have no opinion beyond what makes then money.

Washing money from Despots? , Handling dodgy Russian Oligarchs money?

All fine , as long as no one is talking about it and more importantly no one is talking about the bank in the context of the dodgy dealing.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926602#Comment_120926602

This tired old line again.

If it was about his political views, he'd have been denied the account to begin with.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926558#Comment_120926558

His only viable legal challenge would be around the breach of privacy from Rose where he might have a case.

Nothing else that has happened is illegal under UK law.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926632#Comment_120926632

Compensation apparently 🤣 All those lost grifting hours.

Good luck Nige 🤣

Shoog

I think its a bad decision on Coutts part - the damage is done already so why change your mind at this stage.

Its a blinder to appoint a Muslim to the chairmans post. Stroke of genius.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926676#Comment_120926676

Yes Syed can act as a PR human shield while the footsoldiers of political correctness deflect criticm of Coutts with shouts of "racism".

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926676#Comment_120926676

They know he was treated different to other existing customers who were exactly the same.

What does it matter as long as this CEO is capable, capability should have been more important before this in hiring.

Shoog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926713#Comment_120926713

I think Nige wont like it - which was the point.

Danzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120926726#Comment_120926726

Doesn't matter if he likes it or not and I don't think that he cares or that they would take that in to consideration, they surely have adults deciding such an issue.

Overheal

Donald Trump would also call into Howard Stern and other radio programs pretending to be the man on the street and showering praise upon... himself.

Hmm.