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

It's quite clear that Farage wasn't dropped simply because of his political views or the public perception of them. If that were the issue he would have been dropped years ago.

It's also not the case that he was dropped simply because, after many years of meeting the bank's economic contribution criteria, he has now dropped below them. This happens with many Coutts customers; they are not normally dumped when it does.

It's the combination of the two things that led to this decision; neither on its own would have led to it. It's impossible to read the 40-page dossier which has been published and not understand this.

Rapidash is simply wrong when he has that the story about Farage dropping below the economic contribution criteria is false. He links to various tweets in support of his claim but, when you read them, none of them actually support his claim. The Coutts dossier, whose authenticity is not in doubt, directly refutes it.

However it is true that, despite falling below the criteria, Farage would probably not have been dropped if it were not for his political notoriety. That does raise questions about the power of corporations and the rights of political expression. But, despite their importance, neither Farage nor his supporters in this thread seem interested in exploring those questions.

I'll stick to Wikipedia thanks.

I’ve tried to distill the argument to Farages defenders and this is what I’ve got:

”If Coutts can refuse services to Farage, they can refuse services to anyone!”

*shocked pikachu face*

So you are calling Coutts liars.

A business has financial criteria to ensure the costs of servicing a customer are met by the profits from that customer. Beyond that a company can take on a loss leader to draw in more profitable custom.

Farage is neither a profitable customer or an attractive loss leader. The rules applied are clearly stated in the company application process and no rules were broken and Coutts have in no way stepped outside of the law. They used the discretion afforded them by their customer service rules.

Really this is a none story, another pathetic skirmish in the rights rearguard culture wars. It is playing badly with the majority of the public and will further erode the credibility of the right in the UK.

The fact that NatWest have not reinstated Farages account should tell you everything you need to know about the legal jeopardy that Coutts feels under - follow the money to understand the real story here.

The right have had a clear run at proving themselve superior leaders and have pissed it all away in short sighted decisions and corruption. The only shame is that the public will forget and they right will rise again.

I like to debate by analogy and here is one. Say I was a socialist mural artist and I was approached for by a patron and asked to paint a mural of Hitler giving the nazi salute in Berlin. Should I be compelled to accept and if I did do you think it would do "reputational damage" to my career.

Public relations.

This is comedy gold. You are posting crap about banks being socialists and soviet apparatchiks.