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

So as you clearly acknowledge there they made a decision based upon his reputation and his failure to meet the financial criteria post payment of mortgage. They had a choice to ignore his lack of funds and retain him as a customer - but were perfectly within the rights and rules to dump him based upon his reputation and lack of funds.

All of this would have been precipitated by an account review based upon his anticipated lack of funds post mortgage. The critical thing here is that the mortgage was the trigger.

Yes but the legal technicalities aren't the only issue here but the proven fact that they didn't want to keep him because they had informal ideological criteria he didn't meet.

It is worrying for institutions (even private ones) to have narrow political tests on their books.

There are only so many banks (soon to be fewer), and banking is fundamental to modern living.

Soon to be more so, if cashlessness comes in. I also oppose cashlessness and assume that political liberals will accuse people who oppose it of "scaremongering".

The end of the mortgage meant he dropped below the threshold for keeping the account, he had many months and multiple rejections from other banks to remedy this but didn't, this is a fact you cannot run away from. He was not de-banked.

The pages was the data they kept on farage, they supplied it as they are required to. Nowhere does it say that the reason he lost his account was that data. The fact they think he is an odious racist and xenophobic individual is neither here nor there, they still provided banking services to him knowing this. They will have far more odious individuals on their books that didn't lose their bank account.

You cannot continually run away from these facts rapidash and contribute effectively to the thread, you're just washing yourself in excrement trying to ignore it.

Look at what has actually happened:

Coutts' reputation has been harmed because they dropped Farage and because Farage is popular.

The "reputational risk" they identified only exists theoretically within a closed circle of self-referential ideology.

In a society in which people are free to decide their own political opinions, saying one set of opinions is harmful to an institution's reputation creates a highly tendentious political test.

Since I cannot opt-out of banking, and advocates of cashlessness want to create ever more total dependence on banking, it is not acceptable for any bank to do this and its foolish for any who isn't super-wealthy or super-powerful to go along with it even a little.

Ordinary people should see past their dislike of a charmless politician to their own interests.

Coutts reputation has been harmed because the CEO of NatWest shared customer information with a journalist. That should have never happened and the fact that it was the person at the very top was surprising. But the people involved have been removed which is the correct thing to do.

Now the new person has come in and decided that the quickest way to move this on from the news cycle is to give him back his account, he’s not getting it back because the original decision was incorrect or unlawful.

Rose was stupid and paid a heavy price. I doubt she will be on the dole for long though.

Heres a clarifying question, can anyone provide a shred of evidence that anyone has been refused a high street bank account because of their political views ??

Rishi Sunak seemed put out by Coutt's actions, as might other wealthy Tories.

Funny that. He tried though didn't he.

Oversight.