Quoted from the Telegraph;- "I believe Coutts targeted me on personal and political grounds, for its report reads rather like a pre-trial brief drawn up by the prosecution in a case against a career criminal.” Well what can I say?
They probably wrote to him explaining their reason much more clearly than that - 'Dear Mr Farage, you're a complete nob. Piss off. Yours sincerely, everyone at Coutts'
If it is legal for a bakery in NI to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then a bank in the UK can refuse to hold an account for a corrupt, racist, scumbag. Seems only fair.
Coutts have been caught out on this one. They made it public that it was down to him not meeting the financial requirements. So he has done a subject access request and it turns out he met all the requirements and they have done it basically because he supported Brexit . It gets quoted around 30 times in the records they have had to release and bizzarly also because he is friends with Novak Djokovic It's a dangerous slippery slope for our financial institutions start to base political choice as customer criteria (don't forget parent company of Coutts is NatWest who are still partially owned by the UK Government). It's akin to what I'd expect to see in the likes of Russia or N Korea. Imagine if a load of banks which probably have somewhere in its hierarchy some stonewall Torys (I'd bet at most of em). Next week they decide to close all accounts of people in Barnsley and other Labour strongholds due to the obvious voting preference in the area. Imagine the chaos it would cause, along with more fractures to the countries fabric. Like him or hate him, I don't think the bank are in the right here.
Do you know where we can read the actual report he 'got his hands on'? It's not that I'm mistrusting him because he's a lying, racist, hypocrite scumbag... It's just that I prefer that anyone present some level of evidence when making these kind of claims.
Probably, but it's impossible to feel any sympathy for him. Coutts probably won't financially notice his account closing but NatWest would get absolutely shafted by their shareholders if they did as you suggested to the people of Barnsley and/or Labour voters - thereby losing loads of their customers to a rival bank. They would be financially ruined.
I think you’ve got to have a certain income and initial lump sum to have a Coutts account and invest a fair amount with them ,
I think he's a nasty piece of work as well. He's helped ruin the country, causes division, spins lies etc etc... BUT if the bank have shut his account simply because he's political then I do have some sympathy for him. I know that sounds bad on my part, as I totally dislike him, but bank accounts in a democracy should solely be about having funds for one's account. If his balance was ok then in this instance it's the bank that are twa.ts (as well as him).
Politician who spent years arguing against banking regulation has an issue with his account and the first thing that he and his mates (including the PM) demand is more regulation...
I mean he's basically admitted that he hasn't met their financial requirements for years, and wonders why they had a sudden change of heart. I would argue if you're getting away with having a bank account you're not entitled to, then being outspoken with controversial political beliefs, is probably not sensible.. as they'd be well within their rights to boot you from said privileges. If he does meet their requirements AND they did remove him for solely political reasons, then their is a conversation to be had. However, quite what he expects to gain through airing it publicly, aside from personal notoriety, I have no idea. It's also interesting that he's demanding an apology from the BBC despite their article quoting a piece in the financial times, which he has not even mentioned. My response to the freedom of speech argument is that yes.. people are entitled to say whatever they like... But that does not free them from consequences of those words. If a business someone publicly associates with, feels their statements, could have a negative impact on their image, are they entitled to decide they don't wish to do business with them? Again.. there's a conversation to be had. All I know is that, for someone who is so quick to go on the attack, Nigel does love to play the victim card.
Ok, so how would you feel about a bank with ethical standards like say, the Coop bank, closing the account of someone like him? I'm not having a go at you because I don't really disagree with you - but surely a bank has a right to decide not to have anything to do with a client for whatever reason they like? Not saying that Coutts is a particularly ethical organisation by the way.
Banking law terms & conditions are so complete that they can refuse anyone & largely do what they like, unless it contradicts statute law, which is not that strong on banking. Unfair Contract Terms Act / Banking Act 1979 is about as far as it goes. Appeal to Banking Ombudsman is pointless, unless you are a multi-millionnaire, with a high powered lawyer. As I consider Farage sub human I'm not on his side on this one, but many more decent folks get the same treatment, for a variety of reasons. I really don't give a **** if he has a Coutts account. I'd like to see him have an hour long interview with Laura Kuenssberg about his Brexit dividends & his alcoholism.
Private company decides it doesn't want the custom of huge racist. Fine by me. Edit: racist autocorrected to radiator when I first typed that which is quite funny.
