July 3, 2023 - 7:30am
Once upon a time, “ethical consumerism” meant customers opting to buy from companies whose products were in line with their values, for example by being organically farmed or sourced using fair trade. Now, it increasingly means companies opting to supply only customers who are in line with their values — even when the “values” themselves have nothing directly to do with the product.
Nigel Farage recently claimed that his bank, which he hasn’t named, has informed him that his account will be closed down, offering no explanation except that this was a “commercial” decision. This isn’t the only such case. Rev Richard Fothergill recently had his account with Yorkshire Building Society closed after he queried the Pride regalia in his local branch. Just last week Stuart Campbell, the blogger who writes the Scottish nationalist and gender-critical blog “Wings Over Scotland”, reported being dumped without explanation by First Direct. Last year, Toby Young of the Free Speech Union had services withdrawn by PayPal — joined this year by the Triggernometry podcast and Laurence Fox’s Reclaim Party.
A spokesman for Yorkshire Building Society denied that anyone could ever have services withdrawn for “beliefs” — but added that the organisation might make the “difficult decision” to close an account if a customer “discriminates in any way”. Clearly, the bank doesn’t yet have a policy on views that are protected but also viewed by some as discriminatory. Maya Forstater, a founder of the Sex Matters campaign group, recently won a £106,000 payout from her former employer after she was dismissed for expressing gender-critical views.
Treasury Secretary Jeremy Hunt is said to be “deeply concerned” at the politicisation of banking services, and has promised a consultation on the subject within weeks. But it’s hard to see what this will achieve, when the criteria that are most likely prompting these policies are increasingly baked in some distance prior to intervention from national Government policy.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria play a growing role in financial services. The management consultant McKinsey reports that “consumers whose choice of banking was influenced by its purpose” control some $300 billion in assets, making “ethical consumerism” big business. So perhaps it’s unsurprising that Harvard Business Review recently argued companies can’t stay neutral on ethical matters, as they’ll find themselves roped into the culture wars whether they like it or not.
This means the criteria for what counts as “ethical” are codified and tracked via rigid metrics bedded into companies’ IT systems, which then shape how those companies report their performance, which in turn drives investor behaviour. I suspect such procedures are in most cases viewed without irony by their designers and supporters as politically neutral, and as sound business practice — despite the fact that some of these metrics, notably but not only the “LGBT lens”, fall into that grey area where (as in the Forstater case) questions of “discrimination” are in truth highly political and often collide with protected belief.
A long way downstream of this, then, what of individuals who haven’t signed up to the politicised beliefs increasingly baked into a growing proportion of the financial services industry? In effect, they find themselves in a position where banks’ procedures are calibrated such as to exclude them by default, if they trigger certain filters — supported by the institutional weight of a growing subset of international financial services reporting and compliance infrastructure.
We only need to recall that Hollywood practises censorship in China, and no company flies the Pride flag in Saudi Arabia, to see that corporations are responsive to local governance conditions. But restoring fairness in financial services will take stronger measures than one non-binding “consultation” from the UK Treasury.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhat is most offensive about this is that banks are not really private companies at all. They are effectively grotesquely privileged quangos. Now, not only are we forced to reward them for incompetence and corruption by bailing them out every few years, but we’re also expected to allow them to tell us what to think.
I was trying to decide how to say what I think but you done it perfectly. Well said.
Hugh Bryant, you are so correct in all you write.(in other words you write exactly what I’m thinking but put it better than I ever could.) I’ve decided to form the Hugh Bryant fan club.
I was trying to decide how to say what I think but you done it perfectly. Well said.
Hugh Bryant, you are so correct in all you write.(in other words you write exactly what I’m thinking but put it better than I ever could.) I’ve decided to form the Hugh Bryant fan club.
What is most offensive about this is that banks are not really private companies at all. They are effectively grotesquely privileged quangos. Now, not only are we forced to reward them for incompetence and corruption by bailing them out every few years, but we’re also expected to allow them to tell us what to think.
The closure of Rev Fothergill’s bank account was not the automated result of embedded ESG procedures in Yorkshire Building Society’s IT system. It was a deliberate policy decision, requiring human intervention. It would be a simple act to rule that denial of essential banking services to anyone on the grounds of their political beliefs or personal behaviour – however offensive – is a crime. Let them embed that rule into their IT systems.
failing to have a whippet and racing pigeons?
You forgot the cloth cap (I’m from Hull, me)…
i have 5!
i have 5!
You forgot the cloth cap (I’m from Hull, me)…
failing to have a whippet and racing pigeons?
The closure of Rev Fothergill’s bank account was not the automated result of embedded ESG procedures in Yorkshire Building Society’s IT system. It was a deliberate policy decision, requiring human intervention. It would be a simple act to rule that denial of essential banking services to anyone on the grounds of their political beliefs or personal behaviour – however offensive – is a crime. Let them embed that rule into their IT systems.
Wings Over Scotland also discovered this:
“The head of “financial tracking” at HSBC, the bank that just closed all my accounts for no reason, isn’t just a transwoman, but he and his transman partner are the top two names on the list of Patrons of controversial under-investigation trans “charity” Mermaids.”
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1675185927998566401?s=20
So another element is having activists in senior positions.
You must be referring to ex-military Hannah Graf (MBE) and his/her partner Jake. This trans ‘power couple’ loved up by the MSM have just published their (allegedly inspiring) story Becoming Us.
With the long-march-through-the-institutions it is always worth shining a spotlight on who is actually doing the marching.
I know, and their miracle child…
(Born of a man and a woman, that is)
I know, and their miracle child…
(Born of a man and a woman, that is)
People who don’t believe that biology is real probably have some funny ideas about maths too and really shouldn’t be working in banks. Though it definitely explains the increasingly fictional nature of our money.
Priceless… have an upvote (wish I could make it two)
Priceless… have an upvote (wish I could make it two)
You must be referring to ex-military Hannah Graf (MBE) and his/her partner Jake. This trans ‘power couple’ loved up by the MSM have just published their (allegedly inspiring) story Becoming Us.
With the long-march-through-the-institutions it is always worth shining a spotlight on who is actually doing the marching.
People who don’t believe that biology is real probably have some funny ideas about maths too and really shouldn’t be working in banks. Though it definitely explains the increasingly fictional nature of our money.
Wings Over Scotland also discovered this:
“The head of “financial tracking” at HSBC, the bank that just closed all my accounts for no reason, isn’t just a transwoman, but he and his transman partner are the top two names on the list of Patrons of controversial under-investigation trans “charity” Mermaids.”
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1675185927998566401?s=20
So another element is having activists in senior positions.
Let’s not forget how Trudeau used the threat and reality of freezing the accounts of those objecting to lockdowns/vaccine mandates in Canada during the height of the pandemic. This seemed to be a watershed moment, when banks realised how they might be able to manipulate their customers openly and aggressively, aided and abetted by the state.
Don’t forget Go Fund Me seizing $2 mill in assets raised by the truckers. I don’t know much about digital currency, but the govt and its financial henchmen can destroy you today without it.
Don’t forget Go Fund Me seizing $2 mill in assets raised by the truckers. I don’t know much about digital currency, but the govt and its financial henchmen can destroy you today without it.
Let’s not forget how Trudeau used the threat and reality of freezing the accounts of those objecting to lockdowns/vaccine mandates in Canada during the height of the pandemic. This seemed to be a watershed moment, when banks realised how they might be able to manipulate their customers openly and aggressively, aided and abetted by the state.
As Voltaire is oft quoted: “To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?“
Ha! Excellent Voltaire quote.
Very apt. In that case, it’s the wokies, the trannies, the Muslims and the Israelis. Any normal person would hesitate before daring to criticise any of the foregoing in public.
Putting the Israelis in this category is barmy; that state endlessly attacked by the “Progressive” Left who seem to labour under the delusion that the Israel – Palestine issue generates the vast majority of human rights issues in the world, rather than as actually, a rounding error. A million people in camps in Xinjiang Autonomous Region! The Rohingas, the Shias in Saudi, Kurds in Turkey, women in almost the entire Middle East, gay people everywhere (except the West and Israel!) etc etc. The Disinvest and Boycott movement, only applied to Israel and to no other country.
The fact that these extreme double standards is directed at the only Jewish state in the world, as well of course as the only democratic state subject to the rule of law in the region, is deeply suspicious.
Putting the Israelis in this category is barmy; that state endlessly attacked by the “Progressive” Left who seem to labour under the delusion that the Israel – Palestine issue generates the vast majority of human rights issues in the world, rather than as actually, a rounding error. A million people in camps in Xinjiang Autonomous Region! The Rohingas, the Shias in Saudi, Kurds in Turkey, women in almost the entire Middle East, gay people everywhere (except the West and Israel!) etc etc. The Disinvest and Boycott movement, only applied to Israel and to no other country.
The fact that these extreme double standards is directed at the only Jewish state in the world, as well of course as the only democratic state subject to the rule of law in the region, is deeply suspicious.
Ha! Excellent Voltaire quote.
Very apt. In that case, it’s the wokies, the trannies, the Muslims and the Israelis. Any normal person would hesitate before daring to criticise any of the foregoing in public.
As Voltaire is oft quoted: “To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?“
I don’t understand how something like this can be legal. How can you deprive someone of a bank account??
Just wait until we have a digital currency, and if you hold the wrong opinions, you will be locked out of everything
I have a comment “awaiting approval” which may help. Check out “The Black Belt Barrister” on YT. Some interesting insights into how fraud and money laundering regulations can cause this sort of thing – even when there is no fraud or money laundering by the client. Shocking how bad the regulations are that allow this to happen and operation on “guilty until proven innocent” and treat customers this badly.
Working in property, I can testify that our money laundering regs are a complete farce. Nobody is clear what the hell they should be doing, because the guidelines are about as clear as mud, and they keep adding to them, building more complexity onto a poor foundation.
It’s a bit like what’s happened with airport security. One nutter tried to smuggle a shoe bomb onto a plane 2 decades ago, and so now every time anyone flies anywhere we have to shuffle about in our socks and decant shampoo into impossibly tiny containers, and we’re kind of supposed to presume that all this is necessary and is helping… but deep down we all know that if you really wanted to take down a plane there are many ways to do so, and we’ve probably all participated in this absurd performance art for no good reason.
When you buy a house, why do you need to give copies of your passports, bank statements and address proofs to 2 sets of agents, and a solicitor? — aside from the data protection issues around papering the town with your most sensitive info, this is just grossly inefficient. A local Foxtons agent is in no position to be verifying documents, the only person in a position to do that is the solicitor. News flash: the agent isn’t laundering money… because they do not handle the money. The lawyers do. It seems bleeding obvious to me that the buyer / seller should show their sensitive documents only to their own solicitor, who should verify them, and then issue a statement of reliance to all other parties confirming the checks have been passed.
We’re just drowning in pointless bureaucracy, death by a thousand cuts! And it creates (rather than eliminates) chaos, and opportunities for nefarious exploitation. Madness.
/ Rant over.
Something very wrong when estate agents are becoming victims and we start feeling sympathetic to them !
I had an old French bank account and a few years ago I got a form sent through demanding (under the “Loi Eckert”) to know how much my house (in the UK) was worth. The account was dormant and only had a small balance. I pointed out that this was none of their business and that my UK bank didn’t even require this level of information. Eventually closed the account. Actually felt a little sorrt for the always helpful staff having to deal with this sort of nonsense.
Well, I’m a buying agent (kind of the opposite / adversary of estate agents), so I rarely have sympathy for estate agents, they’re the worst, you can take it from me.
But the AML stuff is farcical, and more to the point — some of these estate agencies in the UK are just a complete joke, they’re hiring young people who might have been driving an Uber taxi 5 minutes ago, and now they’re running around in TK Maxx suits selling million pound houses. At least in the USA you have to get a broker licence so there’s a level of professionalism as a result, but since we don’t have that system here, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate for people to be handing over bank statements to random 22yr employees of whatever agency they’re having to deal with!
Rather cheeky question for the French bank to ask you! …indeed, it’s none of their business. And I agree, the poor staff must get some very curt responses to that kind of nosy enquiry.
Well, I’m a buying agent (kind of the opposite / adversary of estate agents), so I rarely have sympathy for estate agents, they’re the worst, you can take it from me.
But the AML stuff is farcical, and more to the point — some of these estate agencies in the UK are just a complete joke, they’re hiring young people who might have been driving an Uber taxi 5 minutes ago, and now they’re running around in TK Maxx suits selling million pound houses. At least in the USA you have to get a broker licence so there’s a level of professionalism as a result, but since we don’t have that system here, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate for people to be handing over bank statements to random 22yr employees of whatever agency they’re having to deal with!
Rather cheeky question for the French bank to ask you! …indeed, it’s none of their business. And I agree, the poor staff must get some very curt responses to that kind of nosy enquiry.
Something very wrong when estate agents are becoming victims and we start feeling sympathetic to them !
I had an old French bank account and a few years ago I got a form sent through demanding (under the “Loi Eckert”) to know how much my house (in the UK) was worth. The account was dormant and only had a small balance. I pointed out that this was none of their business and that my UK bank didn’t even require this level of information. Eventually closed the account. Actually felt a little sorrt for the always helpful staff having to deal with this sort of nonsense.
Working in property, I can testify that our money laundering regs are a complete farce. Nobody is clear what the hell they should be doing, because the guidelines are about as clear as mud, and they keep adding to them, building more complexity onto a poor foundation.
It’s a bit like what’s happened with airport security. One nutter tried to smuggle a shoe bomb onto a plane 2 decades ago, and so now every time anyone flies anywhere we have to shuffle about in our socks and decant shampoo into impossibly tiny containers, and we’re kind of supposed to presume that all this is necessary and is helping… but deep down we all know that if you really wanted to take down a plane there are many ways to do so, and we’ve probably all participated in this absurd performance art for no good reason.
When you buy a house, why do you need to give copies of your passports, bank statements and address proofs to 2 sets of agents, and a solicitor? — aside from the data protection issues around papering the town with your most sensitive info, this is just grossly inefficient. A local Foxtons agent is in no position to be verifying documents, the only person in a position to do that is the solicitor. News flash: the agent isn’t laundering money… because they do not handle the money. The lawyers do. It seems bleeding obvious to me that the buyer / seller should show their sensitive documents only to their own solicitor, who should verify them, and then issue a statement of reliance to all other parties confirming the checks have been passed.
We’re just drowning in pointless bureaucracy, death by a thousand cuts! And it creates (rather than eliminates) chaos, and opportunities for nefarious exploitation. Madness.
/ Rant over.
Just wait until we have a digital currency, and if you hold the wrong opinions, you will be locked out of everything
I have a comment “awaiting approval” which may help. Check out “The Black Belt Barrister” on YT. Some interesting insights into how fraud and money laundering regulations can cause this sort of thing – even when there is no fraud or money laundering by the client. Shocking how bad the regulations are that allow this to happen and operation on “guilty until proven innocent” and treat customers this badly.
I don’t understand how something like this can be legal. How can you deprive someone of a bank account??
This is incredibly sad, what a condemnation of the state of British society. Another question though… what over-regulation must be trimmed back to allow the market to supply an answer to this problem? There are more than enough right-leaning consumers who would be happy to bank with a right-leaning bank. What has prevented this demand from being supplied? (I think the same thing everytime I walk into a Tesco or Sainsbury’s and see Pride flags everywhere. Can I not buy a carton of milk without being reminded of gay sex and genital mutilation?)
This is incredibly sad, what a condemnation of the state of British society. Another question though… what over-regulation must be trimmed back to allow the market to supply an answer to this problem? There are more than enough right-leaning consumers who would be happy to bank with a right-leaning bank. What has prevented this demand from being supplied? (I think the same thing everytime I walk into a Tesco or Sainsbury’s and see Pride flags everywhere. Can I not buy a carton of milk without being reminded of gay sex and genital mutilation?)
Please look to support the FSU… Free Speech Union https://freespeechunion.org/ This is a story that perfectly illustrates why the FSU is lobbying for a change to UK law so it becomes illegal for financial services providers to withhold or withdraw service from any customer in the UK for purely political reasons.
Many other test case examples they are going for to make the law protect us…
The Free Speech Union [FSU] is doing a fantastic job and deserves widespread support from all people concerned about cancel culture and the abuse of power by private corporations, public bodies and charities.
The Free Speech Union [FSU] is doing a fantastic job and deserves widespread support from all people concerned about cancel culture and the abuse of power by private corporations, public bodies and charities.
Please look to support the FSU… Free Speech Union https://freespeechunion.org/ This is a story that perfectly illustrates why the FSU is lobbying for a change to UK law so it becomes illegal for financial services providers to withhold or withdraw service from any customer in the UK for purely political reasons.
Many other test case examples they are going for to make the law protect us…
Actually, there’s been some interesting commentary on this by “The Black Belt Barrister” on YouTube. His instinct is that the Farage bank case may actually be about money laundering regulations. To be clear, you can have your account cancelled if a bank believes there might be some association with another account involved in dubious activities. Also no suggestion that Farage has done anything wrong here. There is no need for any actual fraudulent activity and those whose accounts are closed are often completely unaware. No proof is required – suspicion is enough and you are “guilty until proven innocent” here.
The banks can do this because they are legally required not to “tip off” people currently being investigated for fraud or money laundering. So were they to tell Farage that they closed his account because he had some contact with Dodgy Mr X, that would amount to tipping off Dodgy Mr X and could compromise ongoing investigations. So instead they hide behind saying nothing.
That also means that Farage’s name goes on a register and other banks are reluctant to offer their services.
Farage’s only way forward is apparently to ask his bank “did you close my account because of my beliefs or opinions ?” and hope they answer. If “yes”, they reap the [deserved] bad PR. If no, they’re forced to admit it’s financial risk based and effectively “tip off”.
There’s something fundamentally wrong with the implementation of money laundering regulation in banking. Not the principle. But the way it’s been implemented. All it seems to have done is make life harder. slower and more expensive for ordinary people doing honest transactions while having very little impact on the very rich criminals. The finance people call it “know the customer”. But it’s really “**** the customer”.
And yet Aris Roussinos thinks governments and regulators are smart (in his article today). The evidence is larely the other way.
Actually, there’s been some interesting commentary on this by “The Black Belt Barrister” on YouTube. His instinct is that the Farage bank case may actually be about money laundering regulations. To be clear, you can have your account cancelled if a bank believes there might be some association with another account involved in dubious activities. Also no suggestion that Farage has done anything wrong here. There is no need for any actual fraudulent activity and those whose accounts are closed are often completely unaware. No proof is required – suspicion is enough and you are “guilty until proven innocent” here.
The banks can do this because they are legally required not to “tip off” people currently being investigated for fraud or money laundering. So were they to tell Farage that they closed his account because he had some contact with Dodgy Mr X, that would amount to tipping off Dodgy Mr X and could compromise ongoing investigations. So instead they hide behind saying nothing.
That also means that Farage’s name goes on a register and other banks are reluctant to offer their services.
Farage’s only way forward is apparently to ask his bank “did you close my account because of my beliefs or opinions ?” and hope they answer. If “yes”, they reap the [deserved] bad PR. If no, they’re forced to admit it’s financial risk based and effectively “tip off”.
There’s something fundamentally wrong with the implementation of money laundering regulation in banking. Not the principle. But the way it’s been implemented. All it seems to have done is make life harder. slower and more expensive for ordinary people doing honest transactions while having very little impact on the very rich criminals. The finance people call it “know the customer”. But it’s really “**** the customer”.
And yet Aris Roussinos thinks governments and regulators are smart (in his article today). The evidence is larely the other way.
Whilst banks trying to police/restrict people’s beliefs is obviously wrong and must surely end up in the courts, I’ve got to believe this will all go down in flames.
What chance have the banks really got of keeping up with the “LGBT lens” ? Many of us have noticed that LGBTQ/whatever is a constantly moving target – and that this is by design. Even the names assigned to all these special “protected characteristic” groups are constantly changing – what was the correct label only five or ten years ago is often now offensive and career-limiting if used in public. The banks have no chance of keeping up with this !
Whilst banks trying to police/restrict people’s beliefs is obviously wrong and must surely end up in the courts, I’ve got to believe this will all go down in flames.
What chance have the banks really got of keeping up with the “LGBT lens” ? Many of us have noticed that LGBTQ/whatever is a constantly moving target – and that this is by design. Even the names assigned to all these special “protected characteristic” groups are constantly changing – what was the correct label only five or ten years ago is often now offensive and career-limiting if used in public. The banks have no chance of keeping up with this !
Words matter Mary.. this is not nitpicking either: there is nothing offensive about ‘discrimination’ except when it is motivated by unfairness of some kind, eg racism, hatred, nepotism etc.
If we humans hadn’t discriminated between safety and threat we would be as exinct as the Dodo for the same reason. I wish people would insert the word “unfair” or similar before the word “discrimination” when that is what is meant.
Incidentally, a similar word “judgement” has now unfairly taken on negative overtones as well. This has to stop.
Words matter Mary.. this is not nitpicking either: there is nothing offensive about ‘discrimination’ except when it is motivated by unfairness of some kind, eg racism, hatred, nepotism etc.
If we humans hadn’t discriminated between safety and threat we would be as exinct as the Dodo for the same reason. I wish people would insert the word “unfair” or similar before the word “discrimination” when that is what is meant.
Incidentally, a similar word “judgement” has now unfairly taken on negative overtones as well. This has to stop.
Old Irish adage.. “Why is the currency called a Punt”?… because it rhymes with ” Bank Manager”….
Old Irish adage.. “Why is the currency called a Punt”?… because it rhymes with ” Bank Manager”….
The useless, pathetic UK government wrings its hands and tut-tuts about such egregious actions – but does FA about it. What we desperately need is a government that can tackle this deeply troubling behaviour by banks et al. with hard-hitting legislation and/or regulation that protects the ‘little people’ (Thank you, Dave Cameron!) and dishes out punitive sanctions to any bank or corporate body that acts in this way without justification. Stripping a citizens of any access to banking is nothing short of preventing them from functioning in society, necessitating a move to another country whose banking industry will accommodate their basic needs.
What has happened to Farage (and others) is all the more egregious and sinister as his bank has apparently not given him a specific reason for its actions. They are completely unaccountable and out of control when it comes to individual bank accounts. We’re all in the frame here. Post something contrary to your bank’s ‘social policies’ on Unherd, FaceBook, Twitter or wherever and your may, like the Yorkshire vicar who objected to his bank’s overt support for the LGBTQ+ agenda, find yourself with no bank accounts with no option but to hoard hard cash (while that lasts until digital money completely takes over).
The useless, pathetic UK government wrings its hands and tut-tuts about such egregious actions – but does FA about it. What we desperately need is a government that can tackle this deeply troubling behaviour by banks et al. with hard-hitting legislation and/or regulation that protects the ‘little people’ (Thank you, Dave Cameron!) and dishes out punitive sanctions to any bank or corporate body that acts in this way without justification. Stripping a citizens of any access to banking is nothing short of preventing them from functioning in society, necessitating a move to another country whose banking industry will accommodate their basic needs.
What has happened to Farage (and others) is all the more egregious and sinister as his bank has apparently not given him a specific reason for its actions. They are completely unaccountable and out of control when it comes to individual bank accounts. We’re all in the frame here. Post something contrary to your bank’s ‘social policies’ on Unherd, FaceBook, Twitter or wherever and your may, like the Yorkshire vicar who objected to his bank’s overt support for the LGBTQ+ agenda, find yourself with no bank accounts with no option but to hoard hard cash (while that lasts until digital money completely takes over).
Time for an explicitly non-woke bank. With an option to make payments in bitcoin for those not 100% onboard with CBDCs.
Time for an explicitly non-woke bank. With an option to make payments in bitcoin for those not 100% onboard with CBDCs.
ESG is all but dead, cratered by its own self contradictions. When tobacco companies have some of the highest scores in the world, because of their embrace of everything DEI, the entire foundation of the system has been corrupted. Meanwhile, Tesla has ridiculously low scores because it doesn’t embrace DEI.
ESG is all but dead, cratered by its own self contradictions. When tobacco companies have some of the highest scores in the world, because of their embrace of everything DEI, the entire foundation of the system has been corrupted. Meanwhile, Tesla has ridiculously low scores because it doesn’t embrace DEI.
I am still welcome at the bottle bank…
I am still welcome at the bottle bank…
The term Orwellian is thrown around a lot today. The de-banking of “deplorables” is the most base example of this trend…
The term Orwellian is thrown around a lot today. The de-banking of “deplorables” is the most base example of this trend…
What i don’t understand is Farage has been in the city for years, he must know a bank that will take his money. Or here’s an idea, start your own bank with specific anti-DEI language in its mission statement.
Farage has said that he has since approached 7 other banks to move his accounts there, and been turned down by all 7.
If that is true, it’s absolutely shocking. It would effectively make it near impossible for him to continue living and working in England. Perhaps that is the point.
My guess would be that the banks are misusing PEPs ambiguity to get away with this (PEPs is the ‘Politically Exposed Persons’ area of our ridiculous, labyrinthine Anti Money Laundering framework). If someone is a ‘PEP’ then EDD (Enhanced Due Diligence) is required, and the ocean of ambiguity in the guidance about how to ‘satisfy yourself’ that the person is kosher to deal with, leaves plenty of room to exclude anyone you frankly didn’t want to deal with anyway.
It will not be helped by people like Chris Bryant stating in Parliament (with absolutely no evidence for this claim) that Nigel Farage took millions of pounds directly from the Russian government. That appears to be a ridiculous and brazen lie, but that kind of public statement could be used by banks to exclude Farage [“We are aware of this potential ‘connection’, and were unable to verify if it is true, therefore we cannot take the risk of dealing with this customer”…]
All of this ambiguous, voluminous legislation and ‘guidance’ will be weaponised at some point, it’s inevitable. I work in property so we also deal with AML and the system is a hot mess, even the people who run the training courses appear confused about the implementation. Poorly written legislation / frameworks create opportunities for the worst kind of abuses, sadly.
Bryant is a disgrace and should be made to repeat his claim in public and be sued. Gross abuse of parliamentary privilege. Like Tom Watson.
Does parliamentary privilege give immunity from civil prosecutation as well as criminal prosecution ?
See my comment referencing “The Black Belt Barrister” if it emerges from UnHerd censorship within the next few hours. I suspect this is more banks engaging in CYA to limit their possible risks (however small – if indeed there are actually any) than actual conspiracy.
Once again, Nigel Farage is bringing something really important to public attention. While the “professional media” remain asleep at the wheel.
Here is what I don’t understand: parliamentary privilege and lying to parliament appear to be devices that are applied entirely arbitrarily as needed.
In this case, if Farage has a case (and theoretically wins)*, Bryant would also be guilty of lying to parliament.
I’ll admit I may be missing something as law and parliamentary process is not my wheelhouse, but this appears to be mutually exclusive.
*Winning a libel case would require demonstrating a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Yes, I quite agree.
Here is what I don’t understand: parliamentary privilege and lying to parliament appear to be devices that are applied entirely arbitrarily as needed.
In this case, if Farage has a case (and theoretically wins)*, Bryant would also be guilty of lying to parliament.
I’ll admit I may be missing something as law and parliamentary process is not my wheelhouse, but this appears to be mutually exclusive.
*Winning a libel case would require demonstrating a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Yes, I quite agree.
Bryant is a disgrace and should be made to repeat his claim in public and be sued. Gross abuse of parliamentary privilege. Like Tom Watson.
Does parliamentary privilege give immunity from civil prosecutation as well as criminal prosecution ?
See my comment referencing “The Black Belt Barrister” if it emerges from UnHerd censorship within the next few hours. I suspect this is more banks engaging in CYA to limit their possible risks (however small – if indeed there are actually any) than actual conspiracy.
Once again, Nigel Farage is bringing something really important to public attention. While the “professional media” remain asleep at the wheel.
Farage has said that he has since approached 7 other banks to move his accounts there, and been turned down by all 7.
If that is true, it’s absolutely shocking. It would effectively make it near impossible for him to continue living and working in England. Perhaps that is the point.
My guess would be that the banks are misusing PEPs ambiguity to get away with this (PEPs is the ‘Politically Exposed Persons’ area of our ridiculous, labyrinthine Anti Money Laundering framework). If someone is a ‘PEP’ then EDD (Enhanced Due Diligence) is required, and the ocean of ambiguity in the guidance about how to ‘satisfy yourself’ that the person is kosher to deal with, leaves plenty of room to exclude anyone you frankly didn’t want to deal with anyway.
It will not be helped by people like Chris Bryant stating in Parliament (with absolutely no evidence for this claim) that Nigel Farage took millions of pounds directly from the Russian government. That appears to be a ridiculous and brazen lie, but that kind of public statement could be used by banks to exclude Farage [“We are aware of this potential ‘connection’, and were unable to verify if it is true, therefore we cannot take the risk of dealing with this customer”…]
All of this ambiguous, voluminous legislation and ‘guidance’ will be weaponised at some point, it’s inevitable. I work in property so we also deal with AML and the system is a hot mess, even the people who run the training courses appear confused about the implementation. Poorly written legislation / frameworks create opportunities for the worst kind of abuses, sadly.
What i don’t understand is Farage has been in the city for years, he must know a bank that will take his money. Or here’s an idea, start your own bank with specific anti-DEI language in its mission statement.
It would seem that the European Court of Human Rights has decreed that, effectively, the bank is within its rights to tell Rev. Fothergill to take his business elsewhere (file:///C:/Users/R213564/Downloads/Decision%20%20Lee%20v.%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20-%20Gay-marriage-cake%20case%20declared%20inadmissible.pdf). After all, what’s the difference between banking services and baking services?
Clearly, it is up to Parliament to sort this out once and for all.
It would seem that the European Court of Human Rights has decreed that, effectively, the bank is within its rights to tell Rev. Fothergill to take his business elsewhere (file:///C:/Users/R213564/Downloads/Decision%20%20Lee%20v.%20the%20United%20Kingdom%20-%20Gay-marriage-cake%20case%20declared%20inadmissible.pdf). After all, what’s the difference between banking services and baking services?
Clearly, it is up to Parliament to sort this out once and for all.
If they close down your account, can you get your money from them?
Turned out much more banal didn’t it. Insufficient funds/investments for a Coutts acct. NatWest offered him an acct though.
Is this though all a ruse so he can slope off to live in warmer South of France or similar and claim it’s because of discrimination in the UK against him? Our Nige retires to the EU. Not exactly implausible is it. Got his daughters visas sorted for them didn’t he.
Turned out much more banal didn’t it. Insufficient funds/investments for a Coutts acct. NatWest offered him an acct though.
Is this though all a ruse so he can slope off to live in warmer South of France or similar and claim it’s because of discrimination in the UK against him? Our Nige retires to the EU. Not exactly implausible is it. Got his daughters visas sorted for them didn’t he.
But wasn’t it Coutts bank who shut down Farage’s account? I’d never have figured them to be especially woke, tbh. Was it not the case that Farage simply didn’t have enough dosh in his account, and therefore fell foul of their minimum capital requirements?
But wasn’t it Coutts bank who shut down Farage’s account? I’d never have figured them to be especially woke, tbh. Was it not the case that Farage simply didn’t have enough dosh in his account, and therefore fell foul of their minimum capital requirements?
As treasurer of a number of community accounts including a couple of charities, I have had to endure lengthy questionaires from high street banks demanding information about sources of income and variations in expenditure from one year to the next. One account was so small with so few transactions that it was laughable to be treated as if I was laundering money for some South American drug cartel. However I accepted with good grace as I wanted all these accounts to remain open.
I strongly suspect that Nigel Farage has simply fallen foul of one of these and has failed to provide the information that banks are legally allowed to ask for. What a godsend it must have been for him to portray himself as a victim of yet another woke conspiracy. I understand he banks with Coutts, surely the very soul of banking discretion, and it is interesting that he has not yet identified all the other banks that have turned him down. Perhaps he is worried about legal repercussions if he did so.
That’s almost certainly untrue. If that were the case, he’d have correspondance from the bank requesting the information and the reasons for it and a subsequent letter from the bank closing the account for that reason.
That’s almost certainly untrue. If that were the case, he’d have correspondance from the bank requesting the information and the reasons for it and a subsequent letter from the bank closing the account for that reason.
As treasurer of a number of community accounts including a couple of charities, I have had to endure lengthy questionaires from high street banks demanding information about sources of income and variations in expenditure from one year to the next. One account was so small with so few transactions that it was laughable to be treated as if I was laundering money for some South American drug cartel. However I accepted with good grace as I wanted all these accounts to remain open.
I strongly suspect that Nigel Farage has simply fallen foul of one of these and has failed to provide the information that banks are legally allowed to ask for. What a godsend it must have been for him to portray himself as a victim of yet another woke conspiracy. I understand he banks with Coutts, surely the very soul of banking discretion, and it is interesting that he has not yet identified all the other banks that have turned him down. Perhaps he is worried about legal repercussions if he did so.
We are assuming the Bank closure was for ‘ethical’ reasons (and by ethical we mean ‘political’).
I think Farage has the right to an explanation as anyone should have.
However this is much more likely to be about something untoward in the transactions where Bank has a legit concern, maybe even something related to fraud or perhaps payments from countries under sanction. Banks have the right to close accounts in such instances and, as I understand it, don’t need to give a reason (albeit I think they should)
Farage works all over the world, and lectures to quite a variation of audiences. Quite who funds all of these forums can be hidden. He’s fortunate he’s no longer an MEP such that he has to disclose his forms of income.
I’d be a bit more circumspect and open minded about what may be behind this. Farage goes full income disclosure then we’ll see, but he won’t of course.
There is no reason why Nigel Farage should have to disclose his financial affairs to you or I. There is no standing law or precedent for this in the UK. And nor should there be for private citizens.
He absolutely should be given a reason for the closure. I agree (after listening to The Black Belt Barrister at length on this subject) that this matter is more likely to be due to poorly designed and implemented “anti fraud” (the quotes are intentional here) legislation in the UK. If you listen to this barrister, you’ll note that he’s had several innocent clients caught up in this mess – none of whom were actually involved in fraud or money laundering. It is “guilt by association” with guilt assumed rather than innocence and no actual proof required. Hang in there JW – who knows, it could be you next !
Unless we sort this legal and regulatory mess out.
Yep, some of that fair. What wasn’t is the article premise this is woke-dom driven.
Farage doesn’t need to declare of course. But were he do so he’ll call out the Bank wouldn’t he. And what’s he got to hide? We already know he made a fortune on the back of Brexit shambles.
But what about the vicar?? I’ve complained in branch about the progress flags being prominently displayed in ok with the rainbow as it doesn’t involve gaslighting people about male and female sex.
I had to go look that one up as wasn’t aware. Looks like the issue was that he complained about a stance the Building Society had taken on Trans agenda, and it would appear in a fairly rude and abusive way . So they didn’t withdraw his acct unprovoked as implied. Now whether they should have ignored his rantings about them perhaps the point. But I guess if he felt like that about his Building society why didn’t he just transfer elsewhere rather than start having a go at them for something not much to do with the service he was receiving?
If you were running a shop and had particular poster in your window that led to someone coming in and being abusive to you you’d probably refuse to serve them…wouldn’t you?
I had to go look that one up as wasn’t aware. Looks like the issue was that he complained about a stance the Building Society had taken on Trans agenda, and it would appear in a fairly rude and abusive way . So they didn’t withdraw his acct unprovoked as implied. Now whether they should have ignored his rantings about them perhaps the point. But I guess if he felt like that about his Building society why didn’t he just transfer elsewhere rather than start having a go at them for something not much to do with the service he was receiving?
If you were running a shop and had particular poster in your window that led to someone coming in and being abusive to you you’d probably refuse to serve them…wouldn’t you?
But what about the vicar?? I’ve complained in branch about the progress flags being prominently displayed in ok with the rainbow as it doesn’t involve gaslighting people about male and female sex.
Yep, some of that fair. What wasn’t is the article premise this is woke-dom driven.
Farage doesn’t need to declare of course. But were he do so he’ll call out the Bank wouldn’t he. And what’s he got to hide? We already know he made a fortune on the back of Brexit shambles.
There is no reason why Nigel Farage should have to disclose his financial affairs to you or I. There is no standing law or precedent for this in the UK. And nor should there be for private citizens.
He absolutely should be given a reason for the closure. I agree (after listening to The Black Belt Barrister at length on this subject) that this matter is more likely to be due to poorly designed and implemented “anti fraud” (the quotes are intentional here) legislation in the UK. If you listen to this barrister, you’ll note that he’s had several innocent clients caught up in this mess – none of whom were actually involved in fraud or money laundering. It is “guilt by association” with guilt assumed rather than innocence and no actual proof required. Hang in there JW – who knows, it could be you next !
Unless we sort this legal and regulatory mess out.
We are assuming the Bank closure was for ‘ethical’ reasons (and by ethical we mean ‘political’).
I think Farage has the right to an explanation as anyone should have.
However this is much more likely to be about something untoward in the transactions where Bank has a legit concern, maybe even something related to fraud or perhaps payments from countries under sanction. Banks have the right to close accounts in such instances and, as I understand it, don’t need to give a reason (albeit I think they should)
Farage works all over the world, and lectures to quite a variation of audiences. Quite who funds all of these forums can be hidden. He’s fortunate he’s no longer an MEP such that he has to disclose his forms of income.
I’d be a bit more circumspect and open minded about what may be behind this. Farage goes full income disclosure then we’ll see, but he won’t of course.