Nice guardian article describing it. Basically they placate him out of fear of what he will do with his followers.
The Tories could and should tell him to **** off.
of course they should - but they are scared of his political power which he holds because of the huge numbers of followers. I'll let you talk to my aunt and cousin who think he is a hero and if he told them not to vote tory they wouldn't
Or are the tories using this fiasco to put some of their cronies on the board of Nat West, if any of them resign
They basically need Farage to do what he did last time out - muster the populist scumbag vote, but only stand in seats where it hurts Labour. That's why Downing St have basically forced out two banking CEOs on his behalf. Obviously, he'll not be satisfied with that, because his whole grift is based on grievance, so I'm wondering now who he'll target next, and whether the Tories will back him there as well. I reckon Sunak might be prepared to bin a minister if Farage wanted him to.
It's pathetic, but the governing party is basically UKIP now, and by extension, figures like Farage pretty much set its agenda. Sunak has already made it clear that he intends to campaign on division and culture war, so none of this is surprising.
Actually he was discriminated against by the bank on products available to him based on his political views. That’s quite rightly illegal. The bank tried to cover this up claiming commercial reasons and this has now spectacularly blown up on them.
Thats not true though, is it?
he was denied the account because he didnt meet the wealth criteria:
his mortgage was ending and they were no longer getting interest payments from him,
they saw his views as a risk to their reputation
& they were worried about his association with Russia (whether that was to do with dodgy russian money I dont know)
All of which was detailed in his SAR
If it had been exclusively based on his political views then yes that would have been wrong, even then being downgraded because of a worry about reputational risk is not the same as being denied an essential service
I’ll let you talk to my aunt and cousin who think he is a hero
No thanks.
Whatever your aunt and cousin say Reform UK does not have one single MP, is unlikely to have one after the next general election, so won't in any way have any influence or be able to support a Tory minority government, and in reflection of how little public support they have nationwide, they only have 6 council seats.
The Tories could easily afford to tell Nigel Farage to **** off, if they wanted to. He has no hold over them.
The hold is the threat of standing candidates against the tories and / or telling his followers not to vote tory.
So why were the FCA involved if it had nothing to do with them?
They just made a comment following Rose's statement, but following that statement it was clear to anyone that NatWest's position was untenable and it is quite correct for the Treasury and 10 Downing Street to point out they were being blithering idiots. The Board changed its mind and no doubt crossed ts and dotted is with the lawyers and Rose was gone in the early hours of the next day.
If anything brings an institution into disrepute, it is trying to hang onto a CEO who has breached client confidentiality - the fact the story she spun was incorrect as well only adds to her folly.
It is not a threat. Reform UK has pledged to stand in every seat next general election. With Keir Starmer now Labour leader, instead of Corbyn, Farage no longer considers a Labour government something that he can't live with.
telling his followers not to vote tory.
Why doesn't he tell his followers to vote for him? 7 times he has stood for a Westminster seat 7 times he has failed.
Presumably he forgot to tell his followers to vote for him?
But banking services are different. The role they play means they aren’t just simple private companies
Which is why banks have to offer everyone a basic account. No one is stopped from having access to banking.
Whatever your aunt and cousin say Reform UK does not have one single MP, is unlikely to have one after the next general election, so won’t in any way have any influence or be able to support a Tory minority government,
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/ge2019-brexit-party-impact/#:~:text=In%20the%202019%20election%2C%20the,strategy%20doubled%20Johnso n's%20parliamentary%20majority.
In particular:
It's not about the number of MPs that Reform will get (they won't get any), it's about leaching votes away from Labour in key constituencies and reducing the size of their overall majority. The Tories have probably tactically accepted that they are out soon, but want to restrict the size of the majority and aim to overturn it after one term of a Labour government.
It is not a threat. Reform UK has pledged to stand in every seat next general election.
Brexit Party initially threatened to stand in every seat in 2019.
https://www.politico.eu/article/farage-brexit-party-to-contest-every-seat-in-uk-election/
With Keir Starmer now Labour leader, instead of Corbyn, Farage no longer considers a Labour government something that he can’t live with.
I'm sure that privately, he holds lots of views, but this is his opportunity to squeeze the Tories and use the threat of candidates in their LibDem marginals to get what he wants, which is exposure, influence and being wooed by senior Tories.
Actually he was discriminated against by the bank on products available to him based on his political views. That’s quite rightly illegal.
Prove it.
Why doesn’t he tell his followers to vote for him? 7 times he has stood for a Westminster seat 7 times he has failed.
Presumably he forgot to tell his followers to vote for him?
Its obvious to nearly everyone that Farage has never had the power to get MPs and win elections, he has the power to stop the Tories getting seats and winning elections.
I'm not so sure the closet Tory voters won't disappoint us come the next election, Farage helping the Tories may be the difference between a minority government, or at least avoiding a complete wipeout.
the fact the story she spun was incorrect as well only adds to her folly.
so he did meet the financial requirements?
If anything brings an institution into disrepute, it is trying to hang onto a CEO who has breached client confidentiality
Who says that by following due process they were "trying to hang onto a CEO"?
the fact the story she spun was incorrect as well only adds to her folly.
The claim that Farage did not fulfill the wealth criteria was not incorrect. He fully admits himself.
She certainly should not have breached client confidentiality though, obviously.
I'm sure it was a nice article by the Guardian tj
I mentioned the Arts Council earlier. Last month someone who I went to college with and has worked for them for 15 years was hounded out of their job (for expressing a 'protected characteristic') . She took them to court and won.
I went to the Guardian to see how they reported on it and was disgusted by what I saw. Her case was very significant, you might even call it a test case yet the Guardian chose to print a very short article which gave as much space to the Arts Councils response as it did any details of the case and failed to speak to my friend, effectively cancelling her. They considered it a victory for the Arts Council because they weren't found guilty on all the counts of harassment, (just the main one!).
The Telegraph, Daily Mail and GB News actually interviewed her and reported on the facts of the case.
To see probably the most progressive person I knew when I was back in college hung out to dry like that by the Guardian was truly shocking. To see her having to go to the right wing press (which I'm sure she never imagined having to do) to get a fair hearing was a bit of a watershed moment for me.
The Guardian is lying to you. Ask yourself tj, was that Guardian furnishing you with all of the facts or just offering a perspective on events?
Who says that by following due process they were “trying to hang onto a CEO”?
The immediate problem was resolved quickly and correctly - nothing else needed to happen.
The claim that Farage did not fulfill the wealth criteria was not incorrect.
But it wasn't the complete reason so it was incorrect by omission - which is why everyone has apologized to him.
this is his opportunity to squeeze the Tories and use the threat of candidates in their LibDem marginals to get what he wants, which is exposure, influence and being wooed by senior Tories.
It is not a threat!!!
Reform UK have very clearly stated that there will be no election pact with the Tories as there was at the last general election when there was real threat to the status quo.
And yes of course Reform UK has the potential to have a devastating effect on Tory votes in marginal seats next general election.
Which is precisely why the Tories should be doing everything possible to reduce the standing of Reform UK's best known member, not rallying behind him!
They just can't resist backing a bigot in trouble!
The Guardian is lying to you. Ask yourself tj, was that Guardian furnishing you with all of the facts or just offering a perspective on events?
I'm missing the connection to people being denied a bank account, but its been a long day already...
The immediate problem was resolved quickly and correctly – nothing else needed to happen.
So you don't support due process?
And all this nonsense about doing stuff properly!?!?
You must have been quite a fan of the Boris Johnson years!
The Guardian is lying to you. Ask yourself tj, was that Guardian furnishing you with all of the facts or just offering a perspective on events?
are we sure its the guardian thats lying here @inkster or did you read a different one?
this article quite clearly states what she said & doesn't seem like its cancelling her?
Fahmy, who failed in two claims of victimisation, said: “I am delighted to have won my claim of harassment. It cannot be acceptable that people like me, who believe people can’t change their sex, are subjected to harassment at work. And worse still, that employers encourage and collude in this behaviour.
“People in the arts, and especially women, are facing a tide of bullying with spurious accusations of transphobia, and many are frightened to speak out as they risk public cancellation. Institutions like the Arts Council need to be held accountable when they are biased and enable harassment of gender-critical people. I hope my case has woken up leaders in the arts as to what’s going on.”
An ACE spokesperson said: “There was nothing in the judgment to support the accusation of institutional bias. We are reflecting on the judgment which upheld two allegations of harassment in relation to a petition set up by a junior member of staff who no longer works for us, and we note the tribunal’s acknowledgment of steps taken by us to disable the petition and address the incident at the time.”
Reform UK have very clearly stated that there will be no election pact with the Tories as there was at the last general election when there was real threat to the status quo.
And yes of course Reform UK has the potential to have a devastating effect on Tory votes in marginal seats next general election.
Which is precisely why the Tories should be doing everything possible to reduce the standing of Reform UK’s best known member, not rallying behind him!
The likes of Tice and Farage are well known for their integrity and keeping to their word. 🙂 The fact that the Tories are desperate to woo them should be taken as evidence that they know the actual candidate situation may be flexible.
Reform can easily find a reason (or make one up) why they suddenly won't be standing everywhere. I'd expect them to invent some reason why Labour are a threat to everything we hold dear, and why they will be focusing their efforts on defeating the red menace etc...
At the last election, Brexit Party were struggling to find the money, and even the candidates, to contest every seat. I see no reason why things will be different for Reform.
So you don’t support due process?
I believe in checks and balances - but there was no need here. If Rose had stayed on then the FCA would rightly have wanted to know that her conduct met the requirements of someone in her position - once she was gone that need disappeared. I understand the Information Commissioner will look at the breach to see if further action needs to be taken about NatWest and I imagine the FCA will look at possible breaches of its rules with the result that NatWest may be fined and Rose may be sanctioned in a personal capacity.
Thats not true though, is it?
he was denied the account because he didnt meet the wealth criteria:
That was the reason given which then turned out to be untrue.
That was the reason given which then turned out to be untrue.
As far as I am aware it is correct.
With the end of his mortgage he dropped beneath the limits at which point they decided to end his accounts.
If he had been suitably wealthy they would have held their noses or if he hadnt been a tosser they may well have ignored the wealth check for a while.
he failed both checks though.
The fact that the Tories are desperate to woo them should be taken as evidence that they know the actual candidate situation may be flexible.
They are not trying to woo Nigel Farage! It is simply a knee jerk reaction from a right-wing government on the ropes whose last desperate attempt to cling onto power seems centred on creating a culture war.
Reform can easily find a reason (or make one up) why they suddenly won’t be standing everywhere.
LOL! Reform UK do not have a single MP, the idea that they are not desperate for some sort of representation in parliament is ridiculous!
The only reason the Brexit Party withdrew their candidates from marginal seats last general election was because of the threat that Corbyn posed and because Boris Johnson promised them brexit. Today Starmer poses no threat to the establishment and Rishi Sunak has nothing to offer Reform UK.
That was the reason given which then turned out to be untrue.
You and mefty keep saying it was untrue, but according to the SAR which Farage himself made public it was absolutely true, and would have been enough on its own for them to close his account - it meant that he no longer complied with the Ts and Cs. But the SAR also showed that they discussed his views, and called him xenophobic and racist - I note that he is not denying that he is both of those things. As others have said, they didn't close his account because of his views, it was because he didn't meet the criteria. If he didn't have those views, they might have been inclined to cut him some slack on the Ts and Cs, but since he did, they didn't. That is pretty much proved by the fact that they offered him a plebs account, despite him being a xenophobic racist. If they were kicking him out because of his views, they would want to cut all ties, not still have him as a customer.
The internal report said he met the commercial criteria for a Coutts account at the point he had a mortgage with them. Once that was paid off, he no longer met the commercial criteria. So they considered whether using their discretion to continue to offer him the product was what they wanted to do, or whether he posed a reputational risk.
He has not been left without an account, just offered a different account with the same banking group.
If I sign up for a current account or a savings product which requires that I pay in a certain amount monthly, and then I don't, I would normally be transferred to a different product.
I'm sure the FCA will take a view on this, I don't think there has been breach of their code of conduct in terms of fairness other than the confidentiality issues. Obviously, if he doesn't get what he wants from the FCA, Farage will demand, and probably be gifted, the resignation of its chair...
The Guardian is lying to you. Ask yourself tj, was that Guardian furnishing you with all of the facts or just offering a perspective on events?
🤯
You don't say, maybe they should teach that in early secondary school! Oh wait, they do...
To see probably the most progressive person I knew when I was back in college hung out to dry like that by the Guardian was truly shocking. To see her having to go to the right wing press (which I’m sure she never imagined having to do) to get a fair hearing was a bit of a watershed moment for me.
If it's the case linked then it really doesn't take much imagination to see why they'd be all over that story like a rash.
No it is not. Basic lack of understanding. Its been tested in the courts IIRC
Kimbers,
You have just implied that I am a liar. There is a difference between me accusing the Guardian of lying and calling a forum member a liar.
The article you posted confirms what I said.
A third of the article is given over to the Arts Council point of view.
All they did was quote what was Denise said to the assembled media after the case was one. They did not interview her.
The reason they didn't interview her is because had they done so, Denise would have talked about the actual details of her complaint and they would have had to print it.
No facts pertaining to the case were mentioned in that article. The facts were hidden from view. That's why it meets my threshold for cancelling.
"If it’s the case linked then it really doesn’t take much imagination to see why they’d be all over that story like a rash."
Yea, that is the case in question and you're quite right of course.
Obviously you wouldn't want to pollute yourself by going to any at those right wing outlets who actually reported the facts and interviewed the plaintiff (she lost hr job remember). Just as well we have the Guardian to do our thinking for us by not reporting the facts or interviewing the plaintiff.
Im waiting to see how much money farage made shorting NatWest shares knowing he was going to create this hullabaloo
OK, so I'll concede that the nature of Farage's view has had a higher impact on the decision than just being a PITA and not worth the effort for the yield on his account.
Next question - what follows? Are football clubs not going to be allowed to eject and ban fans that express their racist or homophobic views - free speech, y'know. Why can they choose their admission criteria and not banks?
It's frustrating that in mishandling the situation Natwest have enabled the "farage is a victim" stuff and lent weight to the people who can't tell the difference between losing a privilege you are not entitled to, and being unfairly discriminated against. It gets misrepresented as a single simple right vs wrong situation rather than the more nuanced thing that it is.
It's such a pity that PZL-104 Wilga was so well built. It would've saved everyone so much in the long run.
🛩💥
so those of you that are upset by farage losing access to a privilege in his [posh bank accounts what about all those others? Equally upset?
The Tories could easily afford to tell Nigel Farage to **** off, if they wanted to. He has no hold over them.
Same could have been said of Cameron and brexit.
The tories are petrified of the far right for some reason.
The tories are petrified of the far right for some reason.
Perhaps it is the growing number of MPs that the far right have which is petrifying the Tories?
The Tories aren't scared of the far right, it is the Left and the thought of a left-wing government that petrifies them.
As their reaction to Jeremy Corbyn becoming leader of the Labour Party proved.
Currently their greatest enemy is their own ineptitude and incompetence.
The reason is simple. If farage stands candidates agaisnt them they will lose seats.
Ernie. Its back to your Brexit blind spot
Loosely related, it had passed me by that the Telegraph (and Spectator) is now owned by Lloyds (bank), after the Barclay brothers defaulted on a loan.
Telegraph has been going gangbusters against NatWest/Coutts and in support of Farage- wonder whether the new owners will try to discourage. Tory's are also starting to be a bit upset at the prospect of a bank owning the paper, especially at this stage in the election cycle.
Our old mate IDS said (my bold)
What is vital in the course of this sale is that the identities of any people trying to buy the paper are made public early on in the process. That matters not just for Conservatives but for all people who respect independent news reporting.”
Patten:
“It’s in the interests of democracy and our public education that the buyers understand the responsibility of owning a great newspaper. We should never forget that evidence-based facts and the transparency demanded by good newspapers are crucial ingredients in every liberal democracy.”
While I do enjoy reading some of the paper 'evidence-based facts' and 'independent news reporting' are not really phrases that spring to mind with much of their political or social reporting.
The tories are petrified of the far right for some reason.
Because they can take away many of their voters if they aren't nasty and bigoted enough. Simple.
No it is not. Basic lack of understanding. Its been tested in the courts IIRC
Instead of IIRC go and remember your source for once.
Tory’s are also starting to be a bit upset at the prospect of a bank owning the paper, especially at this stage in the election cycle.
IIRC, those quotes are as regards the group being effectively merged into either of the Mail or Murdoch groups (or other options) when it is sold, not concern about how it is being run by the receivers appointed by the bank in the meantime.
Because they can take away many of their voters if they aren’t nasty and bigoted enough. Simple.
Perfect! split the right wing voting base and let's get a more sensible and progressive gov/colab in power.
