Search results

It’s not that simple even though many here think it is. Funny how many self confessed liberals are failing to see that point as it’s not suiting their narrative.

Yes I see it’s a simple argument which is the problem. It’s clearly distorted by your view of Farage, to such an extent that you can’t see the wider implications of being being refused a service if they have a different political opinion. One day it may bite you.

Another pivot. I thought your original argument was that they could get rid of people they did not like/have aligned views. Post 164 suggests he could have got rid of for entirely different reasons. You are spinning like a top!

Oh Well. Another pivot to a poor argument which again does not address the discussions we were having. I’ll leave it there. Just consider that he already was a member of Coutts.

I’m sure you do see the difference. But I’ll explain my position. It’s the difference in being employed by someone and then by your actions bringing that company into disrepute, as in your example with Mr West. Farage had a bank account and was not promoting or advertising the bank. In fact...

Kayne west had a sponsorship deal so a completely different situation.

I can see it if they are bringing the business into disrepute, normally that would be a sponsorship deal or some paid role in a company. Farage to my knowledge has done none of those these, just a man who wants a bank account. Where do you draw the line? What examples were you thinking of?

Personally hate Farage, but he’s just a customer with a bank and unless he’s doing something illegal his views should not impact that. For an employee to wade in in a public manner by commenting on a customer is a basic no no that would get you fired in most situations. It’s not exactly whistle...