mortgage paid off meant he no longer qualified for an account with them.
To confirm before we develop on this, Coutts only ever have customers holding a mortgage?
mortgage paid off meant he no longer qualified for an account with them.
I totally agree about not giving a f***, I’m just confused why this discussion is taking place on the main board when there is apparently a perfectly good thread already in the basement that was available?What annoys me more than any of the rights and wrongs of this case is that this Dulwich Collge educated, former city trader turned "everyman" who is apparently in no way part of the establishment has somehow ensured his crappy trivial case is now mainstream news. Why? Why should anyone give a f**k about Coutts binning him off? It's an absolute nothing story on a par with a specific business going under entirely because of Brexit. You know, the sort of thing that goes on but doesn't make headline news for 3 consecutive weeks.
Really?He did have enough money, the bank lied about that.
no. by holding a mortgage he met some criteria.To confirm before we develop on this, Coutts only ever have customers holding a mortgage?
no. by holding a mortgage he met some criteria.
This is a very specific case, it's a specific person and a specific bank. Had this been a High Street bank and a member of the public I might think differently, but it isnt. For these reasons I dont buy your 'where will it end' line.I hate Farage but this is a very slippery slope for banking. Extreme example, but what if your bank manager happened to be a Palace fan and took issue with something you posted on here? Would you be fair game for account closure? If the CEO of your water company didn’t like your politics could they get you cut off?
I'm sure my politics are very much aligned to those of my public utility providers. I have no concernsIf the CEO of your water company didn’t like your politics could they get you cut off?
I'm sure even a few years ago the idea of someone having something as mundane as their banking facilities cancelled (or even altered) because of their legitimate political beliefs would have been unheard of. And the cynic in me thinks that Coutts, the bank of the Disgustingly Rich, have only done it to burnish their 'right on' credentials and help disguise the fact that actually they act as a repository for all sorts of ill-gotten gains.I completely disagree, it is up to Coutts who they want to be associated with, or without. As I say, this is nothing new as businesses are often disassociating themselves with people or entities which do not share the same values or beliefs.
As for cancel culture...who's cancelling who here? Is Coutts' basic right to choose who they allign themselves with being cancelled?
Farage's local pub banned him. Undesirable, I think they said!Why should his views not impact his custom? Many businesses drop people if they feel their views are not alligned with theirs....this is not new. There are many examples of this.
They'll be hard put to find many with more obnoxious views, including admiring Putin, and his view of other nationalities.I'm sure even a few years ago the idea of someone having something as mundane as their banking facilities cancelled (or even altered) because of their legitimate political beliefs would have been unheard of. And the cynic in me thinks that Coutts, the bank of the Disgustingly Rich, have only done it to burnish their 'right on' credentials and help disguise the fact that actually they act as a repository for all sorts of ill-gotten gains.
Farage is seen as fair game as the opening post of this thread proved. And although I have no access to Coutts' customer database I'm prepared to bet my house that they have customers with no public profile who have far more obnoxious views and practices than Farage.
Banks have a duty not to handle money launderers. I am not saying this was the case here, but it is a political stance.Banks should generally avoid taking political stances.
They should focus on trying to serve their customers well.
They‘ve been a little patchy at this over recent years.
The point being one person, not a politician, just a tv presenter, was told by his bank, that he couldn't have the best account, but offered an alternative account.Hmm.
I think his point is a bit strained.
I have every sympathy for people affected by trials that get postponed, especially for such an impactful crime.
However, it’s a rather separate thing. Also as much as we all dislike Farage, this particular case has brought up the bigger issue of whether banks can arbitrarily dump customers they don’t agree with. Indeed, I think this one will see laws changed or at the very least tightened up.
It’s different to other businesses. If a financial institution black-balls an individual, that will affect one’s ability to obtain equal or similar services elsewhere.
Whatever we think of certain people, we can’t have one rule for some and another for others.
This is the pitfall of fairness, it is fair to everyone
What is the point of changing or tightening the laws, when the legal system is in the state it is? TSB regularly posts about such things - the emptiness of political promises to increase maximum sentences, etc. when courts are closed, CPS, police and legal aid are all underfunded.Hmm.
I think his point is a bit strained.
I have every sympathy for people affected by trials that get postponed, especially for such an impactful crime.
However, it’s a rather separate thing. Also as much as we all dislike Farage, this particular case has brought up the bigger issue of whether banks can arbitrarily dump customers they don’t agree with. Indeed, I think this one will see laws changed or at the very least tightened up.
It’s different to other businesses. If a financial institution black-balls an individual, that will affect one’s ability to obtain equal or similar services elsewhere.
Whatever we think of certain people, we can’t have one rule for some and another for others.
This is the pitfall of fairness, it is fair to everyone
I don't disagree with your conclusions, however I think the point about the at times saturation coverage of the issue at the expense of several other topics which have far more bearing on ordinary people's lives is also very valid in my opinion.Hmm.
I think his point is a bit strained.
I have every sympathy for people affected by trials that get postponed, especially for such an impactful crime.
However, it’s a rather separate thing. Also as much as we all dislike Farage, this particular case has brought up the bigger issue of whether banks can arbitrarily dump customers they don’t agree with. Indeed, I think this one will see laws changed or at the very least tightened up.
It’s different to other businesses. If a financial institution black-balls an individual, that will affect one’s ability to obtain equal or similar services elsewhere.
Whatever we think of certain people, we can’t have one rule for some and another for others.
This is the pitfall of fairness, it is fair to everyone
Similar feeling here. She had to resign.Well yes, but it's not as if he's said that the first-born child of every immigrant should be sacrificed to Odin. He is an obnoxious twerp with outdated views, we all accept that, but he's done nothing illegal and he deserves a full apology from Coutts/Nat West - especially seeing how poorly it was handled. I used to think 'Cancel Culture' was just an invention of the right-wing press but I'm not so sure now.
Anyway, now look what you've made me do, you've made me stick up for Nigel Farage. I'm off for a lie down ...