Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
This Is Incredible !!!
Nigel Farage may be hounded out of the UK
Answers
It seems that any suspicion gives banks the right to close accounts, without explanation, to avoid risk, even when such suspicion/
22:20 Fri 30th Jun 2023
> but unlike you I don’t revel in damaging speculation.
Oh, right, so you're not talking about my speculation ... which doesn't exist, but even if I if it wouldn't be damaging, because I'm irrelevant and therefore not damaging.
You're talking about my "revelling" about somebody else's "damaging speculation", is that it? If so ... whose?
Oh, right, so you're not talking about my speculation ... which doesn't exist, but even if I if it wouldn't be damaging, because I'm irrelevant and therefore not damaging.
You're talking about my "revelling" about somebody else's "damaging speculation", is that it? If so ... whose?
Here is a barrister giving his views/thoughts on the matter, with possible routes that Farage could take to find out why his accounts were closed – it might even be that he could claim significant damages against the bank.
It is 18 minutes long, but if you spent time looking at all more than 250 posts in this thread, 18 minutes would not seem that long – and think of how much a barrister charges for his or her time.
It is 18 minutes long, but if you spent time looking at all more than 250 posts in this thread, 18 minutes would not seem that long – and think of how much a barrister charges for his or her time.
Things are moving, from this morning's Telegraph;
'Banks are to be told by the Treasury that they must protect free speech amid an escalating row over the blacklisting of customers who hold controversial views.
Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, is understood to be “deeply concerned” that overzealous lenders are closing down accounts because they disagree with customers’ opinions and has asked City minister Andrew Griffith to investigate the issue.
Whitehall sources said that results of a consultation on the subject will be published within weeks, after it was launched earlier this year in the wake of PayPal blocking the accounts of free speech groups.
The controversy flared up again last week after the leading Brexiteer Nigel Farage revealed his account had been closed by his bank. A vicar was also dropped as a customer after criticising his lender’s stance on LBGTQ+.'
^^ The 'stance' being that he politely questioned why his bank was festooned with gay pride flags, & what that had to do with banking - a good point methinks.
'Banks are to be told by the Treasury that they must protect free speech amid an escalating row over the blacklisting of customers who hold controversial views.
Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, is understood to be “deeply concerned” that overzealous lenders are closing down accounts because they disagree with customers’ opinions and has asked City minister Andrew Griffith to investigate the issue.
Whitehall sources said that results of a consultation on the subject will be published within weeks, after it was launched earlier this year in the wake of PayPal blocking the accounts of free speech groups.
The controversy flared up again last week after the leading Brexiteer Nigel Farage revealed his account had been closed by his bank. A vicar was also dropped as a customer after criticising his lender’s stance on LBGTQ+.'
^^ The 'stance' being that he politely questioned why his bank was festooned with gay pride flags, & what that had to do with banking - a good point methinks.
n. I don't think he was rejected in the form of individual decisions by each bank. As Hymie (of all people :0) pointed out, if one bank decides against you for whatever reason, all the other banks are automatically informed & they all follow suit without querying any further.
I think if just one bank would step up to the plate & say, "Come bank with us, we don't do woke". I think they would do very well financially.
Follow the money, as they say.
I think if just one bank would step up to the plate & say, "Come bank with us, we don't do woke". I think they would do very well financially.
Follow the money, as they say.
Khandro
Why would this be "woke". Why would they wait until now to reject his accounts? Could a simpler explanation be that Coutts, and the NatWest group that owns it, regards Farage as what’s called a “politically exposed person” (PEP).
I've looked up why an account may be withdrawn:
"Under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, a bank must take adequate measures to establish the source of wealth and source of funds of the PEPs on their books."
"This is because PEPs, being powerful or influential figures, may be subject to offers of bribes or unusually prone to other corruption and, thus, must be placed under extra vigilance and supervision by any financial institution they have dealings with (and this may also apply to family and close associates). It’s a matter of law, and it’s supposed to apply to all PEPs."
My guess is that banks’ problem may be more with Reform UK Limited, and Farage’s close links to it, rather than him and his opinions on Pride Month.
Why would this be "woke". Why would they wait until now to reject his accounts? Could a simpler explanation be that Coutts, and the NatWest group that owns it, regards Farage as what’s called a “politically exposed person” (PEP).
I've looked up why an account may be withdrawn:
"Under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, a bank must take adequate measures to establish the source of wealth and source of funds of the PEPs on their books."
"This is because PEPs, being powerful or influential figures, may be subject to offers of bribes or unusually prone to other corruption and, thus, must be placed under extra vigilance and supervision by any financial institution they have dealings with (and this may also apply to family and close associates). It’s a matter of law, and it’s supposed to apply to all PEPs."
My guess is that banks’ problem may be more with Reform UK Limited, and Farage’s close links to it, rather than him and his opinions on Pride Month.
Khandro, that's exactly what I think - but if the reason he's been rejected is because of his political views, that needs to be addressed and fast. The case of 'philosophical belief' (I think that's what the chap in the video said) that resulted in the injured party receiving substantial damages was a good example. If Nigel is in the right I strongly suspect they've picked on the wrong bloke - and I hope he sues the butt off them!
"A vicar was also dropped as a customer after criticising his lender’s stance on LBGTQ+."
In the same way a cake shop can refuse service of someone who has views that go against their core beliefs?
Because if you support the stance of the cake shop owners, you should equally support Yorkshire Building Society.
In the same way a cake shop can refuse service of someone who has views that go against their core beliefs?
Because if you support the stance of the cake shop owners, you should equally support Yorkshire Building Society.
naomi24
If you can't remember him expressing an opinion it could be because like the rest of us, you can't get past the Telegraph's firewall:
https:/
If you can't remember him expressing an opinion it could be because like the rest of us, you can't get past the Telegraph's firewall:
https:/
