Crosswords0 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
Laughing Out Loud!
As said, the only entity that could close Farage's bank account is his bank. Not Labour MP Chris Bryant, who if he asked to close Farage's bank account without any evidence, would say "Get stuffed".
Who could really get any evidence? Not a Labour MP. They could receive some evidence, but not get it for themselves.
So who could actually get some evidence? Who could close a bank account? The bank!
So, if the bank closed the account, why would they do it? They would have to have a reason. Why wouldn't they give the reason. For a start, privacy. Another, security. Another, they could do it without the aggro.
But, there is a reason. As Farage says, his bank makes a lot of money from him. They wouldn't just close him for no reason. Even if he did, one of the other 7 banks would have taken him in. But no, they've blackballed him.
Why? We don't know, for privacy or security reasons.
As PP said, even earning money from interviews on Russian TV might be good enough. Or it could be something else. But there is something. And who is shaping the narrative? Why, Nigel, of course.
As said, the only entity that could close Farage's bank account is his bank. Not Labour MP Chris Bryant, who if he asked to close Farage's bank account without any evidence, would say "Get stuffed".
Who could really get any evidence? Not a Labour MP. They could receive some evidence, but not get it for themselves.
So who could actually get some evidence? Who could close a bank account? The bank!
So, if the bank closed the account, why would they do it? They would have to have a reason. Why wouldn't they give the reason. For a start, privacy. Another, security. Another, they could do it without the aggro.
But, there is a reason. As Farage says, his bank makes a lot of money from him. They wouldn't just close him for no reason. Even if he did, one of the other 7 banks would have taken him in. But no, they've blackballed him.
Why? We don't know, for privacy or security reasons.
As PP said, even earning money from interviews on Russian TV might be good enough. Or it could be something else. But there is something. And who is shaping the narrative? Why, Nigel, of course.
As I said ...
> Why? We don't know, for privacy or security reasons.
> As PP said, even earning money from interviews on Russian TV might be good enough. Or it could be something else. But there is something.
I mean, it might even be that a child Russian queen did a make-believe knighting of "Sir Nigel", on Russian TV, for his service for Brexit. Maybe one is not amused, especially now, and especially since the Queen's bankers were, supposedly, the same as Farage's - Coutts. ;-)
https:/
> Why? We don't know, for privacy or security reasons.
> As PP said, even earning money from interviews on Russian TV might be good enough. Or it could be something else. But there is something.
I mean, it might even be that a child Russian queen did a make-believe knighting of "Sir Nigel", on Russian TV, for his service for Brexit. Maybe one is not amused, especially now, and especially since the Queen's bankers were, supposedly, the same as Farage's - Coutts. ;-)
https:/
Nigel Farage has said he received ‘two small appearance fees’ with both ‘well under £5,000’ from Russia Today. He said this related to some work in 2015 and 2016 and insists he didn’t do any work with them in 2018 – the year Bryant claimed he received almost £550,000. He claims Mr Bryant 'abused' Parliamentary Privilege to avoid being sued for libel. The Labour MP has not repeated the same claims in public.
"Mr Farage has not named the bank who plan to shut his own personal and business accounts this summer, but is understood to be Coutts, the famous 327-year-old private bank whose clients include members of the Royal Family.
It is owned by high street giant NatWest, which is still 38.6% owned by the British taxpayer after it was bailed out following the 2008 financial crisis. MailOnline has asked Coutts and Nat West to comment."
No reply so far.
It seems that any suspicion gives banks the right to close accounts, without explanation, to avoid risk, even when such suspicion/risk seems ridiculously small and remote. That seems wrong. Obviously society shouldn't tip off the bad guys that they are under suspicion, but one wonders what society thinks closing the accounts of everyone around them broadcasts. The system needs revising. People should not be treated this way, where,for no reason of their own, their life is made intolerable. If an individual themselves are not under suspicion then they should not be affected, thus tipping off the individual who may be into something dodgy. If they are under suspicion then they should be investigated properly and if appropriate charged.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Is Keir Starmer Really Going To Arrest...
News43 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles62 mins ago
