Farage gets an apology

[Cougar377]

Proof that he was right all along.

No matter what you think of Farage (and I'm not a fan) this kind of hand wringing woke discrimination can't go unchallenged and I'm glad to see that it has been.

NatWest chief apologises to Farage and promises account closure review

Dame Alison Rose told the former UKIP leader she believed "very strongly [in] freedom of expression" in a letter seen by Sky News aimed at drawing a line under the row.

news.sky.com

 

[ogr1]

Proof that he was right all along.

No matter what you think of Farage (and I'm not a fan) this kind of hand wringing woke discrimination can't go unchallenged and I'm glad to see that it has been.

NatWest chief apologises to Farage and promises account closure review

Dame Alison Rose told the former UKIP leader she believed "very strongly [in] freedom of expression" in a letter seen by Sky News aimed at drawing a line under the row.

news.sky.com

See my other post.

 

[andyBeaker]

I cannot for the life of me understand why a forty page ’minute’ was created that clearly shows that personal views that were not supported by hard evidence underpinned the decision to show him the door. Particularly when the document highlights the likelihood that Farrage would kick off in public. As it happens I agree with the body of those views - personally I would not be comfortable maintaining a banking relationship with him, as are nine other banks - but that’s not the point.

The industry has a Banking Code - at least it did when I packed up - that covers closure of accounts and they could easily have got shot under the content of that. From memory a reason for closure does not need to be given and there is a timescale that has to be applied to give the client time to make alternate arrangements.

Whatever the rights and wrongs, the clamour for ‘transparency’ isn’t as straightforward as it may seem. There are times when the reason for closure cannot be disclosed for legal reasons such as intelligence in crime/money laundering and the like (it is actually an offence to disclose in some circumstances) and there is also the right of the bank (and anyone else) to do business with who they want. As an example I spent a lot of time many years ago building a relationship with a property developer only to learn at a late stage (lesson learned!) that he was a discharged bankrupt - there are plenty of potential clients around without that baggage so I moved on.

Apparently there is now a clamour for other customers across the industry asking why they were shown the door. The vast majority will fall into the ‘financial misconduct/service heavy’ bracket….banks are a business, not a public utility, and as such having accounts with them should be regarded in a similar way to driving licences - a privilege, not a right.

ogr1 not sure where you picked up that Coutts & Co is 40% owned by NatWest (previously RBS - remember them ) - it is wholly owned by NatWest. As an aside, If it were a stand alone organisation it would comfortably slip into the FTSE 100 and enjoys a superb reputation within the industry.

Which makes the whole thing even more puzzling.

 

[Cougar377]

Apparently there is now a clamour for other customers across the industry asking why they were shown the door. The vast majority will fall into the ‘financial misconduct/service heavy’ bracket….banks are a business, not a public utility, and as such having accounts with them should be regarded in a similar way to driving licences - a privilege, not a right.

Nope, I strongly disagree with that. As previously posted by me, having a bank account is nigh on mandatory in Britain if you want to live, work, integrate and survive in a normal capacity as a member of today's society.

The basic principle of banking was created by the Templars. Deposit money in one location, with the security of being able to access that money in another location and at an unpsecified time. Things have changed beyond recognition since then and without a bank account it becomes very difficult or occasionally impossible to do a number of things that we take for granted:

Being paid
Securing your money and safely accessing it when you need to
Saving
Renting
Applying for utility services (heating, broadband, council tax, etc)
Buying online
Getting a landline phone
Starting and maintaining a business
Paying bills
Getting a mortgage
Applying for credit or a credit card
Paying for things by direct debit
Transferring money
Receiving money (e.g. tax rebates)

Adding to that, in many cases you are at a disadvantage if you only have the option of paying by cash. e.g. you have to pay the full price up front (e.g. vehicle purchase) or you pay a premium (e.g. pre-payment cards for such things as gas and electricity).

No...having a bank account is not a privilege, it's virtually a necessity.

 

[andyBeaker]

Nope, I strongly disagree with that. As previously posted by me, having a bank account is nigh on mandatory in Britain if you want to live, work, integrate and survive in a normal capacity as a member of today's society.

The basic principle of banking was created by the Templars. Deposit money in one location, with the security of being able to access that money in another location and at an unpsecified time. Things have changed beyond recognition since then and without a bank account it becomes very difficult or occasionally impossible to do a number of things that we take for granted:

Being paid
Securing your money and safely accessing it when you need to
Saving
Renting
Applying for utility services (heating, broadband, council tax, etc)
Buying online
Getting a landline phone
Starting and maintaining a business
Paying bills
Getting a mortgage
Applying for credit or a credit card
Paying for things by direct debit
Transferring money
Receiving money (e.g. tax rebates)

Adding to that, in many cases you are at a disadvantage if you only have the option of paying by cash. e.g. you have to pay the full price up front (e.g. vehicle purchase) or you pay a premium (e.g. pre-payment cards for such things as gas and electricity).

No...having a bank account is not a privilege, it's virtually a necessity.

I don’t particularly disagree with any of that and obviously everyone needs a bank account - the point I tried to make is that if you have a bank account it should be run properly within the parameters agreed with the bank. You would be surprised how many don’t and a huge resource is required to manage them; it’s a risk business and controls have to be in place. The cost of managing these clients is way more than those that behave themselves…in general they are resource heavy and income light. As with any business you chop out the bits that harm your business, both financially and reputationally.

12 points on a driving licence and it is usually suspended, same principle applies to bank accounts.

 

[derek kelly]

How many criminals have had their bank accounts closed?

 

[Cougar377]

I don’t particularly disagree with any of that and obviously everyone needs a bank account - the point I tried to make is that if you have a bank account it should be run properly within the parameters agreed with the bank. You would be surprised how many don’t and a huge resource is required to manage them; it’s a risk business and controls have to be in place. The cost of managing these clients is way more than those that behave themselves…in general they are resource heavy and income light. As with any business you chop out the bits that harm your business, both financially and reputationally.

12 points on a driving licence and it is usually suspended, same principle applies to bank accounts.

I get that. At the end of the day, even if you need your driving licence for work, etc. if you're a danger on the road then you deserve to lose it. We all have to play by the rules.

The issue regarding the situation that Farage found himself embroiled in is that it now transpires that - despite the media speculation and the social media bullshit (most of which has been based on the personal opinions that keyboard warriors and newspaper editors hold about him) - it has been caused by the bank applying a political slant on their decision making, based on personal and corporate opinions, tittle tattle and a desire to disassociate themselve with a customer (who, by their own admission, conducted his banking acceptably) who's political views they don't agree with and the perception that continued association will harm their reputation.

He has been a Coutts customer for years, so what has changed there that has brought this on..? We've all got opinions on that, but I rather suspect that a woke agenda (for want of a more succinct way of putting it) has driven this decision. That is not only wrong, but also extremely unprofessional.

As an aside....I wonder how many other customers (Russian oligarchs, dictators, dodgy business owners, etc) are on their books who would also be perceived as being a reputational risk if they were known..?

 

[Duck n Dive]

Love the statement by the bank this morning and in the apology.

Basically that the views expressed in the document don't represent the views of the bank.

Garbage after the event.

They do represent the views of the bank as they were expressed by, recorded by and considered by more than one person within the bank.

Those views were then used by the bank (as in its officers designated to make such decisions) to reach and enact a decision.

Typical politicians apology.

Basically we got caught out and we're sorry we were caught.

 

[ogr1]

I cannot for the life of me understand why a forty page ’minute’ was created that clearly shows that personal views that were not supported by hard evidence underpinned the decision to show him the door. Particularly when the document highlights the likelihood that Farrage would kick off in public. As it happens I agree with the body of those views - personally I would not be comfortable maintaining a banking relationship with him, as are nine other banks - but that’s not the point.

The industry has a Banking Code - at least it did when I packed up - that covers closure of accounts and they could easily have got shot under the content of that. From memory a reason for closure does not need to be given and there is a timescale that has to be applied to give the client time to make alternate arrangements.

Whatever the rights and wrongs, the clamour for ‘transparency’ isn’t as straightforward as it may seem. There are times when the reason for closure cannot be disclosed for legal reasons such as intelligence in crime/money laundering and the like (it is actually an offence to disclose in some circumstances) and there is also the right of the bank (and anyone else) to do business with who they want. As an example I spent a lot of time many years ago building a relationship with a property developer only to learn at a late stage (lesson learned!) that he was a discharged bankrupt - there are plenty of potential clients around without that baggage so I moved on.

Apparently there is now a clamour for other customers across the industry asking why they were shown the door. The vast majority will fall into the ‘financial misconduct/service heavy’ bracket….banks are a business, not a public utility, and as such having accounts with them should be regarded in a similar way to driving licences - a privilege, not a right.

ogr1 not sure where you picked up that Coutts & Co is 40% owned by NatWest (previously RBS - remember them ) - it is wholly owned by NatWest. As an aside, If it were a stand alone organisation it would comfortably slip into the FTSE 100 and enjoys a superb reputation within the industry.

Which makes the whole thing even more puzzling.

Without Joe public, they or any other bank wouldn't exist would they?
I think that clouts were a bit naive taking on Mr Farage & not expecting him to use his TV platform & his many associates in government to undermine their decision to terminate his account.
As you are aware any customer can ask
for a 'Data Subject Access Request'
which Mr Farage did & here lies the problem... If all details of said document are factual & true? Then I can't see how clouts can possibly wriggle out of it.

I read on numerous web sites that NW own 40% of clouts, so it must be true.

As the new saying goes...
Go woke, go broke.

 

[andyBeaker]

I get that. At the end of the day, even if you need you're driving licence for work, etc. if you're a danger on the road then you deserve to lose it. We all have to play by the rules.

The issue regarding the situation that Farage found himself embroiled in is that it now transpires that - despite the media speculation and the social media bullshit (most of which has been based on the personal opinions that keyboard warriors and newspaper editors hold about him) - it has been caused by the bank applying a political slant on their decision making, based on personal and corporate opinions, tittle tattle and a desire to disassociate themselve with a customer (who, by their own admission, conducted his banking acceptably) who's political views they don't agree with and the perception that continued association will harm their reputation.

He has been a Coutts customer for years, so what has changed there that has brought this on..? We've all got opinions on that, but I rather suspect that a woke agenda (for want of a more succinct way of putting it) has driven this decision. That is not only wrong, but also extremely unprofessional.

As an aside....I wonder how many other customers (Russian oligarchs, dictators, dodgy business owners, etc) are on their books who would also be perceived as being a reputational risk if they were known..?

Re your last point a) if individuals and/or countries are sanctioned then by law accounts are closed b) if you have the inclination have a dig around on the internet and you will find a few ‘well known names’ that have been given marching orders over the years. It is not always easy for a bank to extricate itself from a relationship if the client owes the bank money as almost invariably other banks aren’t prepared to take the risk on…been there, done that!!

 

[andyBeaker]

Without Joe public, they or any other bank wouldn't exist would they?
I think that clouts were a bit naive taking on Mr Farage & not expecting him to use his TV platform & his many associates in government to undermine their decision to terminate his account.
As you are aware any customer can ask
for a 'Data Subject Access Request'
which Mr Farage did & here lies the problem... If all details of said document are factual & true? Then I can't see how clouts can possibly wriggle out of it.

I read on numerous web sites that NW own 40% of clouts, so it must be true.

As the new saying goes...
Go woke, go broke.

I think your confusion on ownership by be from the fact that the government still owns 39.something % of NatWest, previously known as RBS. RBS foolhardily acquired NatWest many years ago, NatWest having wholly owned Coutts & Co for yonks at the time of acquisition.

The Coutts & Co internal minute (now in the public domain courtesy of The Daily Mail and, presumably, their cheque book) acknowledges that Farrage was likely to go public, which makes the whole thing, particularly large elements of the content of the minute, hard to understand. Alison Rose has clearly disagreed with what was done and I suspect a few bums are twitching at Coutts & Co.

 

[andyBeaker]

He has been a Coutts customer for years, so what has changed there that has brought this on..?

it would appear that he has had a mortgage with Coutts & Co - by definition a long term finance - and that is being repaid this year. Linking back to my previous comment about how hard it can be to get rid of clients when they are borrowers (by definition the majority won’t be touched by other banks) this might have been the catalyst for undertaking a review.

One thing I can’t get my head round is the feeling that the banks should not have the right to close accounts ie choose who to do business with. If someone causes trouble in a pub or club they get banned. If someone shoplifts in a shop they get banned. If someone doesn’t pay the milkman the milkman stops delivering. If someone causes trouble in a sports stadium they get banned.

 

[Duck n Dive]

You can still work and live your life relatively normally without going into a club or sports venue.

 

[andyBeaker]

You can still work and live your life relatively normally without going into a club or sports venue.

Even more important to play by the rules then.

 

[Duck n Dive]

Even more important to play by the rules then.

At what point should not following rules start to prevent someone living a normal life?

Traditionally it's been criminal offences that cause that.[/QUOTE]

 

[Cougar377]

Even more important to play by the rules then.

He did. Apparently.

 

[andyBeaker]

At what point should not following rules start to prevent someone living a normal life?

Traditionally it's been criminal offences that cause that.

[/QUOTE]
It works both Ways. Banking is a risk business, that’s how they make Money. When risk becomes unacceptable you divest it, same as any other business. If the risk is acceptable then a service is provided.

Take a look at how much banks write off every year due to bad debts - an element if that will be down to poor risk management, large chunk will be down to people just helping themselves.

 

[Duck n Dive]

For example...

These days we all depend heavily on the Internet for almost everything.

What happens if tomorrow your Internet provider decides, without explaining why, the "daily smile" thread is so offensive that they're pulling the plug on your Internet access and mobile phone.

I recall when we shared space with Bikers Oracle and due to "essential maintenance" we had to share forum space with others (vfr?) for a while.
They were outraged at our discussions etc.
I'm sure JAWs recalls it and I'm guessing was asked to "reign us in".
As I recall he declined

 

[Duck n Dive]

It works both Ways. Banking is a risk business, that’s how they make Money. When risk becomes unacceptable you divest it, same as any other business. If the risk is acceptable then a service is provided.

Take a look at how much banks write off every year due to bad debts - an element if that will be down to poor risk management, large chunk will be down to people just helping themselves.
[/QUOTEgetIt works both Ways. Banking is a risk business, that’s how they make Money. When risk becomes unacceptable you divest it, same as any other business. If the risk is acceptable then a service is provided.

Take a look at how much banks write off every year due to bad debts - an element if that will be down to poor risk management, large chunk will be down to people just helping themselves.
[/QUOTE]


I get that, I'm saying that with some "service businesses" we may have reached a point that society says its not just a business.

Indeed it's looking like the fallout from this might well be it stops being simply a business decision.

Don't forget that in this instance the bank is now trying to disown the decision.
Doesn't say much for their risk management!

 

[andyBeaker]

For example...

These days we all depend heavily on the Internet for almost everything.

What happens if tomorrow your Internet provider decides, without explaining why, the "daily smile" thread is so offensive that they're pulling the plug on your Internet access and mobile phone.

I recall when we shared space with Bikers Oracle and due to "essential maintenance" we had to share forum space with others (vfr?) for a while.
They were outraged at our discussions etc.
I'm sure JAWs recalls it and I'm guessing was asked to "reign us in".
As I recall he declined

The hard fact is that if some of the stuff on here was repeated in the workplace you would be out on your ear.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.