UKIP/Reform NF Ltd and their non-racist well informed supporters

[Anthony]

54 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Seems most likely and because it's happened to other people like Konstantin Kisin and Tide bank. Where the account closure was the same they just closed his account and wouldn't give a reason. 

I think the rule changes where banks are required to give 90 days notice and stated reasons for account closure to allow time to appeal are sensible. 

I think in a lot of these cases the rules banks are using to close the accounts is under the Politically Exposed Persons. Essentially they require extra scrutiny as they may be bribed etc. 

As a bank can't just close your account and say we don't want you as a customer because we disagree with your views. That's illegal for them to do and with the rule changes they can't do that discreetly like it seems they have been doing in some cases. 

Re the last sentence: a private bank can, and in this case the private bank was owned by NatWest, so he could bank there, where, quite rightly he can't be refused banking facilities.

[Chindie]

Hey everyone go look at this definitely not right wing organ.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

You add that to the dossier Farage has managed to get. Any reasonable person can see it appears these account closures are being done based on those peoples political views.

No, absolutely not. This whole "dossier" thing is absolute nonsense. It's not a dossier it is the result of a Subject Access Request. All the notes are the bank doing their due diligence on a Politically Exposed Person, that they legally have to do. It is a regulatory requirement for them to do that. You will also see that Farage would actually have ceased to be a PEP later this year as he holds no position and is no longer the leader of any party, he's an opinion show host on a news channel. They had already lowered him to the lowest tier of PEP (it states in the "Dossier") He knows this, the bank know this and  the government should know this. Farage, as a former investment banker will have known before he made the SAR that they would have had this information on him and how it would play out

Not one of those right wing idiots that are defending him as some sort of twisted free speech crusade has mentioned that

You literally have members of the current government criticising the bank for doing what the government tells them to do

 

[ml1dch]

 

[Chindie]

All while this is going on of course...

...the Florida coast is at hot tub temperatures, southern Europe is on fire, the UK's rivers and coast line are literally riddled with shit, child homelessness is at record levels, you need a loan to do a food shop, Unilever have record profits, one of the most popular and trusted figures in the nation is a guy telling you how to reduce your bills, the largest council in the country needs a bailout that the government won't give it because they are from different parties, the hospitals are on their knees, the public transport system is ****, and the government's number one priority is cruelty.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

No, absolutely not. This whole "dossier" thing is absolute nonsense. It's not a dossier it is the result of a Subject Access Request. All the notes are the bank doing their due diligence on a Politically Exposed Person, that they legally have to do. It is a regulatory requirement for them to do that. You will also see that Farage would actually have ceased to be a PEP later this year as he holds no position and is no longer the leader of any party, he's an opinion show host on a news channel. They had already lowered him to the lowest tier of PEP (it states in the "Dossier") He knows this, the bank know this and  the government should know this. Farage, as a former investment banker will have known before he made the SAR that they would have had this information on him and how it would play out

Not one of those right wing idiots that are defending him as some sort of twisted free speech crusade has mentioned that

You literally have members of the current government criticising the bank for doing what the government tells them to do

 

Shut up. It's because he's not woke. WOKE CULTURE HAS GONE TOO FAR.

[CVByrne]

10 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Toby Young got binned from PayPal because his organisations were associated with COVID misinformation and PayPal didn't want to be associated with it as the avenue for donations. It was only when the odious word removed made enough noise that they decided the harm from him whinging outweighed the harm from being associated with his shit tangentially that they rowed it back.

Businesses don't have to accept your custom if they think you're not worth the harm and hassle you'll bring - you've no right to use PayPal.

You see how this is potentially open to abuse though? Essentially restricting access to services because a company disagrees with the persons views. Essentially coercion via the denial of access to key services. 

For example what if internet providers decided they didn't want customers who had views they disagreed with. Those people are denied access then to the internet. It's all well and good saying yes this is a good idea because this will only happen to those people we hate who have views we detest. 

I absolutely hate Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson - top 3 in my list. Even so, I don't think people who support them should be targeted by banks for account closures. I believe in democracy and freedom of speech. Even speech abhorrent to me.

Edited July 26, 2023 by CVByrne

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

You see how this is potentially open to abuse though? Essentially restricting access to services because a company disagrees with the persons views. Essentially coercion via the denial of access to key services. 

For example what if internet providers decided they didn't want customers who had views they disagreed with. Those people are denied access then to the internet. It's all well and good saying yes this is a good idea because this will only happen to those people we hate who have views we detest. 

I absolutely hate Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson - top 3 in my list. Even so, I don't think people who support them should be targeted by banks for account closures. I believe in democracy and freedom of speech. Even speech abhorrent to me.

What part of this isn't basic banking facilities being denied aren't you getting?

[bickster]

Nigel Farage was all for Christians denying services to gay people though...

Quote

Nigel Farage attempts to woo Christian voters by promising protection to those who want to object to gay marriage in the course of carrying out their jobs

Guardian

[ml1dch]

10 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

You see how this is potentially open to abuse though? Essentially restricting access to services because a company disagrees with the persons views. Essentially coercion via the denial of access to key services. 

For example what if internet providers decided they didn't want customers who had views they disagreed with. Those people are denied access then to the internet. It's all well and good saying yes this is a good idea because this will only happen to those people we hate who have views we detest. 

I absolutely hate Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson - top 3 in my list. Even so, I don't think people who support them should be targeted by banks for account closures. I believe in democracy and freedom of speech. Even speech abhorrent to me.

How about we deal with that if and when it comes up? 

Where we are at the moment is more comparable to the Groucho Club not wanting to let me in because I'm wearing sandals, have a dog on a string and there is spaghetti bolognese down my front.

Edited July 26, 2023 by ml1dch

[Chindie]

12 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

You see how this is potentially open to abuse though? Essentially restricting access to services because a company disagrees with the persons views. Essentially coercion via the denial of access to key services. 

For example what if internet providers decided they didn't want customers who had views they disagreed with. Those people are denied access then to the internet. It's all well and good saying yes this is a good idea because this will only happen to those people we hate who have views we detest. 

I absolutely hate Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson - top 3 in my list. Even so, I don't think people who support them should be targeted by banks for account closures. I believe in democracy and freedom of speech. Even speech abhorrent to me.

Companies don't have to accept your money or provide you with services. If they find that associating with you is either in contradiction with their own values, or threatens them as a business either through you potentially being more hassle than you're worth or exposing them to regulatory etc harm, they are at liberty to tell you they don't want your business.

In banking of course we temper that as we understand a personal bank account is a fundamental necessity, but that doesn't mean any bastard can walk into bank and insist they can have any service they want and the bank simply has to give it them.

If you want to argue that other services are, at a basic level, fundamental necessities, basic internet access for example, we may agree. But Nigel Farage and other clearings in the woods having banks decide they don't want to offer them business accounts or special private super accounts for special people, isn't some horrific civilisation ending catastrophe, and the only people that think it is are all right wing culture war clearings in the woods who don't like that the world has decided they don't want their money.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Chindie

[Seat68]

Just now, ml1dch said:

How about we deal with that if and when it comes up? 

Where we are at the moment is more comparable to the Groucho Club not wanting to let me in because I'm wearing sandals, have a dog on a string and there is spaghetti bolognese all over my white vest.

Literally described a tuesday night in my house

[CVByrne]

12 minutes ago, bickster said:

What part of this isn't basic banking facilities being denied aren't you getting?

I'm not discussing Farage specifically though. It's if there are account closures of a wider group of people (as has been reported) and this is due to their political views. That's worrying if it's true. That's all I'm saying

[bickster]

Just now, CVByrne said:

I'm not discussing Farage specifically though. It's if there are account closures of a wider group of people (as has been reported) and this is due to their political views. That's worrying if it's true. That's all I'm saying

None of the examples you've cited are about basic banking facilities. Farage aside the rest are all business accounts

[Chindie]

It's only worrying if large numbers of normal people with normal personal bank accounts are getting closed due to political views. Guess what? They aren't!

[CVByrne]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

None of the examples you've cited are about basic banking facilities. Farage aside the rest are all business accounts

Ok shutting down of a youtube channel or websites business account because the bank doesn't agree with the political views. Still worrying if true

[bickster]

Just now, CVByrne said:

Ok shutting down of a youtube channel or websites business account because the bank doesn't agree with the political views. Still worrying if true

Is it? why should one of those businesses have to ignore reputational damage to its own business by being forced to trade with another business

 

 

[Genie]

I want Farage to name the 10 banks he says refused to give him an account (but has not named). Then we’ll see if they believe he’s telling the truth or not.

 

[Chindie]

18 minutes ago, Genie said:

I want Farage to name the 10 banks he says refused to give him an account (but has not named). Then we’ll see if they believe he’s telling the truth or not.

 

He'd also need to advise exactly what he was asking those banks to give him. And realistically also what they said about why they didn't give him what he wanted - he's not just a normal person, yet.

[CVByrne]

27 minutes ago, bickster said:

Is it? why should one of those businesses have to ignore reputational damage to its own business by being forced to trade with another business

You can't have reputational damage for providing services every person and company are entitled to without prejudice like banking, telecommunications, electricity, water, computers, furniture etc. It's ridiculous, if it was allowed then the companies of people would just be targeted, law firm of this guy, youtube channel of that guy. 

Edited July 26, 2023 by CVByrne