Nigel Farage

[bluethrunthru]

and he wonders why other banks turn him away

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

Aside from his small number of fruit loopy converts and members of the Cabinet who want to be seen to support him to appease the furthest right section of the nasty party and see this non-event as another distraction from public scrutiny is anyone really bothered?

I read tonight that the government are very quietly positioning legislation, effective 2024, to allow a tax raid on untouched pension pots for those who have one and die under the age of 75. This will be a major change to folk who have diligently saved for, and planned for, their futures for many years. This sort of public interest story should sweep this no-mark frog eyed twats views off the pages of every paper and off every news channel.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

If Coutts has broken the law by closing his account (like if they discriminated in relation to a protected characteristic) then he is perfectly at liberty to privately prosecute them; and if the bank have breached the agreement between them then he can commence a claim for damages for breach of contract. Or if they have broken some esoteric FOS regulation, then report them.

Otherwise, as a private company, even a heavily regulated one, they are surely entitled to contract with who the fuck they want, especially now they are free of all the ‘Brussels red tape’.

As someone who worked in the City, and who is an arch-capitalist, Farage should (and doubtless will) fully appreciate the bank’s rights here.

This incident perfectly encapsulates the division, disharmony, and disunity that this **** has caused in this country. The event that he caused as much as anyone, is utterly toxic and will continue to be for generations. The closing of his bank account is merely a symptom of the national disease that was substantially created by Farage, not that the **** will ever admit or appreciate that.

The poisonous **** is nothing but bad news and utterly malign.

 

[stonerblue]

Yep, man gets denied a bank account makes national news.

Gone to a higher level now with the fucking pm sticking his oar in. Mental.
I'd like to see Coutts come out fighting and say, ''You're a shit-stirring twat and we don't like you so fuck off.''

 

[halfmist]

If Coutts has broken the law by closing his account (like if they discriminated in relation to a protected characteristic) then he is perfectly at liberty to privately prosecute them; and if the bank have breached the agreement between them then he can commence a claim for damages for breach of contract. Or if they have broken some esoteric FOS regulation, then report them.

Otherwise, as a private company, even a heavily regulated one, they are surely entitled to contract with who the fuck they want, especially now they are free of all the ‘Brussels red tape’.

As someone who worked in the City, and who is an arch-capitalist, Farage should (and doubtless will) fully appreciate the bank’s rights here.

This incident perfectly encapsulates the division, disharmony, and disunity that this **** has caused in this country. The event that he caused as much as anyone, is utterly toxic and will continue to be for generations. The closing of his bank account is merely a symptom of the national disease that was substantially created by Farage, not that the **** will ever admit or appreciate that.

The poisonous **** is nothing but bad news and utterly malign.

Well it’s actually a public company, not a private one and in addition the tax payer still has a massive stake in its parent company.
Not sure who you mean by “they” when making the decision to bar someone, the decision will be down to a he or she making a subjective decision,no doubt swayed by their own personal opinion.
Leaving Farage out of the discussion as he is a bit of a side show to an important principle and that’s why it has had so much media coverage.
There is a very important principle at stake , I would not be very comfortable about an individual deciding whether I could have something or not based on whether they agreed with my political beliefs, colour of skin sexual orientation etc etc
If the Bank thought it was acting correctly why did it need to tell lies as to the reason for closing his account.
Oh and before anyone comes on and says it’s because he did not meet their economic criteria I know of at least 3 people who have an account with them that don't meet it either.
Not interested in getting in to an argument with the usual crew about Farage,I already know your opinions of him.
My post is about whether someone should be allowed within the Bank, to become Judge and Jury and if so,they should at least be required to real reasons why they are doing something.

 

[stonerblue]

Well it’s actually a public company, not a private one and in addition the tax payer still has a massive stake in its parent company.
Not sure who you mean by “they” when making the decision to bar someone, the decision will be down to a he or she making a subjective decision,no doubt swayed by their own personal opinion.
Leaving Farage out of the discussion as he is a bit of a side show to an important principle and that’s why it has had so much media coverage.
There is a very important principle at stake , I would not be very comfortable about an individual deciding whether I could have something or not based on whether they agreed with my political beliefs, colour of skin sexual orientation etc etc
If the Bank thought it was acting correctly why did it need to tell lies as to the reason for closing his account.
Oh and before anyone comes on and says it’s because he did not meet their economic criteria I know of at least 3 people who have an account with them that don't meet it either.
Not interested in getting in to an argument with the usual crew about Farage,I already know your opinions of him.
My post is about whether someone should be allowed within the Bank, to become Judge and Jury and if so,they should at least be required to real reasons why they are doing something.

Good. if my taxes are helping to piss the gimp off then i'll happily pay more.

 

[halfmist]

Good. if my taxes are helping to piss the gimp off then i'll happily pay more.

As expected , missing the point.

 

[stonerblue]

As expected , missing the point.

Yeah, a bit like Nige.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Well it’s actually a public company, not a private one and in addition the tax payer still has a massive stake in its parent company.
Not sure who you mean by “they” when making the decision to bar someone, the decision will be down to a he or she making a subjective decision,no doubt swayed by their own personal opinion.
Leaving Farage out of the discussion as he is a bit of a side show to an important principle and that’s why it has had so much media coverage.
There is a very important principle at stake , I would not be very comfortable about an individual deciding whether I could have something or not based on whether they agreed with my political beliefs, colour of skin sexual orientation etc etc
If the Bank thought it was acting correctly why did it need to tell lies as to the reason for closing his account.
Oh and before anyone comes on and says it’s because he did not meet their economic criteria I know of at least 3 people who have an account with them that don't meet it either.
Not interested in getting in to an argument with the usual crew about Farage,I already know your opinions of him.
My post is about whether someone should be allowed within the Bank, to become Judge and Jury and if so,they should at least be required to real reasons why they are doing something.

It’s amazing isn’t it.
You know all the facts and reached a decision based on the **** claiming to have a document that no one else has seen and the bank not being allowed to defend itself because of data protection laws.
Jog on.

 

[halfmist]

It’s amazing isn’t it.
You know all the facts and reached a decision based on the **** claiming to have a document that no one else has seen and the bank not being allowed to defend itself because of data protection laws.
Jog on.

With the risk of repeating myself, my point is not about him.
To take it down to your level, if someone was barred from taking a job because he was in a Trades Union you no doubt would be hopping up and down defending their rights.