Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Andrew Neil has been going over the ‘dossier’ of Coutts internal discussions about how to get rid of Farage’s accounts and they are not nearly as dispassionate as you’re making them out to be.
Killer quotes: “… his publicly stated views … are at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.”
“… not a political decision but one entered around inclusivity and purpose.”
The documents also show that Coutts planned to use the final paying down of his mortgage, which was due to occur this month, as the pretext for closing his accounts, on the basis that he was no longer a “criteria client” (not borrowing or investing enough). The discussion about his views as the real reason for de-banking him was not supposed to get out.
Had they intended to use perfectly understandable, industry-wide criteria about political exposure as the reason to de-bank him, you would have thought they could have just been up-front and said so. It’s clear, however, that they attempted to hide their disapproval of his views behind the natural winding-down of his mortgage.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/16...56-Kgau3lzowJw |
None of that supports the argument that the document was "filled with biased nonsense" which is the point I was contesting with Nomad.
I've previously posted and discussed the section that referred to inclusivity and Purpose.
I agree that based on the above, they should have been upfront with him. However, as jfman says, there's a good case to be made that he no longer met their criteria once the mortgage was paid off so they would have been correct in closing his accounts. If so, why throw petrol on the fire by talking about Purpose an inclusivity?