Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
So we have no need to worry that a major corporation thinks it’s its job to police our politics because we’re not important enough to be noticed? Colour me reassured. Not.
There’s a question of principle here, not least because how corporations treat well known holders of certain opinions can have a chilling effect lower down the ladder of celebrity. We can’t have a situation develop where businesses get to decide which social views are articulated or are acceptable. If nothing else, businesses, particularly large, public listed ones, have no intrinsic morals or social views outside of what they think works best with their marketing strategy. It’s a dangerously capricious state of affairs which shouldn’t be allowed to become normalised.
---------- Post added at 12:55 ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 ----------
You’re wilfully missing the point.
|
No, one of his main points was that he couldn’t get a bank account.
Coutts appear to have decided that, as a bank who are a byword for discretion, the potential downside of having a professional self-publicist whose main aim in life seems to be to stir up outrage, wasn’t worth the effort.
Let’s see what the FCA investigation brings about - but I’m pretty sure that if it finds no fault in the process, more faux-victimisation will result.
Strange how all Osborne’s stories about peoples’ bank accounts being closed were ignored, but this story is being blown up out of all proportion (imho) - I wonder what the difference could be?