The Bank of Farage

[jfman]

So is he going to get off his soap box and sign up with NatWest, and stay in these glorious sunlit uplands or is he off to France with no neck Neil.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

So is he going to get off his soap box and sign up with NatWest, and stay in these glorious sunlit uplands or is he off to France with no neck Neil.

Well, I wonder how many other banks will want such a drama queen on their books?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

So is he going to get off his soap box and sign up with NatWest, and stay in these glorious sunlit uplands or is he off to France with no neck Neil.

He is always playing the victim as usual.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

BBC reporting he doesn’t have the assets for Coutts and got offered a pleb account with Natwest.

Minor detail, but he didn't have the assets etc, long before then. Also apparently the offer of an alternative account was made AFTER the story broke and no business account offered.
Still doesn't explain the refusal of other banks and refusals of various other people for unspecified reasons.
More cases.

One whistleblower who worked in a Santander branch helping with complaints, told MailOnline today that the bank is on a ‘really toxic path’ and has been ‘policing the views of their customers’. He said LGBT groups in the bank had pressured bosses to axe one customer because she complained about Pride flags in branches and told them to stick to banking.
...

'This went round in circles for days before a member of staff ended up calling the customer to try and educate her on why what she had said was offensive.

...

'This caused uproar with the staff involved, supported by the LGBT network, as they felt the customer should have been closed'.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Minor detail, but he didn't have the assets etc, long before then. Also apparently the offer of an alternative account was made AFTER the story broke and no business account offered.
Still doesn't explain the refusal of other banks and refusals of various other people for unspecified reasons.

That's what he says about NatWest. And the other banks are probably private banks as well.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Minor detail, but he didn't have the assets etc, long before then. Also apparently the offer of an alternative account was made AFTER the story broke and no business account offered.
Still doesn't explain the refusal of other banks and refusals of various other people for unspecified reasons.
More cases.

Imagine being so hate filled you complain to the probably minimum wage staff about a pride flag rather than just get on with your day on the premise of live and let live.

Welcome to the culture war.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Minor detail, but he didn't have the assets etc, long before then. Also apparently the offer of an alternative account was made AFTER the story broke and no business account offered.

I don't think you've taken on board jfman's point from the other day. There is a world of difference between Farage stating something to be so and it actually being so.

Where is the evidence that:
- He didn't have the assets long before then?
- He was only offered an account at NatWest after the story broke?
- NatWest did not offer him a business account?

Farage needs to put up or shut up.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Still doesn't explain the refusal of other banks and refusals of various other people for unspecified reasons.

We don't know that the reasons were unspecified. Again, you're taking his word as gospel. Damien has pointed out that he lied about not knowing Coutts had eligibility criteria so could well have lied about this too. Other private banks have income and asset criteria to Coutts - they're not mass market offerings.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Imagine being so hate filled you complain to the probably minimum wage staff about a pride flag rather than just get on with your day on the premise of live and let live.

Welcome to the culture war.

Only permitted opinions allowed then? Who gets to say what is and isn't "permitted"?
What did the banks expect it to achieve? Costly exercise and wasteful of resources.

---------- Post added at 18:51 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I don't think you've taken on board jfman's point from the other day. There is a world of difference between Farage stating something to be so and it actually being so.

Where is the evidence that:
- He didn't have the assets long before then?
- He was only offered an account at NatWest after the story broke?
- NatWest did not offer him a business account?

Farage needs to put up or shut up.


We don't know that the reasons were unspecified. Again, you're taking his word as gospel. Damien has pointed out that he lied about not knowing Coutts had eligibility criteria so could well have lied about this too. Other private banks have income and asset criteria to Coutts - they're not mass market offerings.

How on earth is he expected to prove any of that? How does he prove that NatWest didn't offer him a business account and before he raised the issue in the press.
Still doesn't explain all the other stories of banks cancelling other people.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Only permitted opinions allowed then? Who gets to say what is and isn't "permitted"?
What did the banks expect it to achieve? Costly exercise and wasteful of resources

Nobody is preventing a banking customer from holding an opinion, regardless of how wrong it is.

A costly exercise and a waste of resources sounds like a perfect description of arguing with bank staff on bank premises and/or engaging their correspondence departments, who will have no real say on whether the bank marketing department strategically goes after the pink pound.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

How on earth is he expected to prove any of that? How does he prove that NatWest didn't offer him a business account and before he raised the issue in the press.

If he says Coutts wrote to him with no explanation and no offer of an account at NatWest then show us the letter. These days with mobile phones a redacted letter can be up on Twitter in less than a minute.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Still doesn't explain all the other stories of banks cancelling other people.

One vicar who sent a potentially offensive contact form does not make an extensive list of case study material.

If any customer genuinely thinks they have been mistreated then they can contact the Financial Ombudsman. I've yet to see any evidence that this is more than just a couple of snowflakes playing the victim card. They need to put up or shut up. Let's see that vicar's ranty contact form and judge for ourselves whether it was offensive or not.

[1andrew1]

A good summary.

There is a saying in journalism that some stories are simply ‘too good to check’. The joke here is that if a story perfectly fits the agenda of a particular publication, then it will set aside usual journalist scrutiny and simply print the claims as fact.

When it comes to these headline-grabbing claims of a right-wing politician being shut down by an ‘elite’ establishment because of his supposedly ‘politically incorrect’ views, that is exactly what appears to have happened.

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/07/04/n...good-to-check/

A.k.a. ‘Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story’, an axiom you will almost certainly hear as a junior reporter within 10 minutes of going to work in any newsroom. It’s a misquote of ‘never let the truth get in the way of a good story’, usually attributed to Mark Twain.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If he says Coutts wrote to him with no explanation and no offer of an account at NatWest then show us the letter. These days with mobile phones a redacted letter can be up on Twitter in less than a minute.
One vicar who sent a potentially offensive contact form does not make an extensive list of case study material.

If any customer genuinely thinks they have been mistreated then they can contact the Financial Ombudsman. I've yet to see any evidence that this is more than just a couple of snowflakes playing the victim card. They need to put up or shut up. Let's see that vicar's ranty contact form and judge for ourselves whether it was offensive or not.

The letter came after he raised the issue. Whether the letter was on it's way already, doesn't matter, as it was the TRUTH at the time.


More than one case. Metro Bank refused to open an account for an organisation.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The letter came after he raised the issue. Whether the letter was on it's way already, doesn't matter, as it was the TRUTH at the time.

More than one case. Metro Bank refused to open an account for an organisation.

Must be true if it’s in capital letters.

[ianch99]

So, the general consensus is that Farage lied. Who knew?