The Bank of Farage

[ianch99]

Comparing Coutts to generic "High Street" banks is flawed. They are a private bank, as been noted above, with (I suspect) a very discerning clientele so (not) having someone so toxic as a customer may be purely a business decision for them. One they are entitled to make.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Comparing Coutts to generic "High Street" banks is flawed. They are a private bank, as been noted above, with (I suspect) a very discerning clientele so (not) having someone so toxic as a customer may be purely a business decision for them. One they are entitled to make.

They’re a subsidiary of NatWest plc and subject to the same laws and industry regulations as every other bank.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

None of which is in any way relevant to a bank closing someone’s account because they don’t like their politics.

I don't think it's been established that this is why Farage's accounts are being closed.

[jfman]

And the parent - NatWest plc - are offering him banking services.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I don't think it's been established that this is why Farage's accounts are being closed.

Perhaps not, but the story is definitely inching in that direction. It certainly isn’t because he fell below the income/investment threshold, which is what Coutts have previously let slip, and is probably the only reason the public at large would be sympathetic about, as Coutts is known as the Royal family’s bank.

Side note, years ago when I was treasurer of the Christian Union at my uni I received a very generous donation from a student in the form of a Coutts cheque. I was suitably impressed by the bank’s name though at the time I had insufficient life experience to join the dots and realise just how utterly minted this bloke must have been. . From that day to this, that’s my one single brush with the world of Coutts.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by jfman

And the parent - NatWest plc - are offering him banking services.

But that's for the rifraff/commoners? Sir Nige deserves a gold embossed cheque book and a free piggy bank.

Could be argued he's made the UK and therefore banks significantly poorer.

Originally Posted by jfman

And the parent - NatWest plc - are offering him banking services.

Indeed. I tend to think the story here is just utter snobbery on all sides. Coutts don’t want the likes of him, and he doesn’t want to stand in the queue with the likes of us.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

They’re a subsidiary of NatWest plc and subject to the same laws and industry regulations as every other bank.

Yes, there are laws and regulation for the plebs and there are those for the "special" people

Seriously though, if you are going down this road then it is discriminately to reject someone because they have less than the required £3m in savings

Originally Posted by ianch99

Yes, there are laws and regulation for the plebs and there are those for the "special" people

Seriously though, if you are going down this road then it is discriminately to reject someone because they have less than the required £3m in savings

I’m pretty sure that allowing/barring individuals from specific financial products based on their ability to service them at a specified level is actually a feature of the entire banking system rather than an act of discrimination. It’s the very reason why the regulations require banks to offer ‘basic banking’ accounts, so that those who don’t match anyone’s criteria aren’t excluded from the system.

(I suspect, without having looked into it, that those basic products are considered to have been adequately delivered as long as they’re available somewhere within the bank’s business, without having to be replicated under each subsidiary brand the business operates).

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

How about Northern Irish bakeries?

1) And look at all the fuss made over that.
2) it wasn't the customers they had a problem with, but the message on the cake that they were asked to do. If it had been a simple "happy birthday" message, then no problem.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Chris

In case you forgot (though I suspect you haven’t), Ashers never refused service, they simply refused to reproduce a specific campaigning slogan that did not align with their company’s values. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Ashers won.

It is now established case law in the UK that nobody can be forced to promote a message they fundamentally disagree with. That case law cannot be overturned by any British court, given that it’s the decision of the highest court in the land. Only Parliament could change it, by writing legislation that would amount to compelling speech - a hopelessly illiberal idea that is vastly, vastly unlikely ever to occur.

None of which is in any way relevant to a bank closing someone’s account because they don’t like their politics.

What the case did show is that business can choose not to serve a customer outside of reasons of discrimination due to protected categories. This is the case here. I have read the published memo now and it looks like the bank decided that the reputational and potential future regulatory risk was not worth it. It’s public knowledge that Nigel Farage is a Coutts customer and the risk managers didn’t want the bank to be associated with his statements and positions.

The only way out is regulation to force banks to keep and possibly accept new customers. Is more banking regulation really what Nigel Farage and his friends want?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I don't think it's been established that this is why Farage's accounts are being closed.

Yes it has. The document used for the basis of the decision has been released.

Minutes of a meeting of Coutts’ wealth reputational risk committee held on Nov 17 2022 state: “The committee did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.
“This was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose.”

So to be inclusive, they excluded him.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I don't think it's been established that this is why Farage's accounts are being closed.

Not sure I believe the banks, who wouldn't believe him when he spoke of future uplands and who in their right mind wouldn't accept a promissory note from him. Bit surprised he's admitted banking with them tbh, kind of shatters his man of the people act

Originally Posted by Chris

Perhaps not, but the story is definitely inching in that direction. It certainly isn’t because he fell below the income/investment threshold, which is what Coutts have previously let slip, and is probably the only reason the public at large would be sympathetic about, as Coutts is known as the Royal family’s bank.

Side note, years ago when I was treasurer of the Christian Union at my uni I received a very generous donation from a student in the form of a Coutts cheque. I was suitably impressed by the bank’s name though at the time I had insufficient life experience to join the dots and realise just how utterly minted this bloke must have been. . From that day to this, that’s my one single brush with the world of Coutts.

My only brush was with a customer at Ondigital, I actually asked him if he was a royal and he said only distantly

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Yes it has. The document used for the basis of the decision has been released.

We've had some selected leaks. We've nothing in black and white that says what you're alleging. Stating that some of Farage's views (eg admiration of Putin, lockdown scepticism) are not aligned with Coutts' views does not mean that's the reason they let go of him.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Coutts comes out of this well if they leaked misinformation to the BBC.

Originally Posted by jonbxx

What the case did show is that business can choose not to serve a customer outside of reasons of discrimination due to protected categories.

The Supreme Court found that Ashers did not refuse to serve a customer, they refused to take on a specific project requested by a customer. You might think that amounts to counting angels on a pinhead but the distinction is legally important. The plaintiff in the ‘gay cake’ case is still welcome to enter and purchase goods from Ashers shops in Northern Ireland, in the unlikely event they might want to. But if they ask a branch to make a cake celebrating Pride week they can expect to be refused that specific request, and Ashers are entitled to do so.