The Bank of Farage

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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 they should have been upfront with him. It looks like they gambled this approach would land better.

I think we’re way beyond the optics of this now though. Yesterday I was leaning towards old-fashioned upper class snobbery as the reason for wanting to get rid of Farage, the sort of person a snooty-nosed upper class twit might snort at and call an ‘odious little oik’ or somesuch. It now looks very much as if the fault line lies between the socially conservative and socially liberal views that divide this country (those on one side shout ‘woke’ at the other, the others shout back ‘gammon’).

‘Inclusivity and purpose’ isn’t about Farage’s connection with Trump, Putin or Brexit per se, but the social views Coutts believe are driving him. Alarm bells should be ringing here for all of us, because there is now an entirely plausible claim that the bank tried to bin him for his association with certain social/political causes. If that’s the case we need to be thinking long and hard about the extent to which we allow major corporations to police the socio-political views of the population.

---------- Post added at 12:32 ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Could it not equally be considered that they weighed up the merits of retaining him despite not meeting their criteria?

The final payment on his mortgage is the point where he no longer met the criteria. It doesn’t need to be a pretext for anything - it’s the exact moment it’s appropriate to bin him under their own rules .

Except that there is clearly a lot of flexibility over how the ‘rules’ are applied once you have a foot in the door, and there is no evidence that his finances flagged up on any automatic system designed to draw attention to accounts that no longer met those rules.

They were *looking* for reasons to bin him, and while their own rules on investment/borrowing were actually adequate reasons for doing so, they were not the reasons that drove the process, nor were they the ones that sealed his fate.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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 they should have been upfront with him. It looks like they gambled this approach would land better.

So what proportion of the document wasn't biased nonsense? Eg "Team uncovered adverse press." and goes on to list some of them. How many of their high-profile clients wouldn't have "adverse press"?
Link

Jon Sopel has apologised to Nigel Farage after dismissing his claims about his bank account being shut for political reasons.
...

Mr Sopel said today: "Dear Nigel, always believed when I get things wrong, I own up to it. I got it wrong. Sorry. That will teach me to trust reporting of my old employer.
"If your political views were even part of the reason why account was suspended from Coutts that is totally reprehensible. Jon."
BBC's North America editor;

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

How many of their high-profile clients wouldn't have "adverse press"?

Surely that’s for them to manage for those that don’t meet the criteria.

I fear for the future of the British state as a chumocracy if we start telling exclusive institutions they have to let anyone in.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So what proportion of the document wasn't biased nonsense? Eg "Team uncovered adverse press." and goes on to list some of them. How many of their high-profile clients wouldn't have "adverse press"?
Link

In terms of adverse press:
- Most of Coutts' clients would try and avoid the press so would have no adverse press.
- High-profile clients would probably have some adverse press
- But shock jocks like Farage who make a living from courting controversial opinions are going to have more adverse press about them.

---------- Post added at 12:46 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

I think we’re way beyond the optics of this now though. Yesterday I was leaning towards old-fashioned upper class snobbery as the reason for wanting to get rid of Farage, the sort of person a snooty-nosed upper class twit might snort at and call an ‘odious little oik’ or somesuch. It now looks very much as if the fault line lies between the socially conservative and socially liberal views that divide this country (those on one side shout ‘woke’ at the other, the others shout back ‘gammon’).

‘Inclusivity and purpose’ isn’t about Farage’s connection with Trump, Putin or Brexit per se, but the social views Coutts believe are driving him. Alarm bells should be ringing here for all of us, because there is now an entirely plausible claim that the bank tried to bin him for his association with certain social/political causes. If that’s the case we need to be thinking long and hard about the extent to which we allow major corporations to police the socio-political views of the population

I think jonbxx nails it here

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I was thinking about this today in the shower where I have my best thoughts…

For us plebs, we decide to go with a certain supplier at least partially due to that suppliers brand. The key question is does that suppliers brand match my values and aspirations? Companies like Apple and Waitrose carefully maintain their brands as the high end option for example even if objective analysis might show other options to be better.

If the brand is strong enough, we can do little to influence it apart from walking away. Of course, if enough customers walk away, a change in the brand might be needed but on an individual level, we either accept what is offered or not. If we don’t walk away, we have endorsed that brand implicitly.

What is different here is Nigel Farages brand is incredibly strong. Like him or not, he has very carefully cultivated his position to appeal to a lot of people. The strength of his brand is such that the customer-supplier relationship has flipped round with Nigel Farage being the senior partner. If Coutts continued their relationship then they implicitly endorse Nigel Farages brand and that’s a direction that they clearly didn’t want to take

He can always bank with NatWest…

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

In terms of adverse press:
- Most of Coutts' clients would try and avoid the press so would have no adverse press.
- High-profile clients would probably have some adverse press
- But shock jocks like Farage who make a living from courting controversial opinions are going to have more adverse press about them.

---------- Post added at 12:46 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------



I think jonbxx nails it here

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

He can always bank with NatWest…

You’re wilfully missing the point.

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?

Originally Posted by Hugh

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?

Farage certainly did himself no favours with all the hyperbolic nonsense about being totally excluded from the banking system when the story first broke. But the dossier of internal Coutts debates over how to get rid of him do them no favours either. Farage’s public profile has been far higher than it is now. If they wanted to use a fairly industry-standard measure of political exposure to get rid of him then they could have done it years ago.

The questions we have to hope the FCA answers are, why hide their social-political reasons behind their financial criteria, and why now?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Except that there is clearly a lot of flexibility over how the ‘rules’ are applied once you have a foot in the door, and there is no evidence that his finances flagged up on any automatic system designed to draw attention to accounts that no longer met those rules.

What’s the point of running an exclusive institution if you don’t have some flexibility around who is (or isnt) an appropriate person.

I’m quite sure when mortgages end it flags on systems in advance and they don’t continue in perpetuity until someone notices.

They were *looking* for reasons to bin him, and while their own rules on investment/borrowing were actually adequate reasons for doing so, they were not the reasons that drove the process, nor were they the ones that sealed his fate.

Considering his views have been well known for so long they randomly came up with the idea and chanced upon the fact he’d no longer meet the criteria in a small number of months.

Originally Posted by jfman

What’s the point of running an exclusive institution if you don’t have some flexibility around who is (or isnt) an appropriate person.

Politics shouldn't be a reason. It's a really dangerous and dodgy ground to be on. I could understand if it's someone universally accepted as beyond the pale, if a white nationalist KKK member wanted it then I think we can accept that, but Farage is well within the standard spectrum of political opinion.

Also, I imagine a lot of PEP-flagged people bank with Coutts so that clearly isn't a reason.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

Politics shouldn't be a reason. It's a really dangerous and dodgy ground to be on. I could understand if it's someone universally accepted as beyond the pale, if a white nationalist KKK member wanted it then I think we can accept that, but Farage is well within the standard spectrum of political opinion.

Also, I imagine a lot of PEP-flagged people bank with Coutts so that clearly isn't a reason.

I didn’t say politics was the reason. I only responded to the observation that there’s flexibility as if that’s some kind of shock.

If he (or anyone) doesn’t meet their criteria it’s up to them how they manage their reputation and brand. That’s surely a basic premise of the free market, especially if someone is vocal about the fact they use your products or services.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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?

The offer came AFTER his account was closed and AFTER several other banks turned him down.

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:22 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

I didn’t say politics was the reason. I only responded to the observation that there’s flexibility as if that’s some kind of shock.

If he (or anyone) doesn’t meet their criteria it’s up to them how they manage their reputation and brand. That’s surely a basic premise of the free market, especially if someone is vocal about the fact they use your products or services.

Define "vocal". Is that mentioning it once or frequently?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The offer came AFTER his account was closed and AFTER several other banks turned him down.

That’s the story here, 52% of the country voted for Brexit - the greatest democratic mandate in the history of this great nation so I hear - yet every single bank he goes to turns him down for political reasons. Doesn’t add up.

Define "vocal". Is that mentioning it once or frequently?

It wouldn’t be for me to dictate to capitalist enterprises who value their reputations. They can do that themselves using their entrepreneurial spirit.

Originally Posted by nomadking

The offer came AFTER his account was closed and AFTER several other banks turned him down.

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:22 ----------


Define "vocal". Is that mentioning it once or frequently?

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/nig...ad-2023-07-04/ (July 4th 2023)

LONDON, July 4 (Reuters) - Nigel Farage, the former Brexit party leader, said on Tuesday that British private bank Coutts had told him it was closing his accounts and had offered him a standard one with its parent group NatWest (NWG.L) instead.

Not "after his account was closed", but when he was told his accounts were going to be closed…

He said he had been offered a NatWest account on June 29 after he complained publicly about losing his accounts, adding he has been given a postponement of a few weeks before his Coutts accounts are closed.

BREAKING: NatWest CEO Apologises to Farage for ‘deeply inappropriate comments’ on documents outlining why his account was closed.

---------- Post added at 17:41 ---------- Previous post was at 17:35 ----------

Do most of you feel stupid in this thread?

Some of you ought to be, given that grovelling apology to him just released.