Debanking

[Mr. Dazzle]

I do wonder how much modern Paranoia (probably not the right word but conveys something of my meaning) is down to, ironically, greater transparency and information availability.

Look at the East India Company or United Fruit for some proper historic cuntyness.

[Screwdriver]

Hardly accurate to say it was state sponsored. ...

No, I guess I am being sardonic. Might just as well be "state sponsored" with the very politicians who make the rules benefitting themselves by getting in (and out!) of this scam with sacks of cash..

[gremlin]

Hardly accurate to say it was state sponsored. ...

No, I guess I am being sardonic. Might just as well be "state sponsored" with the very politicians who make the rules benefitting themselves by getting in (and out!) of this scam with sacks of cash..

SBF was (is) a slippery fecker. Public donations to the Democrats as it looked good to the press and young investors, with under-the-table donations to the Republicans, all to make sure the regulators looked the other way in terms of crypto oversight, whoever won the election.

[Screwdriver]

SBF was (is) a slippery fecker. Public donations to the Democrats as it looked good to the press and young investors, with under-the-table donations to the Republicans, all to make sure the regulators looked the other way in terms of crypto oversight, whoever won the election.

Yeah, they're as thick as thieves. Democrat/Republican is no longer "chalk and cheese", they're as different as "shit and manure".

Politics is no longer a service for the community, it is a business for the politicians.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Natwest have apologised to Farage

That was 3-4 months ago?

In more recent news, an independent review (commissioned by NatWest ) said at the end of the day it's all about the dollar:

NatWest group’s decision to close Nigel Farage’s accounts at its private bank Coutts was lawful, but there were “serious failings” in its treatment of the former Ukip leader, an independent review has found.

Lawyers hired by NatWest determined that Coutts had a “contractual right” to shut Farage’s accounts, and had done so because the bank was losing money by keeping him as a client.

While Coutts also considered that there was a reputational risk of keeping Farage as a customer, it had not discriminated against him, despite raising concerns that his views on issues including migration, race, gender or Brexit did not align with its own, the law firm said.

“Coutts considered its relationship with Mr Farage to be commercially unviable because it was significantly loss-making,” said the report by the law firm Travers Smith, and added that it was “highly probable that the exit decision would not have been made had Coutts deemed the relationship with the client to be commercially viable”.



From the Grauniad, so unlikely to be ravingly pro-Farage,

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ort-coutts

[Mr. Dazzle]

Report says pretty much the opposite.

He was booted for being too poor/loss making. The reputation thing is a distraction.

The apology is for making his details public, not the actual booting. Not that Farage wants you to realise that, of course.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Yeah it did, and plenty of mistakes made. But the central message (that Farage seems to want us to believe) that "Farage was debanked for his political views" doesn't seem to be accurate.

"Farage was debanked for not making enough money, Coutts made a right hash of executing that" seems to be more the case from what I can see.

[Mussels]

Yeah it did, and plenty of mistakes made. But the central message (that Farage seems to want us to believe) that "Farage was debanked for his political views" doesn't seem to be accurate.

"Farage was debanked for not making enough money, Coutts made a right hash of executing that" seems to be more the case from what I can see.

If his political views were assessed then they were part of the decision to get rid of him, if it had been an attractive customer then they may have kept them despite the financial hit.

Apart from that it makes a mockery of UK data protection, as long as a company finds a sacrificial lamb then they don't get a fine.

[Mr. Dazzle]

If his political views were assessed then they were part of the decision to get rid of him, if it had been an attractive customer then they may have kept them despite the financial hit.

The very existence of the shading sounding "Reputational Risk Committee" demonstrates that yes, that's the case and probably has been for a long time. Probably (almost certainly) still is the case.

The report also makes the opposite case - if he'd been commercially viable they'd probably also have kept him on as a customer despite his views.

Like I said, all about the dollar! It's a bank after all.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I don't for one moment believe Coutts (or any bank) is full of heart of gold Mr. Mainwarings.

I just also don't believe they've gone woke and debanked Herr Farage for his views on Brexit. They debanked him 'cause he - via a number of effects - cost them money. Good old fashioned greed and fuck ups from what I can see.

[DefTrap]

I think I'm fine with unfairness being applied to massive bellends like Farage. Debank him properly so he has to pay for his shopping in cash, luncheon vouchers and postal orders.

[Mr. Dazzle]

That's not what happened to Farage either, so it's fine

Edit: Unfairness though right? I imagine I probably said up there ^^^ several times that you're having a giraffe if you think Banks (or loads of other institutions) treat people fairly, or ever have in the last few centuries. That's well...unfair...but it's not new.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

I think I'm fine with unfairness being applied to massive bellends like Farage. Debank him properly so he has to pay for his shopping in cash, luncheon vouchers and postal orders.

And will you be fine with that unfairness when your bank decides you're a massive bellend (I've beaten them to that decision)

[Yambo]

In more recent news, an independent review (commissioned by NatWest ) said at the end of the day it's all about the dollar:

NatWest group’s decision to close Nigel Farage’s accounts at its private bank Coutts was lawful, but there were “serious failings” in its treatment of the former Ukip leader, an independent review has found.

Lawyers hired by NatWest determined that Coutts had a “contractual right” to shut Farage’s accounts, and had done so because the bank was losing money by keeping him as a client.



“Coutts considered its relationship with Mr Farage to be commercially unviable because it was significantly loss-making,” said the report by the law firm Travers Smith, and added that it was “highly probable that the exit decision would not have been made had Coutts deemed the relationship with the client to be commercially viable”.

The bits in bold are meaningless drivel.

Are they seriously trying to say that one person/customer is causing them significant losses? Seriously?

Until they quantify those losses they're just making excuses. It's simply a mechanism for justifying their actions.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Why would they allow/have any customers who make them a loss? My bank wouldn't do that for me.

One man might not put them out of business, but if you don't keep tabs on the losses of each man then it soon adds up.

I read that as significant in the context of one person.

[DefTrap]

And will you be fine with that unfairness when your bank decides you're a massive bellend (I've beaten them to that decision)

I'm fine with those kind words anyway. Heartwarming.

Yes I'm fine with businesses denying services to folk they don't want to do business with. Happens all the time. Most of us don't have friends in high places, a publicity machine, or a chorus of deluded sycophants to back us up though.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Iccy does make a valid point though, banks have a lot of power over you and it's right to consider how that's managed as the world changes.

Farage would of course like you to believe he's the original champion of this cause, but he's not. The law already gives you the right to a bank account for example, partly cause of things like this...it did that before Farage found his new cause/platform.

On rhe flip side though, as I probably already said, I do think people need to drop the entitlement sometimes. Businesses (not just banks) don't have to do business with you and you don't have god given free reign to share your chin music. You can say what you like but then people can do business with whomever they like too.

[JamJar]

Just to remind everyone, at no point was Farage not going to have a bank account, he was just downgraded from a prestige account to a normal one. Happens to normal people all the time.

[Yorick]

Just to remind everyone, at no point was Farage not going to have a bank account, he was just downgraded from a prestige account to a normal one. Happens to normal people all the time.

No, no. Don't stop the experts telling us we're all idiots

[gremlin]

S'not all bad news:

Cap on bankers' bonuses to be scrapped
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67206997


Wait...hold on...just remembered I work for a sanctimonious financial institution that doesn't dish 'em out. Bugger.