Debanking

[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.

[Potter]

Natwest have apologised to Farage and basically admitted to what he accused them of.

Screwdriver was right on the button, again.

[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

[Potter]

I read it yesterday on the BBC where it painted it a bit differently. They seemed to be offering up a lame defense but basically saying it’s a fair cop.

[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.

[Potter]

I’m out and about and on my phone, but a quick read c&p grab shows…


“It also said a decision taken in May 2022 to continue classifying Mr Farage as a Politically Exposed Person or PEP was "incorrect".”

And the treatment of him was wrong.
Along with a load of piffle so they aren’t completely diving under the bus.

It cost their gaffer her job, led to a review and a public apology.

[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.

[Potter]

"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.

That’s the story they’d like to sell - “We’re dead honest guv and it was just all a big misunderstanding “.

But Farage exposed a bit more than that and they’d like to play it down - except they haven’t managed to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes and their share price tells it’s own tale.

[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.

[Potter]

I’ve got no special sympathy for him, he’s a hard man to like - but then so are some of us and I wouldn’t like to be screwed over by my bank just because of my entirely law abiding activities or views.

[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.

[Potter]

Treating people fairly in the 21st century and beyond is a big deal where banks and digital transactions are essential or you’re severely disadvantaged.

Banks have become as powerful as countries or governments and it is critical they are held to account for being unfair.

[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.