The Bank of Farage

Originally Posted by jfman

Stitched up by the BBC who in turn currently have live rolling coverage on their website.

She didn't have to discuss (and lie) about his account.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

She didn't have to discuss (and lie) about his account.

Of course.

However the BBC at the same time didn’t have to spin it beyond what she claims she said. Given the current climate at the BBC it’s difficult to believe their journalistic claims of integrity.

The BBC have been unscrupulous throughout this entire process selectively reporting by omitting Coutts own reasoning: commercial ones.

Even today the City Minister has been allowed to imply - unchallenged - that the decision was for political reasons.

City Minister Andrew Griffith has told the BBC that the resignation of NatWest chief executive Alison Rose was right.

He said: "This would never have happened if NatWest had not taken it upon itself to withdraw a bank account due to someone’s lawful political views.

"That was and is always unacceptable."

He added the whole finance sector "should learn from this" and not tell clients "how or what to think".

Mr Griffith will meet banks today to discuss plans to bring in changes requiring banks to explain and delay decisions to close accounts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-66296935
(7.13 time stamp)

This will send a shiver through the spine of our financial sector that Government interference in commercial matters may not be too far away if it impacts their cronies. While of course the Government is a huge shareholder in Natwest, it’s not because we have a penchant for state intervention it was the only thing preventing them from collapse. Until now seemingly, for overtly political reasons.

Originally Posted by jfman

Stitched up by the BBC who in turn currently have live rolling coverage on their website.

A bizarre conclusion.

She wanted to influence BBC reporting of an unfolding scandal affecting her company, played the anonymous briefing game and lost. As did the BBC, for trusting her. Hence apologies all round earlier this week.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

A bizarre conclusion.

She wanted to influence BBC reporting of an unfolding scandal affecting her company, played the anonymous briefing game and lost. As did the BBC, for trusting her. Hence apologies all round earlier this week.

Presumably the BBC had a second source? Or do the rules only apply to reporting in some cases but not others. If there’s no second source why do we have to take their word for how it’s been reported on the basis of one - anonymously.

They’ve played fast and loose with their own rules and got their journalist and source burned. An error so egregious one can only question whether it was intentional - either on behalf of Farage, or the Government who are out batting for Farage.

The state broadcaster going out their way to further Government and their cronies interests is something more worthy of Putin’s Russia than a democracy. Optics that can be only damaging to “global Britain”. Your investments and commercial decisions are only good so long as with a nudge and a wink the right people get the right outcomes.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The BBC have been unscrupulous throughout this entire process selectively reporting by omitting Coutts own reasoning: commercial ones.

Even today the City Minister has been allowed to imply - unchallenged - that the decision was for political reasons.

I'm no fan of the BBC or any MSM, but the decision to debank Farage was political.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'm no fan of the BBC or any MSM, but the decision to debank Farage was political.

I don’t believe it is to be honest, his mortgage ends and he no longer met the criteria. They decided the additional costs of keeping him on the books (economic considerations in the dossier) meant it wasn’t viable to keep him on. A bread and butter financial decision for any capitalist entity. It’s there in black and white.

All the while this schadenfreude distracts from the fact every other bank he’s approached turned him down. Did all of them vote remain?

If binning Farage for political reasons was a thing why not ten years ago?

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Damien

She didn't have to discuss (and lie) about his account.

lie? do we know that he met the criteria? I do not think he did after he paid off his mortgage. Proof anyone?

Otherwise, I am appalled with Coutts's behaviour.

We've seen the documents. They decided they didn't want his business because of the reputational risk. However, she told the BBC it was because he didn't meet the income threshold, even though he did.

It's pretty simple to me. She lied.

[Ms NTL]

Originally Posted by Damien

We've seen the documents. They decided they didn't want his business because of the reputational risk. However, she told the BBC it was because he didn't meet the income threshold, even though he did.

It's pretty simple to me. She lied.

Did he meet the criteria? Yes or no. Proof?

That's the question.

I agree with the rest.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t believe it is to be honest, his mortgage ends and he no longer met the criteria. They decided the additional costs of keeping him on the books (economic considerations in the dossier) meant it wasn’t viable to keep him on. A bread and butter financial decision for any capitalist entity. It’s there in black and white.

All the while this schadenfreude distracts from the fact every other bank he’s approached turned him down. Did all of them vote remain?

If binning Farage for political reasons was a thing why not ten years ago?

A large part of the discussion document was purely political. If the decision wasn't political, why discuss political matters unless they were to be relevant to any decision making process?
The reason for now rather than earlier, is a change of policy by NatWest to be more "inclusive" etc.

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.

Originally Posted by Ms NTL

Did he meet the criteria? Yes or no. Proof?

That's the question.

I agree with the rest.

The documents Farage obtained said it was a decision based on this public perception with no mention he didn't meet the threshold. The BBC apologised for that story, the bank apologised, and the woman who leaked to the BBC apologised and resigned.

Seems pretty clear the story was wrong.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Damien

The documents Farage obtained said it was a decision based on this public perception with no mention he didn't meet the threshold. The BBC apologised for that story, the bank apologised, and the woman who leaked to the BBC apologised and resigned.

Seems pretty clear the story was wrong.

The documents Hugh linked to clearly say he doesn’t meet the threshold once his mortgage expires, and redacts his “economic contribution” to the bank.

Now Nige wants the entire NatWest Board to resign…

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Now Nige wants the entire NatWest Board to resign…

Then the Financial Conduct Authority, then the Chancellor, then the Government, then everyone else in world .....

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

A large part of the discussion document was purely political. If the decision wasn't political, why discuss political matters unless they were to be relevant to any decision making process?
The reason for now rather than earlier, is a change of policy by NatWest to be more "inclusive" etc.

NatWest are offering him a bank account where many institutions have not. What he isn’t being offered is the prestige or status he seeks.

---------- Post added at 12:27 ---------- Previous post was at 11:50 ----------

Now we are getting somewhere:

BBC live feed at 12.00
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-66296935

Two MPs say they have been refused bank accounts
Two MPs have told the BBC they have been refused bank accounts due to being considered a Politically Exposed Person (PEP), which puts them at higher risk of bribery and corruption.

The first MP said the problem was "absolutely rife" in banking and they'd had "no joy" trying to open a bank account for office expenditure and it made things "too complicated" to open a joint account.

A second MP said they'd been warned by a predecessor that "I would have an awful lot of trouble like this", adding "loads of colleagues are facing the same".

They said: "One bank turned me down when I was applying for a remortgage earlier this year on the basis that I was a PEP.

"Even being accepted involved much longer for them to do extra checks.

"I also had to change accountants because they would no longer take me on."

With an exodus of Conservative MPs from their jobs in the next 18 months they’re concerned for their own status and want to use the dying embers of the Sunak administration to legislate to protect themselves.

I wonder how the other 61% of NatWest shareholders feel being used as a political football by a corrupt Government.