@@geoffersvoiceofreason2534 I think you will find that the bank has the same view. Farage has associated with far right people like Tommy Robinson. The bank has a right to decide what customers they have. Farage was offered a normal Nat West account but declined it as he wanted to be a customer of an elite bank. He didn't want a normal account like the rest of us have. A man of the people? Do me a favour!
Perfect example of how the Soviet Union, and Marxists have won, this ridiculous Marxist inspired rubbish is permeating all of our society, the root of this, being our Universities, where tax payers pay Marxists to indoctrinate the next generation of wise fools. If you accept help from the state, you hand power to these people, they only want equality at any price for us, they'll stay in the ethereal state, away from the plebs.
@@GaryJohnWalker1hat?. Natwest is behind it. The entire banking system is acting to pervert democracy to their benefit. But worse, not to the benefit of shareholders and customers, but like their personal power structure.
And that right there is the litmus test - no other bank would accept him. Its a political/thought crime in the opinion of someone/some organistaion who has the power to summarily decide or judge with absolute impunity.
He's broke, been chucked out of Coutts. Has another account with another bank now. Farage is just a whinney clown. When is going to sue them if he is such an injured party. No, he's just grifting again.
If Natwest group had any regard for the regulations or respect for the FCA, this would not have happened. Not to this one case, but to enormous numbers of people. This case demonstrates that the banks are utterly out of control and the FCA have been so ineffective that we now face a crisis of confidence in the financial services industry. Most people do not have the resources of Nigel Farage and have been put in the same position and bullied by their bank. If confidence is to return there must be a real example of the enforcement of existing regulations and further development of better regulation and regulatory processes. This issue threatens the fundamental basis upon which democracy stands. The CEO of a bank seems to think that they can use/abuse their position to control democratic process with the belief that they can continue to get away with it. They have even behaved in collusion with the BBC to publish what we now know are outright lies. Government must act very decively to stop this crisis expanding exponentially. It is good to see MPs like this asking questions.
It should be illegal to terminate a bank account due to political or social opinions. It should also be a right in the law for every subject to have a right to a bank account. Forget your digital currency unless you get these two done.
There needs to be action taken on all banks.This questioning about what you want to do with your own money must stop. IF illegal activity is taking place, that is the job of the police the law, not the banks. Winifred Thompson. Northern Ireland.
FCA covering up this whole debacle. Well done Nigel, we now get a clearer picture of who gets protected and who doesn't- accounts closed for abuse of staff - what nonsense.
A lot of reputational damage in my view. I wouldn't bank with them after this but I expect they get a lot of financial help from Gates, Klaus Schab and George Soros.
Getting the feeling that the FCA are in bed with the banks and their actions. The banks seem to be getting support and a nod that their actions are correct from the FCA...disgusting.
Presumably the bank must have informed all other banks of their reasoning behind closing the accounts as the other banks refused NF an account. They may use the get out clause that they wouldn't open him an account because he was refused elsewhere, however without clear evidence the other institutions are equally at fault for refusing him an account. Sounds like some collusion may be taking place and that could well be a matter for the FCA to investigate further.
@@kalpat5753 You've only got Farage's word that he's been refused banking facilities elsewhere and he's not exactly known for his reliability when it comes to the truth.
NO One squesked when Epstein became persona non grata but maintained his banks and the poliies and others only yelled afterwards that banks kept him as a client. The hypocricy is screaming at us
Markellot -Coutts are bankers to the Royal Family -not sure it does there supposed reputation any good to be associated with anyone connected with a convicted criminal.paedophile like the late Epstein .But there again their interst is in princiPAL -not princiPLE !!!
The irony of them claiming reputation as an excuse seems to be wildly wrong, seeking their reputation seems to be dragged through the mud now. Do these people have any dealing with Target or Bud light? I would love to know if the FCA are going to question them about GDPR?
Trouble is, if all these departments, commission, and alike are full of woke people, there’s not going to be a a fair outcome. Why don’t they haul somebody in from the bank itself. Who advised the CEO of Coutts?
Banks should have to apply to a magistrate court to do this.if rejected the court fee's bounced back to bank.pay pal are also doing this with youtube monetization process.
Good to see Parliament getting involved. There is clearly a need for further regulatory control or guidance to enforce against certain types of covert discrimination. At the moment there is far too much wriggle room allowing banks to game the system to be unfair to customers but rely on plausible deniability to evade being held to account.
No, the opposite is the case, there should be no regulatory control, just transparency on the part of the banks, the regulations are meaningless. The only regulation should be contract law, and obviously Fraud.
I'd like to see a list of the "unsavioury" people, Coutts are currrently holding money for. What's the betting there are no shortage of Saudi princes and Islam Fundamentalists, not to mention Eastern European gangsters enjoying their largesse. I think we should be told.
It's a diabolical disgrace, dangerous and divisive, Coutts must be kicked out of our country as an example, and the FCA should be doing this asap. When he avoided answering the direct question you just know they'll do nothing. I would say to any bank if you offer all the individuals unfairly affected an account you would be well rewarded for your efforts.
This sounds like a descision by someone within the DE&I department of the bank who simply doesn't like Nigel and has managed to get the board who makes these discions to agree with them.
"The law is clear" - and it's explained that the relevant law was a retained EU law, which if abolished, would potentially allow banks to discriminate on political views. The MP actively tried to move on very quickly. I wonder why.
I reported Coventry Building society updated my passbook & they refused to put FULLY ITEMISED transactions in the passbook. FCA refused to do anything!
If Sunak wants any hope in the next GE, he needs to fix this. If he doesn’t, he and the other parties that also stay silent should be avoided at all costs. This is political persecution.
Mr Rathil appears to be unequivocal in saying that if someone has had their account closed for political views, this is in breach of the FCA regulations. He also seems unequivocal in saying that there appears to have been a data protection breach, if Coutts briefed the BBC, which they did, and the ICO would take that up. (Coincidentally, the BBC reporter had dinner the night before with the head of Coutts, who has pushed the DEI hard at the bank.) Understandably, Mr Rathil is covering himself by saying they can’t talk about specific cases but he’s also explicitly stating that the legislation is clear. People saying they’re a private bank and can do what they please within the law, appear to be missing the fact they’re not private, and are partially taxpayer owned.
Surely the Financial Conduct Authority would know from its own regulatory surveillance just how many people per year are being debanked and have anonymized statistics. Lawmakers need to be able to see the effects of their own or retained EU legislation.
Time for the people to demand there bailout money back with interest. All should now withdraw there funds from this bank so it can fail. Just my opinion
After my bank closed my accout, I contacted my MP. All he suggested was I should contact the FCA ,who had their hands tied behind their backs and both MP and FCA where absolutely useless. Thank you Mr Farage.
These illuminate people live in the past. Bank services are no longer a convenience, but a necessity. And I would argue that they have lost the reputation they purported to preserve through their misguided handling of this scandal.
There have been a few high profile people who had their bank accounts cancelled. Tommy Robinson, who I don't align with, and Katie Hopkins who talks a lot of common sense.
The arrogance of the banks only exudes their vile attitude towards the common man, just imagine what these people would do to us if we had no way to restrain them.
Farages account was terminated as after paying off his mortgage he no longer had sufficient funds to qualify for a Coutts account and was offered a regular Nat West account which if course was not good enough for Farages huge ego. There is no story here. Sick and tired of hearing the nonsense.
@@susansantapola Stunning, that your blind hatred should have you parrot that even after Farage has read out for all to hear, the freedom of information file they held on him, where he was called a racist, xenophobic and Brexit was mentioned forty times etc... Proverbs 27:4 Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?
If banks want to remove customers based on there views that are legally acceptable in a free country then they should never be bailed out by the tax payer and pay back all bail out money
FCA yet again asleep at the wheel....isn't it a shame that it takes one high profile person woth a platform to fully expose this....aren't the FCA supposed to be there to protect all the many others who do not have a platform....Shame on both FCA and Banking Ombudsman.Failing the people.
It's not just about politically exposed or reputation but a lot of us like using cash and get discriminated due to it or the bank themselves are putting more limitations on accounts that use cash or take cash out. We have a right to use our wages in cash if we so choose without being penalised by them. So if someone i lent money to owed me money and wanted to transfer it in bit at a time the bank has blocked and shut down there account once saying suspicious even though you can prove what was sent to that individual and what was returned by each transaction from the same individual. But if we get the full amount sent back and its a lot of money owed, the bank shut us down straight away saying fraudulent and id never see what was owed returned back to me and if the person tried to get it out in cash to return the banks called the police in to interrogate customers who want there own wages out for specific reasons like a car or a deposit saying its fraud to take cash out and you must be committing a crime as you want a few k out your own account.
Regulations should dictate that repuutational risk , should only become a consideration when there has been criminal activity on the part of the client, under threat of the bank losing its license
Its obvious that the FCA is more interested in protecting the banks rather than their purpose of protecting the bank's customers. However nobody should be surprised as all regulators become captured by those they are supposed to be regulating.
I wonder what would have happened to Coutts if they had done this to a minority person? There are a number of people from these groups who are very vocal online and in the MSM about their dislike for and what they would like to happen (or even do themselves) to 'majority' groups. As we all know you have to have the 'correct' opinions to get away with it.
@@stuartmenziesfarrant What these idiot Lefties also do not realise is that things change and if the precedent is set then it can be applied to people who share _their_ opinions if the establishment becomes as Far Right as they are Far Left. It won't come to that because most people on the Right are merely conservative with a small 'c' and wouldn't sanction this kind of behaviour. I suspect that deep down they know this is true so aren't too worried about future consequences for themselves.
Banking services shouldn't be able to be terminated by banks without the intervention of a judicial review. This would ensure the customer is protected for banks and companies political agendas. If a bank expresses a political agenda whilst the government is a shareholder of the bank they should loose there licence to trade. If any business is legal and above board and turning a profit there should be no discrimination of what that company does that applied for a loan. This is a huge problem for small business in firearm and other somewhat undesirable trades this all serves to stifle our economy and customer choice.
no one knew Nigel Farage was a Coutts customer, that is until Coutts called him names & lied to him, so reputational damaged was caused by COUTTS OWN STAFF!
I’m surprised that energy and other big household companies have not criticised Coutts and other banks who have closed down people’s accounts. These companies are paid by direct debit monthly by their customers, so, if the customers have had their accounts close, how do they pay these companies? The big question is, where does people keep their money now, they have no bank account? How do companies pay their employees who have no bank accounts. Coutts, and other banks have definitely not thought this through. Families and companies are going to suffer because of Coutts. Coutts talk of values and their reputation, but its well-known fact, banks launder money for criminal organisation, pay country dictators to overthrow other countries. These thing are well documented, and have been going on for a very long time, yet Coutts talk about their values and reputations.
How do you know they discriminate? Coutts has clear criteria established for those who wish to hold an account with them. Fartage clearly thinks he's above reading the terms and conditions because he's "above" such minor details.Time he grew up and stopped farting like a spoiled baby.
Scales of justice. Balance one side against the other. If you only have one side, it ain't no scale, and there can't be any justice or accountability. Where's the Kings voice?
Having considered this, my personal view is that Coutts are not in the wrong for cancelling Nigels account if they felt he contravened their policies. What they neglected is the duty of care aspect; they were just as discriminatory as they felt Nigel was and they should have acted on the discretionary nature of the matter, ie notified their customer and formed a review panel for individual hearing under FCA supervision. The problem is that Coutts did not seek independent council and therefore were not exercising impartiality and accountability that should form the bedrock of banking standards.
What the second guy was saying about going to the ombudsman is okay in principle but there have been reports of the ombudsman sitting on cases and not doing anything.
Nigel should take the Bank to the cleaners on a number of issues! Confidentiality, Freedom of speech/ political views, & lying to him and the BBC about his financial status!
Blaa de Blaa de blaa. Just admit it , the man was treated unfairly and was discriminated against. Going to the Ombudsman would have done nothing and would have drawn the issue out longer than was necessary. Grow some and just say they acted inappropriately
I am puzzled by the FCA man stating that the FOS can order a bank to re-open an account. FOS are limited in their decision making by what a court order can do (Paragraph 16 to Schedule 17 of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 provides that an FOS decision may be recovered by execution as if it were a court order). So if the bank flatly refused to re-open an account I think FOS would be limited to making a money order against the bank. My reasoning is that re-opening the account would be establishing a contractual relationship and that is not within the power of courts to compel. Courts can, in cases of breach of contract, give orders of specific performance but that requires a contract to exist. Closure of the account ended the contract so specific performance as a remedy isn't available.
Andrew Storm. You should be grateful Mr Farage came out with this. Banks closing accounts for our opinions is nothing new; it happened to me in 2020. If I had had access to a tv microphone then, I would've done exactly the same to warn others. Nothing to do with licking one's wounds. Banks and big firms are slowly being taken over by inexperienced, immature, freshly graduated wokerati with all its ugly consequencies.
What if the public don't agree with a Banks political stance or believe their potential reckless practices effect the country's reputation?..... can the TAX PAYERS (that bailed them out) withdraw from those banks? (together with tax payers money!!)
0:05 Kruger “… the apparent debanking of Nigel Farage...” [Comment: this phrase is a leading question, assuming that it is correct that Farage has been debanked] 0:10 Kruger “… you may be aware of Coutts's response today which has been tosay that there are three reasons that they might terminate a relationship with a client: [A] One is commercial viability; [B]the other is reputational consideration; [C]and the third is legal and regulatory requirements. 0:32 Kruger “ … are you aware of anything that the FCA might be imposing on Coutts or other banks that would cause them to terminate a relationship with somebody like Nigel Farage ...” 0:39 Reply “We are imposing something on” 0:41 Kruger (speaking over the respondent). “ are you aware, might there might be any legal regulatory requirements that could explain why Coutts has decided to debank?” [referring to 0:10 quasi-trilemma C] [Comment: this makes an assertion, using the political and politically weighted neologism “debank”, that suggests Farage has had his bank account closed, whereas he was being offered a shift to a standard bank account. ] 0:49 Reply “Not that I'm aware. [Comment: This is not a logical denial of the question, so cannot be used to refute 0:10 C. 0:52 Kruger “So the suggestion therefore is that either commercial viability or considerations” [Comment: That is a non sequitur fallacy. See the comment under 0:49] [Comment: The rest of the question seems to rest on this fallacious reasoning] 0:59 Kruger “And it seems to be apparent from the Subject Access Request that Mr Farage extracted that although there was a query over his mortgage his other bank accounts errrr the accounts he held met the commercial viability requirements.” [Comment: Is Kruger the questioner or the evidence provider?] 1:12 Kruger “… so it seems apparent and is indeed explicit in the documents that the issue is the reputational issue...” [Comment: how so?] 1:20 Kruger “ … they say quite clearly that Mr Farage is at odds with the organisation that Coutts aspires to be and so it's clearly an objection to his political views and his activities...” [Comment: this is ambiguous, and as such is not the valid lead-in to a question. Does this mean “ his political views and his activities” results in “Mr Farage” being at “odds with the organisation that Coutts aspires to be”, or is it a suggestion that it was this was the cause of Coutts' decision?] 1:29 Kruger “Do you think that's acceptable?” [Comment: As the question was leading and ambiguous it was inappropriate] 1:53 Reply “… reputational considerations about who you take one as a customer are frequently cited in financial services industry, across investment banks right through to retail.” 4:29 Kruger “… what do you think … is the obligation on the FCA to regulate this bank in particular? If it appears that, as it does appear from the paperwork we've seen …] {Comment: This, again, is leading] 8:00 Kruger “I doubt that the Reverend Fothergill was abusive … “ [Comment: this sets an inappropriate tone for the questioning, making an assumption not supported by evidence]. “… and let's assume he wasn't nor that there was criminality going on, so it does seem to he had his account closed because he expressed a political view”
A bank judging peoples character, beliefs and values all the while facilitating money laundering and having Mafia bosses as clients, says more than I ever could.
This bank group must be liable for the wrong doing. They (Banks) criticize clients and yet they for one have political issue and dependent of clients. " Al banks are involved in money laundry."
A ducker and diver if ever I sawone This is a Bank propped up with TAX payers money . Another establishment unelected civil servant lurking in positions where they can influence public services to the public's detriment. The FCA is there to supervise and oversee the conduct of these companies supported with public money, not the other way round./
The MP provides nothing but speculations which are completely useless other than for his own grandstanding. However, it's extremely interesting to hear a Conservative MP basically advocating for higher regulatory powers against private enterprises. It is even more interesting that it seems to be his party's current policy. What's being advocated/attempted by the government is a higher degree of regulation than what the EU is preparing to go with. I suppose this is one of the benefits of Brexit, higher/tighter government control of commercial enterprises, advocated by such free-market proponents as Farage and his Tory running dogs.
No one would have known that nigel banks with coutts if they had not threaten or closed his acount even when he came out with it he did not mention the bank
Hopefully, this will have backfired nicely on the banks.
If Coutts wanted to protect their reputation, they've made a big mistake.
I think that their other customers would support the bank's decision. After all, who would want to be associated with Farage?
@@johnscotcher9753So, your view on this matter is that it’s completely acceptable because it’s someone you dislike?
@@geoffersvoiceofreason2534 I think you will find that the bank has the same view. Farage has associated with far right people like Tommy Robinson. The bank has a right to decide what customers they have. Farage was offered a normal Nat West account but declined it as he wanted to be a customer of an elite bank. He didn't want a normal account like the rest of us have. A man of the people? Do me a favour!
FCA come out of this very poorly, and show they are NOT regulating fairly.
what constitutes 'fairly' is a very slippery concept.
Wow massive surprise there then , said no one ever !
If you don't agree with LGBT then your politics will not wash with the FCA and Coutts.
Classic example of the systemic corruption in the banking industry. Rotten to the core.
A NatWest account instead of Coutts being beneath contempt then?
Perfect example of how the Soviet Union, and Marxists have won, this ridiculous Marxist inspired rubbish is permeating all of our society, the root of this, being our Universities, where tax payers pay Marxists to indoctrinate the next generation of wise fools. If you accept help from the state, you hand power to these people, they only want equality at any price for us, they'll stay in the ethereal state, away from the plebs.
@@GaryJohnWalker1hat?. Natwest is behind it. The entire banking system is acting to pervert democracy to their benefit. But worse, not to the benefit of shareholders and customers, but like their personal power structure.
100%. People you don’t want to count on…excuse the pun!
It's political, simple. No other Bank would accept him
And that right there is the litmus test - no other bank would accept him. Its a political/thought crime in the opinion of someone/some organistaion who has the power to summarily decide or judge with absolute impunity.
@@heyabusa1 Yes they are called privately owned businesses. I would not let that specimen lick my boots.
It's geopolitical. It's why they went of Boris as well, even though Boris is totally main stream. It's much bigger than the UK parliamentary system.
He's broke, been chucked out of Coutts. Has another account with another bank now. Farage is just a whinney clown. When is going to sue them if he is such an injured party. No, he's just grifting again.
@@heyabusa1 he was offered an account with Natwest. he chose to decline that offer
If Natwest group had any regard for the regulations or respect for the FCA, this would not have happened. Not to this one case, but to enormous numbers of people. This case demonstrates that the banks are utterly out of control and the FCA have been so ineffective that we now face a crisis of confidence in the financial services industry. Most people do not have the resources of Nigel Farage and have been put in the same position and bullied by their bank. If confidence is to return there must be a real example of the enforcement of existing regulations and further development of better regulation and regulatory processes. This issue threatens the fundamental basis upon which democracy stands. The CEO of a bank seems to think that they can use/abuse their position to control democratic process with the belief that they can continue to get away with it. They have even behaved in collusion with the BBC to publish what we now know are outright lies. Government must act very decively to stop this crisis expanding exponentially. It is good to see MPs like this asking questions.
Have a look at ESG.
It should be illegal to terminate a bank account due to political or social opinions. It should also be a right in the law for every subject to have a right to a bank account. Forget your digital currency unless you get these two done.
@@Falstaff-eo2is The financial system has always been crooked, but digital currency will be the final curtain, without safe guards in law.
The banks can hide behind all sorts of excuses and the customer has no real redress against them which is just not on.
There needs to be action taken on all banks.This questioning about what you want to do with your own money must stop. IF illegal activity is taking place, that is the job of the police the law, not the banks. Winifred Thompson. Northern Ireland.
It looks as though Nigel should take them to court. As much for the ' little people ' as himself.
Yes, I think he will.
He won’t take them to court as it’s part of their terms & conditions.
Shocking on every level.
FCA covering up this whole debacle. Well done Nigel, we now get a clearer picture of who gets protected and who doesn't- accounts closed for abuse of staff - what nonsense.
so The FCA is on Coutt's Side Then
Coutts: "We must avoid reputational damage"
ALSO
Coutts: "Whaaa! Reputational Damage!"
They are having their Budweiser Moment.
Remember that Farage was refused by several other banks (all) that he applied to.
People that are acting to get high ESG scores are definitely getting wacked, Coutts included.
A lot of reputational damage in my view. I wouldn't bank with them after this but I expect they get a lot of financial help from Gates, Klaus Schab and George Soros.
Asking the FCA to investigate this issue is like asking the BBC to invesigate themselves.
Any legal action able to be taken against the Bank for providing the BBC with a PRIVATE citizens account details.?
In the pipeline.
Getting the feeling that the FCA are in bed with the banks and their actions. The banks seem to be getting support and a nod that their actions are correct from the FCA...disgusting.
Sounds illegal as you would assume. It's discrimination
Presumably the bank must have informed all other banks of their reasoning behind closing the accounts as the other banks refused NF an account. They may use the get out clause that they wouldn't open him an account because he was refused elsewhere, however without clear evidence the other institutions are equally at fault for refusing him an account. Sounds like some collusion may be taking place and that could well be a matter for the FCA to investigate further.
@@kalpat5753 You've only got Farage's word that he's been refused banking facilities elsewhere and he's not exactly known for his reliability when it comes to the truth.
NO One squesked when Epstein became persona non grata but maintained his banks and the poliies and others only yelled afterwards that banks kept him as a client. The hypocricy is screaming at us
Calm line of enquiry. Important to hold on to accountability. Good work Danny Kruger.
Any damage to their reputation has proved to be entirely self inflicted.
Markellot -Coutts are bankers to the Royal Family -not sure it does there supposed reputation any good to be associated with anyone connected with a convicted criminal.paedophile like the late Epstein .But there again their interst is in princiPAL -not princiPLE !!!
Get woke, go broke…it’s still true…ask Bud Light!
What about the banks conductivity?
The irony of them claiming reputation as an excuse seems to be wildly wrong, seeking their reputation seems to be dragged through the mud now. Do these people have any dealing with Target or Bud light?
I would love to know if the FCA are going to question them about GDPR?
Trouble is, if all these departments, commission, and alike are full of woke people, there’s not going to be a a fair outcome. Why don’t they haul somebody in from the bank itself. Who advised the CEO of Coutts?
Blackrock ESG, take a look at it.
cant stand these people who will not give a straight answer to a yes or no ?
that includes most politicians,of course.
@@richardwebster6528 yes
Yes sounds like the US congress hearings.
Banks should have to apply to a magistrate court to do this.if rejected the court fee's bounced back to bank.pay pal are also doing this with youtube monetization process.
How any bank has the gall to take the moral high ground about any issue is astonishing to me.
Good to see Parliament getting involved. There is clearly a need for further regulatory control or guidance to enforce against certain types of covert discrimination. At the moment there is far too much wriggle room allowing banks to game the system to be unfair to customers but rely on plausible deniability to evade being held to account.
No, the opposite is the case, there should be no regulatory control, just transparency on the part of the banks, the regulations are meaningless. The only regulation should be contract law, and obviously Fraud.
I'd like to see a list of the "unsavioury" people, Coutts are currrently holding money for. What's the betting there are no shortage of Saudi princes and Islam Fundamentalists, not to mention Eastern European gangsters enjoying their largesse. I think we should be told.
Top comment.
Close down the God damned bank!
That some good questioning from Dan.
It's a diabolical disgrace, dangerous and divisive, Coutts must be kicked out of our country as an example, and the FCA should be doing this asap. When he avoided answering the direct question you just know they'll do nothing. I would say to any bank if you offer all the individuals unfairly affected an account you would be well rewarded for your efforts.
This sounds like a descision by someone within the DE&I department of the bank who simply doesn't like Nigel and has managed to get the board who makes these discions to agree with them.
"The law is clear" - and it's explained that the relevant law was a retained EU law, which if abolished, would potentially allow banks to discriminate on political views. The MP actively tried to move on very quickly. I wonder why.
It's beyond EU law, it's the globalists and ESG. The same globalists that like to censor people that don't agree with their narrative.
I reported Coventry Building society updated my passbook & they refused to put FULLY ITEMISED transactions in the passbook. FCA refused to do anything!
If Sunak wants any hope in the next GE, he needs to fix this. If he doesn’t, he and the other parties that also stay silent should be avoided at all costs. This is political persecution.
Btw, he has NO hope.
The only people that can fix it is investors and they're starting to move away from Blackrock and ESG entities.
Yes let's hear more.
Mr Rathil appears to be unequivocal in saying that if someone has had their account closed for political views, this is in breach of the FCA regulations. He also seems unequivocal in saying that there appears to have been a data protection breach, if Coutts briefed the BBC, which they did, and the ICO would take that up. (Coincidentally, the BBC reporter had dinner the night before with the head of Coutts, who has pushed the DEI hard at the bank.) Understandably, Mr Rathil is covering himself by saying they can’t talk about specific cases but he’s also explicitly stating that the legislation is clear. People saying they’re a private bank and can do what they please within the law, appear to be missing the fact they’re not private, and are partially taxpayer owned.
Surely the Financial Conduct Authority would know from its own regulatory surveillance just how many people per year are being debanked and have anonymized statistics. Lawmakers need to be able to see the effects of their own or retained EU legislation.
Time for the people to demand there bailout money back with interest. All should now withdraw there funds from this bank so it can fail. Just my opinion
The MPs did nothing. Farage did it. After years of thousands of people having their accounts closed for nothing. Thank you Nigel.
After my bank closed my accout, I contacted my MP. All he suggested was I should contact the FCA ,who had their hands tied behind their backs and both MP and FCA where absolutely useless.
Thank you Mr Farage.
These illuminate people live in the past. Bank services are no longer a convenience, but a necessity. And I would argue that they have lost the reputation they purported to preserve through their misguided handling of this scandal.
With the previous head of Stonewall in the top position in the FCA what do you expect?
There have been a few high profile people who had their bank accounts cancelled. Tommy Robinson, who I don't align with, and Katie Hopkins who talks a lot of common sense.
The arrogance of the banks only exudes their vile attitude towards the common man, just imagine what these people would do to us if we had no way to restrain them.
Farages account was terminated as after paying off his mortgage he no longer had sufficient funds to qualify for a Coutts account and was offered a regular Nat West account which if course was not good enough for Farages huge ego. There is no story here. Sick and tired of hearing the nonsense.
@@susansantapola Stunning, that your blind hatred should have you parrot that even after Farage has read out for all to hear, the freedom of information file they held on him, where he was called a racist, xenophobic and Brexit was mentioned forty times etc...
Proverbs 27:4
Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?
If banks want to remove customers based on there views that are legally acceptable in a free country then they should never be bailed out by the tax payer and pay back all bail out money
FCA yet again asleep at the wheel....isn't it a shame that it takes one high profile person woth a platform to fully expose this....aren't the FCA supposed to be there to protect all the many others who do not have a platform....Shame on both FCA and Banking Ombudsman.Failing the people.
PLUS IF HE HATES THE ELITIE WHY WOULD HE BANK WITH THEM???
I wonder if UK taxpayers will agree to foot the bill again for financially exposed banks in the future when another banking crisis comes?
Btw, we didn’t agree last time! Those nice people in the government just handed over our money and put our taxes up! I’m still angry!
It's not just about politically exposed or reputation but a lot of us like using cash and get discriminated due to it or the bank themselves are putting more limitations on accounts that use cash or take cash out. We have a right to use our wages in cash if we so choose without being penalised by them. So if someone i lent money to owed me money and wanted to transfer it in bit at a time the bank has blocked and shut down there account once saying suspicious even though you can prove what was sent to that individual and what was returned by each transaction from the same individual. But if we get the full amount sent back and its a lot of money owed, the bank shut us down straight away saying fraudulent and id never see what was owed returned back to me and if the person tried to get it out in cash to return the banks called the police in to interrogate customers who want there own wages out for specific reasons like a car or a deposit saying its fraud to take cash out and you must be committing a crime as you want a few k out your own account.
Regulations should dictate that repuutational risk , should only become a consideration when there has been criminal activity on the part of the client, under threat of the bank losing its license
Its obvious that the FCA is more interested in protecting the banks rather than their purpose of protecting the bank's customers. However nobody should be surprised as all regulators become captured by those they are supposed to be regulating.
I wonder what would have happened to Coutts if they had done this to a minority person? There are a number of people from these groups who are very vocal online and in the MSM about their dislike for and what they would like to happen (or even do themselves) to 'majority' groups. As we all know you have to have the 'correct' opinions to get away with it.
They would not do it to certain groups, only those they personally disagree with. I.e. not lefty liberals.
@@stuartmenziesfarrant What these idiot Lefties also do not realise is that things change and if the precedent is set then it can be applied to people who share _their_ opinions if the establishment becomes as Far Right as they are Far Left. It won't come to that because most people on the Right are merely conservative with a small 'c' and wouldn't sanction this kind of behaviour. I suspect that deep down they know this is true so aren't too worried about future consequences for themselves.
Treat fairly . very broad description for what they can get away with.
Banking services shouldn't be able to be terminated by banks without the intervention of a judicial review. This would ensure the customer is protected for banks and companies political agendas. If a bank expresses a political agenda whilst the government is a shareholder of the bank they should loose there licence to trade. If any business is legal and above board and turning a profit there should be no discrimination of what that company does that applied for a loan. This is a huge problem for small business in firearm and other somewhat undesirable trades this all serves to stifle our economy and customer choice.
no one knew Nigel Farage was a Coutts customer, that is until Coutts called him names & lied to him, so reputational damaged was caused by COUTTS OWN STAFF!
Don't remember the tax payer being asked if they felt they should bail out the banks
I’m surprised that energy and other big household companies have not criticised Coutts and other banks who have closed down people’s accounts. These companies are paid by direct debit monthly by their customers, so, if the customers have had their accounts close, how do they pay these companies? The big question is, where does people keep their money now, they have no bank account? How do companies pay their employees who have no bank accounts. Coutts, and other banks have definitely not thought this through. Families and companies are going to suffer because of Coutts. Coutts talk of values and their reputation, but its well-known fact, banks launder money for criminal organisation, pay country dictators to overthrow other countries. These thing are well documented, and have been going on for a very long time, yet Coutts talk about their values and reputations.
NatWest owned......I think I will soon be closing my bank account with them. Weird how they can discriminate against people they do not agree with.
How do you know they discriminate? Coutts has clear criteria established for those who wish to hold an account with them. Fartage clearly thinks he's above reading the terms and conditions because he's "above" such minor details.Time he grew up and stopped farting like a spoiled baby.
EU regulations lets get rid of them .
Well, if 2008 is anything to go by, regulators clearly do a lot to ruffle the feathers of the powrful 🙄😏
banks are a law unto themselves.
Scales of justice. Balance one side against the other. If you only have one side, it ain't no scale, and there can't be any justice or accountability.
Where's the Kings voice?
Having considered this, my personal view is that Coutts are not in the wrong for cancelling Nigels account if they felt he contravened their policies. What they neglected is the duty of care aspect; they were just as discriminatory as they felt Nigel was and they should have acted on the discretionary nature of the matter, ie notified their customer and formed a review panel for individual hearing under FCA supervision. The problem is that Coutts did not seek independent council and therefore were not exercising impartiality and accountability that should form the bedrock of banking standards.
What the second guy was saying about going to the ombudsman is okay in principle but there have been reports of the ombudsman sitting on cases and not doing anything.
I think we should have the political views of all who choose to judge on this including there wives and children .
Nigel should take the Bank to the cleaners on a number of issues! Confidentiality, Freedom of speech/ political views, & lying to him and the BBC about his financial status!
Why isn't anyone looking at Blackrock and ESG? ESG is impacting upon all sorts of companies including banks.
How much swerving can they do? Never heard so much umming and arrring- liars and snakes the lot of them
Gas Lighting 101 in session.
Blaa de Blaa de blaa. Just admit it , the man was treated unfairly and was discriminated against. Going to the Ombudsman would have done nothing and would have drawn the issue out longer than was necessary. Grow some and just say they acted inappropriately
I am puzzled by the FCA man stating that the FOS can order a bank to re-open an account. FOS are limited in their decision making by what a court order can do (Paragraph 16 to Schedule 17 of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 provides that an FOS decision may be recovered by execution as if it were a court order). So if the bank flatly refused to re-open an account I think FOS would be limited to making a money order against the bank. My reasoning is that re-opening the account would be establishing a contractual relationship and that is not within the power of courts to compel. Courts can, in cases of breach of contract, give orders of specific performance but that requires a contract to exist. Closure of the account ended the contract so specific performance as a remedy isn't available.
As you're no longer a free market capitalist, can you force them to give us better interest rates whilst dishing out some state intervention. Cheers
Why is this an issue now when it’s been years in the discussion yet Nigel is annoyed not to have a Coutts account
Andrew Storm.
You should be grateful Mr Farage came out with this.
Banks closing accounts for our opinions is nothing new; it happened to me in 2020. If I had had access to a tv microphone then, I would've done exactly the same to warn others.
Nothing to do with licking one's wounds.
Banks and big firms are slowly being taken over by inexperienced, immature, freshly graduated wokerati with all its ugly consequencies.
The FCA are "concerned".
Read the PEP provisions of the FCA rule boo, that are a disgrace....and give full discretion to the banks
Why do they answer in jargon ?
What if the public don't agree with a Banks political stance or believe their potential reckless practices effect the country's reputation?..... can the TAX PAYERS (that bailed them out) withdraw from those banks? (together with tax payers money!!)
0:05
Kruger
“… the apparent debanking of Nigel Farage...”
[Comment: this phrase is a leading question, assuming that it is correct that Farage has been debanked]
0:10
Kruger
“… you may be aware of Coutts's response today which has been tosay that there are three reasons that they might terminate a relationship with a client: [A] One is commercial viability; [B]the other is reputational consideration; [C]and the third is legal and regulatory requirements.
0:32
Kruger
“ … are you aware of anything that the FCA might be imposing on Coutts or other banks that would cause them to terminate a relationship with somebody like Nigel Farage ...”
0:39
Reply
“We are imposing something on”
0:41
Kruger (speaking over the respondent).
“ are you aware, might there might be any legal regulatory requirements that could explain why Coutts has decided to debank?” [referring to 0:10 quasi-trilemma C]
[Comment: this makes an assertion, using the political and politically weighted neologism “debank”, that suggests Farage has had his bank account closed, whereas he was being offered a shift to a standard bank account. ]
0:49
Reply
“Not that I'm aware.
[Comment: This is not a logical denial of the question, so cannot be used to refute 0:10 C.
0:52
Kruger
“So the suggestion therefore is that either commercial viability or considerations”
[Comment: That is a non sequitur fallacy. See the comment under 0:49]
[Comment: The rest of the question seems to rest on this fallacious reasoning]
0:59
Kruger
“And it seems to be apparent from the Subject Access Request that Mr Farage extracted that although there was a query over his mortgage his other bank accounts errrr the accounts he held met the commercial viability requirements.”
[Comment: Is Kruger the questioner or the evidence provider?]
1:12
Kruger
“… so it seems apparent and is indeed explicit in the documents that the issue is the reputational issue...”
[Comment: how so?]
1:20
Kruger
“ … they say quite clearly that Mr Farage is at odds with the organisation that Coutts aspires to be and so it's clearly an objection to his political views and his activities...”
[Comment: this is ambiguous, and as such is not the valid lead-in to a question. Does this mean “ his political views and his activities” results in “Mr Farage” being at “odds with the organisation that Coutts aspires to be”, or is it a suggestion that it was this was the cause of Coutts' decision?]
1:29
Kruger
“Do you think that's acceptable?”
[Comment: As the question was leading and ambiguous it was inappropriate]
1:53
Reply
“… reputational considerations about who you take one as a customer are frequently cited in financial services industry, across investment banks right through to retail.”
4:29
Kruger
“… what do you think … is the obligation on the FCA to regulate this bank in particular? If it appears that, as it does appear from the paperwork we've seen …]
{Comment: This, again, is leading]
8:00
Kruger
“I doubt that the Reverend Fothergill was abusive … “
[Comment: this sets an inappropriate tone for the questioning, making an assumption not supported by evidence].
“… and let's assume he wasn't nor that there was criminality going on, so it does seem to he had his account closed because he expressed a political view”
Pass the buck FCA. What is the point of the FCA?
Free market!
A bank judging peoples character, beliefs and values all the while facilitating money laundering and having Mafia bosses as clients, says more than I ever could.
Very concerning comments by the FCA guy.
Needs to be clear boundaries and statutory guidelines.
FCA CEO is ex Chairman of Stonewall. There's your problem! Regulators should regulate - just that!
Well they think Andrew is an upstanding citizen in the community FFS
Customer's own 40% of the bank
This bank group must be liable for the wrong doing. They (Banks) criticize clients and yet they for one have political issue and dependent of clients. " Al banks are involved in money laundry."
Surely the Vicar expressed a religious view, not political one?
😂😂😂Lets blame covid 😂😂
A ducker and diver if ever I sawone This is a Bank propped up with TAX payers money . Another establishment unelected civil servant lurking in positions where they can influence public services to the public's detriment. The FCA is there to supervise and oversee the conduct of these companies supported with public money, not the other way round./
What is the FCA for protecting banks.
An ombudsman services which takes for ever to respond is not much use.
The MP provides nothing but speculations which are completely useless other than for his own grandstanding. However, it's extremely interesting to hear a Conservative MP basically advocating for higher regulatory powers against private enterprises. It is even more interesting that it seems to be his party's current policy. What's being advocated/attempted by the government is a higher degree of regulation than what the EU is preparing to go with. I suppose this is one of the benefits of Brexit, higher/tighter government control of commercial enterprises, advocated by such free-market proponents as Farage and his Tory running dogs.
No one would have known that nigel banks with coutts if they had not threaten or closed his acount even when he came out with it he did not mention the bank
A lot of lhot air and a lot of erms 🙈
The regulators are a joke
It's obvious by these remark the bank needs to be closed down they are no good to this country with this attitude..
Please do the job we ask you to do.
Dunning Kruger
Its political intimidation and you all know it say what you mean