Nigel is a winner, scooping News Presenter of the Year at the ‘TRIC’ Awards (No me neither, but it’s the Television and Radio Industries Club) beating off (there’s an image) Eamonn Holmes. Other beneficiaries of the public vote were Julia Hartley-Brewer Best Radio Programme and Piers Morgan Best Interview proving that it’s not just the Left that can monster a public vote. Full list of winners here. https://virginradio.co.uk/entertainment/111840/tric-awards-2023-winners-list
Der Färager rants that "I have been given no explanation or recourse as to why this is happening to me" followed immediately by "This is serious political persecution at the very highest level of our system". In summary then: he has no idea why this happened but absolutely knows why this happened. https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1674357026921623552
Farage is speculating that he is unfairly viewed by his bank as a PEP (Politically exposed person) someone more susceptible to bribery or corruption. Such accounts cost banks more to manage because the costs of compliance are higher and such accounts are risky. As this is a definition inherited from EU law, this gives Nige the opportunity to bang his tin drum a bit more and shout I’m being persecuted! Please do it more often, it gives me something to bang on about.
If you tolerate this, you could be next, laments Farage. Yet that’s unlikely, as it is being widely reported that Man of the People Farage banks with Coutts. Estimates range from £1-3m are required to open an account there. They may well have got tired of receiving the hard to trace ‘donations’ Farage gets from one grift or another.
Der Färager forgets that banks are private companies can, pretty much, do what they like with your account (such as close, open or suspend it). Someone, elsewhere (who's ITK) said: His tears about being a 'PEP': I wonder what he's referring to? Either his life's work (sic.) to allow the UK to regain its freedom or all those links to Russia perfectly respectable businessmen and politicians.
An awful lot of the Der Färager fanbois are blaming this on Chris Bryant's parliamentary speech (in March last year) about an alleged £550K der gropaz (der große Patriot aller Zeiten) received from RT.
I have had some dealings with Coutts. He's better off elsewhere. There will be extra layers of compliance as a PEP something he will have been considered as for years. Coutts maybe just no longer dealing with PEP accounts. Without explanation though he probably has a good case with the ombudsman.
I find it hard to believe he hasn’t been given a reason. It may be loosely worded, but he knows more than he is letting on. Coutts though? What a man of the people.
From what I understand, banks will not give a reason if they think illegal activity, such as money laundering, has taken place in case it undermines any police investigations. Not saying that has happened in this case but banks don't turn away business without a good reason!
True, but then if there was ( knowingly) Nige wouldn't be moaning about it. More to come on this story I'd say.
In amongst all the whataboutary in the ARRSE thread were two interesting points, for a PEP: The decision to close the accounts would have to come after of certain amount of diligence/investigation and would would have come from a very senior person. The never ever give a reason for doing it.
1. Should, agreed. 2. If Nige wants to, he could potentially sue and then the reason will then have to come out as part of their defence. I just don't see anyone knowingly dodgy kicking up a stink about this. If the bank leaks the info they'll be in all sorts of poo. Fargage is a lot of things but stupid isn't one of them. I'm warming up the popcorn.
Could he sue though? Genuine question for the legal eagles on here! As I see it, they have terminated a contract in line with their T&Cs. They have not accused him of anything (another reason for not explaining why they have closed his accounts?) or defamed him in any way. On what grounds could he sue? Again, genuine question.
On reflection you might be right, Maybe. T&C's need to be inspected. There's breach of contract, as a possibility. Depends on the reason and circumstances, if he can't get an answer it's a way to force one.
Hackchewally, Der Färager slipped up (or more likely wasn't followed up the the lazy hack listening to his stream of bollox interviewing him) on R4's PM yesterday. Der GROPAZ (Der gr*ßte Politiker aller Zeiten) mentioned that the Coutts documents mentioned, once, "...Russia...", he added that he had very "...few..." dealings with Russia which swiftly changed to "...no business..." with Russia. Incidentally I think the Grate D1cktator has discovered a new grift post Brexit. He can fling as much shyte as possible over what Coutts has 'done' knowing full-well that the bank, famous for its discretion and (legally enforceable) customer anonymity, will keep schtumm.
Fabulous takedown of our wannabe Supreme Leader from Led By Donkeys. https://twitter.com/bydonkeys/status/1682104696893329408?s=46&t=oqOMSJXE_g7J5C7kNPG9LA
It’s hard to imagine that Farage could make you hate him more, but he’s managing it this week. Still getting an audience for his eff-all squared hurty feelings. Demanding today that the entire board of Nat West goes, an act that could send the bank into a tailspin. Sadly, the Government and its tame press (or is that the other way around) are determined to make mischief from this and no one, including Sir Starkers, has the bottle to tell him to STFU.
Yeah, the grift goes long and deep with these absolute chancers. And a sizeable number of the Great British public are queuing up to say: "Nige is fighting for all of us. If *they* can close his bank account they can close yours." Except *you* can't get an account at Coutts, you giant blancmange. The lack of comprehension is almost as staggering as the fact this drivel has stayed in the news for weeks. Britain's pretence at being a serious country is in tatters.
Does anyone really believe that the banks are monitoring everybody's social media and other online contributions to make sure we haven't said anything offensive before they'll send out a new a cheque book??
No, of course not. Garage's account was closed because it wasn't commercially appealing and/or because it no longer met the bank's criteria for an account. Banking with Coutts is not a human right. If he'd also been told he couldn't have a regular account with NatWest too he *might* have had a point. It's like a private members club deciding that Gary from Slough can't join. But, more importantly, the right-wing media swung behind their boy. And the BBC – aka The Salford News – was once again so, so, so far from the actual story. Their coverage was like a excited puppy p*ssing everywhere except the litter tray. Farage and co regularly take a sizeable chunk of the British population for fools. None so foolish as those GB News viewers and others who can't see the links between Farage's campaign and ghoulish hedge funder Marshall Wace making millions from the ensuing chaos. Willing pawns in the grift, the lot of them.
Quite, though they may if they are very sorely tested. If you are at the apex of public displeasure and suspicion, like Anjem Choudhury or Andrew Tate, a bank may think twice about what it is getting into. Another reading of the Farage farago, is that he had fallen below Coutts threshold for stinking richness and they were considering the reputational costs of making him an exception. But he has not been refused banking per se.
Interesting comment article on the Farage farago. I think it too easily takes the position that Farage was definitively wronged; he was never left without banking. Clearly the bank handled it poorly though. But the issues around the issue are more interesting. Don’t be fooled: this row is about more than Nigel Farage and Coutts – what lies beneath is Brexit https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tts-brexit-tories-ukip?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm no Farage fan. I'm no Coutts fan. I also no fan of private banking at all. A lot of the commentry in the press has been coloured by political opinion. How I see it: Coutts can chose to deal with who they want to, according to their eligability critera as long as UK discrimination laws are not breached. Coutts can't or shouldn't cancel someone's account without fair notice and fair reasoning, unless under legal direction. (regulations are a little sketchy I think, but will probably be tightened after this debacle). Fair reasoning being the account balance no longer meets account T&Cs but does not include "We just don't like this chap" Coutts can absolutely not discuss an individual's banking circumstances with a third party (unless under legal direction and likely warrant). There's at least one breach under regs regarding discussion of his account with a third party. Likely a serious one requiring censure. The person concerned was particualry naive for someone in such a high position, regardless of the tactics used to garner the info. In the grand scheme of things, there's more important stuff to discuss at the moment than a z list celebrity bank account, but this and similar cases coming to light do show that this government has little grasp on control of the banking sector and a tightening of the regulations is welcomed.
Farage "Coutts told BBC that my account was closed because I no longer met their minimum requirements. That is a breach of confidentiality". Also Farage "Coutts closed my account solely because of my political views. I still had enough funds to meet their banking requirements". It doesn't add up.
IIRC the minimum requirements thing was the official excuse which may or may not have been forwarded to Farage. My understanding is that the BBC levered out this information from Coutts and then made it public. Subsequently the reliability of this information has been called into question (see the BBC/Simon Jack apology to Farage). It's also reported that Farage has obtained internal documents discussing moral or political reasons for the action. Once this was made public the head of Coutts bailed. There's no doubting that Coutts have ****ed up, how seriously and how this will impact the owners Natwest, ultimately us as tax payers is another matter. What is certain is we can expect a lengthy and expensive inquiry which won't actually affect the pockets of those at fault but will keep a few lawyers in expensive suits.
It’s just their latest grift. And pontificating about whether or not Coutts or NatWest were right or wrong merely enables their grift. These chancers are laughing all the way to the bank and the media have helped them. They want it to be on the news because it helps them and the news have obliged. It’s basically Brexit in microcosm. Meanwhile, Britain is falling to bits. The consequences of giving any of these chancers any airtime whatsoever have been ruinous. Give it 18 months and they’ll be onto their next grift and the media will fall for it again.
