Banks are to be told by the Treasury that they must protect free speech amid an escalating scandal involving the blacklisting of customers who hold views that are deemed verboten among corporate elites. The Telegraph has the story.
Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, is understood to be “deeply concerned” that overzealous lenders are closing down accounts because they disagree with customers’ opinions and has asked City minister Andrew Griffith to investigate the issue.
Whitehall sources said that results of a consultation on the subject will be published within weeks, after it was launched earlier this year in the wake of PayPal blocking the accounts of free speech groups.
The controversy flared up again last week after the leading Brexiteer Nigel Farage revealed his account had been closed by his bank. A vicar was also dropped as a customer after criticising his lender’s stance on LBGTQ+.
The Treasury is poised to recommend a more rigid notice period if payment providers, including high street lenders, want to close a customer’s account as well as requiring banks to provide more information about why they have decided to shut accounts. Regulators will be able to take action against banks that break the rules.
Officials believe that the recommendations can curb excessive behaviour by banks.
A senior Treasury source said: “It is absolutely a concern. No one should have their bank account denied on the grounds of freedom of expression. We expect to take action on this issue within weeks.”
Ministers are increasingly worried that there is a trend of closures affecting customers who hold controversial [sic] political views.
Mr. Farage last week said his bank accounts were closed “without explanation” and other high street lenders refused to allow him to transfer his funds to them.
Anglican vicar Reverend Richard Fothergill claimed that his Yorkshire Building Society account was shuttered days after writing to the bank to complain about its public messaging during Pride month.
A spokesman for Yorkshire Building Society said the company never closes accounts based on different opinions or beliefs, adding an account was only ever closed if a customer is “rude, abusive, violent or discriminates in any way”.
Government sources stressed that even people with extreme views should be entitled to hold a bank account if they have not broken the law.
The Treasury source added: “Banks and payment providers occupy a privileged place in society and it would be a concern if financial services were being denied to those exercising the right to lawful free speech.” …
Treasury ministers last week responded to concerns raised by Conservative MPs about customers who convey minority views having their accounts closed.
It came after Mr. Farage said his personal and business accounts with a major retail bank were closed because of a “commercial decision”, and other high street lenders have refused to allow him to transfer his funds to them.
Several former Brexit Party MEPs have also said their bank accounts were shut after they were elected to the European Parliament.
Meanwhile, in June, Barclays was forced to pay over £20,000 compensation to Christian ministry groups, after closing their accounts due to pressure from LGBTQ+ activists, who were concerned about conversion therapy practices.
The Treasury has also given the City watchdog ‘marching orders’ to review the operation of its politically exposed persons (PEPs) regime amid concerns that its application has been heavy handed.
Toby told the Telegraph:
I’m pleased this issue is on Jeremy Hunt’s radar, but I hope the investigation won’t take too long. There is no doubt that thousands of people are being penalised by banks and payment services providers for exercising their right to lawful free speech.
Indeed, the Free Speech Union has been lobbying the Treasury to change the payment services regulations for the last nine months and submitted reams of evidence about the scale of the problem. Since then, it has only got worse. The Treasury urgently needs to change the regulations to prohibit this new and sinister form of cancel culture.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Amusing tweet from Adrian Hilton.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Another “consultation” (which is going to achieve precisely diddly squat) to preserve the charade.
Membership of FSU is a far better proposition for the individual.
This is meaningless posturing.
They still want banks to be held responsible for what they consider undesirable behaviour and haven’t said anything to the contrary.
Forage hasn’t been debanked for speaking his mind. It has to do with alleged links to Russia or whatever they want to conjure up.
And it’s entirely at the banks discretion and they don’t have to give explanations to anyone to “preserve confidentiality”.
The free speech line is a carefully crafted statement to respond to the scandal with no intention of actually changing a thing.
“customers who convey minority views ..”
So Brexit supporters and conservatives not on the Trans train are a minority?
More gaslighting.
I look forward to Remainers having their accounts closed, given that they were literally the minority.
Or indeed on mutilating or medicating confused children:
”Britain placed 28th out of 30 countries for the proportion of people agreeing that teenagers with parental consent should be able to access “gender-affirming” care. Only Hungary, which banned transgender people from legally changing their gender in 2020, and the US recorded lower levels of support than Britain’s 47%.
Britain was also in the bottom half of the countries polled on the question of whether transgender people should be protected from discrimination in employment, housing and access to restaurants and shops, with almost one in four saying they disagreed with protections or were not sure.
Only 40% of people in Britain believe transgender people should be allowed to use single-sex facilities such as public toilets that correspond to the gender they identify with, compared with 55% across the 30-country average, 70% in Italy, 65% in Spain and the Netherlands and 79% in Thailand, which was consistently the most pro-transgender nation in the Ipsos survey.”
Did you notice how it was framed as “bottom half”? Meaning the “top half” is where we want to be.
Blackrock will order their bought politicians to back down.
The ‘controversial view’ being that male is male, female is female?
And a marriage is between a man and woman. A Christian teacher was fired in Wales at a Christian school for holding such a view, while being perfectly clear it was his personal belief and he would not share it with students. https://www.christian.org.uk/news/teacher-sacked-after-sharing-marriage-beliefs-during-staff-training/
Clown world struts along with its fascist truncheon.
I have a problem with this which some might consider semantic but I believe the thinkingbehind Ministerial involvement is worrying.
The role of banks and other private sector entities is not to support free speach. That is the role of the law. What Ministers should have been doiung is to instruct the many regulatory organisations, established by statute, to investigate prima facie breaches of applicable rules.
Ministerial dictat has no role in a free countyry. Just see the problems in France where it is routinely practiced, including as a way to by-pass their representative assembly.
Not semantic at all – an excellent point. It’s the proper role of government to pass laws and draft regulations that allow us to get on with our lives in the best way possible, not to micromanage everything. Sadly something that a lot of people have forgotten and now want all their problems solved for them, and get disappointed when this doesn’t happen.
Aa far as I can see, that set of laws and regulations need to be a mix of specific prohibitions, but also of specific requirements, ie what is not allowed, but also what must be enabled, principally to maintain fairness for everyone, in this case, maintaing access to banking services of the customer’s choice. The other question to ask, is how many of those debanked ever named their bank in public discourse before they were ‘cut off’? I’d wager none.
It is noted that, to-date, I have not read of any left-of-centre person having their account cancelled/refused, including any supposedly PEP. Have I missed any?
Banks have been doing it for years. Look at Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins.
But no one spoke up for them.
Neither has the groundswell of support that Nigel Farage commands. They’ve poked the bear this time. Name and shame the Banks.
Black Belt Barrister on YT has an interesting view on this based on the precedent set by the Maya Forstater vs Centre for Global Development case – essentially, customers’ philosophical beliefs are considered to be protected speech and discriminating against them is itself discriminatory and could incur damages: ‘The Center for Global Development was ordered to pay £105,800 in compensation to Forstater, after it was found to have engaged in unlawful discrimination in its decision not to offer her an employment contract or to renew her visiting fellowship [because of some gender-critical views she tweeted].’……“So many organisations still believe what they are told by the activists, that anyone who recognises that sex is real is a bigot — and in fact, it’s those people who are bigots. They are prejudiced.
“Organisations are going to have to rethink all of their approach to equality and diversity to make sure they really are following the law and not just what activists tell them.”
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/maya-forstater-remedy-cgd-europe/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GadxGwdXjw (details at around 8 -12 mins)
I’d like to see organisations push back on these activists, which they can very simply do by responding that “their customers’ views are not the business of the organisation, and we will not judge or discriminate based on them”.
I have to have a little chuckle at articles like this. Whose kidding who here..
The banksters own the governments, so I’m sure they’re going to behave after being given a stern ticking off by a politician. Yeah right..
A bit like when Bud Light patronised it’s customer base, who left in their millions
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/will-your-bank-account-be-closed-because-of-your-opinions/
Another run-down.
That people with mainstream conservative views are being de-banked after 13 years of a Conservative government tells you all you need to know about these two faced TINOs. The next election will be a good opportunity to put this arm of the uniparty out of business.
So Chunt is “deeply concerned”? Translated from politician’s double speak into English this means he couldn’t give a flying f**k about the issue. He reminds me of my father in his approach to honesty being a flexible concept to be adapted to whatever his own personal circumstances required. At the age of 10, I can remember my father, a motorcycle policeman, coming home absolutely drenched saying it was raining. I would have to look outside to see if he was telling the truth.
I am declaring that I am pregnant. I am a 77 year old father of two. Is this a record?
How on earth is Nigel Farage a fringe politician? He won Brexit with 17.4 million votes!!!.
Name and shame the 9 banks. Let’s Bud Light them.
Galileo would have had his bank account closed for saying the sun was the centre of the Solar System and Einstein would have had his closed for General Relativity. What next? Do we put anyone who has the wrong opinion on Brexit, Covid, Climate or Gender under house arrest? Because that is the direction of travel with this insidious wokery