Nigel Farage’s bank accounts were closed down after Coutts, a company 39%-owned by the taxpayer, decided his views “do not align with our values”, documents obtained by the former UKIP leader show. The Telegraph has the story.
A reputational risk committee ‘exited’ him after considering a dossier detailing Mr. Farage’s comments about Brexit, his friendship with Donald Trump and his views on LGBT rights among many reasons he was not “compatible with Coutts”.
The background briefing paper even made reference to Mr. Farage’s friendship with Novak Djokovic, the former Wimbledon champion, as evidence that he was not as “inclusive” as the bank.
Earlier this month, the BBC and the Financial Times reported claims that the reason Mr. Farage’s accounts were closed was that they fell below the financial threshold required by the bank. The BBC quoted sources “familiar with” the Coutts decision.
Yet in the 40 pages of documents released to Mr. Farage after he made a subject access request to Coutts, the bank repeatedly says he “meets the EC [economic contribution] criteria for commercial retention”.
Writing in the Telegraph, Mr Farage accuses the private bank of “lying” about the real reason he was cut off, saying the documents show that the decision was politically-driven.
He describes the file as a “Stasi-style surveillance report” and notes that the word Brexit appears in the report 86 times – which, he says, “perhaps tells us all we need to know”.
“Between 2014 and 2016, when I first banked with Coutts, no problems ever arose. After Brexit became a reality, everything changed,” he writes.
Minutes of a meeting of Coutts’ Wealth Reputational Risk Committee held on November 17th 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. This was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose.”
Mr. Farage has said Coutts told him he was not being treated as a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) – a legal term for customers who are deemed risky for political reasons – but the dossier specifically states that he is one.
Mr. Farage writes: “Whoever at Coutts thought it clever to feed friendly media outlets outright lies about me sorely misjudged the situation.”
The document contains 39 mentions of Donald Trump, and Mr. Farage said: “The fact that I support Donald Trump is part of this charge sheet.”
It says he is seen as “xenophobic and racist”, repeats claims that he was a fascist in his schooldays, and says he said things in the past that are “distasteful and appear increasingly out of touch with wider society”.
Mr. Farage writes that the dossier “reads rather like a pre-trial brief drawn up by the prosecution in a case against a career criminal. Monthly press checks were made on me. My social media accounts were monitored. Anything considered ‘problematic’ was recorded. I was being watched”.
He is not the only Right-wing figure to have been denied banking facilities. Tory peers have disclosed that their children have been told they cannot have an account after banks made reference to their parentage, and dozens of other people have had accounts closed without explanation.
Mr. Farage writes: “This story is not just about me. You could be next. … if this situation is left unchecked, we will sleepwalk towards a China-style social credit system in which only those with the ‘correct’ views are allowed to fully participate in society.”
The Coutts committee decided to put him on a “glide path” to being ejected, with his personal and business accounts to be closed when his mortgage deal ended this year.
Mr. Farage now says he cannot get an account with any other bank, having been turned down by 10 banks since Coutts withdrew its services.
Members of his family have also been refused accounts by other banks, and one family member was told his or her account was being closed.
Coutts, whose customers include members of the Royal family, is part of NatWest Group plc, which is 39% owned by the taxpayer following the Government bailout of the company in 2008.
Farage tweeted a video about the revelations, saying “I now have evidence Coutts lied to me”.
Worth reading in full.
Toby Young writes: “Not a political decision” – That‘s a very revealing comment and one you hear often from enforcers of woke dogma. Their ‘values’ and ‘purpose’ aren’t ‘political’. Oh no. They’re self-evidently morally correct and anyone who doesn’t share them is completely beyond the pale. I don’t think this is a deliberate sleight of hand. Rather, the way in which the woke mind virus spreads within an institution is that the infected aren’t aware they’re infected; they think they’re well and everyone who doesn’t agree with them is infected. It’s an ideology that is believed by its adherents to be non-ideological, thereby enabling them to enforce it without thinking they’re doing anything ‘political’ and without feeling any corresponding need to defend their actions.
Stop Press: Read about Dame Alison Rose, the first female executive of NatWest, who is responsible for steering the banking group towards saving the planet and embracing equity, diversity and inclusion.
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.
Just like I submitted my views on the experimental gene therapy vaccines? Now they’re giving them to kids. The consultations are a sham. They’ve already had this in China and they simply can’t wait to roll it out over here.
There’s two reasons for these consultations:
Everything will be conveniently cleaned up and packaged in a nice box with bow on top, ready for the vaccine passports.
Conspiracy theorists must be in a continuous state of confusion at the moment.
”I didn’t become a conspiracy theorist to keep being proved right”
I would describe it as vindication, but there’s still a very long way to go before even those on this site who feel ‘red-pilled’ can grasp the extent of the lies we’ve been fed – long before March 2020.
I have attempted to submit my response 3 times, but each time have received a delivery failure notification. Is this common?
I sent mine as an email and attached PDF, and got the usual automatic acknowledgement, couched in the customary condescending way.
Thanks for heads up FL, mine was, like yours [pdf attached] and usual inane condescending waffle response / receipt from brainless 7 Bde
Would not willingly download any government app — What they are doing is Evil as far as I am concerned -ie I suspect everyone who reads lockdown sceptics is well aware of the disgraceful and deceptive and manipulating things this government has done to Prove that Covid is a diabolical killer — I am ashamed to the party I voted for
Haven’t got a phone. Binned it. Simple solution. Life is hugely improved.
Who would ever want to go into a pub that demanded a ‘vaccine passport’? Ridiculous. Any landlord that tries this would be mad. They’ve been closed for most of the past year, I would have thought they’d be begging for customers, not finding more excuses to refuse entry. It really has reached a point where I spend a lot of time laughing at all this insanity, which is great
Spot on! Last year I switched to carrying a crappy old nokia to combat this idiocy at the pubs and restaurants asking for my details. Then they insist on the paper forms, wherein it is simply a case of filling them with gobbledegook.
Same here. The Nokia 105 suits me down to the ground. I never give anyone the number on these things anyway, and if they don’t like it, they know what they can do.
Well done. I still use an old Nokia 515, even installed a replacement battery in it last year. It’s only used for the odd emergency call when out, or for SMS display of some log on codes (such as for tax returns, activating new secure keys for the bank etc). It’s not normally active at all.
Incidentally (slightly off topic), one of the more modern risks is walking around while absorbed in a ‘smartphone’ and unaware of the real world. I’ve come across that while driving near them and intending to cross the road; not nice.
I’ve submitted my response but forgot to ask when the government will be repealing all anti-discrimination laws if this goes ahead.
There is a useful template response on the Big Brother Watch website:
https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/campaigns/stopvaccinepassports/
Do personalise your responses though. When template responses go to any kind of call for evidence most if not all get discounted. Templates are great for ideas but not for sending.
Sent my response, but these consulations are only theatre at best. Sent copy to my Labour MP too, although he is fully onboard with the propaganda.
Same here, but not to my MP, who is a government apparatchik, with whom I’ve corresponded before; I know his point of view.
Anyone with any morals and a brain, do not download any Apps and boycott any business and service that requires one. Regardless of whether you have had a vaccine and your views on these. This was once a free demoocracy and now clearly it isn’t. All pushed in under the guise of bad flu rebranded with a new name. If someone wants a vaccine that is their choice and if someone doesn’t then that is their choice and noone should be coerced. Noone has ever had to provide proof of a flu jab or TB jab etc- these kill more Worldwide every year. Given that in reality these vaccines only demonstrated in trials to reduce “mild” symptoms in some people and are already probably useless and ineffective due to new variants, there is no logic or point to have to them and to have to show anything. I can’t believe how dumb people are out there not picking up on this and that includes employers, many in the health service and Politicians etc. Well either dumb or they know and are simply immoral with no integrity.
The template on bigbrotherwatch needs careful reading. It needs to be personal. As it stands it’s general and not what everyone would want to say, so don’t just copy and paste as is.
Old Nokia 3510i not internet connected. Had it 17yrs and was given it second hand. No ‘smart’ stuff for me.
Agree with other comments that gov consults are a sham and also provide ammo, however I did respond to this one, only to lay out in black and white the legal position and issue a clear warning so that government is put on notice for when we are ready to proceed for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. My submission, lays out the legal basis for which their criminal certification scheme is a form of APARTHEID: https://cacuk.world/covid-status-certification-is-uk-apartheid/
Extract below…
Segregation, apartheid and crimes against humanity
If a COVID-status certification scheme is implemented in the UK, there will be a significant section of the population who will assert their legal rights and refuse to be tested and/or vaccinated. They will do this for valid reasons, none of which are selfish or reckless. Some of these reasons have been noted above. Some people may also, or alternatively, assert their legal right to refuse to wear a face covering, on grounds of reasonable excuse. If these people are then refused access or services, or made to wear lanyards or badges, or forced to seek and obtain some official ‘exemption’ (which may or may not be granted), or placed under any other form of inconvenience, whether by the state, or by public or private bodies or entities, or by other individuals in society, this amounts to discrimination and unfair treatment of a particular group of people.
That is how segregation starts. Segregation is the beginning of grave injustices based on a policy-led perception of inequality.
Segregation of a section of society based on its unwillingness to submit to arbitrary testing and vaccination is not just unlawful; it will be recognised as a crime against humanity, just as apartheid is listed as a crime against humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.[1] It took 25 years for apartheid to be recognised as a crime against humanity. In the current era of mass communication, it will not take that long for segregation based on COVID-status certification to be recognised as such. This is because there is already overwhelming evidence that “COVID-status” based on testing and/or vaccination data is practically arbitrary, and that an individual’s bodily awareness is a better indication of sickness and/or infectivity.
If government decision-makers wish to proceed with a COVID-status certification scheme, despite the fact that it is unnecessary and would be practically useless, then the government MUST widely advertise through all national media channels that such COVID-status certification is entirely voluntary and optional; that nobody is obliged to be tested or vaccinated to prove their ‘COVID status’ to anybody else; that there can be no adverse consequences for those who choose not to be tested or vaccinated; and that any person who attempts to impose conditions of testing or vaccination, or place adverse consequences on someone for not being tested or vaccinated, will suffer a penalty.
This is the only way for government decision-makers to avoid liability for discrimination, in the short term, and for crimes against humanity in the long term.
[1] https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/english/rome_statute(e).pdf.