A major financial services company has banned hunts and shooting-related businesses from accepting card payments, categorising them as “restricted businesses”. The Telegraphhas the story.
Hunts have been banned from taking card payments by a major financial services firm in the latest example of de-banking.
SumUp, a card reader provider, has included “hunting clubs/activities” on its list of “restricted businesses” alongside “illegal or legally questionable businesses and products”, escort services and fortune tellers.
A number of hunts have had their machines switched off during fundraising events, potentially losing thousands of pounds, the Telegraph can reveal.
Companies linked to shooting are also targeted as “guns, firearms, airsoft guns, munitions sale and distribution” are on the blacklist.
Card readers are used to take payments at events and the move means the hunts are unable to accept credit or debit cards from their customers.
The restrictions have been described as a form of discrimination against rural communities who are “effectively treated as criminals” and have led to calls for an immediate investigation into the financial services industry.
It comes amid concerns about the extent of the banking scandal that first emerged when Nigel Farage, the former UKIP leader, had his Coutts accounts closed because of his political views.
Greg Smith MP, who sits on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Business Banking, told the Telegraph: “The Farage case of political de-banking has only just blown the tip off the iceberg and it is now quite clear that there is widespread de-banking going on for perfect legitimate and legal activities, of which hunts are one.
“There needs to be a much wider interrogation into the entire bank and financial services system in the U.K. to make sure that people are not discriminating against businesses carrying out perfectly legitimate businesses.”
The Oakley Hunt was among those to discover an issue when its card machine was cut off half way through their point-to-point meeting in Northamptonshire in March. It is the biggest event in their calendar and the shutdown could have cost them thousands.
When the hunt questioned the decision, SumUp said “after a thorough review of your profile we will not be able to provide you with our services”.
It had been using the service for about a year, having registered as the hunt supporters club and passed the vetting procedures, the Telegraph understands.
The Oakley, which has since been provided with a card reader by their bank, later discovered that hunts were on SumUp’s restricted business list.
Polly Portwin, Director of the Campaign for Hunting at the Countryside Alliance, said that it was one of “a number of incidents where events organised by hunts – many of which were raising money for charitable causes – had their accounts suspended mid-way through fundraising, leaving organisers without any means to collect payment and therefore having an impact on the donations subsequently made to good causes”.
She added: “It is disgraceful that members of rural communities and those who take part in a lawful activity can be discriminated against in this way and effectively treated as criminals.”
Mr. Farage said that since launching his campaign to establish the extent of the “national scandal” of de-banking he had received a number of complaints about SumUp.
“These banks and financial services companies are completely out of control,” Mr. Farage told the Telegraph. “They are starting to dictate how we can spend our money and what we can do.
“This is a highly political industry which is now a great danger to society. This is happening right through our financial system, and we need to turn the tide.”
You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.
Of course cash is the solution and the last lifeline to some semblance of freedom.
Which is why we can be sure all sorts of legislation is in the works to limit and ultimately eradicate its use.
It will come disguised as something that no-one can argue against, like the anti-corruption billl or the financial integrity bill or some other Orwellian term.
We are going to have to fight extremely hard to keep out right to use cash.
An enlightened government (ha! ha!) would boost our sagging economy by making all cash transactions non-declarable for tax purposes. A thriving black economy would provide the roots for the overall economy to grow (on the basis that cash eventually finds its way back into the bank, at which point it becomes taxable – but meantime the quantity of released, entrepreneurial energy would be tidal).
Nudge, nudge, nudge.
Here comes the Central Bank Digital Currency in all it’s gory Chinese-style social credit scoring glory.
Slowly but inexorably we will all become prisoners of a digital panopticon.
Our every thought, word and deed monitored for ‘wrong-think’ by an unelected bureaucracy of Common Purpose graduates.
Orwell would have rejected this plan as being too dystopian, too depressing, too hopeless.
Sforzesca
1 year ago
I actively deplore hunting purely from the animal cruelty perspective.
That said, I often wonder why hardly anyone seems to get upset about the huge increase in the number of animals that suffer horrific injury and death in the name of progressing medical research especially now with mRNA/vaccines. Lots of bigpharma even grow their own literally/genetically.speaking.
How many miracle cures have actually arisen from this “essential research” – especially set against the actual harm the animal tested product actually cause (see the criminal fines paid by bigpharma in that regard.
Anyway, back to the article. It’s deplorable that any bank should have this sort of power – because surely only the Government should have this sort of abilty (sarc).
Cash rules and if we lose it, it’s welcome to a dystopian future.
I’m not accusing any individual hunt of anything, however some hunts are using trail hunting as a cover for continuing to hunt foxes illegally. In this case they should be treated the same as any other criminal organisation and have their assets frozen or cut off, and I’m just talking about financial assets.
In my experience all hunts use the trail hunt loophole as cover. It’s amazing how many hounds just happen to lose the trail and well, unfortunately, end up hunting a fox instead.
If anyone happens to think the fox doesn’t suffer, they ought to be there at a “kill” in order to see and hear how humanely the dogs tear the fox to bits. Not that I blame the hounds though. Some human beings actually enjoy it…
And another niceity is the blocking of and interfing with badger sets by the brave terriermen lest the fox go to ground. Completely illegal also.
That may be so, but if it is a loophole or actually illegal then that should be put right through the normal channels. Its nothing to do with the banks or their card payment providers
We have all sorts of instincts left over from our evolutionary past, e.g. rape and racism (or at least hatred of people who aren’t part of a small social group) have a lot of evolutionary advantages. The vast majority of people have managed to overcome these instincts and society is so much better as a result. Most of us have also overcome the natural instinct to hunt, shame not everyone can.
Hunting with dogs is completely different to controlling foxes humanely e.g. by shooting. Foxes attacking livestock are simply following their instincts and have no concept of morality or right and wrong. Surely a big part of what makes us different from animals is our sense of right and wrong and our ability to overcome our base instincts.
Would sooner subscribe to the Beano than the DT so I can’t read the link to find out who the financial company in question relates to. Does anyone know?
DS and Telegraph both identify the company as being called SumUp. They’re described as a card reader provider, my response would be “Who, never heard of them”.
Looking at their website they seem to be one of the many companies that have set up in recent years using mobile phone technology to connect a simple card reader to the banks by way of an app. The only difference I can see is they might be a bit cheaper than others.
So same as a Zettle (now owned by Toby’s favorite organisation, PayPal).
This is significantly different from the Farage case. Sumup are withdrawing their services because they would be supporting an activity they disapprove of and there are plenty of alternatives. This is much closer to the woman who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage because she disapproved of it (and I think that was reasonable even though I have no problem with gay marriage).
This is significantly different from the Farage case. Sumup are withdrawing their services because they would be supporting an activity they disapprove of
You’re misrepresenting this. Sumup is not a being and cannot disapprove of anything. This is another case of people employed by a publically-traded company abusing their accidental position of power (which is based on handling lots of other people’s money) to harm some other people because these probably engage in activities which are not compatible with the political program of the US democrats. And they’re absuing it to the financial detriment of the business they’re working for.
There are also no workable alternatives to a financial services provider which choses to stop providing this service to someone without advance notice in the middle of a fund-raising event.
You are comparing apples and oranges. individuals, like bakers, have personal feelings and attitudes. A company is not an individual.
Company = The Members In Company = those who own the company stock = shareholders.
A company is not a person except for legal reasons and therefore it or ‘they’ cannot approve of/disprove of anything. Technically all of the shareholders could at a general meeting by passing a resolution to that effect.
Instead we have managers making decisions based on their personal prejudices, rather than what enhances shareholder value, in breach of their fiduciary duty. There is a strong case for shareholders to start suing these idiots.
Hang on though, SumUp isn’t a bank, it’s a financial service. Surely private companies are allowed to deny services to whoever they want? De-banking for political reasons is clearly dangerous and appalling, but is that what this is…?
Sumup is one of a number of payment providers. Just at Natwest if one of a number of banks. If you’re a trader or any kind of organisation and none of the digital payment providers will do business with you, you cannot take card payments and you are screwed.
Hang on though, SumUp isn’t a bank, it’s a financial service. Surely private companies are allowed to deny services to whoever they want?
Let’s use a contrived example to illustrate this: Assume there’s an actual private enterprise (not the case in the real example) and it’s a plumbing service. Some customer arranges for an appointing to have a leaking pipe fixed. The plumber who’s the owner of the business shows up and does half of the job, ie, takes everything apart. Then, he suddenly notices that his customers owns a book by Jane Austen, an author he absolutely deplores. Therefore, he declares “I’ll now deny service to you because I hate Jane Austen!” and leaves on the spot. The next day, a bill for the work he did before chosing to deny service arrives.
Do you think that’s an acceptable way to conduct business? Or that it should be an acceptable way do conduct business?
Are they allowed to deny services based on race, sexual orientation, sex? Companies are regulated in a number of ways. And… before we get into ‘Rights’, the Common Law principle as one may not enjoy his/her Rights at the expense of another’s. Under Common Law, Rights are passive. Nobody has a Right to demand a service, but nobody has a Right to deny it if it deprives them of their right to go about their legitimate activities.
There is also the law of contract. By offering a service on certain terms and conditions which are excepted by the other party, and the transaction takes place, there is a contract. Exclusion clauses in Co tracts have to be ‘reasonable’ or cannot be upheld in Court.
I think there needs to be some legal action in these matters.
Whatever services these companies supply, finance, paint or coffee, previous causes for access restriction was for proven criminal activities and disruptive behaviour, which has now been replaced with not being in the same group of thought. A Stonewall banner published recently says it all. “Acceptance without exception” total submission to their theme is the ultimate aim, you have no right to freedoms of action or thought or to object, only to capitulate. That is to where we are sleep walking.
The most sensible way to deal with this issue is for those Hunts affected to go on the attack. They should issue statements declaring that they will NOT be accepting card payments and they are CASH only.
If banking services are subsequently withdrawn they have the bank bang to rights, the card provider has lost business and as a Brucie Bonus gained much negative publicity and the Hunt can polish its halo.
Win, win chicken dinner as the kids say. Or something like that.
That’s a nice idea. But it’s not really practical until UK businesses are legally required to accept legal tender (including £50 notes, BTW), which they are not. There are even businesses who refuse to accept cash payments in Reading and in London, you’ll have serious trouble finding some which accept it.
The last cashless payment I made voluntarily went this way: I was at the counter in Sainsburys Broad Street (Reading) and had just packed all of my stuff into my backpack. I put my card in, entered the PIN and waited for “Approved. Remove Card.” to appear. I removed the card, grabbed by backpack and wanted to leave when the counterstuff person stopped me: “The payment hasn’t gone through! You removed the card to early!” (always blame the customer, part I) I protested that I didn’t but this obviously didn’t help. Then, I retried this a couple of times and the payment was rejected every time. As I knew I had £30 on the account, I then said “Ok, I’ll go to the cash machine to get £30 to pay my stuff” but the cash machine wouldn’t give me any money, either. Headscratching … I then came to conclusion that I must have misremembered my balance. I left the full backpack at the store, ran home (in summer) and checked my bank account — £30 had been debited from it at the time of the original transaction. No wonder it was empty now! I transferred enough money from my savings account to my current account, ran back to store, asked for the manager to come and demanded an explanation of this mystery. Instead, he started ranting loudly about my card being somehow bad (always blame the customer, part II) and that I’d need to pay all my things again (But make sure to use a different card this time!! — always blame the customer, part III). I ignored the ranting moron, put be card in, entered the pin again, waited for … and removed my card and this time, it worked.
Back at home, I contacted the bank about this. The answer I got was the Sainsburies computer had caused my bank account to be debited but then, refused to accept the payment. Hence, it went into a special account where it – unless claimed by the Sainsburys computer again – would remain for two weeks and then, I’d get it back (which I did).
I can perfectly do without adventures of this kind when shopping for groceries and hence, since then, I (again) always pay with cash.
I look forward to reading the list of “worst offenders” Nigel Farage is compiling with regard to financial institutions who are playing politics with their customers instead of serving them. I see also a huge commercial opportunity opening up for those financial service providers who actually want to run a business and make profit by providing customers with good services instead of acting as would-be tin-pot dictators trying to shape society through discrimination and persecution. This could be the banking sectors bud-light moment.
Just a thought about the Farage/Coutts dossier. He exercised his right to access it, and then published its content, also his right. But in so doing, under current and intended legislation, does the content of that dossier, now in the public domain, constitute a hate crime against him?
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.
But there’s certainly no need to worry that programmable digital currencies will be used for social control. Just a conspiracy theory, folks.
https://www.gbnews.com/cash if you haven’t signed it already.
If that carries on, £50 notes might be in demand. Organised social groups with cash in hand, no invoices etc won’t be popular with the Treasury.
Of course cash is the solution and the last lifeline to some semblance of freedom.
Which is why we can be sure all sorts of legislation is in the works to limit and ultimately eradicate its use.
It will come disguised as something that no-one can argue against, like the anti-corruption billl or the financial integrity bill or some other Orwellian term.
We are going to have to fight extremely hard to keep out right to use cash.
An enlightened government (ha! ha!) would boost our sagging economy by making all cash transactions non-declarable for tax purposes. A thriving black economy would provide the roots for the overall economy to grow (on the basis that cash eventually finds its way back into the bank, at which point it becomes taxable – but meantime the quantity of released, entrepreneurial energy would be tidal).
Financial institutions destroying more of their business and nobody thinks this is odd? Just woke overzealousness?
Not very likely.
Nudge, nudge, nudge.
Here comes the Central Bank Digital Currency in all it’s gory Chinese-style social credit scoring glory.
Slowly but inexorably we will all become prisoners of a digital panopticon.
Our every thought, word and deed monitored for ‘wrong-think’ by an unelected bureaucracy of Common Purpose graduates.
Orwell would have rejected this plan as being too dystopian, too depressing, too hopeless.
I actively deplore hunting purely from the animal cruelty perspective.
That said, I often wonder why hardly anyone seems to get upset about the huge increase in the number of animals that suffer horrific injury and death in the name of progressing medical research especially now with mRNA/vaccines. Lots of bigpharma even grow their own literally/genetically.speaking.
How many miracle cures have actually arisen from this “essential research” – especially set against the actual harm the animal tested product actually cause (see the criminal fines paid by bigpharma in that regard.
Anyway, back to the article. It’s deplorable that any bank should have this sort of power – because surely only the Government should have this sort of abilty (sarc).
Cash rules and if we lose it, it’s welcome to a dystopian future.
”You took the words right out of my mouth..” 100% concur, well said and bravo, Sforzesca!
I’m not accusing any individual hunt of anything, however some hunts are using trail hunting as a cover for continuing to hunt foxes illegally. In this case they should be treated the same as any other criminal organisation and have their assets frozen or cut off, and I’m just talking about financial assets.
In my experience all hunts use the trail hunt loophole as cover. It’s amazing how many hounds just happen to lose the trail and well, unfortunately, end up hunting a fox instead.
If anyone happens to think the fox doesn’t suffer, they ought to be there at a “kill” in order to see and hear how humanely the dogs tear the fox to bits. Not that I blame the hounds though. Some human beings actually enjoy it…
And another niceity is the blocking of and interfing with badger sets by the brave terriermen lest the fox go to ground. Completely illegal also.
That may be so, but if it is a loophole or actually illegal then that should be put right through the normal channels. Its nothing to do with the banks or their card payment providers
“I actively deplore hunting purely from the animal cruelty perspective.”
Ever seen a pregnant ewe after a fox has attacked it, or a chicken run after a fox has got in?
Psst … don’t tell these guy we’re animal predators with an instinct to hunt, too. He very likely doesn’t want to know that.
We have all sorts of instincts left over from our evolutionary past, e.g. rape and racism (or at least hatred of people who aren’t part of a small social group) have a lot of evolutionary advantages. The vast majority of people have managed to overcome these instincts and society is so much better as a result. Most of us have also overcome the natural instinct to hunt, shame not everyone can.
Hunting with dogs is completely different to controlling foxes humanely e.g. by shooting. Foxes attacking livestock are simply following their instincts and have no concept of morality or right and wrong. Surely a big part of what makes us different from animals is our sense of right and wrong and our ability to overcome our base instincts.
Would sooner subscribe to the Beano than the DT so I can’t read the link to find out who the financial company in question relates to. Does anyone know?
DS and Telegraph both identify the company as being called SumUp. They’re described as a card reader provider, my response would be “Who, never heard of them”.
Looking at their website they seem to be one of the many companies that have set up in recent years using mobile phone technology to connect a simple card reader to the banks by way of an app. The only difference I can see is they might be a bit cheaper than others.
So same as a Zettle (now owned by Toby’s favorite organisation, PayPal).
For hunts, cash is best, surely?
If fortune-telling is also prohibited business, when are we going to hear about Neil Ferguson’s debanking?
Haha.. that made me chuckle..
This is significantly different from the Farage case. Sumup are withdrawing their services because they would be supporting an activity they disapprove of and there are plenty of alternatives. This is much closer to the woman who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage because she disapproved of it (and I think that was reasonable even though I have no problem with gay marriage).
Coutts disapproved of Farage. Same thing.
This is significantly different from the Farage case. Sumup are withdrawing their services because they would be supporting an activity they disapprove of
You’re misrepresenting this. Sumup is not a being and cannot disapprove of anything. This is another case of people employed by a publically-traded company abusing their accidental position of power (which is based on handling lots of other people’s money) to harm some other people because these probably engage in activities which are not compatible with the political program of the US democrats. And they’re absuing it to the financial detriment of the business they’re working for.
There are also no workable alternatives to a financial services provider which choses to stop providing this service to someone without advance notice in the middle of a fund-raising event.
You are comparing apples and oranges. individuals, like bakers, have personal feelings and attitudes. A company is not an individual.
Company = The Members In Company = those who own the company stock = shareholders.
A company is not a person except for legal reasons and therefore it or ‘they’ cannot approve of/disprove of anything. Technically all of the shareholders could at a general meeting by passing a resolution to that effect.
Instead we have managers making decisions based on their personal prejudices, rather than what enhances shareholder value, in breach of their fiduciary duty. There is a strong case for shareholders to start suing these idiots.
Hang on though, SumUp isn’t a bank, it’s a financial service. Surely private companies are allowed to deny services to whoever they want? De-banking for political reasons is clearly dangerous and appalling, but is that what this is…?
Sumup is one of a number of payment providers. Just at Natwest if one of a number of banks. If you’re a trader or any kind of organisation and none of the digital payment providers will do business with you, you cannot take card payments and you are screwed.
Hang on though, SumUp isn’t a bank, it’s a financial service. Surely private companies are allowed to deny services to whoever they want?
Let’s use a contrived example to illustrate this: Assume there’s an actual private enterprise (not the case in the real example) and it’s a plumbing service. Some customer arranges for an appointing to have a leaking pipe fixed. The plumber who’s the owner of the business shows up and does half of the job, ie, takes everything apart. Then, he suddenly notices that his customers owns a book by Jane Austen, an author he absolutely deplores. Therefore, he declares “I’ll now deny service to you because I hate Jane Austen!” and leaves on the spot. The next day, a bill for the work he did before chosing to deny service arrives.
Do you think that’s an acceptable way to conduct business? Or that it should be an acceptable way do conduct business?
Are they allowed to deny services based on race, sexual orientation, sex? Companies are regulated in a number of ways. And… before we get into ‘Rights’, the Common Law principle as one may not enjoy his/her Rights at the expense of another’s. Under Common Law, Rights are passive. Nobody has a Right to demand a service, but nobody has a Right to deny it if it deprives them of their right to go about their legitimate activities.
There is also the law of contract. By offering a service on certain terms and conditions which are excepted by the other party, and the transaction takes place, there is a contract. Exclusion clauses in Co tracts have to be ‘reasonable’ or cannot be upheld in Court.
I think there needs to be some legal action in these matters.
Whatever services these companies supply, finance, paint or coffee, previous causes for access restriction was for proven criminal activities and disruptive behaviour, which has now been replaced with not being in the same group of thought. A Stonewall banner published recently says it all. “Acceptance without exception” total submission to their theme is the ultimate aim, you have no right to freedoms of action or thought or to object, only to capitulate. That is to where we are sleep walking.
The most sensible way to deal with this issue is for those Hunts affected to go on the attack. They should issue statements declaring that they will NOT be accepting card payments and they are CASH only.
If banking services are subsequently withdrawn they have the bank bang to rights, the card provider has lost business and as a Brucie Bonus gained much negative publicity and the Hunt can polish its halo.
Win, win chicken dinner as the kids say. Or something like that.
That’s a nice idea. But it’s not really practical until UK businesses are legally required to accept legal tender (including £50 notes, BTW), which they are not. There are even businesses who refuse to accept cash payments in Reading and in London, you’ll have serious trouble finding some which accept it.
And… people want to pay in cash. I don’t.
The last cashless payment I made voluntarily went this way: I was at the counter in Sainsburys Broad Street (Reading) and had just packed all of my stuff into my backpack. I put my card in, entered the PIN and waited for “Approved. Remove Card.” to appear. I removed the card, grabbed by backpack and wanted to leave when the counterstuff person stopped me: “The payment hasn’t gone through! You removed the card to early!” (always blame the customer, part I) I protested that I didn’t but this obviously didn’t help. Then, I retried this a couple of times and the payment was rejected every time. As I knew I had £30 on the account, I then said “Ok, I’ll go to the cash machine to get £30 to pay my stuff” but the cash machine wouldn’t give me any money, either. Headscratching … I then came to conclusion that I must have misremembered my balance. I left the full backpack at the store, ran home (in summer) and checked my bank account — £30 had been debited from it at the time of the original transaction. No wonder it was empty now! I transferred enough money from my savings account to my current account, ran back to store, asked for the manager to come and demanded an explanation of this mystery. Instead, he started ranting loudly about my card being somehow bad (always blame the customer, part II) and that I’d need to pay all my things again (But make sure to use a different card this time!! — always blame the customer, part III). I ignored the ranting moron, put be card in, entered the pin again, waited for … and removed my card and this time, it worked.
Back at home, I contacted the bank about this. The answer I got was the Sainsburies computer had caused my bank account to be debited but then, refused to accept the payment. Hence, it went into a special account where it – unless claimed by the Sainsburys computer again – would remain for two weeks and then, I’d get it back (which I did).
I can perfectly do without adventures of this kind when shopping for groceries and hence, since then, I (again) always pay with cash.
Those people who reject cash payments are taking the rest of us to a digital hell.
I look forward to reading the list of “worst offenders” Nigel Farage is compiling with regard to financial institutions who are playing politics with their customers instead of serving them. I see also a huge commercial opportunity opening up for those financial service providers who actually want to run a business and make profit by providing customers with good services instead of acting as would-be tin-pot dictators trying to shape society through discrimination and persecution. This could be the banking sectors bud-light moment.
Stop Central Bank Digital Currencies
Just a thought about the Farage/Coutts dossier. He exercised his right to access it, and then published its content, also his right. But in so doing, under current and intended legislation, does the content of that dossier, now in the public domain, constitute a hate crime against him?