Following the ‘debanking’ scandal during the summer – when Nigel Farage was dumped by Coutts due to his political views – the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority launched an urgent inquiry. Thomas Osborne in Spiked has taken a closer look at its disgraceful finding – that there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
There was certainly plenty of evidence for the FCA to look at. Metro Bank, PayPal, First Direct, Monzo and fintech company Tide have all been caught debanking political figures from across the political spectrum, including the presenters of the Triggernometry podcast, Scottish-independence campaigner Stuart Campbell and anti-Brexit activist Gina Miller. …
Debanking certainly appears to be a significant problem. Quite apart from the question of ‘politically exposed persons’, there is clear evidence that banks have been deliberately denying services to people on account of their political beliefs. But if you were expecting the FCA’s investigation to shed a further forensic light on the issue, you will be sorely disappointed. Last month, the FCA concluded its investigation and announced it had found absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing. Move along, nothing to see here.
To have arrived at this conclusion takes some doing. Firstly, the FCA consciously ignored the most damning evidence of debanking – namely, the Farage-Coutts scandal – on the grounds that the data it analysed simply didn’t include it. Given the FCA only launched the investigation because of the Farage-Coutts scandal, this omission is doubly absurd.
But it wasn’t just the Farage case that the FCA ignored. It also disregarded other well-publicised instances of debanking. Instead, the FCA decided that it would be better (and no doubt easier) to simply ask the big banks themselves whether they have consciously debanked a politically divisive customer. Unsurprisingly, the banks claimed that this is not something they do. Satisfied, the FCA concluded that the banks aren’t debanking anyone.
Worth reading in full.
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.
It’s like the three not so wise monkeys. They couldn’t find a beer in a brewery. The Chancellor should call them in and sack the entire board of the FCA.
Why would he sack a body doing exactly what he wants. Resignation honours all round?
I was surprised when he was debanked when you consider, yes he is a Tory, but also a Globalist who wanted more of the fascism in Lockdown Chinese style. Also his wife has been in the CCP television channel. Wouldn’t that be like inviting Rudolf Hess into Parliament rather than putting him in Jail.
The FCA is another crappy pseudo-New Labour organisation that needs abolition. It’s simply a way for the state to keep the risk of taking responsibility at arm’s length.
Tony Blair is the architect of so much of this emerging fascism!
I said it when the Farage story broke and I repeat it now.
Banking discrimination isn’t a bug or a failure of the system. It is a design of the system..
All governments have very deliberately charged banks with monitoring their clients and blocking those deemed to be undesirable. And they are potentially liable for any wrong doing of their clients if they are found no to have taken “adeauate” precautions. The vagueness is also a feature not a bug. That is the system whether we like it or not.
All they were ever going to do with the Farage scandal was weather the storm and carry on as usual.
If they want to solve the problem – which they don’t – they would need to stop making banks responsible for any nefarious actions of their clients and go back to what it used to be. That would mean not treating every client as a potential criminal and the legal system, not the banking system, deal with any wrong doing.
Indeed a sad microcosm of the larger picture whereby the vast law abiding majority have their lives made increasingly miserable and constrained because the minority. My neighbourhood now has a 20mph speed limit, which I ignore religiously. Some parts of it I would barely get above 15 because they are narrow, with obstructed vision, parked cars etc. Other parts it’s fine to do 30-35 on. Obviously now and again there are drivers who are too stupid or lazy to work out where you can go faster and where you should go slower, so everyone now has to go slowly.
Even with the ‘lazy” drivers, how.much of a problem was it? My bet is that nobody died, nobody got run over, a few.people were reckless from time to time and that was it.
I’m short, there was no problem that needed solving.
This is the reality of modern state bureaucrats and officials. They put all theri energy into solving problems that don’t exist and don’t go anywhere near the real problems, like unsustainable debt, dysfunctional Soviet style healthcare, because the solutions are truly difficult and politically explosive.
I have only lived in the area for 3 years but not aware of any serious issues – maybe the odd fender bender. And for that they spent £10,000s painted stupid signs on the road, more street furniture (in a conservation area that has a 12th century church) and speed humps to ruin your suspension, and now when I hold back to let cars through because it’s too narrow for both of us, I have to wait longer because some numpties drive at 20.
It is like your phone line cut off in conversation because the phone company doesn’t agree with what you just said….But you are a phone company FFS!
Bad, but this is potentially far, far worse and the means to make us own nothing:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/macleod-unwinding-financial-system
Holders of shares in physical ETFs and shares could find them plundered through the agency of JPMorganChase and other central clearing counterparties, where their status permits them to deploy bullion and other private property as they see fit.
Will, excuse my distracting pedantry, but…
‘Nigel Farage was dumped by Coutts due to his political views’
…should be
‘Nigel Farage was dumped by Coutts because of his political views’
None of these regulatory outfits are fit for purpose. I had a genuine complaint about a solicitor and the SRA basically ignored what I had to say.