Dame Alison Rose, the CEO of NatWest, has resigned this morning, following yesterday’s admission that she was behind the leak to the BBC about Nigel Farage being de-banked because he didn’t meet Coutts’s financial thresholds. The Mail has more.
NatWest is engulfed in a full-blown crisis today after its chief executive was forced to quit over briefing the BBC about Nigel Farage’s ‘de-banking’.
Dame Alison Rose initially tried to cling on to her £5 million-a-year post despite dramatically admitting she was behind the leaking of a customer’s financial details.
But she finally fell on her sword in the early hours of the morning following an extraordinary intervention from the PM and Chancellor, who made clear their “significant concerns”. The taxpayer still has a big stake in NatWest following the Credit Crunch.
The furore was threatening to spread this morning, with Mr Farage hailing the departure as a “start” – but adding “the whole Board needs to go” after backing her abortive attempt to stay in post.
“She’s gone, and that’s a start, but I have to say that (Coutts chief executive) Peter Flavel… (NatWest chair) Howard Davies… it was the board that sanctioned this culture that talks about diversity and inclusion, and actually is very divisive,” he said.
“In my case, as you can clearly see, pretty poisonous stuff. I think any board member that endorsed that statement last night, where they said ‘yes, she breached confidentiality, but she can stay in her post’… frankly, I think the whole board needs to go.”
Senior Tories lined up behind their long-term political foe in the battle against ‘woke’ banking culture. Former Cabinet minister David Jones said: “Only yesterday they were declaring full confidence in her. How can they expect customers, shareholders and the taxpayer to retain confidence in them?”
A No 10 source said Rishi Sunak was concerned about the unfolding situation. The source said: “Alison Rose has done the right thing in resigning.
“Everyone would expect people in public life – whether that’s in a business leadership role or otherwise – to act responsibly and with integrity.”
Shares in NatWest fell by 3% in early trading this morning, while other banks were also hit – with Lloyds down 3% despite a surge in half-year profits.
City minister Andrew Griffith – who was due to hold a summit with banking chiefs including Dame Alison this morning –wrote on Twitter: “It is right that the NatWest CEO has resigned.
“This would never have happened if NatWest had not taken it upon itself to withdraw a bank account due to someone’s lawful political views. That was and is always unacceptable.
“I hope the whole financial sector learns from this incident. Its role is to serve customers well and fairly – not to tell them how or what to think.”
Worth reading in full.
The BBC, Times, Telegraph and Guardian also have the story.
Now the Chairman of the Board, Sir Howard Davies, and the CEO of Coutts, Peter Flavel, have to go.
Well done Nigel – you’ve played a blinder. The chief executives of high street banks will be sending out company-wide memos this morning telling their employees not to de-bank anyone.
Watch me talking to Nigel about this sinister new form of cancel culture here.
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.
https://x.com/bennyjohnson/status/1887605772252766406
Trump latest…
Pull every single media contract for GSA… Politico, BBC and Bloomberg.”
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1887622776569110726
President Trump has just signed an executive order requiring an audit of EVERY NGO which relies on federal funding, per Reuters
Biden gave BILLIONS to these NGOs to facilitate an invasion of our country.
trump is doing a good job laying waste to all the woke & climate bollox, and put IC cars back on the playbook, but Whintey Webb warns about sacred Calves and how Big Tech has rallied around Trump but are still there with their connections to the Deep State.
Heed the warning:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ0uuC7GIDI
Governments should not be funding NGOs. Tax money should go exclusively to the provision of essential services that it makes sense for a centralised state to provide – national defence, protection of the borders (which should really be seen as national defence as we are being invaded daily), law and order, justice system, network stuff like road, rail and utility infrastructure. That’s it.
Indeed – make NGO’s survive on their own, and we’d clear out a ton of them in no time
We have to persuade a lot more people that coercing tax money out of people is dangerous and should be very limited. The default assumption seems to be that if some activity X or campaign Y seems like a Jolly Good Idea to some large enough group of people and they argue it’s For The Public Good then it’s fine to threaten people with prison if they don’t share your views AND refuse to pay for it. If enough people think it’s a Good Idea, let them bloody pay for it.
Especially the UK government. Our government funds NGOs that actively campaign against government policy. It even funds NGOs that bring judicial review lawsuits against government action meaning that we’re literally paying for the lawyers that make it so that we have to pay for other lawyers to achieve democratically elected goals…
UK Column was saying how the Online “Safety” Bill can also come after publishers to blogs…..In other words, people who comment on articles. We have a bumpy ride ahead. My take on this is they want this in place before their next PsyOp.
I’m not sure it’s even right to say that speech is sometimes harmful. Harm comes from how people react to that speech.
Good article.
Imo some speech e.g. Holocaust denial or using words such as nigger is genuinely harmful, although most speech that wokesters claim is harmful isn’t.
I would much rather see a small amount of harmful speech rather than having non harmful speech that a few people e.g. moderators at Fb, MSN disagree with or think will offend a few snowflakes censored.
I suppose it depends on what exactly you mean by harmful.
Something that will cause a lot of upset to people who aren’t woke/professional offence takers. This is why I used Holocaust denial as an example because I think a lot of people whose relatives were murdered would, quite rightly, be upset by claims that it didn’t happen, whereas Imo people who claim to be upset by gender critical opinions deserve to be “upset”/”hurt”.
I don’t go out of my way to gratuitously offend people, but is getting upset “harmful”?
That reminds me of the time when Bill Clinton said: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is ‘is……
Nobody should have the right not to be offended.
Trump has had access to the JFK file for a long time. One hopes that he was so horrified that he vowed to expose it and tear it apart. Trump says he will release everything to do with the 1960s assassinations and the deadline is in just a few days time. Maybe that will be a revelation so shocking that the CIA would have to immediately scatter itself to the four winds.
They have had a few weeks (or head start) to ‘lose’ pages etc.
Might be a bit optimistic but I am just hoping that they have decided to let it all out given the gravity of the timesand also because it might suit the Trump agenda given that Trump has just offered all CIA employees the option of quitting with a year’s severance pay. Obviously this can be construed as a way to tell the corrupt characters to get out while you can.
Every instance of the asymmetry described is in effect an admission of guilt by the ruling elite.
Not that I’m suggesting they ever feel guilty about the imposition of their New World Order policies they inflict on their unwilling and increasingly resentful populaces, who sadly for them still cling to traditional notions of democracy and fairness.
The elites think that they are the enlightened ones whose duty it is to guide the benighted masses towards a new Utopia ruled over by a wise and benign technocracy, which is how they see themselves.
It’s only those on the other side of the divide who are able to see just how ridiculous these people are.
With the advent of new forms of media however, they’re realising that they’re losing control of the narrative, which is why there’s a push towards increasing censorship and surveillance in an attempt to suppress dissent.
We have to keep pushing back. The alternative is slavery.
They say the Arab Spring was the last time the Globalists favoured social media in an open platform. Remember the old slogan of YouTube…..’Broadcast Yourself’.
Getting hosed-off with having to log in three or four times a day, (and I’m not the only one). C’mon DS sort it out.
You and me both. Worst is the fact that most times login is refused even though the details are exactly the same because my browser remembers them. So most of the time I cannot log in so I cannot comment or even like. I’m not sure there’s much point in paying my subscription next year. (clearly I managed to successfully log in, at the second time of asking, to post this comment but most of the time I am not allowed in)!
It’s when you’re composing a comment, especially a lengthy one, then when you come to post your comment it won’t allow it. Lo and behold It’s because in that time frame I’ve been logged out!😤 So you have to copy and paste your comment once you log back in. So I wonder if the site only has a set time limit or number of log-ins before you’re automatically logged out. Perhaps for security reasons or something.
‘eSafety Overlord’
Safety? Who for, though? Safety for our children from mass rape or murder by the Establishment’s beloved foreigners? Or will it be safety for the scum who inflicted this mass-rape/murder catastrophe on us?
In terms of big tech you can fight against it. Simple thing like using cash and using harsh words if anyone ever suggests anything other than cash. No smartphone outside the house obviously. You hear about these arrests at protests – most of them are because people took their phones along. Some even stand there taking pictures. Frankly if you are that naive then you probably won’t last much longer. What is your phone some masturbatory device that makes you feel uncomfortable when you’re without it? If so then you have understood nothing and you are ripe for culling.
Think about your phone and about how it demeans you. It turns you into a little wanker. At least with a desktop computer you have to make an effort to sit down. This smartphone device only exists to turn you into a little wanker. Look at how diminished you are compared to five years ago.
A study was conducted in America and it asked children which invention they hate most and they said the smartphone because their parents would mess with their phones when they are supposed to be nurturing children. It isn’t my job to continually point out your sickness so please try to take hold of it yourself. When I look at how feeble your will is I don’t blame the power elite for wanting to knock you off.
Only a slave wants censorship of any kind.
If you have just read that statement and find yourself disagreeing, then I’m afraid you have the mentality of a slave. Sorry.
I see people who want censorship more as tyrants than slaves. They want censorship of everything they don’t like or disagree with, and everything they think should be allowed must not be censored, and they want everyone else to abide by their definition of what’s acceptable AND for the state to enforce that with everyone’s tax money.
No longer a mensch or even a man just a vassal awaiting orders. The footsoldiers of an agenda that you vaguely disavow. Look at yourself. Ask what you have been doing for the last thirty years in terms of awareness. Absolutely nothing. So have some humility in terms of your last minute resistance. It means very little.
This was a fantastic read but,
“to my mind at any rate because, lacking the religious gene, I don’t buy the whole natural rights worldview”
Why must one need to be religious to buy the idea of natural rights or God given rights for that matter? All one needs is an imagination for this. I am a life long agnostic and have no doubt I will die as such but believe ever so strongly in the strength and importance of the idea of natural, God given rights.
An interesting piece by James Allan but am I the only one who finds his style of writing difficult to read unlike say David McGrogan or James Alexander?