Customers being frozen out of their bank accounts for political views is a very worrying trend ...

by LoveUniHateExams 23 Replies latest social current

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    Yeah, so I know Nigel Farage is a bit of an abrasive twat.

    He no doubt holds views that other people disagree with.

    But that doesn't mean his bank can just tell him to sod off and freeze his accounts.

    Such a thing might go on in Commie China or authoritarian Russia. No doubt Hitler closed lots of Jewish people's accounts in Nazi Germany, too.

    But the fact that it is happening here, in the Yew-Kay, is pretty chilling when you consider this country is supposed to champion freedoms, including the one to hold and express varying political views.

    This seems to be part of a trend to delegitimise and cancel people who hold certain views.

    I remember looking at a YT video of Richard Dawkins questioning Muslim journalist Mehdi Hassan about his belief in flying horses and Muhammad. All fair analysis and criticism by Dawkins until he suggested that Hassan shouldn't be a journalist because of his beliefs. I don't like Mehdi Hassan but re journalism, he must be judged on his abilities as a journalist, and not on his religious/personal beliefs.

    Like I said, Farage probably isn't a lot of people's cup of tea. But he should be allowed to maintain an account with the bank of his choice, regardless of his political views. Just imagine if a bank had frozen Nicola Sturgeon's account because she was pro-independence ... that would be outrageous, and plenty of Scotch Nuts would be out in force, protesting against oppression and the rest of it.

    The only good thing that came out of this affair was the Head Banker (Dame Alison Rose), who briefed a BBC journalist about Farage and lied about why the bank got rid of him, had to resign herself.

    Do you think other banks will learn this lesson?

    Watch this space ...

  • stan livedeath
    stan livedeath

    I think Farage will be prime minister soon..dunno what party though.

  • punkofnice
    punkofnice
    LUHE - The only good thing that came out of this affair was the Head Banker (Dame Alison Rose), who briefed a BBC journalist

    It's not an ideal outcome. In my opinion she should be fined for breaching the data protection act, fined and possibly jailed. Your average working class person would probably be.

    Of course she's in that protected elite class, so won't lose much anyway. These types never do.

    The long march through the institutions is alive and well and further ahead of the game than we thought.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march_through_the_institutions#:~:text=The%20long%20march%20through%20the,entering%20institutions%20such%20as%20the

  • Journeyman
    Journeyman

    This has come to light because Farage is a high-profile and very vocal personality.

    But how many other, less prominent people have been (or are being) denied access to facilities such as bank accounts because of their views? And even if it may be rare now, how do we prevent it from become a growing trend in years to come?

    We are increasingly seeing two worrying trends converge, 1) the tightening of control over individual's lives by institutions - banks and other multinational corporations, government departments, tech companies, etc, and 2) the increase of blacklisting or 'cancelling' people for holding views deemed undesirable by the major 'influencers' and leading classes in society.

    When these two elements meet, there is huge potential for rendering people who are thought to hold 'non-PC' or 'controversial' views as non-persons if they don't fit the desired profile.

    I doubt banks as a whole will 'learn their lesson', as this is become a trend embedded in society in general. This will probably just be treated as an embarrassing one-off mistake by Rose (and if they can't pin it all on her alone, other members of the board). Unless of course, more such cases come to light and it opens a whole can of worms showing a pattern of this kind of behaviour...

  • TonusOH
    TonusOH

    The dangerous part of this behavior is that it assumes that one particular ideology will be dominant and able to take advantage of any changes in society, especially in laws and regulations. People who promote this sort of attitude, where they feel it is okay to bend the rules (or ignore them, or rewrite them) in order to safeguard society, often help usher in a period of repression and control that is led by someone else. Someone whose ideals may not align with those of their enablers, and which might even be in opposition.

    This person, who thought it was okay to freeze the assets of someone she dislikes, may find herself wondering what happened, when this same action is used against her. And it might not be by those she perceives to be the political 'bad guys.' The people who rose to power by telling her what she wanted to hear will not be so generous once they have the power they want and no longer need her support.

  • joe134cd
    joe134cd

    Interestingly, I was reading an article the other day. It speculated that the country most pushing for a cashless society was China. The reason been it gives the Chinese government greater control over people with differing political opinions. If, for what ever reason they don’t like you, they just close your account down and flush you out that way.

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    Coutts are a very exclusive bank for the very rich and it is not for the likes of you and me. They select their customers. Admittedly the handling of the matter may be poor but surely they can accept or reject who ever they want . If , for example we had a political figure akin to Oswald Mosley in the last century, would you say the same about his right to bank with royalty.?

    The Co Op Bank has an ethical policy which means that , for example ,if a CEO of a company making land mines wanted an account, they would tell him to go elsewhere. Is that policy under threat now?

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    Coutts are a very exclusive bank for the very rich and it is not for the likes of you and me. They select their customers - well, putting to one side the fact that other, less exclusive banks have done similar, isn't accepting/rejecting customers on the basis of their political opinions a rather arbitrary way to proceed?

    And if banks wish to go down this route, shouldn't they make their 'values' publicly known so customers can pick the right banks for them?

    Myself, I'm having a hard time taking seriously the fact that banks have values. To me, banks are greedy amoral scum, but what would I know ...

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    I don’t have a problem with private banks doing whatever they want, however, when government pressure is born, they are no longer private but agents of the people (in the US) or the crown (in the UK) and must comply with those rules and regulations.

    Due to the monarchy in the UK however I don’t see any legal or other recourse other than a revolution as the King or Prime Minister can just snap his fingers, suspend parliament and everything in the UK reverts to the political whims of the crown.

  • Foolednomore
    Foolednomore

    I have a simple rules to live by. Rule1 Don't mess with my family. Rule 2 Mess with my money, catch a bullet!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit