People with links to sanctioned Russians got debanked... not because of their political views
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
79 points (96.5% liked)
UK Politics
3105 readers
315 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean it is kind of because of his political views, but not in the way he means.
Like, if it's my political view that drugs should be legal, that doesnt mean Lloyd's need to tolerate me running a weed dealing business through their accounts.
As was stated by many at the time. The banks cannot state it openly because of litigation, but that does not mean they cannot recognise the potential cost it presents.
The costs are high. Finance regulations force the banks to investigate high-profile clients for any conflicts of interest or reasons where a bank may be facilitating something illegal or sanctioned. It is literally illegal for the bank not to perform these checks. They can’t just put on blinkers and claim ignorance.
It would be at least negligent to shareholders, and possibly outright illegal, not to act on that information if there were significant risk.
Honesty the fact that Farage has gotten away with claiming that the closure was politically motivated despite the one document he used as evidence of this not actually supporting that claim at all (seriously, go read it it basically amounts to "he's a dick but nothing he's done is illegal so we'll keep him on until his mortgage expires and he no longer meets the wealth requirements") has been a massive failure of the British media to do the bare minimum of due diligence on checking the BS he comes out with.
What he lied, that shocking.
He was just super excited to have an opportunity to be remotely relevant again for 5 minutes. That's the problem with being a single-minded brainless fuckwit, when you achieve your objective you become irrelevant. If he had any brains he would be a conservative and then he could bash everyone forever without ever the risk of actually achieving anything.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The City regulator has found no evidence that banks are closing accounts on the basis of customers' personal views, Sky News understands, to the fury of former Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is due to report shortly on the findings of its investigation, implemented amid the so-called de-banking row that engulfed NatWest in relation to the politician's dealings with the group's Coutts arm.
The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that the watchdog had found nothing to support his claims of a wider problem among the 34 lenders it had examined.
The probe was ordered by the chancellor who warned banks last month that they faced "very large" fines if they closed customer accounts based on their political opinions.
Coutts boss Peter Flavel resigned, as did NatWest chief executive Dame Alison Rose after she admitted being the source behind an incorrect BBC story about the row.
It came after Mr Farage obtained a 40-page dossier from Coutts which suggested the closure of his accounts was taken partly because his views did not align with its "values", including his position on LGBTQ+ rights and friendship with former US president Donald Trump.
The original article contains 308 words, the summary contains 193 words. Saved 37%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
He needs his account back so he can resume doing big chungus cameos