He was offered a NatWest account on the same day as his Coutts account was closed. His mortgage had come to an end.I must admit, with @Thunder Bolt I got this wrong, showing the dangers of guessing. A week ago we suspected that the cause was something tangible such as vast dodgy personal receipts from Putin. Would’ve made him tantamount to a traitor.
Something Chris Bryant once said in the Commons, but he daren’t say it outside parliamentary privilege.
Even Coutts are not mentioning anthing illegal or untoward in the slightest and they even had downgraded his PEP status.
Turns out to be purely based on what a small group of Coutts staff thought about his views/friends versus a corporate image NatWest/Coutts are claiming to now have.
A personal view, I don’t like Farage. But I’m suspicious of Natwest …. image is one thing, it looks good in the annual corporate report narrative pages, making all the right noises on equality, net zero. But then there’s the reality of ripping off savers and mortgage holders just now, they’re rated as having low ethics on all the websites that rate such things and they were caught accepting £100m’s in cash from money launderers
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...mitting-breaching-anti-money-laundering-rules. In addition LBC interviewed an anti Farage caller this morning who had banked with Coutts, who said their usp was offering him and all customers tax avoiding offshore products.
Appears to be a bank with very selective morals and ethics.
He was offered a NatWest account on the same day as his Coutts account was closed. His mortgage had come to an end.
He is still being offered a NatWest account.
With hindsight, obviously they would put their reputations and business at risk because they don't agree with someone's politics.Or, alternatively, a bank has a very good reason for not wanting anything to do with Farage and his money and has decided to do something about it.
He's thrown his toys out of the pram, done a Donald Trump and said the world is against him and now all of a sudden people are jumping on the conspiracy theory bandwagon.
Do you honestly think banks – especially one such as Coutts – would put their reputations and business at risk because they are seen to be trying to 'cancel' someone (it's not cancelling him, is it?)?
Ouch. Simon Jack has now had to say sorry for thisNigel Farage bank account shut for falling below wealth limit, source tells BBC
Nigel Farage's account with the bank Coutts is not being closed for political reasons, the BBC is told.www.bbc.co.uk
Nigel Farage fell below the financial threshold required to hold an account at Coutts, the prestigious private bank for the wealthy, the BBC has been told.
It is understood that he was subsequently offered a standard account at NatWest which owns Coutts.
Last week, Mr Farage said he believed his account had been shut for political reasons and he was turned down by seven other lenders when he went elsewhere.
But people familiar with Coutts' move said it was a "commercial" decision.
Ouch. Simon Jack has now had to say sorry for this
He could reveal his source but that would be unwise; it would be the last sauce he ever gets. Also, it is the responsibility of the journalist to ensure the information reported is correct. It would seem that he didn't do so.Here's another question. Since Jack has been sold down the river by his source who told him a pack of lies, does that mean he has any obligation to protect his source? It seems he has been used as a tool (perhaps in both senses of the word) by someone at the bank trying to protect his or her backside.
If it was Alison Rose (CEO of NatWest group) who was the leak, then Simon Jack may have felt the source was unimpeachable! And if it was her, then the obvious next question is did she know she was lying, or had she been fed duff gen from below?He could reveal his source but that would be unwise; it would be the last sauce he ever gets. Also, it is the responsibility of the journalist to ensure the information reported is correct. It would seem that he didn't do so.
I haven't read the reports but if the journalist reported 'sources are alleging' this may obviate the need for them to be true.
I will leave it to potty to dissect the content here, then he can tell the rest of you all about it.
If it was Alison Rose (CEO of NatWest group) who was the leak, then Simon Jack may have felt the source was unimpeachable! And if it was her, then the obvious next question is did she know she was lying, or had she been fed duff gen from below?
nah, it's BBC being precious about accuracy. any other outlet wouldn't appologise for getting the story half right, for many that would be above average.Here's another question. Since Jack has been sold down the river by his source who told him a pack of lies, does that mean he has any obligation to protect his source? It seems he has been used as a tool (perhaps in both senses of the word) by someone at the bank trying to protect his or her backside.
Think he's going to have enough money to open a few Coutts accounts after this.It was her, now confirmed.
Head of a bank gossiped about a customer’s financial affairs with a journalist and lied.
Has he nominated himself for the Nobel Peace Prize yet?The oldball is really milking it now.
Of course he is. With Brexit apparently ‘done’ and policies apparently in place to stop the boats, what else is a self serving, tediously repetitive gobsh1te supposed to do to keep themselves in the public eye?The oldball is really milking it now.
Terrifying thoughtWants to take over the wreckage of the Tory party.
Do the them what Trump has done to the Republicans.