Independent Leyton Orient Forum

I disagree with Spen on most things, but his point here is not that the bank are effectively Nazis, but is that when a principle is at stake, it is incumbent on reasonable people to stand up for that principle when it impacts those we have no affinity with, because the breakdown of that principle is then harder to address when the impact is closer to home.

It’s disingenuous to pretend to not understand this, even if the urge to enjoy Farage getting taken down a peg or two is tempting

CEB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 8:11 am I disagree with Spen on most things, but his point here is not that the bank are effectively Nazis, but is that when a principle is at stake, it is incumbent on reasonable people to stand up for that principle when it impacts those we have no affinity with, because the breakdown of that principle is then harder to address when the impact is closer to home.

It’s disingenuous to pretend to not understand this, even if the urge to enjoy Farage getting taken down a peg or two is tempting

How dare you come on here being all reasonable and that.

I demand to be offended by something that someone I don't know wrote on the internet

CEB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 8:11 am I disagree with Spen on most things, but his point here is not that the bank are effectively Nazis, but is that when a principle is at stake, it is incumbent on reasonable people to stand up for that principle when it impacts those we have no affinity with, because the breakdown of that principle is then harder to address when the impact is closer to home.

It’s disingenuous to pretend to not understand this, even if the urge to enjoy Farage getting taken down a peg or two is tempting

Are you going to stand up for my rights because coutts won’t allow me to open an account just because I haven’t got a million quid. The capitalist machine churns up another proll.

I really don’t see how you can jump from this story to there’s a principle at risk that’s going to roll into some sort of tyrannical state

The one think I'm shocked by is that Big Nige puts his money in a bank rather than invest in countless HMOs, the interest rate from Polish Builders and alcoholics living off the state must be higher than an ISA right?

I for one feel that he has a creepy slum landlord feel about him

Rich Tea Wellin wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 8:19 am

CEB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 8:11 am I disagree with Spen on most things, but his point here is not that the bank are effectively Nazis, but is that when a principle is at stake, it is incumbent on reasonable people to stand up for that principle when it impacts those we have no affinity with, because the breakdown of that principle is then harder to address when the impact is closer to home.

It’s disingenuous to pretend to not understand this, even if the urge to enjoy Farage getting taken down a peg or two is tempting

Are you going to stand up for my rights because coutts won’t allow me to open an account just because I haven’t got a million quid. The capitalist machine churns up another proll.

I really don’t see how you can jump from this story to there’s a principle at risk that’s going to roll into some sort of tyrannical state

You are conflating two things:
1: an organisation having entry criteria based on what the business actually does and who its customer base is

and

2: an organisation where individuals in a position to make decisions attempted to exclude somebody on the basis of their legal political views.

If you can tell me which actual right of yours you feel is violated by you not being able to set up an account with a bank that sets a minimum amount of investment before accepting you, I’ll clarify whether I’ll support that right.

As for how I can jump from this issue to “a principle at risk that’s going to roll into some sort of tyrannical state” - well that’s a simple answer: I’m not suggesting an end result of a “tyrannical state”; I’m pointing out that if high ranking individuals within an organisation could exclude people with impunity because they don’t like their legal political beliefs, then that is something that has implications that go beyond “lol Farage got his account closed” into questions of how and why businesses can exclude people based on other political beliefs.

Example: had this stood, and had you thought “this is reasonable behaviour for a bank”, then on what basis might you say “this is unacceptable” if, say, a major bank in this country closed the account of, let’s say an anti capitalist left wing comedian, on the basis that her values demonstrably don’t align with those of the bank?

Anyone who thinks this is just "right wing moaners" upset that Farage has had his bank account closed is missing the point.

Banks operate under license and are required to be run on a financially safe, fair and transparent basis. They are not supermarkets where you can just walk up the road and buy your potatoes elsewhere. If people are denied a bank account it seriously impacts their lives.

There are already reports of 1000s of ordinary people having their business and personal bank accounts closed without explanation. Or indeed with explanation - that "your views and opinions do not align with our values".

faldO wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 8:33 am Anyone who thinks this is just "right wing moaners" upset that Farage has had his bank account closed is missing the point.

Banks operate under license and are required to be run on a financially safe, fair and transparent basis. They are not supermarkets where you can just walk up the road and buy your potatoes elsewhere. If people are denied a bank account it seriously impacts their lives.

There are already reports of 1000s of ordinary people having their business and personal bank accounts closed without explanation. Or indeed with explanation - that "your views and opinions do not align with our values".

Comparing Lidl with Fortnum & Mason

And he’s doing so correctly, by accurately stating principles that, to use your analogy, both Lidl and Fortnums should be held to.

Eg, if Fortnum & Mason threw Farage out from one of its stores on the basis that they didn’t like his politics, on what basis would you object to a supermarket throwing out a climate activist on the grounds that the climate activist’s political beliefs that “importing food by air is harmful” is incompatible with their values?

CEB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:16 am And he’s doing so correctly, by accurately stating principles that, to use your analogy, both Lidl and Fortnums should be held to.

Eg, if Fortnum & Mason threw Farage out from one of its stores on the basis that they didn’t like his politics, on what basis would you object to a supermarket throwing out a climate activist on the grounds that the climate activist’s political beliefs that “importing food by air is harmful” is incompatible with their values?

Any Retail outlet can refuse entry to there Buisness with out needing to give a reason .

Equaliser0 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:32 am

CEB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:16 am And he’s doing so correctly, by accurately stating principles that, to use your analogy, both Lidl and Fortnums should be held to.

Eg, if Fortnum & Mason threw Farage out from one of its stores on the basis that they didn’t like his politics, on what basis would you object to a supermarket throwing out a climate activist on the grounds that the climate activist’s political beliefs that “importing food by air is harmful” is incompatible with their values?

Any Retail outlet can refuse entry to there Buisness with out needing to give a reason .

That would be a problem with your analogy, rather than my analysis of the problems with that analogy.
Besides which, while a business is not obliged to *give* a reason, if the reason for denial of service was due to protected characteristics (including freedom of belief), that would be illegal.

You see, “not having to give a reason” is not the same as “can deny service for *any* reason”

Can’t believe Beradogs removed his “like” from my post

CEB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:39 am

Equaliser0 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:32 am

CEB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:16 am And he’s doing so correctly, by accurately stating principles that, to use your analogy, both Lidl and Fortnums should be held to.

Eg, if Fortnum & Mason threw Farage out from one of its stores on the basis that they didn’t like his politics, on what basis would you object to a supermarket throwing out a climate activist on the grounds that the climate activist’s political beliefs that “importing food by air is harmful” is incompatible with their values?

Any Retail outlet can refuse entry to there Buisness with out needing to give a reason .

That would be a problem with your analogy, rather than my analysis of the problems with that analogy.
Besides which, while a business is not obliged to *give* a reason, if the reason for denial of service was due to protected characteristics (including freedom of belief), that would be illegal.

You see, “not having to give a reason” is not the same as “can deny service for *any* reason”

Farage could easily prove why Coutts closed his accounts by showing his statement . I take what he says with a pinch of salt , he has form for telling fibs to the public .

You seem to have not kept up with the story - Coutts has apologised to him.

Besides which, that is a moving of the goalposts, because my point isn’t actually about Farage but about the principle of denial of service based on the attitudes of individuals at the top of an organisation not liking someone’s (legal) politics.

Farage has played a blinder here. He's set the trap knowing full well that the crank element of the left would walk straight into it. When the inevitable pivot to try and frame this as an ECHR issue happens, his side's opponents will already have been discredited.

And Coutts have provided everyone with a helpful demonstration of how not to handle a publicity crisis.

CEB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:59 am You seem to have not kept up with the story - Coutts has apologised to him.

Besides which, that is a moving of the goalposts, because my point isn’t actually about Farage but about the principle of denial of service based on the attitudes of individuals at the top of an organisation not liking someone’s (legal) politics.

Apologised for Internal emails , but not for closing his account . I'm not interested in your point .

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 10:00 am Farage has played a blinder here. He's set the trap knowing full well that the crank element of the left would walk straight into it. When the inevitable pivot to try and frame this as an ECHR issue happens, his side's opponents will already have been discredited.

And Coutts have provided everyone with a helpful demonstration of how not to handle a publicity crisis.

Coutts a British Bank controlling its own rules, regardless of Europe .

Equaliser0 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 10:06 am

CEB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:59 am You seem to have not kept up with the story - Coutts has apologised to him.

Besides which, that is a moving of the goalposts, because my point isn’t actually about Farage but about the principle of denial of service based on the attitudes of individuals at the top of an organisation not liking someone’s (legal) politics.

Apologised for Internal emails , but not for closing his account . I'm not interested in your point .

And the internal emails said what?

Again, to use your analogy: if, say, a climate change activist was thrown out of a branch of Sainsbury’s, told she would not be welcome in a branch of Sainsbury’s, and it came to light that in internal emails, Sainsbury’s high ranking staff had discussed her views and considered them unwelcome in Sainsbury’s, you accept that Sainsbury’s would have a case to answer, yes?

It’s really interesting to me that people are totally unwilling to look at how they apply their standards across the board.

CEB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 10:10 am

Equaliser0 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 10:06 am

CEB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 9:59 am You seem to have not kept up with the story - Coutts has apologised to him.

Besides which, that is a moving of the goalposts, because my point isn’t actually about Farage but about the principle of denial of service based on the attitudes of individuals at the top of an organisation not liking someone’s (legal) politics.

Apologised for Internal emails , but not for closing his account . I'm not interested in your point .

And the internal emails said what?

Again, to use your analogy: if, say, a climate change activist was thrown out of a branch of Sainsbury’s, told she would not be welcome in a branch of Sainsbury’s, and it came to light that in internal emails, Sainsbury’s high ranking staff had discussed her views and considered them unwelcome in Sainsbury’s, you accept that Sainsbury’s would have a case to answer, yes?

Sorry still not interested in your point

It’s clear from the poor quality of your answers that you’re not interested in points, I agree.

CEB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 10:11 am It’s really interesting to me that people are totally unwilling to look at how they apply their standards across the board.

Really interesting would be Farage proving his finances matched Coutts £ million minimum .

Thing is, haven't Coutts just unnecessarily shot themselves in the foot by discussing his persona/values? As far as I can see, they had fair grounds for closing his account once he paid off a mortgage. If they did that and had said nothing else, no issue and he would have just been stirring the pot with moans that were refutable.

That being said, quite funny to see yet another company singularly failing to understand what might get turned up by an SAR.

CEB wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 10:15 am It’s clear from the poor quality of your answers that you’re not interested in points, I agree.

Stupid questions get Stupid answers .

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 10:17 am Thing is, haven't Coutts just unnecessarily shot themselves in the foot by discussing his persona/values? As far as I can see, they had fair grounds for closing his account once he paid off a mortgage. If they did that and had said nothing else, no issue and he would have just been stirring the pot with moans that were refutable.

That being said, quite funny to see yet another company singularly failing to understand what might get turned up by an SAR.

Great advertising for them , All free of charge .

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 10:17 am Thing is, haven't Coutts just unnecessarily shot themselves in the foot by discussing his persona/values? As far as I can see, they had fair grounds for closing his account once he paid off a mortgage. If they did that and had said nothing else, no issue and he would have just been stirring the pot with moans that were refutable.

That being said, quite funny to see yet another company singularly failing to understand what might get turned up by an SAR.

Exactly this. It could even be the case that they were generally flexible with keeping customers on that no longer met eligibility, but used this as a pretext in this case, and if they were careful about it and discreet, it’d never become an issue.
Where it becomes an issue is where it’s a potential issue for everyone - organisations discussing people’s beliefs and values, without even involving them in those discussions, when those organisations have the potential to cause serious disruptions to people’s lives.

The fact that on this occasion it was the odious Nigel Farage isn’t the issue. The issue is that if *this* is fine, then there’s no solid basis to say it’s not fine if, say, Santander realise that a Just Stop Oil pitch invader has an account with them, and to discuss internally whether that person’s values should render them ineligible for an account.