Farage

[fillyboy]

They took a reputational risk based decision to apologise, but crucially they have maintained his exit was based on commercial grounds, and have not offered him his account back, unsurprising given the damage the story has caused them.

The bbc has not apologised.

There is no need whatsoever to change any banking rules. If anything they should be tightened up to protect banks who make bona fide decisions to exit customers on reasonable grounds. If an employee makes political comments that harm his relationship with their employer, they might get the sack, even though their views would be illegal if expressed elsewhere. Same with far-rage, he is entitled to his views but the bank is entitled to protect its reputation.
Blup

I get all that but would you be truly comfortable with an employer being able to sack an employee on the basis that they voted for brexit or were a raving Liberal Democrat?
I'm not, and that would equally apply if the employee were a remainer or a Conservative.

 

[noseall]

I get all that but would you be truly comfortable with an employer being able to sack an employee on the basis that they voted for brexit or were a raving Liberal Democrat?
I'm not, and that would equally apply if the employee were a remainer or a Conservative.

Once you throw in Trump horn-smoker, the scales tip dramatically, especially when coupled with fascist and scrounger.

 

[Odds]

Once you throw in Trump horn-smoker, the scales tip dramatically, especially when coupled with fascist and scrounger.

Yes, but the RooFilly makes a point: it's a slippery slope (sans skis.) to start debanking, sacking or otherwise changing policy towards someone in the workplace or wider society on the basis of their political/religious views.

 

[noseall]

changing policy

I thought Coutts had made it clear. Forrige didn't meet their financial standards in any case.

 

[blup]

I get all that but would you be truly comfortable with an employer being able to sack an employee on the basis that they voted for brexit or were a raving Liberal Democrat?
I'm not, and that would equally apply if the employee were a remainer or a Conservative.

No, but I don't think farrage was exited because of the way he voted or even for his political views. He was a high profile, exceptionally controversial and divisive individual who was no longer of any commercial value to an elite bank. A bit like someone on site who winds everybody up but is kept on until he is no longer needed. It is fundamentally a decision for the bank as a business who it has for a customer.

Blup

 

[motorbiking]

Depends who blinks first, if Coutts panic they'll force the beeb to settle, equally the Bbbc settling will twist NWB's arm. They just have to be resolute together (fat chance), we're talking about a confidential briefing to a journalist that was made public in response to NF going public.

Blup

They have no right to brief a journalist in confidence or otherwise. Breach of contract and breach of data protection law. What laws and contracts do you think The BBC have broken? Its is Coutts that are destroying their reputation ironically.

 

[blup]

They have no right to brief a journalist in confidence or otherwise. Breach of contract and breach of data protection law. What laws and contracts do you think The BBC have broken? Its is Coutts that are destroying their reputation ironically.

Coutts correctly anticipated that he would go public, it matters little whether the beeb was briefed in anticipation of that or after the event. There was no publicity until then. Hardly the same as, say, hacking the phone of a missing school girl and leaving a message to create a headline.

Blup

 

[motorbiking]

It's a great argument, but it has no basis in law. Funnily enough its a bit of EU law that rolled down, which gives him the most protection.

There are at least 3 areas of law that the bank has to answer for.

Data protection act 2018

Data Protection Act 2018

www.legislation.gov.uk

- Banks cannot disclose confidential information or break data protection law to suit their PR agenda.

The Payment Accounts Regulations 2015

Data Protection Act 2018

www.legislation.gov.uk

- Banks cannot set their own rules as they like or in secret
- banks cannot discriminate on political grounds

plus various laws regarding unfair terms
- Banks cannot have secret rules and processes - this would be an unfair term, even if it was published in their terms

Thats without looking at the defamation argument from the dodgy report.

They have a clear lack of knowledge regarding data protection law as they almost certainly didn't realise NF had the right to see the dodgy report
.

 

[motorbiking]

Yes, but the RooFilly makes a point: it's a slippery slope (sans skis.) to start debanking, sacking or otherwise changing policy towards someone in the workplace or wider society on the basis of their political/religious views.

Fortunately it would be unlawful for an employer to do this as well as a bank.

 

[Odds]

I thought Coutts had made it clear. Forrige didn't meet their financial standards in any case.

Yes, but Farage has stated the BBC financial editor and Simon Jacks had a meeting before Coutts made the announcement - this has already been said earlier on the thread. If this is true and his personal details were leaked by the bank then they have a much more serious problem.

 

[noseall]

If this is true and his personal details were leaked by the bank then they have a much more serious problem.

Didn't forrige make them public (the details) regardless?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Didn't forrige make them public (the details) regardless?

Yes. The rest of the stuff followed

 

[carmanmemoranda]

As I see it, there are 2 separate issues.

Financial, he doesn't meet their terms and can no longer bank with them. But can bank with a different part of the group.

Personal, how it was discussed and revealed. That's been a bit naughty but it doesn't alter the financial part

 

[noseall]

his personal details were leaked by the bank then they have a much more serious problem.

"..The 40-page document published by him* reveals staff at the bank, whose clients include members of the Royal Family, spent months compiling evidence on the "significant reputational risks of being associated with him..."

*Him = forrige. He made the details public himself.

Read more

 

[noseall]

Oh, and this little snippet didn't go unnoticed...

• Financial crime - due to "alleged Russia connections";

Good riddance. Poor old traitorous Nige.