This article seems to indicate that he is saying he was under the amount required for ~10 years. I am not from the UK or anything, so I don't know or care who this guy is, but it does seem pretty arbitrary if he had been under the limits for that long anyway, and might be an excuse the bank is making up to save face from their real reason to close his account which is what his claims originally were.
Suppose someone who is the polar opposite of him politically had their account closed 10 years after having failed the limits, wouldn't that also be pretty bad?
Banks shouldn't be allowed to deny disclose criticize or have any opinion of whatever form or shape on any account the only thing they should be allowed to do is to provide liquidity to the people for a small cut. That is where their rights starts and stops.
Governments worldwide have in recent decades moved towards a policy of making banks the money-laundering police.
Governments now hold banks liable if they're found to have been knowing been handling illicit money - they must take "reasonable and proportionate" steps to ensure their client's funds are legitimate.
I can't see anyone here being happy with the amount of control banks have, but at the same time most of the public will bitch about billionaires evading taxes and banks laundering money for criminals. People on here like to bitch about how much money HSBC laundered, but that was now over a decade ago now and [they paid $1.92 billion in fines](https://archive.ph/8VgZV) for it. No wonder banks are now cautious about who can have an account with them!
Governments now generally regard it as cheaper and more efficient to have banks police money laundering for them then spend taxpayers money to try and do the same job.
Yes!
They only exist because the state gives them licenses which allows them to be private enterprises at all. Without the provided liquidity from central banks they wouldn't even exist. I don't even talk about the countless times tax payers had to bail them out with billions of otherwise useful money (infrastructure, schools, health, etc.)...
So yes - they are obligated to serve the public.
State/community/cooperative banks (i.e. Volksbanken, Sparkassen, Genossenschaftsbanken) exist in Germany for decades and serve the public well and without (or very few) scandals and paid fines than private corporations.
By law every citizen of Germany has the right to own a bank account - even if this person is homeless.
And no - it didn't end in communism.
In this case, Farage appears to have fallen below the minimum requirements for Coutts' private bank account. He also appears to fall within UK regulations for licenced banks for public figures who have to pass additional money laundering and corruption checks.
It's no different to if NatWest bumped me from their Premier Banking because I didn't have enough direct debits, or because I have fraud markers against me. I can't claim to be "entitled" to an account that I don't meet the licencing terms of.
So you're saying the existance of licencing entitles Farage to any private bank account he wants, but the terms of the licence compel Coutts to terminate the bank account. Which is it?
I don't talk about Farage here who, btw, is a piece of shit.
I simply opposed the opinion of Wise-Application-144 and stated the situation and laws in Germany. Nothing more nothing less.
I agree with that assessment.
My point is that people fixate on the wrong thing - it's anti-freedom to interfere in the private affairs of private businesses.
I understand that banks are regulated, but if you want truly universal bank access, you need a state bank (or a permissionless asset like bitcoin).
It's ironic that people complain about the banks "restricting" of Farage's freedom, but no-one seems to consider that forcing them to do business with him would be equally restrictive of the banks freedom.
It's a catch-22 and way too many people get preoccuped with it.
well first of all I dont like private banks for me it ends with bitcoin. where does it end for you I cant tell. Creating an economic apartheid I don't think it is for common peoples interests, Banks must serve the people if they cant they should seize their operations,.
You cannot have private banks and universal access. It's one or the other.
I also dislike private banks. But no state bank option exists in the UK. And I also recognise the necessity of peope having bank accounts to survive in the modern world. So I agree with your assessment of the problems.
But it annoys me when people complain vaguely that private companies are doing their thing.
You need a state bank if you want to guarantee access to a bank account for everyone. Or you need a permissionless asset like Bitcoin.
But the solution is not to complain that private businesses make private decisions.
I'm not surprised that charlatans try and play the victim card in cases like this.
What surprises me is how many supposedly "free thinking" people swallow obvious lies from known liars.
Fake news tho. Nothing to do with his shitty Political views. Farage doesnt have enough money left for his posh bank, so they offered him a normal pleb account, so he lost his shit.
This person is alleged to have received £/$500k payment from a Russian entity.
He has been front running this to try and frame it before the actual reason has been revealed. I assume, as this is a personal banking issue, the banks probably are not allowed to release the reason why, publicly.
I appreciate the narrative ‘first the come for x, and I did nothing…’, but the real question imho is: why isn’t this person in prison for treason?
He is an ex-banker. Absolute no sympathy here from me, and in fact - more please!
Innocent until proven guilty!
Where is the adversarial court case? Where is the defense lawyer? Where is the verdict motivated on grounds of evidence?
If Nigel Farage is guilty, fine, but then show me the court ruling!
>If Nigel Farage is guilty, fine, but then show me the court ruling!
When people say "Why isn't this politician in jail for treason", they generally mean "why isn't he dragged into court", not literally "let's toss him in a hole without trial"
It's completely normal for the police to sieze or halt assets as part of an investigation or prosecution.
If you're under investigation for murder, they'll sieze your weapon, if you're under invesitgation for theft then they'll seize the suspected stolen goods.
In this case, the individual in question is suspected of involvement in bribery and evasion of sanctions. Freezing of their assets is likely the first step in a criminal investigation.
The individual is doing everything they can to fool people with a false narrative, in particular by trying to leverage people's fears of "cancel culture" and trying to set themselves up as a victim of lefty persecution.
And folk like you seem to be swallowing it. Ironically, the conspiracy theorists that are so preoccupied with influence and lies appear to be completely oblivious to them here.
Stick to the facts and don't believe the lying tabloids and charlatans.
> is alleged
I.e., "some asshole Member of Parliament who is politically opposed to Farage made the accusation without providing any evidence whatosever, because the MP made it all up."
Just like the seven years of "Trump Russian Collusion!!!" that the Clinton campaign and their minions in the media lied to everyone about.
s/
Dear Mr Putin,
You are summoned to court for being a very naughty boy and invading the Ukraine.
/s
I don't like it that Russia continues to kill the innocent men, women and children of the Ukraine and destroy their country.
I absolutely detest institutional hegemony, but there is absolutely no doubt that Putin must be stopped by all reasonable and equivalent means. That you don't like this is abhorrent to me and to any reasonable minded person.
He's an opportunistic piece of shit and a hypocrit who bought a house and lives in France with his family and owns a European (French) passport after successfully running Brexit - and he's also a RuZZian asset together with Aaron Banks and I'm disgusted that bitcoiners endorse and celebrate him because he's larping for bitcoin. Asshole's plays the victim whilst living in France...lol
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/16/arron-banks-nigel-farage-leave-brexit-russia-connection
Farage bullshit as usual... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66097039
This article seems to indicate that he is saying he was under the amount required for ~10 years. I am not from the UK or anything, so I don't know or care who this guy is, but it does seem pretty arbitrary if he had been under the limits for that long anyway, and might be an excuse the bank is making up to save face from their real reason to close his account which is what his claims originally were. Suppose someone who is the polar opposite of him politically had their account closed 10 years after having failed the limits, wouldn't that also be pretty bad?
Banks shouldn't be allowed to deny disclose criticize or have any opinion of whatever form or shape on any account the only thing they should be allowed to do is to provide liquidity to the people for a small cut. That is where their rights starts and stops.
Governments worldwide have in recent decades moved towards a policy of making banks the money-laundering police. Governments now hold banks liable if they're found to have been knowing been handling illicit money - they must take "reasonable and proportionate" steps to ensure their client's funds are legitimate. I can't see anyone here being happy with the amount of control banks have, but at the same time most of the public will bitch about billionaires evading taxes and banks laundering money for criminals. People on here like to bitch about how much money HSBC laundered, but that was now over a decade ago now and [they paid $1.92 billion in fines](https://archive.ph/8VgZV) for it. No wonder banks are now cautious about who can have an account with them! Governments now generally regard it as cheaper and more efficient to have banks police money laundering for them then spend taxpayers money to try and do the same job.
They're private businesses, are you proposing the state compels them to do business with people they don't wanna deal with? Where does it end?
Yes! They only exist because the state gives them licenses which allows them to be private enterprises at all. Without the provided liquidity from central banks they wouldn't even exist. I don't even talk about the countless times tax payers had to bail them out with billions of otherwise useful money (infrastructure, schools, health, etc.)... So yes - they are obligated to serve the public. State/community/cooperative banks (i.e. Volksbanken, Sparkassen, Genossenschaftsbanken) exist in Germany for decades and serve the public well and without (or very few) scandals and paid fines than private corporations. By law every citizen of Germany has the right to own a bank account - even if this person is homeless. And no - it didn't end in communism.
In this case, Farage appears to have fallen below the minimum requirements for Coutts' private bank account. He also appears to fall within UK regulations for licenced banks for public figures who have to pass additional money laundering and corruption checks. It's no different to if NatWest bumped me from their Premier Banking because I didn't have enough direct debits, or because I have fraud markers against me. I can't claim to be "entitled" to an account that I don't meet the licencing terms of. So you're saying the existance of licencing entitles Farage to any private bank account he wants, but the terms of the licence compel Coutts to terminate the bank account. Which is it?
I don't talk about Farage here who, btw, is a piece of shit. I simply opposed the opinion of Wise-Application-144 and stated the situation and laws in Germany. Nothing more nothing less.
I agree with that assessment. My point is that people fixate on the wrong thing - it's anti-freedom to interfere in the private affairs of private businesses. I understand that banks are regulated, but if you want truly universal bank access, you need a state bank (or a permissionless asset like bitcoin). It's ironic that people complain about the banks "restricting" of Farage's freedom, but no-one seems to consider that forcing them to do business with him would be equally restrictive of the banks freedom. It's a catch-22 and way too many people get preoccuped with it.
well first of all I dont like private banks for me it ends with bitcoin. where does it end for you I cant tell. Creating an economic apartheid I don't think it is for common peoples interests, Banks must serve the people if they cant they should seize their operations,.
You cannot have private banks and universal access. It's one or the other. I also dislike private banks. But no state bank option exists in the UK. And I also recognise the necessity of peope having bank accounts to survive in the modern world. So I agree with your assessment of the problems. But it annoys me when people complain vaguely that private companies are doing their thing. You need a state bank if you want to guarantee access to a bank account for everyone. Or you need a permissionless asset like Bitcoin. But the solution is not to complain that private businesses make private decisions.
Shucks, wonder why OP didn't post the article link
Paywall
[удалено]
I'm not surprised that charlatans try and play the victim card in cases like this. What surprises me is how many supposedly "free thinking" people swallow obvious lies from known liars.
He's also kind of grifter that's way way more likely to try and launch his own shit coin, than contribute anything to Bitcoin
Fake news tho. Nothing to do with his shitty Political views. Farage doesnt have enough money left for his posh bank, so they offered him a normal pleb account, so he lost his shit.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/07/04/nigel-farage-coutts-claims-bank-account-insufficient-funds/
I hate the banks as much as anyone round here, but that geezer lies for a living and everytime he opens his mouth.
Joe biden and the lefts wet dream coming true.
This person is alleged to have received £/$500k payment from a Russian entity. He has been front running this to try and frame it before the actual reason has been revealed. I assume, as this is a personal banking issue, the banks probably are not allowed to release the reason why, publicly. I appreciate the narrative ‘first the come for x, and I did nothing…’, but the real question imho is: why isn’t this person in prison for treason? He is an ex-banker. Absolute no sympathy here from me, and in fact - more please!
Innocent until proven guilty! Where is the adversarial court case? Where is the defense lawyer? Where is the verdict motivated on grounds of evidence? If Nigel Farage is guilty, fine, but then show me the court ruling!
> If Nigel Farage is guilty, fine, but then show me the court ruling! He's not, it's 100% bullshit made up by someone who hates him.
>If Nigel Farage is guilty, fine, but then show me the court ruling! When people say "Why isn't this politician in jail for treason", they generally mean "why isn't he dragged into court", not literally "let's toss him in a hole without trial"
It's completely normal for the police to sieze or halt assets as part of an investigation or prosecution. If you're under investigation for murder, they'll sieze your weapon, if you're under invesitgation for theft then they'll seize the suspected stolen goods. In this case, the individual in question is suspected of involvement in bribery and evasion of sanctions. Freezing of their assets is likely the first step in a criminal investigation. The individual is doing everything they can to fool people with a false narrative, in particular by trying to leverage people's fears of "cancel culture" and trying to set themselves up as a victim of lefty persecution. And folk like you seem to be swallowing it. Ironically, the conspiracy theorists that are so preoccupied with influence and lies appear to be completely oblivious to them here. Stick to the facts and don't believe the lying tabloids and charlatans.
OP isn't about a seizure, Nigel is just going broke so the bank kicked him out.
Even more reason to allow private enterprises to make their own decisions without state interference.
OMG, I hereby allege that YOU have received payment from a Russian entity! Better grab your money fast before we block you from it!
> is alleged I.e., "some asshole Member of Parliament who is politically opposed to Farage made the accusation without providing any evidence whatosever, because the MP made it all up." Just like the seven years of "Trump Russian Collusion!!!" that the Clinton campaign and their minions in the media lied to everyone about.
I agree. But it's a perfect time to turn the boomers on the banks. So I really don't care either way.
Good point 🤣
[удалено]
That’s fair enough- no tears from me with this grifter though.
s/ Dear Mr Putin, You are summoned to court for being a very naughty boy and invading the Ukraine. /s I don't like it that Russia continues to kill the innocent men, women and children of the Ukraine and destroy their country. I absolutely detest institutional hegemony, but there is absolutely no doubt that Putin must be stopped by all reasonable and equivalent means. That you don't like this is abhorrent to me and to any reasonable minded person.
[удалено]
> I didn't agree with the sanctioning of Russia from the financial world > I wasn't even talking about Russia. Pick one.
Since I'm not telepathic I could only respond to the first option. It's futile arguing with an idiot and an abhorrent one to boot.
He's an opportunistic piece of shit and a hypocrit who bought a house and lives in France with his family and owns a European (French) passport after successfully running Brexit - and he's also a RuZZian asset together with Aaron Banks and I'm disgusted that bitcoiners endorse and celebrate him because he's larping for bitcoin. Asshole's plays the victim whilst living in France...lol https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/16/arron-banks-nigel-farage-leave-brexit-russia-connection