De-banked for expressing alternative social views

A credible news source (current ownership aside) being referenced in the News & Current Affairs forum? I'm sorry, but I am going to have to lie down for a bit...

I must say Nigel, that's a very specifically worded denial.

If someone isn't doing anything dodgy or illegal with their accounts, which includes sending and receiving funds then they shouldn't be de-banked.

Fundraising is an action, not a political leaning. Anyway, aren't Nazi groups proscribed as terrorist organisations? Illegal.

Having worked for a big bank, we 100% dropped customers who weren't doing something illegal but were sketchy or not something we wanted to be associated with.

We didn't wait 8 years to do it though

In the admittedly extreme example I gave it's hard to see how the fundraising and political leaning wouldn't be linked? "So why are you collecting money for Stormfront?" "I don't know!"

If the group being fundraised for was potentially illegal or in danger of being declared so (Britain First for example), surely that is all the more reason to drop them as a client? No one seemed to mind Deutsche Bank dropping Trump after the capitol attacks and deaths.

Expressing an alternative social view can lead to de-banking:
https://youtu.be/FHHBYXW79wk

Is this the kind of society you want to live in?

Reminds me of what happened in the Middle Ages to those who fidn't accept the main religion:

Revelation 13:16-17 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: [17] And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

I don't have an issue with a private business being able not to provide service on the basis of stuff other than protected characteristics.

I guess being a toad-faced, nation-wrecking gobshjte is not a protected characteristic.

I guess being a toad-faced, nation-wrecking gobshjte is not a protected characteristic.

Well yes, they're linked but what I was getting at is the fundamental difference between crime and thought crime. In my opinion you can have any political and ideological leaning you want, that shouldn't render you bankless. The issue comes when you start to do dodgy stuff with your accounts and/or engage in dodgy/illegal actions outside the financial sector related to those politics and ideologies.

Well yes, fundraising for illegal use and organisations is absolutely justification for closing someone's account and dropping them as a client.

PRSOM

Nigel Farage said his bank accounts have been closed and no other banks are willing to open him a new account. What do you guys think?

Political purges going on a lot recently in Britain. All either being cheered on or largely ignored..

The known self-serving grifter Nigel Farage tells you his bank account was terminated for politically motivated reasons and you automatically believe him? Didn't anyone ever tell you to not believe everything you read on the internet?

This reeks of narcisism and victim complex. Do you really think that a bank would close his account because they disagreed with his political opinions? Not least at this point in time, where Farage's only relevance is being some *****y talkshow host? UKIP, Brexit and Farage himself were at peak public exposure in 2015 and 2016. Why the hell would a bank do this 7-8 years after that fact?

Furthermore, what bank was this meant to be in relation to? No bank is named directly and all this information comes from Farage only, so there is no way for anyone to independently verify the claims. For all we know his account could have been closes but because of dodgy reasons he clearly wouldn't bring up.

No doubt the conspiracy crowd will have a field day with this one because it fits their narrative.