Farage has bank accounts closed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nice try but I already made it clear that someone shouldn't be using the account for criminality and should have at least the required balance. So what other reasons do you think a bank should be able to prejudice against someone because you said it sounded leftie to allow someone such basic rights?

Well in that case he failed those tests apparently. Checkmate. No need to go any further is there? Or are you guessing there is a conspiracy and he did pass all the usual tests?
 
So, let me get this straight.

Reading this told me that what was to follow was likely to be a completely inaccurate account of what has actually has been said....

They called him to let him know that his account was being closed in a few weeks and they could move him to another personal account.

His account is that the bank contacted him a few months ago to say they were closing all of his accounts but yet he received a call from them at around 6.45pm yesterday saying they could offer him a personal bank account with a bank under the same group ownership.

An offer he says was only made after he went public.

They couldn't, however, move his business account for whatever reason but he had time to source this himself.

His account is that other banks he has approached have refused.

This is not a story in the slightest.

Yeah of course its not....
 
Last edited:
Are you saying that every company must, by law, do business with any individual or company that has the right money? (this includes being in a European market as that would be prejudice not to)
All banks operating in the UK should have to provide an account to a UK entity unless they can prove in a court that such entity poses a risk such as using the account for criminal activity. But the crucial thing here is the bank shouldn't be judge and jury in that decision.
 
All banks operating in the UK should have to provide an account to a UK entity unless they can prove in a court that such entity poses a risk such as using the account for criminal activity. But the crucial thing here is the bank shouldn't be judge and jury in that decision.

No they shouldn't, see the legitimate reasons why above. I don't know why you are so against international law.

Think about what you have said and then apply "tipping off" logic to it for example. What is it they say these days "Stay in your lane"?
 
Makes one wonder why he needed an offer, if it were me I'd have made enquiries about personal accounts after being turned down for business accounts from a few different banks, you know just to have a contingency and to test if it's a business vs personal account thing.

Not liking your little echo-chamber being slightly less echoey. :p
He's already said he tried 7 other banks!
 
Well in that case he failed those tests apparently. Checkmate. No need to go any further is there? Or are you guessing there is a conspiracy and he did pass all the usual tests?
He's banked with then for decades so presumably was passing all necessary tests otherwise they would have closed his accounts long ago.

You know it's ok to apologise for your prejudice based on not liking someone or you can just continue to dig in further!
 
He's banked with then for decades so presumably was passing all necessary tests otherwise they would have closed his accounts long ago.

You know it's ok to apologise for your prejudice based on not liking someone or you can just continue to dig in further!

Bearing in mind a single transaction can trigger a review and checks (which I am sure you are aware of), you're guessing there is a consipracy then :D
 
Last edited:
Don't worry Chris, the EU is going to collapse....any....day....now....just as you predicted... :cry:

It's on very shaky ground and member states are more and more embracing the Right. Victor Orban just vetoed sending even more money to The Ukraine, that'll put the cat amongst the pigeons....

Anarchy reigns in France, and is potentially spreading to Brussels itself, the plastic natives are restless again. All is good, nothing to see here.. ;)
 
He's banked with then for decades so presumably was passing all necessary tests otherwise they would have closed his accounts long ago.

You know it's ok to apologise for your prejudice based on not liking someone or you can just continue to dig in further!

Just like that thief who didn't get put in jail until he committed the crime?
 
No they shouldn't, see the legitimate reasons why above. I don't know why you are so against international law.

Think about what you have said and then apply "tipping off" logic to it for example. What is it they say these days "Stay in your lane"?

What recourse do you have if a bank decides (wrongly, as mistakes and misunderstanding happens) your account activity is dodgy and needs to be closed?

This is fine if it's not happening to you, but a mistake in these matters could be ruinous for some. Just saying "thems the rules" doesn't make it a non-issue. Laws can be bad, inadequate or go too far or not far enough, yes they should be followed but always scrutinised and updated as flaws sometimes only become apparent after being in place for some time.

Also, being told your account has been closed is tipping off in a way.
 
I think I read what it is in this thread, where a person claimed with no evidence that migrants are all rapists, groomers and druggies

You're having difficulties reading or deliberately attempting to rewrite what I said!

Nowhere did I say 'migrants are all rapists, groomers and druggies'!

I implied that deporting all migrants would by its nature prevent all those crimes from being committed in the UK by any such individuals!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom