Politics Thread!

[Rhythm]

Don't get me wrong, I hate the guy, and have no sympathy for him. It's just that a world in which fucking *banks* are the arbiters of what constitutes acceptable behaviour is really not one I want to live in. Not having access to a bank account makes life almost unliveable.

Couple this with the petty vindictiveness that seems to permeate society, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see this as tool to silence dissenting voices.

I don't know, maybe I'm just paranoid, but there's a definite whiff of 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' about this whole thing.

If he were genuinely being "debanked" then I'd be in agreement. But he wasn't - he was just being kicked out of the private member's club. And again, it's not because of his "beliefs", it's because of his actions.

[KlaxonCow]

Also, it's primarily his fault that this country is now in the economic shithole of Brexit, so it's hard to have too much sympathy for the rich ex-banker, who pretended he was a pauper with a pint down the pub to con the riff-raff into voting for his racist bullshit, having also fallen into his own personal economic shithole with the banks.

But, ah, yes, on principle - Equal Justice for All - even such an arsehole should have due process, right of appeal and all that stuff.

Though, from the sounds of it, the government is going to be rolling out legislation to insist upon that, on the back of this. So he might finally serve a useful purpose from highlighting this discrepancy that needs fixing, as the banks shouldn't be allowed to just arbitrarily dump you because they don't like your face or politics or whatever. Even if, sure, I don't like his face or politics either.

[tufty]

the banks shouldn't be allowed to just arbitrarily dump you because they don't like your face or politics or whatever

Why not? Seriously, and specifically with regards to politics, why not?

[KlaxonCow]

the banks shouldn't be allowed to just arbitrarily dump you because they don't like your face or politics or whatever

Why not? Seriously, and specifically with regards to politics, why not?

For the standard reasons.

Because they might decide to move to banning the Jews, then the gypsies, the blacks, the gays, the communists, the socialists...

The principle - Equal Justice for All - has to be retained, no matter what, even if it's in defence of arseholes that you really won't shed the slightest tear for.

Because if you tolerate this, then you and your children will be next.

Permit the left to start "cancelling" the right, and all you're really doing is setting up the fascists to start "cancelling" their enemies, when they grasp power.

The secular stalemate. NO-ONE can "cancel" anyone else. Separation of Church and State - including, yes, if your religion happens to be Marxism or "free market" bollocks.

No state religion (nor state ideology, I'd add). The state - which has the power - should remain purely pragmatically neutral.

[zip accident]

the banks shouldn't be allowed to just arbitrarily dump you because they don't like your face or politics or whatever

Why not? Seriously, and specifically with regards to politics, why not?

Because apparently they mostly do it to brown people because they are brown?

Can you really see "you voted Labour or The Lib dems or The Greens" as valid reasons to close people's accounts? I know votes are secret, but the slips are numbered, and I'd be surprised if the government couldn't find out in extreme cases already, and with modern IT it gets more plausible that soon every corporation will know everything.

[snaff]

The state requires you to have a bank account so needs to ensure one is provided. The Post Office used to be the last resort state provider but no such thing exists now.

[tufty]

zip came closest. Specifically with regards to politics.

Banks are private institutions. They are not required to give you an account. One could make a very good case for banks being justified in denying service to people like myself whose political views would consider the wholesale removal of banks a good thing. One could make a very good case for them refusing to service fascists. Or any person whose political goals do not align with their own. Or perhaps it would be a bad look to be seen to offer service to those whose aims are to overthrow the state by violent means - indeed, under the various prevention of terrorism acts, I believe they are actually required by the government to refuse service.

Remember, it is not a legal requirement to have a bank account.

So again, with specific regard to politics, why should banks not be allowed to refuse clients with a given political stance?

[snaff]

zip came closest. Specifically with regards to politics.

Banks are private institutions. They are not required to give you an account. One could make a very good case for banks being justified in denying service to people like myself whose political views would consider the wholesale removal of banks a good thing. One could make a very good case for them refusing to service fascists. Or any person whose political goals do not align with their own. Or perhaps it would be a bad look to be seen to offer service to those whose aims are to overthrow the state by violent means - indeed, under the various prevention of terrorism acts, I believe they are actually required by the government to refuse service.

Remember, it is not a legal requirement to have a bank account.

So again, with specific regard to politics, why should banks not be allowed to refuse clients with a given political stance?

I'm a libertarian like you Tufty but how do you pay tax without a bank account?

https://www.gov.uk/pay-self-assessment-tax-bill

"You can no longer pay at the Post Office."

I would do away with tax altogether but while we have to pay it, the state needs to provide a bank account of last resort.

[Rhythm]

indeed, under the various prevention of terrorism acts, I believe they are actually required by the government to refuse service.

This. Farage has got caught up in his own "control the borders" narrative. Post 9/11 (and then the financial crash) the decision was made to do extra checks to make sure banks weren't harbouring terrorist money or money that was funding terrorist (or extremist political parties) causes (via money laundering). So checks for PEPs, SDNs and known money launderers were implemented. Coutts were legally obliged to do these checks.

In running his account down Farage subjected himself to a rerun of those checks. And as a result the entire system is now being questioned. But by the govt framing it as a "culture war" style attack ("they don't like my political views, wah") rather than remembering why the rules exist in the first place they're running the risk of opening the doors to money they really don't want.

So well done, Farage, you just made it easier for members of any old extremist org to bank in the UK.

(I think the actual proposal at this stage is to only exclude "foreign" PEPs. So you can't bank here if you're an extremist who speaks with a funny accent but you can bank if you're a good-old British-born terrorist)

And, beneath all this, is the ignored spectre of HE WASN'T EVEN BEING DE-BANKED!!!!!

And of course his twatty consort weren't anywhere near as bothered when a British citizen was being removed of citizenship for making a silly mistake when she was 15. All that's happened to him is, directly because of his actions, that he's been kicked out of first class into standard. Shamima Begum is stateless because she made a dumb decision when she wasn't even old enough to sign a contract.

Insert Family Guy colour chart

[tufty]

Oh, you've got me very wrong. I'm so far from being a libertarian we're not even on the same planet.

In order to pay your tax if you do not have a bank account, you call the HMRC and ask them how to do it. You don't ask for tax advice over the internet, and especially not from someone who left the UK Communist Party because they were too soft.

There are a few types of people who don't have bank accounts. The vast majority of them are so far up shit creek that they don't have to worry about paying tax, it's more a question of difficulty receiving their benefits. And cunts like Farage don't have a particular problem with paying tax either - just because his personal account has been closed down does not mean he has no access to banking. And he cheats on his tax anyway. Sorry, "optimises" his tax.

[edit for legibility]

[Kelloggs]

On principle - Equal Justice for All.

Agree entirely, simply because if it ain't symmetrical, the "bad" side will be harmed (by design), but it's only a policital shift before you're on the "bad" side. However...

I can't shake the feeling that a sign outside every shop (edit to taste) saying "We do not serve twats" (edit to taste) would probably lead us to having a better world than we currently have. Up-front and all, so no-one could act a twat and then cay "But no-one told me I couldn't!". Because this is, essentially, what I feel the Coutts document on Farage-as-a-customer was getting at - "we don't want troublemakers here, and his behaviour is such that we believe him to be a troublemaker" (hell, even pubs can kick people out for being rowdy, and he takes pride in being politically rowdy). I like to think that he was relieved of his posh bank account capability not for being too right-wing (and while we have the Tories in power, is there such a thing?) but for being, as the report has it, a "racist [...] grifter". It might be alright for them to have customers that they know to be racist, or tend towards the grift, but are otherwise good customers - but he wears his charred black heart on his sleeve, telling people "Look at me - I was so rich, I was allowed to open a Coutts account!" while food-banks. They offered him a pleb account with the NatWest, but that doesn't interest him, because the pleb life should be shown to all and sundry to be Clearly Not for Him. And, if he didn't want all the publicity - if, say, he was a "normal, quiet" Coutts customer - why would all of this story be filling the media? He wants the publicity, is my take.

[snaff]

On principle - Equal Justice for All.

Agree entirely, simply because if it ain't symmetrical, the "bad" side will be harmed (by design), but it's only a policital shift before you're on the "bad" side. However...

I can't shake the feeling that a sign outside every shop (edit to taste) saying "We do not serve twats" (edit to taste) would probably lead us to having a better world than we currently have. Up-front and all, so no-one could act a twat and then cay "But no-one told me I couldn't!". Because this is, essentially, what I feel the Coutts document on Farage-as-a-customer was getting at - "we don't want troublemakers here, and his behaviour is such that we believe him to be a troublemaker" (hell, even pubs can kick people out for being rowdy, and he takes pride in being politically rowdy). I like to think that he was relieved of his posh bank account capability not for being too right-wing (and while we have the Tories in power, is there such a thing?) but for being, as the report has it, a "racist [...] grifter". It might be alright for them to have customers that they know to be racist, or tend towards the grift, but are otherwise good customers - but he wears his charred black heart on his sleeve, telling people "Look at me - I was so rich, I was allowed to open a Coutts account!" while food-banks. They offered him a pleb account with the NatWest, but that doesn't interest him, because the pleb life should be shown to all and sundry to be Clearly Not for Him. And, if he didn't want all the publicity - if, say, he was a "normal, quiet" Coutts customer - why would all of this story be filling the media? He wants the publicity, is my take.

The left is usually on the other side - protesting the Christian bakers who don't want to make a gay wedding cake or Happy Abortion buns.

[merman]

This is being presented as another part of the culture war - “Sunak to close woke banks” said one headline today.

Which is utter bullshit. Banks are right wing by nature.

And get this - Farage complains about something, there’s a meeting at Number 10 within days.

Grenfell survivors still waiting for compensation and tens of thousands still living in unsafe buildings.
Postmasters still waiting years for repayment after being falsely accused.
Windrush immigrants going to their graves without an apology or recompense

[Orava]

My grandparents were born in the early 1900s. And both sides were members of the IKL, the Finnish equivalent to the Nazis. Was everyone's grandpa a bit nazi?

[tufty]

Was everyone's grandpa a bit nazi?

No.