by medsec222 » 24 Jul 2023, 16:36
The whole episode with Coutts is at best mismanaged, at worst quite sinister. If they had wanted to close Nigal Farage's account through insufficient funds as they claimed, surely they could have written to him and offered him a personal account and a business account with NatWest. Instead there is a 40 page document, apparently, which states clearly that the Nigel Farage had sufficient funds in his account but then goes on to list numerous other reasons, some political, as to why Nigel Farage was not suitable to be a client of Coutts bank. It seems that someone within the organisation has taken the trouble to trawl through newspaper articles, social media comments etc. and picked out the very worst comments they could find about Nigel Farage. These are the opinions of random commentators, and presumably not the personal experience of the author of the 40 page document in any of his dealings with Nigel Farage, But nevertheless, the article was written for and on behalf of Coutts. One particular remark relating to Nigel Farage is that he is a grifter. What is meant by that? A grifter is described as someone who cheats people out of money, and if that is the case surely some proof should be provided. Banks have every right to investigate when they suspect faud or money laundering is occurring, but without such proof in Nigel Farage's case, perhaps the right approach should have been to downgrade his accounts and to respectively let him know.