Emily Maitlis has accused Nigel Farage of turning “utter entitlement into victimhood” following the Coutts banking fiasco.
Speaking on her News Agents podcast, the ex-BBC presenter said NatWest’s breach of customer confidentiality was “egregious”, but criticised the resulting furore.
Coutts, a private wealth management firm owned by NatWest, has apologised for releasing the ex-Ukip leader’s personal details, with Dame Alison Rose having resigned from her post as CEO.
The former face of Newsnight accused Mr Farage of using the decision by the “posh private bank” to whip up a “populist storm”.
She told listeners that at the heart of the controversy was the “choice by one private bank to say no to one customer”.
The only thing that is egregious here is Emily Maitlis’ sophistry, which we are seeing from the far left in their attempt to rally behind corporations, which is itself an irony for people who are opposed to capitalism. This stupid woman either cannot, or will not, see that this isn’t about Nigel Farage, it’s about something much greater – it’s about the banking sector getting far too big for its boots, it’s about corporations deigning to assume the authority to police our thoughts and actions, to enforce political orthodoxy.
She argued that his resulting argument about “liberty, about free speech, about censorship” was unfounded, as private banking is not a “public utility”.
You stupid, moronic idiot. Try functioning in today’s society without a bank account. It is a de facto utility.
She said: “No one was shutting him down, no one was stopping him from banking, no one was calling him names.
“They simply waited until he paid off a mortgage – having decided ahead of time that they would call it quits at that point.”
Pure sophistry. Nine banks have refused him, which is what happens when you have been declined an account at one bank. So, yes, he is being prevented from banking. The claim that he is not is a pure unadulterated lie. The Subject Access Request clearly accuses him of xenophobia and racism, so, yes, they are calling him names, therefore this is another lie from Maitlis.
Emily Maitlis is a nasty piece of work, frankly.
For those that have actually read the Subject Access Report (I doubt that Emily Maitlis has), I was shocked to read that and would be taking legal action for libel if any bank had written that about me.
Then again, I’d stand a chance of a fair hearing in this country, which is more than Nigel Farage will ever get. Too many are prejudiced by what they think he is rather than the reality of what he’s said and the positions he has taken.
Good.
’ She told listeners that at the heart of the controversy was the “choice by one private bank to say no to one customer”.’
But it wasn’t just Farage, was it? His publicity campaign brought out many, many others to tell their stories. She can’t possibly be unaware of that….
She’s a proven liar, the documentation with NF’s Subject Access Request proved that beyond all doubt.
She claimed to the BBC reporter that he was debanked because he wasn’t wealthy enough, whereas the report proves that they objected to his “racist and xenophobic” opinions.*
The BBC apologised because they repeated the lie and therefore were subject to accusations of libel. They refused to do so initially, citing the usual “we were told by a source” bullshit. They only apologised when the lie became undeniable.
* – Despite the fact that his opinions are neither racist, nor xenophobic.
“This stupid woman either cannot, or will not, see that this isn’t about Nigel Farage, it’s about something much greater.”
She’s not alone in that, I’ve read a few comments now from people who entirely miss this point just because they dislike Farage. They think this kind of thing is fine and dandy as long as it happens to those that they disagree with. That is how we sleepwalk into a dystopia, too many idiots who are oblivious to the implications of their stupid beliefs.
Of course, being a de-facto leftoid, SHE will never have her bank account cancelled…
Well so she thinks but times change. What might be right on opinions today could well be disapproved of in a few years time. Then there is always the possibility of expressing the wrong opinion about just one aspect of wokery that could be her downfall.
As the Feminists who repudiate the Tranny Delusion have found.
Nigel is my hero. If he had folded then the banks will cancel anyone who doesn’t follow their woke agenda. Remember the Halifax causing a storm over pronoun badges? I could see a situation where you have to declare your political views to get a bank account and that’s absolutely none of their business.
The simple way out of this mess is to make a bank account a protected service, deniable only with good cause.
Any closing of bank accounts should be audited by an independent body, (say a financial ombudsman or something… ). The ombudsman wouldn’t have to give the reason, just that it was satisfied it was legit – this would avoid the whole “what about fraud?” argument.
“The simple way out of this mess is to …”
That only works if you have a parliamentary majority on your side. I doubt there is a majority in parliament for any serious action against cancel culture.
Although Coutts disapproved of Farage’s opinions, I think the crux of the matter is the issue of PEPs and anti-money laundering legislation with Chris Bryant’s appalling allegation being the trigger. If the bank closes an account because of even suspicion of laundering, then no-one is allowed to reveal the reason and breach of this tipping-off rule can land those responsible in the nick (max sentence of 15 years!). As the Chairman of the FCA wryly and publicly stated a few years ago when an MP made a huge fuss about being notified that his account and those of his family were being closed, MPs themselves passed the appalling anti-money laundering regulations and the sanctions for breach.
Interesting that she feels the need to lie about the reason Farage’s accounts were closed.
The Coutts dossier is crystal clear the accounts were commercially viable, and the closure was not a commercial decision – yet Maitlis is still claiming it was.
She claims Farage was offered an alternative account before he went public, which he wasn’t. Coutts only did that out of panic after the story was published.
She dishonestly omits the failure of Coutts to offer a replacement for Farage’s business account.
Maitlis proves yet again: socialists have to lie, because socialism is a lie.
the far left … attempt to rally behind corporations, which is itself an irony for people who are opposed to capitalism
Sort of. Today’s left has no problem with corporations, provided they (the left) have control of their politics. In this, it looks very unlike the old left of Bolshevism and Leninism, and a lot more like Fascism. Really they take the idea further even than the Fascists did, as far as one can tell having no problem either with a nominally Conservative government provided it gives preference to their agenda. That way they don’t have the trouble of running anything, they just set policy.
This has set me thinking: as recently as 50 years ago when I was in my 20s an ordinary person could survive perfectly well without a bank account. I’d had one since I was 18 but never much used it until well into my 30s when I bought a house when even then it wasn’t essential. Now however I don’t see how I could survive without one.