On the contrary. What that story suggests is that anyone who fails to meet the BBC's high standards is now very unlikely to be rehired again.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

And the fact they rehired someone who falsified documents to further his own career is proof of their outstanding credentials. They can't fail can they?

Although I fundamentally disagree with Wisbech on this, I do get his point regarding reputation.

When banks reassess their clients they put them through a risk rating process. I actually tested the RBS tool for this process albeit a decade or so ago. NF would ( should ) have been classified as a ‘ PEP ‘ - a Politically Exposed Person . And would therefore be in a higher risk category than the ordinary man on the street. Saying that, Coutts would be home to many such PEPS .

When a bank onboards a PEP they perform enhanced due diligence on them and also review the risk on a more frequent basis. It appears that NF may have fallen foul of how Coutts assess their Reputational Risk.

My argument is around the fact that NF’s views and political stance has been known for years - so why the change now ? I’m minded to say because the RBS Group’s reputation as a whole has been trashed down the years and now they want to be seen to be diverse, inclusive etc - hence Alison Rose appointed as CEO - just my view or though I can tell you it’s shared by some in the City.

But in preserving their precious reputation, Coutts have forgotten that this country still promotes freedom of speech and a right to express your views. They are effectively censoring an individual.

How they have gone about it is complete Amateur Hour and arguably their reputation has taken more of a hit than just keeping NF as a client.

Apologies for the long post

Old, Ungifted and White

That I believe Trump to clearly be a despicable man unfit for public office and guilty of many things, whilst others don’t, is irrelevant to having all the evidence tested in court. That’s the only place where all of it can be examined, questioned and valued.

That I believe Biden to be bombarded by allegations but not by any actual charges is just the same. If evidence, rather than innuendo, exists, let it be presented and tested. I would no more defend him, if found guilty, than I would Trump.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Of course they don’t. That’s a ridiculous idea which shows how poor a grasp of this you have. They are reflecting upon the impact of perceived opinions. The mistake was to write it down in any meeting minutes or internal reports. By all means have a lively, open, internal discussion about what a t*** Farage is and how him holding an account could damage their reputation, but use diplomatic language for anything in writing. There was no need to be specific. Just “a review of Mr Farage’s reputation concluded that for us to continue offering him account services was against Company policy”

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Thanks. All makes sense. I don’t though agree that Coutts are censoring Farage in any way at all. He doesn’t speak via his bank account and until this blew up no one knew he had one with Coutts. In fact their actions have provided him with a huge amount of publicity and opportunities to present himself as a victim. If this had not hit the headlines his ability to freely express himself would not have changed at all.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.