That the bank messed up is beyond debate. Nor is that Farage is milking it as hard as he can. The manufactured outrage stems from the false claims that he has been “cancelled “ (note current right wing jargon) by the bank for his political views.

That the bank enabled and assisted him to perform his act doesn’t change that fact. If he was genuinely concerned there are routes open to everyone to make a complaint. Not Farage though. H has a devoted bunch of fellow thinkers hungry for anything he can sling at people he doesn’t like watching him on a daily TV show.

This was entertainment for them. Not genuine concern.

The response was about his propaganda, which predates this event by years. Which is why Brexit got mentioned. Farage bears a very heavy responsibility over that disaster.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (26 Jul 2023 8.28pm)

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.

I have to admit I really am enjoying the meltdown from the Farage haters and the woke lefties. They hate that he is right.

You would hope that the directors at Nat West meet now and again - to justify their average annual income for the job of £198,589.

Especially since a lot of that has been raised from overdraft costs they've charged me over the years.

What a surprise! You don’t think that either Brexit or Farage’s involvement it in were disasters, when it seems completely obvious to most clear thinkers that they were.

A bank then decides that having an association with someone whose role in that disaster is likely to come under ever heavier scrutiny is not in their best interests. Farage though presents this as them simply objecting to his politics and people like you swallow his lies again.

The government jump on the bandwagon not only because they are still scared of him but also to show they are not scared of their paymasters but on the side of the common man.

It discredits everyone involved.

If the bank thought having Blair as a customer harmed them, and he was one, then I have no doubt he would receive the same treatment. The difference is it wouldn’t be known about because a loudmouth decided to make political capital from it.

Who knows if they have treated Blair in that way? I don’t think it’s likely but I don’t know.

If you owned a bank you would come to different decisions, but have only a handful of customers.

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.

You don’t have to agree with something to accept a verdict!

I think the UKSC judgement in the gay cake case was flawed and will be corrected, in time, by primary legislation or by another case which re-examines the issue. Until then we live with it.

If Trump manages to avoid conviction on all the charges he faces I doubt it will be as a result of non guilty verdicts. Unlikely, but still possible.

It’s more likely he will delay through legal shenanigans until next year, hoping to win the nomination, present himself as a martyr and get re-elected so he can then pardon himself of any guilty verdicts that have been given.

The US political system is well past its use by date and their justice system too integrated with it for anyone to have confidence in it.

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.