That they have the right doesn't mean they are obliged to exercise it. There were obviously reputational considerations in play with Farage for which their right to cancel was a smokescreen but that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

I don't think any court would be interested in something like this. Farage hasn't been materially impacted. Other banks exist. He obviously likes to think he is important enough to have the prestige of a Coutts account and they disagree.

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 thought about exactly that as a comparison before making the comment and wondered if someone like you would try to use it.

There is though a fundamental difference between the two events. In one someone is being asked to make something for someone else, but objected to words they were contracted to use as decoration. The cake was not the property of the baker. Only the ingredients were. They were not endorsing views. They were piping icing.

In this case, the bank account itself is the property of the bank. They are not touching the money in it. That remains the property of Farage and will be returned to him.

The bank offers a standard product with set terms and conditions. Fail to comply and they can refuse your business. The baker offers a service for a fee and should not be free to discriminate on matters that conflict with equality legislation. If they refused to put any wording on cakes they would be OK. Selectively refusing wording and they aren't. They are discriminating. In my opinion.

The Supreme Court disagreed, but I continue to believe they are wrong.

Perhaps Farage believes that the scope of anti-discrimination protective legislation ought to be extended to include self-righteous presenters on GB News.

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.

This is tosh. Both are discriminatory or neither are. That he’s a presenter on GB News is not relevant. He has been discriminated against because of his political beliefs. That’s OK according to your post. So you’d be happy if the bank had turfed Jeremy Corbyn out for his left wing beliefs? You’d also, I assume, not back, say, a Halal Cake Maker if they refused a message on a cake that fundamentally went against their religious beliefs? Just trying to understand if you’re consistent. If you are then fair play. I personally believe they are both in the wrong.

Edited by Helmet46 (21 Jul 2023 8.03pm)

They might both be regarded as discriminatory by some but one is definitely legally discriminatory whilst the other ought not to be, in my opinion, despite the Supreme Court holding that it was on a point of law.

Farage wasn’t discriminated against because of his political beliefs. His account was closed by the bank for failing to meet their requirements. That this was probably used as a smokescreen to cover their fear of reputational damage is beside the point. It wasn’t illegal discrimination.

I would doubt whether Corbyn would aspire to having an account with Coutts, let alone admitting he is wealthy enough to get one, but in the unlikely circumstance that he did then the bank closing it for whatever reason they decide is fine by me. Their bank. Their account.

Any baker, Halal or anything else, has no right to refuse work because of what a client asks to be iced, so long as it’s legal. It’s not their cake. If they offer to bake cakes to order for reward then they cannot discriminate. If they cannot accept that then they must stop offering the service.

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 most certainly do believe it. Don’t worry though about insulting me.

Insults from you, or from any of the others who enjoy hearing echoes of their own out of sync views here, are all treated as solid confirmation that a sore point has been touched.

If I had a £1000 for every ad hominem I have received here I could buy Palace a new striker.

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 don’t know any more than you do but guess account opening doesn’t hit the desk of senior management but periodic reviews will throw up potential problems.

I would hope this incident has caused a very thorough review of who holds accounts and whether any are held by nominees to disguise the real beneficial owner.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (21 Jul 2023 11.01pm)

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.