George Galloway debanked - assault on free speech, boycott Lloyds

No different to Farage in that any business has to be mindful of it's reputation and if being associated with controversial characters brings more downside than upside then their public relations department may recommend dropping them.

What happened with Farage was that the negative publicity associated with dropping him became heavier than the benefit so they reversed the decision.

I doubt whether this will happen to Galloway though.
 
People have seen this closing of bank accounts for some time now.

When we first heard it people said that it was so extreme that it must be a conspiracy theory.

But it never was.....the establishment really doesn't care.

Now it's so common place that no one bats an eyelid.....that's how they change the culture.

But it's actually outrageous.....Whatever anyone thinks of Galloway, he has broken no laws.
 
Stirlingsays said:
People have seen this closing of bank accounts for some time now.

When we first heard it people said that it was so extreme that it must be a conspiracy theory.

But it never was.....the establishment really doesn't care.

Now it's so common place that no one bats an eyelid.....that's how they change the culture.

But it's actually outrageous.....Whatever anyone thinks of Galloway, he has broken no laws.
Click to expand...

It's such a slippery slope too. Next the banks will be checking the average joes social medias and if it's not up standard then you will be debanked. A conspiracy theory now but in months / years it will be the norm.
 
eritheagle said:
Didn't similar happen to farage a couple of years ago?
Click to expand...

Don't recall that, but if it did happen, it is equally outrageous.

This is not about party politics; this is about whether we even live in a free democracy anymore, or whether we live in a tinpot oligarchy dictated to by international financiers.

Obviously, basic ethical principles will go way over the heads of some posters on here, from left and right. It explains the mess we are in.
 
McAhuna said:
Don't recall that, but if it did happen, it is equally outrageous.

This is not about party politics; this is about whether we even live in a free democracy anymore, or whether we live in a tinpot oligarchy dictated to by international financiers.

Obviously, basic ethical principles will go way over the heads of some posters on here, from left and right. It explains the mess we are in.
Click to expand...
Farage was de-banked by Coutts, who tied themselves in knots trying to explain it away. Despite a memo that stated that they didn't want him due to reputational risk. He got compensation in the end.
 
Stirlingsays said:
People have seen this closing of bank accounts for some time now.

When we first heard it people said that it was so extreme that it must be a conspiracy theory.

But it never was.....the establishment really doesn't care.

Now it's so common place that no one bats an eyelid.....that's how they change the culture.

But it's actually outrageous.....Whatever anyone thinks of Galloway, he has broken no laws.
Click to expand...


....and once again, the conspiracy theory proved to be a conspiracy fact.

Funny how we never hear from the sheep-like dullards later down the line. I mean, a decent person might say something like "Sorry guys, you were right. I was wrong to mock when all you were trying to do was warn us". But not those wankers, they all go silent when the truth comes out. But we see them, and the internet keeps receipts.
 
ASCPFC said:
Farage was de-banked by Coutts, who tied themselves in knots trying to explain it away. Despite a memo that stated that they didn't want him due to reputational risk. He got compensation in the end.
Click to expand...
Coutts have a minimum requirement of £3m to open an account so are likely to be more concerned with reputational damage then Barclays.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Coutts have a minimum requirement of £3m to open an account so are likely to be more concerned with reputational damage then Barclays.
Click to expand...

If someone hasn't broken the law and it's about where they fit within a political window.....I think that shouldn't be something banks can do.

After Farage I thought we had assurances that this was to be sorted out. I must have had the wrong end of the stick.

If someone is legal and solvent then to deny them banking services shouldn't happen without the government publicly being responsible for telling a bank not to do business with someone.

There shouldn't be this underhand wiggle room.
 
Stirlingsays said:
If someone hasn't broken the law and it's about where they fit within a political window.....I think that shouldn't be something banks can do.

After Farage I thought we had assurances that this was to be sorted out. I must have had the wrong end of the stick.

If someone is legal and solvent then to deny them banking services shouldn't happen without the government publicly being responsible for telling a bank not to do business with someone.

There shouldn't be this underhand wiggle room.
Click to expand...
I don't think they should either without concrete evidence of wrongdoing but what I meant is that if Coutts lose a few customers it will have more financial effect than the same number leaving Barclays.
Considering Pinochet was a Coutts customer they must have really not liked Farage.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
I don't think they should either without concrete evidence of wrongdoing but what I meant is that if Coutts lose a few customers it will have more financial effect than the same number leaving Barclays.
Considering Pinochet was a Coutts customer they must have really not liked Farage.
Click to expand...

Yeah you have to laugh.

I imagine they have accounts from actual criminals all over the world but most just won't have heard of them.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
No different to Farage in that any business has to be mindful of it's reputation and if being associated with controversial characters brings more downside than upside then their public relations department may recommend dropping them.

What happened with Farage was that the negative publicity associated with dropping him became heavier than the benefit so they reversed the decision.

I doubt whether this will happen to Galloway though.
Click to expand...

This is the response of the lanyard-wearing corporate HR world.

So morally bereft that they are literally not capable of considering ethics and societal implications; they can only focus on the surface veneer of focus groups and marketing image.

Still happy to preach pretend ethics to the rest of us, however.
 
McAhuna said:
Interesting that Farage is considered to be more of a reputational risk to the ultra-rich customers.
Click to expand...
But only to those ultra-rich customers. The rest of us couldn't care less who has an account with them or what dodgy investments are made on their behalf and even if we did what are we going to do? Take all our millions and bank somewhere else I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top