(LifeSiteNews) — It’s not what you know – but who you know – that might devastate your life these days. With the scandal over the debanking of Nigel Farage continuing to unfold, was there more to the affair than the matter of Brexit?
NatWest is Britain’s biggest bank, which is 38 percent state owned. Its private banking arm, Coutts, has long provided services to the wealthy – provided they have enough money in their accounts.
As news emerged that Coutts had instructed Farage to remove his money without warning, an explanation of sorts was supplied: Farage did not have enough money in the bank to meet the minimum requirement.
This line was leaked to the press following a dinner attended by the CEO of NatWest, Alison Rose. At the Langham Hotel she sat beside the BBC journalist who subsequently published a story claiming Farage had fallen below the financial threshold.
The claim was not only sourced from the then chief of the bank – it was also a lie.
The BBC published this on July 20, repeating a deliberate falsehood designed to provide cover for the actions of the NatWest CEO, Dame Alison Rose – which she had made up herself.
One day later, the BBC amended its article with an apology:
On July 25, as calls mounted for the head of NatWest to resign, the left-wing shadow chancellor of the U.K., Rachel Reeves, recorded an interview in which she defended Rose.
Speaking to the proudly progressive Channel 4 News, she denounced the outcry over the politically-motivated sanctioning of a leading politician as the work of sexist bullies.
I don’t like, some of the frankly, what I see as bullying attitudes towards her. She’s the first female chief executive of NatWest. She took over at a time when that bank had real big problems. It seems to me that Alison Rose, has done a good job turning that bank around.
Let me say this. If I was in the Treasury at the moment, rather than Jeremy Hunt and his Conservative ministers, I’d be spending my time this summer trying to ensure that families in Scarborough, like the ones I’ve spoken to today, are properly protected during this cost of living crisis rather than picking a fight with banks on behalf of Nigel Farage.
The next morning Dame Alison Rose resigned, after admitting she had lied about the reasons for “debanking” Nigel Farage. The interview with Reeves was broadcasted afterwards, in a move which embarrassed the woman who hopes to manage the British economy under the Labour Party.
Calls are now growing for the board to follow Dame Rose in resigning from the bank, as reports reveal that the scandal has so far cost the bank £1 billion.
This is a story with serious ramifications for basic freedoms in Britain. If a leading politician can be debanked for his public views, a chilling precedent is set.
This means that we live in a world where anyone whose views disagree with those of the “woke” establishment can lose their basic rights in silence. Without a bank account, life becomes impossible. It is a legal means of destroying any serious political or moral opposition to a comfortable coalition of politically correct media and management figures.
This scandal reveals the means by which power has been corrupted by people who consider themselves and their friends to be so unquestionably good that anyone who disagrees with them must be evil – and must be silenced.
This scandal reveals a creeping dictatorship ruled by our self-appointed betters. In their eyes it is just to deny basic rights to people who do not share their utopian beliefs. It is a familiar trait with all godless social revolutionaries, whose motive is not justice but vengeance upon the people they hate. People like you.
‘Stasi-style surveillance report’
If this sounds extreme, look again at the case of Farage versus Britain’s biggest bank. He uncovered the truth behind the CEO’s self-serving lie, which attracted support and amplification from the state broadcaster, the party of opposition in Parliament, whose dissembling plea was transmitted by the state-funded Channel 4 News.
Farage submitted a “Subject Access Request” – a measure which requires a bank to furnish details of decisions made regarding its treatment of clients.
The request revealed that he had never once fallen below the financial threshold required for the maintenance of an account at Coutts, and had been unfailingly polite to staff. What is more, he now had enough money to be classed as a commercial client.
“[T]he client’s economic contribution is now sufficient to retain on a commercial basis,” said The Daily Telegraph, in a series of reports which revealed that the bank had composed a 40-page dossier Farage described as a “Stasi-style surveillance report.”
Friendship with Trump, Djokovic cited in chilling dossier
The report made clear the reasons for the action against Farage. He is described as a racist, fascist homophobe who is friends with Novak Djokovic and Donald Trump.
A reputational risk committee ‘exited’ Mr Farage after considering a dossier detailing his comments about Brexit, his friendship with Donald Trump and his views on LGBT rights among many reasons he was not ‘compatible with Coutts’.
The background briefing paper even made reference to Mr Farage’s friendship with Novak Djokovic, the former Wimbledon champion, as evidence that he was not as ‘inclusive’ as the bank.
Farage was “being watched,” with his social media postings and press appearances monitored and recorded.
You could be next
Farage warns this is not an issue confined to himself. Conservative Party members of the House of Lords have found it impossible to open accounts for their children once the banks became aware of their connection to their parents.
Farage himself warned the dossier “reads rather like a pre-trial brief drawn up by the prosecution in a case against a career criminal. This story is not just about me. You could be next … if this situation is left unchecked, we will sleepwalk towards a China-style social credit system in which only those with the ‘correct’ views are allowed to fully participate in society.”
There is no justice to this orchestrated suppression of the difference of opinion, which has been undertaken by the very class of people who sermonize on how diversity is our strength. When confronted with genuine diversity – of conscience and of opinion – they respond in conspiring to slander, marginalize, and destroy anyone who represents it.
This practice is not illegal, which demonstrates the distance between legality and morality. There can be no public trust in our institutions when they are governed in this way. People whose morals are founded on the celebration of the destruction of the rights of anyone who does not share their views cannot be expected to discharge their duties fairly. Our media, politics, and commerce are an Augean stable, whose ripe stench is becoming impossible to ignore.
The arguments of the progressive faction are intended to replace reality with self serving lies. We live amidst an ideology whose capital virtue is total agreement with this fantasy narrative – in spite of the facts. The dossier itself demonstrates this article of faith of the Liberal consensus:
Nine pages of the background documents given to members of the wealth reputational risk committee are about Mr Farage’s alleged links to Russia and ‘pro-Putin’ views, even though the section on Russia begins with the words: ‘NF seemingly has no direct links to Russia.’
With no evidence, no regard for the truth and no recognition of the deep harm done to society, the people who run our banks, our news, and much of our politics see no evil in the internal exile of the people they despise.
Though the scandal is likely to claim more banking careers, it leaves a legacy of a divided nation. We are ruled by a tiny elite whose disregard for common sense and decency is surpassed only by their contempt for the common man – and his champions. The question is – for how much longer?