If Dame Alison was somehow to blame for the fake BBC report on Farage and Coutts I’m afraid she really needs to go

[ad_1]

BORIS JOHNSON: If Dame Alison was somehow to blame for the BBC’s bogus report on Farage and Coutts, I’m afraid she really needs to go

By Boris Johnson 16:55 Jul 21, 2023, Updated 16:55 Jul 21, 2023

Share or comment on this article:

Living, as I do, a life of impeccable rustic obscurity, I don’t go to posh London homes much these days. So I missed the BBC Correspondents’ Charity Dinner at the Langham Hotel on July 3, where media titans swallowed up top bankers and philanthropists in lustrous splendour.

I was unable to listen to the conversation between NatWest group boss Dame Alison Rose and BBC editor Simon Jack. They happened to be sitting next to each other and, according to eyewitnesses, were clearly enjoying themselves.

I can’t say for certain that they were talking about the story of the hour, Nigel Farage’s claim that he had been mysteriously and arbitrarily dumped as a client of Coutts Bank.

I didn’t hear Simon Jack ask Alison Rose the question that it was frankly his duty to ask that evening: whether it was true that Farage had been boycotted for political reasons, as the former MEP seemed to suggest. I didn’t hear what Dame Alison said. But you know what, I have a pretty good idea.

In fact, I’d bet the entire contents of my own personal bank account that they discussed the matter; and I’d bet my house it was no coincidence that the next day Simon Jack published a BBC article claiming that Coutts’ decision to punch Farage had nothing to do with politics.

The sad truth, the Beeb said, was that Farage simply didn’t have enough money. He had fallen below the wealth limit. It was a purely business decision, Simon Jack said, and he cited people familiar with Coutts’ move.

Well, who do you think these people might be? Does anyone seriously believe that Alison Rose was not involved, especially since neither party is now willing to comment?

I don’t go to posh parties in London much these days, writes BORIS JOHNSON. I was therefore unable to listen to the conversation between the BBC man and NatWest boss, BBC Business Editor, Simon Jack, NatWest boss, Dame Alison Rose.

Coutts decided to violate one of the most important principles of the bank, the principle of the bank’s survival for the past 331 years. They, or their top boss at NatWest, decided to betray the confidentiality their client could expect.

They spoke in derogatory terms of the state of his finances. They humiliated their client by forcing at least two media organisations, the BBC and the Financial Times, to publish the same derogatory story: that he was simply not wealthy enough to be considered a Coutts client. And they lied.

A few days later, through an access to subject request, Nigel Farage was able to obtain Coutts’ Wealth Reputation Risk Committee report and there it is, pikestaff-clear. The report says: The economic contribution of customers is now sufficient to retain them on a commercial basis.

It was not just a partly political decision. It was purely political. The conclusion of this 36-page dossier of bias and innuendo is that the committee did not believe that continuing to bank Nigel Farage was compatible with Coutts given that his publicly stated views were at odds with our position as an inclusive organization.

Please do not doubt that Farage is, and has been for decades, my political opponent. His activities have eaten away at conservative majorities; he has made it more difficult for us to win and he has several times contributed to preventing the formation of a strong majority Conservative government.

I certainly don’t approve or support all of his opinions, let alone Vladimir Putin, where I think he made a big mistake (as he himself might now accept). I doubt we agree on the need to protect the environment by reducing CO2 and many other things.

But on this issue, his treatment by Coutts, I find myself supporting him vehemently.

I read the Coutts dossier with cold, hard fury. Nothing here justifies the termination of a business relationship.

What if Farage compared the demolition of a statue in Bristol to the actions of the Taliban, who destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan? Is Coutts in favor of the violent destruction of our heritage?

What if he insists on the biological differences between men and women? This is a view shared by tens of millions if not the majority of people in this country. What if he supported Brexit? So did 52% of the British electorate and the current government.

This week, Mr Farage obtained a 40-page dossier from Coutts, using an access to subject request, for information about his decision – and he revealed his politics appeared to be involved.

If only the ministers proclaimed it louder.

Why the hell does it matter if he personally supports former US President Trump. The same goes for millions of Americans, not all of them bigots or idiots.

I have news for the snowflakes on the Coutts committee: Donald Trump is very likely to be nominated as the Republican candidate in the US election. Are they really going to unbank any American who supports him?

There is no conceivable defense of the banks’ decision. There was no reputational risk to Farage Bank. Did you know he was a customer? Me neither. They did it just to feel better about themselves.

They wanted to feel that they were doing more than lending money at interest.

They wanted to feel green, egalitarian, trans-sensitive, anti-Brexit, anti-racist and wide awake, and they thought they could do that by avoiding Farage. Then they lied about it.

They made a terrible mistake. Coutts is no longer the so-called posho bank used by children at my school, who would buy turkey sandwiches from the confectionery with 50p Coutts checks. He no longer has the right to behave as he sees fit.

Please do not doubt that Farage is, and has been for decades, my political opponent. His activities have eaten away at conservative majorities; he has made it more difficult for us to win and he has several times contributed to preventing the formation of a strong majority Conservative government.

As a subsidiary of NatWest, Coutts is almost 40% owned by you and me, the taxpayers, because we bailed it out in 2008; and Alison Rose is publicly accountable for her decisions and her $5.2 million salary. This is important because what this bank has done is ironically disastrous for the reputation of UK financial services.

Why would you put your money in London, if some woke committee can suddenly and arbitrarily decide to close your account? I wonder if Dame Alison paused for a second to reflect on how the UK has thrived and why we are seen around the world as a beacon of opportunity.

This is because we uphold the following great principle: you must not discriminate against people because of what they say or believe legally; and, as the report admits, time and again Farage did nothing to break the law.

There is only one way to go. Banking Minister Andrew Griffith MP rose to the occasion in impressive fashion.

He must now establish all the facts about how a false impression of Farages’ financial situation was given to the media, and I fear that if Dame Alison was responsible in any way, she really must go.

And Farage, if that’s what he wants, should have all his accounts reinstated on the spot. It’s more than just one person’s bank account.

This is about freedom under the law, for everyone in this country. It is about the freedom to think and say what you believe provided you do not break the law without fear of overt or covert persecution.

This freedom has made our country great. He is threatened. It’s time to fight.

Share or comment on this article:

[ad_2]