This cancelling/freezing of bank accounts is more evidence that corporatism equals fascism. The cute description of corporatism is 'public-private' endeavours, which allow governments to have Big Business do to us what they, the politicians, cannot do legally or electorally.

Politicians have not said 'boo' about the disgraceful treatment of Farage by these banking thugs; nor about the obscure Anglican vicar who had his account frozen by the Yorkshire Building Society after he wrote to them about their promotion of transgenderism. He was given 14 days to withdraw his money.

On the latest count, ten banks have refused to accept Nigel Farage's money.

There is nothing new about this. Remember the Canadian truckies, none of whom were outspoken political activists before their protest against the truly evil despot, Trudeau.

This could happen to anyone who can be identified, and certainly would happen if we are ever forced into a cashless society and central, digital banking.

Less than a year ago, this sort of think could not have been imagined; but, here it is, and 80% of the drones probably don't even know about it - particularly with the deliberate threat and distraction of the Voice, cost of living etc, and rotten, self-serving politicians.

The treatment of "Andrew" is appalling. Also appalling is something I was told a few days ago, when someone tried to transfer money into the account of their grandchild, to be told that the bank could not transfer to minors' accounts because they could be 'groomed'.

On your say so. But few if any of these so-called false allegations are false.

Moreover, those that maybe could be, could be subjected to unbeatable space age lie detection.

And the last thing this "opportunistic Lady" and her pernicious pen would want!

Ditto the bulk of the legal profession! As this would dry up the rivers of gold they acquire through their "Legal" practises.
Alan B.

There are two issues here, which Arndt conflates to further her male victimhood agenda. The first is the serious problem of banks closing or freezing accounts to silence or intimidate people with unpopular political views. The Canadian truckies case was outrageous. It’s less clear about Farage. Coutts closed Farage’s account because his balance fell below the minimum for a premium account, not for his obnoxious politics. Coutt’s owner, NatWest, offered him an ordinary account, but he refused.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66097039

But that is quite different to banks taking action to prevent financial abuse, and Arndt again resorts to misrepresentation and sneering rhetoric to pretend otherwise.

Arndt conflates the NAB’s policy on cutting off financial abusers and the ABA’s measures to assist victims of abuse, to conclude that people’s accounts will be suspended on the unsubstantiated say-so of on accuser. This is a gross misrepresentation. The two quotes are from two different people addressing two very different initiatives several years apart. The ABA’s measures include things like keeping personal information private and offering flexible hardship measures. Banks obviously don’t need evidence such as an Apprehended Violence Order to do these. The NAB’s initiative specifically targets financial abuse, and makes clear that the bank would verify any accusation itself before acting. Frankly, if my bank knew that someone was accessing my accounts without my consent, I would expect them to try to stop it.

Likewise the suggestion that financial abuse should be taken into account in determining a person’s credit rating hardly seem exceptional. This is not “punishment”, but reflects the greater financial risk posed by abusers.

Arndt asks rhetorically “can you imagine the banks cutting off the accounts of women who refuse to work or contribute to household bills?”. Of course they won’t; nor of men who refuse the same. The financial abuse banks can address is the stuff they are able to identify and act on.

There is no evidence, even in Arndt’s cherry-picked quotations, that anti-abuse measures target men. In fact, a significant minority of financial abuse victims are male; they would gain from these protections no less than abused women.

What Rhain says!
Alan B.

Classical case of the communists using state institutions politically.

weaponising everything against everyone more likely.
- Can't trust anyone these days, not even your own doctor.