Lootman wrote:If a pub doesn't want to serve me that has little effect on me. I just go to another pub down the street.
But a bank suddenly freezing my account and assets has a profound and almost immediate effect. Bills don't get paid, my income doesn't arrive and so on.
So a bank should not ban me just for no shirt or no shoes like a pub might. At minimum it should give me (say) 3 months notice and cooperate with me to transfer to another bank.
To me banking services are right up there in importance with water, food, energy, shelter etc. It should not matter whether I support Trump, Black Lives Matter, Putin, Israel or am neutral on such things.
The thing is that a lot of the people who support debanking really get off on it, like the cancel culture mobs on Twitter. Gives them a sense of power. Just look at the gleeful posts on TLF that support Coutts' position re. Farage.
There is an assumption that it's easy to get another bank account. It isn't, as Farage has shown. Once you've been banned from one bank you are put on a list that all other banks get to look at. Much easier for them to refuse to open an account if you're on the list.
Can't buy food because you can't get a card in the cashless society that's coming. That's your problem, not theirs. That's a feature for the debanking scumbags, not a bug.
Pretty soon they'll be agitating for the water companies to cut off prominent Brexiteers.
The only place I've been banned from is the Odeon Cinema in Taunton, because I wanted to take my motorcycle helmet into the cinema rather than leave it behind the counter. That's a bit more inconvenient than being banned from a pub, as there's more choice of pubs than cinemas.
But if I was banned from having a bank account I'd be [expletive deleted, past participle form]