Farage Cements his Status as a Distraction

So, for the second time we have Nigel Farage, darling of all centre-right old people screwing the pooch for a second time.

Yesterday he announced Charlie Mullins (OBE, he likes to mention that), the ex-owner of Pimlico Plumbers and rabid lockdown enthusiast is joining the Reform party.

At that point, I'm out, I will not vote Reform, I will instead vote UKIP if the opportunity is offered. 

The reason being, I hate Mr Mullins with a passion. In my opinion, he's not fit to be part of a party that allies itself with the working class. There are plenty of reports about Mullins' business practices and his treatment of his workforce when he was boss of Pimlico Plumbers, but the icing on the cake for my hatred of Mullins was his attitude during Covid.

His opinions regarding unvaccinated people was clear for all to see on various videos. That sort of rabid authoritarian streak has no place in Reform. I though the leadership of Reform were better.

But obviously not.

I can see that Reform aren't the freedom-loving party we think they are. There is a dark side emerging.

So, I shall vote UKIP now. I can see that Farage and Reform are just in it for the power, the money and the profile. Victory at any cost is not what I personally want to see. It is just the same as the Labour party who lied to us to get into power and then did exactly the opposite of what they signalled whilst in opposition.

Are Reform lying about their intentions once in power? I don't know, but I now have enough doubt to preclude me voting for them.

Farage has yet again got within a hair's breadth of gaining power and thrown it away. This comes after the shock of his interview where he dithered on deporting illegal immigrants already here.

I'm now convinced that Farage isn't the saviour of the centre-right. I believe he is a distraction designed to split the right leaning vote so the two main parties get in power again. 

How else can you describe the mismanagement at UKIP, allowing Tory MPs to defect and then poison the party. 

The same is happening at Reform. Tory MPs defecting (no, resign and then get re-elected on a Reform ticket), and now allowing people with dubious histories to join the party with high profile celebrations.

I'm not liking what I am seeing.

The Farage Farrago Isn't About Farage. Lefties Miss the Point. Again and Again and Again.

 There are several tweeters on twitter (Xers on X?) that are gloating  about Farage being debanked. 

"But the Bank has a right to withdraw service" they joyfully say. 

Yes guys, it's okay if it happens to someone else.

But what if you went to ASDA and they refused you access? Then you went to TESCO and they did the same? Then Morrisons, Sainbury's, Aldi, Lidl?

Just because you had ideas they didn't agree with. 

What happens if you can't get a gas supplier, water supplier, electricity is denied to you? 

These are all private companies and they all have the right to deny you service.

But would your opinion change if it was YOU? 

That's why like him or not, the point Farage is making IS IMPORTANT. 

By all means deny you service if you've been abusive to staff, courts have proved you have used your account for criminal activity, but not for just having the wrong opinions.

It's not just Farage being debanked. It's small businesses that deal in cash, it's the single Mum using her TickTock or OnlyFans account to make ends meet because she can't get benefits, it's a whole host of ORDINARY PEOPLE BEING DEBANKED.

The lefties need to understand that. 

Leave Social Engineering to the Politicians.

The Nigel Farage bank cancellation Farrago is an indication of an organisation getting involved in social engineering where it has no business.

It's not the remit of banks to steer customers in a certain way, it's not their job to promote a certain political agenda or ideology. It's certainly not their job to debank customers if the customer doesn't fit their political ideology.

This is again another example of organisations overstepping the mark. Banks are not political organisations and should not be engaged in politics or promote a political ideology.

By all means say you're pro whatever cause, that you support people. But as an organisation you must support EVERYONE, irrespective of their opinions, their race, colour, creed or religion. 

It goes without saying that race and religion are protected from discrimination by law, but do we really need to add legislation to protect people from discrimination based on their opinion or ideology?

Because that's the way things are going. 

It's stupid and just adds to the cost of governance. It's an unwritten rule in the UK that we have freedom to speak freely. Yes there are caveats to that, I'm aware of, but in the main, people are free to have an opinion and should not be penalised for it. It's no business of the banks or any other Corporation whether I supported Brexit, whether I hate Jeremy Corbyn with a passion and think Boris Johnson is a dick led by his.. dick. 

None of that nor what I post here should be in the Bank's remit to affect. Their purpose is to provide banking facilities for customers and to make a profit for shareholders. Period.

Banks, Building Societies, global corporations can support whatever cause they like, but it should not impact their core business. It should not be imposed upon their customers. In fact it should work the other way round: the customers decide if they want to continue to do business with the organisation espousing views in opposition to them.

It reminds me of the housing association that stopped one of their tenants from using a wood burner at the height of the energy crisis, because it would affect the housing association's commitment to global warming and CO2 production. The tenant had made no such commitments and I'm sure no commitment was enshrined in her tenancy agreement. 

Overstepping the mark and acting as moral guardians to customers by organisations that have no business getting involved is something that needs to be stamped out immediately. 

We vote in politicians to do the social engineering and we vote for them as long as their values align with ours. With corporations we will do business with them as long as their values align with ours, not the other way round. 

There seems to be a lot of this top-down overbearing bollocks coming from several organisations. It's a recent phenomenon and I just wonder where it's coming from. Farage mentions "the institutions", by which I assume he means the educational establishment. But it goes further and is a wider problem. It'd say that the whole idea of top-down corporate parenting is coming from the WEF and other supra-national organisations. 

Organisations we do not vote for. 

Which breaks the covenant that the public have with politics: we allow those to have control over us, as long as we decide who holds that power. We vote them into office. 

We do not vote corporations into office, we do not vote bankers in to political office, we do not vote charities into positions of power either, nor the WEF. The main reason I voted FOR Brexit was because the EU had too much power over us without us having the ability to vote them in or out of power.

I don't now need the Banks trying to fill the gap, or anyone else.

  

Laughing at Farrage Debanking Misses the Point.

 It seems the Anti-Farrage twitterati are having a field day making smug remarks about his debanking.

Insults range from "It couldn't happen to a more deserving bloke" to "Farrage is lying".

But to make light of the issue misses the point. People, ordinary people, are being debanked for arbitrary reasons.

For instance on the BlackBeltBarrister Youtube channel, he recounts a client of his who was debanked for no other reason that receiving money. The kicker was that the bank demanded to know where the money came from. The explanation that the money came from a friend that sold some furniture on their behalf wasn't good enough for the bank, so they debanked BBB's client. With no explanation as to what triggered the chain of events, with no explanation the client couldn't avoid the same issue arising in the future. Also they were put on a blacklist so that they were denied the option to open bank accounts at other alternative banks.

It's not just happening to people because they hold certain political views. It's just if you trigger certain rules the banks have. 

The problem being no-one knows what those rules are, in which case they don't know how to avoid falling foul of the triggers that would end up in the bank calling you asking to know where the funds came from.

There have been a number of instances where people have been debanked for "irregular" payments. It could be something as simple as getting payment from TikTok or OnlyFans. An OnlyFans account holder was debanked. Another person was elf-employed and worked mostly in cash and deposited a Sum of money. 

Apparently if you trigger the banks rules, they will call you and ask where the funds came from. If you don't satisfy the questioning of the person at the bank, then you'll be debanked and blacklisted.

When I was in business the money laundering rules started to come into play and I couldn't pay my accountant's fees in cash because they would have to confirm where the money came from. Even though there was an invoice and a payment of £600, cash would have rung alarm bells even back then.

Of course, if you do it all digitally, there is a trail of sorts. But even then because somebody couldn't possibly just send you some money, you have to have proof. What is acceptable proof to the bank is also not clear. Is a written invoice proof? For instance if you sold a car for a large amount and someone pinged you the money, how would you prove it was for the car? I mean prove beyond all doubt? 

What if they just lent you the money because they were a good friend?

So at some point, someone will fall foul of these rules. Until the rules are clear and made public, there is no way to avoid them.