A rare glimpse of a shape-shifting Westminster denizen

 

Suddenly, they all have got something to say about ‘Coutts v Farage’, even the government. Strangely enough, it’s now become a ‘Free Speech’ issue, nothing to do with Mr NF at all: “Newspaper review: Banks in ‘free speech’ row and UK inflation falls”.(link).

Cynical old me, delighted that it took only three weeks for the majority of the Westminster MSM to take this issue seriously, thinks however that their sudden interest has another reason. It’s because today is by-election day. You might like to read this little column in the DM (link) about this day of reckoning for the Tories.

That’s why “Coutts v Farage” is in the limelight for another day. Now the infamous dossier has even been published in The Times – paywalled, of course, and only as box in their article: “Nigel Farage row: banks risk losing licences over free speech – Lenders told to respect free speech as arch Brexiteer threatens to sue” (link, paywalled).

See how the editors manage to get ‘free speech’ into both the headline and the sub-header? You have to see the first paragraphs of that report to grasp the insincerity of both government and the Westminster MSM. Thats’ why I’m quoting at length, not least to demonstrate the fine art of producing crocodile tears at the drop of a hat (emphases are mine):

Ministers are considering making free speech protections a condition of permits after Coutts closed down the accounts of Nigel Farage, the former leader of the UK Independence Party (Ukip), because his views did not “align with our values”.

The Treasury is also expected to announce plans as soon as next week to force banks to give customers three months’ notice before closing accounts, rather than one month as at present. Banks will be required to give an “explicit” explanation of why they are closing accounts, and customers will retain their right of appeal.

Ministers believe that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” and that greater transparency would force banks to change their behaviour. A government source said people’s right to express their views was sacrosanct.” (link, paywalled)

Note well how urgent all this is: ‘ministers’ are ‘considering’ and ‘believing’, the Treasury is ‘expecting to’: a hive of activity, of urgency and of a pathetically naive belief that government regulations will make everything right. I’ll not mention the saying about bolting horses and stable doors. I predict however that we’ll not hear anything about how and when Treasury and ministers will have produced their ‘guidance’. 

The sickening aspect to this is that all these government figures have suddenly found their heart to defend Free Speech, even unto ‘a source’ saying that “people’s right to express their views was sacrosanct”. This made me sick because, after the covid years, the years of cancel culture at universities, the years of ‘hate speech’ legislation, there’s too much evidence that no, our right to express our views is not sacrosanct, hasn’t been for years and is not protected by government.

Moreover, the attitude of ‘not sharing our values – therefore off with their heads’ has become so entrenched that on social media the ‘fact checkers’ and ‘professionally offended’ are policing every utterance while under relevant articles, where permitted, comment posters harass all who do not toe the line of ‘public opinion’, from the Ukraine war to this banking scandal. 

Finally, to document the blatant hypocrisy of the editors of the august paper ‘The Times’, this morning’s title of their leading article, the editorial, says it all:

“The Times view on Nigel Farage’s banking issues: No Accountability – Banks have no right to close accounts solely because they disagree with customers’ lawfully expressed views. The government should ban this Kafkaesque practice” (link, paywalled)

How lovely, how generous, how erudite to bring Kafka into the headline! Take note however of the weaselling-out, proof that this whole, pious chatter about protecting free speech is just a facade: only ‘lawfully expressed’ views deserve protection. Of course, Westminster decides what is ‘lawful’ and what isn’t.

I don’t expect to see the ‘hate speech’ laws being scrapped. Thus, banks will still be able to close accounts, now perhaps with a three-month period and the ‘right to appeal’. I also wonder why nobody has picked up on Mr Farage’s claim, that other UK banks have refused to open an account for him. Will there be ‘legislation’ for this?

That’s all I have for today. I think this’ll be the last we hear about the “Coutts v Farage” scandal. After three weeks of silence, all the weasel words about protecting  ‘Free Speech’ show that this sudden interest was simply employing the “dead cat on the table” stratagem to attract the attention of us peasants. Have a good day.