Skip to content

The bureaucracy shouldn’t have this power

Boris Johnson’s brother-in-law claims he was blocked from using currency exchange abroad because of his political links.

Ivo Dawnay, who is married to the former Prime Minister’s younger sister Rachel, said he was told by an official at the bureau de change in the baggage hall of Mexico City airport he could not use the service owing to his status.

Writing in The Spectator Mr Dawnay said that while attempting to exchange $200 he was asked to fill out several forms, one of which asked him if he was a “politically exposed person”, otherwise known as a PEP.

A PEP is someone who “through their prominent position or influence, is more susceptible to being involved in bribery or corruption,” according to Lexis Nexis risk solutions.

The 70-year-old journalist said that the cashier’s machine prompted the form asking him if he was classified as politically exposed after scanning his passport.

The actual and correct response here is to cancel the entire set of regulations about who may bank. Yep, sure, that will indeed mean that POutin’s buddies get to use the City of London. But better that than the bureaucracy having the power to bad anyone involved in politics at all from the use of the financial system.

Because, of course, we know that at some point those in favour of political nefarity are going to gain power (choose whom according to your own paranoia) and we really don;t want *those* bastards to have this power over us. Therefore don’t let anyone have this power.

Better to allow fraud and corruption than to have a system that anyone can – and will – be cleansed from.

19 thoughts on “The bureaucracy shouldn’t have this power”

  1. ‘The Government is clear that domestic PEPs should be treated in a manner which is in line with their risk, and that banks should not be closing individuals’ accounts solely due to their status as a PEP.’

    In other words, the bloke on the counter should make the decision, and if he’s later found wrong after a 3 year $30 million enquiry, he’s the one guilty of fraud and treason.

  2. $200 ?
    A gringo in Mexico ?

    Something doesn’t ring true. Was it travellers cheques or cash ?

  3. Nigel Farage reports his bank mysteriously dropped him

    His bank then tries to publicly embarrass him by claiming he wasn’t rich enough to be their customer.

    The British media immediately, and without evidence, believes the bank and reports on it as a funny story about those wacky, lying Brexiters, who definitely aren’t being persecuted but also deserve it.

    Am I missing anything?

  4. Yes.

    Laurence Fox, soon to prove whether or non there is a hope in hell of the uniparty system being broken at the Uxbridge by-election, has had similar issues with Barclays. The banks are sending a message, the Streisand effect could mean the public get an entirely different message.

  5. If the breaking of the party system in the UK depends on an utter loon like Fox, it will never happen.

  6. Steve. There never was a money restriction on having a Coutts account. I’ve known several people who’ve had them. I probably could have got one myself, at one time. The only restriction was being “Coutts’ sort of people”. Farage would have got in originally under that. And there is no minimum funds requirement for existing customers. If there was they’d piss off half the “great & good”. How could they efficiently manage their money?

  7. The bint Money-Coutts is unusually quite good on this in the Torygraph. Talking about being out with her (school) friends & the shower of Coutts debit cards on the table to pay for hamburgers. It’s just a bank provides particular services for the not very bright “right” people. Like being a member of certain clubs.

  8. BiS

    A decade or two ago there was consternation when members of the Spice Girls were revealed to bank at Coutts.

  9. Tim, “But better that than the bureaucracy having the power to bad anyone involved in politics at all from the use of the financial system”.

    But that is absolutely and totally the point – to unperson anyone the establishment deems a trouble maker, whether inside politics or just supportive of those have the temerity to question our betters (Canadian truckers and those who donated to them for example).

    Expect our ‘representatives’ in Westminster to vote it into law sometime soon.

  10. Addolff

    Perhaps an example of TPTB’s dislike of the ability of someone with money to independently purchase such goods and chattels as they wish from whoever they wish.

    There is all this talk of abolishing cash and insisting all purchases be made electronically, where they can be monitored and halted by the government if it so desires.

    As the saying goes, first they came for Farage, next they came for——–

  11. @ Rhoda
    Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was a ghastly little poseur, comparable to Jean-Paul Marat: so while I did give a toss about *anyone* being victimised by the state I felt little sympathy for him as he was plainly aiming to play the “victim” card like a Grauniad journalist.
    Nigel is a big boy and his comment that he may have to leave the country as a result of the state-controlled Coutts terminating his account suggests to me that he still has another account somewhere in Europe (which hr would have needed when an MEP).
    The next guy may be less well-equipped to cope: several government bureaucracies demand a bank account into which to pay money that they owe to an individual.

  12. So what’s wrong with that John? Thing about the “Establisment” is they insist that people play by the rules that they don’t, themselves, play by. That’s how they always win. If you want to go looking for “ghastly little poseurs” go look amongst the establishment. Their ranks are packed with them. Far as I’m concerned, any ruse gets you where you want to go.

  13. @ bis
    I don’t know which wrongness you are querying: I was complaining that the next guy to have his bank account deleted might be worse-positioned than Nigel Farage to cope with it I wasn’t considering a member of “The Establishment” but a normal guy like one from down my street.
    I grew up being expected to play by “the rules” while quite aware that the yobs wouldn’t. I also expect(ed) those who belonged to “The Establishment” as it existed when I was young to play by “the rules”: those who did not were “bounders” (that was pretty archaic even then but I don’t know a modern word to rerpace it).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *