Politician Nigel Farage recently hit the UK headlines after his bank account was unexpectedly closed by Coutts, a private bank owned by Natwest. Dubbed the ‘debanking scandal’, he was considered too controversial to have as a customer and the bank decided its reputation could be at risk. The scandal led to the resignations of Coutts boss Peter Flavel and Dame Alison Rose, chief executive of the NatWest Group.
Scientology operates in the United Kingdom under an Australian-registered entity known as the Church of Scientology Religious Education College, Inc (COSRECI), and it is stated on documents available at Companies House that they bank with NatWest.
Today, I wrote a letter to Mr. Farage raising the question: How can NatWest ethically (and morally) determine a former politician’s business carries more risk to their reputation than the world’s most controversial religion, Scientology?
Here is the letter in full.
Hi Nigel,
I’m a former sales director at the Church of Scientology London and I’ve recently been following your work on the debanking scandal. Firstly, I’m sorry you are going through it – but I’m glad you are taking the fight head on.Scientology bank with Natwest in the UK. They are currently operating with debts of over £74 million, 5x their annual UK turnover. In 1999 they failed to gain tax exemption as they couldn’t prove to the Charity Commission they existed for the public benefit, with the ruling concluding they were “not established for the charitable purpose of promoting the moral or spiritual welfare and improvement of the community.”
It is well known that Scientology doesn’t have the greatest reputation and more is coming to light about their global practices of child trafficking, abuse and imprisonment. As a teenager, I myself was locked in a room at the London Church and told I couldn’t leave until I’d confessed my wrongdoings. In 1975, an internal government report concluded “The Church of Scientology does not merely persuade people to part with their money. It is a harmful movement with an evil reputation.“
I find it highly ironic and it genuinely puts Natwest’s ethical standards in to question – they decided your public status was too much of a ‘risk’ for their reputation, but at the same time have no problem handling the money of, literally, the world’s most controversial religion?
Censorship is a fundamental part of Scientology’s doctrine. GB News champions ’no censorship’.
With your role in exposing the debanking scandal, I wonder if you would be willing to raise the question – why does Natwest have a problem with your custom, and yet continue to willingly handle Scientology’s dirty money?
Thank you and kind regards
