Banks are to be warned by ministers that they must protect free speech as increasing numbers of customers are having their accounts closed for holding allegedly controversial views.
The Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is reportedly 'deeply concerned' that lenders are blacklisting customers they are deemed to hold contrary political beliefs and social values.
And is he prepared to actually do anything? Well, he's prepared to consider it, at least...
A Treasury source told the Daily Telegraph: 'It is absolutely a concern. No one should have their bank account denied on the grounds of freedom of expression. We expect to take action on this issue within weeks.'
What action? Hold another meeting? Send a stong letter of condemnation? Admit that this has been brewing under your noses for a long time?
What's that, Reader? You're surprised? You thought it was new? Oh no. It's EU legislation that hasn't been junked when we junked the EU.
The term defines anyone with a 'prominent public function' and originates in a 1987 initiative against corruption and money laundering launched by the G7 group of leading economies. This was designed to make banks and other financial institutions subject any PEP to intense scrutiny when setting up accounts — on the grounds that by reason of their public position they presented a much higher risk for potential involvement in corruption and money laundering than the man or woman in the street.
And, as we all know, give some people power and they will wield it in ways you never thought possible.
The PEP system came into force in this country under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, which referred to people with a prominent public position 'other than [in] the United Kingdom'. In other words, identifying powerful people from various highly corrupt nations, where political power and bribery went together like eggs and bacon. But the financial institutions here immediately applied it to members of our own Parliament — even though this did not become mandatory until the Money Laundering Regulations 2017. And not just them, but their immediate family — which, typically, include the PEP's 'parents, siblings, spouse, children, in-laws, grandparents and grandchildren'.
And all our legislative government was asleep at the switch while they did it. Or...were they?
Is it possible they knew exactly what was going on? And were content because they never thought it'd affect them?
