The issue of Islamic female face veiling is an increasing cause of annoyance for British non-Muslims. These veils are to be quite frank a huge two fingers to British culture and British society and far too many organisations, both in the public and the private sector, have all too readily accepted this misogynistic garment without too much question. The acceptance of a garment that is designed to separate to an extreme degree Muslim women from mainstream society is not only a scandal but has also thrown up some monstrous double standards with regards face-coverings that a recent incident involving Lloyds Bank highlighted.

In this guest post from contributor Joshua Winston Mr Winston speaks of how , Lloyds Bank’s customer service department has been contacted by telephone by a customer, Michael, who asked if his wife could open an account even though she wore a face veil. This request was accepted by Lloyds and Michael was told that his wife could open an account even though she was veiled but would have to produce identification such as a Passport. You can listen to Michael’s call to Lloyds customer services below.

Following on from the customer service call, Mr Winston spoke to Lloyds Bank’s media relations people and put some questions to them about the niquab and which are contained in the guest post below. At the time of writing I have not been informed that Lloyds have properly responded to Mr Winston’s request for additional information.

.

Lloyds bank refuse to comment on the niqab. By Joshua Winston

A man entered a UK branch of a popular English, sharia-compliant bank called Lloyds, wearing a head-covering. He was wearing a balaclava, which, granted, wasn’t the best idea because normally people wearing them are considered to be robbers or terrorists. But the point remains that more of his face was visible than it would have been had he been wearing a niqab. He was polite, greeted everyone, waited patiently, was carrying no weapons, and asked very respectfully if it was okay if he could make a deposit. He was told by the teller, “yes”.

Now, Michael has had his bank account terminated. The reason the bank gave was that the staff were threatened by his presence. This is a lie. In the original video, you can see the teller looking almost bemused, and, as stated, absolutely no one’s body language looked in any way tense or intimidated. In fact a female (who I can only assume was a manageress of some sort) was the most aggressive person in the video. She did not appear intimidated at all. She looked like she wanted to go 5 rounds with Michael. She was telling him what he could and could not wear, and telling him that he couldn’t film inside the bank, even though there are no signs outside in relation to dress or cameras.

Michael called Lloyds bank yesterday (recording included) to ask if it would be okay if his wife, who wears a full-face covering could come in to the bank and open an account. He was told yes, so long as she has a passport or a driver’s license.

Today I called Lloyds bank’s media relations centre. The man I spoke to, Chris Tuttletee, couldn’t answer any of my questions, although he has said he’ll try to find out and get back to me. He has since emailed me to tell me that Lloyds bank are declining to comment on this incident. And bear in mind that the manager at Michael’s bank wouldn’t speak to me, referring me instead to the media centre, which would make it fair to assume I’d be put through to someone who would be familiar with the bank’s policies.

Joshua Winston – Is it part of your bank’s training policy that staff know what clothing and headgear are permissible on your premises?

Chris Tuttletee – I don’t know. I’d have to find that out.

JW – Do your staff know what cultures the niqab are specific to?

CT – No.

JW – The niqab isn’t specific to the UK. Why is it allowed on your premises.

CT – What do you mean?

(At this point I suspect he thought I was headed down the ‘rascist route’ so I cut him off.)

JW – Did any of the women in your house grow up wearing a niqab?

CT – No.

JW – Have you ever known the niqab to be part of British culture?

CT – No.

JW – Correct. The UK isn’t a desert and we’re not inundated with sandstorms. Now, yes, there are different cultures coming into the UK just now and that is fine, but covering one’s body from head to toe so that a person is completely unrecognisable is NOT a part of British culture, and it is only British cultural traditions that should matter if a person is entering a bank on UK soil. This is a matter of safety and security for everyone. There’s a group in America and Canada called the ‘burka bandits’ who use the outfits to go around robbing banks and jewellery stores. So in a very real way, Lloyds are endangering their own staff’s lives by allowing anyone to enter a store with a full face covering. In the event of a murder, a niqab heightens a person’s chances of escape and not getting caught.

CT – Okay, I’m not sure what the question is there.

JW – It’s a statement that I’d like you to comment on. The niqab isn’t specific to the entirety of the Middle East, so how do you suppose that your staff could prove a Saudi Arabian was underneath one, for example? How could they prove a man isn’t under one? If your staff don’t know what countries the niqab is specific to, how are they supposed to find this out, especially if they can’t see who is underneath it, male or female?

CT – I don’t know about that, but I can tell you that we won’t be commenting on the niqab.

JW – Of course you won’t, because you’re cowards. This is also an issue of misandry. Why are women allowed to cover their faces but men can’t? There’s a lot of social issues that are wrong with your bank’s policies and your staff’s behaviour and assumptions about people. What about men who identify as women?

CT – I can’t answer any of these questions, but I will investigate and try to get back to you.