The Canary has been debanked by Lloyds. Despite banking with them for almost a decade they are currently withholding a substantial amount of our money. We are left with barely any funds.
We do know that multiple other politically engaged people have suffered similar actions by other banks in recent times. It is not lost on us that powerful banks are able to restrict the financial activity of anti-Zionist and pro-Palestine organisations and individuals. Whilst we do not currently know the reasons behind our debanking, we cannot afford to be naive about this.
It is an outrage that the Canary has been unceremoniously dropped into financial instability with no notice or explanation from Lloyds.
Not the first attack on The Canary from the usual suspects.
"One of its first targets was The Canary, a pro-Corbyn website that was achieving 8.5 million hits a month.
Working closely with the anti-Corbyn Jewish Labour Movement, the book says McSweeney secretly recruited Countdown co-presenter Rachel Riley to front a campaign targeting The Canary’s advertisers with claims the outlet was antisemitic.
The Canary was later cleared by the independent regulator Impress (a fact Pogrund and Maguire don’t mention), but the damage was done. The Canary “went down from 22 staff to one member of staff within a few months of us targeting it,” SFFN crowed.
“Bye bye Birdie!!!” tweeted Rachel Riley."
https://www.declassifieduk.org/morgan-mcsweeney-plot-without-precedent-in-labour-history/
London’s banks are some of the oldest evil organisations going. A building society would likely be safer as then the members get to vote on whether to debank you.
Strong left bias, but “mostly factual” rating from mbfc
MBFC is almost entirely created by one person (6 named on site, but 1 is by far the controlling authority).
Nobody is without bias, but a large organisation of many varying views can temper it to a tolerable amount. To say that a near one man operation can act without bias though is ridiculous.
To rely on MBFC to determine the credibility of a news source is like outsourcing your critical thinking to somebody else. They’re a hack organisation as much as the organisations they claim to call out.
Guess that’s middle of the lane for most people then.
Nah, it has been quite dishonest at times
I was referring to the ‘strong left bias’ and MBFC’s own right slant.
The Canary very much has a strong left bias
There’s nothing wrong with having a left wing bias or being left wing, it’s a bit silly to try and act as if having opinions is a bad thing
I’m not familiar with them. I’m not making any comment about the Canary, only MBFC.
mostly factual
quite dishonest at times
Yeah. You know the difference between ‘mostly’ and ‘always’ does allow for some ‘at times’ exceptions, eight?
Yes
The Canary, while it doesn’t outright lie, creates strange theories and interpretations surrounding things. It’s definitely left biased.
Didn’t Farage make a great deal about this sort of thing happening to him?
Yeah, but that was when he was dropped by a high net-worth bank for being insufficiently high net-worth.
He just pretended he was being cancelled.
Causes of de-banking in the UK:
Risk appetite: Some businesses presented an unacceptable level of business risk to banks to three of the UK’s major banks.
Financial crime prevention: Some accounts were closed due to financial crime concerns. Indeed, banks have a legal and regulatory obligation to stop/prevent money laundering and other financial crime.
Information sharing: Banks closed accounts due to being unable to complete their customer due diligence because of a lack of information sharing from customers.
Reasons for giving no notice, from the same article:
…a spokesperson for UK Finance who commented as follows:
“Customers should receive good communication about their accounts and a notice period should be served before an account is closed. However, there may be exceptions to this if, for example, money-laundering is suspected. …”
Yup deffo AML check. Next they’ll complain that they asked why their funds have been withheld but weren’t given an answer IT MUST BE A CONSPIRACY! No, love, it’s AML laws.
“The money-laundering rules of the world’s foremost centre of financial corruption were certainly applied fairly by one of the world’s most corrupt banks, and the economic attack againt anti-state media is just a happy accident for both of them” is a really hard take to understand.
Why do you trust a) the UK financial regulators b) Lloyds c) any current or recent government not to be selective in enforcing laws if it helps silence opposition?
You don’t understand, Lloyd’s decision was clearly a direct order from our ZOG. Don’t you know, everything is connected.
bft
Would have the canary stood with Nigel Farage whenever this happened to him?
