No, but to justify a change in regulations it is usual that a reasonable mass of evidence is in the public domain. Two unsubstantiated claims is hardly sufficient. I've had two bank accounts withdrawn in the last 12 months....both because I didn't meet changed criteria the bank imposed as they had changed their business model. I just took the feedback and opened more appropriate ones.
I know you agree but my argument is that banks aren't doing any virtue signalling bcos of what they saw happening in Ukraine. They're simply doing what they're being forced to by restrictions imposed upon them.
Quote from Farage Rather than just being banks, this illness, this disease has swept through corporate Britain, woke corporatism. Suddenly they're all about values. They're all about showing the world what lovely people they are. They're all about telling everybody how inclusive they are. Provided of course you agree with them. If you don't agree with them, you are excluded. You are abused. You are excommunicated.
'In response, claiming Coutts hampered Farage’s freedom of speech, the UK Government quickly said it will force banks to explain why they close accounts and give customers 90 days’ notice. But this may have a chilling effect on decisions made by banks, said Tom Keatinge at the Rusi think tank who once worked on the teams making these decisions for JPMorgan. “So I’m a bank. I have been deputised by the money laundering regulations and other laws to look for suspicious activity to basically defend the UK and the financial system from abuse by criminals for money laundering and the like,” he said. “Now the Government is limiting one of the important tools that I have to achieve that – that is being able to close a bank account at 60 days’ notice without having to give a reason.” ' So the cure to a non existent problem may actually assist criminals.
A per Private Eye last year, Todd Bollo paid a hefty sum to an unnamed individual when buying Chelsea - and that hefty sum looked uncannily like the amount that Uncle Roman paid for Chelsea The full piece is transcribed here https://not606.com/threads/rival-watch.112743/page-3829#post-16005167
One of the articles included allegations that included Hancock was “a failed health secretary and cheating husband who broke the lockdown rules he wrote, doubled down on the lies he told, helped enrich his mates via the infamous VIP PPE lane, and couldn’t resist monetising the infamy he acquired as a result of his ineptitude at managing the pandemic”. This is officially a fair and accurate description, apparently.
I think they went easy on him TBH. It could easily have referred to the thousands of deaths in Care Homes that he was personally responsible for. Mind you, on the subject of the Pandemic, why hasn't Johnson been called to the Enquiry. They have pilloried Sturgeon, Hancock has appeared already, so why not the PM? Not that I have any faith in the Enquiry actually holding anyone to account...
