this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
73 points (98.7% liked)

United Kingdom

6777 readers
250 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Dave8008@feddit.uk 9 points 15 hours ago

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/

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 6 points 16 hours ago

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.

[–] tenebrisnox@feddit.uk 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Didn't Farage make a great deal about this sort of thing happening to him?

[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] zabadoh@ani.social 8 points 1 day ago (4 children)
[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 2 points 10 hours ago

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.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 day ago

Mbfc also calls hasbara rags like Times of Israel "left leaning and mostly factual".

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Guess that's middle of the lane for most people then.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Nah, it has been quite dishonest at times

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was referring to the 'strong left bias' and MBFC's own right slant.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 23 hours ago

mostly factual

quite dishonest at times

Yeah. You know the difference between 'mostly' and 'always' does allow for some 'at times' exceptions, eight?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -5 points 1 day ago

The Canary, while it doesn't outright lie, creates strange theories and interpretations surrounding things. It's definitely left biased.

[–] zabadoh@ani.social 4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

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:

...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. ...”

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk -2 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 18 hours ago

"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?

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk -3 points 20 hours ago

You don't understand, Lloyd's decision was clearly a direct order from our ZOG. Don't you know, everything is connected.