Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday October 18 2016, @01:38AM   Printer-friendly
from the spare-some-change,-gov? dept.

NatWest, a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, will refuse service to RT:

NatWest bank has frozen the accounts of Russia's state-run broadcaster RT, its editor-in-chief says. Margarita Simonyan tweeted: "They've closed our accounts in Britain. All our accounts. 'The decision is not subject to review.' Praise be to freedom of speech!"

An MP from Russia's ruling party has said the country's Parliament will "demand an explanation" from the UK. RT says the bank gave no explanation for its decision. It said the entire Royal Bank of Scotland Group, of which NatWest is part, was refusing to service RT.

[...] A letter posted online by the channel appears to show that the freeze is not in effect yet. It warns that banking facilities will be "cancelled and closed" on 12 December. MP Sergei Zheleznyak, from the ruling "United Russia" party, told the privately-owned Interfax news agency: "We will be demanding an explanation from Britain's official authorities in connection with this situation." [...] A member of the Russian parliament's upper house, Igor Morozov, has called for the BBC's bank accounts in Russia to be "arrested" as a reprisal. RT chief Ms Simonyan said the closure included the personal accounts of some senior staff working in the UK.

Unnamed sources in the British Treasury denied involvement and said the decision was made by NatWest itself. The Prime Minister Theresa May's office told reporters that "It's a matter for the bank and it's for them to decide who they offer services to based on their own risk appetite".

Also at RT, Bloomberg.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday October 18 2016, @05:37AM

    by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday October 18 2016, @05:37AM (#415552) Journal

    Wonder why none of that information has been released by Wikileaks?

    Are you really that dense? The answer is obvious: either Wikileaks or the person feeding Wikileaks is pursuing a partisan agenda.

    I suspect that the Obama administration has leaned on Ecuador to make life difficult for Assange. Retaliation maybe?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @07:06AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @07:06AM (#415568)

    They already stated they have the RNC stuff, and said it was no worse than exactly what Trump was saying. Still would be interesting to see. But up first is the more corrupt of the two.

    Can not really blame him for targeting the DNC. For gods sake they 'joke' around about 'droning him'. Yet he has emails saying things where they do things to people then he can see what happened. He probably took it serious. People tried to break in to his room no less than a month ago.

    Honestly *WHERE* they came from makes no difference. If we take that path then what they say is meaningless. The rules are meaningless. We should just trust these people to 'do the right thing'?

    This is typical of the Clintons. *Every* *damn* *thing* is shady as fuck. Basically deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny then when backed into a corner say 'dont recall' or 'just kidding' or 'not our fault you found out'. There are things in those emails that are just straight up illegal and most of it is benign. Yet no one seems to give a fuck about fixing it other than Trump cheerleaders. The people who vote for the DNC should be fucking rioting at the doors. They are doing this in their name.

    Retaliation maybe?
    No maybe about it. My guess is the leaks he is doing right now they have a pretty good idea what is in all of it. They have copies too and he has been leaking 1 dudes emails. They know exactly where he is going with it. It seriously would not be hard for that dude to open his emails and go 'oh fuck they have it all'. Hell several dudes on the internet used those very emails to guess his passwords and reset his accounts. This is not exactly top level hacking here. Something like Stuxnet is top level hacking. This is just email scrapping.

    Honestly, the scope of it is amazing. Last year this was all BS republicans fed to each other and people laughed off as 'conspiracy theories'. Its all becoming true. All of it. That is what is flooring me. Then finding out the RNC and DNC collaborate to fuck us all over? Nothing these liars say is true. None of it.

    Also these fools think this shit is just going to 'go away' in 3-4 weeks? If she wins that is *not* going to stop him even with Trump out of the way. He is going to release even more. He is going to show it all off one way or another. He is not looking to stop her from being president. He is looking for her to goto jail.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @02:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @02:27PM (#415678)

      > They already stated they have the RNC stuff, and said it was no worse than exactly what Trump was saying.

      Not the "the" stuff, "some" stuff. Wikileaks doesn't know about what they have not been given.

      > Honestly *WHERE* they came from makes no difference.

      Of course it matters. Wikileaks can, and should, release whatever they've got. But to ignore how it got to them is to miss a seriously important story. Think of it this way - if those emails revealed that clinton had deliberately tried to fuck up the russian elections then wikileaks ought to release that as well, right? Well, if that's the case then the reverse of that story should be at least as important.

      > This is typical of the Clintons. *Every* *damn* *thing* is shady as fuck.

      "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." The question you ought to be asking yourself is why, after literally hundreds of millions of dollars spent "investigating" the clintons (there were NINE congressional investigations about Benghazi alone) the only thing they could find to prosecute was Bill lying under oath about getting a BJ. Either the clintons have such incredible political power that they are immune to the most dedicated efforts by the entire republican establishment or there just isn't much there to begin with. How you see it is all about who you are, not who the clintons are.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @05:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @05:47PM (#415760)

        they don't go after the serious stuff b/c they don't want to get into that shit. that's when people get killed (on both sides). if you think they're only going after silly BS publicly b/c there's nothing else there, you're incredibly naive.

        the clintons are life long criminals that have gone international. read "bush, clinton and the cia", for one little glimpse into history.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19 2016, @12:59AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19 2016, @12:59AM (#415944)

          > they don't go after the serious stuff b/c they don't want to get into that shit. that's when people get killed (on both sides).

          nigga, please

  • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday October 18 2016, @04:37PM

    by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday October 18 2016, @04:37PM (#415731)
    --
    When life isn't going right, go left.