SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @02:27PM
> 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
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
> 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