this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
79 points (96.5% liked)

UK Politics

3084 readers
81 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, 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. (These things should be publicly discussed)

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.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

People with links to sanctioned Russians got debanked... not because of their political views

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean it is kind of because of his political views, but not in the way he means.

Like, if it's my political view that drugs should be legal, that doesnt mean Lloyd's need to tolerate me running a weed dealing business through their accounts.

[–] Syldon@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As was stated by many at the time. The banks cannot state it openly because of litigation, but that does not mean they cannot recognise the potential cost it presents.

[–] teamonkey@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

The costs are high. Finance regulations force the banks to investigate high-profile clients for any conflicts of interest or reasons where a bank may be facilitating something illegal or sanctioned. It is literally illegal for the bank not to perform these checks. They can’t just put on blinkers and claim ignorance.

It would be at least negligent to shareholders, and possibly outright illegal, not to act on that information if there were significant risk.