To ask you to read this cautionary tale of what we're sleepwalking into?

[AspireMe]

unherd.com/2020/10/how-corporations-can-delete-your-existence/

Some people might say she deserved it. Others might disagree.

Some people on here think TWANW. Some corporations might in turn deem that thought as heresy.

Encouraged more and more each day to go digital, paperless and cashless... what are we walking into here?

As a pp mentioned, it's happened in Canada too, to the truckers when they were protesting against covid rules.

It's also happened to organisations, like the Reclaim party, and it's happened to various fundraisers for women's rights. Obviously not the same as stopping individual's accounts, but what's to stop a bank from cancelling the account of someone associated with a women's rights campaign? The case reported on in the OP sets a precedent.

It's just fairly stupid to assume that if governments or corporations have this sort of power that it's always going to be used in our favour, in line with 'our' beliefs.

And the Chinese social credit system is already starting to happen here and it's incredibly sinister. I don't know what to say, OP, but people on here seem to be well behind on all this stuff, or as a pp says, they're kind of into it because they assume they're always going to be on top.

The key difference there being that the suffragettes were campaigning for the right to vote, whilst Patriotic Alternative, the alt-right group Laura is one of the founding members of, are campaigning to directly harm the rights of others.

An excerpt from the wikipedia article:

Patriotic Alternative promotes a white nationalist ideology and aims to combat the "replacement and displacement" of white British people by migrants who "have no right to these lands". They support deportation of people of "migrant descent", and would offer financially-incentivised repatriation for "those of immigrant descent who have obtained British passports". Patriotic Alternative opposes all immigration unless one has a shared cultural and ethnic background or who can prove British ancestry.

The entire article is quite eye-opening.

They sound horrendous. But since when is it up to banks to decide what people are allowed to believe? And why would you think that, given this power, they can't tell YOU what you're allowed to believe?

Also from what you've quoted, it's not clear that this woman was involved with terrorism.

@beastlyslumber they can't tell people what to think, but they can choose who they do business with.

Obviously waiting for the "great reset" and thinking that the royal family are lizards OP?

But it amounts to the same thing.

Dear God. This is standard practice with anti money laundering regulations. She must have had suspicious activity on her account or maybe even been a high risk customer (banks set their own risk appetite with regards who they want to bank as, guess what, they are a private business, not a f’ing charity). There are a number of reasons banks can do this and are not obliged to explain. Google it.

Interesting article, love the end point, every single cent you spend is a vote - use it wisely.

@beastlyslumber no, it certainly does not amount to the same thing.

If you can only access a bank account by not saying anything the bank doesn't like, then of course it's the same thing. It's not up to banks to decide what people are allowed to believe.

It's already happened to this individual. It has also happened to uk organisations and fundraisers. Really not sure what you're not getting about this.

Some people call the Black Lives Matter a terrorism group. If those 'some people' find themselves in say, five, ten years time in the position of sitting in front of the equivalent of 'The Big Red Button', do you think banks should have the potential to do to people that fund those groups what they did to the woman in the article?

This is really interesting. Who gets to decide what is or is not beyond the pale in a civilised society?

Absolutely. I think it's so interesting.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. One man's hate speech is another man's factual truths.

I think the trans issue is a perfect example. I always thought I sat vaguely on the left side of politics and right side of history like most of my friends and social group, until gender ideology came along ...

Affiliated with terrorists? Well that's a wooly, vague, easy to abuse statement. See also glorifying terrorism, which the government can now use to strip UK nationals of their citizenship without prior notice.😱

Probably not the best example to use a potential terrorist, however unless guilty of a crime it’s unacceptable to have anyones access to funds stripped and a major bit of hypocrisy given many banks invest into arms manufacturers or other controversial companies.

but it can and does happen to a lot of people. We’re not just talking bank accounts but access to other financial services like PayPal and ApplePay or means of earning a living like through Etsy and Wordpress, patreon and it wasn’t that long ago a lot of banks were banning transactions through onlyfans, mind geek and other such sites.

women, feminists, scientists and even average citizens have had accounts locked and/or banned just because they don’t follow the approved thoughts and opinions of the day.

Who gets to decide who can and cannot earn a living?

You have not answered my questions. They are simple yes or no answers...

@AspireMe

And those people thankfully aren't in a position to declare BLM a terror group

You really are clutching at straws here and it's quite odd this is the hill you're dying on

Wanting to allow those with links to known terror organisations a bank account

What? If the UK government declared BLM a terrorist group tomorrow they would be classed as a terrorist group in the UK. Do you have some sort of insight that the rest of us don't about what's going to happen in the future? Because your argument seems to be "but it couldn't happen" whereas mine is "but if it did, then?? Should banks have the authority to do that?"

@beastlyslumber it is not about what you say. It is about how you use your account. The account the bank are providing to you and are required by law to ensure you do not use for criminal purposes. Bank staff are breaking the law if they even remotely suspect this stuff and don't act.

Are you purposely missing the point?

And as @beastlyslumber and others have pointed out, you think it's deserving/warranted because the banks views align with yours. If you found on an occasion that actually, the banks views did not align with yours, and they did that to someone - would it be right to cut them financially off as in the article?

Exactly this. It is frightening.

@AspireMe

Of course it would be

They don't have to have you as a customer

Christ alive

Yes or no only. (I'm not answering yes or no only)

Should banks comply with the law of the land when they hold accounts which may be linked to terrorism? No.

And as a bonus question, when you posted that link, were you aware that you were supporting an extremist right wing bigot? And do you still support her? I am not and have never been in support of her or defending her, and my thread was about the authority that the powers of bank and technology have over us and we are not realising the precarious situations that can put us in.

Question for you:

Can you quote anything from my posts in this thread, or better yet, anywhere on this entire site, where I have defended or supported this woman, her actions, the actions of the terrorist groups she is aligned with or the people that she is aligned with?

So in this scenario you would honestly think it's acceptable for a man, or woman, who supports BLM and may or may not have funded them through a bank account, to have their bank account frozen with no explanation, customer services not replying, managers and staff refusing to speak to you about it, multiple companies under the umbrella of said bank also not recognising you as a customer or replying to any of your questions, to have your direct debits or standing orders obviously not paid, nor rent/mortgage, no access to any money whatsoever, phone inevitably cut off, inevitably made homeless and jobless?

I think you'd say no. Because I suspect you are in support of BLM. My question is: What happens in a scenario when the banks who hold that much power DON'T?"

@AspireMe

If that's what that particular bank doesn't agree with of course it's fine

They don't have to have people as a customer

They can set their own rules of service

I wouldn't use a bank who did that for those who support BLM, as is my right as a consumer to vote with my feet.

What's wrong with the great reset? It's not a conspiracy in the same ballpark as lizard royals.