RT's bank account got frozen!

by **New Werpland** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:08 am

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/russia-today-bank-accounts-frozen-uk-rt-money-finances-freeze-state-media-putin-a7365406.html%3famp?client=safari

Bank accounts belonging to Russia's state broadcaster Russia Today have reportedly been frozen in the UK.

The network's editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan tweeted the news: "Our accounts in the UK have been closed. All accounts. 'The decision is not subject to revision'.

She added: "Long live freedom of speech!"

Well done UK RBS.

by **Alvecia** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:11 am

Interesting. Current statements from the banks haven't given a reason.

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.

The broadcaster says NatWest wrote to its London office, saying: "We have recently undertaken a review of your banking arrangements with us and reached the conclusion that we will no longer provide these facilities."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37677020

by **Purpelia** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:16 am

Why does a Russian TV station have bank accounts in england?

by **Alvecia** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:18 am

Purpelia wrote:Why does a Russian TV station have bank accounts in england?

Probably a legal thing.

by **Vassenor** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:20 am

Why does a Russian state propaganda organ suddenly care about freedom of speech?

by **Enfaru** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:21 am

Alvecia wrote:
Purpelia wrote:Why does a Russian TV station have bank accounts in england?

Probably a legal thing.

More like a financial thing. UK is pretty much a tax haven

by **Alvecia** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:21 am

Enfaru wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Probably a legal thing.

More like a financial thing. UK is pretty much a tax haven

Really? Surely there are better places?

by **Hirota** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:21 am

Purpelia wrote:Why does a Russian TV station have bank accounts in england?

Because it has a UK channel, so you have operating costs of running a news studio, as well as payroll.

by **Implacable Death** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:23 am

Why does free speech not extend to RT?

by **Frank Zipper** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:24 am

Why is the 'f' of frozen capitalised in the thread title? It gives a false idea that the thread has something to do with Disney.

by **Vassenor** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:25 am

Frank Zipper wrote:Why is the 'f' of frozen capitalised in the thread title? It gives a false idea that the thread has something to do with Disney.

Clearly they just need to let it go.

by **Alvecia** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:25 am

Implacable Death wrote:Why does free speech not extend to RT?

How is their free speech infringed?

by **Implacable Death** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:25 am

Frank Zipper wrote:Why is the 'f' of frozen capitalised in the thread title? It gives a false idea that the thread has something to do with Disney.

The bank obviously doesn't want them to build a snowman.

by **Internationalist Bastard** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:27 am

Well until the bank explains why we can't say much

by **Alvecia** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:29 am

Internationalist Bastard wrote:Well until the bank explains why we can't say much

Maybe they were just really bad customers. That'd be a laugh.

by **Greed and Death** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:31 am

Alvecia wrote:
Implacable Death wrote:Why does free speech not extend to RT?

How is their free speech infringed?

It depends on why the accounts were frozen. If accounts were frozen because RT was engaged money laundering or another crime that is fine, if their accounts were frozen because they are a Putin shill, then their rights would be frozen.

by **Vassenor** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:32 am

greed and death wrote:
Alvecia wrote:How is their free speech infringed?

It depends on why the accounts were frozen. If accounts were frozen because RT was engaged money laundering or another crime that is fine, if their accounts were frozen because they are a Putin shill, then their rights would be frozen.

They haven't had their broadcast license yanked though. Legally they are still able to broadcast.

by **Alvecia** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:33 am

greed and death wrote:
Alvecia wrote:How is their free speech infringed?

It depends on why the accounts were frozen. If accounts were frozen because RT was engaged money laundering or another crime that is fine, if their accounts were frozen because they are a Putin shill, then their rights would be frozen.

Surely though there's nothing stopping them from just going to another bank. Isn't the RBS group a private entity? They'd be well within their rights to drop a customer because they don't like them, right?

by **Eol Sha** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:34 am

New Werpland wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/russia-today-bank-accounts-frozen-uk-rt-money-finances-freeze-state-media-putin-a7365406.html%3famp?client=safari
Bank accounts belonging to Russia's state broadcaster Russia Today have reportedly been frozen in the UK.

The network's editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan tweeted the news: "Our accounts in the UK have been closed. All accounts. 'The decision is not subject to revision'.

She added: "Long live freedom of speech!"

Well done UK.

I don't consider this "well done". Regardless of RT's political leanings and perception as a Russian propaganda outfit, it's not really a good thing when national governments start freezing their assets and impede on their ability to do their job as a journalistic organization. Only an extremely good reason, like RT being revealed as a sponsor of terrorism, could get me to approve of this slight against freedom of the press.

by **Alvecia** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:36 am

Eol Sha wrote:
New Werpland wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/russia-today-bank-accounts-frozen-uk-rt-money-finances-freeze-state-media-putin-a7365406.html%3famp?client=safari
Bank accounts belonging to Russia's state broadcaster Russia Today have reportedly been frozen in the UK.

The network's editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan tweeted the news: "Our accounts in the UK have been closed. All accounts. 'The decision is not subject to revision'.

She added: "Long live freedom of speech!"

Well done UK.

I don't consider this "well done". Regardless of RT's political leanings and perception as a Russian propaganda outfit, it's not really a good thing when national governments start freezing their assets and impede on their ability to do their job as a journalistic organization. Only an extremely good reason, like RT being revealed as a sponsor of terrorism, could get me to approve of this slight against freedom of the press.

I don't think the government did anything. At least, nothing is immediately obvious.
The banking group that serviced them decided it didn't want them as a customer.

by **Vassenor** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:37 am

Eol Sha wrote:
New Werpland wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/russia-today-bank-accounts-frozen-uk-rt-money-finances-freeze-state-media-putin-a7365406.html%3famp?client=safari
Bank accounts belonging to Russia's state broadcaster Russia Today have reportedly been frozen in the UK.

The network's editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan tweeted the news: "Our accounts in the UK have been closed. All accounts. 'The decision is not subject to revision'.

She added: "Long live freedom of speech!"

Well done UK.

I don't consider this "well done". Regardless of RT's political leanings and perception as a Russian propaganda outfit, it's not really a good thing when national governments start freezing their assets and impede on their ability to do their job as a journalistic organization. Only an extremely good reason, like RT being revealed as a sponsor of terrorism, could get me to approve of this slight against freedom of the press.

So how is RBS (a private corporation) announcing they will not do business with RT the government freezing their assets?

by **Eol Sha** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:38 am

Alvecia wrote:
Eol Sha wrote:I don't consider this "well done". Regardless of RT's political leanings and perception as a Russian propaganda outfit, it's not really a good thing when national governments start freezing their assets and impede on their ability to do their job as a journalistic organization. Only an extremely good reason, like RT being revealed as a sponsor of terrorism, could get me to approve of this slight against freedom of the press.

I don't think the government did anything. At least, nothing is immediately obvious.
The banking group that serviced them decided it didn't want them as a customer.

Color me skeptical. I wouldn't be surprised if the British government had a hand in this.

I guess we'll find out.

by **Frank Zipper** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:39 am

Alvecia wrote: Isn't the RBS group a private entity?

State owned since they got rescued in the 2008 financial crisis.

by **Alvecia** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:41 am

Eol Sha wrote:
Alvecia wrote:I don't think the government did anything. At least, nothing is immediately obvious.
The banking group that serviced them decided it didn't want them as a customer.

Color me skeptical. I wouldn't be surprised if the British government had a hand in this.

I guess we'll find out.

Well they've not had the best best history here in the UK. Been smacked on the wrist several times by Ofcom for biased reporting.

by **Minoa** » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:41 am

The problem here is that banks in the UK can drop any customer without giving a reason. Most of which are related to trying to avoid going under again especially with new demands for minimum capital reserves.

RT's bank account got frozen!

RT's bank account got frozen!

Who is online