wyleu

Dysfunctional Mentalist.
With every solution, solve two problems.

[Canary @TheCanaryUK]

BREAKING: Canary debanked by Lloyds

Lloyds have debanked the Canary with no warning or explanation, putting the outlet in severe financial crisis
https://t.co/tVuvgu3YYn
https://t.co/tVuvgu3YYn

[The Fraud @StarmertheFraud]

This is utterly, utterly, outrageous. Lloyds is blocking The Canary from accessing its bank accounts. They are refusing to explain why.

This will undermine free speech and independent accountability journalism.

@LloydsBank must explain themselves NOW! Retweet @LloydsBank and make them come clean.

[wyleu @wyleu]

@tokkianami Did she have to put her own tent up and did she do the pegging this time?

[JonnyUtd @Fx1Jonny]

Look how the scumbags at the BBC frame the death of this Doctor.

I can guarantee he was tortured to death and highly likely he was sexually abused and graped.

Fuck the western zionist media! Utter scum!

[Seyed Mohammad Marandi @s_m_marandi]

The BBC doesn't want you to know that the Zionists raped him to death

[wyleu @wyleu]

@JBerkeleyClarke @TheCanaryUK Just keep sipping the Kool aid, James like the good little soldier you are..

[Waterways Protection 💙 #EndSewagePollution @WaterWaysProtct]

Advisory note: Lloyds account closure / restriction affecting The Canary

The immediate issue is to establish precisely what Lloyds has done. “Debanking” is not legally precise enough. Canary should require Lloyds to confirm whether this is:

termination of the banking relationship;
suspension of the account;
blocking of payment instruments;
refusal or delay of specific payment orders;
restriction of access to funds;
an AML, sanctions, POCA, Terrorism Act, fraud or customer due diligence hold.

Those categories matter because each has different legal consequences.

If Lloyds is terminating a payment services framework contract, Canary should ask Lloyds to identify the contractual term and statutory basis relied upon. The relevant framework is the Payment Services Regulations 2017, as amended by the Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. Source: https://t.co/M04eUH1cG7

The timing of the account contract is critical. For framework contracts entered into before 28 April 2026, Regulation 51A broadly preserves the older two-month notice structure, where the contract permits termination. For framework contracts entered into on or after 28 April 2026, Regulation 51B requires at least 90 days’ notice, a sufficiently detailed and specific explanation of the reasons for termination, and information about complaint rights. Source: https://t.co/jQD2h9tv78

Canary says it has banked with Lloyds for almost a decade. Therefore, Canary should not simply assert that Lloyds breached the 90-day rule. The correct position is to ask whether the relevant account contract was entered into, renewed, replaced or materially varied on or after 28 April 2026. If not, Lloyds may argue that Regulation 51A, not Regulation 51B, applies.

Canary should ask Lloyds:

Please confirm whether Lloyds relies on Regulation 51A or Regulation 51B of the Payment Services Regulations 2017. Please also confirm whether the relevant account contract was entered into, renewed, replaced or materially varied on or after 28 April 2026.

There is also a corporate opt-out issue. If Canary is not a consumer, micro-enterprise or charity, Lloyds may argue that some Payment Services Regulations conduct protections were contractually disapplied. Canary should require Lloyds to identify any such opt-out and the exact contractual provision relied upon. Source: https://t.co/WIv6yQWBUH

If Lloyds is withholding funds, that is a separate issue from terminating the account. Lloyds should be required to confirm whether the restriction applies to the whole account balance or only to specific funds or transactions. A whole-balance restriction is more serious than a targeted transaction hold and requires a clear basis.

Lloyds may be constrained from giving full reasons if financial crime, sanctions, AML, POCA or Terrorism Act obligations are engaged. But that does not mean Lloyds can say nothing. FCA guidance recognises that disclosure may be restricted where it would be unlawful, compromise security, or risk tipping off. However, firms should still provide the maximum explanation lawfully available. Source: https://t.co/jamhNCEK3J

On funds availability, the FCA’s payment services guidance recognises that a payment service provider may delay making funds available where release would breach Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 or Part 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. But the provider should act quickly and make funds available as soon as it concludes that it is not legally prevented from doing so. Source: https://t.co/jamhNCEK3J

Canary’s strongest procedural position is therefore:

Lloyds has not identified whether this is a termination, suspension, payment refusal, financial crime hold, sanctions restriction or customer due diligence issue. Lloyds has not identified the contractual term or statutory basis relied upon. Lloyds has not confirmed whether the whole balance is legally restricted or only particular funds or transactions. Lloyds has not provided a review timetable, escalation route, or sufficient explanation of how Canary is expected to meet payroll, tax, supplier and operating liabilities.

Canary should avoid alleging, at this stage, that Lloyds acted because of Canary’s political or editorial position unless there is evidence. The stronger point is governance and process. The FCA’s work on account access and closures identified weaknesses around record-keeping, use of broad reason codes, reputational risk assessments and the need for firms to have reasonable, properly considered and lawful grounds for account access decisions. Source: https://t.co/ofq68skUfX

Immediate letter to Lloyds

Canary should send the following as a formal complaint and urgent clarification request:

This is a formal complaint and urgent request for clarification.Please confirm whether Lloyds has terminated the account, suspended it, blocked payment instruments, refused payment orders, restricted access to funds, or placed the account under financial crime, sanctions, AML, POCA, Terrorism Act, fraud or customer due diligence review.Please identify the contractual term and statutory basis relied upon.If this is a termination of a payment services framework contract, please confirm whether Lloyds relies on Regulation 51A or Regulation 51B of the Payment Services Regulations 2017. Please also confirm whether the relevant contract was entered into, renewed, replaced or materially varied on or after 28 April 2026.If Lloyds relies on any corporate opt-out from Part 6 of the Payment Services Regulations 2017, please identify the relevant contractual provision.If funds are being withheld, please confirm whether the restriction applies to the whole balance or only to specific funds or transactions. Please also confirm whether Lloyds relies on POCA, the Terrorism Act 2000, sanctions legislation, the Money Laundering Regulations 2017, customer due diligence failure, fraud prevention, a court order or another legal basis.If Lloyds considers that it cannot provide full reasons because of legal restrictions, please provide the maximum explanation lawfully available, including the category of restriction, the review timetable, whether any funds are not restricted, and how Canary may make urgent payroll, tax and supplier payments.Please release or transfer immediately any funds not subject to a legal restriction.Please also confirm whether Lloyds has made, or intends to make, any report, marker or notification to a fraud prevention agency, credit reference agency, payment scheme, correspondent bank, law enforcement agency or other third-party database that may affect Canary’s ability to obtain replacement banking facilities.Please escalate this complaint to Lloyds’ senior complaints, legal and financial crime teams immediately.

Escalation route

Canary should check whether it can complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service. FOS can consider complaints from small businesses with annual turnover below £6.5 million and either balance sheet total below £5 million or fewer than 50 employees. Source: https://t.co/kiPVRfVb4D

If FOS eligibility is unclear, or if Lloyds continues to hold funds without adequate explanation, Canary should instruct solicitors to send a letter before action seeking urgent release of unrestricted funds and confirmation of the legal basis for any continuing restriction.

The advice should not present this as a proven political debanking case. It should present it as a procedural and governance challenge: Lloyds must identify the legal route, the contractual basis, the statutory basis, the scope of the funds restriction, the review timetable, and the escalation mechanism.

[Canary @TheCanaryUK]

🚨: The Canary have been DEBANKED, removing vital funds from us - this is an attack on free speech.

Support us by donating here 👇

https://t.co/xBxn1vUEHB

[Double Down News @DoubleDownNews]

Lloyds debanks The Canary with no explanation and are currently withholding their funds.

This sets a very dangerous precedent and attack on Independent media.

Journalism is NOT a crime

[MintPress News @MintPressNews]

Lloyd’s Has Debanked Independent British Media Outlet The Canary

The outlet reports that their funds are currently being withheld & that despite multiple attempts to contact the bank, they are unable to retrieve their money, putting them in a financially precarious position that could impact their ability to stay afloat. A public uproar has been triggered, as the bank is being accused on social media of attacking free speech.

[JewishVoiceForLiberation @JVoiceLiberatio]

Outrage
@TheCanaryUK has been debanked by @LloydsBank . Despite banking with them for almost a decade they are currently withholding a substantial amount of our money. We are left with barely any funds.

Lloyds has not explained why it has taken this action. Despite multiple communications from us, the bank has not been forthcoming with its reasoning.

The Canary is now in a financially precarious situation. We do not know when our money that Lloyds is holding will be returned. Moreover, we do not know how it will affect our ability to get another bank account in the future. https://t.co/RJp7rmB0of

[Canary @TheCanaryUK]

Debanking is an attack on free speech - and it always comes with no warning or explanation.

[Howard Beckett @HowardRBeckett]

No one should ever forget:

The partnership of Netanyahu 🇮🇱; Trump 🇺🇸 & Starmer 🇬🇧 did this

It’s apocalyptic

An evil, racist genocide

For the sake of humanity, all must be made to answer in The Hague

Free Palestine 🇵🇸

[Roger Gall @Shambles151]

The UK Govt is now using its special anti-terrorist legislation -(intended to protect its people against terrorists) - against journalists - in order to protect the the foreign state of Israel.

Please RT this until it is ended.

[The Crispin Flintoff Show @CrispinShow]

One man. Four 'anti-Semitism' trials. Four wins.
👉Last week Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign co-founder Mick Napier was cleared of false claims of anti-Semitism.
👉This was the fourth time he has faced this charge in court and won.
Watch the interview👇

[Wokerati Marty @WokeratiMarty]

Dear @andyburnham.

These fantastic young people have been sentenced as terrorists just for trying to uphold international law and prevent deaths in Gaza.

Please tell us what you'll do to restore our shattered faith in British justice if you become PM?

[Declassified UK @declassifiedUK]

Anyone who has served in Israel’s army should be suspected of war crimes, said human rights expert and lawyer Chris Sidoti.

Sidoti is a member of the UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory which has published 17 reports into the treatment of Palestinians, including evidence of sexual violence and torture against children, during Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Replying to a statement from Malaysia’s representative who encouraged countries to investigate dual nationals that had served in the IDF, Sidoti stated that any dual citizen should be suspected of war crimes if they had served in Israel’s Defence Forces since October 2023. He added that countries needed to move on from strong condemnations and into action.

Earlier this year, Declassified UK revealed that over 2,000 Britons have served for Israel since the start of the genocide. We then launched a major campaign with the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians to demand that the UK government monitor and investigate the activities of those British nationals.

You can sign our petition at https://t.co/ae1Uk0xIJO

[Jeremy Corbyn @jeremycorbyn]

Palestine is the litmus test.

Britain must end all arms sales to Israel, impose real sanctions, and establish an independent inquiry into Britain's participation in genocide.

Anything less will be a continuation of Britain's complicity in the greatest crime of our time. [3/3]

[Jeremy Corbyn @jeremycorbyn]

The very least any new Prime Minister should do is establish a full, independent, public inquiry into Britain’s complicity in genocide.

[wyleu @wyleu]

@andrewc44104127 His initial intensions were good but he was corrupted.

The UK institutions dont like integrity or change as they demonstrated with Corbyn.