The Police & Security Services Are Using Financial Terrorism To Add to My Malicious Prosecution for ‘Terrorism’

It is a Kafkaesque Situation in Which False Allegations are Made to Banks Which They Are Not Allowed to Reveal & I Am Not Allowed to Know

How activists are fighting terror charges for standing up with Palestine, with Tony Greenstein

In theory you are innocent until proven guilty but as the Filton 18 have learnt once the word ‘terrorism’ is uttered the State can lie with impunity and engage in any underhand smear tactics.

They do this with the complicity of the Judiciary who go weak at the knees once the magic words ‘terrorism’ and ‘national security’ are uttered. Those of us with long memories remember Spycatcher, the autobiography of an embittered MI5 agent Peter Wright.

British judges, all the way to the Law Lords upheld an injunction against their publication despite them being freely available in the United States. It was only in October 1988 when the Australian Supreme Court ruled that they should be published that their Lordships saw the futility of upholding their injunctions when everyone outside these shores knew what was in Spycatcher.

National security had become a code word for avoiding embarrassment to the Thatcher government until even Britain’s judges realised that they were like Ethelred the Unready trying to halt the waves. So it is with ‘terrorism’. With the proscription of Palestine Action it merely means a group that the Establishment doesn't like.

Never was the saying that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ more true.

We see this with the false allegations of Iranian money having funded Palestine Action. The Home Office gave anonymous briefings to any journalist willing to act as an unpaid government prostitute. Anyone who knows anything about Palestine Action knows that this is a lie. There is not a scrap of evidence to support it.

But when you have waged a war on the basis of a ‘dodgy dossier’ as happened with Iraq, then lying comes easily. Or as the Cabinet Secretary Robert Armstrong conceded to Malcolm Turnbull in the Australian High Court it is the duty of civil servants and politicians to be ‘economical with the truth’.

All this is by way of introduction. My ordeal began last summer, even before I was charged under the notorious s.12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000  with ‘expressing an opinion or belief’ that was supportive of a proscribed organisation.

In 2019 Priti Patel, who had been sacked by Theresa May for lying about her ‘holiday’ in Israel where she met Netanyahu, was brought back into office by that model of probity, Boris Johnson, and she promptly amended the Terrorism Act 2000 to make it illegal to utter any words that might be construed as supporting a proscribed organisation.

Brilliant piece of work by @MadocCairns showing how ministers in parliament at time of enactment of the 2000 Terrorism law explicitly stated it would not be used to define as “terrorist” acts of protest like those committed by Palestine Action https://t.co/2ojR6da8Sm

— David Bergman (@TheDavidBergman) July 4, 2025

The definition of terrorism in the Act is so broad that it could catch anyone out who opposes British foreign policy in some area of the world. Despite being told by Ministers when the original Terrorism Act was passed in 2000 that it wouldn’t be used against protest groups that is exactly what happened against Palestine Action.

In July 2024 my bank account at Nationwide was closed for regulatory reasons, which basically means they don’t have to tell you the reason why they are closing the account. At the time I had believed that the closure of my accounts related to a row between me and Nationwide over their refusal to send payments to the Al Tafawk Children’s Centre in Jenin.

At the time Nationwide insisted that their hostility to transferring money to Palestinians was not the reason for the closure of my accounts. Today it is clear that they had been contacted on behalf of the Police/CPS/Security Services and fed false allegations about me.

At the time I assumed that this was a one-off.  Then in March First Direct, a bank that I had been with for 33 years, suddenly froze my account.  Equally mysteriously they unfroze it two weeks later but without giving any explanation.

Fast forward to today.  Yesterday I had an ‘urgent’ email from them that I should log in to my account, which I did. There was a message that read:

At first direct we conduct regular reviews of our accounts. Having considered our position, we're writing to confirm we're no longer able to provide you with banking products and services.

We cannot provide any further information about the closure decision. However, if you have any other queries, please call us on 03 456 100 100. Lines are open 9am - 5pm Monday to Friday. It is not our intention, or that of any member of the HSBC Group, to provide you with banking facilities in the future and you should not make any such application.

The first paragraph was of course a lie. There has never before been a ‘regular review’ of my account. What had clearly happened was that the Police/ Security Services had provided false information to the bank which I am not allowed to see and they are apparently not allowed to divulge. I can only presume that they are saying that I am suspected of funding terrorist groups.

At least that is what I suspect. Because in the land of Kafka you are never allowed to know what the case against you is. Or to quote Kafka’s The Trial "It's not a matter of what you have done, but of what you are." Because I do not know the allegations that have been made against me so it is impossible to rebut them.

Last night I emailed the CEO of First Direct, Christopher Pitt to explain the situation and got the following response which seems to be much the same as received last time around.

Tony,

 

Hello.

 

Thank you for your e-mail. I’m sorry to hear about your experience.

 

At first direct we always want to deliver great customer service, but as a human-powered digital bank sometimes things can go wrong. I’ve asked the team to have a look at your concerns in more detail and we’ll get back to you within 5 working days once we’ve had the time to review.

 

Feedback like yours is important to us, so thank you again for writing to me. 

Two week’s ago First Direct’s parent bank HSBC closed a joint account I had opened with my wife in February this year. The only purpose of the account was to pay in money for the care of our autistic son but that is irrelevant because the Police and the Security Services had deemed that I was funding Iran’s ballistic missile programme or some such ‘terror’ activity.

When I complained a ‘complaint specialist’ Dave Ridgway (note the informality) explained, in almost identical words to First Direct that:

HSBC periodically reviews its services, products and accounts. This means that sometimes we take the decision to close a customer’s accounts.

Following a recent review, the bank decided that it would no longer be able to provide you with banking services or products. I’m aware that a letter was sent to you on 27th June to advise that your accounts had been closed.

In my response I pointed out, paraphrasing Sir Henry Wotton’s famous phrase, that ‘Ambassadors are sent abroad to lie for their country but it seems that HSBC ‘specialists’ are also trained to lie when they are given the opportunity.’

In fact the original quote is that an Ambassador is ‘an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country’. Honesty is not a quality that HSBC seems to value in their employees.

And just to round it off, Santander is also currently investigating my personal account!  So I think we can assume that none of this is a coincidence. But what it demonstrates is that the Prosecution in my case is determined to do its best to try and unnerve and destabilise me in advance of the case they are bringing, which essentially consists of trying to make it a criminal offence to support armed resistance against the genocidal Israeli war machine.

Of course, as I never hesitate to point out, there is a law on the statute book that makes aiding and abetting a genocide a crime punishable by 30 years in prison. However if that law, the s.52 International Criminal Court Act 2001 were enforced then most of the government, led by Sir Starmer himself would be locked up in Pentonville for a couple of decades.

First Direct also like to boast of their high ratings on Trust Pilot which is ostensibly neutral.  But following an objection to my posting above by FD Trust Pilot took my review down.  It raises the question as to whether or not there is any financial link between the companies being reviewed and Trust Pilot.

The above reply said that they remove 'terrorism related content' and content that 'praises, supports or represents hate groups.'  Neither of these apply.  I said nothing about terrorism other than to point out my forthcoming  prosecution under the TA 2000 and the fact that a protest group had been proscribed as a terrorist group. 

There was certainly nothing praising hate groups or their ideology or denial of hate crimes. It was one long lie so people, when they read reviews on Trustpilot need to bear in mind that anything critical of big corporations has probably already been weeded out.

When I pointed this out Rakash simply repeated himself but didn't deny that my post had been taken down at First Direct's request.

Below are a few email addresses for the relevant banks to those who would like to email them to ask for their reasons for debanking me or to complain.

Tony Greenstein

customerservices.mmx@hsbc.co.uk

complaints.mmx@hsbc.co.uk

24hours@firstdirect.com

fd.customerrelations.mmx@firstdirect.com

Review.Team@nationwide.co.uk

christopher.j.pitt@firstdirect.com CEO of first direct

Betrayed by the Guardian, abandoned by Australia Drop the Charges against Julian Assange

We Should Recognise that Julian Assange is a Political Hostage

I am happy to reprint this appeal by John Pilger. Assange was subject to deportation proceedings on a phony warrant issued by Sweden.  

Phony because the allegations of rape themselves were fake and manufactured by the Swedes with the intention of deporting Assange on to the United States where a secret Grand Jury had been arraigned. 

The allegations against Assange have now been dropped.  The Swedes refused to promise that if deported he would not be sent on to the USA.

He took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy but since the change in regime for the worse in Ecuador, like much of the South American continent, has been subject to virtual isolation in the Embassy including the cutting off of his Internet.

There is no doubt that Assange’s only offence was shining a light on to the secret state and in particular the United States.  The secret state wants to know everything about us but we are not allowed to know anything about them.  The attitude of Assange’s home country, Australia, has been particularly outrageous.

Needless to say The Guardian, which initially used and profited by Assange’s Wikileaks has long since abandoned him.

Tony Greenstein

Bringing Julian Assange Home

By John Pilger

This is an abridged version of an address by John Pilger to a rally in Sydney, Australia, to mark Julian Assange's six years' confinement in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

June 17, 2018 "Information Clearing House" -  The persecution of Julian Assange must end. Or it will end in tragedy.

The Australian government and prime minister Malcolm Turnbull have an historic opportunity to decide which it will be.

They can remain silent, for which history will be unforgiving. Or they can act in the interests of justice and humanity and bring this remarkable Australian citizen home.

Assange does not ask for special treatment. The government has clear diplomatic and moral obligations to protect Australian citizens abroad from gross injustice: in Julian's case, from a gross miscarriage of justice and the extreme danger that await him should he walk out of the Ecuadorean embassy in London unprotected.

We know from the Chelsea Manning case what he can expect if a US extradition warrant is successful -- a United Nations Special Rapporteur called it torture.

I know Julian Assange well; I regard him as a close friend, a person of extraordinary resilience and courage. I have watched a tsunami of lies and smear engulf him, endlessly, vindictively, perfidiously; and I know why they smear him.

In 2008, a plan to destroy both WikiLeaks and Assange was laid out in a top secret document dated 8 March, 2008. The authors were the Cyber Counter-intelligence Assessments Branch of the US Defence Department. They described in detail how important it was to destroy the "feeling of trust" that is WikiLeaks' "centre of gravity".

This would be achieved, they wrote, with threats of "exposure [and] criminal prosecution" and a unrelenting assault on reputation. The aim was to silence and criminalise WikiLeaks and its editor and publisher. It was as if they planned a war on a single human being and on the very principle of freedom of speech.

Their main weapon would be personal smear. Their shock troops would be enlisted in the media -- those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the truth.

The irony is that no one told these journalists what to do. I call them Vichy journalists -- after the Vichy government that served and enabled the German occupation of wartime France.

Last October, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist Sarah Ferguson interviewed Hillary Clinton, over whom she fawned as "the icon for your generation".

This was the same Clinton who threatened to "obliterate totally" Iran and, who, as US secretary of State in 2011, was one of the instigators of the invasion and destruction of Libya as a modern state, with the loss of 40,000 lives. Like the invasion of Iraq, it was based on lies.

When the Libyan President was murdered publicly and gruesomely with a knife, Clinton was filmed whooping and cheering. Thanks largely to her, Libya became a breeding ground for ISIS and other jihadists. Thanks largely to her, tens of thousands of refugees fled in peril across the Mediterranean, and many drowned.

Leaked emails published by WikiLeaks revealed that Hillary Clinton's foundation - which she shares with her husband - received millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of ISIS and terrorism across the Middle East.

As Secretary of State, Clinton approved the biggest arms sale ever -- worth $80 billion -- to Saudi Arabia, one of her foundation's principal benefactors. Today, Saudi Arabia is using these weapons to crush starving and stricken people in a genocidal assault on Yemen.

Sarah Ferguson, a highly paid reporter, raised not a word of this with Hillary Clinton sitting in front of her.

Instead, she invited Clinton to describe the "damage" Julian Assange did "personally to you". In response, Clinton defamed Assange, an Australian citizen, as "very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence" and "a nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator".

She offered no evidence -- nor was asked for any -- to back her grave allegations.

At no time was Assange offered the right of reply to this shocking interview, which Australia's publicly-funded state broadcaster had a duty to give him.

As if that wasn't enough, Ferguson's executive producer, Sally Neighour, followed the interview with a vicious re-tweet: "Assange is Putin's bitch. We all know it!"

There are many other examples of Vichy journalism. The Guardian, reputedly once a great liberal newspaper, conducted a vendetta against Julian Assange. Like a spurned lover, the Guardian aimed its personal, petty, inhuman and craven attacks at a man whose work it once published and profited from.

The former editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published in 2010, "one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years". Awards were lavished and celebrated as if Julian Assange did not exist.

WikiLeaks' revelations became part of the Guardian's marketing plan to raise the paper's cover price. They made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks and Assange struggled to survive.
With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously abused Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous".

They also revealed the secret password Julian had given the Guardian in confidence and which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables.

With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, who had enriched himself on the backs of both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, stood among the police outside the embassy and gloated on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh".

The question is why.

Julian Assange has committed no crime. He has never been charged with a crime. The Swedish episode was bogus and farcical and he has been vindicated.

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape summed it up when they wrote, "The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction... The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will."

This truth was lost or buried in a media witch-hunt that disgracefully associated Assange with rape and misogyny. The witch-hunt included voices who described themselves as on the left and as feminist. They willfully ignored the evidence of extreme danger should Assange be extradited to the United States.

According to a document released by Edward Snowden, Assange is on a "Manhunt target list". One leaked official memo says: "Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He'll be eating cat food forever."

In Alexandra, Virginia - the suburban home of America's war-making elite -- a secret grand jury, a throwback to the middle ages -- has spent seven years trying to concoct a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted.

This is not easy; the US Constitution protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers. Assange's crime is to have broken a silence.

No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of what WikiLeaks has done in calling rapacious power to account. It is as if a one-way moral screen has been pushed back to expose the imperialism of liberal democracies: the commitment to endless warfare and the division and degradation of "unworthy" lives: from Grenfell Tower to Gaza.

When Harold Pinter accepted the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, he referred to "a vast tapestry of lies up on which we feed". He asked why "the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought" of the Soviet Union were well known in the West while America's imperial crimes "never happened ... even while [they] were happening, they never happened.".

In its revelations of fraudulent wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) and the bald-faced lies of governments (the Chagos Islands), WikiLeaks has allowed us to glimpse how the imperial game is played in the 21st century. That is why Assange is in mortal danger.

Seven years ago, in Sydney, I arranged to meet a prominent Liberal Member of the Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull.

I wanted to ask him to deliver a letter from Gareth Peirce, Assange's lawyer, to the government. We talked about his famous victory -- in the 1980s when, as a young barrister, he had fought the British Government's attempts to suppress free speech and prevent the publication of the book Spycatcher -- in its way, a WikiLeaks of the time, for it revealed the crimes of state power.

The prime minister of Australia was then Julia Gillard, a Labor Party politician who had declared WikiLeaks "illegal" and wanted to cancel Assange's passport -- until she was told she could not do this: that Assange had committed no crime: that WikiLeaks was a publisher, whose work was protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia was one of the original signatories.

In abandoning Assange, an Australian citizen, and colluding in his persecution, Prime Minister Gillard's outrageous behaviour forced the issue of his recognition, under international law, as a political refugee whose life was at risk. Ecuador invoked the 1951 Convention and granted Assange refuge in its embassy in London.

Gillard has recently been appearing in a gig with Hillary Clinton; they are billed as pioneering feminists.

If there is anything to remember Gillard by, it a warmongering, sycophantic, embarrassing speech she made to the US Congress soon after she demanded the illegal cancellation of Julian's passport.

Malcolm Turnbull is now the Prime Minister of Australia. Julian Assange's father has written to Turnbull. It is a moving letter, in which he has appealed to the prime minister to bring his son home. He refers to the real possibility of a tragedy.

I have watched Assange's health deteriorate in his years of confinement without sunlight. He has had a relentless cough, but is not even allowed safe passage to and from a hospital for an X-ray .

Malcolm Turnbull can remain silent. Or he can seize this opportunity and use his government's diplomatic influence to defend the life of an Australian citizen, whose courageous public service is recognised by countless people across the world. He can bring Julian Assange home.

John Pilger Biography

See UK Should Reject Extraditing Julian Assange to US by Human Rights Watch