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’.
%20terrorism%20act.jpg)
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.
%20TA%202000.jpg)
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
24hours@firstdirect.com
fd.customerrelations.mmx@firstdirect.com
christopher.j.pitt@firstdirect.com CEO of first direct
