The UK’s Latest “Debanking” Scandal Should Give Everyone Pause

UK-based readers may recall the moment almost exactly three years ago when the word “debanking” entered the mainstream British English lexicon. The prestigious London-based private bank Coutts had just decided to close Nigel Farage’s bank account due to his unsavoury political views and alleged Russian connections. That decision turned out to be very costly.

Almost immediately, Farage did what Farage does best: he whipped up a massive media frenzy. In next to no time two senior banking scalps had been claimed: those of Dame Alison Rose, the CEO of Coutts’ parent bank and “Big Four” lender, Natwest (formerly known as the Royal Bank of Scotland) and Coutts’ chief executive Peter Flavel.

Within a month, Natwest’s share price had slumped 8%, wiping £1 billion off its market cap, much of which was being propped up with public funds, and generating juicy returns for short-selling hedge funds. As we reported at the time, the resulting scandal drew much-needed public attention to a long-standing but accelerating trend — the “de-banking” of people and organisations with politically inconvenient views:

[T]his is hardly a one-off event: as I reported a couple of weeks ago, banks on both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly debanking their customers, often without explanation. I gave the example of California-based writer, activist, and social and political commentator Elad Nehorai, whose political views and ideals could not diverge more from those of Nigel Farage. Yet he, too, had his account at Bank of America, his bank of many years, summarily closed with no apparent warning or explanation…

Without a bank account, it is almost impossible to participate in the economy. And it is getting more difficult as cash becomes harder and harder to access and use. As Alex Lo writes for South China Morning Post, “Banking is a fundamental utility like water and electricity, and that’s precisely why democratic societies are increasingly turning to its use as a method of censorship and repression.”

However, the resulting government inquiry concluded that customers were not being “debanked” for political reasons. As a result, not only has debanking continued but debanked customers now face the prospect of being blocked from setting up new accounts at other banks, as the Telegraph reported on Monday:

Banks are planning to block “debanked” customers from setting up accounts with other lenders, potentially leading to innocent people being effectively locked out of the financial system, The Telegraph can reveal.

Lobby group UK Finance is developing a platform that will allow banks to share data on their customers where they detect “markers of economic crime”.

Lloyds, Barclays and Revolut have already started sharing data about customers, leading to accounts being frozen or closed, The Telegraph understands, following a pilot in 2024.

The data-sharing platform will build on that pilot to make a UK-wide system, which could automatically bar people from opening another account.

But concerns have been raised that thousands of innocent customers and businesses who have been debanked unfairly could be barred from opening up an account with another bank, effectively leaving them locked out of the financial system.

The latest victim of the debanking trend is the left-wing news website The Canary, which has accused the Lloyds Banking Group of “withholding a substantial amount of our money”  after nearly a decade of use. The news outlet — which brands itself as “radical working-class media” — says “Lloyds has not explained why it has taken this action… despite multiple communications from us”.

Keep reading

ISIS Terrorist Reaches Britain Via Small Boat After TikTok Assured Him UK ‘Accepts Everyone’

A convicted ISIS terrorist who attended beheadings and public floggings in Iraq has been jailed for two years after arriving in Britain on a small boat. He told officials he came because he heard on TikTok that the UK “accepts everyone” and respects human rights.

Mohammed Yaseen, 35, had lived a desolate existence in Iraq before aligning with ISIS. He watched ceremonies including stonings and was found with a Kalashnikov rifle. He later travelled to Germany in 2014, made multiple asylum claims, and was convicted in Dusseldorf for participating in a terrorist organisation and membership of ISIS. He received a four-year-and-three-month sentence and a 20-year expulsion order.

Instead of being returned to Iraq, Yaseen made his way to France and then crossed the Channel. On 13 December 2025 a Border Force vessel intercepted the small boat carrying around 80 people. Yaseen gave a false name, claimed to be from Kuwait, and lied about his age and background. He was placed in a hotel in Basingstoke with clean clothes and asylum support.

Of course he was.

Biometrics exposed the deception. He was arrested on Christmas Eve and later admitted attempting to enter the UK without valid clearance. Winchester Crown Court heard the full extent of his past.

Prosecutor Steven Molloy told the court: “He said he travelled from Kuwait to France from Belgium and was seeking asylum. He said he did not like it in France but heard on TikTok that the UK accepts everyone and respects human rights.”

Molloy added: “There is a deeper and lengthy involvement in terrorism and Islamic extremist ideology. Our assessment is that he is high risk in all categories. There is a danger that this individual poses to the whole of the UK.”

Defence barrister Katie Porter-Windley acknowledged the German convictions but insisted they had no bearing on his UK intentions and that he had committed no further offences here.

Yes, they really argued that the convicted ISIS terrorist should be allowed to claim asylum.

Judge Christopher Parker KC noted evidence that Yaseen could speak English despite claiming otherwise and stated: “You made absolutely no mention of what had happened in Germany in 2020 when you were convicted of a serious offence. My judgment is that your culpability is exceedingly high. There is a strong likelihood that you will be deported from this country either at the start of or before your sentence is concluded.”

Yaseen is now serving his sentence and faces removal.

The question is, how many more cases like this have slipped through the net?

Keep reading

What England Can Teach Us About ‘Democratic Socialism’

If you want to see modern-day socialism in action, look no further than to the other side of the pond at not-so-jolly old England. The story of Britain’s decline is a warning signal to those here in the States who are thrilled by the warm embrace of socialism.

Right now, the Brits are having the same debate about the merits of socialism as we are in our major cities and blue states. In England, the Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the Labour Party is out. But instead of turning to the right, it appears the UK will swerve further to the collective ownership of the left. Andy Burnham—the former socialist mayor of Manchester—is next in line. God save the queen.

As Greg Ip of The Wall Street Journal reports, “Burnham’s socialism is the real deal. He wants the state to control more of the means of production. … (H)e advocates public ownership of water, housing, energy and transportation.”

Burnham calls it “business-friendly socialism.”

Sure.

That will make the trains run on time.

What short memories.

After World War II, the Brits experimented with creeping socialism for more than three decades. The Labour Party handed over to public bureaucrats and unions the means of production: the Bank of England, the coal mines, the airlines, iron, steel, and phone service, to name a few. Prices soared, nothing worked, unemployment lines lengthened, and the Brits got a lot poorer.

Britain’s share of world output fell by half, from more than 10 percent to less than 5 percent. About the only thing Britain had going for it was four lads from Liverpool called the Beatles, who singlehandedly brought deep pride back and caused a mini-stimulus. But in the 1970s, the downturn worsened.

We interrupt this story with the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979. She saved the kingdom by slashing taxes and privatizing everything she could get her hands on. It was the precursor to Reaganomics.

That didn’t last long. Now it’s Thatcherism in reverse—just as the left in America wants to reverse the Reagan and Trump legacies of deregulation, lower taxes, and sound money.

What seems to be driving this leap toward “democratic socialism” on both sides of the Atlantic is a middle-class fury over inflation. The idea of free food, housing, child care, and health care is alluring.

But prices have risen not because of a failure of capitalism. It was mostly caused by massive money printing, widespread shutdowns of private industry, retail businesses and schools, and stay-at-home orders during COVID-19. Government became the provider, and the leap forward in state expenditures was never entirely extinguished.

In both the United States and in England, the “affordability crisis” is mostly in government-owned, government-operated, or heavily regulated businesses. In the U.S., that’s health care, education, and college tuition. In Britain, it’s those industries plus energy, housing, and child care.

Keep reading

“Is There No England Now?”

Whether Keir Starmer has resigned or not, Britain’s turmoil over immigration, speech, and identity signals a ruling consensus fracturing under public backlash.

If news reports are accurate, by the time you read this, Keir Starmer may no longer be the prime minister of the United Kingdom. Depending on the source, he has either decided to resign or is seriously considering it. In any case, the events in Britain over the last few weeks—the murder, enabled by the police, of Henry Nowak by the Sikh Vickrum Digwa; the attempted beheading of a man in Belfast by a Muslim immigrant; the release of a report on the systematic and protracted rape of young women and girls by Muslim “grooming gangs”; the subsequent (and understandable) renewal of unrest over largely unchecked immigration; and the government’s increased efforts to limit and control speech—have likely doomed Starmer and the Labour Party, making it impossible for them to maintain or regain the trust of the people.

None of this should really surprise anyone. In a narrow context, Starmer has been on this course for some time, likely since the very start of his premiership. He was never especially well-liked and always seemed to be the wrong man for the moment. In a broader context, Starmer’s agenda, which pits the ruling class against the rest of the country, has agitated the rest of the country for years. The catch, of course, is that “Starmer’s agenda” isn’t really his at all. It’s the agenda of the ruling class more generally. Again, in a narrow context, immigration, plus speech suppression, plus net-zero green madness, has been the agenda of both British major political parties for the entirety of the 21st century. In a broader context, the often unintentional but always unremitting annihilation of the uniquely British identity has been the agenda of the British ruling class since the end of World War II.

Keep reading

4Chan trolls UK government with another AI hamster as fines hit $800k

4Chan has continued to troll the UK government and Ofcom after they hit the website with fines of over $800,000, and they’re answering with more AI hamsters.

Over the last year, a number of governments have been cracking down on what online content can be accessed by children under the age of 18. That includes the United Kingdom, which is working on a social media ban similar to the one that Australia implemented. 

The UK has implemented age safety verification checks for certain material too and has hit a number of websites with takedowns, as well as fines. 4Chan has been caught up in the latter, being issued with fines that now total over $800,000.

While Ofcom, the UK regulator, is still seeking payment from 4Chan, their lawyer has once again responded with an AI hamster.

4Chan hits back at UK government’s latest fine

“Ofcom wrote. Again. Demanding that 4chan pay its fine. Sent us bank details and everything. Oh no. Super scary. We replied with a hamster. Again,” Preston Byrne, the website’s lawyer, posted on X. 

Byrne also showed off the email response he sent to the regulator. “You want money, huh? Come get it,” he started, with an AI hamster wearing a Thug Life hate being surronded by mountains of dollar bills.

“As 4Chan has no assets in the United Kingdom (given that it has no connection to the United Kingdom), that would require you to show up in a US court as a platiff, waive soreign immunity, and overcome existing U.S. doctrine regarding the non-enforcement of foreign regulatory penalties. 

“We suspect that isn’t going to happen. We suspect you know it isn’t going to happen, too.”

Keep reading

BBC refuses to report on The Rape Gang Inquiry because it has to make “complex choices”

Today, the story broke about a Muslim rape gang ringleader, who was convicted of 30 child rapes, who “cannot be deported” despite being stripped of his British citizenship – thanks to a rule in the Immigration Act 1971.  Instead, this child rapist will be let loose into the British community.

It’s not only legislation which is protecting the perpetrators and putting the community at risk. 

Today, Rupert Lowe, a Member of Parliament (“MP”) for Restore Britain, revealed evidence of the protection the BBC affords Muslim rape gangs.

The BBC has not reported on the findings of the independent Rape Gang Inquiry because, the BBC says, “complex choices” have to be made for editorial and practical reasons.

You can read the BBC’s excuses HERE.

The following is a tweet posted by Mr. Lowe, commenting on the BBC’s explanation.

The BBC has issued an official explanation on why it has failed to cover our rape gang inquiry.

“Complex choices” are made for editorial and practical reasons. These choices “should not be taken as indicative of bias.” Their words.

But the BBC were very quick to cover malicious complaints against our inquiry, in an attempt to smear our efforts. They were then forced to later apologise for how they covered the story.

So, either the inquiry is worth reporting on, or it’s not. They can’t pick and choose.

We’re told “complex choices” are made, meaning that efforts to uncover the industrial rape of young girls is not near the top of list.

Let’s take a look at a few stories on the main BBC news page, right now…

  • ‘Osaka pays ‘love and respect to Japan’ in Wimbledon kimono’
  • ‘Why £15 durians are being sold at half price – or given away for free’
  • ‘We had packed lunches every day for 10 years and retired at 40’

Are these stories more important than the rape gang inquiry? I think not.

You cannot hate the BBC enough. I expect no fair coverage from them; I’ve stopped expecting it. But the BBC is funded by the British people. Their continued suppression of our inquiry is a disgrace.

Keep reading

Sadiq Khan Said There Were No Grooming Gangs In London; Police Investigating 4,000 Cases

The London mayor who once insisted there was “no indication” of grooming gangs now faces explosive new scrutiny after a police review uncovered thousands of previously sidelined child sexual exploitation files.

The Metropolitan Police has identified more than 4,000 potential child sexual exploitation cases across London that may require reopening.

These stem from roughly 12,000 reports dating back to 2010, with about one in three previously closed after police or prosecutors took no further action.

The cases have now been referred to the National Crime Agency under Operation Beaconport for urgent assessment.

Keep reading

Report: Prince Harry ‘Distraught’ as Plea for Special Protection During UK Visit Denied

Don’t you know who I am? A “distraught” Prince Harry may well be asking this very question after his request for special police protection during an upcoming UK visit with his family was denied, the BBC reports, with the son of King Charles III now reconsidering whether to go ahead with the trip.

The Duke of Sussex, his wife Meghan and his two children, Archie and Lilibet, were due to make a family visit to the UK for the first time in four years.

His team had put in a formal request for police security while in the UK but it is understood they were told on Friday no taxpayer funded security would be provided.

Instead he would have to put his hand in his own pocket and pay his own way.

The BBC reports, “Sources say that Prince Harry is distraught about the decision, made just days before the family is due to arrive, but he would still like to find a way to make the trip work.”

A government spokesman confirmed to the outlet its protective security system was “rigorous and proportionate.”

“It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security,” the spokesman added.

Prince Harry and Meghan had already accepted an offer to stay on a royal estate during the trip as a guest of King Charles, although the location of the royal residence selected had not been made public.

The California residents were also expected to use private accommodation while in the land of his birth.

Keep reading

Britain’s ‘first gay surrogate dad’ hit with new child sex charges amid rape case

A wealthy homosexual couple who have been charged with rape and modern slavery trafficking, one of whom is known as Britain’s “first gay surrogate dad,” face 18 new charges, including sexual activity with a child.

Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, 57, and Scott Drewitt-Barlow, 32, both of Danbury, England, had already had multiple charges lodged against them related to the sexual exploitation of young males. 

Barrie, who is reported to have obtained a total of eight children via surrogacy, had previously been charged with three counts of sexual assault on a male, four counts of rape of a man 16 or over, and two counts of arranging or facilitating travel of another person with a view to exploitation.

He now faces two counts of sexual activity with a child; two counts of paying for sexual services of a child; five counts of rape; four counts of sexual assault; causing an individual to engage in sexual activity without consent; causing or inciting sexual activity, according to the BBC.

Scott was previously charged with one count of sexual assault on a male, one count of rape of a man 16 or over, and two counts of arranging or facilitating travel of another person with a view to exploitation. He now also faces charges of causing or inciting sexual activity, and two counts of rape.

The couple, who own the Maldon & Tiptree football club, had a hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court on Monday and will return for a plea hearing in September.

“It is alleged they have both targeted young males, they have recruited them, they have befriended them, they have groomed them. They have invited them to their home and other premises,” Serena Barry, speaking for the prosecution, explained.

The elder Drewitt-Barlow made headlines in 1999 when he and former “husband” Tony were recognized as the first homosexual couple in the U.K. to obtain children through a surrogate mother. They were also the first to have a child’s birth certificate read “Parent One” and “Parent Two” instead of “Mother” and “Father,” according to a 2021 report by The Sun

Barrie has eight children he bought from surrogate mothers. In a video interview, he confirmed that he contracted with a Miami runway model to be an egg “donor,” paying her a reported £50,000. He admitted during the interview that he hired the model because he wanted only beautiful kids, not “ugly” ones.

Keep reading

Labour to free waves of killers and rapists early: Criminals guilty of the most serious offences will now be released just halfway through sentences

Labour is to start releasing waves of killers, rapists and violent criminals from jail under its controversial soft-justice plan.

As part of a scheme to free up prison space, even those jailed for more than a decade will get out early.

The plan will ‘horrify’ victims, Justice Secretary David Lammy was warned last night, amid calls for it to be halted immediately.

The Ministry of Justice release programme could mean hundreds of serious criminals being freed in large batches – potentially even on the same day – heightening police fears of a surge of offenders on the streets.

Ministers have set out a timetable that will see 6,000 prisoners walk free, starting in September.

Criminals handed sentences shorter than 18 months will be the first to be freed. 

Releases will then ramp up month by month, depending on the length of sentences. Offenders handed more than 12 years in jail – some of the most dangerous criminals in the country – will start to be freed next June.

Tory spokesman Dr Kieran Mullan said: ‘Victims are going to feel like justice has been stolen from them by these plans. We aren’t talking about shoplifters or vandals.

‘We are talking about paedophiles, rapists and seriously violent criminals. Seeing them walk out of prison years early will horrify most victims, and the public as well. The whole programme needs to be stopped.’

Labour’s Sentencing Act, part of a long-term plan to reduce the prison population, allows early release for violent and sexual offenders after serving half their sentence, rather than the current two-thirds.

Other offenders could be freed after serving just a third of the punishment imposed by a court if they demonstrate good behaviour while in jail.

The early-release scheme means a killer jailed for 15 years for manslaughter would be freed after seven and a half years if they are assessed to have behaved well. 

Murderers will not be considered because they are given a mandatory life term, with a minimum amount of years they must serve.

Ministers are braced for a backlash after a scheme introduced in autumn 2024 saw offenders celebrating at the prison gates by popping bottles of bubbly, driving away in luxury cars and thanking Keir Starmer.

Keep reading