This Bank and Shoal of Time

Graham Grant writes:

Former Labour MP George Galloway has threatened legal action against the Bank of Scotland after claiming it closed his accounts ‘without explanation or notice’. The politician and broadcaster alleged on X that the bank, which is part of Lloyds Banking Group, was acting unlawfully and attempting to ‘wreck my family life’.

Mr Galloway wrote: ‘Thirty-nine years ago, I opened a personal bank account with Bank of Scotland in Byres Road, Glasgow. Yesterday without explanation or notice they closed my accounts. My parliamentary and old age pensions are paid into these accounts. The mortgage on our family home is paid out of them. The mortgage is with them. They haven’t heard the last of this.’ A few hours later, the 72-year-old said: ‘My solicitor Kevin Winters of KRW Law has sent a powerful letter before action to you [Bank of Scotland]. You are in breach of the law. I will not stand by while you use your usurious power to wreck my family life.’

The dispute comes amid continuing debate over so-called ‘debanking’ after Reform UK leader Nigel Farage claimed in 2023 his Coutts account had been closed due to his political views. The row triggered political controversy, parliamentary scrutiny and a wider discussion about how banks make decisions to withdraw services from customers. A Bank of Scotland spokesman said: ‘Our policy is not to close a customer’s account based on political or personal beliefs and we make customers aware if we make the decision to close an account. We’re unable to comment on individual cases.’ It is understood that the bank’s terms and conditions give it the right to close accounts in certain circumstances. It is also understood the bank believes it has complied with all relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

Mr Galloway, who founded the Workers Party of Britain, has recently been living outside the UK. He was in Russia during the Holyrood election campaign, in which he stood unsuccessfully, and has since posted regularly from overseas, including China. The allegations are not the first claims of ‘debanking’ to be levelled at Lloyds Banking Group. In July, the Left-wing media outlet The Canary said it had also been ‘de-banked’ without explanation. The organisation claimed Lloyds was ‘withholding a substantial amount of our money’ and had ‘not explained why it has taken this action’. Lloyds did not publicly comment on the allegations.

The latest dispute raises fresh questions about banks terminating customers’ accounts and the safeguards available for those who believe that they have been treated unfairly. Dundee-born Mr Galloway was Labour MP for Glasgow Hillhead from 1987 until 2003, when he was expelled from the party following a dispute over the Iraq war. He has long been a controversial figure, attracting fierce criticism over his outspoken views on foreign policy, Russia, the Middle East and British politics. The former MP and his solicitor were contacted for comment.

And The Canary also reports this very day:

The Canary has faced sustained attacks from both the political right and left, alongside repeated attempts to undermine our organisation and restrict our ability to operate. This has resulted in The Guardian publishing allegations against us today (Friday 4 September). At the same time, Canary Media Limited has had another bank account blocked, resulting in yet another financial institution stopping us from accessing our money. We are currently awaiting a response from Metro, the bank responsible, for why it has done this. This has meant that once again, some staff were not paid for August. 

We have seen members of our team targeted through their social media accounts, including accounts being hacked, restricted, or removed. Canary workers have been arrested, with another being assaulted by a far-right Zionist at a protest. Two others were attacked by the Israeli Defence Forces in Southern Lebanon. We have faced significant pressure and repeated attempts to disrupt our work. Yet we have continued regardless. 

However, recent events have created circumstances in which we have been left with no responsible alternative but to suspend The Canary’s operations with immediate effect. This is not a decision we have taken lightly, nor is it a decision caused by any failure of the Canary or its leadership. It is the direct consequence of the debanking of The Canary’s funds, the resulting financial disruption, and the serious internal consequences that followed.

Debanking and financial disruption to The Canary

At the time The Canary was debanked, the organisation’s funds were effectively inaccessible to us. Despite this, we refused to simply walk away. We continued our work while seeking to resolve the situation with Lloyds. The consequences were immediate. Projects that were ready to move forward had to be cancelled. Staff experienced delays in receiving their wages, with some employees waiting several days and journalists working abroad waiting longer.

At one point, The Canary’s website was unavailable for a few hours because the direct debit required to pay for the service could no longer be processed as the bank account had been closed. We had to pause payments to pensions’ provider NEST to ensure staff were paid instead. These were not operational choices made by The Canary. They were consequences of a banking decision over which the organisation had no control. 

The human cost

The financial pressure inevitably created uncertainty and frustration among some members of staff. That pressure subsequently contributed to serious internal misconduct by some staff and significant disruption within the organisation. The financial and emotional strain also resulted in frustration being directed towards Steve Topple, our CEO. That frustration was misplaced. Steve was not responsible for the debanking of The Canary, nor for the financial consequences that followed. Throughout this period, he continued to work to protect the organisation, its staff, and its ability to continue operating. We will not allow the actions of individuals, or circumstances created beyond our control, to rewrite that reality.

We are suspending, not surrendering

The decision to suspend operations is a necessary step to protect what remains of The Canary and to give us the opportunity to rebuild on a stable foundation. We are immensely proud of those members of staff who have remained loyal throughout this extraordinary period. Their solidarity, commitment, and belief in independent journalism have not gone unnoticed.

To those colleagues who have chosen to leave (to be clear, they have not faced any misconduct allegations), we wish them well. But The Canary will not be defined by those who walked away. We will be defined by those who stayed. The Canary was created to challenge established narratives, scrutinise power, and provide journalism that we believe deserves to be heard. Those principles have not changed. Neither has our determination.

Support The Canary

We are therefore asking our members, readers and supporters to stand with the staff who have remained with us during this unprecedented period. If you can, please donate via our website to provide immediate support to those members of our team who continue to stand by The Canary and who have been directly affected by the extraordinary circumstances facing the organisation.

This is not the end of The Canary. It is a moment in which we take stock, protect our people and prepare for what comes next. We have faced attacks before. We have been targeted before. We have been told, directly and indirectly, that our work should stop. We are still here. And we intend to remain here.