Banning Russian media: Has it begun in the West?

144 posts / 0 new
Last post
ikosmos ikosmos's picture
Banning Russian media: Has it begun in the West?

Some discussion in the Russophobia thread but this topic deserves its own thread.

1. Voice of America - NATO Warns West ‘Losing Information War’ Against Russia, IS

AS babbler swallow pointed out so helpfully, the word "ban" does not appear in the article. However...

VOA wrote:
The West must step up its efforts to combat and counter the information war being waged by its opponents, according to NATO officials. They warn that countries like Russia are exploiting the freedom of the press in Western media to spread disinformation....

The conference focused on the growing reach of Russian state media such as the 24-hour news channel Russia Today or RT, often accused of being a propaganda outlet for the Kremlin....

Senior editor at The Economist Edward Lucas argued channels like RT should not be considered as journalism.

Russia has really grasped the post-truth environment. And they will lie about things absolutely brazenly. They understand the weaknesses of our media in the post-Cold War environment: that we prioritize fairness over truth.”

Yeah, we're so fair. Just ask any Muslim in the good old USA.

 

2. offguardian: Opinion: West gunning for Russian media ban

Quote:
It would be monumental, but Western states seem to be moving, ineluctably, towards banning Russian news media channels from satellite platforms and the internet. That outcome – albeit with enormous ethical and political implications – seems to be a logical conclusion of the increasingly frenzied transatlantic campaign to demonize Russia.

And, now, after Reich Secretary of State John Kerry dropped by for a chat with UK Treasury Minister/  Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond, we have, THE NEXT DAY,

3. RT assets frozen by state-controlled UK bank. 

[more to follow]

Has banning Russian media begun in the Western regimes?

Issues Pages: 
ikosmos ikosmos's picture

RT bank accounts blocked in UK – editor-in-chief

RT wrote:
RT UK’s bank accounts have been blocked, RT’s editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan reported. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova reacted, saying it seems that in leaving the EU, London also left any freedom of speech obligations behind there.

“Our accounts in Britain have been blocked. All of them. ‘Decision not to be discussed’. Hail to freedom of speech!” RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan said on her Twitter account.

As TV host for "Going Underground" Ashfin Rattansi noted in an interview, with 3 billion hits on the RT YouTube channel, it is impossible to ban RT.

But they're trying.

iyraste1313

thanks for this...I remember once suggesting in a thread on Russian organizations expressing their concerns on some anti Russian measure in Canada,,,to take care.... voices seeming to be pro Russian, in North America and NATO would be a next target....and the crises, the wars and financial chaos has not even yet to be begun......whew! Take care!

6079_Smith_W

They haven't blocked their accounts. They are going to close them in December because they don't want to do business with them anymore. RT has two months to find another bank.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37677020

Barclays did the same thing to Rossiya Segodnya last year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/russian-news-agency-furi...

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Supplemental:

 

RT ads banned across London story

Margarita Simonyan, RT Editor-in-Chief wrote:
RT's motto has always been to question more. This is what these ads are asking the viewer to do - essentially, to ask themselves what happens when there is no second opinion in the news media. It is an important straightforward question and it is disapointing that some people are too afraid of it even being asked.

WE also have from Aug. 2015 ...

Spanish bank blocks payment to RT over EU sanctions against non-related media chief

In this latter case, an employee of a different media organization was used as an excuse to block payment to RT. Crap, as usual.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
They haven't blocked their accounts. They are going to close them in December because they don't want to do business with them anymore. RT has two months to find another bank.

Quoting UK state media, hmm?

RT wrote:
from National Westminister Bank plc ... "We have recently undertaken a review of your banking arrangements and reached the conclusion that we will no longer provide these facilities. ... our decision is final and we are not prepared to enter into any discussion in relation to it."

Do you know something the rest of us don't, Smith? lol.

Maybe you should have actually read the RT piece.

Question more.

6079_Smith_W

Why do you think I didn't read the RT piece? I did.

Here's the same information from The Guardian if you have a problem with public broadcasters.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/17/russia-todays-uk-bank-acco...

Quote:

The bank said the entire Royal Bank of Scotland Group, of which NatWest is a part, would refuse to handle RT. According to Simonyan, the letter said the decision was final and that it was “not prepared to enter into any discussion in relation to it”. NatWest said the station’s accounts will be closed down by 12 December.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

That offguardian piece deserves quoting AT LENGTH!

Quote:
European parliamentarians this week voted for a resolution calling for greater «institutional capacities to counter Kremlin-inspired propaganda». The vote was passed by the EU’s foreign affairs committee and will go before the full parliament next month. If it is voted through then, the next step would be institutional mechanisms to block Russian media access.

The hostility towards Russia, as conveyed by the wording in this week’s EU resolution, can only be described as rabid, if not bordering on paranoid.... In short, Moscow was accused of plotting the downfall of the European bloc....

... not only is the Russian government being recklessly accused of harboring subversive, destructive designs on European states, its professional news media channels are conflated with an alleged Russian agenda of hybrid warfare. The Russian state is demonized as a foreign enemy, and its news media are part of the hybrid warfare arsenal. In other words, legitimate Russian public information services are in effect being delegitimized by the European parliament.

In conclusion,

"Such thinking also betrays how degenerate Western political leaders have sunk into Cold War stereotypes; and how willing they are prepared to go to further antagonize Russia."

Quote:
Russia’s defiance of US hegemony is a harbinger of a multipolar world, one in which America and its European subsidiaries must begin working with other nations as equals and within the mutual confines of international law, not as renegades above the law.

swallow

Banning RT would be a very unfortunate development. Fortunately, it is not practically possible to ban RT, and nothing in this tread provides any evidence of intention to do so. Bank accounts are an entirely different matter from banning a broadcaster, and as RT's own story says, the accounts are not frozen (quote from ikosmos' own link: "RT’s assets were not frozen and can still be withdrawn from the accounts." In other words, as is all too common ikosmos, your own link disproves the claim you make - RT accounts have not been as you wrote "frozen" and RT itself says the accounts are not frozen. It's similar to your claim that VOA wrote about banning RT, when that informaiton did not in fact appear in the link you provided.)  

Western media bias is real and is a real issue. Claims about "freezing" RT accounts, "Banning" RT etc are false, and undermine the very real issues of media concentration, media bias, and so on, by making this another spin zone. 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Neo-McCarthyism and the US Media The crusade to ban Russia policy critics By James Carden

Quote:
“According to Weiss and Pomerantsev, the most severe threat is the one posed by RT, a network to which they impute vast powers. They are hardly alone. In January, Andrew Lack, then chief executive of the Broadcasting Board of Governors—the federal agency that oversees the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and other US-funded media outlets—likened RT’s threat to those posed by “the Islamic State in the Middle East and groups like Boko Haram.” [Lack was recently named chairman of NBC News.] “

Russia. Islamic State. Boko Haram. This is the same garbage as that from the Drone President, Barak Obama, when, on the rostrum of the UN General Assembly, he spoke of Russia, ISIS terrorism, and the Ebola virus in the same breath as threats to the world. 

 

swallow

Oh, I see. The word "ban" is part of the latest right-wing pro-Kremlin campaign. So not much sense trying to talk facts, if the campaign has decided to use the word "ban." 

The pro-RT campaign would actually be interesting to analyze through a Chomskyan media analysis lens. Called out on a factual distortion? Offer another repitition of the theme in different words. Work to tie your opponents to the enemy (one upon a time: the USSR. Now: the US empire - and try to imply they are Nazis, if you can, when they opint out that you are distorting the facts.) 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Peter Lavelle: Attacking RT is an act of censorship.

Quote:
The UK’s NatWest bank has frozen the accounts of RT. No explanation was given and any form of recourse denied. Since NatWest refuses to elaborate on its decision, I feel free to speculate what is behind this move. It can be summed-up in one word: censorship.

...What is particularly of concern is NatWest’s refusal to explain itself. RT’s motto is “Question more.” And that is exactly what we do. Is this so threatening? Is that what journalism is all about? Why are financial institutions serving the public unwilling to explain themselves to their clients? Have laws been broken? Or is it all about politics?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The UK financial oligarchy doesn't want to deal with RT. I for one am not particularly surprised. It is not a ban it is merely business as usual to help ensure Western hegemony by keeping the population from easily accessing other perspectives on the new global feudalism that permeates our world. The NATO oligarchy and its allies will brock no opposition to its planetary control so this makes perfect sense.

Of course some of RT's reporting is biased but then so is much of the coverage of the West's MSM. The test for whether a news agency is acceptable is obviously whether or not they toe the imperial line. 

bekayne

But if there's no RT, where will these people go?

Red Snow

The "arrogant foreign policy" is actually pushed by the ethnic clique that controls the U.S. State department and created Neo-Conservatism---hint----they are not Gentiles-----historically they have caused nothing but trouble to every nation they have ever settled in. ReplyShare 21 Likes

  • Olive FlameRed Snow3hThe neocon Talmudic supremacists recognize no fellow humanity with others. ReplyShare 4 Likes
  • Blue BoxOlive Flame2hfrom Cain son of satann.  That's why it's called Synagogue of Satann

https://www.rt.com/usa/362996-russia-us-foreign-policy/

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Ok, but if you look at Ashfin Rattansi's remarks, where he mentions the 3 billion hits on RT's YouTube page, etc., he says that basically they can't silence RT any more than they can silence rabble.ca , for example. People still get access online. And that 3 billion in traffic might just become 4 billion.

The RT bull-horns have tweeted, etc., that they aren't interested is addressing the censorship (Lavelle) and basically direct those with questions to the RT official spokespersons. Makes sense, really. Why should they be side-tracked by the lastest escalation of hybrid warfare?

What a rough week for Western imperialism. Their proxies get shit-kicked in Allepo and all they can do is plead for "mercy" (Boris Johnson, buffoonish UK Foreign Secretary) from the Russians. Then this idiocy.

They say things come in 3's. I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict something ever more impressively stupidly Russophobic from the Western regimes. Maybe banning the letter "R" or something ...

swallow

kropotkin1951 wrote:

It is not a ban it is merely business as usual to help ensure Western hegemony by keeping the population from easily accessing other perspectives on the new global feudalism that permeates our world. The NATO oligarchy and its allies will brock no opposition to its planetary control so this makes perfect sense.

Of course some of RT's reporting is biased but then so is much of the coverage of the West's MSM. The test for whether a news agency is acceptable is obviously whether or not they toe the imperial line. 

Well, exactly. 

In the interests of fact-based discussion on babble, I'm going to suggest a change to the factually inaccurate title. 

6079_Smith_W

Not factually inaccurate, but it is a leading question designed to make us think about it, even if the answer is no.

Like the equally misleading "Is the U.S. going to invade Russia and start ww3?" thread, I expect this one will stay as is.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

So they need a new banker and are on the hook for some new cheques. A lot of sturm and drang and assumption.

lagatta

It seems to me that it is first and foremost ordinary people, from great-grandparents to newborns, who are getting their shit kicked in Aleppo...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta wrote:

It seems to me that it is first and foremost ordinary people, from great-grandparents to newborns, who are getting their shit kicked in Aleppo...

The ordinary people have been taking a shit kicking since the West and its allies started arming terrorists both foreign and local. The people get bombed and shot at from all sides. Prior to the foreign backed insurgency the only talk of Syrian refugees was about the refugees from Palestine and Iraq who were taken in by the Syrian people and government. We are lucky in a country like Canada nobody is arming our dissidents to the teeth and providing them with logistic support to overthrow the government.

6079_Smith_W

Maybe George Galloway can suggest one... one of the ones he wasn't intending to throw in jaill, anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UQAx1c3Ekc

(five minute mark)

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Not factually inaccurate, but it is a leading question designed to make us think about it, even if the answer is no.

Seems like whenever a thread title is a clickbait question, the answer is pretty much no.

Is the TPP the Liberals final betrayal of Canada?

Surely not.  They have three more years.

Is the US and its NATO "allies" planning to attack Russia and start World War III?

No.  Please just stop.

Black-listing in Canada? Maybe.

Ya, or not.

Trump the Chump TV Network?

No.

Should Trump the Chump be charged?

No.

So is it really the beginning of a new era in Canadian politics or simply more of the same?

More of the same.

Any Canadians liking Trump?

Just that guy that was ordered to remove his hat.  Otherwise no.

NDP Ex-MPs to rock Couillard's world?

A year later and his world remains unrocked.  So, no.

Is The House of Representatives in play for the Democrats in 2016?

This one's an honest question!  But anyway, probably no.

Hey good lookin', what's cookin'?

Nothing.

A progressive Saudi Arabia?

LOL.  No.

Irrelevant laughingstock of the Western Left?

No.  It's very relevant.

 

lagatta

Kropotkin, mine was not a "blame Russia" comment. There are a hell of a lot of guilty parties.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

lagatta wrote:

Kropotkin, mine was not a "blame Russia" comment. There are a hell of a lot of guilty parties.

I wasn't disagreeing merely fleshing out your comment with my perspective. IMO The tragedy comes from foreign interference. There is a good reason why international law is supposed to forbid countries from arming and supporting other peoples dissidents. 

cco

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Seems like whenever a thread title is a clickbait question, the answer is pretty much no.


Betteridge's law of headlines

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I swear to Gord I didn't know!  I didn't plagiarize Betteridge!

But I do agree.

Quote:
If the headline asks a question, try answering 'no'. Is This the True Face of Britain's Young? (Sensible reader: No.) Have We Found the Cure for AIDS? (No; or you wouldn't have put the question mark in.) Does This Map Provide the Key for Peace? (Probably not.) A headline with a question mark at the end means, in the vast majority of cases, that the story is tendentious or over-sold. It is often a scare story, or an attempt to elevate some run-of-the-mill piece of reporting into a national controversy and, preferably, a national panic

My bold there.

Now let's talk about the U.S. invading Russia!

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Quote:
The decision by a majority-British government-owned bank to stop servicing RT UK’s accounts could not have been taken by the institution independently, Russia’s foreign minister says. The British government denies any involvement in the situation.

NatWest bank, part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, informed that it intends to stop servicing RT UK and that the decision was not subject to discussion. Commenting on the accounts closure on Tuesday, Sergey Lavrov insisted that the decision had not been taken by the bank independently.

“It’s as clear as day that this decision was not made by the bank. And not any other bank – banks don’t make such decisions on their own,” he said. “I believe an old saying is appropriate here: don’t treat others the way you don’t wish to be treated yourself.”

The minister didn’t elaborate on possible retaliation for RT accounts closure. The Russian Foreign Ministry earlier described as “squeezing alternative voices out of UK media space” by the UK government and said it was a violation of British commitments to preserve press freedoms under the Helsinki Accord of 1975.

When it comes to comparisons of today's Russia with the Soviet Union, lurid tales are the fashion in the West. When it comes to agreements signed with the latter regime, however, maybe the Brits just think that such human rights don't apply anymore ....

Quote:
The British government has denied any involvement in the situation, insisting that NatWest made the decision independently from its state owner.

“I noted the decision of the NatWest bank to withdraw support for RT, that was a wholly independently taken decision,” Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told the House of Commons on Tuesday.

The bank has since backtracked on its ‘non-negotiable’ position, saying in a statement that it was “reviewing the situation” and “contacting the customer to discuss this further.” According to RT’s Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan, no arrangement has been set for such talks yet.

The Times claimed that Russia had threatened to close the accounts of the BBC in Russia and to report the case to the OSCE, an organization that grew from the Helsinki Accord. The British newspaper didn’t cite any sources, but claimed that RBS “withdrew its punitive action” after the threats. RBS is another bank owned by the RBS Group, which apparently the Times meant to name as the decision-maker.

If Boris says it, then it's probably a crock of s*it - genius statesman that he is ... not. lol.

Interesting that, according to RT's Editor in chief, the bank is already backtracking. Maybe this garbage will really blow up in their faces.

Awwww................

 

S. Lavrov - Bank did not decide to close RT accounts in the UK on its own

ikosmos ikosmos's picture
6079_Smith_W

News flash.

George Galloway already did chime in up at #20. So he's pissed that the people he wants to throw in jail won't offer their services to the voice of freedom?

Not too surprising to hear that report from barkingdogland.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
News flash.

George Galloway already did chime in up at #20. So he's pissed that the people he wants to throw in jail won't offer their services to the voice of freedom?

Not too surprising to hear that report from barkingdogland.

 

The most recent Wikeleaks have revealed that Hilary Clinton has known, for years now, that both Saudi Arabia and Qatar are arming, training, and supplying both al-Quaida AND ISIS . And under her watch, these regimes have been supplied with billions in arms, weapons, etc.  plenty of which, clearly, have wound up in the hands of terrorists. Therefore, she has know that the US regime, under her watch, has knowingly supplied arms to regimes that sponsor terrorism. It's all there.

So, how come the US Congress hasn't prosecuted the barbarous Obama regime for funding terrorism? You seem to be "totally" on top of these sorts of issues. You figure it out, O great plutonium disposal expert ...

6079_Smith_W

Without getting into the veracity of the claim, that relates to the issue of NatWest telling RT to take their business elsewhere how, exactly?

Or are we just doing a random shuffle on your threads now?

 

iyraste1313

The most recent Wikeleaks have revealed that Hilary Clinton has known, for years now, that both Saudi Arabia and Qatar are arming, training, and supplying both al-Quaida AND ISIS . And under her watch, these regimes have been supplied with billions in arms, weapons, etc.  plenty of which, clearly, have wound up in the hands of terrorists. Therefore, she has know that the US regime, under her watch, has knowingly supplied arms to regimes that sponsor terrorism. It's all there.....

....yes and our regime in Ottawa surely must know, and therefore is complicit. And yes we in Canada do have an Anti Terrorist Act, for which our own leadership must, if proven, be put in prison for life!

6079_Smith_W

This is a rather funny turn:

Apparently that letter wasn't sent to RT at all, but rather to a subsidiary. Kinda makes sense that the address was blurred out in  the RT story.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37697474

Quote:

NatWest said a letter had been sent to one of RT's suppliers, not RT itself, and no accounts had been frozen.

The Russian embassy in London has objected to what it called an "openly political decision".

But the UK Treasury said no new sanctions or obligations relating to Russia had been imposed on British banks since February 2015.

Typical fucking fake news shenanigans. In case there is any wonder as to why a bank or any other institution they do business with MIGHT want to tell them to take their business elsewhere. Perhaps they'll wind up getting the letter they are asking for for real now.

 

In other words, this bit from the RT article:

Quote:

The National Westminster Bank has informed RT UK that it will no longer have the broadcaster among its clients. The bank provided no explanation for the decision.

is a lie. And they knew it was a lie.

 

iyraste1313

"Later on Monday, RBS appeared to backtrack on its insistence that the looming closure of RT’s accounts was not subject to discussion. In a letter to RT, the bank said the situation was being reviewed and the bank would be contacting the customer."

from RT

whether or not this is a ban, is irrelevant....it's a process that must be nipped in the bud

6079_Smith_W

And from The Scotsman:

Quote:

RBS said that it had not closed any accounts belonging to RT, formerly known as Russia Today and claimed that a redacted letter from NatWest published on the broadcaster’s website, related to a different company.

It is believed the company involved is a supplier of the firm with no obvious financial links to RT.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/natwest-owner-rbs-denies-claims-it...

What do you expect from a fake news site.

Not a retraction, evidently:

https://www.rt.com/viral/363088-rt-natwest-bank-reaction/

 

6079_Smith_W

The whole story is irrelevant iyraste. It isn't about RT at all.

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

NatWest [or is it just The Daily Telegraph?] backs down over threat to freeze [the bank accounts of] RT ...

Maybe they'll play "Hike and Seek" for a few months and pretent they did, they didn't, he said, she said, up said, down said, right said, left said, forward said, back said, you said, I said, where said, what said, why said, how said, when said, who said? ...

 

This idiocy is supposed to take the place of legitimate foreign policy. Welcome to the UK ... of Stupid. Boris has really left his grubby fingerprints all over this, eh? Boris the poodle, that is. Compliments of ... their friends from across the Atlantic. Who said one country can't learn from another?

bwa ha ha ha

 

6079_Smith_W

It is a bank, ikosmos. They sent a letter to a payroll company.

It had nothing to do with foreign policy until RT decided to turn it into a fake news story and Sergei Lavrov decided to make an unfounded accusation against the British government without bothering to check and see if anything had happened in the first place.

https://www.rt.com/viral/363088-rt-natwest-bank-reaction/

Or maybe RT just made that up too.

His ministry DID say make a threat to retaliate (again, without bothering to find out what had actually happened).

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/18/russia-will-retaliate-agai...

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Clearly, the BBC, the UK government, and the NatWest Bank seem to be coordinating actions. Like I said upthread, it's already looking like a few months of "Who said? You said! No, she said!" etc.

babbler Smith is getting into the flippancy as well.  Apparently that letter wasn't sent to RT at all, but rather to a subsidiary

Translation into English: not RT UK but Russia Today TV Ltd.

This is supposed to be significant and makes the reporting of the story by RT "lying".

You'll have to do better than that, Smith. Maybe send a memo to the poodle in charge in the UK, Boris Johnson.

6079_Smith_W

No ikosmos.

They faked that letter, just like they fake a great deal of their coverage.

Why do you think the name of the original customer -  whom the bank points out is a service provider and not the broadcaster - is blurred out?

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

ikosmos wrote:

Supplemental:

RT ads banned across London story

Margarita Simonyan, RT Editor-in-Chief wrote:
RT's motto has always been to question more. This is what these ads are asking the viewer to do - essentially, to ask themselves what happens when there is no second opinion in the news media. It is an important straightforward question and it is disapointing that some people are too afraid of it even being asked.

And this story? Also a fake. RT claimed that ad agencies had turned the posters down because they violated the 2003 Communications Act. They never named the agencies that allegedly did it, the Communications Act has nothing to do with posters, and the The UK Advertising Standards Authority neither banned the ads nor even received a single complaint about them.

Quote:

In an article about the redactions Thursday, RT said the London billboard companies cited the Communications Act of 2003 in their refusal to show the ads, which supposedly prohibits political advertising. One problem, though. The Communications Act of 2003 doesn’t actually deal with billboards—it legislates broadcast media like television and radio.

The Advertising Standards Authority of UK, the organization in charge of self-regulating ads in England, said it had not received any complaints about RT’s campaign. “We haven’t, therefore, had ground to consider an investigation let alone take any action against Russia Today’s ad,” wrote Matt Wilson, ASA’s Communications and Marketing Manager, in an email to Vocativ. It is most likely the media owners of the billboard sites who took issue with them, he added. Russia Today declined to name the multiple billboard vendors that they said censored the ads.

http://www.vocativ.com/world/uk/russia-today/

Fake.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

bwa ha ha ha. Ok, genius, maybe you could LECTURE ... THE TIMES OF LONDON. Seems they didn't get your memo about how all this is so "fake". 

RBS caves in over ban on Kremlin TV station

And while you're at it, round up the usual [Russian] suspects.

6079_Smith_W

Well perhaps I am not as impressed as you are by The Times, especially when they dash something off with no sources, falsely call it a ban, and they clearly didn't get the update everyone else did.

Looks like they lifted it from the Daily Mail, actually:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3846848/NatWest-caves-Kremlin-St...

 

swallow

ikosmos wrote:

Clearly, the BBC, the UK government, and the NatWest Bank seem to be coordinating actions. 

Clear to you, perhaps, but not supported by any evidence. 

Again, I appreciate that you pedlding spin and not fact-based commentary, but again worth pointing out that evidence does not support your spin. 

RT themselves reported that there was no plan to freeze their accounts. 

Or if it's clearer to you to write in your own style, RT themselves reported that there was no plan to freeze their accounts! Oogie Boogie! Take that, Banderist scrum!

The lidless eye of Dark Lord Obama and the New Empire of Mordor got a good poke there!

contrarianna

6079_Smith_W wrote:

This is a rather funny turn:

Apparently that letter wasn't sent to RT at all, but rather to a subsidiary. Kinda makes sense that the address was blurred out in  the RT story.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37697474

Quote:

NatWest said a letter had been sent to one of RT's suppliers, not RT itself, and no accounts had been frozen.

The Russian embassy in London has objected to what it called an "openly political decision".

But the UK Treasury said no new sanctions or obligations relating to Russia had been imposed on British banks since February 2015.

Typical fucking fake news shenanigans. In case there is any wonder as to why a bank or any other institution they do business with MIGHT want to tell them to take their business elsewhere. Perhaps they'll wind up getting the letter they are asking for for real now.

 

In other words, this bit from the RT article:

Quote:

The National Westminster Bank has informed RT UK that it will no longer have the broadcaster among its clients. The bank provided no explanation for the decision.

is a lie. And they knew it was a lie.

 

More lies from Smith, the major supplier of "fake news" on Babble.

The NatWest's weasel words of only a "supplier" reproduced by other mainstream news sites (and their echo chamber on Babble) implies merely some distant 3rd party.

This BS is obvious and evident by the mailing image reproduced. The MAIN address head is "The Officers of Russia Today" the subheading obviously an RT director's name and specific address; the name of the NatWest official is also obscurred. 

The body of the mail clearly refers to all "your" accounts, not a 3rd party, which will be cancelled and closed by December 12. 

The nature of the implied 3rd party "supplier" is made clear here: 

Quote:
On Tuesday, BBC posted an article citing NatWest, which said that “a letter had been sent to one of RT’s suppliers, not RT itself, and no accounts had been frozen.”  The channel included RT’s comment on the story, but kept the headline saying that “NatWest denies shutting accounts of Russian TV channel.”

In reality, however, it is misleading to refer to Russia Today TV UK Ltd as one of RT’s suppliers, as RT is the brand name of a global network, and Russia Today TV UK Ltd it is the sole provider of all of RT’s operations in the UK, which includes servicing the salaries of the entire 60+ staff of the RT UK television channel.

As NatWest is Russia Today TV UK Ltd’s sole banking facility, the bank is, in fact, closing banking access to all of RT’s operations in the UK. ...

https://www.rt.com/news/363267-natwest-rt-account-facts/

 

6079_Smith_W

contrarianna, you're just making that up.

How do you know what is blurred out there? It says "officers" above (likely made up), and below the plural "Dear Sirs" (likely real).  So how can it be addressed to a specific person? And if it was their address, why should that be a secret? Here it is:

16th Floor, Millbank Tower, 21-24 Millbank, Westminster SW1P 4QP London, United Kingdom

There's even a picture of their building in one of the stories posted.

Now NatWest has pointed out that it is a separate company which is a supplier to RT. They can't really say much more out of concern for the real customer, can they? Nor can they say what the grounds were for taking this step.

So that kind of leaves RT with the freedom to make whatever hay they want with this.

As for the truth in the RT story, the other bannning story ikosmos posted regarding those advertisements should make it clear enough that they lie that black is white when it suits their purposes.

 

NDPP
contrarianna

6079_Smith_W wrote:

contrarianna, you're just making that up.

How do you know what is blurred out there? It says "officers" above (likely made up), and below the plural "Dear Sirs" (likely real).  So how can it be addressed to a specific person? And if it was their address, why should that be a secret? Here it is:

16th Floor, Millbank Tower, 21-24 Millbank, Westminster SW1P 4QP London, United Kingdom

There's even a picture of their building in one of the stories posted.

Now NatWest has pointed out that it is a separate company which is a supplier to RT. They can't really say much more out of concern for the real customer, can they? Nor can they say what the grounds were for taking this step.

So that kind of leaves RT with the freedom to make whatever hay they want with this.

Feigned disbelief is your quaint way of acknowledgeding you are caught in falsehoods, thank you!

The much overused meme, "conspiracy theory", comes to mind for your post here, but wild, highly improbable and disingenuous probably covers it.

Your irrelevant quibble over whether it is addressed to "sir" or "sirs" is typical, and desparately silly.  "Officers" is indeed plural.

Your claim that the "The Officers of/Russia Today TV UK Ltd" heading  was "made up" doesn't pass the sniff test, even with a gas mask. 

You would have it that RT would gratuitously alienate their only UK payroll bank with an easily proved fabrication in the UK's already hysterical and extremely hostile environment anxious to close them down.  Bring on Occam's razor.

I can not currently find on the usual anti-Russian mainstream news sites the repeat of your "the heading is made up" fabrication; they have generally acknowledged the impending account closures (while at the same time not missing an opportunity to vilify RT). 

Neither has NatWest who could, to the great benefit of their image, easily state that RT fabricated the addressee, this could be done with no specific reference to the privacy of your imaginary 3rd party supplier. (NatWest have indicated, contrary to the explicit letter, a "review" of the closures.) 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Well one good thing out of all this is that if this was an opening salvo on banning Russian media, then it's a dud. Somebody brighter than Boris the Idiot will have to be assigned to the task.

It's hard to get good help these days. Laughing

6079_Smith_W

Bottom line here is that we don't know who it was addressed to, we don't know why RT decided to block it out and more importantly we don't know why the decision was made.

Here's another take:

Quote:

Jonathan Eyal, a Russia specialist at Rusi, a British think tank, told EUobserver that NatWest might have done it “as part of a normal probity operation” on its client.

He said some Western banks were getting rid of clients with “complicated” financial structures because EU and US regulators were issuing more anti-money laundering fines.

A British source with knowledge of NatWest’s operations also told this website the Russia Today supplier may simply have looked a bit dodgy.

"NatWest has been closing … Russian accounts over the years for fear of money laundering. This is not some big freedom of speech issue, but rather just cautious compliance officers”, the source said.

The whole article is worth reading, actually.

https://euobserver.com/foreign/135549

 

swallow

RT wrote:
She [RT editor] added that RT’s assets were not frozen and can still be withdrawn from the accounts.
 

Pages