WeeklyWorker

17.07.2025
Real life becomes ever more surreal. Philippe Halsman ‘Dali atomicus’ (1948)

A Kafkaesque situation

Adding to a malicious prosecution for ‘terrorism’, the banks have joined in by closing accounts. Tony Greenstein describes the treatment meted out to those who dare defy the official narrative when it comes to Israel, anti-Semitism and genocide in Gaza

It is an iron rule that, whatever powers are granted to the police and the state, they will eventually be abused for purposes other than that for which they were ostensibly intended.

So it was with the proscription of Palestine Action recently. MPs were assured by ministers when the legislation was first being debated, that proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000 would only apply to violent ‘terrorist’ groups, but this has not proven to be the case. Palestine Action is a non-violent group, but that has not stopped it being proscribed - and, of course, judges have been only too willing to enable this abuse.

So it has been with the communications that the long arm of the law has sent to my banks. Under the relevant ‘money laundering’ or ‘terrorism’ legislation, they have powers to obtain information from banks and to inform them that I am a ‘security risk’ without me receiving any notification about these communications. Allegations can be made, but you will never know what they are. Banks can then close your account - and, of course, if they do it to me and other protest activists, then it is only a matter of time before they come for groups on the left.

It is a matter of common knowledge that I was arrested and have been charged1 under the notorious section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000 which makes it an offence to “express an opinion or belief in support of a proscribed organisation” and to be reckless in doing so! Thus the mere expression of opinion or belief is classified as ‘terrorism’ - which is precisely how police states operate. It is worth quoting the former lord chief justice, Geoffrey Lane, who rose to fame when he turned down the appeal of the Birmingham Six, informing the court that, the longer the appeal had gone on, the more convinced he had become that the defendants were guilty (!): “Loss of freedom seldom happens overnight. Oppression doesn’t stand on the doorstep with toothbrush moustache and swastika armband - it creeps up insidiously ... step by step, and all of a sudden the unfortunate citizen realises that it is gone.”

Filton 18

In theory you are innocent until proven guilty, but, as the Filton 18 have learnt,2 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 embittered MI5 agent Peter Wright.3 British judges, all the way to the Law Lords, upheld an injunction against its publication despite it being freely available in the United States. It was only in October 1988, when the Australian Supreme Court ruled that it should be published, that their lordships realised that they were fighting a losing battle.

‘Terrorism’ has become a code word for effectively reversing the burden of proof. Only Westminster magistrates can hear cases related to ‘terrorism’. Only three courts in the south - the Old Bailey, Woolwich and Kingston Crown Court - can try ‘terrorist’ cases.

And, if we look through the list of proscribed organisations,4 then it is clear what they are: groups fighting repressive regimes that the British government does not like, such as Hamas and the Kurdistan Workers Party. They also include groups such as Islamic State and al Qaeda that western imperialism gave birth to when they invaded Iraq and, in Afghanistan, decided it would be a good idea to fund the Mujahadeen. Never has the saying that ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ been more true.

We see the duplicity of the home office in spreading false allegations of Iranian money having funded Palestine Action5 - it gave anonymous briefings to any journalist willing to act as an unpaid government propagandist. Anyone who knows anything about Palestine Action knows that this is a lie: there is not a scrap of evidence to support it. But the same security sources that told us that Iraq had ‘weapons of mass destruction’ are now more than willing to manufacture ‘intelligence’ to the effect that Palestine Action is Iran-funded. After all, their activists can’t be attacking Israel’s Elbit arms factory unless they are doing it for money - such is the ‘logic’ of capitalism.

But, when you have waged a war on the basis of a ‘dodgy dossier’, as happened with Iraq, then lying comes easily to our rulers. As cabinet secretary Robert Armstrong conceded in the Australian High Court over Spycatcher, it is the duty of top civil servants and politicians to be “economical with the truth”.

In 2019 Priti Patel, who had been sacked by Theresa May for lying about a ‘holiday’ in Israel, where she met Benjamin 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 being “supportive” of a proscribed organisation. “Supportive” is another weasel word, which means you can be telling the truth, but that does not stop it being supportive of the relevant organisation. The definition of ‘terrorism’ in the act is so broad that it could catch out anyone who opposes British foreign policy in some area of the world.

Closed accounts

In July 2024 my bank account at Nationwide was closed for “regulatory reasons”, which means they do not have to tell you why. At the time I believed that the closure related to a row between me and Nationwide over their refusal to send payments to the Al-Tafawk Children’s Centre in Jenin.6

Nationwide insisted that their hostility to transferring money to Palestinians was not the reason for the closure. Today it is clear that they had been contacted on behalf of the police/Crown Prosecution Service/security services and fed false allegations about me.

At the time I assumed that it was a one-off. Then, in March, First Direct, a bank owned by HSBC, that I had been with for 33 years, suddenly froze my account.7 Equally mysteriously they unfroze it two weeks later, but without giving any explanation.

Last week 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 03456 100100. 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 a lie. There had 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 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, it is impossible to rebut them.

Two weeks 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 security services had presumably deemed that I was funding Iran’s ballistic missile programme or some such ‘terror’ activity!

When I complained, a ‘complaint specialist’ 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 paraphrased Sir Henry Wotton’s famous remark, saying “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” - but honesty is not a quality that HSBC seems to value in their employees.

And, just to round things off, Santander is also currently investigating my personal account!8 So I think we can assume that none of this is a coincidence. But what it demonstrates in my case is that the prosecution is determined to do its best to undermine me in advance of a trial, which consists of trying to make it a criminal offence to support armed resistance against the genocidal Israeli war machine.

Years in prison

There is a law on the statute book that makes aiding and abetting genocide a crime punishable by 30 years in prison.9 However, if that law - section 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 - were enforced, then most of the government led by Starmer would be locked up for a couple of decades.

First Direct also likes to boast of its high ratings on Trustpilot, which is ostensibly neutral. But, following an objection to my posting by FD, Trust Pilot took my review10 down, stating that it removes “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 to my forthcoming prosecution under TA2000 and the fact that a protest group had been proscribed as a ‘terrorist’ organisation. 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.


  1. . www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz7w4x0x5pno.↩︎

  2. . www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy3zw018jno.↩︎

  3. . See insidestory.org.au/dont-ever-expect-anything-from-me.↩︎

  4. . www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version.↩︎

  5. . www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/24/uk-protest-group-palestine-action-denies-iran-funding-faces-ban-home-office.↩︎

  6. . See tonygreenstein.com/nationwide-is-an-anti-palestinian-bank.↩︎

  7. . See uk.trustpilot.com/users/67d1b3ce8c2b69496972839c.↩︎

  8. . Here are a few email addresses for the relevant banks for those who would like to email them to ask for their reasons for debanking me:

    customerservices.mmx@hsbc.co.uk; 24hours@firstdirect.com; Review.Team@nationwide.co.uk.↩︎

  9. . www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/17/section/52.↩︎

  10. . drive.google.com/file/d/1vNpIMRYo3c3lgQy84HnxQhMAQVDDHbkk/view.↩︎