UPDATE: Reviews section refreshed, redesigned, searchable: Go take a look
The Canary has been debanked with no explanation but obviously any independent media speaking out with truth to power is being attacked in an attempt to silence discourse . This is scary for anyone who believes in a free press.
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/06/30/lloyds-canary/?
And meta silences Sarah Wynn-Williams - a former Facebook executive turned whistleblower author - is not allowed to talk about facebook, or her book, careless People. She’s not allowed to.
She’s not even allowed to discuss the lawsuit that’s been slapped on her. Or how she’s finally responded with one of her own.
Is this what we have to look forward to?
The Canary has been debanked with no explanation
Says the Canary...Under a very dull sounding bit of law, The Payment Accounts and Payments Services Regulations 2025, Banks have to give you 90 days written notice, they are required by law to give clear written explanations, they cannot use boilerplate words like "Commercial Decision" any more, and they must have a usable appeals process.
So while the Canary might want its readers to be outraged, and while they might want to tell their readers that it because of their strident reporting, and claim to be in the dark, I'll bet 50p of anyone's money that someone at the Canary knows precisely why they've been de-banked 3 months ago.
Is this what we have to look forward to?
Those with access to expensive law firms have been silencing people for a long time - if you want to whistleblow you might need to weigh up the chance of fighting a lawsuit w/o bankrupting yourself.
The Canary has been debanked with no explanation
So presumably it could be the usual reasons this happens with no explanation (anti-money laundering, anti-terrorism, bypassing sanctions etc) or am I missing something?
The Canary has been debanked with no explanation
So presumably it could be the usual reasons this happens with no explanation (anti-money laundering, anti-terrorism, bypassing sanctions etc) or am I missing something?
Whenever I've read an article by the Canary that's exactly what I suspect they are up to.
It's obvious from other countries that media and other organisations that push back at the wrong people face economic and legal barriers. We've condemned Trump on here enough times for making life tough for his critics.
That said, we all thought it was a jolly jape when Coutts dropped Farage, so I guess we can't have it both ways
Whenever I've read an article by the Canary that's exactly what I suspect they are up to.
Can you explain what you mean by this because I think you have misunderstood what I have posted.
I did not say that they intentionally did any of those things.
