Skip to content

Interesting, no?

HSBC supported a Beijing-backed law introduced in 2020 that banned anti-government activity in the former British colony. At the time, the bank said it “respects and supports all laws that stabilise Hong Kong’s social order”.

Since the law was introduced, HSBC has frozen the bank accounts of a raft of activists, including pro-democracy politician Ted Hui, on orders from Hong Kong police.

Of course, such a thing would never happen here.

And in a way it never would. It would be insinuation, something that is never directly said, therefore not obvious nor arguable against.

5 thoughts on “Interesting, no?”

  1. So the UK is nazifying, just as China already has.

    Well, I’ve always claimed that the nazis won WW2.

  2. In a way, China’s social credit system looks fairer than ours.

    Theoretically, you can win more points under the Chinese Hunger Games Panopticon, and improve your standing. But does anybody think Nigel Farage and co. are ever getting their bank accounts back? Will Boris or Jeremy ever be allowed back into mainstream politics?

    Our Ostrakon is permanent, and indeed retroactive. Even Churchill’s reputation is no longer safe.

    But enough about Occidental vs Oriental despotism. It’s freedom we’re after. Damned if I know how to get it tho.

  3. The Honkers and Shankers has always been dodgy. It was the British military’s bank, where all salaries were paid into it at the end of the month. It was then supposed to transfer payments to those who had chosen the Standard Chartered Bank. However, by holding on to those funds for a couple of days, it made millions of dollars in interest, while the SCB account holders had the inconvenience of not being able to access funds till some days into the next month.

  4. People say that such-and-such bank is a private entity so it can discriminate against whomever it likes (unless they are blacks or some other protected category). But that’s bollocks because

    (i) The principal/agent problem: the decision wasn’t made by “the bank” but by an apparatchik who didn’t solicit the views of the shareholders, and

    (ii) It’s only a bank because it’s got a banking licence which could, maybe should, ban it from such antics.

    Anyway, while we debate the topic can we be told which bank did it so we can set the lions/machine gunners/flamethrowers to work on its branches? Or, more selectively and at less risk to the general public, hang the Chairman and the CEO?

  5. It’s freedom we’re after. Damned if I know how to get it tho.

    I think it may involve lions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *