|
|
|
|
|
|
by bbbbb5
1266 days ago
|
|
|
How can the bank curtail such behaviour? Is the logic that Epstein should have been entirely denied access to banking services? > Why on earth wouldn't you want the bank to be held partially responsible? Because the idea that criminals shouldn't be allowed access to banking services is fucking vile. Anyone seriously suggesting this genuinely deserves to be burnt on a stake. Not allowing convicted criminals to vote is bad, but this is infinitely worse. What next? Shall we require sex offenders to wear special armbands and allow casual violence against them as they try to navigate society? |
|
|
Oh, I don't know - how about YES? If I'm a bank CEO and someone brings it to my attention that one of our clients is a convicted child molester, pedophile, and human trafficker but also a billionaire fronting the cash for a Mossad & CIA backed blackmail operation to traffic hundreds of children so that former Presidents, Primer Ministers, Fortune50 CEOs, British Monarchy, Hollywood stars and other high-society members can commit pedophilia, I would immediately think "oh, shit, this could make us look really bad, and if it leaks that we knew that this client is who he is, it might make us look complicit....maybe we should think about our relationship with this client, and maybe try to get them to bank with someone else"