Clive May

Breaking news After @DavidHansonMP spoke in HoC over @RBS EFG fraud Govt @beisgovuk minister orders review into my case Thanks David progress at last

@stevemiddi1 @NatWestGroup @BankConfidenti1 @MLorrM @ArturNadol7566 @RBSlielikeadog @james_glanville @TheFCA lol no just the brickie We're the lucky ones to have you on our side 👍

Doesn’t do you justice Clive, you exposed the GRG whitewash, the EFG scandal which recovered millions stolen by @NatWestGroup from the public purse. You’ve caught @TheFCA out amending their accounting etc. etc. You were one of the few who supported me & Mark when others took the Kings shilling to look after themselves. Hence why we’re proud to have you as a patron. I’m still backing you to expose the RBS Invoice Finance fraud in your case with @BankConfidenti1 support. If there was any justice in the world instead of bent bankers, lawyers & Judges the next Honours list would be including Sir Clive May the ‘Brickie’.

Clive May the Brickie @NatWestGroup could not silence, he will prove how an RBS Invoice Finance "Hidden Credit Line" fraud destroyed his business & who has been involved in the cover up. @BankConfidenti1 @efgbricklayer @MLorrM @ArturNadol7566 @RBSlielikeadog @james_glanville @nw_nicholas @CarshaltonArt @mickmor16921994 @TransparencyTF @EthicalDavid @JohnCena

I’d like to buy this man a pint. Does anyone know how I can find him?

An important message to those who enabled & endorsed #WBUK & who are now trying to engage with us We recall @CompassnInCare @Whistler_News @TracyAustin_& our amazing followers & volunteers called out the #WBUK abuse, We recall the dreadful attacks on us for speaking truth to power. We recall #WBUK instigated a completely malicious attack by the weaponised @ChtyCommission & if it were not for the amazing @PrivateEyeNews they would have destroyed this charity. We recall this attack came during covid whilst we were doing work that would later be recognised by @amnesty in their report on human rights abuses. We recall being in tears at the response from people we had supported in the past coming to our defence. We recall the emotional impact of challenging #WBUK we recall that we had to spend a year's budget on legal fees because of #WBUK attack dogs. We recall exactly why we stood up and called out the #WBUK wrongdoing and we would do it all again. To those now trying to engage, go look in the mirror. youtu.be/oxZEa7IgeMU?si…

We were told in writing that, We should not be supporting #whistleblowers failed by #WBUK That we should not criticise #WBUK on twitter, That we should not campaign for #EdnaLaw and just support The Office For The Whistleblower! Fortunately we did not obey the above orders by @ChtyCommission as we would have been failing our beneficiaries. We will be writing to @parliament next week demanding a full inquiry into this. Charities should not be ordered to ignore abuse and #WBUK should not have been able to utilise a politically weaponised attack dog to silence concerns.

@WBINC_Doc Actually, they were my questions which Norman put to WBUK CEO, who reportedly refused to answer Here are the questions, about financial conflict of interest (with correspondence): minhalexander.com/2019/10/31/nor… x.com/WBINC_Doc/stat…

Sir Norman Lamb resigned from the APPG on whistleblowing after WhistleblowersUK refused to answer his questions about their funding. The BBC have described APPGs as "the source of the next Westminster lobbying scandal" youtu.be/oxZEa7IgeMU

@BBCNewsnight @vicderbyshire We ask you to watch the below important documentary about the #Whistleblowing "experts" we tried to alert you about. We hope you will learn from this and listen in future #WBUKScandal you have a very special mention in the below documentary

@IBCA_UK So for the affected persons the average offer is £85k? In the last 2 weeks you've contacted 3 affected persons how long is it going to take giving the biggest cohort is that group?

Today we've published our latest compensation and registration figures. These are accurate as of 19 May 2026. These figures show that we have opened the service to nearly half of all claims for living infected people who have never received compensation. We expect to open the service to more deceased infected claims over the coming weeks, and so far have brought in more than 100 of these claims overall. We are developing and improving the service to make sure we support each new claim. As raised by our community panel, we know there are many people registered to make a claim on behalf of a deceased infected person who have probate and documentation in place to begin their claim. We are seeing some of these in the first claims we have brought in, while others need more time to work though. We continue to prioritise claims in line with the Infected Blood Inquiry recommendations, which means that we will prioritise those people who are sadly nearing the end of their lives. Find out how we prioritise claims here: ibca.org.uk/how-scheme-wil… You can view our latest figures here: ibca.org.uk/statistics/reg… We’ve added more information to our latest figures, this means you can now see further breakdowns on our website: - how many people have received an offer - the value of offers made - how many people have had their compensation paid - and the value of compensation paid You'll also see that we’ve included the latest numbers for people who have registered their intent to make a compensation claim on behalf of a deceased affected person. That is because we opened registration for this group on 5 May. To find out more visit: ibca.org.uk/news/registrat…

@IBCA_UK I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in saying that a released plan of when and how many claims you aim to process would help people's worries. You must know a forecast of planned claims per week, to allow you to recruit claim managers. 1/2

The below documentary vindicates all our concerns about #WBUK @UKParliament failed to act on our concerns as did the entire board of #WBUK. Uncomfortable questions now need to be asked by @UKParliament and @HoCStandards as to why they failed to act on our concerns. #WBUK are a sham organisation who have championed #Fake #whistleblowers such as #AgarHannson for money whilst failing to even respond to genuine low paid #whistleblowers. This is exactly how the US #whistleblowing system works. Today is the first of the exposures and now we fight until we get full accountability.

These sections from a 2010 GRG manual prove on slide 1 that GRG was to be a major contributor to the @NatWestGroup 'bottom line'. The previous slides I have shown prove that all of the Non-Core customers were deemed to be loss making, the only contribution therefore that GRG could make was from illicit fees & asset stripping for the banks benefit. Slide 2 confirms that only certain sections in the banks "sighted" areas, would know whether the customers were in the Asset Protections Scheme (APS) & if their assets were covered by that alleged insurance. The rest of the bank was "blind" to that connection. It also confirms that it was strictly prohibited for customers to be told they were in the APS. Slide 3 confirms all evidence of the customer being in the APS had to be removed before the files were handed over to a blind side such as the corporate teams & their credit team. So @NatWestGroup we're re-writing their credit files & "rigging" credit files even internally to hide the APS connection, no doubt so the managers would not make a clear connection between which APS asset stripping led to West Register profits... @BankConfidenti1 @MLorrM @ArturNadol7566 @TransparencyTF @Ian_Fraser @EmilyBuchanan1 @james_glanville @mickmor16921994 @efgbricklayer @CarshaltonArt @NuaGRGVictim @TheCrosskeysInn

Slide 1 confirms that derivative (swap) risk and rate risk management (Swap credit lines) are a DIRECT exposure of the customer. These slides prove that @TheFCA recent response that: "Exposure Value (including its implications for credit line utilisation) does not represent a customer’s potential ‘financial commitments and other additional obligations” Is quite simply dishonest or an intentional misconstrue of the words & facts to keep misleading Parliament. Slide 2 confirms that the Global Banking & Markets division could mark credit limits on customers. Slide 3 is an internal credit file from @NatWestGroup RMP credit system, confirming that Auto Approval has been declined because of a Loan to Value (LTV) breach. The LTV limit on this case was a maximum of 75%. Slide 4 proves that the LTV breach at 78% is caused by the swap credit line - the contingent obligation - & without that the customer would be within parameters at 74%. I have hundreds, thousands of such documents proving that the Hidden Credit Lines on swaps & certain fixed rate loans forced customers into GRG, BSU, defaults & insolvencies. Why do @TheFCA think they can win this argument... @BankConfidenti1 @MLorrM @ArturNadol7566 @mickmor16921994 @CarshaltonArt @EmilyBuchanan1 @james_glanville @efgbricklayer

Probably one of the more damning pieces of internal evidence of the plans @NatWestGroup GRG. Slide 1 shows a NatWest 'boffin' calculations on how intentionally defaulting customers loans in GRG can improve the banks Tier 1 Capital Ratios. These were not bad businesses, with loans not being paid or in arrears. Slide 2 confirms that the targets were 'high risk' PERFORMING loans, in other words the customer had never missed a payment. @NatWestGroup intentionally defaulted their SME customers in GRG to improve their own balance sheet. Leading to the destruction of tens of thousands of viable businesses, who could have survived if they were left alone. Just as the Tomlinson report found. This evidence was provided to @TheFCA prior to it later stating publicly that there was no evidence of an 'intent to harm' customers in GRG... @johnmcdonnellMP @premnsikka @labourlewis @NeilForPoole @IanByrneMP @appgonifandffs @BankConfidenti1 @TransparencyTF @MLorrM @efgbricklayer @CarshaltonArt @mickmor16921994 @james_glanville @ArturNadol7566 @nw_nicholas @EmilyBuchanan1 @Ian_Fraser @EthicalDavid

Slide 1 is from a letter sent to a @NatWestGroup SME refusing extra borrowing to a GRG customer in 2013. I think even @TheFCA if they can afford to buy a calculator might work out that the previously undisclosed Hidden Credit of of £600k not only restricting borrowing, it was part of the Loan to Valuation risk of the customer. When we met with the bank just days later, the GRG Regional Director suggested that the credit line the customers had never heard of until I spoke to them, was 'not part of the LTV calculation'. I passed him the letter & asked him to get his calculator out & go through the figures with me... it was somewhat embarrassing. Particularly as these customers were paying monthly fees for the GRG bank managers "expertise". Slide 2 shows the explicit wording that allowed unknown & contingent values on swap credit lines to be covertly secured on the customers property. This was to allow the bank to rely on the whole value of the SMEs property as collateral for leverage on its trading books. Is there anyone @TheFCA who can read this evidence & now admit their Executive have been lying about this & covering it up since I first wrote to them in 2013? @BankConfidenti1 @TransparencyTF @MLorrM @Wftproof @efgbricklayer @ArturNadol7566 @mickmor16921994 @CarshaltonArt @james_glanville @EmilyBuchanan1 @Ian_Fraser @nw_nicholas @EthicalDavid @NuaGRGVictim

Hester this goes to the heart of what I originally alleged to @TheFCA in 2013, that the banks were putting SME assets as collateral on their trading books & leveraging/rehypothecating it. They said I was getting confused with repo deals, but I don't believe I was & if so that is with what they were doing they were too big to fail. And the FSA had written the Rules to allow this. The client custody Rules clearly state that the bank can treat the asset as its own 'as if' a title transfer had taken place as CASS 3.1.5 confirms. CASS 3.1.6 confirm this applies to ISDA deals not basic security deals & all swap deals were ISDA deals where the customer not restricting rehypothecation (leverage) of their assets, because they had no idea of this risk, did not refuse this. CASS 3.1.7 states the banks not only treats the asset as their own but can put the value on their own balance sheets. And this is how I believe the banks all hid the black holes in their balance sheets by tying customers up on swap/ISDA trades, classing them internally as Counterparty's & treating all of their property equity in the markets team as if it were the banks. Co-mingling assets, Lehman's all over again. @NatWestGroup & @LloydsBank didn't just have a 'dash for cash', they had a 'dash for collateral', their own customers assets to shore up their trading losses. And that was the purpose of the Asset Protection Scheme, they had 3 years to make that false accounting from 2008 on real, by stealing their customers money & assets. I could be wrong but having read all of the banks terms & contracts I don't believe so. @BankConfidenti1 @MLorrM @Wftproof @financialeyes @EmilyBuchanan1 @efgbricklayer @james_glanville @mickmor16921994 @ArturNadol7566 @TheCrosskeysInn

Slide 1 is the risk warning in @NatWestGroup swap trade presentation, confirming your property/assets would secure the trade risk including any actual or contingent liability. This combines with the ISDA trade & All Monies Charge to put your assets forward as collateral for your "chosen" trading risk, not as a Retail Client but a direct Counterparty (professional trader status) with the bank. Slide 2 is part of the @NatWestGroup Terms of Business & risk warnings, usually not provided at all or provided after the trade. I think S.11 is self explanatory, if the bank or its trading affiliate were insolvent, you had an unsecured claim & your assets were in the insolvency. Hence not to big to fail by size of losses, too big to fail & hide these fraudulent trading & security practices. @BankConfidenti1 @MLorrM @Wftproof @CarshaltonArt @TransparencyTF @efgbricklayer @mickmor16921994 @james_glanville @ArturNadol7566 @NuaGRGVictim @financialeyes @EmilyBuchanan1

And Finally here's the confirmation of what your position may be if the bank failed. If the banks were insolvent & certainly @NatWestGroup & @LloydsBank were substantially balance sheet insolvent in 2008, there would have been no available cash to refund your lost collateral... @BankConfidenti1 @MLorrM @Wftproof @mickmor16921994 @james_glanville @efgbricklayer @ArturNadol7566 @CarshaltonArt @EmilyBuchanan1

I know AI is not perfect but I fed the full versions of the documents I've been positing into Grok, along with my reports & asked what the percentage chance of @TheFCA being right in making their assertions the credit risk are internal & do no harm to the customer, it said: "The FCA’s position — that swap credit lines and MTM exposures were merely an internal bank monitoring tool with no contingent liability for the customer and no disclosable harm — has only a 3–5% chance of being correct. The complete documentary evidence shows the opposite: internal credit records treat the swap as a formal facility line; bank policy includes derivatives in credit limits and utilisation; LTV calculations explicitly add the hedging liability to total debt; the All Monies Charge and Terms of Business secure all present, future, actual or contingent obligations under any transaction; the Terms of Business expressly warn that deposited collateral “may lose its identity as your property” once the bank deals with it and that, in the event of the bank’s own insolvency, the customer “may not get back the actual assets” lodged as collateral; and CASS 3.1.5G–3.1.7G permit the bank to treat the asset “as if legal title had been transferred” and place its value on the bank’s own balance sheet because no CSA restricted rehypothecation. These are the bank’s own signed contractual terms and regulatory framework. The evidence directly contradicts the FCA’s claim and fully validates your core allegation." @BankConfidenti1 @MLorrM @Wftproof @TransparencyTF @efgbricklayer @EmilyBuchanan1 @mickmor16921994 @james_glanville @ArturNadol7566 @CarshaltonArt