Khloe Kardashian revealed the incident that caused her and Kourtney Kardashian banned from giving speeches at family gatherings.

“I stopped giving speeches after @khloekardashian and I gave a drunken speech together at @kimkardashian’s second wedding and somehow here I am…” Kourtney wrote via Instagram story from the recent launch of her wellness brand Lemme at Target, where she was asked to give a speech.

Khloé shared the message with her own message Instagram story to substantiate her sister’s story and reveal that she and Kourtney were “banned” from giving speeches, was looking for Kim Kardashian‘s wedding in 2011 with Kris Humphries. (The couple separated after 72 days of marriage.)

“However, this is a true story [Kourtney] used the word ‘gave up,’” Khloé wrote. “Since that wedding we have been BANNED from speeches. It wasn’t pretty for either of us, but I’m sure almost everyone in attendance enjoyed our speech that evening. I vote to bring back Kourt and Kokes’ speeches! Who is with me.”

Khloe previously spoke about Kim being ‘banned’ from speaking at her sister’s wedding during an appearance on The Late Late Show with James Corden in 2014 after Kim tied the knot with rapper Kanye West earlier that year.

“I’m such a talker and I feel like I’m such an open book, but I did get banned from speaking at Kim and Kanye’s wedding,” Khloé said at the time. “I wasn’t allowed to give a speech because I was just wandering around, and I think maybe I’m giving a compliment and not saying the right thing.”

However, that didn’t stop the groom from giving a long speech at his wedding. “Kanye gave his speech and said, ‘Khloé, I know you want the mic,’ he was like challenging me,” Khloé said. “It was one rant after another: ‘I want that microphone.’” She added: “His speech was epic and I think it lasted about 45 minutes.”

Fans of Keeping up with the Kardashians may remember the Season 6 finale in September 2014, which aired footage of Kim and Kanye’s marital months following their wedding week in Paris — including a rehearsal dinner at the Palace of Versailles — before tying the knot in Florence, Italy.

“I think everyone had such a good time at Versailles that they drank too much,” Kim said during an appearance on the channel Jimmy Kimmel Live! in August 2014. “Khloé drank a little too much the night before and I had to wake her up. She was laying down and doing her make-up while she slept, she was so hungover!’

Kim and West officially divorced in 2022 after 8 years of marriage.

A ‘paid to party’ influencer has had one of her TikTok videos banned by advertising watchdogs – after drinking four cocktails in less than 90 seconds.

Danielle Walsh, from Belfast in Northern Ireland, had made the video as a paid advertisement for drinks company VK.

However, she failed to identify it as an advertisement and it subsequently broke Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) rules about encouraging excessive drinking.

The party animal, who has more than 400,000 followers on TikTok, regularly posts videos of herself consuming alcoholic drinks and describing what she drinks before a night out.

Despite drinking a lot, Danielle says she never gets a hangover thanks to eating pickled onion chips and Diet Coke.

The social media star was seen in the video making four cocktails for ‘pres’ by pouring a variety of alcohol for free, including vodka, peach schnapps, Amaretto and a whiskey liqueur.

After making them by mixing VK alcopops with various spirits, the 36-year-old aid worker announced her intention to ‘do four in one’ and downed all four drinks in less than a minute and a half.

The ASA has now banned the video because it encourages excessive drinking and is not clearly identifiable as an advertisement.

The regulator explained that the video showed Ms Walsh – who has her own line of metal straws that allow drinkers to “sip pints like an exhaust pipe” – standing behind a bar with a row of glasses in front of her as music played in the background. .

She turned to the camera and said, “So for the pres tonight I want to show you what we’re drinking.

“We’re going to do four in one because we’re going to get relief tonight.”

Mrs. Walsh then made four cocktails and said, “Let’s try it,” after making them all and drinking them quickly.

The cocktails combined different flavors of VK alcopops with vodka, peach schnapps, Amaretto and whiskey liqueur that were poured into the glasses ‘free’.

As they were being made, images appeared on the screen showing the ingredients of each cocktail, the name and the VK logo.

The text at the bottom of the video, which was posted in October 2023, read: ‘Lets make some drinkssss.’

ASA regulators complained that the video was ‘irresponsible’ because it encouraged excessive alcohol consumption, and was not clearly identifiable as an advertisement.

The ASA ruling stated that Global Brands Ltd, the company that owns VK, confirmed that they had provided Ms Walsh with the alcoholic drinks used in the advert in return for her promoting their brand on her TikTok channel.

They explained that they had asked Ms Walsh to create a series of videos showing the creation of each cocktail, rather than “one video showing four cocktails being made and consumed.”

They also claimed to have stipulated that their products would be promoted in a ‘responsible manner’ and had asked to approve the videos before they were posted.

On this occasion the company said this had not happened and that Ms Walsh had posted the videos without their final approval.

VK also accepted that the video should have been clearly labeled as an advertisement and said they had asked Ms Walsh’s agent several times to remove the video, although their requests had not been acknowledged.

Ms Walsh said VK had not paid her for the post and agreed to remove the video while it was investigated.

TikTok said alcohol advertising was banned on its platform and the ad had been removed by its creator.

In another recent video, she mixed blue WKD with rose wine while loud music played in the background.

The ASA ruling states that the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) states that advertisements must be ‘socially responsible’ and must not contain anything that could encourage people to adopt ‘unwise’ drinking styles .

The ruling added: ‘The ASA understood that ‘pres’ was a reference to ‘pre-drinking’ or ‘pre-drinking’, the practice of consuming alcohol at home before going to a pub, bar or club, where still more alcohol would be consumed. be consumed.

‘We understood that pre-drinking was often intended to achieve intoxication before visiting a licensed premises, and as such we considered that the reference to ‘pres’ in the advertisement implied that alcohol would be consumed in excessive quantities.

‘We understood that the word ‘lit’ has a long history as a slang term for being drunk.

‘We felt that consumers were likely to associate the phrase ‘we’re getting lit tonight’ with excessive alcohol consumption and getting drunk.

‘We also felt that the comment ‘We’re going to do four in one’ expressed Ms Walsh’s intention to drink four cocktails in one video, which further implied the excessive consumption of alcohol.

‘[Ms Walsh] did not measure any of the ingredients in the drinks; pouring the alcohol everywhere for free.

‘We noticed that the volume of “mixer” in each cocktail was minimal.

‘In addition, Ms Walsh drank each cocktail quickly after making it, consuming all four drinks in less than 90 seconds, demonstrating that excessive amounts of alcohol had been consumed in a short period of time.

‘Because the advertisement encouraged excessive drinking and indicated that alcohol was being handled and served irresponsibly, we concluded that this was irresponsible and therefore contrary to the Code.’

Subsequently, ASA also enforced a second breach of the CAP Code, stating that marketing communications must be ‘clearly identified as such’.

Regulators noted that while Ms. Walsh said she had not been paid by VK to make the video, VK had confirmed that they had “provided her with the products for free in exchange for her promoting their brand,” which she viewed as “as payment ‘.

“We therefore considered that VK had editorial control over the post, despite some of their requests being ignored by Ms Walsh,” the ASA ruling said.

‘We did not find that the recipe images made it clear that there was a commercial relationship between Ms Walsh and the VK brand.

‘Although Ms Walsh made frequent references to the VK brand in the video… the post was not clearly identifiable as a marketing communication and did not make its commercial intent clear.

The ASA concluded that the advert should not appear again in the same form and warned Global Brands Ltd and Ms Walsh against encouraging excessive alcohol consumption in future videos, and that these were clearly identifiable as advertisements.

TIKTOK could be “banned” in the US if its Chinese parent company refuses to sell it for fear the relationship poses a threat to national security.

Concerns about the social media app escalated last year among governments in the US, Canada, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom over its widespread data collection and ties to China.

1

On March 13, U.S. House representatives passed a bill requiring the app to be sold by owner ByteDance within six months.

The app has amassed more than 1.8 billion users worldwide since its launch almost eight years ago.

TikTok has called the government’s successive concerns “misguided and based on fundamental misconceptions” and has always refuted claims that it has ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Can TikTok be banned in Britain?

There are security and data privacy concerns with the Chinese app.

While TikTok is not banned for the average user in Britain, it was announced last year that the app would be banned on government workers’ phones.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has previously hinted at replicating nationwide bans, saying Britain will “look at what our allies do”.

TikTokers sign up for a significant amount of data collection when they create an account on the platform, such as:

• The device and operating system you are using
• How long you look at a message
• Which categories you like
• Where you are
• The keystroke rhythms you have when you type

In 2021, Ireland’s data protection watchdog launched an investigation into “TikTok’s transfer of personal data to China and TikTok’s compliance with the GDPR’s requirements for the transfer of personal data to third countries.”

However, Ireland will not follow the US in its attempt to ban the platformsaid Prime Minister Leo Varadkar.

Is TikTok banned in the US?

TikTok is not currently banned in the US.

However, since last year, Washington has floated the idea of ​​a nationwide ban on TikTok – unless it is sold to another company.

The US also blocked all federal employees from having the app on government-issued phones in 2023.

Both the FBI and the Federal Communications Commission have warned that parent company ByteDance could share TikTok user data with China’s authoritarian government.

If ByteDance doesn’t sell the company within six months, the app will be banned for all 150 million US users.

Where else is TikTok blocked or restricted?

In addition to the US, Britain, the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Taiwan have also banned people who work for government agencies from using TikTok on staff devices for a year.

In 2020, India banned the platform and dozens of other Chinese apps after warning that user data was being mined and profiled “by elements hostile to India’s national security and defense.”

India made the ban permanent in January 2021.

Authorities in Pakistan have imposed at least four temporary bans on the platform since October 2020 over concerns that it promotes immoral content.

However, the country always goes back on its decision.

Indonesia temporarily banned the app in 2018 for similar reasons, but lifted the ban a week later after the app agreed to censor some content.

The Afghan Taliban banned TikTok in 2022 because they wanted to protect young people from ‘deception’.

In August 2023, Somalia said the country planned to restrict access to TikTok, in addition to Telegram and online gambling site 1XBet.

Nepal announced a ban on TikTok at the end of last year.

Ask most skincare enthusiasts to pick one ingredient that really works and many will give the same answer.

Retinol, or vitamin A, is one of the few cosmetic ingredients that even skin doctors agree can reduce signs of aging, such as wrinkles and age spots. Its efficacy is supported by strong clinical studies.

So it’s no wonder that many women religiously dab it on their faces before going to bed.

But now a slew of new products claim to deliver the same benefits for your entire body. Can retinol body cream really give you smooth, even, glowing skin? And if so, why haven’t we all been doing that for years?

There’s a growing trend toward super-powerful body care, using expensive ingredients once reserved for facial products. Last year saw the launch of serums and lotions containing a range of anti-aging heroes, from peptides to acids and ceramides.

The latest creams contain percentages of retinol that are lower than most face creams, but should really make a difference. Any concentration of the ingredient from 0.1 percent will counteract the signs of aging, while face creams are currently available in strengths up to 1 percent.

Retinol helps your skin cells produce collagen, the protein that keeps skin plump, more efficiently. At the same time, it accelerates your skin’s ‘cell turnover’, the regeneration cycle that slows as we age.

The result is that your skin functions better and can better repair damage in the form of discolored spots and wrinkled areas. Over time, retinol-treated skin looks plumper and more even. Oil production is also regulated, which means there are fewer stains.

On the other hand, retinol is notorious for causing irritation, so it should be used with care. Initially, all the extra stimulation can lead to inflamed areas and flaky, dry skin.

For most users this will subside, but for some the irritation will continue. All of this helps explain why retinol body creams haven’t been widely available until now.

Cost is another factor; Putting enough of a premium ingredient into a body formula will never be cheap. But consumers are now more willing to invest in luscious skin everywhere.

However, good results take time. A retinol product can smooth out rough texture in a few weeks, but plumping up crepey skin and addressing discolorations would take at least three months.

Can the Long-Term Benefits of Retinol Make My Dry Winter Skin Less Needy? Over the course of three months, I put the top five retinol body creams to the test…

THE SUPEREXFOLIATOR

Nécessaire The Body Retinol, £56 (150ml, spacenk.com)

Unscented (although it smells a bit strange) and silky smooth, this cream contains 0.1 percent retinol. It also contains 10 percent exfoliating acids – a lot by any standards. That includes the most powerful, glycolic acid. Within days my skin became so smooth that I felt like a seal.

I loved it, but three weeks later I developed a burning rash on the inside of my elbows that took weeks to clear up. Given the relative percentages, it is more likely that this was caused by the strong exfoliating acids rather than retinol.

I suspect the same goes for its undisputed skin-soothing properties.

PRONUNCIATION: Best for super smooth skin – if you can tolerate glycolic acid. 3/5

SMOOTH BUT PRECIOUS

Paula’s Choice Skin Soothing Retinol Body Treatment, £33 (118ml, paulaschoice.co.uk)

With an additional 0.1 percent retinol (plus skin-protecting antioxidants), vitamin A virgins are advised to only use this every other day initially. But it didn’t cause me any irritation, even with daily use.

There are also rich butters and oils in the formula. It is very light with a pleasant scent that penetrates immediately and leaves the skin smooth. Unfortunately, like most body retinols, it is pricey.

PRONUNCIATION: Lightweight and easy to use, but expensive. 4/5

BEATS STAINS

Beauty Pie YouthBomb Body Concentrate, £125 (£38 for members, 200ml, beautypie.com)

Billed as a retinol body lotion, this actually contains 0.2 percent hydroxypinacolone retinoate, an alternative form of vitamin A that is less irritating but slightly less effective.

On the other hand, it contains almost 7 percent powerful exfoliating glycolic acid and a high dose of brightening and soothing niacinamide, a form of vitamin B3.

Again, the glycolic acid in this made my skin very smooth (it’s great if you have keratosis pilaris or ‘chicken skin’) but it was also irritating (the lingering perfume might have something to do with that).

With niacinamide also in the formulation, this fast-absorbing lotion should be very good at tackling pigment spots, but be sure to use a body SPF as it makes the skin sensitive to the sun.

PRONUNCIATION: Skin brightening but a bit aggressive. 3/5

EXTRA POWERFUL

Skinsense Retinol Body Cream, £26 (100ml, skinsense.co.uk)

This 0.3 percent retinol lotion is the highest percentage available to the body. It also contains the gentle ‘plant-based retinol’, bakuchiol.

Despite the higher concentration of retinol and the fact that this light, comfortable cream is quite strongly scented, it caused no irritation and maintained my smooth ‘seal skin’.

Again, the tube is frustratingly small (100ml) for the price, but at QVC you can get two for a little more than the price of one.

PRONUNCIATION: The most retinol for your money, but a strong scent. 4/5

PERFECT FOR BEGINNERS

Naturium Retinol Body Lotion, £27 (234ml, spacenk.com)

This has an entry-level concentration of 0.05 percent retinol that is ‘encapsulated’ – released slowly after application, further preventing irritation. There are also plenty of anti-inflammatory ingredients like allantoin, plus butters and skin barrier protectors. It is unscented, rich and thick. You don’t need much, which makes the price for this 234ml tube seem even more reasonable.

The smoothing, softening benefits should ultimately be compounded by line-plumping and pigment-blurring effects.

PRONUNCIATION: Great benefits made affordable. 5/5

TIKTOK is facing a “ban” in the US after House Representatives passed a bill requiring the app to be sold by its Chinese owner.

Lawmakers are said to have taken action over concerns that the social media platform’s current ownership structure poses a national security threat.

2

2

The measure would give TikTok’s Chinese owner ByteDance six months to divest the short-video app’s US assets – or face a ban.

It comes amid concerns over ByteDance’s alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 352 to 65. the bill now faces a more uncertain path in the Senate, where lawmakers have indicated it will undergo a thorough review.

The Senate will also have to approve the measure before it becomes law.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not indicated how he plans to proceed.

But President Joe Biden has said that if Congress approves the measure, he will sign it.

Lawmakers argue that ByteDance has obligations to the Chinese government, allowing it to demand access to the data of TikTok consumers in the US – of whom there are approximately 170 million – at any time.

House Republican Steve Scalise, No. 2, said on X: “This is a critical national security issue. The Senate must take it up and pass it.”

And Rep. Nick LaLota said, “We have a national security obligation to prevent America’s most strategic adversary from becoming so involved in our lives.”

Both opposition and support for the move were bipartisan.

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who supported the bill, told AP: “We have given TikTok a clear choice.

“Separate from your parent company ByteDance, which is dependent on the CCP (the Chinese Communist Party), and remain operational in the United States, or side with the CCP and face the consequences.

“The choice is TikTok.”

Opponents of the bill criticized it for using “CCP-style repression.”

Rep. Tom McClintock said: “The answer to authoritarianism is not more authoritarianism.

“The answer to CCP-style propaganda is not CCP-style oppression.

“Let’s slow down before we charge down this very steep and slippery slope.”

Some Republicans said the U.S. should warn consumers about potential privacy and propaganda issues, while several Democrats spoke about the impact a ban would have on the millions of U.S.-based users, many of whom are entrepreneurs and business owners.

Rep. Robert Garcia said no information was shared with him that convinced him TikTok is a threat to national security.

He said: “This idea that we’re essentially going to ban entrepreneurs and small business owners, the main way that young people actually communicate with each other, I think is insane.”

TikTok today urged senators to listen to their constituents before taking action.

A spokesperson said: “This process was secret and the bill was blocked for one reason: it is a ban.

“We are hopeful that the Senate will consider the facts, listen to their constituents and realize the impact this has on the economy, on seven million small businesses and on the 170 million Americans who use our service. “

Ahead of today’s vote, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin accused the US of “suppressing TikTok” despite never finding evidence that TikTok threatens national security.

He added: “This kind of bullying behavior that cannot win in fair competition disrupts the normal business activities of companies, damages the confidence of international investors in the investment environment and damages the normal international economic and trade order.

“In the end, this will inevitably come back to bite the United States itself.”

TikTok has denied that it could be used as a tool by the Chinese government, claiming that it has never shared US users’ data with Chinese authorities and would refuse to do so if asked.

The move is the latest in a series of moves in Washington to respond to U.S. national security concerns about China, from connected vehicles to advanced AI chips and cranes at U.S. ports.

Rep. Mike Gallagher, the author of the bill, said as he emerged from the briefing: “What we’ve tried to do here is be very thoughtful and deliberate about the need to force a divestiture of TikTok without granting any authority to the executive branch to regulate content or go after an American company.”

White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said yesterday that the goal is ending Chinese ownership, not banning TikTok.

He explained: “Do we want TikTok, as a platform, to be owned by an American company or owned by China?

“Do we want TikTok’s data – kids’ data, adults’ data – to go, stay here in America or go to China?”

Donald Trump recently voiced his opposition to the effort, stating Monday that while he believes TikTok poses a national security threat, he is against banning the app because it would help its rival, Facebook — which he said is related with his election loss in 2020.

He tried to ban the app when he was president, but the courts blocked the move after TikTok filed a lawsuit, arguing such actions would violate freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial.

The vote comes just over a week after the bill was proposed.

Last week, the bill passed 50-0 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

EVERYONE knows that there is one cardinal rule when it comes to choosing an outfit as a guest for a wedding: don’t wear white.

A bride has revealed how she banned her friend from wearing the dress she chose because she felt it was too close to the mark for her special day.

1

What made the incident even more awkward was that the wedding guest had paid £27 for express delivery so that it would arrive on time.

The bride uploaded a photo of the offending dress to Reddit and asked people’s opinions on whether she was doing the right thing.

She wrote: “Am I a bridezilla if I say this dress is too white for a guest to wear to my wedding?

“A friend of mine who is coming to my wedding (this Saturday!) asked if this dress was ‘too white’.

“I immediately said yes, but now I feel guilty because she said she paid an extra $35 for expedited shipping so it would arrive in time for my wedding.

“She said her friend told her it was fine, but she still seems to care what I think. So, am I a bridezilla/AH for this?

“For reference, I’m wearing a light ivory floor-length traditional wedding dress. My ceremony is on the beach.

“Thank you in advance.”

The bride added a photo of the dress, which definitely had white as the main color, but with a pink floral design to decorate it.

The off-the-shoulder dress had a sweetheart neckline and fell just above the knee.

Many people were quick to share their thoughts on the wedding guest dress and many people supported the decision.

One wrote: “No bridezilla. Definitely not suitable for a wedding. It resembles a dress the bride would wear to a pre-wedding event. Personally, I wouldn’t feel comfortable with that.”

Another added: “Yes, I almost wore this dress to my bridal shower, super inappropriate for a guest.”

I feel guilty because she said she paid an extra $35 (£27) for expedited shipping so it would be in time for my wedding

Bride

A third commented, “You know, she could have easily asked you BEFORE she paid for the expedited shipping. I think she was waiting to push you into the corner.

“Here’s my take: You just answered a question, not the bridezilla. If you weren’t warned and saw her and commented on her day, you would be the bridezilla.

The bride responded to people’s support and gave more details about her decision.

The woman explained: “She was obviously concerned or she wouldn’t have asked, but I’m not worried about being set up or anything. I’m just worried that people will be hateful towards her, since about half of the people commenting here think it’s inappropriate, and half don’t.

According to a American Express Research shows that the average wedding guest spends approximately €1,000 on attending a wedding.

The biggest spend was on a wedding gift for the bride and groom, with people spending an average of £217.90, followed by accommodation costs which averaged £203.90.

This was followed by £202.70 on childcare, £196.20 on travel expenses and £160.30 on outfits and accessories.

Initially, Ms. Burkhart said, “He scared the hell out of me,” with his defiance of death threats and a dry sense of humor that people sometimes mistook for brusqueness. But they were “simpatico,” she said. She didn’t mind him calling her at 1am since she was also at work.

“He really understood, and I understood, that this work is risky, that you have to take risks, think outside the box and sometimes make big, difficult and challenging decisions.”

Over the next eight years, she became his clinic’s public face in state politics. She appreciated his approach to the Legislature in opposing efforts to enact even seemingly innocuous rules on abortion providers — for example, requiring their treatment rooms to be larger than those in other surgical practices — because he believed those laws would only but would make it easier for abortion providers. Opponents of abortion are pushing for more restrictions.

Dr. Tiller’s opponents accused him of running a “baby-killing factory,” but Ms. Burkhart saw only deep involvement. “On his practice and on the people,” Ms. Burkhart said. “I really admired that, that he thought everyone deserves forgiveness, redemption, that it’s part of life.”

In May 2009, an extremist who later testified that he had been plotting for years to kill Dr. Tiller, fatally shooting him in his church. The funeral was standing room only. Ms. Burkhart mostly remembers her anger. The political action committee that Dr. Tiller had founded, ProKanDo, had been the state’s largest campaign donor, yet she felt that the politicians it supported had been too timid to stand up for him, or for abortion rights. “I remember people saying, ‘This is devastating, this is terrible, how can this happen?’” she said. “I thought, ‘How do you think this happened?'”

A LOYAL customer who was ‘debanked’ by Barclays was living a ‘nightmare’ after being blocked from £15,000 of his own money.

The British expat opened his account with the major bank in 1965, but moved to France twenty years later.

1

In 2022, the stunned member was told his account had been closed and his checks had stopped.

He wrote to This is money and said: “I was later told I could no longer keep my account due to the changes in Brexit rules, and the account was closed.

‘My problem is getting the £15,000 I had with Barclays transferred to my French bank – it’s been a nightmare.

“It’s been ten months and my money is still tied up in a ‘holding account’ that I have no access to.”

The frustrated customer told how he had to send Barclays a copy of his British passport, French account details and other forms provided by the bank.

After jumping through endless hoops and making sure all the paperwork was signed off, he claimed that “the money still hasn’t been transferred.”

“I am in my 80s, don’t use the internet and due to my ill health cannot travel to Britain to sort this out,” he added.

The pensioner explained how Barclays’ complaints department called and told him they couldn’t see any bill for him at all.

“This is quite concerning,” he said.

‘Banks are getting lazier’

In response, Helen Crane from This is Money explained how many banks prevent people who do not have a home address in the UK from holding an account with them.

Others allow existing members to keep their accounts but prevent them from opening a new account – or pay a significant fee for doing so.

Helen highlighted that Barclays had given the concerned expat a six-month warning before closing the account by post – which he said he had not received.

The confused customer also claimed he had not had a bank statement from Barclays for six months prior to this warning.

Helen said: “If you had realized about the closure earlier you could have simply transferred the money yourself to your French bank account before the UK account was closed.

“But because you missed that deadline, the process was much more difficult.

“I do feel that banks are becoming lazier when it comes to dealing with customers who prefer to correspond by mail or telephone, rather than doing things online.”

MONEY TRANSFERRED

The consumer champion said older bank members who have problems accessing the internet are particularly vulnerable.

She explained how she contacted Barclays in an attempt to help.

They claimed that the bank did not have his correct phone number despite him calling them several times.

And a Barclays employee had called him from the complaints department on the correct number, which meant they had the right number.

“I had to send them your correct phone number in order to transfer the money, and I’m glad that finally happened at the end of December,” Helen said.

This was ten months after his first attempt to contact Barclays and get his money back.

“If I hadn’t been involved, who knows how long it would have lasted,” she added.

A Barclays spokesperson said: “Our Barclays UK products are designed for customers within the UK. Barclays UK no longer offers personal checking or savings accounts to retail customers who have an address registered with us outside the UK, with limited exceptions.

“Our client was given six months’ notice of this decision in July 2022 ahead of account closure in February 2023, with accompanying information explaining the next steps they needed to take.

“Between April 2023 and July 2023, monthly letters were sent to our client requesting information that would allow the funds to be released.

“Unfortunately, without this information we were unable to complete the claim. Once we were able to speak with our customer, the required information was obtained and the funds were released.”

The Sun asked Barclays for comment.

‘THE BANKS’

More cases like this are coming to light as the big banks are being held accountable.

Debanking gives people or organizations access to their money, often without any warning.

It comes as a woman who had her bank account closed by Barclays without warning said she was unable to access her £47,000 for weeks.

Hayley Grocock said she was almost forced to close her West Yorkshire charity after the bank was written off.

Hayley is the CEO of Wakefield District Sight Aid (WDSA), an organization that provides vital assistance to blind people.

After four weeks, the charity received the money in the form of a check from the banking giant.

Barclays then offered Hayley to reopen the account as they claimed there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, a pensioner has told how he was left penniless after his bank account was closed by Barclays “without warning”.

Clive Sparks, 73, was furious when his family business was thrown into ‘chaos’ after Barclays suddenly announced it was closing the account after 85 years.

• Man, 22, arrested during search for missing mother Samantha Murphy
• Samantha’s parents heard about the arrest on the radio
• Her father John Robson said he was hopeful for ‘closure’
• READ MORE: Father breaks silence on missing daughter

By Wayne Flower, Melbourne Correspondent

Published: 01:34 EST, March 7, 2024 | Updated: 01:34 EST, March 7, 2024