FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Coutts bank virtue signalling
Coutts bank virtue signalling
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression." I don’t think a closed bank account is political oppression. Especially when he was offered another account under the same umbrella company. Where I have a problem with Coutts is if they’ve lied to anyone - If they closed his account over his values (which is acceptable given their t’s and c’s) then they should be open about it. However, If they’ve used the lack of funds story to cover up the real reason for account closure then that’s unacceptable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well the story is still developing but it appears on the face of it that they did use the excuse of low funds as a cover to close his account. They didnt like his views so they closed his account, its the very definition of oppression: The unjust excercise of authority or power. It may seem a trivial thing but if its not challenged, where does it end." An organisation has the right to do business with whom they choose. If they don’t want Farage as a customer, that is their right - and once again, their t’s and c’s state this. What they shouldn’t do is lie about the reason for closure (if that’s what has happened) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. " In late 2019 me and a few mates chipped in and created an application for one of us to become a Brexit party prospective MP candidate. We outlined our reasons for applying, namely to negotiate the best possible Brexit by remaining in the CU/SM, working for a closer Europe etc. Funny enough, we didn’t hear back from them. They kept our deposit though! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny, two weeks ago, anyone who suggested this was what happened was labelled a conspiracy nut. " I don’t recall anyone saying this wasn’t within Coutt’s rights. (If indeed this is the case, and none of us know, still) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression." Political oppression I would submit is more akin to regimes that have murdered political opponents, and others in their society who speak against them.. They are and have been on all sides of the political spectrum.. So whilst I would agree that how Coutts have gone about this is very questionable especially given their history I think a bit of context is needed.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny, two weeks ago, anyone who suggested this was what happened was labelled a conspiracy nut. I don’t recall anyone saying this wasn’t within Coutt’s rights. (If indeed this is the case, and none of us know, still)" I recall you saying the bank has found something serious and acted correctly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny, two weeks ago, anyone who suggested this was what happened was labelled a conspiracy nut. I don’t recall anyone saying this wasn’t within Coutt’s rights. (If indeed this is the case, and none of us know, still) I recall you saying the bank has found something serious and acted correctly." I don’t recall stating anything as fact - because facts were (and still are) unknown. I do remember saying that if Farage had insufficient funds then he was in breach of terms, and I also recall saying that the bank had a right to choose who they do business with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can smell the copium about " I think Coutts owe Farage an apology if they’ve lied about the reasons for his account closure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression." They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny, two weeks ago, anyone who suggested this was what happened was labelled a conspiracy nut. I don’t recall anyone saying this wasn’t within Coutt’s rights. (If indeed this is the case, and none of us know, still) I recall you saying the bank has found something serious and acted correctly. I don’t recall stating anything as fact - because facts were (and still are) unknown. I do remember saying that if Farage had insufficient funds then he was in breach of terms, and I also recall saying that the bank had a right to choose who they do business with. " "Remember when he accused French mechanics of sabotaging his car? Now the banks are after him because they’re a secret remainer cabal, or something. The man is an imbecile, up to his neck in shady money and dodgy links. It’s all his fault, and he’ll always claim to be the persecuted hero. I don’t have sympathy for him because I don’t believe this has happened by mistake, nor because of his political views - I suspect the banks have found something serious and responded correctly." These are your exact words... Now you wanna hide behind 'I wasn't stating facts', that's cool, maybe jumping to conclusions are a better way to go about things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny, two weeks ago, anyone who suggested this was what happened was labelled a conspiracy nut. I don’t recall anyone saying this wasn’t within Coutt’s rights. (If indeed this is the case, and none of us know, still) I recall you saying the bank has found something serious and acted correctly. I don’t recall stating anything as fact - because facts were (and still are) unknown. I do remember saying that if Farage had insufficient funds then he was in breach of terms, and I also recall saying that the bank had a right to choose who they do business with. "Remember when he accused French mechanics of sabotaging his car? Now the banks are after him because they’re a secret remainer cabal, or something. The man is an imbecile, up to his neck in shady money and dodgy links. It’s all his fault, and he’ll always claim to be the persecuted hero. I don’t have sympathy for him because I don’t believe this has happened by mistake, nor because of his political views - I suspect the banks have found something serious and responded correctly." These are your exact words... Now you wanna hide behind 'I wasn't stating facts', that's cool, maybe jumping to conclusions are a better way to go about things." So we’re agreed that I didn’t post anything and claim it as fact? Great stuff. As you were. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. " Do you have a link? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar. "Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s. They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny, two weeks ago, anyone who suggested this was what happened was labelled a conspiracy nut. I don’t recall anyone saying this wasn’t within Coutt’s rights. (If indeed this is the case, and none of us know, still) I recall you saying the bank has found something serious and acted correctly. I don’t recall stating anything as fact - because facts were (and still are) unknown. I do remember saying that if Farage had insufficient funds then he was in breach of terms, and I also recall saying that the bank had a right to choose who they do business with. "Remember when he accused French mechanics of sabotaging his car? Now the banks are after him because they’re a secret remainer cabal, or something. The man is an imbecile, up to his neck in shady money and dodgy links. It’s all his fault, and he’ll always claim to be the persecuted hero. I don’t have sympathy for him because I don’t believe this has happened by mistake, nor because of his political views - I suspect the banks have found something serious and responded correctly." These are your exact words... Now you wanna hide behind 'I wasn't stating facts', that's cool, maybe jumping to conclusions are a better way to go about things."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case."No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets. There are banking regulations they must abey. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link?" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11566605/Ukip-offers-Christians-who-object-to-gay-marriage-special-legal-protection.html | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny, two weeks ago, anyone who suggested this was what happened was labelled a conspiracy nut. I don’t recall anyone saying this wasn’t within Coutt’s rights. (If indeed this is the case, and none of us know, still) I recall you saying the bank has found something serious and acted correctly. I don’t recall stating anything as fact - because facts were (and still are) unknown. I do remember saying that if Farage had insufficient funds then he was in breach of terms, and I also recall saying that the bank had a right to choose who they do business with. "Remember when he accused French mechanics of sabotaging his car? Now the banks are after him because they’re a secret remainer cabal, or something. The man is an imbecile, up to his neck in shady money and dodgy links. It’s all his fault, and he’ll always claim to be the persecuted hero. I don’t have sympathy for him because I don’t believe this has happened by mistake, nor because of his political views - I suspect the banks have found something serious and responded correctly." These are your exact words... Now you wanna hide behind 'I wasn't stating facts', that's cool, maybe jumping to conclusions are a better way to go about things. So we’re agreed that I didn’t post anything and claim it as fact? Great stuff. As you were. " Of course you didn't post facts, you didnt have them. You definitely gave your opinion and that opinion had nothing to do with 'coutts' rights'. Found any proof of him being 'up to his neck in shady money' yet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case.
No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets.
There are banking regulations they must abey."Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers, then went on holiday and never returned to his own channel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11566605/Ukip-offers-Christians-who-object-to-gay-marriage-special-legal-protection.html" I dont know what this has to do with a bnb But you are legally allowed to refuse making signs cakes etc which endorse one view not congruent with your own. This is not the same as refusing to make a cake because a couple is gay | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny, two weeks ago, anyone who suggested this was what happened was labelled a conspiracy nut. I don’t recall anyone saying this wasn’t within Coutt’s rights. (If indeed this is the case, and none of us know, still) I recall you saying the bank has found something serious and acted correctly. I don’t recall stating anything as fact - because facts were (and still are) unknown. I do remember saying that if Farage had insufficient funds then he was in breach of terms, and I also recall saying that the bank had a right to choose who they do business with. "Remember when he accused French mechanics of sabotaging his car? Now the banks are after him because they’re a secret remainer cabal, or something. The man is an imbecile, up to his neck in shady money and dodgy links. It’s all his fault, and he’ll always claim to be the persecuted hero. I don’t have sympathy for him because I don’t believe this has happened by mistake, nor because of his political views - I suspect the banks have found something serious and responded correctly." These are your exact words... Now you wanna hide behind 'I wasn't stating facts', that's cool, maybe jumping to conclusions are a better way to go about things. So we’re agreed that I didn’t post anything and claim it as fact? Great stuff. As you were. Of course you didn't post facts, you didnt have them. You definitely gave your opinion and that opinion had nothing to do with 'coutts' rights'. Found any proof of him being 'up to his neck in shady money' yet?" Sadly this all stems from the bastion of truth and honour Chris bryant using parliamentary privilege to make unfounded insipid and gross accusations about farage.( noted in the coutts report) without any proof. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny, two weeks ago, anyone who suggested this was what happened was labelled a conspiracy nut. I don’t recall anyone saying this wasn’t within Coutt’s rights. (If indeed this is the case, and none of us know, still) I recall you saying the bank has found something serious and acted correctly. I don’t recall stating anything as fact - because facts were (and still are) unknown. I do remember saying that if Farage had insufficient funds then he was in breach of terms, and I also recall saying that the bank had a right to choose who they do business with. "Remember when he accused French mechanics of sabotaging his car? Now the banks are after him because they’re a secret remainer cabal, or something. The man is an imbecile, up to his neck in shady money and dodgy links. It’s all his fault, and he’ll always claim to be the persecuted hero. I don’t have sympathy for him because I don’t believe this has happened by mistake, nor because of his political views - I suspect the banks have found something serious and responded correctly." These are your exact words... Now you wanna hide behind 'I wasn't stating facts', that's cool, maybe jumping to conclusions are a better way to go about things. So we’re agreed that I didn’t post anything and claim it as fact? Great stuff. As you were. Of course you didn't post facts, you didnt have them. You definitely gave your opinion and that opinion had nothing to do with 'coutts' rights'. Found any proof of him being 'up to his neck in shady money' yet?" If you believe Farage, Banks, Cottrell et al are all on the financial level, I’ve got some crypto you might be interested in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case.
No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets.
There are banking regulations they must abey.
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers, then went on holiday and never returned to his own channel. "It wasn't his channel. I was not the 1 who claimed he was clever. You're mocking your own ilk | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny, two weeks ago, anyone who suggested this was what happened was labelled a conspiracy nut. I don’t recall anyone saying this wasn’t within Coutt’s rights. (If indeed this is the case, and none of us know, still) I recall you saying the bank has found something serious and acted correctly. I don’t recall stating anything as fact - because facts were (and still are) unknown. I do remember saying that if Farage had insufficient funds then he was in breach of terms, and I also recall saying that the bank had a right to choose who they do business with. "Remember when he accused French mechanics of sabotaging his car? Now the banks are after him because they’re a secret remainer cabal, or something. The man is an imbecile, up to his neck in shady money and dodgy links. It’s all his fault, and he’ll always claim to be the persecuted hero. I don’t have sympathy for him because I don’t believe this has happened by mistake, nor because of his political views - I suspect the banks have found something serious and responded correctly." These are your exact words... Now you wanna hide behind 'I wasn't stating facts', that's cool, maybe jumping to conclusions are a better way to go about things. So we’re agreed that I didn’t post anything and claim it as fact? Great stuff. As you were. Of course you didn't post facts, you didnt have them. You definitely gave your opinion and that opinion had nothing to do with 'coutts' rights'. Found any proof of him being 'up to his neck in shady money' yet? If you believe Farage, Banks, Cottrell et al are all on the financial level, I’ve got some crypto you might be interested in. " I'm good thanks, you keep deflecting  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11566605/Ukip-offers-Christians-who-object-to-gay-marriage-special-legal-protection.html I dont know what this has to do with a bnb But you are legally allowed to refuse making signs cakes etc which endorse one view not congruent with your own. This is not the same as refusing to make a cake because a couple is gay " There were several stories around the same time from different folks in different industries. Most companies have clauses that state they can refuse service or membership - it’s basic image protection. Coutts will be no different. As I say, they shouldn’t have lied about Farage’s funds (if that’s the case). They should have written to Nige and explained why they were closing his account. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case.
No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets.
There are banking regulations they must abey.
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers, then went on holiday and never returned to his own channel.
It wasn't his channel.
I was not the 1 who claimed he was clever. You're mocking your own ilk"You literally called him clever. And he was the chairman of GB news, was he not? Involved in the creation of the channel? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case.
No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets.
There are banking regulations they must abey.
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers, then went on holiday and never returned to his own channel.
It wasn't his channel.
I was not the 1 who claimed he was clever. You're mocking your own ilk
You literally called him clever.
And he was the chairman of GB news, was he not? Involved in the creation of the channel? "What was his great expense? We're there zero viewers? I never called him clever. It was _irldn | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11566605/Ukip-offers-Christians-who-object-to-gay-marriage-special-legal-protection.html I dont know what this has to do with a bnb But you are legally allowed to refuse making signs cakes etc which endorse one view not congruent with your own. This is not the same as refusing to make a cake because a couple is gay There were several stories around the same time from different folks in different industries. Most companies have clauses that state they can refuse service or membership - it’s basic image protection. Coutts will be no different. As I say, they shouldn’t have lied about Farage’s funds (if that’s the case). They should have written to Nige and explained why they were closing his account. " .again. Clauses don't override the regulatory rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case.
No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets.
There are banking regulations they must abey.
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers, then went on holiday and never returned to his own channel.
It wasn't his channel.
I was not the 1 who claimed he was clever. You're mocking your own ilk
You literally called him clever.
And he was the chairman of GB news, was he not? Involved in the creation of the channel?
What was his great expense?
We're there zero viewers?
I never called him clever. It was _irldn"Andrew still holds tens of thousands of shares in the company that he helped create. And yes, I’m the early weeks and months where the TV monitoring recorded zero views for the channel (probably not zero, but too low to record a figure). And you repeated the ‘clever’ word. Some apostrophe use might have made it clearer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case.
No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets.
There are banking regulations they must abey.
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers, then went on holiday and never returned to his own channel.
It wasn't his channel.
I was not the 1 who claimed he was clever. You're mocking your own ilk
You literally called him clever.
And he was the chairman of GB news, was he not? Involved in the creation of the channel?
What was his great expense?
We're there zero viewers?
I never called him clever. It was _irldn
Andrew still holds tens of thousands of shares in the company that he helped create. And yes, I’m the early weeks and months where the TV monitoring recorded zero views for the channel (probably not zero, but too low to record a figure).
And you repeated the ‘clever’ word. Some apostrophe use might have made it clearer
"No viewers on launch? Great expense? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case.
No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets.
There are banking regulations they must abey.
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers, then went on holiday and never returned to his own channel.
It wasn't his channel.
I was not the 1 who claimed he was clever. You're mocking your own ilk
You literally called him clever.
And he was the chairman of GB news, was he not? Involved in the creation of the channel?
What was his great expense?
We're there zero viewers?
I never called him clever. It was _irldn
Andrew still holds tens of thousands of shares in the company that he helped create. And yes, I’m the early weeks and months where the TV monitoring recorded zero views for the channel (probably not zero, but too low to record a figure).
And you repeated the ‘clever’ word. Some apostrophe use might have made it clearer
No viewers on launch?
Great expense?
"Did I say on launch? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case.
No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets.
There are banking regulations they must abey.
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers, then went on holiday and never returned to his own channel.
It wasn't his channel.
I was not the 1 who claimed he was clever. You're mocking your own ilk
You literally called him clever.
And he was the chairman of GB news, was he not? Involved in the creation of the channel?
What was his great expense?
We're there zero viewers?
I never called him clever. It was _irldn
Andrew still holds tens of thousands of shares in the company that he helped create. And yes, I’m the early weeks and months where the TV monitoring recorded zero views for the channel (probably not zero, but too low to record a figure).
And you repeated the ‘clever’ word. Some apostrophe use might have made it clearer
No viewers on launch?
Great expense?
Did I say on launch? "Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case.
No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets.
There are banking regulations they must abey.
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers, then went on holiday and never returned to his own channel.
It wasn't his channel.
I was not the 1 who claimed he was clever. You're mocking your own ilk
You literally called him clever.
And he was the chairman of GB news, was he not? Involved in the creation of the channel?
What was his great expense?
We're there zero viewers?
I never called him clever. It was _irldn
Andrew still holds tens of thousands of shares in the company that he helped create. And yes, I’m the early weeks and months where the TV monitoring recorded zero views for the channel (probably not zero, but too low to record a figure).
And you repeated the ‘clever’ word. Some apostrophe use might have made it clearer
No viewers on launch?
Great expense?
Did I say on launch?
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers"Ah, so you can take things literally, but I can’t? (Clever) There were periods where GB news had no viewers. Demonstrable fact. Andrew Neil invested in GB news, of which he was the chairman, and presenter for 8 episodes before leaving. Fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case.
No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets.
There are banking regulations they must abey.
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers, then went on holiday and never returned to his own channel.
It wasn't his channel.
I was not the 1 who claimed he was clever. You're mocking your own ilk
You literally called him clever.
And he was the chairman of GB news, was he not? Involved in the creation of the channel?
What was his great expense?
We're there zero viewers?
I never called him clever. It was _irldn
Andrew still holds tens of thousands of shares in the company that he helped create. And yes, I’m the early weeks and months where the TV monitoring recorded zero views for the channel (probably not zero, but too low to record a figure).
And you repeated the ‘clever’ word. Some apostrophe use might have made it clearer
No viewers on launch?
Great expense?
Did I say on launch?
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers
Ah, so you can take things literally, but I can’t? (Clever)
There were periods where GB news had no viewers. Demonstrable fact.
Andrew Neil invested in GB news, of which he was the chairman, and presenter for 8 episodes before leaving. Fact. "No, you can take things literally. Gb news is a 24/7 new channel. I certainly imagine that is fact. Andrew Neil was a chairman. He got paid a salary. None of this is am arguing. I wasn't sure of the huge expense...which you are yet to prove nd the zero viewers on launch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link?" Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case.
No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets.
There are banking regulations they must abey.
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers, then went on holiday and never returned to his own channel.
It wasn't his channel.
I was not the 1 who claimed he was clever. You're mocking your own ilk
You literally called him clever.
And he was the chairman of GB news, was he not? Involved in the creation of the channel?
What was his great expense?
We're there zero viewers?
I never called him clever. It was _irldn"In this thread you said... "The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee" So you DID call him clever! If you wanted to only ascribe that to me then a citation was required! However, for the record, I do think Andrew Neil is s clever man regardless of his political views or allegiances. Even clever people can be misguided at times (or greedy chasing a big paycheck) and in this case GBNews was his fuck up! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.”" I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case.
No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets.
There are banking regulations they must abey.
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers, then went on holiday and never returned to his own channel.
It wasn't his channel.
I was not the 1 who claimed he was clever. You're mocking your own ilk
You literally called him clever.
And he was the chairman of GB news, was he not? Involved in the creation of the channel?
What was his great expense?
We're there zero viewers?
I never called him clever. It was _irldn
In this thread you said...
The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity.
Af neil( a clever man) also cites this.
He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee
So you DID call him clever! If you wanted to only ascribe that to me then a citation was required!
However, for the record, I do think Andrew Neil is s clever man regardless of his political views or allegiances. Even clever people can be misguided at times (or greedy chasing a big paycheck) and in this case GBNews was his fuck up!"I used your words yes. So then you disagree with fun fella eh. Or he disagrees with you. You can sort it out between yourselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination" Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression. They aren't allowed to do this. I mentioned on here regulations a week or 2 ago. The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity. Af neil( a clever man) also cites this. He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee I see a big fine and a court case on the horizon if this unfolds. But remember. It can't be true because bigel farage is a liar.
Coutts are apparently allowed to close his account for reasons outlined in their t’s and c’s.
They shouldn’t have lied about the reason for doing so, if that is the case.
No as per the very clever man af Neil's tweets.
There are banking regulations they must abey.
Andrew Neil is so clever that he launched GB news at great expense to no viewers, then went on holiday and never returned to his own channel.
It wasn't his channel.
I was not the 1 who claimed he was clever. You're mocking your own ilk
You literally called him clever.
And he was the chairman of GB news, was he not? Involved in the creation of the channel?
What was his great expense?
We're there zero viewers?
I never called him clever. It was _irldn
In this thread you said...
The fca has specific regulations stopping such activity.
Af neil( a clever man) also cites this.
He also wishes them good luck in front of a select committee
So you DID call him clever! If you wanted to only ascribe that to me then a citation was required!
However, for the record, I do think Andrew Neil is s clever man regardless of his political views or allegiances. Even clever people can be misguided at times (or greedy chasing a big paycheck) and in this case GBNews was his fuck up!
I used your words yes.
So then you disagree with fun fella eh. Or he disagrees with you.
You can sort it out between yourselves.
"In future if you are going to say something you may want to be clear if it is YOU saying it or you are citing someone else. If you are citing me them feel free to be clear on that with a citation. So for the record do YOU think Andrew Neil is a clever man? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. " But the court agreed this was legal? There is no equality measure that forces a cake making company to make cake endorsing an lgbtq message that conflicts with their religious belief | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. " There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. But the court agreed this was legal? There is no equality measure that forces a cake making company to make cake endorsing an lgbtq message that conflicts with their religious belief" What are you even talking about????? Fuck the cake maker. This is a more general point! UKIP (therefore Farage) had a manifesto pledge to support businesses to refuse customers based on their values. Now when a business decides it does not want Farage as a customer he calls foul. It is hypocritical! My personal view is it sets a dangerous precedent but the hypocrisy was that UKIP would have enabled and supported that! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior?" No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley)." I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. But the court agreed this was legal? There is no equality measure that forces a cake making company to make cake endorsing an lgbtq message that conflicts with their religious belief What are you even talking about????? Fuck the cake maker. This is a more general point! UKIP (therefore Farage) had a manifesto pledge to support businesses to refuse customers based on their values. Now when a business decides it does not want Farage as a customer he calls foul. It is hypocritical! My personal view is it sets a dangerous precedent but the hypocrisy was that UKIP would have enabled and supported that! " Have you got tbe manifesto pledge? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well the story is still developing but it appears on the face of it that they did use the excuse of low funds as a cover to close his account. They didnt like his views so they closed his account, its the very definition of oppression: The unjust excercise of authority or power. It may seem a trivial thing but if its not challenged, where does it end. An organisation has the right to do business with whom they choose. If they don’t want Farage as a customer, that is their right - and once again, their t’s and c’s state this. What they shouldn’t do is lie about the reason for closure (if that’s what has happened)" So if a company had racist, homophobic etc etc values you would be ok if they were allowed to refuse customers based on that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I can immediately see. The manifesto said it would offer religious people in the work place the chance not to be confronted with sights that don't confirm to their religious beliefs...inwould say this is the opposite of what you say. It's more diversity. It's enabling more equality for the religious." That’s only your interpretation. If UKIP had formed a Govt and delivered their manifesto pledges, it would have given workers, and more importantly business owners, the ability to refuse customers on the basis of incompatible values. This appears to be what Coutts have done (which I don’t agree with). Farage complaining is hypocritical. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. " Don’t agree what is the same thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing?" The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not." You say suddenly, but we don’t know how suddenly this decision was made. It seems that his account was one of those that was reviewed annually. Perhaps this discussion has taken place repeatedly in the past. Maybe there’s a new person/team making these decisions who decided to act when previous people hadn’t. The document states that they would move to close the account when his mortgage ended - so it wasn’t a simple ‘let’s close it down now’. The reality is that we’ll never know the ins and outs of the situation, and all we have is the word of a known liar against a group who won’t reveal further info. It’s not a lot to go on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nigel farage is a racist pig, who incites hatred to profit for his own gains. Deserves everything he gets. " Here’s the thing. If Coutss had come out and said “we closed his bank account because his views don’t align with our organisation for reasons x,y and z. As a result we fear this could lead to reputational damage and have decided that his business is no longer welcome’ - that would be impossible to argue against. But they’ve shot themselves in the foot (or someone shot them in the foot) with the lack of funds claim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. You say suddenly, but we don’t know how suddenly this decision was made. It seems that his account was one of those that was reviewed annually. Perhaps this discussion has taken place repeatedly in the past. Maybe there’s a new person/team making these decisions who decided to act when previous people hadn’t. The document states that they would move to close the account when his mortgage ended - so it wasn’t a simple ‘let’s close it down now’. The reality is that we’ll never know the ins and outs of the situation, and all we have is the word of a known liar against a group who won’t reveal further info. It’s not a lot to go on. " 'Suddenly' being within the last year or so, I think this is allowed seeing as he was a customer for over 30 years and his views haven't deviated. Of course they wouldn't end the relationship during his mortgage because they would be in deep deep shit I'd he hadn't defaulted. You keep trotting out the 'known liar' line but Farage has published the SAR, lies don't come into this particular topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. You say suddenly, but we don’t know how suddenly this decision was made. It seems that his account was one of those that was reviewed annually. Perhaps this discussion has taken place repeatedly in the past. Maybe there’s a new person/team making these decisions who decided to act when previous people hadn’t. The document states that they would move to close the account when his mortgage ended - so it wasn’t a simple ‘let’s close it down now’. The reality is that we’ll never know the ins and outs of the situation, and all we have is the word of a known liar against a group who won’t reveal further info. It’s not a lot to go on. 'Suddenly' being within the last year or so, I think this is allowed seeing as he was a customer for over 30 years and his views haven't deviated. Of course they wouldn't end the relationship during his mortgage because they would be in deep deep shit I'd he hadn't defaulted. You keep trotting out the 'known liar' line but Farage has published the SAR, lies don't come into this particular topic. " He is a known liar. I see no reason to censor that fact. He may well be telling the truth on this occasion, and that’s ok. Unlike some on this forum I don’t believe that anyone is 100% honest or dishonest all the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I can immediately see. The manifesto said it would offer religious people in the work place the chance not to be confronted with sights that don't confirm to their religious beliefs...inwould say this is the opposite of what you say. It's more diversity. It's enabling more equality for the religious. That’s only your interpretation. If UKIP had formed a Govt and delivered their manifesto pledges, it would have given workers, and more importantly business owners, the ability to refuse customers on the basis of incompatible values. This appears to be what Coutts have done (which I don’t agree with). Farage complaining is hypocritical." It is whatbthe guardian article on it says. Have you got the manifesto please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. You say suddenly, but we don’t know how suddenly this decision was made. It seems that his account was one of those that was reviewed annually. Perhaps this discussion has taken place repeatedly in the past. Maybe there’s a new person/team making these decisions who decided to act when previous people hadn’t. The document states that they would move to close the account when his mortgage ended - so it wasn’t a simple ‘let’s close it down now’. The reality is that we’ll never know the ins and outs of the situation, and all we have is the word of a known liar against a group who won’t reveal further info. It’s not a lot to go on. 'Suddenly' being within the last year or so, I think this is allowed seeing as he was a customer for over 30 years and his views haven't deviated. Of course they wouldn't end the relationship during his mortgage because they would be in deep deep shit I'd he hadn't defaulted. You keep trotting out the 'known liar' line but Farage has published the SAR, lies don't come into this particular topic. He is a known liar. I see no reason to censor that fact. He may well be telling the truth on this occasion, and that’s ok. Unlike some on this forum I don’t believe that anyone is 100% honest or dishonest all the time. " No. Just when it suits your narrative. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. You say suddenly, but we don’t know how suddenly this decision was made. It seems that his account was one of those that was reviewed annually. Perhaps this discussion has taken place repeatedly in the past. Maybe there’s a new person/team making these decisions who decided to act when previous people hadn’t. The document states that they would move to close the account when his mortgage ended - so it wasn’t a simple ‘let’s close it down now’. The reality is that we’ll never know the ins and outs of the situation, and all we have is the word of a known liar against a group who won’t reveal further info. It’s not a lot to go on. 'Suddenly' being within the last year or so, I think this is allowed seeing as he was a customer for over 30 years and his views haven't deviated. Of course they wouldn't end the relationship during his mortgage because they would be in deep deep shit I'd he hadn't defaulted. You keep trotting out the 'known liar' line but Farage has published the SAR, lies don't come into this particular topic. He is a known liar. I see no reason to censor that fact. He may well be telling the truth on this occasion, and that’s ok. Unlike some on this forum I don’t believe that anyone is 100% honest or dishonest all the time. " The fact that he has lied in the past is neither here not there when facts are laid bare in black and white. This isn't a case of he said, she said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A lot of comments calling Farage a racist, what actions or words can be specifically associated to him being a racist? " I don’t think Farage has ever been stupid enough to say something racist publicly. Xenophobic, yes. Racist, no. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first." We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts." Rather a disturbing document, it goes to places I would not expect and conclusions clearly based on those directions driven by political outcomes for the bank. If we wanted to see China’s social credit scoring system in action, this I think would be a reasonable start | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts." But do you personally have his SAR? Does anyone else have this information apart from him to verify the claim? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. Rather a disturbing document, it goes to places I would not expect and conclusions clearly based on those directions driven by political outcomes for the bank. If we wanted to see China’s social credit scoring system in action, this I think would be a reasonable start " I agree, it's quite scary really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. But do you personally have his SAR? Does anyone else have this information apart from him to verify the claim?" The Daily Mail have published it in full. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. But do you personally have his SAR? Does anyone else have this information apart from him to verify the claim?" It's been published on the daily Mail website for about 8 hours | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. But do you personally have his SAR? Does anyone else have this information apart from him to verify the claim? It's been published on the daily Mail website for about 8 hours" I think I know what comes next but let's see | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. But do you personally have his SAR? Does anyone else have this information apart from him to verify the claim? It's been published on the daily Mail website for about 8 hours I think I know what comes next but let's see "Ah awesome! Cheers! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. Rather a disturbing document, it goes to places I would not expect and conclusions clearly based on those directions driven by political outcomes for the bank. If we wanted to see China’s social credit scoring system in action, this I think would be a reasonable start " Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not." It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. Rather a disturbing document, it goes to places I would not expect and conclusions clearly based on those directions driven by political outcomes for the bank. If we wanted to see China’s social credit scoring system in action, this I think would be a reasonable start Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose? " If this happened to you how would you feel? And let’s be clear, you’re left wing so it could, or are you okay with only those that are right wing being treated this way? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. Rather a disturbing document, it goes to places I would not expect and conclusions clearly based on those directions driven by political outcomes for the bank. If we wanted to see China’s social credit scoring system in action, this I think would be a reasonable start Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose? If this happened to you how would you feel? And let’s be clear, you’re left wing so it could, or are you okay with only those that are right wing being treated this way?" I’d question what I said that could have caused it, for sure - but (and this is the crucial part) if I *had* said something deemed controversial enough to warrant it, I’d accept that I’d breached t’s and c’s. I might be grumpy, but if it could be demonstrated exactly how I’d breached terms, I’d accept it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic!" It is absolutely not the same thing, religion and belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic! It is absolutely not the same thing, religion and belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act." It IS the same thing as any historian will tell you. Religion is a social construct that provides a set of rules and values designed to control the way a population behaves. At is core elements there is little difference between religion, fascism, communism etc. They serve predominantly the societal purpose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. Rather a disturbing document, it goes to places I would not expect and conclusions clearly based on those directions driven by political outcomes for the bank. If we wanted to see China’s social credit scoring system in action, this I think would be a reasonable start Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose? If this happened to you how would you feel? And let’s be clear, you’re left wing so it could, or are you okay with only those that are right wing being treated this way? I’d question what I said that could have caused it, for sure - but (and this is the crucial part) if I *had* said something deemed controversial enough to warrant it, I’d accept that I’d breached t’s and c’s. I might be grumpy, but if it could be demonstrated exactly how I’d breached terms, I’d accept it. " And if you then couldn’t bank what would you do, society runs on banking? You are approving corporate interference into your private life.. What did you think of the Canadian government freezing bank accounts of protesting lorry drivers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic! It is absolutely not the same thing, religion and belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act. It IS the same thing as any historian will tell you. Religion is a social construct that provides a set of rules and values designed to control the way a population behaves. At is core elements there is little difference between religion, fascism, communism etc. They serve predominantly the societal purpose." *They serve predominantly the SAME societal purpose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. Rather a disturbing document, it goes to places I would not expect and conclusions clearly based on those directions driven by political outcomes for the bank. If we wanted to see China’s social credit scoring system in action, this I think would be a reasonable start Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose? If this happened to you how would you feel? And let’s be clear, you’re left wing so it could, or are you okay with only those that are right wing being treated this way? I’d question what I said that could have caused it, for sure - but (and this is the crucial part) if I *had* said something deemed controversial enough to warrant it, I’d accept that I’d breached t’s and c’s. I might be grumpy, but if it could be demonstrated exactly how I’d breached terms, I’d accept it. And if you then couldn’t bank what would you do, society runs on banking? You are approving corporate interference into your private life.. What did you think of the Canadian government freezing bank accounts of protesting lorry drivers?" Farage can bank. He was literally offered a bank account. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic! It is absolutely not the same thing, religion and belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act. It IS the same thing as any historian will tell you. Religion is a social construct that provides a set of rules and values designed to control the way a population behaves. At is core elements there is little difference between religion, fascism, communism etc. They serve predominantly the societal purpose. *They serve predominantly the SAME societal purpose." Of course religion are social constructs. I'm not religious myself, I feel its a load of bollocks. However, it is a protected characteristic. That's what make it different to an 'inclusively charter'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. Rather a disturbing document, it goes to places I would not expect and conclusions clearly based on those directions driven by political outcomes for the bank. If we wanted to see China’s social credit scoring system in action, this I think would be a reasonable start Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose? If this happened to you how would you feel? And let’s be clear, you’re left wing so it could, or are you okay with only those that are right wing being treated this way? I’d question what I said that could have caused it, for sure - but (and this is the crucial part) if I *had* said something deemed controversial enough to warrant it, I’d accept that I’d breached t’s and c’s. I might be grumpy, but if it could be demonstrated exactly how I’d breached terms, I’d accept it. And if you then couldn’t bank what would you do, society runs on banking? You are approving corporate interference into your private life.. What did you think of the Canadian government freezing bank accounts of protesting lorry drivers? Farage can bank. He was literally offered a bank account. " You seem to have avoided the actual questions, but if you can’t answer I would totally understand | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. Rather a disturbing document, it goes to places I would not expect and conclusions clearly based on those directions driven by political outcomes for the bank. If we wanted to see China’s social credit scoring system in action, this I think would be a reasonable start Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose? If this happened to you how would you feel? And let’s be clear, you’re left wing so it could, or are you okay with only those that are right wing being treated this way? I’d question what I said that could have caused it, for sure - but (and this is the crucial part) if I *had* said something deemed controversial enough to warrant it, I’d accept that I’d breached t’s and c’s. I might be grumpy, but if it could be demonstrated exactly how I’d breached terms, I’d accept it. And if you then couldn’t bank what would you do, society runs on banking? You are approving corporate interference into your private life.. What did you think of the Canadian government freezing bank accounts of protesting lorry drivers? Farage can bank. He was literally offered a bank account. You seem to have avoided the actual questions, but if you can’t answer I would totally understand " Tbf you never answered mine to begin with. But then you seldom do. “Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose?” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic! It is absolutely not the same thing, religion and belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act. It IS the same thing as any historian will tell you. Religion is a social construct that provides a set of rules and values designed to control the way a population behaves. At is core elements there is little difference between religion, fascism, communism etc. They serve predominantly the societal purpose. *They serve predominantly the SAME societal purpose. Of course religion are social constructs. I'm not religious myself, I feel its a load of bollocks. However, it is a protected characteristic. That's what make it different to an 'inclusively charter'." Glad we agree. So Farage was happy to use “something” (it is actually irrelevant what that something was) that would see certain customer groups refused services by businesses on the basis of different values but when it happens to him he demonstrates the height of hypocrisy. As I said above, much as I loathe Farage, I do not agree with Coutts. Nor would I agree with a religious B&B owner refusing a room to a gay couple. Where would that end? What about unmarried heterosexual couples? What about swingers who enjoy watching their wives get fucked by other men? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. Rather a disturbing document, it goes to places I would not expect and conclusions clearly based on those directions driven by political outcomes for the bank. If we wanted to see China’s social credit scoring system in action, this I think would be a reasonable start Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose? If this happened to you how would you feel? And let’s be clear, you’re left wing so it could, or are you okay with only those that are right wing being treated this way? I’d question what I said that could have caused it, for sure - but (and this is the crucial part) if I *had* said something deemed controversial enough to warrant it, I’d accept that I’d breached t’s and c’s. I might be grumpy, but if it could be demonstrated exactly how I’d breached terms, I’d accept it. And if you then couldn’t bank what would you do, society runs on banking? You are approving corporate interference into your private life.. What did you think of the Canadian government freezing bank accounts of protesting lorry drivers? Farage can bank. He was literally offered a bank account. You seem to have avoided the actual questions, but if you can’t answer I would totally understand Tbf you never answered mine to begin with. But then you seldom do. “Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose?”" When it comes to banking the consequences of applying fuzzy logic to their operations is dangerous and should not be considered in the same way as a restaurant or shop taking your money for a product. Now back to my questions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic! It is absolutely not the same thing, religion and belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act. It IS the same thing as any historian will tell you. Religion is a social construct that provides a set of rules and values designed to control the way a population behaves. At is core elements there is little difference between religion, fascism, communism etc. They serve predominantly the societal purpose. *They serve predominantly the SAME societal purpose. Of course religion are social constructs. I'm not religious myself, I feel its a load of bollocks. However, it is a protected characteristic. That's what make it different to an 'inclusively charter'. Glad we agree. So Farage was happy to use “something” (it is actually irrelevant what that something was) that would see certain customer groups refused services by businesses on the basis of different values but when it happens to him he demonstrates the height of hypocrisy. As I said above, much as I loathe Farage, I do not agree with Coutts. Nor would I agree with a religious B&B owner refusing a room to a gay couple. Where would that end? What about unmarried heterosexual couples? What about swingers who enjoy watching their wives get fucked by other men? " Please don't play the 'glad we agree' condescension game with me. I already stated that I believe Farage to be a hypocrite. I just don't see the example you've given as a valid one. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against, that includes racists, xenophobes etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. But do you personally have his SAR? Does anyone else have this information apart from him to verify the claim? It's been published on the daily Mail website for about 8 hours I think I know what comes next but let's see
Ah awesome! Cheers!"So Coutts were worried about their reputation then? Preferring to protect themselves. Actually that makes perfect sense, from a target perspective, if you’re associated with a high profile individual it might lead to attacks against them. Wouldn’t say it’s political would say it’s more about risk. They probably weighed up the pros and cons and came to the conclusion that it was in their interests to avoid a problem. I suspect once his situation improves then things will change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic! It is absolutely not the same thing, religion and belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act. It IS the same thing as any historian will tell you. Religion is a social construct that provides a set of rules and values designed to control the way a population behaves. At is core elements there is little difference between religion, fascism, communism etc. They serve predominantly the societal purpose. *They serve predominantly the SAME societal purpose. Of course religion are social constructs. I'm not religious myself, I feel its a load of bollocks. However, it is a protected characteristic. That's what make it different to an 'inclusively charter'. Glad we agree. So Farage was happy to use “something” (it is actually irrelevant what that something was) that would see certain customer groups refused services by businesses on the basis of different values but when it happens to him he demonstrates the height of hypocrisy. As I said above, much as I loathe Farage, I do not agree with Coutts. Nor would I agree with a religious B&B owner refusing a room to a gay couple. Where would that end? What about unmarried heterosexual couples? What about swingers who enjoy watching their wives get fucked by other men? Please don't play the 'glad we agree' condescension game with me. I already stated that I believe Farage to be a hypocrite. I just don't see the example you've given as a valid one. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against, that includes racists, xenophobes etc." Who pulled your grumpy chain? My example is perfectly valid thank you. Highly relevant too. If you truly cannot see the parallels then I guess we are done here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. But do you personally have his SAR? Does anyone else have this information apart from him to verify the claim? It's been published on the daily Mail website for about 8 hours I think I know what comes next but let's see
Ah awesome! Cheers!
So Coutts were worried about their reputation then? Preferring to protect themselves.
Actually that makes perfect sense, from a target perspective, if you’re associated with a high profile individual it might lead to attacks against them.
Wouldn’t say it’s political would say it’s more about risk. They probably weighed up the pros and cons and came to the conclusion that it was in their interests to avoid a problem.
I suspect once his situation improves then things will change.
"Was you aware of Farage’s banking arrangements before this? Rhetorical question…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. But do you personally have his SAR? Does anyone else have this information apart from him to verify the claim? It's been published on the daily Mail website for about 8 hours I think I know what comes next but let's see
Ah awesome! Cheers!
So Coutts were worried about their reputation then? Preferring to protect themselves.
Actually that makes perfect sense, from a target perspective, if you’re associated with a high profile individual it might lead to attacks against them.
Wouldn’t say it’s political would say it’s more about risk. They probably weighed up the pros and cons and came to the conclusion that it was in their interests to avoid a problem.
I suspect once his situation improves then things will change.
Was you aware of Farage’s banking arrangements before this?
Rhetorical question…. "I’ll leave that upto you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic! It is absolutely not the same thing, religion and belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act. It IS the same thing as any historian will tell you. Religion is a social construct that provides a set of rules and values designed to control the way a population behaves. At is core elements there is little difference between religion, fascism, communism etc. They serve predominantly the societal purpose. *They serve predominantly the SAME societal purpose. Of course religion are social constructs. I'm not religious myself, I feel its a load of bollocks. However, it is a protected characteristic. That's what make it different to an 'inclusively charter'. Glad we agree. So Farage was happy to use “something” (it is actually irrelevant what that something was) that would see certain customer groups refused services by businesses on the basis of different values but when it happens to him he demonstrates the height of hypocrisy. As I said above, much as I loathe Farage, I do not agree with Coutts. Nor would I agree with a religious B&B owner refusing a room to a gay couple. Where would that end? What about unmarried heterosexual couples? What about swingers who enjoy watching their wives get fucked by other men? Please don't play the 'glad we agree' condescension game with me. I already stated that I believe Farage to be a hypocrite. I just don't see the example you've given as a valid one. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against, that includes racists, xenophobes etc. Who pulled your grumpy chain? My example is perfectly valid thank you. Highly relevant too. If you truly cannot see the parallels then I guess we are done here "You can feel it highly relevant and valid. I don't agree. I'm allowed that aren't I? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I can immediately see. The manifesto said it would offer religious people in the work place the chance not to be confronted with sights that don't confirm to their religious beliefs...inwould say this is the opposite of what you say. It's more diversity. It's enabling more equality for the religious. That’s only your interpretation. If UKIP had formed a Govt and delivered their manifesto pledges, it would have given workers, and more importantly business owners, the ability to refuse customers on the basis of incompatible values. This appears to be what Coutts have done (which I don’t agree with). Farage complaining is hypocritical." It would help if li ked the manifesto | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic!" Jabe you got the manifesto? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic! It is absolutely not the same thing, religion and belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act. It IS the same thing as any historian will tell you. Religion is a social construct that provides a set of rules and values designed to control the way a population behaves. At is core elements there is little difference between religion, fascism, communism etc. They serve predominantly the societal purpose. *They serve predominantly the SAME societal purpose. Of course religion are social constructs. I'm not religious myself, I feel its a load of bollocks. However, it is a protected characteristic. That's what make it different to an 'inclusively charter'. Glad we agree. So Farage was happy to use “something” (it is actually irrelevant what that something was) that would see certain customer groups refused services by businesses on the basis of different values but when it happens to him he demonstrates the height of hypocrisy. As I said above, much as I loathe Farage, I do not agree with Coutts. Nor would I agree with a religious B&B owner refusing a room to a gay couple. Where would that end? What about unmarried heterosexual couples? What about swingers who enjoy watching their wives get fucked by other men? Please don't play the 'glad we agree' condescension game with me. I already stated that I believe Farage to be a hypocrite. I just don't see the example you've given as a valid one. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against, that includes racists, xenophobes etc. Who pulled your grumpy chain? My example is perfectly valid thank you. Highly relevant too. If you truly cannot see the parallels then I guess we are done here
You can feel it highly relevant and valid. I don't agree. I'm allowed that aren't I?
"Of course | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. Rather a disturbing document, it goes to places I would not expect and conclusions clearly based on those directions driven by political outcomes for the bank. If we wanted to see China’s social credit scoring system in action, this I think would be a reasonable start Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose? If this happened to you how would you feel? And let’s be clear, you’re left wing so it could, or are you okay with only those that are right wing being treated this way? I’d question what I said that could have caused it, for sure - but (and this is the crucial part) if I *had* said something deemed controversial enough to warrant it, I’d accept that I’d breached t’s and c’s. I might be grumpy, but if it could be demonstrated exactly how I’d breached terms, I’d accept it. And if you then couldn’t bank what would you do, society runs on banking? You are approving corporate interference into your private life.. What did you think of the Canadian government freezing bank accounts of protesting lorry drivers? Farage can bank. He was literally offered a bank account. You seem to have avoided the actual questions, but if you can’t answer I would totally understand Tbf you never answered mine to begin with. But then you seldom do. “Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose?”" No they are not You can not choose for example to not serve Jews or blacks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic! It is absolutely not the same thing, religion and belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act. It IS the same thing as any historian will tell you. Religion is a social construct that provides a set of rules and values designed to control the way a population behaves. At is core elements there is little difference between religion, fascism, communism etc. They serve predominantly the societal purpose. *They serve predominantly the SAME societal purpose. Of course religion are social constructs. I'm not religious myself, I feel its a load of bollocks. However, it is a protected characteristic. That's what make it different to an 'inclusively charter'. Glad we agree. So Farage was happy to use “something” (it is actually irrelevant what that something was) that would see certain customer groups refused services by businesses on the basis of different values but when it happens to him he demonstrates the height of hypocrisy. As I said above, much as I loathe Farage, I do not agree with Coutts. Nor would I agree with a religious B&B owner refusing a room to a gay couple. Where would that end? What about unmarried heterosexual couples? What about swingers who enjoy watching their wives get fucked by other men? " Have you got the manifesto please or any indication from ukip/farage this is the case that they backed that couple who refused a gay couple to share a room. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. But do you personally have his SAR? Does anyone else have this information apart from him to verify the claim? It's been published on the daily Mail website for about 8 hours I think I know what comes next but let's see
Ah awesome! Cheers!
So Coutts were worried about their reputation then? Preferring to protect themselves.
Actually that makes perfect sense, from a target perspective, if you’re associated with a high profile individual it might lead to attacks against them.
Wouldn’t say it’s political would say it’s more about risk. They probably weighed up the pros and cons and came to the conclusion that it was in their interests to avoid a problem.
I suspect once his situation improves then things will change.
"You don't have the right to get rid of small client because youndont like their views. The reputation has no effect. In my time in anti money laundering and financial crime. The bank i worked for had to allow this absolute scum of the earth to jave a bank account. Because of banking regs. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/sep/21/pastor-extradited-kenya-accused-babies He was convicted of further money laundering. But apparently farage is a repurstional risk | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. Rather a disturbing document, it goes to places I would not expect and conclusions clearly based on those directions driven by political outcomes for the bank. If we wanted to see China’s social credit scoring system in action, this I think would be a reasonable start Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose? If this happened to you how would you feel? And let’s be clear, you’re left wing so it could, or are you okay with only those that are right wing being treated this way? I’d question what I said that could have caused it, for sure - but (and this is the crucial part) if I *had* said something deemed controversial enough to warrant it, I’d accept that I’d breached t’s and c’s. I might be grumpy, but if it could be demonstrated exactly how I’d breached terms, I’d accept it. And if you then couldn’t bank what would you do, society runs on banking? You are approving corporate interference into your private life.. What did you think of the Canadian government freezing bank accounts of protesting lorry drivers? Farage can bank. He was literally offered a bank account. You seem to have avoided the actual questions, but if you can’t answer I would totally understand Tbf you never answered mine to begin with. But then you seldom do. “Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose?” No they are not You can not choose for example to not serve Jews or blacks. " Of course you can’t on that basis. But you could choose not to do business with a Jewish person who breaches your terms of service, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic! It is absolutely not the same thing, religion and belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act. It IS the same thing as any historian will tell you. Religion is a social construct that provides a set of rules and values designed to control the way a population behaves. At is core elements there is little difference between religion, fascism, communism etc. They serve predominantly the societal purpose. *They serve predominantly the SAME societal purpose. Of course religion are social constructs. I'm not religious myself, I feel its a load of bollocks. However, it is a protected characteristic. That's what make it different to an 'inclusively charter'. Glad we agree. So Farage was happy to use “something” (it is actually irrelevant what that something was) that would see certain customer groups refused services by businesses on the basis of different values but when it happens to him he demonstrates the height of hypocrisy. As I said above, much as I loathe Farage, I do not agree with Coutts. Nor would I agree with a religious B&B owner refusing a room to a gay couple. Where would that end? What about unmarried heterosexual couples? What about swingers who enjoy watching their wives get fucked by other men? Please don't play the 'glad we agree' condescension game with me. I already stated that I believe Farage to be a hypocrite. I just don't see the example you've given as a valid one. I don't want anyone to be discriminated against, that includes racists, xenophobes etc." I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally - but that’s unrelated to this as I don’t believe Farage has said anything overtly racist, he’s too smart to make that mistake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose?" "No they are not You can not choose for example to not serve Jews or blacks." "Of course you can’t on that basis. But you could choose not to do business with a Jewish person who breaches your terms of service, no?" You can choose not to do business with anyone that breaches your terms of service. But if the regulator notices that you choose not to do business with more Jewish people than normal, they can investigate to see what the real reason for your refusal is. If they find that you are taking a customers Judaism into about in any way when considering whether to keep them, you'll be prosecuted for discrimination against a protected characteristic. In the Farage case, the bank has accrued a few dozen pages of political details, and a couple of paragraphs about his financial status. They're going to find it difficult to claim that they made their decision purely on the breach of terms. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s get this straight, we only have his claims at the moment for information he has not disclosed from coutts. Before we get on our high horses and gallop off into conspiracy land. We need to establish 1. Where is the evidence this was the case and can it be independently verified 2. How much can we trust the source making the claims are they are reliable source. 3. How does this narrative benefit parties involved? Think first. We have the SAR sent to him from Coutts. Rather a disturbing document, it goes to places I would not expect and conclusions clearly based on those directions driven by political outcomes for the bank. If we wanted to see China’s social credit scoring system in action, this I think would be a reasonable start Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose? If this happened to you how would you feel? And let’s be clear, you’re left wing so it could, or are you okay with only those that are right wing being treated this way? I’d question what I said that could have caused it, for sure - but (and this is the crucial part) if I *had* said something deemed controversial enough to warrant it, I’d accept that I’d breached t’s and c’s. I might be grumpy, but if it could be demonstrated exactly how I’d breached terms, I’d accept it. And if you then couldn’t bank what would you do, society runs on banking? You are approving corporate interference into your private life.. What did you think of the Canadian government freezing bank accounts of protesting lorry drivers? Farage can bank. He was literally offered a bank account. You seem to have avoided the actual questions, but if you can’t answer I would totally understand Tbf you never answered mine to begin with. But then you seldom do. “Are businesses not free to do business with whom they choose?” No they are not You can not choose for example to not serve Jews or blacks. Of course you can’t on that basis. But you could choose not to do business with a Jewish person who breaches your terms of service, no?" That wasn't your question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... " And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate the term virtue signalling. I despise Nigel Farage. But Coutts is the bank for the ultra rich. It is the bank of the privileged. Their new found ethics and love of diversity seems completely false." In this case, you should be having a go at the OP, who decided to use the words "virtue signalling"in the title of this thread. Coutts haven't said or done anything to signal their virtue. They didn't make their decision public, and they've steadfastly refused to give any detail throughout the whole issue. I don't know exactly what drove them to cancel Farage's account, but it definitely isn't virtue signalling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... " the danger with that philosophy is who gets to decide whats racist? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... the danger with that philosophy is who gets to decide whats racist?" Given the racist, xenophobe, far right etc seem to have taken a whole new meaning in the last decade or so. This is worrying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate the term virtue signalling. I despise Nigel Farage. But Coutts is the bank for the ultra rich. It is the bank of the privileged. Their new found ethics and love of diversity seems completely false. In this case, you should be having a go at the OP, who decided to use the words "virtue signalling"in the title of this thread. Coutts haven't said or done anything to signal their virtue. They didn't make their decision public, and they've steadfastly refused to give any detail throughout the whole issue. I don't know exactly what drove them to cancel Farage's account, but it definitely isn't virtue signalling." Perhaps virtue signalling wasn't the correct choice of words but they certainly wanted rid of Fararge and used him finally paying off his mortgage as the excuse but actually they just dont like him or his politics and they said as much in the information thats come to light and thats just wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic! Jabe you got the manifesto?" You need to search on “UKIP mini manifesto for Christians” "We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples. However, as I pointed out to Feisty, the actual circumstances matter less than the principle that UKIP (and therefore Farage) supported businesses excluding customers on the basis of different values which is what Coutts appears to have done to Farage. It is therefore highly ironic and hypocritical for Farage to kick off. He is basically saying “I support businesses excluding customers if their values do not align with mine but you can’t exclude me just because my values do not align with yours” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... the danger with that philosophy is who gets to decide whats racist?" It has a definition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination." Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bit hypocritical of Farage though seeing as he and UKIP openly supported businesses being able to refuse customers they were morally opposed to such as Christians refusing to serve gay couples (remember the B&B story). They went so far as saying they would offer those businesses legal support. Do you have a link? Just read back my post and it is possibly worded badly. The B&B case(s) were not directly supported by UKIP but would have been under UKIP policies. Farage is therefore being a hypocrite. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/ukip-christians-legal-protection-same-sex-marriage “The manifesto for Christians says UKIP would not seek to reverse gay marriage, even though the party was opposed to it being introduced. However, it would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs.” I dont think this agrees with what you said. It seems to back up the point. You can refuse to put a message on a cake. But does not endorse deacrimination Errr that’s not my point at all! Farage is being a hypocrite. As leader of UKIP he supported a policy that would enable businesses to refuse customers who did not align with their views (Ergo Christians and Gay Couples). But when a business decides Farage doesn’t align with their views and no longer wants him as a customer, he cries foul. There is a slight difference. Farage has always had said views and been very vocal of them. He supported a policy of refusing customers (I don't know the exact terms so using your say so) of refusing 'new' customers. Why didn't Coutts have an issue for the 30 years prior? No idea, go ask them, but not the point I am making (see reply to Morley). I seen your reply. I don't agree it's the same thing. I do agree Farage is a hypocrite though, most politicians are. Don’t agree what is the same thing? The UKIP policy was around businesses offering services against their religious beliefs. It did not mention ideologies. Coutts seem to have dropped Farage because they don't feel he fits with their 'inclusively charter'. I'm still struggling to square why Farage was good enough for 30 years and then suddenly not. It is precisely the same thing! Religious beliefs are an ideology. They are also a set of values. Being able to exclude/refuse a customer because their values/beliefs/ideology do not align with yours is exactly the same thing. So Farage supporting such a position previously as part of UKIP but now crying foul when he comes a cropper for it is the height of hypocrisy. And wonderfully ironic! Jabe you got the manifesto? You need to search on “UKIP mini manifesto for Christians” "We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples. However, as I pointed out to Feisty, the actual circumstances matter less than the principle that UKIP (and therefore Farage) supported businesses excluding customers on the basis of different values which is what Coutts appears to have done to Farage. It is therefore highly ironic and hypocritical for Farage to kick off. He is basically saying “I support businesses excluding customers if their values do not align with mine but you can’t exclude me just because my values do not align with yours”" I'm still not getting tbe full manifesto. I am only seeing snippets in new articles. Which link has the full manifesto sorry? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated." Racism is defined, 'racist behaviour' not so much. A court will decide if someone has been racist. I assume you're happy for other criminals to also be discriminated against? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated." By the definition of racism. What would you believe bigel has said that is racist that would get him removed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination." Agreed. Including gay couples not being discriminated against by Christians which UKIP and Farage would have supported. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is hypocritical of Farage but it still doesn't make it right. So if we take Farage out of the question, then should a bank be allowed to exclude you on the basis that your politics don't align with their values? furthermore, where does this lead, how far down the rabbit hole is it allowed to go if left unchallenged. Can you get excluded because the bank manager didn't like how you voted in the last election?" I have already said several times in this thread that I disagree with Coutts regardless of my personal opinions on Farage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. By the definition of racism. What would you believe bigel has said that is racist that would get him removed." I haven’t claimed that Nigel said anything racist. In fact if you’d been paying attention you’d have seen that I explicitly stated that Nigel is too clever to have fallen into that trap. Nigel does have a history of xenophobia though - comments about ‘families of Romanian people moving in next door’ etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. Racism is defined, 'racist behaviour' not so much. A court will decide if someone has been racist. I assume you're happy for other criminals to also be discriminated against?" I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Racism is unacceptable. It’s as unacceptable as anything else out there. I wouldn’t want my company to be associated with a racist any more than I’d want it to be associated with a child abuser or a wife beater. Fuck racists, and the horse they rode in on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. Racism is defined, 'racist behaviour' not so much. A court will decide if someone has been racist. I assume you're happy for other criminals to also be discriminated against? I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Racism is unacceptable. It’s as unacceptable as anything else out there. I wouldn’t want my company to be associated with a racist any more than I’d want it to be associated with a child abuser or a wife beater. Fuck racists, and the horse they rode in on." So anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence or just those who don't sit morally with you? If you read properly, I was picking up on 'racist behaviour', that can be open to interpretation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. Racism is defined, 'racist behaviour' not so much. A court will decide if someone has been racist. I assume you're happy for other criminals to also be discriminated against? I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Racism is unacceptable. It’s as unacceptable as anything else out there. I wouldn’t want my company to be associated with a racist any more than I’d want it to be associated with a child abuser or a wife beater. Fuck racists, and the horse they rode in on. So anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence or just those who don't sit morally with you? If you read properly, I was picking up on 'racist behaviour', that can be open to interpretation." Those who have been convicted and completed their sentence shouldn’t be a problem to anyone. Racism isn’t a moral stance. It’s abhorrent, and anyone who accepts it is a scumbag. I hope that’s clear enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. Racism is defined, 'racist behaviour' not so much. A court will decide if someone has been racist. I assume you're happy for other criminals to also be discriminated against? I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Racism is unacceptable. It’s as unacceptable as anything else out there. I wouldn’t want my company to be associated with a racist any more than I’d want it to be associated with a child abuser or a wife beater. Fuck racists, and the horse they rode in on. So anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence or just those who don't sit morally with you? If you read properly, I was picking up on 'racist behaviour', that can be open to interpretation. Those who have been convicted and completed their sentence shouldn’t be a problem to anyone. Racism isn’t a moral stance. It’s abhorrent, and anyone who accepts it is a scumbag. I hope that’s clear enough. " So if someone was convicted of a racist offence and completed their sentence they shouldn't be a problem. At least, it sounds like that's what you're saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. Racism is defined, 'racist behaviour' not so much. A court will decide if someone has been racist. I assume you're happy for other criminals to also be discriminated against? I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Racism is unacceptable. It’s as unacceptable as anything else out there. I wouldn’t want my company to be associated with a racist any more than I’d want it to be associated with a child abuser or a wife beater. Fuck racists, and the horse they rode in on. So anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence or just those who don't sit morally with you? If you read properly, I was picking up on 'racist behaviour', that can be open to interpretation. Those who have been convicted and completed their sentence shouldn’t be a problem to anyone. Racism isn’t a moral stance. It’s abhorrent, and anyone who accepts it is a scumbag. I hope that’s clear enough. So if someone was convicted of a racist offence and completed their sentence they shouldn't be a problem. At least, it sounds like that's what you're saying." That would depend upon whether their sentence had changed their views. If it had, then yes, they’re no problem. If they continue to display racist tendencies, then they can be fucked into a big hat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. Racism is defined, 'racist behaviour' not so much. A court will decide if someone has been racist. I assume you're happy for other criminals to also be discriminated against? I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Racism is unacceptable. It’s as unacceptable as anything else out there. I wouldn’t want my company to be associated with a racist any more than I’d want it to be associated with a child abuser or a wife beater. Fuck racists, and the horse they rode in on. So anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence or just those who don't sit morally with you? If you read properly, I was picking up on 'racist behaviour', that can be open to interpretation. Those who have been convicted and completed their sentence shouldn’t be a problem to anyone. Racism isn’t a moral stance. It’s abhorrent, and anyone who accepts it is a scumbag. I hope that’s clear enough. So if someone was convicted of a racist offence and completed their sentence they shouldn't be a problem. At least, it sounds like that's what you're saying. That would depend upon whether their sentence had changed their views. If it had, then yes, they’re no problem. If they continue to display racist tendencies, then they can be fucked into a big hat." 'Display racist tendencies' is most definitely open to individual interpretation. It would appear it's really not as simple as you'd like to think it is. We have law that covers racism. Anything else is morality. You want to cancel anyone who you deem to be racist, rather than what the law decides. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. Racism is defined, 'racist behaviour' not so much. A court will decide if someone has been racist. I assume you're happy for other criminals to also be discriminated against? I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Racism is unacceptable. It’s as unacceptable as anything else out there. I wouldn’t want my company to be associated with a racist any more than I’d want it to be associated with a child abuser or a wife beater. Fuck racists, and the horse they rode in on. So anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence or just those who don't sit morally with you? If you read properly, I was picking up on 'racist behaviour', that can be open to interpretation. Those who have been convicted and completed their sentence shouldn’t be a problem to anyone. Racism isn’t a moral stance. It’s abhorrent, and anyone who accepts it is a scumbag. I hope that’s clear enough. So if someone was convicted of a racist offence and completed their sentence they shouldn't be a problem. At least, it sounds like that's what you're saying. That would depend upon whether their sentence had changed their views. If it had, then yes, they’re no problem. If they continue to display racist tendencies, then they can be fucked into a big hat. 'Display racist tendencies' is most definitely open to individual interpretation. It would appear it's really not as simple as you'd like to think it is. We have law that covers racism. Anything else is morality. You want to cancel anyone who you deem to be racist, rather than what the law decides. " I will happily cancel anyone who I deem to be racist, yes. And so should you. Because acceptance of racism is as abhorrent as racism itself. We can argue semantics all you like, but we all know racism when we encounter it. How we respond to it defines us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. Racism is defined, 'racist behaviour' not so much. A court will decide if someone has been racist. I assume you're happy for other criminals to also be discriminated against? I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Racism is unacceptable. It’s as unacceptable as anything else out there. I wouldn’t want my company to be associated with a racist any more than I’d want it to be associated with a child abuser or a wife beater. Fuck racists, and the horse they rode in on. So anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence or just those who don't sit morally with you? If you read properly, I was picking up on 'racist behaviour', that can be open to interpretation. Those who have been convicted and completed their sentence shouldn’t be a problem to anyone. Racism isn’t a moral stance. It’s abhorrent, and anyone who accepts it is a scumbag. I hope that’s clear enough. So if someone was convicted of a racist offence and completed their sentence they shouldn't be a problem. At least, it sounds like that's what you're saying. That would depend upon whether their sentence had changed their views. If it had, then yes, they’re no problem. If they continue to display racist tendencies, then they can be fucked into a big hat. 'Display racist tendencies' is most definitely open to individual interpretation. It would appear it's really not as simple as you'd like to think it is. We have law that covers racism. Anything else is morality. You want to cancel anyone who you deem to be racist, rather than what the law decides. I will happily cancel anyone who I deem to be racist, yes. And so should you. Because acceptance of racism is as abhorrent as racism itself. We can argue semantics all you like, but we all know racism when we encounter it. How we respond to it defines us. " Maybe you shouldn't be telling people what they should think, feel or do. As I said, we have law covering racism. It's not for you to decide who gets cancelled and who doesn't. For me, if someone is found in law to have committed a crime then they should be punished in accordance with that. Some laws have restrictions in life going forward, some don't. Anyone convicted of a crime which doesn't have any restrictions going forward, should be allowed to get on with their life, no questions asked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. Racism is defined, 'racist behaviour' not so much. A court will decide if someone has been racist. I assume you're happy for other criminals to also be discriminated against? I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Racism is unacceptable. It’s as unacceptable as anything else out there. I wouldn’t want my company to be associated with a racist any more than I’d want it to be associated with a child abuser or a wife beater. Fuck racists, and the horse they rode in on. So anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence or just those who don't sit morally with you? If you read properly, I was picking up on 'racist behaviour', that can be open to interpretation. Those who have been convicted and completed their sentence shouldn’t be a problem to anyone. Racism isn’t a moral stance. It’s abhorrent, and anyone who accepts it is a scumbag. I hope that’s clear enough. So if someone was convicted of a racist offence and completed their sentence they shouldn't be a problem. At least, it sounds like that's what you're saying. That would depend upon whether their sentence had changed their views. If it had, then yes, they’re no problem. If they continue to display racist tendencies, then they can be fucked into a big hat. 'Display racist tendencies' is most definitely open to individual interpretation. It would appear it's really not as simple as you'd like to think it is. We have law that covers racism. Anything else is morality. You want to cancel anyone who you deem to be racist, rather than what the law decides. I will happily cancel anyone who I deem to be racist, yes. And so should you. Because acceptance of racism is as abhorrent as racism itself. We can argue semantics all you like, but we all know racism when we encounter it. How we respond to it defines us. Maybe you shouldn't be telling people what they should think, feel or do. As I said, we have law covering racism. It's not for you to decide who gets cancelled and who doesn't. For me, if someone is found in law to have committed a crime then they should be punished in accordance with that. Some laws have restrictions in life going forward, some don't. Anyone convicted of a crime which doesn't have any restrictions going forward, should be allowed to get on with their life, no questions asked. " So only those convicted of racist crimes should be ostracised for racism? You’re letting an awful lot of racists out there believe that their views are acceptable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. Racism is defined, 'racist behaviour' not so much. A court will decide if someone has been racist. I assume you're happy for other criminals to also be discriminated against? I’m not sure what you’re driving at. Racism is unacceptable. It’s as unacceptable as anything else out there. I wouldn’t want my company to be associated with a racist any more than I’d want it to be associated with a child abuser or a wife beater. Fuck racists, and the horse they rode in on. So anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offence or just those who don't sit morally with you? If you read properly, I was picking up on 'racist behaviour', that can be open to interpretation. Those who have been convicted and completed their sentence shouldn’t be a problem to anyone. Racism isn’t a moral stance. It’s abhorrent, and anyone who accepts it is a scumbag. I hope that’s clear enough. So if someone was convicted of a racist offence and completed their sentence they shouldn't be a problem. At least, it sounds like that's what you're saying. That would depend upon whether their sentence had changed their views. If it had, then yes, they’re no problem. If they continue to display racist tendencies, then they can be fucked into a big hat. 'Display racist tendencies' is most definitely open to individual interpretation. It would appear it's really not as simple as you'd like to think it is. We have law that covers racism. Anything else is morality. You want to cancel anyone who you deem to be racist, rather than what the law decides. I will happily cancel anyone who I deem to be racist, yes. And so should you. Because acceptance of racism is as abhorrent as racism itself. We can argue semantics all you like, but we all know racism when we encounter it. How we respond to it defines us. Maybe you shouldn't be telling people what they should think, feel or do. As I said, we have law covering racism. It's not for you to decide who gets cancelled and who doesn't. For me, if someone is found in law to have committed a crime then they should be punished in accordance with that. Some laws have restrictions in life going forward, some don't. Anyone convicted of a crime which doesn't have any restrictions going forward, should be allowed to get on with their life, no questions asked. So only those convicted of racist crimes should be ostracised for racism? You’re letting an awful lot of racists out there believe that their views are acceptable. " You're free to exclude anyone you choose from your personal life. They don't need to be racist for you to decide that. I'm not letting anyone believe their views are acceptable, I'm free to pull them up personally, but that's as much as I can do. Anything else, we have a judicial system in this country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples." It's easy to miss the distinction, but the 2 cases you state above are very different. In the case of the cake shop, they can't refuse a customer on the grounds that the person is gay, but they can refuse an action which is against their religious beliefs. So, if they make a rainbow cake for a straight customer, they cannot refuse to make the same cake for a gay person. They can however refuse to put the words "I support gay marriage" on the cake, as long as they refuse to do that for all customers. The basic point here is that you can refuse to provide a service, but you can't refuse a specific customer. In the case of the B&B owners, their service involves providing a room and a bed for people. They can't provide the service to straight people, but not gay people. That's illegal discrimination. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From Coutts terms and conditions 12.5 We can also close any of your accounts or terminate the Agreement for any other reason on at least 60 days’ notice. Therefore there is no story" Of course, everyone is aware that clause would've been in the terms. The SAR by Nigel Farage and seeing the dossier, definitely makes it a story. Not to mention that NF stated he didn't receive the notice of closure. Coutts have said the following on the matter... "We understand the public concern that the processes for ending a customer relationship, and how that is communicated, are not sufficiently transparent." They added: "We welcome the anticipated HM Treasury recommendations in this area, alongside the ask to prioritise the review of the regulatory rules relating to politically exposed persons. "We look forward to working with the government, the regulator and the wider industry to ensure that universal access to banking is maintained." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. By the definition of racism. What would you believe bigel has said that is racist that would get him removed. I haven’t claimed that Nigel said anything racist. In fact if you’d been paying attention you’d have seen that I explicitly stated that Nigel is too clever to have fallen into that trap. Nigel does have a history of xenophobia though - comments about ‘families of Romanian people moving in next door’ etc. " OK cool no proof Nigels racist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples. It's easy to miss the distinction, but the 2 cases you state above are very different. In the case of the cake shop, they can't refuse a customer on the grounds that the person is gay, but they can refuse an action which is against their religious beliefs. So, if they make a rainbow cake for a straight customer, they cannot refuse to make the same cake for a gay person. They can however refuse to put the words "I support gay marriage" on the cake, as long as they refuse to do that for all customers. The basic point here is that you can refuse to provide a service, but you can't refuse a specific customer. In the case of the B&B owners, their service involves providing a room and a bed for people. They can't provide the service to straight people, but not gay people. That's illegal discrimination." I understand the distinction very well thanks. As usual people on here get fixated on the specifics and lose sight of the wider principles? Why cut out the rest of my post when you quoted it? Here you go... “However, as I pointed out to Feisty, the actual circumstances matter less than the principle that UKIP (and therefore Farage) supported businesses excluding customers on the basis of different values which is what Coutts appears to have done to Farage. It is therefore highly ironic and hypocritical for Farage to kick off. He is basically saying “I support businesses excluding customers if their values do not align with mine but you can’t exclude me just because my values do not align with yours” THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples. It's easy to miss the distinction, but the 2 cases you state above are very different. In the case of the cake shop, they can't refuse a customer on the grounds that the person is gay, but they can refuse an action which is against their religious beliefs. So, if they make a rainbow cake for a straight customer, they cannot refuse to make the same cake for a gay person. They can however refuse to put the words "I support gay marriage" on the cake, as long as they refuse to do that for all customers. The basic point here is that you can refuse to provide a service, but you can't refuse a specific customer. In the case of the B&B owners, their service involves providing a room and a bed for people. They can't provide the service to straight people, but not gay people. That's illegal discrimination." I think _irldn is trying to say nigel a d ukip in 2015 endorsed the bnb actions. However I have found no evidence of this. The only thing I found was from pink news outlet( iirc) claiming a certain portion of a leaflet meant ukip endorsed those actions by the bnb. However reading the sentence pink news quoted. I didn't find it correlated with the claim. This is why I am asking _irldn for the manifesto. I can not find it online anywhere myself. I suspect they've read an article or tweet claiming ukip agreed with the bnbs decision based on their manifesto. But the manifesto quote I read did not agree with that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples. It's easy to miss the distinction, but the 2 cases you state above are very different. In the case of the cake shop, they can't refuse a customer on the grounds that the person is gay, but they can refuse an action which is against their religious beliefs. So, if they make a rainbow cake for a straight customer, they cannot refuse to make the same cake for a gay person. They can however refuse to put the words "I support gay marriage" on the cake, as long as they refuse to do that for all customers. The basic point here is that you can refuse to provide a service, but you can't refuse a specific customer. In the case of the B&B owners, their service involves providing a room and a bed for people. They can't provide the service to straight people, but not gay people. That's illegal discrimination. I think _irldn is trying to say nigel a d ukip in 2015 endorsed the bnb actions. However I have found no evidence of this. The only thing I found was from pink news outlet( iirc) claiming a certain portion of a leaflet meant ukip endorsed those actions by the bnb. However reading the sentence pink news quoted. I didn't find it correlated with the claim. This is why I am asking _irldn for the manifesto. I can not find it online anywhere myself. I suspect they've read an article or tweet claiming ukip agreed with the bnbs decision based on their manifesto. But the manifesto quote I read did not agree with that " SWEET JESUS*...NOT WHAT I AM SAYING! I have not said that UKIP agreed with a specific case. What they did (with those contemporaneous cases as a back drop) was issue a mini manifesto pledging legal protection to Christian business owners and workers who would not want to service customers whose values did not align with theirs. The actual cases themselves are irrelevant. The manifesto pledge is what matters! As I said, some people on here need to pull their head out of the s and look at the bigger picture sometimes instead of getting bogged down in minutiae. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples. It's easy to miss the distinction, but the 2 cases you state above are very different. In the case of the cake shop, they can't refuse a customer on the grounds that the person is gay, but they can refuse an action which is against their religious beliefs. So, if they make a rainbow cake for a straight customer, they cannot refuse to make the same cake for a gay person. They can however refuse to put the words "I support gay marriage" on the cake, as long as they refuse to do that for all customers. The basic point here is that you can refuse to provide a service, but you can't refuse a specific customer. In the case of the B&B owners, their service involves providing a room and a bed for people. They can't provide the service to straight people, but not gay people. That's illegal discrimination. I think _irldn is trying to say nigel a d ukip in 2015 endorsed the bnb actions. However I have found no evidence of this. The only thing I found was from pink news outlet( iirc) claiming a certain portion of a leaflet meant ukip endorsed those actions by the bnb. However reading the sentence pink news quoted. I didn't find it correlated with the claim. This is why I am asking _irldn for the manifesto. I can not find it online anywhere myself. I suspect they've read an article or tweet claiming ukip agreed with the bnbs decision based on their manifesto. But the manifesto quote I read did not agree with that SWEET JESUS*...NOT WHAT I AM SAYING! I have not said that UKIP agreed with a specific case. What they did (with those contemporaneous cases as a back drop) was issue a mini manifesto pledging legal protection to Christian business owners and workers who would not want to service customers whose values did not align with theirs. The actual cases themselves are irrelevant. The manifesto pledge is what matters! As I said, some people on here need to pull their head out of the s and look at the bigger picture sometimes instead of getting bogged down in minutiae." But it doesn't agree. That's tbe point. It's not hypocritical. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. By the definition of racism. What would you believe bigel has said that is racist that would get him removed. I haven’t claimed that Nigel said anything racist. In fact if you’d been paying attention you’d have seen that I explicitly stated that Nigel is too clever to have fallen into that trap. Nigel does have a history of xenophobia though - comments about ‘families of Romanian people moving in next door’ etc. OK cool no proof Nigels racist. " Nigel is too smart to get publicly caught using racist terms. He may be a racist, he may not be. He has publicly stated xenophobic views though, has he not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. By the definition of racism. What would you believe bigel has said that is racist that would get him removed. I haven’t claimed that Nigel said anything racist. In fact if you’d been paying attention you’d have seen that I explicitly stated that Nigel is too clever to have fallen into that trap. Nigel does have a history of xenophobia though - comments about ‘families of Romanian people moving in next door’ etc. OK cool no proof Nigels racist. Nigel is too smart to get publicly caught using racist terms. He may be a racist, he may not be. He has publicly stated xenophobic views though, has he not? " Depends what you would describe as xenophobic. I would say control of border isn't xenophobic. Or marrying a German. Marrying some one from a other country would actively work against the argument for him being xenophobic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. By the definition of racism. What would you believe bigel has said that is racist that would get him removed. I haven’t claimed that Nigel said anything racist. In fact if you’d been paying attention you’d have seen that I explicitly stated that Nigel is too clever to have fallen into that trap. Nigel does have a history of xenophobia though - comments about ‘families of Romanian people moving in next door’ etc. OK cool no proof Nigels racist. Nigel is too smart to get publicly caught using racist terms. He may be a racist, he may not be. He has publicly stated xenophobic views though, has he not? " Weather he is or isn't, it's not that important. He used racism and xenophobia as a political tool. Maybe he grits his teeth when he does, or maybe he really does hold those views personally, who knows. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression." Isn't "virtue signalling" where you pretend to be moral, to look good. Rather than actually being moral, which is what you're suggesting the bank did? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't "virtue signalling" where you pretend to be moral, to look good. Rather than actually being moral, which is what you're suggesting the bank did?" I've always taken the words literally. I use it to mean anyone loudly proclaiming their moral stance, with the intention that others see this and are impressed. I don't think it matters whether they actually have good intentions or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples." "It's easy to miss the distinction, but the 2 cases you state above are very different. In the case of the cake shop, they can't refuse a customer on the grounds that the person is gay, but they can refuse an action which is against their religious beliefs. So, if they make a rainbow cake for a straight customer, they cannot refuse to make the same cake for a gay person. They can however refuse to put the words "I support gay marriage" on the cake, as long as they refuse to do that for all customers. The basic point here is that you can refuse to provide a service, but you can't refuse a specific customer. In the case of the B&B owners, their service involves providing a room and a bed for people. They can't provide the service to straight people, but not gay people. That's illegal discrimination." "I understand the distinction very well thanks. As usual people on here get fixated on the specifics and lose sight of the wider principles? Why cut out the rest of my post when you quoted it? Here you go... “However, as I pointed out to Feisty, the actual circumstances matter less than the principle that UKIP (and therefore Farage) supported businesses excluding customers on the basis of different values which is what Coutts appears to have done to Farage. It is therefore highly ironic and hypocritical for Farage to kick off. He is basically saying “I support businesses excluding customers if their values do not align with mine but you can’t exclude me just because my values do not align with yours” THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy" The problem is that I know what's in my head, but I don't know what's in yours. As far as I know, UKIP supported the cake people and were proposing to write it into law that a service did not have to be provided if said service was against the provider's moral views. I am not aware of UKIP making any statement on the B&B case. If I'm right, there is no hypocrisy in Farage saying that the bank should not withdraw their service from him. I assume that you believe that UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case. If they did, that would show hypocrisy from Farage. We won't know which of us is correct until someone digs up the relevant quotes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. By the definition of racism. What would you believe bigel has said that is racist that would get him removed. I haven’t claimed that Nigel said anything racist. In fact if you’d been paying attention you’d have seen that I explicitly stated that Nigel is too clever to have fallen into that trap. Nigel does have a history of xenophobia though - comments about ‘families of Romanian people moving in next door’ etc. OK cool no proof Nigels racist. Nigel is too smart to get publicly caught using racist terms. He may be a racist, he may not be. He has publicly stated xenophobic views though, has he not? Depends what you would describe as xenophobic. I would say control of border isn't xenophobic. Or marrying a German. Marrying some one from a other country would actively work against the argument for him being xenophobic" His statement about Romanian families moving in next door is undeniably xenophobic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't "virtue signalling" where you pretend to be moral, to look good. Rather than actually being moral, which is what you're suggesting the bank did? I've always taken the words literally. I use it to mean anyone loudly proclaiming their moral stance, with the intention that others see this and are impressed. I don't think it matters whether they actually have good intentions or not." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Amazing how many words are wasted on this. Who gives a flying fuck why some washed-up racist grifter is deemed by a private elitist bank to be too much of a racist grifter to stash the few quid he earns on Cameo in their elite vaults. It's fucking laughable what some people care about. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't "virtue signalling" where you pretend to be moral, to look good. Rather than actually being moral, which is what you're suggesting the bank did? I've always taken the words literally. I use it to mean anyone loudly proclaiming their moral stance, with the intention that others see this and are impressed. I don't think it matters whether they actually have good intentions or not." Then it could be a positive thing. People speaking out about what they genuinely believe in seems good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Coutts bank closed Farage's account because his political views don't allign with their values. What do you think about that. I'm pretty shocked. I'm not a Farage supporter and in fact beleive we should be trying to get back into the EU as soon as possible but Farage isn't a criminal, he hasn't done anything wrong and his political views are pretty much on the right of mainstream politics. Should the bank be allowed to do this? I think its a dangerous thing to allow to go unchecked and hope that there is some form of investigationby the authorities and perhaps even a change in the law if thats necessary to prevent banks and perhaps other institutions enacting this form of political oppression." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't "virtue signalling" where you pretend to be moral, to look good. Rather than actually being moral, which is what you're suggesting the bank did?" "I've always taken the words literally. I use it to mean anyone loudly proclaiming their moral stance, with the intention that others see this and are impressed. I don't think it matters whether they actually have good intentions or not." "Then it could be a positive thing. People speaking out about what they genuinely believe in seems good." The important bit is that virtue signalling is done to impress others with your virtue, so it's a form of bragging, which is always a bad thing. Take Gary Linacre. I think he talks about immigrants because he feels strongly about the issue. I don't think he's trying to impress people with how virtuous he is. I don't agree with his views, but I don't think he's virtue signalling. On the other hand, look at Bob Geldof who regularly pops up to remind us that he organised Live Aid. Yes, he obviously did that for the right reasons, but his constant talking about it serves no purpose other than to remind us that he did a good thing once. That's virtue signalling. You'll be amused to hear that whenever I type 'virtuous', my phone auto-corrects it to 'Boris'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't "virtue signalling" where you pretend to be moral, to look good. Rather than actually being moral, which is what you're suggesting the bank did? I've always taken the words literally. I use it to mean anyone loudly proclaiming their moral stance, with the intention that others see this and are impressed. I don't think it matters whether they actually have good intentions or not. Then it could be a positive thing. People speaking out about what they genuinely believe in seems good. The important bit is that virtue signalling is done to impress others with your virtue, so it's a form of bragging, which is always a bad thing. Take Gary Linacre. I think he talks about immigrants because he feels strongly about the issue. I don't think he's trying to impress people with how virtuous he is. I don't agree with his views, but I don't think he's virtue signalling. On the other hand, look at Bob Geldof who regularly pops up to remind us that he organised Live Aid. Yes, he obviously did that for the right reasons, but his constant talking about it serves no purpose other than to remind us that he did a good thing once. That's virtue signalling. You'll be amused to hear that whenever I type 'virtuous', my phone auto-corrects it to 'Boris'."
Oh okay I see the difference.
Your example is good. Because Gary Lineker gets labelled as a "virtue signaller" often. As does anyone that speaks up, regardless of purpose. Sharing your opinion puts you in the firing line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples. It's easy to miss the distinction, but the 2 cases you state above are very different. In the case of the cake shop, they can't refuse a customer on the grounds that the person is gay, but they can refuse an action which is against their religious beliefs. So, if they make a rainbow cake for a straight customer, they cannot refuse to make the same cake for a gay person. They can however refuse to put the words "I support gay marriage" on the cake, as long as they refuse to do that for all customers. The basic point here is that you can refuse to provide a service, but you can't refuse a specific customer. In the case of the B&B owners, their service involves providing a room and a bed for people. They can't provide the service to straight people, but not gay people. That's illegal discrimination. I understand the distinction very well thanks. As usual people on here get fixated on the specifics and lose sight of the wider principles? Why cut out the rest of my post when you quoted it? Here you go... “However, as I pointed out to Feisty, the actual circumstances matter less than the principle that UKIP (and therefore Farage) supported businesses excluding customers on the basis of different values which is what Coutts appears to have done to Farage. It is therefore highly ironic and hypocritical for Farage to kick off. He is basically saying “I support businesses excluding customers if their values do not align with mine but you can’t exclude me just because my values do not align with yours” THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy The problem is that I know what's in my head, but I don't know what's in yours. As far as I know, UKIP supported the cake people and were proposing to write it into law that a service did not have to be provided if said service was against the provider's moral views. I am not aware of UKIP making any statement on the B&B case. If I'm right, there is no hypocrisy in Farage saying that the bank should not withdraw their service from him. I assume that you believe that UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case. If they did, that would show hypocrisy from Farage. We won't know which of us is correct until someone digs up the relevant quotes." Finding this all quite weird. Why do you assume I believe UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case? Where have I said that? Also did you miss this... “THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy" Remove the bloody cake and B&B cases (which as I said were triggers for UKIP) and focus on UKIP issuing a mini manifesto that said they would support businesses refusing to service customers based on their values. Said it several times now...some people on this site need to lift their heads up and see the bigger picture/wider context/overarching principle and stop focusing on the minutiae or specifics. It is increasingly coming across as an attempt to close down discussions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples. It's easy to miss the distinction, but the 2 cases you state above are very different. In the case of the cake shop, they can't refuse a customer on the grounds that the person is gay, but they can refuse an action which is against their religious beliefs. So, if they make a rainbow cake for a straight customer, they cannot refuse to make the same cake for a gay person. They can however refuse to put the words "I support gay marriage" on the cake, as long as they refuse to do that for all customers. The basic point here is that you can refuse to provide a service, but you can't refuse a specific customer. In the case of the B&B owners, their service involves providing a room and a bed for people. They can't provide the service to straight people, but not gay people. That's illegal discrimination. I understand the distinction very well thanks. As usual people on here get fixated on the specifics and lose sight of the wider principles? Why cut out the rest of my post when you quoted it? Here you go... “However, as I pointed out to Feisty, the actual circumstances matter less than the principle that UKIP (and therefore Farage) supported businesses excluding customers on the basis of different values which is what Coutts appears to have done to Farage. It is therefore highly ironic and hypocritical for Farage to kick off. He is basically saying “I support businesses excluding customers if their values do not align with mine but you can’t exclude me just because my values do not align with yours” THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy The problem is that I know what's in my head, but I don't know what's in yours. As far as I know, UKIP supported the cake people and were proposing to write it into law that a service did not have to be provided if said service was against the provider's moral views. I am not aware of UKIP making any statement on the B&B case. If I'm right, there is no hypocrisy in Farage saying that the bank should not withdraw their service from him. I assume that you believe that UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case. If they did, that would show hypocrisy from Farage. We won't know which of us is correct until someone digs up the relevant quotes. Finding this all quite weird. Why do you assume I believe UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case? Where have I said that? Also did you miss this... “THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy" Remove the bloody cake and B&B cases (which as I said were triggers for UKIP) and focus on UKIP issuing a mini manifesto that said they would support businesses refusing to service customers based on their values. Said it several times now...some people on this site need to lift their heads up and see the bigger picture/wider context/overarching principle and stop focusing on the minutiae or specifics. It is increasingly coming across as an attempt to close down discussions." Do you stop to thunk for a moment that you find it all a bit weird because you're not looking at this objectively? You believe the way you see it is the correct way and are aiming to shut down anyone else's POV. You're the one who used those examples and now want to 'forget' them. If you don't want people to focus on them, maybe don't use them in the first place. I think you should possibly take some of your own advice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m perfectly happy for racists to be discriminated against, personally ... And it's this attitude that does you discredit. The idea that it's fine for someone to be nasty to people that you don't agree with, but people that you like should be protected from that nastiness. A more balanced attitude would be that all persons should be protected from unwarranted discrimination. Racism is defined, and racist behaviour should not be defended nor accommodated. By the definition of racism. What would you believe bigel has said that is racist that would get him removed. I haven’t claimed that Nigel said anything racist. In fact if you’d been paying attention you’d have seen that I explicitly stated that Nigel is too clever to have fallen into that trap. Nigel does have a history of xenophobia though - comments about ‘families of Romanian people moving in next door’ etc. OK cool no proof Nigels racist. Nigel is too smart to get publicly caught using racist terms. He may be a racist, he may not be. He has publicly stated xenophobic views though, has he not? Depends what you would describe as xenophobic. I would say control of border isn't xenophobic. Or marrying a German. Marrying some one from a other country would actively work against the argument for him being xenophobic His statement about Romanian families moving in next door is undeniably xenophobic." Really quote the full statement and what it was I respo se to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples. It's easy to miss the distinction, but the 2 cases you state above are very different. In the case of the cake shop, they can't refuse a customer on the grounds that the person is gay, but they can refuse an action which is against their religious beliefs. So, if they make a rainbow cake for a straight customer, they cannot refuse to make the same cake for a gay person. They can however refuse to put the words "I support gay marriage" on the cake, as long as they refuse to do that for all customers. The basic point here is that you can refuse to provide a service, but you can't refuse a specific customer. In the case of the B&B owners, their service involves providing a room and a bed for people. They can't provide the service to straight people, but not gay people. That's illegal discrimination. I understand the distinction very well thanks. As usual people on here get fixated on the specifics and lose sight of the wider principles? Why cut out the rest of my post when you quoted it? Here you go... “However, as I pointed out to Feisty, the actual circumstances matter less than the principle that UKIP (and therefore Farage) supported businesses excluding customers on the basis of different values which is what Coutts appears to have done to Farage. It is therefore highly ironic and hypocritical for Farage to kick off. He is basically saying “I support businesses excluding customers if their values do not align with mine but you can’t exclude me just because my values do not align with yours” THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy The problem is that I know what's in my head, but I don't know what's in yours. As far as I know, UKIP supported the cake people and were proposing to write it into law that a service did not have to be provided if said service was against the provider's moral views. I am not aware of UKIP making any statement on the B&B case. If I'm right, there is no hypocrisy in Farage saying that the bank should not withdraw their service from him. I assume that you believe that UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case. If they did, that would show hypocrisy from Farage. We won't know which of us is correct until someone digs up the relevant quotes. Finding this all quite weird. Why do you assume I believe UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case? Where have I said that? Also did you miss this... “THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy" Remove the bloody cake and B&B cases (which as I said were triggers for UKIP) and focus on UKIP issuing a mini manifesto that said they would support businesses refusing to service customers based on their values. Said it several times now...some people on this site need to lift their heads up and see the bigger picture/wider context/overarching principle and stop focusing on the minutiae or specifics. It is increasingly coming across as an attempt to close down discussions. Do you stop to thunk for a moment that you find it all a bit weird because you're not looking at this objectively? You believe the way you see it is the correct way and are aiming to shut down anyone else's POV. You're the one who used those examples and now want to 'forget' them. If you don't want people to focus on them, maybe don't use them in the first place. I think you should possibly take some of your own advice "Lolz maybe. Still think the point is clear and those cases provided context and following the link and search terms I provided gave sufficient understanding and showed how the cases mentioned were the trigger for the UKIP policy. Farage is being hypocritical. Past policy of UKIP shows that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples." "It's easy to miss the distinction, but the 2 cases you state above are very different. In the case of the cake shop, they can't refuse a customer on the grounds that the person is gay, but they can refuse an action which is against their religious beliefs. So, if they make a rainbow cake for a straight customer, they cannot refuse to make the same cake for a gay person. They can however refuse to put the words "I support gay marriage" on the cake, as long as they refuse to do that for all customers. The basic point here is that you can refuse to provide a service, but you can't refuse a specific customer. In the case of the B&B owners, their service involves providing a room and a bed for people. They can't provide the service to straight people, but not gay people. That's illegal discrimination." "I understand the distinction very well thanks. As usual people on here get fixated on the specifics and lose sight of the wider principles? Why cut out the rest of my post when you quoted it? Here you go... “However, as I pointed out to Feisty, the actual circumstances matter less than the principle that UKIP (and therefore Farage) supported businesses excluding customers on the basis of different values which is what Coutts appears to have done to Farage. It is therefore highly ironic and hypocritical for Farage to kick off. He is basically saying “I support businesses excluding customers if their values do not align with mine but you can’t exclude me just because my values do not align with yours” THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy" "The problem is that I know what's in my head, but I don't know what's in yours. As far as I know, UKIP supported the cake people and were proposing to write it into law that a service did not have to be provided if said service was against the provider's moral views. I am not aware of UKIP making any statement on the B&B case. If I'm right, there is no hypocrisy in Farage saying that the bank should not withdraw their service from him. I assume that you believe that UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case. If they did, that would show hypocrisy from Farage. We won't know which of us is correct until someone digs up the relevant quotes." "Finding this all quite weird. Why do you assume I believe UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case? Where have I said that?" I am assuming that because you keep talking about hypocrisy. If UKIP has supported the B&B case, there would be hypocrisy. If not, I'm struggling to see where the hypocrisy is. "Also did you miss this... “THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy" Remove the bloody cake and B&B cases (which as I said were triggers for UKIP) and focus on UKIP issuing a mini manifesto that said they would support businesses refusing to service customers based on their values. Said it several times now...some people on this site need to lift their heads up and see the bigger picture/wider context/overarching principle and stop focusing on the minutiae or specifics. It is increasingly coming across as an attempt to close down discussions." You keep using the words "they would support businesses refusing to service customers based on their values". I think that what actually happened was that UKIP said they supported a business' right to choose what services it would provide. They didn't say that they thought businesses should have the right to choose which customers to serve. Refusing to provide a service because of your company values is a reasonable thing for a business to do. If Coutts announced that they would stop providing accounts to all ex-politicians, it would be hypocritical of Farage to say that they shouldn't have that choice. But the recent action by Coutts is not a refusal of a service, it's a refusal to serve one specific customer. Farage is right to complain about this, and it's not hypocritical to say that they shouldn't get away with discrimination. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples. It's easy to miss the distinction, but the 2 cases you state above are very different. In the case of the cake shop, they can't refuse a customer on the grounds that the person is gay, but they can refuse an action which is against their religious beliefs. So, if they make a rainbow cake for a straight customer, they cannot refuse to make the same cake for a gay person. They can however refuse to put the words "I support gay marriage" on the cake, as long as they refuse to do that for all customers. The basic point here is that you can refuse to provide a service, but you can't refuse a specific customer. In the case of the B&B owners, their service involves providing a room and a bed for people. They can't provide the service to straight people, but not gay people. That's illegal discrimination. I understand the distinction very well thanks. As usual people on here get fixated on the specifics and lose sight of the wider principles? Why cut out the rest of my post when you quoted it? Here you go... “However, as I pointed out to Feisty, the actual circumstances matter less than the principle that UKIP (and therefore Farage) supported businesses excluding customers on the basis of different values which is what Coutts appears to have done to Farage. It is therefore highly ironic and hypocritical for Farage to kick off. He is basically saying “I support businesses excluding customers if their values do not align with mine but you can’t exclude me just because my values do not align with yours” THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy The problem is that I know what's in my head, but I don't know what's in yours. As far as I know, UKIP supported the cake people and were proposing to write it into law that a service did not have to be provided if said service was against the provider's moral views. I am not aware of UKIP making any statement on the B&B case. If I'm right, there is no hypocrisy in Farage saying that the bank should not withdraw their service from him. I assume that you believe that UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case. If they did, that would show hypocrisy from Farage. We won't know which of us is correct until someone digs up the relevant quotes. Finding this all quite weird. Why do you assume I believe UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case? Where have I said that? Also did you miss this... “THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy" Remove the bloody cake and B&B cases (which as I said were triggers for UKIP) and focus on UKIP issuing a mini manifesto that said they would support businesses refusing to service customers based on their values. Said it several times now...some people on this site need to lift their heads up and see the bigger picture/wider context/overarching principle and stop focusing on the minutiae or specifics. It is increasingly coming across as an attempt to close down discussions. Do you stop to thunk for a moment that you find it all a bit weird because you're not looking at this objectively? You believe the way you see it is the correct way and are aiming to shut down anyone else's POV. You're the one who used those examples and now want to 'forget' them. If you don't want people to focus on them, maybe don't use them in the first place. I think you should possibly take some of your own advice
Lolz maybe. Still think the point is clear and those cases provided context and following the link and search terms I provided gave sufficient understanding and showed how the cases mentioned were the trigger for the UKIP policy. Farage is being hypocritical. Past policy of UKIP shows that."As you know I don't agree with using these examples as showing Farage as a hypocrite. The policy was offering 'religious protection' from what I know, not any old 'I don't like your views'. Anyway, the point was, your getting wound up because you refuse to accept that people may see things differently to you. A few have disagreed with you but no one has tried to shut down your POV | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples. It's easy to miss the distinction, but the 2 cases you state above are very different. In the case of the cake shop, they can't refuse a customer on the grounds that the person is gay, but they can refuse an action which is against their religious beliefs. So, if they make a rainbow cake for a straight customer, they cannot refuse to make the same cake for a gay person. They can however refuse to put the words "I support gay marriage" on the cake, as long as they refuse to do that for all customers. The basic point here is that you can refuse to provide a service, but you can't refuse a specific customer. In the case of the B&B owners, their service involves providing a room and a bed for people. They can't provide the service to straight people, but not gay people. That's illegal discrimination. I understand the distinction very well thanks. As usual people on here get fixated on the specifics and lose sight of the wider principles? Why cut out the rest of my post when you quoted it? Here you go... “However, as I pointed out to Feisty, the actual circumstances matter less than the principle that UKIP (and therefore Farage) supported businesses excluding customers on the basis of different values which is what Coutts appears to have done to Farage. It is therefore highly ironic and hypocritical for Farage to kick off. He is basically saying “I support businesses excluding customers if their values do not align with mine but you can’t exclude me just because my values do not align with yours” THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy The problem is that I know what's in my head, but I don't know what's in yours. As far as I know, UKIP supported the cake people and were proposing to write it into law that a service did not have to be provided if said service was against the provider's moral views. I am not aware of UKIP making any statement on the B&B case. If I'm right, there is no hypocrisy in Farage saying that the bank should not withdraw their service from him. I assume that you believe that UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case. If they did, that would show hypocrisy from Farage. We won't know which of us is correct until someone digs up the relevant quotes. Finding this all quite weird. Why do you assume I believe UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case? Where have I said that? I am assuming that because you keep talking about hypocrisy. If UKIP has supported the B&B case, there would be hypocrisy. If not, I'm struggling to see where the hypocrisy is. Also did you miss this... “THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy" Remove the bloody cake and B&B cases (which as I said were triggers for UKIP) and focus on UKIP issuing a mini manifesto that said they would support businesses refusing to service customers based on their values. Said it several times now...some people on this site need to lift their heads up and see the bigger picture/wider context/overarching principle and stop focusing on the minutiae or specifics. It is increasingly coming across as an attempt to close down discussions. You keep using the words "they would support businesses refusing to service customers based on their values". I think that what actually happened was that UKIP said they supported a business' right to choose what services it would provide. They didn't say that they thought businesses should have the right to choose which customers to serve. Refusing to provide a service because of your company values is a reasonable thing for a business to do. If Coutts announced that they would stop providing accounts to all ex-politicians, it would be hypocritical of Farage to say that they shouldn't have that choice. But the recent action by Coutts is not a refusal of a service, it's a refusal to serve one specific customer. Farage is right to complain about this, and it's not hypocritical to say that they shouldn't get away with discrimination." I don’t see the distinction you seem to see. 1. A christian run business, let’s say a B&B, decides that it is against their values to support homosexuality or gay marriage so they decide they will not provide accommodation for gay couples. UKIP said they would provide legal protection for that decision if they were in govt. 2. A business, let’s say a bank, decides they do not want to provide services, say an account, because the customer holds values they do not agree with. The former UKIP leader doesn’t agree. I see hypocrisy. It seems you and a couple of others do not. So be it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""We will ... extend the legal concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to give protection in law to those expressing a religious conscience in the workplace on this issue" UKIP published that in April 2015 following the row over a bakery run by Christians that refused a customer’s request to make a cake bearing a slogan supporting gay marriage. There had at the time also been several cases of Christian B&B owners refusing to accommodate gay couples. It's easy to miss the distinction, but the 2 cases you state above are very different. In the case of the cake shop, they can't refuse a customer on the grounds that the person is gay, but they can refuse an action which is against their religious beliefs. So, if they make a rainbow cake for a straight customer, they cannot refuse to make the same cake for a gay person. They can however refuse to put the words "I support gay marriage" on the cake, as long as they refuse to do that for all customers. The basic point here is that you can refuse to provide a service, but you can't refuse a specific customer. In the case of the B&B owners, their service involves providing a room and a bed for people. They can't provide the service to straight people, but not gay people. That's illegal discrimination. I understand the distinction very well thanks. As usual people on here get fixated on the specifics and lose sight of the wider principles? Why cut out the rest of my post when you quoted it? Here you go... “However, as I pointed out to Feisty, the actual circumstances matter less than the principle that UKIP (and therefore Farage) supported businesses excluding customers on the basis of different values which is what Coutts appears to have done to Farage. It is therefore highly ironic and hypocritical for Farage to kick off. He is basically saying “I support businesses excluding customers if their values do not align with mine but you can’t exclude me just because my values do not align with yours” THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy The problem is that I know what's in my head, but I don't know what's in yours. As far as I know, UKIP supported the cake people and were proposing to write it into law that a service did not have to be provided if said service was against the provider's moral views. I am not aware of UKIP making any statement on the B&B case. If I'm right, there is no hypocrisy in Farage saying that the bank should not withdraw their service from him. I assume that you believe that UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case. If they did, that would show hypocrisy from Farage. We won't know which of us is correct until someone digs up the relevant quotes. Finding this all quite weird. Why do you assume I believe UKIP explicitly supported the B&B case? Where have I said that? Also did you miss this... “THAT is the point. Not a tangential conversation about the specifics of the example given. It is the hypocrisy" Remove the bloody cake and B&B cases (which as I said were triggers for UKIP) and focus on UKIP issuing a mini manifesto that said they would support businesses refusing to service customers based on their values. Said it several times now...some people on this site need to lift their heads up and see the bigger picture/wider context/overarching principle and stop focusing on the minutiae or specifics. It is increasingly coming across as an attempt to close down discussions. Do you stop to thunk for a moment that you find it all a bit weird because you're not looking at this objectively? You believe the way you see it is the correct way and are aiming to shut down anyone else's POV. You're the one who used those examples and now want to 'forget' them. If you don't want people to focus on them, maybe don't use them in the first place. I think you should possibly take some of your own advice
Lolz maybe. Still think the point is clear and those cases provided context and following the link and search terms I provided gave sufficient understanding and showed how the cases mentioned were the trigger for the UKIP policy. Farage is being hypocritical. Past policy of UKIP shows that.
As you know I don't agree with using these examples as showing Farage as a hypocrite.
The policy was offering 'religious protection' from what I know, not any old 'I don't like your views'.
Anyway, the point was, your getting wound up because you refuse to accept that people may see things differently to you. A few have disagreed with you but no one has tried to shut down your POV "Maybe not. But you are all wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
