Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: jeremyp on July 02, 2023, 09:44:09 AM
-
What is going on? Nige is complaining that he is being persecuted for supporting Brexit.
-
What is going on? Nige is complaining that he is being persecuted for supporting Brexit.
He was supporting Brexit a decade ago, but they've decided to close his accounts now? Or, given recent events, is it more likely that they've found links to something Russian?
O.
-
He was supporting Brexit a decade ago, but they've decided to close his accounts now? Or, given recent events, is it more likely that they've found links to something Russian?
O.
Something to do with money from RT, I think.
-
Hmmm... another 'dodgy dossier'?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66247057
-
Love seeing him cry on Twitter about this. I wonder if I could bottle his tears?
-
Love seeing him cry on Twitter about this. I wonder if I could bottle his tears?
The problem is that if he has had the account closed for the reasons explained, it's quite scary.
-
Hmmm... another 'dodgy dossier'?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66247057
“ Apparently, I'm a risk to them. I have virtually no links of any kind to Russia whatsoever. ”
Virtually no links? That means some links.
-
“ Apparently, I'm a risk to them. I have virtually no links of any kind to Russia whatsoever. ”
Virtually no links? That means some links.
And? If, and I emphasise the if, the dossier has been compiled by Coutts, then they've spent time assessing him retweeting a tweet by Ricky Gervais, and being friendly with Novak Djokovic.
In addition, if the briefing from those involved to the BBC simoly stated that it was due to lack of funds, then the dossier in its entirety, including anything about Russian links, is for what?
-
And?
Farage is admitting there that he has links with a country that is currently attempting to erase the existence of another sovereign state. I don't think he should have done that.
Farage admitted that his bank account doesn't technically meet Coutt's requirements and hasn't for a while. They were basically letting him keep it as a favour. That means they can withdraw the favour at any time and for whatever reason.
-
Farage is admitting there that he has links with a country that is currently attempting to erase the existence of another sovereign state. I don't think he should have done that.
Farage admitted that his bank account doesn't technically meet Coutt's requirements and hasn't for a while. They were basically letting him keep it as a favour. That means they can withdraw the favour at any time and for whatever reason.
So what is the point of the dossier? And what relevance is whatever links Farage has to Russia if they are not related to the reason for the withdrawal of the account?
-
So what is the point of the dossier?
Having read it, it looks like an internal report documenting their assessment of Farage's suitability as a customer.
And what relevance is whatever links Farage has to Russia if they are not related to the reason for the withdrawal of the account?
Farage's links to Russia, which is a gangster state, pose an obvious risk.
-
The Coop bank once denied me its services. I'm sure it was because I was a member of the Labour Party.
Seriously, are we really being sucked in by Nige's claim to martyrdom?
Banks have been refusing services to people for the last decade and not a peep out of the politicians - but now Nige's feelings are hurt we're all shouting slippery slope. Do me a favour. The slippery slope has been there for ordinary people for a long time.
https://tinyurl.com/Hefaraggo
I note Natwest have apologised to Farage. Howabout everyone else, or is it only high profile twats that get an apology?
-
Somebody else on another forum characterised the dossier as
It's not
"Nigel Farage can't have one of our accounts because he is an *******"
but rather:
"Nigel Farage can't have one of our accounts because he paid off the loan and doesn't have enough in the account AND BY THE WAY he is an *******".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14123168#post14123168
-
I think Rose's resignation was inevitable once she admitted she was the source of the BBC report
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66309080
-
The Coop bank once denied me its services. I'm sure it was because I was a member of the Labour Party.
The Co op once spoke to me of their virtuous attitude concerning allowing anyone a current account. Their Cashminder current account is their basic account available to supposedly everyone whose credit rating is compromised in some way (as mine was over the late payment of a water bill). I got an account with no problem, but they strenuously refused one to a friend of mine, who may have been a bit wayward, but certainly no criminal.
I think bank employees make their rules up as they go along, and certainly high ranking officials would have no qualms in doing so. I shed no tears for Fartage, but the basic details of this episode sound a bit dodgy.
-
Newsthump apologising in its own inimitable way:
https://newsthump.com/2023/07/26/newsthump-issues-formal-apology-in-light-of-latest-nigel-farage-revelations/
-
Hmmm....
https://archive.vn/uIchu
-
Newsthump apologising in its own inimitable way:
https://newsthump.com/2023/07/26/newsthump-issues-formal-apology-in-light-of-latest-nigel-farage-revelations/
The worst thing about this whole affair is that Farage seems to have won even though he was wrong and people have apologised to him.
-
Be interesting to see what Farage says about this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66328098
-
Something that concerns me a little over this is the issue of double standards.
Soon the Farage case, the key issue seems to be that someone should not be denied a service (in this case banking) on the basis of their legitimate political opinions. Yet this didn't seem to apply in the Asher's cake case when the bakery denied a service (producing a cake) because they disagreed with the legitimate political opinions of the people wanting that service. Why is that different - seems in both cases people were being denied a service because of the political opinions they held, but the latter was deemed OK cos of religion!?!
To an extent there is a clearer case for reputational damage in the banking. Presumably had Ashers made the cake there would have been no requirement for them to add their logo etc and frankly the cake would be gone in days so no real likelihood that they'd be somehow linked to the people with the political opinions and by inference the opinions themselves. Not the case for banking where every time Farage used his debit card Coutts would be clearly linked with Farage.
-
Something that concerns me a little over this is the issue of double standards.
Soon the Farage case, the key issue seems to be that someone should not be denied a service (in this case banking) on the basis of their legitimate political opinions. Yet this didn't seem to apply in the Asher's cake case when the bakery denied a service (producing a cake) because they disagreed with the legitimate political opinions of the people wanting that service. Why is that different - seems in both cases people were being denied a service because of the political opinions they held, but the latter was deemed OK cos of religion!?!
To an extent there is a clearer case for reputational damage in the banking. Presumably had Ashers made the cake there would have been no requirement for them to add their logo etc and frankly the cake would be gone in days so no real likelihood that they'd be somehow linked to the people with the political opinions and by inference the opinions themselves. Not the case for banking where every time Farage used his debit card Coutts would be clearly linked with Farage.
The equivalent would be Asher's refusing to make a cake because of the views of those asking for it to be made
Had they done so, they wouldn't have been successful.
-
Something that concerns me a little over this is the issue of double standards.
Soon the Farage case, the key issue seems to be that someone should not be denied a service (in this case banking) on the basis of their legitimate political opinions. Yet this didn't seem to apply in the Asher's cake case when the bakery denied a service (producing a cake) because they disagreed with the legitimate political opinions of the people wanting that service. Why is that different - seems in both cases people were being denied a service because of the political opinions they held, but the latter was deemed OK cos of religion!?!
To an extent there is a clearer case for reputational damage in the banking. Presumably had Ashers made the cake there would have been no requirement for them to add their logo etc and frankly the cake would be gone in days so no real likelihood that they'd be somehow linked to the people with the political opinions and by inference the opinions themselves. Not the case for banking where every time Farage used his debit card Coutts would be clearly linked with Farage.
The issue is fundamentally different. Asher's refused to bake a cake with a message on it supporting gay marriage. The sexual orientation and political opinions of the person who asked for it was irrelevant.
Nigel Farage isn't asking the banks to put out messages supporting his views, he just wants them to give him a bank account. If political views were protected characteristics, he would be within his rights to complain (not to Coutt's because he also didn't meet their financial requirements).
-
The issue is fundamentally different. Asher's refused to bake a cake with a message on it supporting gay marriage. The sexual orientation and political opinions of the person who asked for it was irrelevant.
Nigel Farage isn't asking the banks to put out messages supporting his views, he just wants them to give him a bank account. If political views were protected characteristics, he would be within his rights to complain (not to Coutt's because he also didn't meet their financial requirements).
I'm not really sure they are fundamentally different in principle. In effect both involved a person being refused a service because of their political opinions. I think it is pretty clear that someone asking for a cake supporting gay marriage is doing so because they ... err ... support gay marriage. And I don't think Ashers had a policy of refusing to bake any cake with a message that is a political belief - so the reason they refused in this case was because they disagreed with the political belief of the person asking for the service.
-
I'm not really sure they are fundamentally different in principle. In effect both involved a person being refused a service because of their political opinions. I think it is pretty clear that someone asking for a cake supporting gay marriage is doing so because they ... err ... support gay marriage. And I don't think Ashers had a policy of refusing to bake any cake with a message that is a political belief - so the reason they refused in this case was because they disagreed with the political belief of the person asking for the service.
Except that that is explicitlt not what tha case is based on.
-
Except that that is explicitlt not what tha case is based on.
I'm not really talking about the case per se (which was about discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation) but on the general principle - but there does seem to be double standards. Perhaps in the Ashers cake case they should have made a case on the basis of discrimination on the grounds of belief rather than on the grounds of sexual orientation.
-
If political views were protected characteristics, he would be within his rights to complain (not to Coutt's because he also didn't meet their financial requirements).
Political beliefs are protected characteristics under the Equality Act provided they meet the threshold that is meant to apply to all beliefs on equality grounds (albeit religious beliefs tend to be nodded through without much consideration).
-
I'm not really sure they are fundamentally different in principle. In effect both involved a person being refused a service because of their political opinions.
No. The Asher's case is explicitly not that. They refused to bake the cake because it had a message on it supporting gay marriage.
I think it is pretty clear that someone asking for a cake supporting gay marriage is doing so because they ... err ... support gay marriage.
Not necessarily. Somebody who was against gay marriage might order the cake for their gay friends because they put their friendship above their political views.
And I don't think Ashers had a policy of refusing to bake any cake with a message that is a political belief - so the reason they refused in this case was because they disagreed with the political belief of the person asking for the service.
They disagreed with the political belief they were being asked to put on the cake, not because of the beliefs of the person making the order.
-
I'm not really talking about the case per se (which was about discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation) but on the general principle - but there does seem to be double standards. Perhaps in the Ashers cake case they should have made a case on the basis of discrimination on the grounds of belief rather than on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Nope, wouldn't have worked either. Given you jave decided to ignore the law, the principle is still different as one involves enforced speech.
-
No. The Asher's case is explicitly not that. They refused to bake the cake because it had a message on it supporting gay marriage.
Asked for by a person who supported gay marriage.
Presumably they have been perfectly happy to make a cake for someone who opposed gay marriage - for example with the message 'Marriage is between one man and one woman'.
It isn't the cake they were discriminating against, but the person on the basis of that person's political belief.
-
Nope, wouldn't have worked either. Given you jave decided to ignore the law, the principle is still different as one involves enforced speech.
Given that it hasn't been challenged in the courts, I don't think you can be sure a case of that nature wouldn't have worked.
It seems to me that in both the Farage case and the cake case that the people in question were refused a service because the organisation in question didn't like their political views, when they'd have been happy to offer a similar service to someone else holding a different view.
-
Asked for by a person who supported gay marriage.
Presumably they have been perfectly happy to make a cake for someone who opposed gay marriage - for example with the message 'Marriage is between one man and one woman'.
It isn't the cake they were discriminating against, but the person on the basis of that person's political belief.
A baker could, of course, refuse to make cake with the message 'Marriage is between one man and one woman' if they disagreed with it. The principle here is about endorsing political views.
-
They disagreed with the political belief they were being asked to put on the cake, not because of the beliefs of the person making the order.
I don't think you can decouple the two things so easily.
And in the Farage case we have been told (probably correctly) that the job of a company when offering a service isn't to make judgements about political opinions.
-
Political beliefs are protected characteristics under the Equality Act provided they meet the threshold that is meant to apply to all beliefs on equality grounds (albeit religious beliefs tend to be nodded through without much consideration).
OK I stand corrected.
Looking at the criteria, Farage's beliefs about Brexit would probably be protected but I'm fine with that: I don't think Farage should be refused a bank account on the grounds of his politics.
-
Given that it hasn't been challenged in the courts, I don't think you can be sure a case of that nature wouldn't have worked.
It seems to me that in both the Farage case and the cake case that the people in question were refused a service because the organisation in question didn't like their political views, when they'd have been happy to offer a similar service to someone else holding a different view.
That's because you seem ignorant the question of competing rights.
-
Asked for by a person who supported gay marriage.
Which is irrelevant to their refusal.
Presumably they have been perfectly happy to make a cake for someone who opposed gay marriage - for example with the message 'Marriage is between one man and one woman'.
Which is irrelevant to their refusal.
It isn't the cake they were discriminating against, but the person on the basis of that person's political belief.
They weren't discriminating against anybody: they wouldn't have baked that cake for anybody no matter their personal opinions about gay marriage or anything else. They were exercising freedom of speech.
-
A baker could, of course, refuse to make cake with the message 'Marriage is between one man and one woman' if they disagreed with it. The principle here is about endorsing political views.
A company baking a cake for someone as a commercial transition isn't about endorsing views. I doubt they think Aunty Mabel is the best Aunty in the world and they certainly aren't endorsing that view if they make a cake with that on for her nephew.
-
A company baking a cake for someone as a commercial transition isn't about endorsing views. I doubt they think Aunty Mabel is the best Aunty in the world and they certainly aren't endorsing that view if they make a cake with that on for her nephew.
If they knew Aunty Mabel and they knew she was a cantankerous old cow, they'd be perfectly within their rights not to bake the cake.
-
If they knew Aunty Mabel and they knew she was a cantankerous old cow, they'd be perfectly within their rights not to bake the cake.
The point was about whether they are endorsing the message on the cake when they make it - they clearly aren't. They are a commercial organisation providing a service.
-
The point was about whether they are endorsing the message on the cake when they make it - they clearly aren't.
That's your opinion. It's not the opinion of Asher's bakers.
They are a commercial organisation providing a service.
So? That doesn't abrogate the right of free speech within the law.
-
A company baking a cake for someone as a commercial transition isn't about endorsing views. I doubt they think Aunty Mabel is the best Aunty in the world and they certainly aren't endorsing that view if they make a cake with that on for her nephew.
Which is not a political message so false equivalence.
-
Which is not a political message so false equivalence.
True - but not helpful to the argument on the basis that the political beliefs of an individual are protected under Equality legislation, but I doubt a hyperbolic opinion about Aunty Mabel would probably not reach the threshold for protection as a belief.
-
True - but not helpful to the argument on the basis that the political beliefs of an individual are protected under Equality legislation, but I doubt a hyperbolic opinion about Aunty Mabel would probably not reach the threshold for protection as a belief.
You are confused. The point is about Asher's right to their political beliefs.
-
That's your opinion. It's not the opinion of Asher's bakers.
The claim was against the company, not against individuals. Do companies hold political opinions? Should they? I don't expect a Bakery to be in the business to preferring political opinions. That seems to be the view in the Farage case - that the bank should be in the business of offering banking serviced, not involved in policing political opinions of potential customers.
So? That doesn't abrogate the right of free speech within the law.
Does a company benefit from the right to free speech in the manner that an individual does?
-
The claim was against the company, not against individuals. Do companies hold political opinions? Should they? I don't expect a Bakery to be in the business to preferring political opinions. That seems to be the view in the Farage case - that the bank should be in the business of offering banking serviced, not involved in policing political opinions of potential customers.
Does a company benefit from the right to free speech in the manner that an individual does?
So you think employees should just obey orders. Bit dictatorial of you.
-
You are confused. The point is about Asher's right to their political beliefs.
Does a company have the right to political beliefs NS? Does that trump the rights of individuals not to suffer discrimination. If they do we are in big trouble - and again comparing with Farage - the whole point seems to be that the company (in this case the bank) should not refuse a service to a person even if the company (or individuals in that company) held different political opinions.
You and Jeremy seem rather confused about the rights and responsibilities of individuals and organisations (such as companies).
-
So you think employees should just obey orders. Bit dictatorial of you.
Did Ashers ask all their employees to check whether all felt so strongly about the message that they couldn't, in conscience, make the cake. I don't think so. And if they ended up with a situation where they were only employing people with a particular belief, then I think there is another equality issue going on there.
-
Does a company have the right to political beliefs NS? Does that trump the rights of individuals not to suffer discrimination. If they do we are in big trouble - and again comparing with Farage - the whole point seems to be that the company (in this case the bank) should not refuse a service to a person even if the company (or individuals in that company) held different political opinions.
You and Jeremy seem rather confused about the rights and responsibilities of individuals and organisations (such as companies).
Given that Jeremy and I are backed up by the legal case, it would appear that you are the one who is confused. Companies have the legal fiction of being persons for the sake of making law feasible, and in doing so to protect individuals. Why do you want to tell individuals to produce politocal statements they don't believe?
-
Given that Jeremy and I are backed up by the legal case, it would appear that you are the one who is confused.
Which legal case - as far as I'm aware Ashers were never taken to court on the basis of discrimination on the grounds of belief. I am speculating about what might have happened if they were and comparing to the current Farage situation, which is also about discrimination on the basis of political belief, but there has been no legal case (yet) in the Farage situation.
-
The claim was against the company, not against individuals.
The proprietor of the company is an individual and he didn't want his company associated with the message.
Do companies hold political opinions? Should they? I don't expect a Bakery to be in the business to preferring political opinions. That seems to be the view in the Farage case - that the bank should be in the business of offering banking serviced, not involved in policing political opinions of potential customers.
I do not find this controversial.
Does a company benefit from the right to free speech in the manner that an individual does?
Well Asher's Bakers did and they ultimately won their legal case.
-
Which legal case - as far as I'm aware Ashers were never taken to court on the basis of discrimination on the grounds of belief. I am speculating about what might have happened if they were and comparing to the current Farage situation, which is also about discrimination on the basis of political belief, but there has been no legal case (yet) in the Farage situation.
So your claiming that Jeremy and I are confused because we don't agred with your decision of what would happen in a case that didn't occur. Ok....
-
Which legal case
This one
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759
-
This one
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759
And if you follow the link
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0020.html
it makes clear political views were considered.
-
And if you follow the link
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0020.html
it makes clear political views were considered.
Yes - I stand corrected - I've just read the judgment.
However I think there is a particular Northern Ireland flavour to this, as much of the judgement related to specific NI provisions in the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. So would be interesting to know whether there would have been a similar judgement were this to have taken place in other parts of the UK.
-
So your claiming that Jeremy and I are confused because we don't agred with your decision of what would happen in a case that didn't occur. Ok....
No you seem confused regarding the difference between an individual and an organisation (e.g. a company).
-
No you seem confused regarding the difference between an individual and an organisation (e.g. a company).
and again you are always making this mistake.
-
and again you are always making this mistake.
In what way - the law treats individuals and organisations differently. The Equality act applies to individual, protecting them against being treated less favourably on the basis of certain protected characteristics. That does not apply to organisations as that do not exhibit the characteristics that are protected.
-
.
-
The Financial Conduct Authority says there is no evidence politicians are having their bank account closed for their views. Nigel Farage is upset.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66851909
-
Independent review says there were serious failings by Nat West
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67236693
Nigel Farage is upset.
-
Independent review says there were serious failings by Nat West
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67236693
Nigel Farage is upset.
Perhaps there could be play 'Nigel Farage is Upset' like Jeffrey Bernard is Unwell