You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
You quote TJ who still can’t remember (like always) his source for his IIRC.
I put the IIRC to make it clear I am doing it from memory because I cannot be bothered checking sources. Not because I don't remember them.
Once again, he has not been de-banked because of his personal views, Nat West are happy to offer him a bank account.
I'm going to disagree on this. I know that's different to what i said before but part of debate includes listening to and considering other's points, which in this case I think are right.
The docs from Coutts refer heavily to his views which 'do not align with the banks purpose and values' and that has been a factor (but not the only factor) in closing his account. If they'd only stuck with the effort to reward profile they'd be on very solid ground. He has been debanked by Coutts, that Natwest own them and have offered a replacement account doesn't change that in my mind.
It also seems pretty clear that there are others (Wings over Scotland, the anti-Pride vicar) that have had accounts cancelled for their views. FWIW Gina Miller is a red herring, hers is/was a Monzo account that shouldn't have been opened for a political party.
So the issue then is whether you should be allowed to refuse to deal with someone because of them / their views; whether that is different if that is a protected characteristic; and whether political beliefs are a protected characteristic.
That's where I struggle - as I said before I try to be Voltaire but there are some views that really stretch my ability to live that desire. Back to the case in point - Farage's support for Brexit doesn't trigger me (enough); his racist and xenophobic actions do.
So I don't know whether monkeyc should be allowed to refuse to serve Farage or not. Head says no, heart says yes, but then the balance of that is whether I'd accept the reverse.
@theotherjohnv
That's the most thoughtful response I've ever received on here, especially considering the contention surrounding the topic in question.
I didn't realise that LGBA was set up at Tufton St. Ordinarily that would be a red flag for me, as would taking seriously anything said on GB News or in the Mail etc. As I said, I found myself there because they actually interviewed Denise, they gave her a voice and provided context where the Guardian hadn't.
Kimbers comment was interesting- 'they literally reported the judges verdict on her victory & her statement after the judgement'.
For Kimbers, the accurate reporting of the verdict and Denises response was enough, for me it wasn't. The Guardian reported accurately the outcome of the case but gave no real history or context. In order to know more I had no choice other than to go to outlets that were reporting in depth.
Perhaps that's what LGBA found too, that they couldn't get support or a voice in mainstream or left wing media so ended up having to do a deal with the devil in order to be heard?
I'd like to emphasise that Denise didn't come to this as a supporter of LGBA, she was questioning what she though was an unethical, unilateral decision by a director in a group meeting (which is why I see a relevance to this thread topic).
Her issue at the time was separate and unrelated to the charity status of LGBA, in your post you said that you would have challenged her on that too. I'm not even sure that she was aware of the charity status issue, or even the nature of LGBA at the time of the meeting that started all this.. Her issue was one of due process.
This issue is being played out within a left / right culture war, when in reality it is a philosophical question about the nature of things as well as questions surrounding tolerance, (your Voltaire quote.)
Foucault's said that things have no 'essence', they are what is projected upon them and what happens to them. I'm paraphrasing but I understand that as we are what we become, we don't become what we are.
Hegel said similar with his observations about being and becoming. That's not to say that our individual genetic make-up doesn't influence what we as human beings become, but that's difficult to quantify, whilst the idea that we are what we become is irrefutable.
Guessing we will never see that those blacklists (not a good term to use anymore by the way!) or whether they even exist at all.
Oh good grief. Save us from leftist idiocy!
It also seems pretty clear that there are others (Wings over Scotland, the anti-Pride vicar)
Stuart Campbell 'believes' his acct was closed becasue of his "stance on gender views" i.e. He doesn't know and the bank that closed the Vicar's acct essentially said, no it was because you were very rude to our staff.
that's not 'pretty clear'
edit: I know the Vicar says he was very polite to the staff when he made his complaint, but given how many complaints from the public I've dealt with (I've worked in healthcare for a long time) most of the time, they either embellish or just outright lie if they think that'll get them what they want, so colour me sceptical when folks says "I was very polite"
but given how many complaints from the public I’ve dealt with (I’ve worked in healthcare for a long time) most of the time, they either embellish or just outright lie if they think that’ll get them what they want, so colour me sceptical when folks says “I was very polite”
I'm with you on this.
fair comments, maybe I've been too charitable in an attempt to be balanced.
Wings is an utter diddy who makes up conspiracy theories for fun.
I'd go beyond diddy, way beyond. Another one where I struggle to support his right to spout hateful things.
Is that sufficient reason to refuse to service them though, is it legal to refuse? Back to the debate.
I think banks can close if you don't use the acct enough, there's not enough money in it, you keep going overdrawn, you keep writing cheques that bounce, you are threatening to staff, you come into the bank wearing a balaclava and waving a gun around...
There's probs a shit ton of reasons why they might want to close an acct and most of the time these places don't (can't) share that info with us, so we just don't know. I will say though it probs does Campbell and the vicar no harm to claim that they're victims in all this.
Its a bit similar to the " no platform" debate. Easy to say that folk should be no platformed for outright racism. But then where do you draw the line?
The vicar wasn't David B Rude was he?
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/14649783.Rev_David_B_Rude
That could explain the confusion.
The vicar wasn’t David B Rude was he?
Made up name, Shirley? 🤣
There are, according to that link, @theotherjonv posted, 305 people 'praying for this article'
Which is perfectly normal and fine.
That’s the most thoughtful response I’ve ever received on here, especially considering the contention surrounding the topic in question.
Thanks. I try to be as reasonable and rational as I can be, I also am not averse to changing opinion as I learn more from others (as I have to a degree here). At the same time I'm aware that at times that means I play devil's advocate or fence sit a bit. Trust me; there are times where the heart vs head internal debate is far fiercer than what you see here - what I'd like to say or do vs what I know I should say or do. It's hard to stay rational on some very emotive topics.
I also struggle, because to try to change opinions I think you first have to understand them. Which means at times I read things on various sites that I really wish I didn't have to, and which annoy, anger or depress me - especially when I then have to defend their right to hold them, when I'd far rather 'hammer frozen sausages into their dog'.
There are, according to that link, @theotherjonv posted, 305 people ‘praying for this article’
Which is perfectly normal and fine.
There's one here praying that his steeple goes all droopy.
WTF happened, I haven't read this thread for days and now it's delving into Hegel and Foucault
Come for the Frog heckle, stay for the discussion on philosophy
Isn't that the STW way?
I have Foucault idea how we got from Farage to philosophers.
You don’t consider political beliefs count as beliefs?
If you like, but didn't Coutts cite Nige being "Xenophobic" and "Racist" in their internal report? are those "political opinions" or just plain old Bigotry?
I'd consider that distinctly different reasoning.
Are you saying being a Bigot is/should be a protected characteristic?
Couple that with his being a PEP (and a consistent apologist for Putin) and "political exposure" already being recognised as grounds to at least review an individuals suitability for access to certain financial services, They were well within their rights TBH.
Still it seems the government of the day disagrees, because Nige has whipped up enough of a frenzy on the DM and via GBeebies, so the banking sector should probably brace itself for some muddled "protections" of individual liberties and rights to be imposed without much thought...
To be protected, a belief must:
Be genuinely held.
Be more than just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
Relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
Contain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
Be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others
Xenophobia and racism fail to pass the test of that last point and cannot therefore be protected
Xenophobia and racism fail to pass the test of that last point and cannot therefore be protected
So Coutts basic reasoning stands then...
People are being de-banked because of personal views.
Farage can still go get a Natwest account. He's not been debanked.
Where are we drawing the line with this? Are we going to have to invite Farage round to our BBQ because we can't leave him out just because we find him and his views repellant?
Where are we drawing the line with this? Are we going to have to invite Farage round to our BBQ because we can’t leave him out just because we find him and his views repellant?
It's the usual cancel culture bollocks, where man babies cry foul unless they're provided with a megaphone to air their repugnant views.
Are we going to have to invite Farage round to our BBQ because we can’t leave him out just because we find him and his views repellant?
No, you can leave him out.
If he calls his views beliefs though; prepare a place. And we'll have none of that foreign muck served thanks. Proper British sausages only.
As as for 'brown' sauce..... no brown anything!!
Proper British sausages only.
Or German.
There are, according to that link, @theotherjonv posted, 305 people ‘praying for this article’
Which is perfectly normal and fine.
The suggested prayer hints that they aren't entirely supporting the vicar involved, and perhaps even that he should learn to keep his mouth shut! Sounds like the staff may have formed their own view on this gentleman's politeness...
We pray for wisdom for church leaders as they navigate modern life.
Help them to know when to speak and when to refrain.
As as for ‘brown’ sauce….. no brown anything!!
HP sauce is fine, just don't call it brown!
Hold the front page! Nigel the fearless investigative reporter has found some-one else who's bank acct has been closed by Nat West!
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1684275619285065733
In other news, one of our very own members of the House of Lords also wades in on the scandal!
https://twitter.com/mrevgenylebedev/status/1684629624582467585
wait a minute, might these two folks have something in common? will we ever know?
What's wrong with Russophobia? Just because the Russians have been paying for the Tories for years, and Lebedev got himself a peerage by Bunga-bunga-ing the PM doesn't mean that the rest of the country has to play along with these oligarchs, spooks and their hangers-on.
The trouble is, banks playing silly buggers with customer accounts and then going radio silent when people then try and figure out what's going on is both wrong and a depressingly frequent occurrence in various 'Your problems' type columns (probably only beaten by energy company billing problems).
Farage the Brexit Toad is however the least sympathetic example of this that could ever possibly exist, and this total clusterfork also demonstrates that Coutts might not want him but he is still incredibly privileged, unlike most other people this happens to.
What’s wrong with Russophobia?
I would distinguish between the average Russian and the oligarchs and friends.
After all the former were the first victims of the latter before they decided after looting Russia it was no longer a great place for them to live and came to try the same here.
Nigel the fearless investigative reporter has found some-one else who’s bank acct has been closed by Nat West!
I mentioned a few pages back that I also had the privilege of having an account closed by the NatWest without warning or explanation.
Although in my case it wasn't that I didn't fulfill the wealth criteria, it was more that I didn't fulfill the pot to piss in criteria.
Should I tell Nigel Farage in case he wants to interview me?
And in an act of spooky irony I walked past the branch of the NatWest that closed my account on my way to the building society this afternoon only to discover for the first time that it had recently closed down, even the cash machines which I used a few days ago were boarded up.
People fighting amongst themselves over his points of view.
Farage would be proud.
Farage can still go get a Natwest account. He’s not been debanked.
So as a racist bigot he can't have Coutts account but is ok to have a Natwest one ?
Nothing other than the commercial consideration should ever have been discussed in the closing of his sccount.
but is ok to have a Natwest one ?
Yeah it's where skint racist bigots bank.
Should I tell Nigel Farage in case he wants to interview me?
He has set up his website where you can submit your details and he will leap into action.
I guess compared to what he has been up to in the past its actually not a bad use of his time. Might undo some of the harm he has done to the country.
On the flip side there is no chance I would trust my details to him and I also doubt he will do anything other than pursue his own aims using everyone else.
Irony of ironies, Gina Miller has experienced the same fate as Nigel Farage, who has tweeted out his support for her!
She opened an account for her party. The account was of a type not allowed to be used by political parties. The account was closed. “News” then followed that might as well be shit made up by teenagers. Farage jumped on it because that’s what he does.
That's not quite the whole story - her party had an account with Monzo who do not allow political parties as a matter of policy and the account should not have been opened. There's no discrimination on the basis of her politics.
A Monzo spokesperson told Sky News: "Like lots of banks, we do not accept any political parties as Monzo Business customers in the same way that we don't currently accept trusts, clubs and a range of other organisations.
"In this case, the account wasn't originally categorised as a political party. After this was identified and corrected, the customer was given notice that the account would be closed. We recognise that this experience will have been frustrating for the customer and we're sorry for that."
Are banks free to choose their own business models?
As for Farage jumping on it to validate his current grift; just more lies on top of other lies.
Surely Nigel Farage is a one-man political party?
Are banks free to choose their own business models?
Well they are businesses so I don't see why not, obviously there are laws and regulations for them to adhere to but they should be able to pick which areas of banking they want to operate in.
Monzo simply want online personal banking customers, Natwest want all sorts of personal and business customers, Coutts (owned by NatWest) want Millionaires/Billionaires who might need the odd bit of money laundered, but also understand that discretion is a two way thing 😉
The real 'news' in all of this is the disproportionate influence Toad still appears to wield.
Nigel Farage's highly publicised victory over Couttes/NatWest doesn't appear to have resulted in a surge of support for Reform UK.
The latest poll out with the fieldwork carried out today
https://twitter.com/Omnisis/status/1684936647199105024
It is astonishing that the Tories share of the vote is almost half that of Labour. And the gap is actually widening, as we get closer to the next general election.
Nigel Farage’s highly publicised victory over Couttes/NatWest doesn’t appear to have resulted in a surge of support for Reform UK.
Well they had to change their name after their one policy they had was delivered by the Tories, Does anyone know (or care) what Reform UK's actual policies are? what are they reforming? is it Banks now?
Does anyone know (or care) what Reform UK’s actual policies are?
Judging by their lack of support it would appear that not many people care. I was surprised just how badly they did in May's local elections.
Nevertheless if they manage to get something like 6% of the vote next general election that could, and probably will, do significant damage to the Tories.
Particularly as the Tories will be fighting very hard to hang to the majority of their current seats - most current Tory seats are either going to become safe Labour seats after the next general election or turn into marginals.
Only a minority of the Tories's current seats will remain safe for them after the next GE. All of which will make Reform UK's effect on the Tories's fortunes more critical.
Nevertheless if they manage to get something like 6% of the vote next general election that could, and probably will, do significant damage to the Tories.
They may get 6% of the vote but probably won't get any MPs, the shitty voting system we have works both ways I suppose. Same for Greens 6% (what a country where as many people would vote for Reform as Green)
Belief - Cambridge Dictionary Definition
something that you believe:
All religious and political beliefs should be respected equally.
[ + that ] It is my (firm) belief that nuclear weapons are immoral.
He called at her house in the belief that (= confident that)she would lend him the money.
Source for the unbelievers 😏
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief?q=Belief
Belief – Cambridge Dictionary Definition
I hate to break it to you, but our legal system is based on written legislation and judicial precedent, rather than an example taken from a dictionary.
Correct, legislation is written down in English (the official language of the UK) using words from the dictionary that defines the meaning of said words used to form sentences that form the legislation. It’s fundamentally how writing works.
Is English the official language of the UK?
Yes, but some words are open to interpretation, and hence just writing that word down in a sentence does not automatically create a correct and reproducible interpretation at the standard needed for law.
A dictionary definition of belief (something you believe) does not satisfactorily qualify that anything you believe is sufficient for it to become a protected characteristic, which is the actual question, leading to the further discussion about whether refusing a bank account for someone's beliefs is legitimate.
Hence some other words were written down to describe what constitutes a belief in respect of it being protected.
In respect of which, there's several clauses that say that beliefs are protected if they are strongly held, substantial, based on evidence rather than opinion, etc., but then there's a final one that says
Be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others
- and the list is not a 'balance of' or 'perm any 3 from' - it needs to meet all. So no matter how strongly you might believe in white supremacy as a belief, it can't be a protected one, because the last one disqualifies it.
The legislation and debate around makes it clear that political belief is not included in belief. One tribunal decision does not change that
Otherwise we would not be able to sack folk for racist views and membership of neo nazi organisations - something which has happened many times.
Is English the official language of the UK?
Define official? Tony can lend you his dictionary.
The legislation and debate around makes it clear that political belief is not included in belief.
I disagree - if it meets all the tests then it could (not necessarily does). Where do political and philosophical beliefs cross over. But the kind of 'political beliefs' that are causing trouble here pretty well automatically fall foul of the one I listed above.
dictionary that defines the meaning of said words used to form sentences that form the legislation.
Anyone who has tried to read legislation will know that it is written in legalistic gobbledegook. To the extent that it has to be accompanied by a plain English explanation of it's intent!
Anyone who has tried to read legislation will know that it is written in legalistic gobbledegook.
Plus to complicate matters sometimes uses Latin terminology, despite the fact that Latin not being the official language in the UK is res ipsa loquitur
Surely Nigel Farage is a one-man political party?
Yeah, and he has a book coming out. I think it's going to be called "My Fight"
The real ‘news’ in all of this is the disproportionate influence Toad still appears to wield.
100% agree
I also agree. But of course that influence is nothing to do with Brexit.
Of course it isn't :roll eyes:
😉
Yes if Farage doesn't get his way he will force the country into brexit. That's why everyone is scared of him.
Edit : 🙄
Yeah, and he has a book coming out. I think it’s going to be called “My Fight”
Oh goody, I hope he does some book signings in Scotland 😉 😆
Where do political and philosophical beliefs cross over.
I think it's fairly obvious what the spirit of "belief" is supposed to be as a protected characteristic, it's specified as "faith or... " One could believe all manner of things but really what you've got there aren't beliefs, they're merely opinions.
Though of course, whether your religious beliefs are anything other than just, like, your opinions man, is a whole other conversation.
Is English the official language of the UK?
The UK doesn't have an official language. As well you know. But it does have several languages, one of which is somewhat prevalent. I think a better term may be "de facto" rather than "official"?
I think it’s fairly obvious what the spirit of “belief” is supposed to be as a protected characteristic, it’s specified as “faith or… ”
You might think, but "spirit" counts for naught. As well as law being written down it's interpreted, and although tribunals are not the same as court / high court / appeals court / supreme court in terms of setting precedent, they do have the ability to interpret and have in the past ruled as per below (and there may be others, IANAL)
So - political beliefs can be considered protected beliefs and afford Equality protection. But they can't over-ride the "not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others" clause.
Oh, curious.
I was thinking, like, you could believe that all Man United supporters should be drowned. Should that be protected? But the "fundamental right of others" snags that quite nicely.
I think a better term may be “de facto”
Not really, it's not English!
Be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others
Given that this has been posted in this conversation 3 times, 4 including this, and people are still claiming that Farages view can be protected, I now have a belief that right wingers struggle with basic comprehension.
I was thinking, like, you could believe that all Man United supporters should be drowned. Should that be protected? But the “fundamental right of others” snags that quite nicely.
What does the man on the Clapham omnibus think? Oh, no, they will all be Man U fans.
Clapham omnibus? What about the man on the leith tram? 🙂
Be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others
so tories not protected then?
so tories not protected then?
Traditional conservatism, maybe. But the right-wing fascist party that they have become, probably not.
Near fascist. to call them fascists is to downplay what real fascists are. Braverman probably get pretty close tho
Clapham omnibus? What about the man on the leith tram? 🙂
The man on the Clapham Omnibus is recognised in English law as being a reasonable person.
I have no idea about the man on the Leith tram, although it's probably best not to make eye contact with them 💡
🙂
The UK doesn’t have an official language. As well you know. But it does have several languages, one of which is somewhat prevalent.
Nice diversion from an otherwise dull thread. The “UK” has two formal languages for state and parliament; Norman French and English. The individual nations of the UK have other languages in use, and formally recognised, but none bubble up to being UK languages. Try addressing the UK parliament in Cymraeg and see how you get on…
I now have a belief that right wingers struggle with basic comprehension.
Oh I reckon they understand, but that's not really the game they're playing is it...
To keep blathering on about "political beliefs" when that's very clearly not what we're discussing, says it all. Ignore the details keep shouting about "oppression"...
To be oppressed you must have lost a right, a Coutts account isn't really a right though, it's very much a privilege enjoyed by the wealthy and connected.
As the saying goes, "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" so surely a man of the people like Nige should have welcomed banking alongside us plebs rather than kick up such a fuss...
Helpfully, our hero Nige has set up a website for everyone to report any beastly banks which are closing accounts (accountsclosed.org).
Though I'm not sure why he needs your home address...