UKIP/Reform NF Ltd and their non-racist well informed supporters

[Stevo985]

35 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Gordon Smart former editor of The Suns bizarre page and awarder to Brand of Shagger of the year being uncomfortable with the bed of snakes he asked to have brought to his room. 

It's quite a good interview to be fair. I ended up quite liking him if I'm honest. He quite openly admitted he was ashamed and embarrassed about some of the things he'd done, particularly around Brand. Made no excuses and admitted he had trouble sleeping because of how he may have contributed to toxicity in the media.

But on Wooton he said he never liked him and didn't want him employed at The Sun. Easy to say in hindsight of course.

[Genie]

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It's quite a good interview to be fair. I ended up quite liking him if I'm honest. He quite openly admitted he was ashamed and embarrassed about some of the things he'd done, particularly around Brand. Made no excuses and admitted he had trouble sleeping because of how he may have contributed to toxicity in the media.

But on Wooton he said he never liked him and didn't want him employed at The Sun. Easy to say in hindsight of course.

Sounds like someone worried about getting a knock on his front door.

[Stevo985]

Just now, Genie said:

Sounds like someone worried about getting a knock on his front door.

I think he said he was already contributing to the wooton thing and to other investigations.

[VILLAMARV]

Sounds like Priti Patel talking about racism

[Seat68]

11 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It's quite a good interview to be fair. I ended up quite liking him if I'm honest. He quite openly admitted he was ashamed and embarrassed about some of the things he'd done, particularly around Brand. Made no excuses and admitted he had trouble sleeping because of how he may have contributed to toxicity in the media.

But on Wooton he said he never liked him and didn't want him employed at The Sun. Easy to say in hindsight of course.

I used to read religiously a blog called no rock n roll fun and one of the recurring posts was Gordon Smart watch and this has contributed to my dislike of him. That opinion is unlikely to ever change. 

[El Segundo]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

There is no right not to be discriminated against because of your ideology.

A private business, providing a luxury banking service to wealthy customers has the right not to provide such services to people whose "ideology" would damage their (the bank's) reputation. Vladimir Putin has an ideology around rebuilding the former Soviet empire, but no one would blink at him being turned down.

Discrimination on religious grounds, or on ethnicity or gender is not "ideology" and there are laws in place covering discrimination around those aspects.

That said, the bank is probably home to quite a number of dubious customers, and ultimately Farage wasn't (unlike them) lucrative as a customer, so the reputational damage outweighed, in their view, any profit.

 

I don't necessarily agree with your definition of Ideology. It's debateable, but to me Ideology is where people codify and organize human interpretation of events, attitudes, history, situations, beliefs etc. and teach or encourage  others to reject or accept things based on the codified ideas.   That covers a lot of religions as well as Political stances. 

And the law is, again to me, not necessarily a reflection of genuine rights.  So based on my definition of Ideology, there is a legal right not be discriminated against if your ideology takes the form of a religion, despite the fact that some religious doctrines preach horrific concepts.  

[Genie]

8 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I think he said he was already contributing to the wooton thing and to other investigations.

Reminds me a bit of Max Clifford being very critical of those being charged with abusing under 16’s, before then getting arrested and charged himself of the same crimes.

[blandy]

35 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

the law is, again to me, not necessarily a reflection of genuine rights

Well, it just is. It is the law and the human rights act which defines what rights we have (in the UK). There are of course opinions on what should or shouldn't be included in the law, but it is the definition. If you think something additional should be added, until it actually is added, it isn't a "right" it's just an opinion.

[chrisp65]

48 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

I don't necessarily agree with your definition of Ideology. It's debateable, but to me Ideology is where people codify and organize human interpretation of events, attitudes, history, situations, beliefs etc. and teach or encourage  others to reject or accept things based on the codified ideas.   That covers a lot of religions as well as Political stances. 

And the law is, again to me, not necessarily a reflection of genuine rights.  So based on my definition of Ideology, there is a legal right not be discriminated against if your ideology takes the form of a religion, despite the fact that some religious doctrines preach horrific concepts.  

Well, to me and my understanding and based on my own personal definition, you are wrong.

So, where do we go from here if we’re making up our own rules?

[bickster]

2 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

But on Wooton he said he never liked him and didn't want him employed at The Sun. Easy to say in hindsight of course.

It's believable just because of the sheer volume of his ex-colleagues that also seemingly had the same opinion

[El Segundo]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Well, to me and my understanding and based on my own personal definition, you are wrong.

So, where do we go from here if we’re making up our own rules?

Who's making up their own rules, me or Blandy, or you? Or all of us?  Fundamental component of meaningful philosophical debate - define the terms. Otherwise you're as likely as not talking at cross purposes.  

[Chindie]

[blandy]

1 minute ago, El Segundo said:

Who's making up their own rules, me or Blandy, or you? Or all of us?  Fundamental component of meaningful philosophical debate - define the terms. Otherwise you're as likely as not talking at cross purposes.  

In the instance of a whopper not being allowed to privately bank, by the bank, and the whopper's "rights" , the law is the arbiter of whether he has the "right" to bank there, or the bank does not have the right to banish him. It's not philosophical, it's factual.

Philosophically, we might ponder whether he or they should have the "right" to bank there, but he doesn't. Philosophically we might ponder whether the bank should or should not have the "right" to sack him off.

The way I read your post is you consider or claim he already has that right, but he factually does not.

I actually share at least part of your (implied) view, which is that it's a slippery slope, perhaps, and that there will likely be a lot of double standards applied to bank customers - inconsistency in grounds for accepting or not accepting customers and so on. I'm not generally in favour of banning people for their views and the actions of "cancelling" people who don't fit the mainstream, or fashionable take on things is a real negative that seems to be a growing phenomenon. Equally media pumping up of the profile of obvious whoppers is also oa bad thing - these utter tools should be ignored - neither picked upon, nor promoted.

[Mark Albrighton]

Wootton suspended 

[chrisp65]

18 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Who's making up their own rules, me or Blandy, or you? Or all of us?  Fundamental component of meaningful philosophical debate - define the terms. Otherwise you're as likely as not talking at cross purposes.  

You decided to change the dictionary definition of ideology, so I guess it was you?

[El Segundo]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Well, it just is. It is the law and the human rights act which defines what rights we have (in the UK). There are of course opinions on what should or shouldn't be included in the law, but it is the definition. If you think something additional should be added, until it actually is added, it isn't a "right" it's just an opinion.

If the law is always reflection of actual rights, why was there a need for Women's rights movements, Gay rights movements, or Racial Equality movements in order to change the law to recognise those rights?  Why are there still rights movements of various descriptions - e.g. for Asylum seekers - if the law already has, and has always had it all covered?  

I think there is a distinction between what might be called universal rights.  Legal rights will vary from state to state.   Who decides which state has got it right?   

For example, it is apparently a right in the UK to freely express religious views that might include the  killing of all non-believers, the subjugation of women, or the execution or damnation of homosexuals.  Is that also a universal right? Should it be?

 

[El Segundo]

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

You decided to change the dictionary definition of ideology, so I guess it was you?

Which dictionary and which definition?

[bickster]

30 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Who's making up their own rules, me or Blandy, or you? Or all of us?  Fundamental component of meaningful philosophical debate - define the terms. Otherwise you're as likely as not talking at cross purposes.  

Who is having a philosophical debate? The rest of us are talking about the law and facts. Political ideology is not a protected characteristic, so to compare it to something that is would be an absolute false equivalence

[El Segundo]

23 minutes ago, blandy said:

In the instance of a whopper not being allowed to privately bank, by the bank, and the whopper's "rights" , the law is the arbiter of whether he has the "right" to bank there, or the bank does not have the right to banish him. It's not philosophical, it's factual.

Philosophically, we might ponder whether he or they should have the "right" to bank there, but he doesn't. Philosophically we might ponder whether the bank should or should not have the "right" to sack him off.

The way I read your post is you consider or claim he already has that right, but he factually does not.

I actually share at least part of your (implied) view, which is that it's a slippery slope, perhaps, and that there will likely be a lot of double standards applied to bank customers - inconsistency in grounds for accepting or not accepting customers and so on. I'm not generally in favour of banning people for their views and the actions of "cancelling" people who don't fit the mainstream, or fashionable take on things is a real negative that seems to be a growing phenomenon. Equally media pumping up of the profile of obvious whoppers is also oa bad thing - these utter tools should be ignored - neither picked upon, nor promoted.

What I'm suggesting is, since there are rights against discrimination that protect some pretty horrendous world views, then there is a case for saying he is being discriminated against because of his beliefs.       

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

If the law is always reflection of actual rights, why was there a need for Women's rights movements, Gay rights movements, or Racial Equality movements in order to change the law to recognise those rights?  Why are there still rights movements of various descriptions - e.g. for Asylum seekers - if the law already has, and has always had it all covered?  

You're not really asking that are you? You're validating my point. People who didn't have rights wanted to be granted those absent (to that point) right(s). They did not have the right to [vote, or whatever]..

There are still "rights movements of various descriptions - e.g. for Asylum seekers.." because authorities sometimes do not apply legal rights in the way they should, or because on the one hand the Gov't or other authority will take one view "you can't stay here" and the individual will take another view "yes I can" and the "movements" support the individual's case, and help them make their case. The law then arbitrates via the court system. The law as documented defines what rights people have, and courts determine whether their rights have been upheld, or if they are abusing them or if government is behaving unlawfully in denying them their rights.

In the case of the populists and right wing media channels, they are essentially talking bollox most of the time.