Nigel Farage

[bluenova]

Like it or loath it there are a lot of employees not as PC as some on here
They cannot control off the cuff remarks the employees see as banter
They will know of other cases where something has been blown out of all proportion.
Defending someone accused of prejudice or discrimination is a minefield so they stay well clear particularly in small organisations

I understand your point.

You're describing discrimination based on racial prejudice.

If ethnic minorities didn't have any protection from discrimination at work, then do you think these employer's would be more likely to recruit them? What you're describing is someone saying a candidate is excellent, but because of their race, the employer thinks they might cause trouble, so they aren't recruited. That's exactly why race legislation needed to be brought in in the first place.

It's a lose/lose for the "excellent candidate", and win/win for the racists.

 

[west didsblue]

It’s these repeated conspiracy theories on every subject that gets me.
They are churned out for every event.

Sunak’s tweet was a figment of our imagination then?

 

[Vic]

A financial decision can be based on the damage caused by an association such as this, however. Whatever your politics, it is clear that Farage is a divisive figure, and unpalatable to many. This represents commercial risk. Your three friends may not represent such a risk.

There again, how many Coutts customers have closed their accounts in solidarity with Farage?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I certainly agree that Farage is a hugely divisive hate figure but I see it the other way round oldius. Banks and indeed Companies generally should not punish people based on their distaste for views that fall within the law. There’s no commercial risk, Banking is, and should be, a private matter. Until this fuss I’d associated Farage with many things but never Coutts ! We’ve made huge progress on making discrimination of many kinds illegal and protecting minorities; it’s a mark of a civilised society and must include people holding views that are legal but you might not agree with. I’m disappointed that there is reticence to back a basic tenet that says all people are free to hold views that are within the law whether others find them acceptable or not.

But that's not really the basic tenet that currently exists, as I understand it. We have a list of protected characteristics, and political views are not one of them, with the exception of employment law (where things like membership of a union are also protected). By all means argue that political views should be protected alongside race, disability, gender, sexuality, religion, etc, but at the moment, a company is typically free to refuse business to any individual as long as it's not because they're a member of a protected characteristic.

So the question is whether all legal political viewpoints should be a protected characteristic, and what this means. Should a private internet hosting platform be obliged to host the BNP website, for example? We do have certain services that are protected. I don't think an electricity company could refuse to provide electricity to the BNP headquarters, for example. And banking is similarly protected, but that only covers the basic bank account, not some super-duper bank account with extra services, which I believe this Nigel Farage case is about.

The basic tenet that currently exists is that you are free to express your views on any topic you want and the rest of society is free to judge you for them, including making the choice not to associate with you either socially or professionally.

 

[MouldensChippy]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lan-flaw-nigel-farage-so-many-ghastly-clients

An interesting take from The Guardian, of all places !

 

[oldius]

There again, how many Coutts customers have closed their accounts in solidarity with Farage?

Of course, and they have the right to choose.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lan-flaw-nigel-farage-so-many-ghastly-clients

An interesting take from The Guardian, of all places !

Well yeah. The idea that any of these banks are interested in morals while their client list is made up almost exclusively of tax-dodging ultra-bastards is laughable.

I imagine the actual reason is that Farage isn't rich enough to be worth the hassle. If he was a multi-millionaire, I imagine they'd be a bit more forgiving of his views.

 

[meltonblue]

I certainly agree that Farage is a hugely divisive hate figure but I see it the other way round oldius. Banks and indeed Companies generally should not punish people based on their distaste for views that fall within the law. There’s no commercial risk, Banking is, and should be, a private matter. Until this fuss I’d associated Farage with many things but never Coutts ! We’ve made huge progress on making discrimination of many kinds illegal and protecting minorities; it’s a mark of a civilised society and must include people holding views that are legal but you might not agree with. I’m disappointed that there is reticence to back a basic tenet that says all people are free to hold views that are within the law whether others find them acceptable or not.

There’s an irony here that if Farage sues them for defamation then he’s not allowing them that basic tenet themselves though ;)

I still think people haven’t properly read the dossier though. It’s actually around whether they should grant Farage an exemption to keep banking with them despite not matching the criteria rather than they should exclude him even though he does.

If it was the latter then he’s absolutely got a case but unless someone is deliberately misinterpreting the dossier and the CEOs apology, I don’t get how they can get to that conclusion.

 

[halfmist]

I understand your point.

You're describing discrimination based on racial prejudice.

If ethnic minorities didn't have any protection from discrimination at work, then do you think these employer's would be more likely to recruit them? What you're describing is someone saying a candidate is excellent, but because of their race, the employer thinks they might cause trouble, so they aren't recruited. That's exactly why race legislation needed to be brought in in the first place.

It's a lose/lose for the "excellent candidate", and win/win for the racists.

In reality I think they would say it’s fear of treading on egg shells rather than any racial intention.

 

[meltonblue]

Well yeah. The idea that any of these banks are interested in morals while their client list is made up almost exclusively of tax-dodging ultra-bastards is laughable.

I imagine the actual reason is that Farage isn't rich enough to be worth the hassle. If he was a multi-millionaire, I imagine they'd be a bit more forgiving of his views.

It’d absolutely be the latter. He doesn’t have enough interests with them for it to be worth their while.