This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Coutts VS Nigel Farage
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
  georgenorman  01 Aug 23 8.53am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
OK. Explain how they work, with particular emphasis on how those involved separate their personal beliefs from their professional responsibilities.
Edited by georgenorman (01 Aug 2023 8.53am)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 01 Aug 23 8.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
OK. Explain how they work, with particular emphasis on how those involved separate their personal beliefs from their professional responsibilities. Who do you think you are ? I’m explaining nothing to you. It’s a waste of time . You carry on defending the indefensible.
Old, Ungifted and White |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 01 Aug 23 8.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I didn’t. You assumed it. You said "Some may be admirers of Farage". I assumed nothing - you clearly suggested it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Aug 23 8.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Ashers were charged with discriminating against a homosexual-rights agitator because of his homosexuality. They were found to be innocent of the charge. The key 'point of law' is that they were found not guilty, therefore they did not discriminate as charged - all your waffle and spin does not charge that. Edited by georgenorman (01 Aug 2023 8.51am) The previous two guilty verdicts were overturned on a specific point. That doesn’t mean there was no discrimination. They did not claim reputational damage to their business. They refused for personal reasons alone. Reasons that the SC decided were lawful. Which I accept they have the right to determine but believe an error which will eventually require primary legislation to correct. This is completely different to the Farage/Coutts event.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Aug 23 8.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
You said "Some may be admirers of Farage". I assumed nothing - you clearly suggested it. I did NOT mention the Board. You assumed that.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Aug 23 9.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by NEILLO
Who do you think you are ? I’m explaining nothing to you. It’s a waste of time . You carry on defending the indefensible. You are claiming to know better because of personal experience, which I don’t have and am willing to learn from. Up to you. I have offered the opportunity to explain. If it’s refused then there is nothing more I can do.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 01 Aug 23 9.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The previous two guilty verdicts were overturned on a specific point. That doesn’t mean there was no discrimination. They did not claim reputational damage to their business. They refused for personal reasons alone. Reasons that the SC decided were lawful. Which I accept they have the right to determine but believe an error which will eventually require primary legislation to correct. This is completely different to the Farage/Coutts event. They were found not guilty of discriminating against the agitator because of his sexuality, your attempt to obscure this with your waffle is predictable. Of course it is not completely different to the Farage/Coutts case. In both cases customers were turned away because of political/social reasons. (Personally I think businesses and individuals should be free to deal with or not deal with whoever they like.)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 01 Aug 23 9.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
You are claiming to know better because of personal experience, which I don’t have and am willing to learn from. Up to you. I have offered the opportunity to explain. If it’s refused then there is nothing more I can do. Correct. I’m not wasting any more of my time on you
Old, Ungifted and White |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 01 Aug 23 9.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I did NOT mention the Board. You assumed that. Who were you referring to then? You made the post in answer to posts about individual board member's personal beliefs versus their professional duty.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Aug 23 9.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
They were found not guilty of discriminating against the agitator because of his sexuality, your attempt to obscure this with your waffle is predictable. Of course it is not completely different to the Farage/Coutts case. In both cases customers were turned away because of political/social reasons. (Personally I think businesses and individuals should be free to deal with or not deal with whoever they like.) Coutts stand accused of that, here and in the court of public opinion. I think it’s incorrect and whilst their behaviour and responses have been terrible the original motivation was not. Ashers did though do it. Defined discrimination is unlawful. That something slips through a definition doesn’t mean it’s not discrimination.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 01 Aug 23 9.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
My once every 6 month(ish) expression of my utter puzzlement as to why so many of you bright and erudite people waste a single moment engaging with this village idiot?
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Aug 23 9.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Who were you referring to then? You made the post in answer to posts about individual board member's personal beliefs versus their professional duty. Not the Board. I was referring to those who sit on the committees making the assessments.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.