This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by palace99
and that is the crux of this non story. Hopefully this thread can be closed ASAP. So the resignation of two CEO's in major banks due to debanking someone based on legally held views, and then the bank u turns, is a non story?
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Any allegation, no matter how baseless, should be treated as unproven rather than fake. In other words, the lie can be referred to as a factual allegation until it is disproved. Is this a reasonable view? The onus being 100% on the accused to prove the allegation wrong. This is directly related to this thread.
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
One more point |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Badger11
Don’t hold your breath. Wait to see who will be heading any enquiry
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Spiderman
Don’t hold your breath. Wait to see who will be heading any enquiry Wissie, which means an open and shut case for the banks
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Not really. It's legal to give alcohol to a 5 year old but that doesn't mean you should do it. Arguing for change is lawful. No one says it isn’t or you shouldn’t do it. Until then what is, is what ii is for all.
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by cryrst
Wissie, which means an open and shut case for the banks Let’s see what is actually revealed, why it’s being done and what proposals, if any, are made. Don’t hold your breath. I wouldn’t put a lot of money on Farage’s claims being accurate.
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Let’s see what is actually revealed, why it’s being done and what proposals, if any, are made. Don’t hold your breath. I wouldn’t put a lot of money on Farage’s claims being accurate. Just one needs to be true though !
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by HKOwen
Any allegation, no matter how baseless, should be treated as unproven rather than fake. In other words, the lie can be referred to as a factual allegation until it is disproved. Is this a reasonable view? The onus being 100% on the accused to prove the allegation wrong. This is directly related to this thread. That’s the kind of argument a conspiracy theorist relies on. Things can only be proved in a court of law and then only to the “beyond a reasonable doubt “ standard, thus always leaving room for personal doubt or new evidence. That proof has to be produced by the accuser not the accused, who is innocent until proven guilty. It’s never the task of the accused to prove their innocence. Which enables many who are undoubtedly rogues to get away with things. So is it reasonable? Not in every day life. In a court, yes, but with the burden of proof reversed. As this is not a court, it cannot be in this thread. All there will ever be are opinions.
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Arguing for change is lawful. No one says it isn’t or you shouldn’t do it. Until then what is, is what ii is for all. Being lawful doesn't mean it's morally or ethically acceptable.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Being lawful doesn't mean it's morally or ethically acceptable. What's ethically and morally acceptable can be a matter of opinion. The only way to resolve differences of opinion is via the law.
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
What's ethically and morally acceptable can be a matter of opinion. The only way to resolve differences of opinion is via the law. Which is what Farage has done. He challenged the bank and they offered to reinstate his account.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.