Gaming5 mins ago
This Is Incredible !!!
Nigel Farage may be hounded out of the UK
Answers
It seems that any suspicion gives banks the right to close accounts, without explanation, to avoid risk, even when such suspicion/
22:20 Fri 30th Jun 2023
//Since it's uncontroversial that a bank's employees deserve to be treated with respect, I don't find it surprising that if they find that a given customer did not, then that customer would soon find their account closed. //
The customer didn't disrespect staff - he questioned the use of Pride flags.
The customer didn't disrespect staff - he questioned the use of Pride flags.
"Questioned the use of Pride flags" covers all manner of behaviour, from simple curiosity to aggression and active discrimination. If you ask, "what's that?", then there's obviously no problem; if you ask, "why are you wearing something that supports perversion?" or what have you, then there equally obviously *is*. Without clarity on what was asked, or how heated (or not) the discussion got, then it's not clear what happened. But "I was just asking questions" often turns out to be an excuse for prejudice.
Indeed. The "excuse" for a lot of anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice these days is religion, either explicitly or implicitly.
If people ask questions out of a genuine eagerness to learn and understand, then that's never offensive. If people ask from a position of hostility or judgment, then it is, or often ends up being so. It's the same distinction that we are capable of recognising in other social contexts.
If people ask questions out of a genuine eagerness to learn and understand, then that's never offensive. If people ask from a position of hostility or judgment, then it is, or often ends up being so. It's the same distinction that we are capable of recognising in other social contexts.
Hmm, so if a bakery objects to a customer ordering a cake for a gay wedding, and refuses to serve them, that's OK ...
But if a building society objects to a customer complaining about the building society's Pride messaging, and refuses to serve them, that's not OK ...
Free speech goes both ways, especially when it comes to protected characteristics ...
But if a building society objects to a customer complaining about the building society's Pride messaging, and refuses to serve them, that's not OK ...
Free speech goes both ways, especially when it comes to protected characteristics ...
For centuries the self centred and insecure have sought to impose opinion based restrictions or compulsions on the majority. Society had the solid foundations built in that naturally resisted such manipulation of our rights and ambitions. In the last 3 decades these natural attenuators of extremism have been dismantled or eroded by the would be controllers of our lives, and one issue zealots. We see evidence that some even applaud these developments, particularly if they are mislead enough to imagine that it fits their own personal prejudice suite. As ever they either show little comprehension of what is eventually to be the result, or to even welcome such a controlling dead hand. Those of us who value our freedoms are right to be abhorred by these sinister shifts in "policy".
//It's the face of woke nonsense being force fed to all which is an example of one of the many things wrong with modern day society.//
I agree OG - and that extends, I think, to what has happened Nigel Farage. He doesn't follow the 'recommended' line of thinking - ie he's a Brexiteer - so off you go, Nigel. Everyone, without exception, should find that concerning. Today him, tomorrow you? Who knows?
I agree OG - and that extends, I think, to what has happened Nigel Farage. He doesn't follow the 'recommended' line of thinking - ie he's a Brexiteer - so off you go, Nigel. Everyone, without exception, should find that concerning. Today him, tomorrow you? Who knows?
// And the 'excuse' for hostility from the LGBTQ+ community is so often that others - even though they're right - don't agree with them. //
The "even though they're right" is so revealing here. To pretend that any such discussion is moot is already problematic, because people who are convinced that they are right don't debate so much as preach. And even to the extent that someone is "correct", they can still be hostile, aggressive, unpleasant and discriminating in delivering that message -- and shouldn't be. And finally, sometimes it's just good practice to "pick your battles". You may be "in the right" on a given point, but in this setting, at this time, when talking to this person, it's not relevant and it's prudent to just move on.
The "even though they're right" is so revealing here. To pretend that any such discussion is moot is already problematic, because people who are convinced that they are right don't debate so much as preach. And even to the extent that someone is "correct", they can still be hostile, aggressive, unpleasant and discriminating in delivering that message -- and shouldn't be. And finally, sometimes it's just good practice to "pick your battles". You may be "in the right" on a given point, but in this setting, at this time, when talking to this person, it's not relevant and it's prudent to just move on.
People like J K Rowling are convinced they're right when they say only women have cervixes or only women menstruate - and they are. There's none more hostile, aggressive, unpleasant and discriminating than members of the LGBTQ+ community who issued death threats to her.
This diversion into the same old LGBTQ+ argument is detracting from the OP - which, to my mind is far more important because it has the potential to affect us all - and, regardless of politics, likes or dislikes, that should worry us all.
This diversion into the same old LGBTQ+ argument is detracting from the OP - which, to my mind is far more important because it has the potential to affect us all - and, regardless of politics, likes or dislikes, that should worry us all.
But of course they're right, Clare, they're right about everything. They know, with total certainly, why Farage's bank is being closed. They know, with total certainly, that none of the 7 banks have any evidence for refusing to open one. It's because all of these banks are WOKE (in capital) and/or EU lovers.
It's like trying to have a debate with a religious zealot. Who needs evidence when you just know, because you have faith in the beloved Nigel.
It's like trying to have a debate with a religious zealot. Who needs evidence when you just know, because you have faith in the beloved Nigel.
