Kemi Badenoch: Diversity obsession has led to Kafkaesque madness (KB for PM?)

[IwantToRetire]

Another really straightforwarded down to earth practical commentary of where chasing the rainbow has led us. And ideas on how Government cant, without being dictatorial help solve the mess.

The root of the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Equality Act 2010, often exploited by those with a separate agenda. The Equality Act is a shield, not a sword. It is about preventing discrimination, not social engineering. There are no protected groups in the act, only protected characteristics. A white man is just as protected on the characteristics of race and sex as a black woman, yet many believe the act is there just to protect minorities, when in reality it protects us all.

Many companies’ diversity and inclusion activities are falling foul of the law; for example by confusing legal positive action and positive discrimination, which is illegal — except when selecting political candidates (a handy get-out-clause Labour devised to use all-women shortlists). Encouraging people from underrepresented backgrounds to apply for a job or go for a promotion is positive action, and legal. Restricting applications for a position to a certain group is positive discrimination and most certainly isn’t. This has led to increasing calls for the Equality Act to be scrapped. The act is 13 years old and could be improved but the issue is not the law. It’s bad actors misrepresenting it to suit their agenda.

Many of these laws were written at a time when institutions knew how to self-regulate. Someone proposing a terrible idea would be checked by colleagues in the organisation. Today, those colleagues are scared of being called bigots for disagreeing, so they say nothing. What the Farage and Sawers cases have done is show that this problem is getting worse. Long-held tenets of liberal democracy — freedom of association, freedom of conscience, the presumption of innocence — are being tossed aside in favour of dubious inclusion strategies that themselves fall foul of the law. In some cases they’re cancelling people before any wrongdoing occurs, leaving them with no way to prove their innocence.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kemi-badenoch-banking-scandal-natwest-niigel-farage-wdp3mmq0w
Also available via archive.ph

Apologies to Karen Carpenter.

I do wish that this was part of the EqA but it isn't. You are quoting the EHRC guidance which is the battlefield that we are fighting on.

Oh I see. Thanks

Nightmare

That's interesting about the pay, could you expand on that?

Thinking about the EqA guidance I’m not sure how you make it work for women without changing the actual law

If everything stays as is with the EqA then what actually changes to resolve our single sex issue?

This is exactly my argument with Labour. They witter on about single sex spaces being important but have made it clear that the EqA with not be changed on their watch.

Yes so that’s that. I don’t see the ability there to do what they are saying.

That kind of dishonesty is concerning too. They are doing the ‘take the public with you’ part but the destination is always the same

Women in mixed spaces with ease of access for men

Kemi seems very popular.

I am wondering if you're a SpAd from Conservative Central Office on here to make the Labour Party look terrible.

I don't really know anyone, including regular conservative voters, that are very thrilled with the party overall. And many think they need some kind of a break.

But if you remove the assumption some LP supporters have that any Tory is evil, only out for the rich, and doesn't give a shit about women but is cynicaly using that as a wedge issue - I don't know how the LP looks better on this, or ID politics generally.

Clearly they have a different viewpoint on what will create a robust economy, or how social programs should work. Which one may or may not agree with.Even go so far as to say, for the sake of argument, it's totally mistaken, and bad for the vulnerable. But that is not the same as being against women, or anyone else, specifically.

I mean, I think many id pol type policies are actually bad for minorities in the end. I don't think, in general, that is the reason those people want them. People want them, usually, because they think they are good policies, even if they are deeply mistaken.

Who herself died of anorexia. The social contagion among girls of her time?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/06/ex-natwest-chief-apology-ico-data-privacy-law-alison-rose-nigel-farage

@Floisme @DysonSpheres @JanesLittleGirl @CloudyMcCloud

An independent review, commissioned by NatWest, determined last month that Coutts had a “contractual right” to shut Farage’s accounts, and had done so because the bank was losing money by keeping him as a client.
It also said that while Coutts was concerned that the former Ukip leader’s views on subjects including migration, race, gender or Brexit did not align with its own, it was “highly probable that the exit decision would not have been made had Coutts deemed the relationship with the client to be commercially viable”.

Oh look. Turns out he wasn't unfairly debanked and she didn't break the law.

The solution is obviously to get yourself into a position of influence where you can decide who does and doesn’t get a service and debank lefties because they are lefties. Or deny them a broadband or electrify service or whatever else is in your power/position to legally do because of their disgusting views. In other words do unto them as they have done to others simply because you can and because they would do it to you. Then they might learn, don’t debate them, that’s a bit like casting your pearls before swine.

Oh and just ignore that article above because it comes from the Guardian, just don’t click on Guardian links. Simple 😉

/progressiveMode=Off

“Watchdog says it was ‘incorrect’ to suggest Alison Rose breached law by discussing ex-Ukip leader’s banking with journalist” - awesome, so banking staff are allowed to discuss their clients accounts with journalists then?. OK…

Well that’s going to end well for them. Wokies usually double down and over reach, because they are not used to losing. But that is how other groups of political activists have lost public sympathy for their cause in the past, sunlight and their own behaviour… I don’t think this is the win they think it is…

I'm not saying it was a,win. I'm saying all the furore about Farage being "bebanked because of his political views" turned out to be nonsense. As I thought at the time. The man is very adept at communicating, just not truthfully.

I’m not interested in you or anything you are saying.

Noone forced you to reply

@AdamRyan I'll wait for the regulatory report rather than the 1 the bank paid for thanks

The ICO is the regulator for part of the complaint the FCA (regulator) also found no evidence of politicians being debanked over political views. Not sure what more you want?

https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/news/4126391/fca-probe-proof-banking-politicians-reports

Maybe it's worth reflecting on whether Farage and the Farage supporting media were honest or whether they whipped up an "anti free speech" media storm knowing it would be forgotten by the time investigations completed.

@AdamRyan Are you acting stupid on purpose to troll people? Nobody’s opinion is going to change because of a report a bank paid for, we have all, you know actually read the 39 page report or at least we can if we are interested. We can all read exactly what the staff at the bank said and make our judgements based on that. We don’t need to have the ‘truth’ filtered to us through a shitlib rag like the guardian, we have access to the actual source material and we can all read.

😂
Just for info "shitlib" is not an often used term in the UK. I don't really know what you mean. Perhaps you can explain it?

Well liberals tend to be shitty people so it’s just a play on that really, a shitty liberal. A shitty person who is also a liberal. You never heard that before?l

Don’t you understand the damage that the left has done to institutions? They are not believed to be impartial anymore, because, well they’re not. So a regulator clearing a bank has no currency and carries no weight with most people now. And people are right to be like this, institutions can’t be trusted to act impartially any more. We saw what those horrible people wrote about Farage, so we know what they are and what motivated them. We don’t think, we know.

Whats a Liberal? A Liberal Democrat? They aren't a driving force really?

Liberal in the UK and the US aren't the same

Anyone using left wing/right wing as a signifier nowadays has no clue what is happening in our society and the world in general at the moment.

https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/fca-spends-250000-on-de-banking-review-as-farage-blasts-woke-priorities-20231102

Interesting and more recent article about this Seems like they asked the banks and they all said no. Guess they provided some sort of evidence - but there were significant holes in what they gave which they have been chasing up. Gather Coutts are still not off the hook with the way they handled everything.