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

Hmm. Highly doubt Farage is going to sue me, if he does I can point to various articles about this. He hasn't yet sued Carole Cadwalladr for example.

In 1979 there were 19 women MPs

And the PM was a woman. How weird was that?

And no, I'm not too bothered about "discrimination" against rich white politicians with dubious connections to Russia.

Interesting. Someone said they were frightened by the so called right wing opinions of feminists and GC posters on the thread, but was unable to give specific examples of said frightening things.

Yet this genuinely frightening, dictatorial, world view is proffered and deemed ok . Bizarre. Also what has being white got to do with having your bank account summarily closed and your private banking status leaked to the press and BBC?

I also think banks are a business and so can refuse service for whatever reasons they want.

Well, you’d be thinking wrong there.

Didn't answer my question about whether businesses like Bakers, B&B's and now Painters and Decorators can do the same as the Banks @AdamRyan how about trying?

It's an interesting article and I think she's hit the nail on the head. It's not about groups, and when we understand it to be about groups, action and policy will invariably become distorted and unbalanced.

It's like the argument that all things considered, it is ok to hire a good candidate who is non-white over a white one, on the basis of race, because that will equal up numbers or make up for previous discrimination or whatever.

People can justify that when they are thinking in terms of groups, because it's abstract. In reality though, in a scenario like that, what you are saying is the other guy didn't get the job because he was white. "Hi John, you were a good candidate, but we decided to hire this other person because we wanted someone brown."

Well guess what, this is direct discrimination on the basis of race against an individual. A real person, not an abstract group.

All women shortlists are the same problem. Perhaps they achieve the end you want, and that might be justifiable in certain instances( though I think it's questionable,) but you have certainly undermined the principle of non-discrimination by sex.

And no, I'm not too bothered about "discrimination" against rich white politicians with dubious connections to Russia.

Wow.

Frightening and dictatorial world view because I dont think Farage has been discriminated against??!!😂Hilarious! He's literally the epitome of male privilege. All sad because he can't get sn exclusive bank account. Boo hoo hoo. Poor old Nigel.

In the meantime all over the world, many women still don't have their own financial independence. Women can still expect to earn less than men in the UK. 1 in 6 experience financial abuse in their relationships. And they are more likely to live in poverty in the UK too. But no, Nigel's Bank account is the issue of the day. At least Kemi knows what the priorities are.

Honestly. This board has gone nuts.

You can't discriminate on the grounds of protected characteristics as well you know, but unfortunately for Nigel being odious is not yet a protected characteristic. 😂

You may need to try again. The odious man was debanked because of his beliefs which are probably WORIADS. Belief is a protected characteristic.

I don't think AdamRyan understands what has happened with the banking/EDI scandal that has emerged of late, so probably best left.

You can't discriminate on the grounds of protected characteristics as well you know, but unfortunately for Nigel being odious is not yet a protected characteristic.

Wrong again. Discrimination on the grounds of legally held, lawful political or other views and beliefs is not allowed. You are so blinded by your prejudice because of your dislike for Farage and his views that you cannot or will not see what is staring you in the face. You may want to live in an authoritarian state where freedom of speech and thought is not allowed and all must toe the Party line, I do not, however odious I may find certain people and their views.

It's possibly one of many things that AdamRyan doesn't understand.

No, I think AdamRyan is just blinded by prejudice.

Farage says part of the reason the bank didn't allow him to hold an account to was because of his "racist and xenophobic views". These are definitely not protected beliefs.

The bank is also unable to fully disclose its reasons for closing his account, without breaching legal and compliance requirements. So we only have his version of events.

As I said upthread, I do know a bit about this and I tend to think it's more likely the bank had good reason to close his account and Farage is being disingenuous, than that banking has become a hotbed of woke authoritarianism. You are free to disagree of course, its my opinion.

Oh, and noone is stopping his "freedom of speech". Quite the opposite. He gets a disproportionate amount of reporting, given he's not even a politician any more.

As I said upthread, I do know a bit about this

You really don't.

The correlation between farage fans and badenoch fans is interesting though 🤔

So two chief executives have resigned despite having "good reason*?

I've learned so much about the left from this board. It been an eye opener.

Looks like it

OK then. Clearly you know me irl and know my background.

I'm not left.
They resigned because they breached confidentiality and because Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt intervened. Not because the decision was wrong.
I'm actually more surprised Sunak got involved in defending Farage. Wish the rest of us got that kind of attention from the PM.

Did he defend farage or criticise the breach of confidentiality?

Now you just sound like a silly billy.

Mr Sunak’s failure to say whether or not he had confidence in Sir Howard as NatWest’s chairman will fuel speculation that he should also resign.
The Prime Minister instead pointedly admonished banks for shutting down accounts for political reasons, telling broadcasters: “What I said right at the start of this was that it wasn’t right for people to be deprived of basic services like banking because of their views.

“This isn’t about any one individual, it’s about values – do you believe in free speech and not to be discriminated against because of your legally held views?

“Do you believe in privacy, particularly on matters as sensitive as your financial information? Those are the values and questions at stake here, and that’s why I said what I did.”

Farage was well known enough to get national attention.
Those principles apply to everyone.

Whereas you sound insightful and evidence based