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

Actions against PEPs is not "undemocratic corporate discrimination". It's a legal requirement meant to hinder criminals from laundering money and protect out democracy from corruption.

Farage has not been refused financial services. One bank refused his business and offered an alternative.

We seem to be on a slippery slope where safeguards against all kinds of criminal and unethical behaviour are being removed and it scares me. Mens rights to "innocent until proven guilty" overriding all kinds of democratic and safeguard8ng processes.

Actually, Farage said that after Coutts closed his account, he trie 10 other banks, and they all refused him accounts.

Gina Miller, the anti-Brexit campaigner, said that a number of banks refused her political party an account after Monzo debanked it.

Professor Lesley Sawers, the Equalities and Human Rights Commissioner for Scotland, was with RBS for 32 years but she and her husband Allan McKechnie were told recently that their account would be shut and when Mr McKechnie spoke to another bank about opening an account he was told that Prof.Sawers has a “mark against her name”.

It's not just an isolated incident affecting only a person some posters on here dislike.

It's not just an isolated incident affecting only a person some posters on here dislike.

And they show their complete ignorance and intolerance by claiming that it is.

Which would be very interesting if Coutts hadn't offered to restore all his previous banking arrangements, both private and business.

Coutts/NatWest are part public owned and subject to government pressure. Dame Rose resigned after direct intervention by Sunak.
The whole thing stinks to be honest.

ODFOD

When did i claim it was only him??
I am intolerant of Farage. Imo he is a frog faced fucker. Luckily there is only one of him so it doesn't count as discrimination to dislike him.

Self regulation is a disaster. We knew that cos the banks collapsed 2 years before the disastrous coalition arrived.Not sure where you get that idea.

The 2010 Equalities Act should have never come about. It is a useless LDP contrivance, we are up to our eyeballs in human rights legislation after what Blair and his wife did. Every human interaction gets policed now.

People in the UK don’t seem to have woken up to the fact that after 40 years the US Supreme Court has said affirmative action is now illegal and discriminatory.

That will have ramifications here too: expect people to challenge the HRA and EA legally here soon.

@Marblechops affirmative action (positive discrimination)has always been illegal in the UK so I don't think that we need to worry about that too much over here.
@AdamRyan you really don't get it do you. So I will try and explain it to you again hopefully in a way that will get past your hate addled brain.
Coutts bank BROKE THE LAW. They ILLEGALLY DISCRIMINATED against Mr Farage for his legally held political views, they were then stupid enough to put it in writing!!(that would be the 39 page dossier that they put together and had to hand over to him)
Dame Alison BROKE THE LAW. She ILLEGALLY DISCLOSED confidentially held information about Mr Farages bank accounts. She also lied to the BBC about why his account was closed and then worst of all she was very publicly caught doing so.

You may disagree with the above statements however they are accurate and are the reasons that the FCA and IOC have both launched statutory investigations into the bank.

Now onto the government I will split this into 2 as they are not only the UK government with specific duties as such but they are also the largest shareholder of the bank and have other rights and duties as such.
As the UK government they must stand behind the RULE OF LAW and when blindingly obvious ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES (such as discrimination) becomes a mainstream process in a vital industry such as banking (its not just Farage) then they have a duty to act by tightening regulations and close any loopholes that are being exploited (which they are doing). They have to do this even when they don't like or are in competition for votes with the victims (just as Labour would with the leader of the Communist party or Jeremy Corben).
As the largest shareholder of the bank they have the legal right to call for a vote of no confidence in the board and/or any single member of the board. They did this publicly and the 2nd largest shareholder backed them (2nd largest went further and called for the entire board to go). Between the government and 2nd largest shareholder they hold well over 51% of the shares and would win such a vote so rather than hold the vote the board tried to save themselves and ditched Dame Alison, whether this action saves the rest of the board is yet to be seen.

What you have to remember is that the law must be applied equally to everyone no matter how much you despise them or we have no law. This is a lesson that has been shown to be true time and time again and 1 that used to be taught in school, though clearly not anymore otherwise we wouldn't be in the situation we are now

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12361747/Female-NatWest-executive-sacked-160K-year-job-two-days-cancer-surgery-wins-nearly-90K-compensation-tribunal-unfairly-dismissed.html

Nat West certainly know how to treat a woman with cancer don't they. Banks as the good guys and moral arbiters? Yeah, right.

Well exactly. This is why I'm mystified that anyone thinks the banks are lefty wokeratis. Ultimately they are about the bottom line

But they are under pressure to display "corporate social responsibility".

However, they don't look at what they could do for communities, like not shutting branches, or at not investing in harmful businesses, because that would cost them a lot.

instead they go for rainbow-washing, like giving staff loans and time off for gender cosmetic surgery, sticking up "progress" flags and debanking women:s rights campaigners, or they identify others regarded by so-called progressives as bogeymen and debank them. Because that costs them peanuts.

So yes, it is all about the bottom line.

Coutts bank BROKE THE LAW. They ILLEGALLY DISCRIMINATED against Mr Farage for his legally held political views, they were then stupid enough to put it in writing!!(that would be the 39 page dossier that they put together and had to hand over to him)
Dame Alison BROKE THE LAW. She ILLEGALLY DISCLOSED confidentially held information about Mr Farages bank accounts. She also lied to the BBC about why his account was closed and then worst of all she was very publicly caught doing so.

No proof that anyone broke the law, that's just what Farage says. I'll wait and see what the investigations say before drawing conclusions on that. Innocent until proven guilty also applies to women.

Racism/xenophobia are not a "legally held political views" and in fact in certain circumstances are illegal. Farage is very careful to stay the right side of the line but its incorrect to say his views are "legally held political views".

The rule of law does apply to everyone. Numerous people get their bank accounts closed/refused without proof of a crime, because they are a risk. Farage is an influential man who's used his power to kick up a fuss about the law applying to him. He probably needs to be more careful about who he associates with.

If that was the case they would t have bothered with a shoddy long document over Farage

you really don't get it do you. So I will try and explain it to you again hopefully in a way that will get past your hate addled brain.

Hats off to pp for trying but it’s likely pointless

Well, it could be me "not getting it" or it could be you "not getting it". Or a difference of opinion, which is allowed.

I'll happily apologise if the FCA find that Farage had his account removed purely because Coutts disagree with his politics. I'm just not the kind of person who trusts the word of someone I know has been untruthful in the past.

The proof would be the 39 page dossier that literally says so and has been seen by many repoters and lawyers oh yes and the government too. Then theres also the fact that all of his accounts have been reopened.
As for the rest of your nonsensical post perhaps read what you wrote Mr Farage has not strayed into illegal racist or xenophobic territory. Therefore, his beliefs are legally held. This is true even if you don't like it or wish it wasn't, part of having free speech is that everyone has the right to say and campaign for anything that they like as long as it doesn't cross the line and clearly (as you admit yourself) Mr Farage hasn't crossed that line.

How long can you hold your breath? Because Starmer ain't it.

That was my first thought.

For the record, I don't want Kemi as PM, or any other right wing Tory.

Hmm another ‘frightened’ Labour supporter

If the left didn’t try to get people to sign up to gender ideology as part of what they offer this board could look different

They have the choice, lose women or change

Now this where I disagree. To me, GC is important. But the evidence that it is affecting people's voting intention is minimal. This board is one thing, but Labour are twenty points ahead and the current situation will be focussed on money, or the lack of it.

Which is why engaging with the Labour Party is a wise move for GC people. They look like the next government, either as a minority or majority.

We’ll see.

Polls aren’t fixed.

If you are a Labour voter and supporter go ahead and engage with them.

I’ll keep going for change. I can see we’re getting results even if the unhelpful say don’t bother.

It's not about not bothering - it's sensible to engage Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dem.

Siloing your views to one party or other is part of the issue.

But GC views won't decide an overall election. That will be on personal finance and cost of living. All the more reason to ensure that if no change is made before the next election and honestly I would put money on it not happening, then the conversations have to be to those in power.

The Conservatives have all the tools to make changes now.

What do you actually mean by ‘engage’

I can’t stand them and find their anti women stance reprehensible but what is it you actually want?

Why don’t you do it since they’re more your bag?

It's difficult to engage with a party that throws out female members who stand up for women's rights - and indeed has a group of people dedicated to hunting such members out in order to expel them, which withdraws the booking of a stand at conference from its internal women's rights group, and which has MPs who tell constituents there is no point in contacting them with GC messages, as documented on this board

I do look forward to conference season. Let's see whether Labour Women's Declaration and other women's and gay groups are allowed to attend, to set up stalls and to organise events. And whether the party does anything effective sbout any TRA threats and demonstrations.

And what was your second thought?