EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 617
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
| ||
|
castleeMg
Canada761 Posts
On July 06 2023 02:21 KwarK wrote: I think that it’s perfectly reasonable for a boutique bank that makes its money from its reputation to discontinue a specific customer due to concerns of reputational damage. Especially if they aren’t providing anything the same customer couldn’t get from a dozen other companies. So you believe a bank can deny service to someone even when they’re not doing anything illegal and that they’re allowed to openly discriminate against someone’s personal beliefs if they feel it’s necessary to hold a “good reputation.” Can you imagine if the bank denied someone who was an outspoken trans activist or someone of a similar stature? Denying banking service for ANYONE who is not a criminal is wrong and the hypocrisy of your posts are disturbing. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13927 Posts
On July 06 2023 04:55 castleeMg wrote: So you believe a bank can deny service to someone even when they’re not doing anything illegal and that they’re allowed to openly discriminate against someone’s personal beliefs if they feel it’s necessary to hold a “good reputation.” Can you imagine if the bank denied someone who was an outspoken trans activist or someone of a similar stature? Denying banking service for ANYONE who is not a criminal is wrong and the hypocrisy of your posts are disturbing. You are allowed to discriminate who you do business with on a very wide window of reasons. They wouldn't be denying banking service to him they would have just been deciding they don't want to do business with them anymore. Do you think its right to force a business to continue doing business with an entity that they don't want to anymore? Are you obligated morally to continue operating a service to someone in perpetuity? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
On July 06 2023 04:55 castleeMg wrote: So you believe a bank can deny service to someone even when they’re not doing anything illegal and that they’re allowed to openly discriminate against someone’s personal beliefs if they feel it’s necessary to hold a “good reputation.” Can you imagine if the bank denied someone who was an outspoken trans activist or someone of a similar stature? Denying banking service for ANYONE who is not a criminal is wrong and the hypocrisy of your posts are disturbing. The alternative is literally slavery so yeah, I generally think people shouldn't be forced to work for other people if they don't want to. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25322 Posts
On July 06 2023 02:10 Melliflue wrote: My point was not that people should have believed Farage. He is a conman with a long history of deceit. My point was that people were very quick to believe the bank. (It was not even an official statement from the bank. The BBC article quoted "people familiar with Coutts' move".) For example, Wombat went from disbelieving Farage to fully believing Coutts. How many people in this thread would normally believe Coutts/NatWest? I wouldn't. The BBC journalist who wrote that article has since tweeted that people have been in touch to say their accounts haven't been suspended despite failing to meet the financial requirements. I should show the same critical thinking about the people claiming Farage is lying as I do about Farage (part of which is considering their history of honesty/integrity where Farage falls very short but banks don't fare well either.) Btw, I am appalled (but sadly not surprised) that politicians and "news" outlets like GB News ran with the story. I’m not sure that’s a terribly fair representation of my process here given in the middle I also made a post where I thought there may be something in it, and expressing a rather large amount of disdain at the banking sector. A large part of that disdain coming from their general lack of scruples on how they’re making money. That usually trumps other concerns, allied to that Farage is apparently not meeting certain obligations, hey, he himself confirmed that In a hypothetical example, my boss may hate my guts, but discovers me making a fireable transgression. One I know every other manager I’d ever worked for would maybe give me a stern warning for, even though it’s a technical legit reason to get fired. I get fired. Now, I can claim it’s because the boss fired me due to personal enmity, I may even be right, 100%! But I still ultimately was legitimately fired. Unless I have receipts explicitly showing that personal enmity motivated it, well good luck with that when another exists. Farage is a prick but he’s politically bloody milquetoast, there’s a long line of considerably bigger pricks in Britain who can still bank fine. How much, and how long have these folks who also apparently haven’t met their bank’s requirements done so? Who knows? Anyway the right wing media has their usual ‘we’re so persecuted’ field day off the base of disingenuous presentation, as per fucking always. As a rule I do try to give benefit of the doubt but sometimes assumptions trump critically evaluating literally everything, the latter can be overwhelming. | ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
Several weeks ago Carla Foster was sentenced to 28 weeks in jail for having a late-term abortion. She has had it halved on appeal, and that means she has been released. Here are the background facts: She obtained the abortion pills through the 'Pills by Post' scheme set up during the pandemic. The scheme can only be used within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Abortion in the UK is banned after 24 weeks. The more speculative facts: She believed she was about 28 weeks pregnant. The BBC article doesn't say this but it was reported elsewhere, eg The Guardian. Doctors estimated the foetus was between 32 and 34 weeks developed. The sentencing led to outrage and calls for abortion to be decriminalised from many people and organisations, including the BPAS, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Royal College of Midwives. There was a protest where Stella Creasy MP gave a speech. I am pro-choice, and believe she shouldn't be forced to carry the foetus if she doesn't want to. But there is a question that makes me very uncomfortable; If the foetus could survive outside of the womb, why should she be allowed to terminate the foetus before having it removed? The survival odds for a baby born after 31 weeks are about 95%. If Carla Foster had given birth prematurely then killed the baby I don't think many people would be upset about the sentence. This makes me think that for late-term pregnancy the option should be removal of the foetus, but not termination. Then the baby will be treated like any premature birth. The mother can decide to put the baby up for adoption (if it survives). | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17991 Posts
On July 19 2023 17:08 Melliflue wrote: The thread has gone a bit quiet again so I will try to start a discussion with a story from a little while ago that popped up again this morning. Several weeks ago Carla Foster was sentenced to 28 weeks in jail for having a late-term abortion. She has had it halved on appeal, and that means she has been released. Here are the background facts: She obtained the abortion pills through the 'Pills by Post' scheme set up during the pandemic. The scheme can only be used within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Abortion in the UK is banned after 24 weeks. The more speculative facts: She believed she was about 28 weeks pregnant. The BBC article doesn't say this but it was reported elsewhere, eg The Guardian. Doctors estimated the foetus was between 32 and 34 weeks developed. The sentencing led to outrage and calls for abortion to be decriminalised from many people and organisations, including the BPAS, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Royal College of Midwives. There was a protest where Stella Creasy MP gave a speech. I am pro-choice, and believe she shouldn't be forced to carry the foetus if she doesn't want to. But there is a question that makes me very uncomfortable; If the foetus could survive outside of the womb, why should she be allowed to terminate the foetus before having it removed? The survival odds for a baby born after 31 weeks are about 95%. If Carla Foster had given birth prematurely then killed the baby I don't think many people would be upset about the sentence. This makes me think that for late-term pregnancy the option should be removal of the foetus, but not termination. Then the baby will be treated like any premature birth. The mother can decide to put the baby up for adoption (if it survives). I agree with you. I don't think you'll find many people who believe a pregnant woman has the right to murder a viable baby. She has the right to have it removed from her body, though. | ||
|
Mikau
Netherlands1446 Posts
If the facts as presented are true this gives me the heebies, regardless of whether she was 28 or 34 weeks along. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42685 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10500 Posts
| ||
|
mathenalin
United Kingdom120 Posts
On July 20 2023 13:55 BlackJack wrote: I don’t see much point in criminalizing late term abortions/infanticide for mothers. What’s imprisoning them going to accomplish really? It’s not like they are a danger to society and need to be locked away. I bet any sentence you hand down will either be too long to the point of cruelty or too short to the point it doesn’t have any affect as a deterrent. It's difficult to weigh in on this debate. The TL demographic is typically men in their 20-30's and, speaking as a man in his 20-30's, I'm not the best equipped to deal with this complex issue. In the same way that old men shouldn't be making laws on what women can do to their own body, but I digress. What I can say is that a "late term abortion/infanticide" is still considered a murder and that there has to be consequences to this action. If you decide to keep a baby and then right at the end change your mind then you can put the child up for adoption. I also think the unique circumstances of the pandemic made things worse. I do have some sympathy to the woman as she clearly needed help and maybe she wasn't able to access it. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10500 Posts
On July 06 2023 02:10 Melliflue wrote: My point was not that people should have believed Farage. He is a conman with a long history of deceit. My point was that people were very quick to believe the bank. (It was not even an official statement from the bank. The BBC article quoted "people familiar with Coutts' move".) For example, Wombat went from disbelieving Farage to fully believing Coutts. How many people in this thread would normally believe Coutts/NatWest? I wouldn't. The BBC journalist who wrote that article has since tweeted that people have been in touch to say their accounts haven't been suspended despite failing to meet the financial requirements. I should show the same critical thinking about the people claiming Farage is lying as I do about Farage (part of which is considering their history of honesty/integrity where Farage falls very short but banks don't fare well either.) Btw, I am appalled (but sadly not surprised) that politicians and "news" outlets like GB News ran with the story. An update to this by the way. Farage obtained internal documents that revealed Coutts did freeze him out due to his controversial opinions and had been looking to do so for a while. The minimum wealth threshold seems more of a cover story. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-britains-most-prestigious-bank-cancelled-nigel-farage/ | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17991 Posts
On July 20 2023 18:26 BlackJack wrote: An update to this by the way. Farage obtained internal documents that revealed Coutts did freeze him out due to his controversial opinions and had been looking to do so for a while. The minimum wealth threshold seems more of a cover story. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-britains-most-prestigious-bank-cancelled-nigel-farage/ You should be full on Coutts' side of this, though, right? Must be hard to be a conservative and suddenly find yourself fighting against the right of a business to choose whom they do business with. I'm just overall delighted. An unscrupulous bank and one of the biggest assholes in politics in a shitslinging contest. My favorite type of distraction from actual issues. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10500 Posts
On July 20 2023 19:10 Acrofales wrote: You should be full on Coutts' side of this, though, right? Must be hard to be a conservative and suddenly find yourself fighting against the right of a business to choose whom they do business with. I'm just overall delighted. An unscrupulous bank and one of the biggest assholes in politics in a shitslinging contest. My favorite type of distraction from actual issues. I think anyone with common sense should find this extremely unsavory. Whether it should be "allowed" is another question. | ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
On July 20 2023 13:55 BlackJack wrote: I don’t see much point in criminalizing late term abortions/infanticide for mothers. What’s imprisoning them going to accomplish really? It’s not like they are a danger to society and need to be locked away. I bet any sentence you hand down will either be too long to the point of cruelty or too short to the point it doesn’t have any affect as a deterrent. I suppose this comes down to what you believe is the purpose of criminal punishments. All the arguments I have seen fall into one of 4 categories: (1) Prevent the criminal committing more crimes. (2) Discourage other people from committing the same crime. (3) Make victims and their loved ones feel better. (4) Some vague sense of justice/fairness/karma, the idea that if you do something bad then something bad should happen to you. (5) Symbolic. They show what we value as a society. By decriminalising late-term abortions we are saying we, as a society, have no moral objection to it. I think (1) and (4) would apply in this case. I could also argue that decriminalising late-term abortions might make them more common because some pregnant people might leave it later to make a decision. It wouldn't take much of a punishment to encourage someone to make the decision sooner. Moreover, a punishment does not necessarily mean jail. It could be community payback, which is what Carla Foster will now have to do. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25322 Posts
With Cameron in is he gambling on trying to somehow pivot back to the centre and that people will forget well, that he appointed Braverman as Home Secretary and put up with her for so long? Doesn’t feel like that will wash, but then I don’t have a huge amount of faith in our electorate. Thank fuck she’s at least for now out of ministerial office, truly the biggest cunt that’s ever held such a position in my country for as far back as I can consciously remember. | ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
And honestly, I doubt many people will remember Braverman come election time. How many average voters could name the previous Home Secretary? I doubt people care that much. The economy, anti-social behaviour, healthcare, etc will define the next election. Possibly with some more fallout from the covid inquiry depending on how long that takes, and whatever issues the Daily Mail and other right-wing tabloids decide to push (usually immigration). | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25322 Posts
On November 14 2023 02:48 Melliflue wrote: I guess Rishi believes the right wing of the party wouldn't oust him so close to a general election. And honestly, I doubt many people will remember Braverman come election time. How many average voters could name the previous Home Secretary? I doubt people care that much. The economy, anti-social behaviour, healthcare, etc will define the next election. Possibly with some more fallout from the covid inquiry depending on how long that takes, and whatever issues the Daily Mail and other right-wing tabloids decide to push (usually immigration). I feel Braverman put herself very much front and centre, to an atypical degree so that may not hold. Although I think it’s less about her person, much more the various causes she espoused appealing to a particular demographic. The problem with dangling those is, to a certain degree you have to deliver and she/the wider Tories largely haven’t actually done that. People may by and large largely forget Braverman a couple of years down the line, but I’m not sure the same is true of the various pet policies and dog whistling she was allowed to do in her stint | ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
On November 14 2023 05:57 WombaT wrote: I feel Braverman put herself very much front and centre, to an atypical degree so that may not hold. Although I think it’s less about her person, much more the various causes she espoused appealing to a particular demographic. The problem with dangling those is, to a certain degree you have to deliver and she/the wider Tories largely haven’t actually done that. People may by and large largely forget Braverman a couple of years down the line, but I’m not sure the same is true of the various pet policies and dog whistling she was allowed to do in her stint She has been fanning the flames but she didn't start the fire. She is the latest to (try to) follow the Farage/Johnson method. I honestly don't know if she believes what she says or knows it will get her more attention than adopting any other position. And if she were not around there would be someone else. It has proven to be a successful strategy, sadly. My guess is she will desperately try to stay in the headlines and keep herself at the forefront of the far right wing of the Tory membership in the hopes of taking over as Tory leader if they lose the next general election. Whether that works will probably depend on the right-wing press. They made Johnson. They crushed Gove. If they think she could further the goals of (the owners of) the right wing press then they'll make her a figurehead. Otherwise she will get forgotten, like Priti Patel. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9649 Posts
Who do we want, more tories, or more tories? | ||
| ||
