michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710 
Likes: 2,985
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 4, 2023 19:50:42 GMT
I'm still interested to see what _he_ thinks about whether people should face a hostile environment due to the views they hold (such as those held by Farage) ? The PEP framework is designed to improve risk management around potentially high risk individuals. Could Farage have fallen under its purview? I don't think it's impossible (vis Banks, Trump, former MEP, former leader of a political party etc). I'm actually surprised by how permissive the PEP framework is, but that's another discussion... I don't think I'm wise enough to offer a definitive answer to your wider question about whether or not "people should face a hostile environment due to the views they hold (such as those held by Farage)". Partly that's because "hostile environment" is a hopelessly vague term. I guess I hold a number of different views, some of which likely conflict. * Should people be able to hold whatever views they like? As much as possible, yes. With that goes responsibility for holding them, including that one result might be that some people take offense. * Should somebody who openly supports ISIS be allowed to raise funds for them and open a UK bank account for the management of those funds? Absolutely not. * Should a hotel owner be allowed to turn away a gay couple because homosexual relationships somehow offend against their religious beliefs? I think the answer is no, but I accept that it's much more nuanced than the ISIS example above (and I don't actually know what the law says at the moment). * Should a bank be allowed to turn down the custom of the hotel owner above because the bank as an institution wants to promote a culturally progressive agenda (or because it stands to lose more business from disgruntled customers who leave because it refuses to stop dealing with the hotel owner than it would gain because it continues to deal with the hotel owner)? I don't know the answer to that. There's a real tension between allowing people and organisations the freedom to act as they wish to and upholding the provision of a minimal level of services. * If I held racist or sexist views should I face hostility for holding them? Yes, I think I should, I certainly think I should expect to. * Should British Gas / Thames Water / BT / Vodafone / EDF / Barclays be able to turn down customers? Yes. On what basis? I guess that depends, and it will vary over time. That's why we have a parliament to legislate and courts to uphold the law as it exists at any point in time. Does any of the above mean that I can't hold certain views? No, it doesn't, I just have to accept that holding certain views can have consequences. As for Farage, had he fallen foul of PEP requirements it wouldn't have been because of his views, it would have been because of his risk profile. But it's moot, because we now understand that it was nothing to do him being a PEP or otherwise. That's a good answer even though I don't agree with much of it. What stands out to me is Thames Water. You'd happily live in a country where fresh water and sewage was allowed to be withheld due to a person's beliefs?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 4, 2023 20:09:36 GMT
The PEP framework is designed to improve risk management around potentially high risk individuals. Could Farage have fallen under its purview? I don't think it's impossible (vis Banks, Trump, former MEP, former leader of a political party etc). I'm actually surprised by how permissive the PEP framework is, but that's another discussion... I don't think I'm wise enough to offer a definitive answer to your wider question about whether or not "people should face a hostile environment due to the views they hold (such as those held by Farage)". Partly that's because "hostile environment" is a hopelessly vague term. I guess I hold a number of different views, some of which likely conflict. * Should people be able to hold whatever views they like? As much as possible, yes. With that goes responsibility for holding them, including that one result might be that some people take offense. * Should somebody who openly supports ISIS be allowed to raise funds for them and open a UK bank account for the management of those funds? Absolutely not. * Should a hotel owner be allowed to turn away a gay couple because homosexual relationships somehow offend against their religious beliefs? I think the answer is no, but I accept that it's much more nuanced than the ISIS example above (and I don't actually know what the law says at the moment). * Should a bank be allowed to turn down the custom of the hotel owner above because the bank as an institution wants to promote a culturally progressive agenda (or because it stands to lose more business from disgruntled customers who leave because it refuses to stop dealing with the hotel owner than it would gain because it continues to deal with the hotel owner)? I don't know the answer to that. There's a real tension between allowing people and organisations the freedom to act as they wish to and upholding the provision of a minimal level of services. * If I held racist or sexist views should I face hostility for holding them? Yes, I think I should, I certainly think I should expect to. * Should British Gas / Thames Water / BT / Vodafone / EDF / Barclays be able to turn down customers? Yes. On what basis? I guess that depends, and it will vary over time. That's why we have a parliament to legislate and courts to uphold the law as it exists at any point in time. Does any of the above mean that I can't hold certain views? No, it doesn't, I just have to accept that holding certain views can have consequences. As for Farage, had he fallen foul of PEP requirements it wouldn't have been because of his views, it would have been because of his risk profile. But it's moot, because we now understand that it was nothing to do him being a PEP or otherwise. That's a good answer even though I don't agree with much of it. What stands out to me is Thames Water. You'd happily live in a country where fresh water and sewage was allowed to be withheld due to a person's beliefs? There is not a single thing in that post which would suggest what you import - nor in any of the previous posts on the matter. So why are you going down that road ? You have manufactured a supposed position on behalf of someone else out of nothing more than thin air. Nothing there states anything about "Thames Water being able to turn down customers based on their belief". On the contrary. In this particular post, the statement is quite clearly that they, like other bodies, should be able to do so only to the extent allowed by and entirely subject to whatever legislation (the democratically elected) parliament has seen fit to be applicable the time. So your question has been answered: namely any ability to withdraw services must only be in accordance with the law. And as it happens, there are pretty strict laws about denial of such basic services as water supply, and they don't include: because of someone's beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 4, 2023 20:23:05 GMT
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710
Likes: 2,985
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 4, 2023 21:06:43 GMT
That's a good answer even though I don't agree with much of it. What stands out to me is Thames Water. You'd happily live in a country where fresh water and sewage was allowed to be withheld due to a person's beliefs? - nor in any of the previous posts on the matter. So why are you going down that road ? You have manufactured a supposed position on behalf of someone else out of nothing more than thin air. Nothing there states anything about "Thames Water being able to turn down customers based on their belief". On the contrary. In this particular post, the statement is quite clearly that they, like other bodies, should be able to do so only to the extent allowed by and entirely subject to whatever legislation (the democratically elected) parliament has seen fit to be applicable the time. So your question has been answered: namely any ability to withdraw services must only be in accordance with the law. And as it happens, there are pretty strict laws about denial of such basic services as water supply, and they don't include: because of someone's beliefs. He said and I quote "should Thames Water be able to turn down customers?".
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,022
Likes: 5,148
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 4, 2023 21:18:34 GMT
I'm still interested to see what _he_ thinks about whether people should face a hostile environment due to the views they hold ? Let's just pause one minute, and consider this as in the abstract, rather than specific. Consider the concept of businesses being able to deny service to individuals. We're all very familiar with a pub landlord being able to bar individuals - are you happy with them being able to do that? Do you have an issue with a supermarket chain banning an individual? metro.co.uk/2023/02/25/man-banned-from-morrisons-store-after-threatening-girlfriend-would-poo-there-18347310/How about football clubs? www.premierleague.com/news/3343646Or would you force all of those business to provide service to everybody, no matter how egregious their previous behaviour?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,022
Likes: 5,148
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 4, 2023 21:19:24 GMT
There is not a single thing in that post which would suggest what you import - nor in any of the previous posts on the matter. So why are you going down that road ? You have manufactured a supposed position on behalf of someone else out of nothing more than thin air. Nothing there states anything about "Thames Water being able to turn down customers based on their belief". On the contrary. In this particular post, the statement is quite clearly that they, like other bodies, should be able to do so only to the extent allowed by and entirely subject to whatever legislation (the democratically elected) parliament has seen fit to be applicable the time. So your question has been answered: namely any ability to withdraw services must only be in accordance with the law. And as it happens, there are pretty strict laws about denial of such basic services as water supply, and they don't include: because of someone's beliefs. He said and I quote "should Thames Water be able to turn down customers?". Thames Water is different, because they're a monopoly supplier. If you live in their area, you cannot get mains water or sewerage from any other supplier.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Jul 4, 2023 21:50:05 GMT
I'm still interested to see what _he_ thinks about whether people should face a hostile environment due to the views they hold ? Let's just pause one minute, and consider this as in the abstract, rather than specific. Consider the concept of businesses being able to deny service to individuals.
We're all very familiar with a pub landlord being able to bar individuals - are you happy with them being able to do that? Do you have an issue with a supermarket chain banning an individual? metro.co.uk/2023/02/25/man-banned-from-morrisons-store-after-threatening-girlfriend-would-poo-there-18347310/How about football clubs? www.premierleague.com/news/3343646Or would you force all of those business to provide service to everybody, no matter how egregious their previous behaviour?yes those services should be forced to provide a service where they are a monopoly and no other service is available.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Jul 4, 2023 21:54:36 GMT
And yet coutts have made no comment as yet.... even the BBC was reporting it as "sources close to coutts in the know" .. tho not surprising from the BBC crud.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,022
Likes: 5,148
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 4, 2023 22:27:42 GMT
yes those services should be forced to provide a service where they are a monopoly and no other service is available. A water company is - and I agree with you that's a bad example - but none of the ones I listed are. Nor is a particular bank.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,022
Likes: 5,148
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 4, 2023 22:34:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 5, 2023 6:31:13 GMT
There is not a single thing in that post which would suggest what you import - nor in any of the previous posts on the matter. So why are you going down that road ? You have manufactured a supposed position on behalf of someone else out of nothing more than thin air. Nothing there states anything about "Thames Water being able to turn down customers based on their belief". On the contrary. In this particular post, the statement is quite clearly that they, like other bodies, should be able to do so only to the extent allowed by and entirely subject to whatever legislation (the democratically elected) parliament has seen fit to be applicable the time. So your question has been answered: namely any ability to withdraw services must only be in accordance with the law. And as it happens, there are pretty strict laws about denial of such basic services as water supply, and they don't include: because of someone's beliefs. He said and I quote "should Thames Water be able to turn down customers?". No. What he said was, and I quote (in full rather than a single sentence snipped out of context): " Should British Gas / Thames Water / BT / Vodafone / EDF / Barclays be able to turn down customers? Yes. On what basis? I guess that depends, and it will vary over time. That's why we have a parliament to legislate and courts to uphold the law as it exists at any point in time." In the English language, sentences have context. Here the meaning is crystal clear unless you want it not to be. The first part poses a question: Should they be able to ? The next single word confirms they should. The third and 4th pose another question: namely on what basis should they be allowed, and professes uncertainty over exactly what criteria might apply. While the final makes it clear that any denial of service should within the law as laid down by parliament and adjudicated by the courts: the first of those being democratically elected, and the second being independent and making judgement against those laws, without fear or favour [in the context of the UK]. The current law in the UK does not allow the withdrawal of water supplies to a domestic customer even if they owe them money. I don't know of any circumstances where they can be cut off, but perhaps there are some exigencies (like works on the site done in a way which risk contaminating the mains). I would imagine (but can't be ****d to bother looking up) that supply to businesses could be cut off in the event of non-payment but I suspect only after several warnings and failure to pay. Making a leap that the poster could be suggesting that someone could be denied water supply as a result of a belief is just ......ridiculous. As an aside, but its only just about "an aside", under the equality act it is illegal to discriminate against defined 'protected characteristics', which are: - age. - gender reassignment. - being married or in a civil partnership. - being pregnant or on maternity leave. - disability. - race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin. - religion or belief. - sex. That protection applies to: -at work -in education -as a consumer -when using public services -when buying or renting property -as a member or guest of a private club or association
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,048
Likes: 4,438
|
Post by agent69 on Jul 5, 2023 8:30:14 GMT
An 82 year old woman tried to avoid inheritance tax by gifting her £1.4m house to her daughter. They subsequently had an argument and the daughter kicked her mother out of the house, making her homeless.
Serves her right for trying to game the system.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,022
Likes: 5,148
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 5, 2023 8:48:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 5, 2023 9:13:22 GMT
well it might be a complicated ruse on their behalf of course...... (though this is slightly tongue in cheek). With a laymans hat on (since I have no other hat to wear). I think had this arrangement and still stood at time of death, it is highly probable it would have had no impact on inheritance tax. I haven't looked at the Wail article so i don't know whether the mother was paying rent or not. If she was that would have made a difference but only if it was considered 'fair market rent'. I strongly suspect. If she wasn't then I'm sure HMRC would have claimed it still fell into the estate on grounds that the gift came with "reservation of benefits". If she was not paying rent, then I think from a stand point of trying to remove it from the estate for IHT, not only was it already game over, but now it definitely is (as the case is predicated on the mother assuming a "reservation of benefit"). This could pan out badly for either one or both of them. If the gifting is deemed as valid - not from an IHT perspective but from a change of ownership perspective - then mother may end up out the house. There may still not be IHT benefit if she pops off quickly, as I suspect that it would be deemed to have reserved benefit up until the point she is evicted (if no rent being paid). If the change of ownership is not considered to be valid, then the daughter may end up without the property and cut out of the will entirely by the mother. Sliding doors moment.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,022
Likes: 5,148
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 5, 2023 9:35:34 GMT
I haven't looked at the Wail article ... If the gifting is deemed as valid - not from an IHT perspective but from a change of ownership perspective The Wail article is the verdict - the other is months old. The mother lost, and has to get out - she also has to pay £10k costs.
|
|
