And this article gives even more background on ESG and a discussion on whether or not this is a good idea.
Basically though even the author of the piece doesn't really understand that people do not like being preached to. They are happy to see companies do certain things (ie turning the lights off at night) but they do not want companies using a cudgel or pushing it down their throat.
It is going to be interesting to see where this goes.
Oh! Didn't see this until I posted below. Another great catch, Michelle.
And I apologize. I neglected to say that You're absolutely right. The U.S. exported this ESG crap. I apologize for that as well. '“A company that feels it has to define the purpose of Hellmann’s mayonnaise has clearly lost the plot,” the entrepreneur wrote.' Everybody's and every company is looking for "purpose." "Meaning." I just don't see it as viable to seek these things by way of shallow thinking/feeling. But that's just me.
I only saw it after I'd post the main things but I thought -- I know a few people who might find it really interesting. Hellman's mayonnaise knew what its purpose was back in 1913. It hasn't changed.
Finally awakened. (As opposed to "woke up." ;-) And: Well! Isn't this a treat!
I don't normally watch videos, but that clip by Wes Streetling was well worth it.
And Thank You for the article about Baroness Nicholson: "...this tide of rubbish which is choking freedom of speech and freedom of thought" indeed! It's a scientific, biological fact. It's mathematically *impossible* to change biological gender. Maybe someday, in the far-distant future, people will be able to change their chromosomes at the cellular level. Until that time, biological sex is a fixed, fundamental reality that people just do NOT wanna recognize. To bad for the rest-a us.
And, of course, can't get enough-a M. Badenoch. "Kafkaesque madness"? Couldn't have put it better myself.
And Coutts? 'Coutts concluded that his views “were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation”.' The more I see this word "inclusive", the more I see that it means *excluding* people. You don't like someone's views? Ostracize them. Based on being inclusive. <puke>
Just wanna say that You've really outdone Yourself this week, Michelle. Hope You enjoy rest-a weekend.
Yes Politically Exposed Persons is a real thing. They are more at risk for bribery and corruption and thus banks are forced to do additional checks. It is something which started with EU regulations (trying for Russian oligarchs etc) and has expanded. Grant Shapps who is the transportation minister has come out and said his immediate family have had bank accounts refused because he is in politics.
This was a good article by Simon Fanshawe about some of the difficulties re the current manifestation of JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity and In clusion) https://archive.is/DvZUQ
It has to be a protected belief -- worthy to be held in a democratic society.
There is no 1st amendment in the UK.
But as Badenoch points out -- the Eq Act prevents positive discrimination as a man who is white and say C of E has those protected characteristics. It is why the RAF were fined for its recruitment policy which disadvantaged white men.
And this article gives even more background on ESG and a discussion on whether or not this is a good idea.
Basically though even the author of the piece doesn't really understand that people do not like being preached to. They are happy to see companies do certain things (ie turning the lights off at night) but they do not want companies using a cudgel or pushing it down their throat.
It is going to be interesting to see where this goes.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/07/30/alison-rose-natwest-woke-ethical-british-companies/ or https://archive.is/uF7od
Oh! Didn't see this until I posted below. Another great catch, Michelle.
And I apologize. I neglected to say that You're absolutely right. The U.S. exported this ESG crap. I apologize for that as well. '“A company that feels it has to define the purpose of Hellmann’s mayonnaise has clearly lost the plot,” the entrepreneur wrote.' Everybody's and every company is looking for "purpose." "Meaning." I just don't see it as viable to seek these things by way of shallow thinking/feeling. But that's just me.
Thank You, yet once again, Ma'am.
I only saw it after I'd post the main things but I thought -- I know a few people who might find it really interesting. Hellman's mayonnaise knew what its purpose was back in 1913. It hasn't changed.
VERY interesting. Many thanks. None of this makes it into the American media.
I’m so impressed with Kemi Badenoch. And thank you for introducing me to Baroness Nicholson. What an incredible woman she is.
Yes Emma Nicholson is. I have so much respect for her and what she has done. Truly one of life's good people.
Kemi is impressive as well.
Finally awakened. (As opposed to "woke up." ;-) And: Well! Isn't this a treat!
I don't normally watch videos, but that clip by Wes Streetling was well worth it.
And Thank You for the article about Baroness Nicholson: "...this tide of rubbish which is choking freedom of speech and freedom of thought" indeed! It's a scientific, biological fact. It's mathematically *impossible* to change biological gender. Maybe someday, in the far-distant future, people will be able to change their chromosomes at the cellular level. Until that time, biological sex is a fixed, fundamental reality that people just do NOT wanna recognize. To bad for the rest-a us.
And, of course, can't get enough-a M. Badenoch. "Kafkaesque madness"? Couldn't have put it better myself.
And Coutts? 'Coutts concluded that his views “were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation”.' The more I see this word "inclusive", the more I see that it means *excluding* people. You don't like someone's views? Ostracize them. Based on being inclusive. <puke>
Just wanna say that You've really outdone Yourself this week, Michelle. Hope You enjoy rest-a weekend.
When I saw the Kemi op ed - I thought JT needs to know about this.
And Emma Nicholson is just seriously impressive.
Yes, TY on both counts. I'd not heard-a Baroness Nicholson before, and Kemi is all Kemi.
From Badenoch's opinion piece: "Politically Exposed Persons (PEP) regulations". Is this a real thing? Government regulation? Private entity policy?
Yes Politically Exposed Persons is a real thing. They are more at risk for bribery and corruption and thus banks are forced to do additional checks. It is something which started with EU regulations (trying for Russian oligarchs etc) and has expanded. Grant Shapps who is the transportation minister has come out and said his immediate family have had bank accounts refused because he is in politics.
Andthis is the latest from Nigel Farage. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/31/nigel-farage-all-banks-guilty-debanking-fca-coutts-account/ or https://archive.is/Omssa
This was a good article by Simon Fanshawe about some of the difficulties re the current manifestation of JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity and In clusion) https://archive.is/DvZUQ
And the UK Equality Act protects political beliefs? That's pretty powerful as it seems to act against private actor discrimination of beliefs ...
It has to be a protected belief -- worthy to be held in a democratic society.
There is no 1st amendment in the UK.
But as Badenoch points out -- the Eq Act prevents positive discrimination as a man who is white and say C of E has those protected characteristics. It is why the RAF were fined for its recruitment policy which disadvantaged white men.