chrismac
Im waiting to see how much money farage made shorting NatWest shares knowing he was going to create this hullabaloo
Isn't this his boss at GBeebies' game?
See also shorting the pound at the referendum...
Political beliefs and if they fall under protected characteristics is complex.
https://www.harpermacleod.co.uk/insights/political-beliefs-and-the-equality-act-2010/
Errmm- that does not show what you think it does. thats one decision in an employment tribunal that does not set precedent.
from @db's link
this belief was one which was genuinely held; was worthy of respect in a democratic society; and it was not one which conflicted with the fundamental rights of others
The guy in question had been dismissed (he claimed) for being a leftie. Note the point about not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others - that is a requirement of the Act. It is unlikely that racism and xenophobia would pass this test.
If farage stands candidates agaisnt them they will lose seats.
Reform UK will stand candidates against the Conservatives, the idea that they will do the Tories any favours is ridiculous.
Ernie. Its back to your Brexit blind spot
Give it a rest ffs. You trot that out every time that you run out of things to say. Try to be imaginative and think of something else you say.
I don't have any "Brexit blind spot". Your problem is that you want to connect everything with Brexit.
Brexit has happened and that is why Nigel Farage has become a political irrelevance. A few years ago he was riding high when ukip actually came first in one nationwide local elections. Today they have just 6 councillors nationwide (Reform UK that is, ukip don't have any) and no MPs, and of course no MEPs.
Nigel Farage obviously still craves the limelight, but he is a political has been. The Tories rallying behind him has nothing to do with brexit. It is just another example of the Tories shooting themselves in the foot to add to the growing list.
Obviously Nigel Farage wants you to believe that his attention seeking argument with 11 different banks is all to do with his stance on brexit, so well done you for falling for it, but the idea that they have only just found out now what veiws on brexit are is ridiculous.
and there is your blind spot showing again. Its very obvious. You support brexit but are strongly anti racist. this gives rise to cognitive dissonance. YO do not want to be seen as supporting Farage. . Its really really obvious. Most of your political analysis is very good. Get anywhere near brexit and all logic goes out of the window. Its a huge an obvious blind spot you have. Same as yo cannot accept that xenophobia is the main driver for brexit
farage is not a political irrelevance hence the tories running scared of him. If he stands candidates against the tories he cuts their vote and loses them seats.
Brexit is not over yet. We are still part way thru the process. the worst is yet to come It will be a huge issue at the GE because of the damage it is doing and the damage that will be even more apparent once we put the import controls in place we legally should have done years ago
Edit - and the reason I keep banging on about brexit is because of the huge damage its done to the country and the way it is a key factor in so many of our issues - from the cost of living crisis to inflation to collapsing balance of payment to destruction of UK industry, shortage of nurses, shortage of agricultural workers etc etc etc
Instead of IIRC go and remember your source for once.
@tonyF1 it was you who was asked for proof, so far you've come up with "religion and beliefs" which is absolutely not proof that political beliefs are a protected characteristic.
Obviously you wouldn’t want to pollute yourself by going to any at those right wing outlets who actually reported the facts and interviewed the plaintiff (she lost hr job remember). Just as well we have the Guardian to do our thinking for us by not reporting the facts or interviewing the plaintiff.
@inkster no, I wouldn't. Ever.
YO do not want to be seen as supporting Farage. . Its really really obvious.
I have no idea what you are talking about! Farage isn't the only politician that I don't support. If I don't talk highly of him it isn't because I don't want to be seen supporting him, it is because I have an extremely low opinion of him.
Does Farage even still support brexit? I thought he had changed his mind and is now considering living abroad as post-brexit Britian is, according to him, shite?
I will carry on slagging Farage off not because I give a monkeys whether you think I support him or not but because I think that he is a nasty right-wing racist bigot. Actually I know that he is.
Obviously you wouldn’t want to pollute yourself by going to any at those right wing outlets who actually reported the facts and interviewed the plaintiff
Sorry for being sceptical, but I don't believe that the Mail has any interest in presenting an unbiased case either, whether they interview and report or not.
I respect your friend's right to her views, and membership or support of the LGB alliance. Her call. But certainly from my knowledge and peripheral experience of the LGB Alliance, their published position as inclusive and the reality and behaviour of their members is substantially different. It was formed in opposition to Stonewall's policies on trans issues, maintains positions on treatment for young Trans people that I find 'very troubling', and they seem to do very little to keep members and supporters the right side of the published position.
I won't link because I don't want to funnel clicks but the Mail's reporting on the recent challenge by Mermaids of LGB Alliance's charitable status is clear on its position - the headline is "A lesson in tolerance for the toxic trans lobby"
I'm worried it's the thin end of the wedge - for the Mail to be coming out as supportive of LGB issues sounds like progress; in reality I suspect it's divide and conquer and if they can split the T+ off, then they'll move to the next.
AsI said Ernie - huge blind spot
1) you support brexit
2) you are anti racist and loathe farage ( I didn't say you supported him, I said you don't want to be seen as supporting him)
3) you deny racism had anything to do with brexit
this creates a cognitive dissonance as the cause you support is mainly motivated by racism and has been hugely damaging. You hate having this pointed out hence your attacks on anyone who points out the damage of brexit which despite your protestations is not over nor have we seen the worst of it yet
this leads you to be totally blind to the realities of brexit and the logical inconsistencies of your position
I know you wont accept this but its so obvious
I'll not try to explain this again - but I am not going to stop calling out brexit and the brexiteers when it pervades everything politically and socially in the UK and is at the core of much of the difficulties the UK is in. so just ignore me.
You hate having this pointed out hence your attacks on......
What I hate is your constant attempts to derail threads away from the subject matter to yet again bang on about brexit.
You managed a couple of hours ago to bring brexit onto this thread out of absolutely nowhere. No one was even discussing brexit when you decide to accuse me of having a "Brexit blind spot"
This was how you did it:
The reason is simple. If farage stands candidates agaisnt them they will lose seats.
Ernie. Its back to your Brexit blind spot
I am fully aware that Reform UK standing candidates will put the Tories at a serious disadvantage next general election. In fact it is only me that has focused on the stupidity of Rishi Sunak backing Nigel Farage. There is no "brexit blind spot".
What I don't agree with you on is that Reform UK will stand down candidates to help the Tories, again it has nothing to do with a "brexit blind spot".
And finally I don't believe that Couttes closed Nigel Farage's account because of his stance brexit. Yes I know that he claims they did but Farage became leader of ukip 20 years ago, his views have been public knowledge for a very long time. You believe this is all intertwined with brexit, I don't. Nor do I have any blind spot - I can see brexit very clearly.
@theotherjohn,
I certainly didn't go to the Daily Mail for an unbiased perspective. I first went to the Guardian bit they didn't publish any details so I went on a Google search and the Mail (and GB News) popped up.
I respect your right to your opinions in the same way as you respect my friends right to hers, only I'm guessing that no one has hounded you out of your job and orchestrated a hate campaign against you for your opinions.
My friend was not a member of the LGB alliance. An emergency meeting was called by a director at the Arts Council, where he announced that funding was being withdrawn from the LGB alliance because they were 'far right transphobes'. This was done without due process and had no precident, it was merely the opinion of one director.
In that teams meeting (of 400) my friend merely questioned that decision, (that's all). No one spoke up in her defence but over 100 of them comtributed to an internal email petition pitted against her. Some of the language thrown in her direction was disgusting.
She formally objected to the petition but the Arts Council kept the petition (and thus the harassment) up for a further 24 hours. It was on that basis that she won her case for harassment.
If you support Mermaids position in all this then that's fine but if you hold another position do you think it's fair to have a campaign of harassment organised against you and for you to be hounded out of your job? Do you think it's fair to try and have the charitable status of another charity removed purely because you don't agree with them?
And back on topic, do you think that it is right that Wings Over Scotland (another gender critical organisation) had their bank account closed?
As you mention, many of these organisations were set up in opposition to the position that Stonewall took regarding the trans issue. Could it be that Stonewall are using the influence they have within government and large organisations to persecute those who question their belief?
You believe this is all intertwined with brexit, I don’t. Nor do I have any blind spot – I can see brexit very clearly.
makes my point.
Only in yours and Nigel Farage's head. You obviously agree with him that the Couttes story is all tied in with his support for brexit.
The point is that Brexit is inextricably intertwined with all political action in the UK, Farages power over the tories is all about brexit which is why the tories supported him in this. Brexit is the key to much of the troubles of the UK and you refuse to acknowledge the place brexit and Farage have in UK political discourse.
YO keep on claiming Farage has no influence or power when its clear he holds considerable political power as the custodian of " the one true brexit" which is why the tories run so scared of him. He has huge influence over the tory vote and a fair bit over labours vote
Yo also keep onclaiming brexit is over and done when we have not even finished leaving yet and further damage is yet to come from it
You want to shut down all discussion of brexit and pretend it has no influence on UK politics now when it is the single most important thing in UK politics and will remain so for years because it pervades every aspect of UK politics and because its so hugely damaging
YOu may not want to be faced with this which is why you try to shut it down
@tonyF1 it was you who was asked for proof, so far you’ve come up with “religion and beliefs” which is absolutely not proof that political beliefs are a protected characteristic.
Lot to unpack in your response but here goes 😀
You don’t consider political beliefs count as beliefs?
You ask for proof and it’s been provided from gov.uk but it doesn’t suit your narrative.
Your view seems to be discrimination is fine as long as it’s not a protected characteristic.
You quote TJ who still can’t remember (like always) his source for his IIRC.
I’m guessing that no one has hounded you out of your job and orchestrated a hate campaign against you for your opinions.
Not directly but I know of folks in a similar situation to us who have had some nasty experiences at events where supporters of LGBA / marching under their flag have gone way beyond their stated position to the point of threats of violence, etc., against parents of trans teenagers. I have no reason to believe their supporters would behave any different to me and my wife in a similar situation.
So in that respect then I too question whether LGBA should have charitable status, and I'd have been tempted to challenge your friend on that view too. Would I have signed a petition and 'hounded her out' - I'd like to think not but I have opinions of LGBA and their supporters that are difficult to reconcile. If someone was aligning themselves to eg: racist organisations at my work I'd be pretty quickly complaining to HR about it and expecting action to be taken.
It's a tricky one though - firstly how much responsibility does the organisation have for the individuals that support it; second it's a balance between whether being pro something automatically makes you anti the opposite. Would we allow a pro-white organisation to have charitable status because it doesn't specifically have an anti-black agenda on their website and aims, but then when their membership hijacks their marches for that purpose just accept it's individuals doing it? When football club fans make racist or homophobic chants, we fully expect the club to identify and ban them, and fine the clubs for failing to control them - what's different?
FWIW I support the position that their status was challenged, but I wouldn't say i support Mermaids - we left that Org because they were too pro / experiences early on in my son's (aaarghhh, can't think of a better word so I'm going to say it.....) 'journey' concerned us as parents. The challenge was heard and ruled, not sure I agree but that's what it was.
Interesting diversion but not the point of this topic - I was using the same point as you to illustrate that even if they reported more of that case, I don't think the RW press are neutral either.
Do I think it's right that WoS had his account closed (or that vicar that came out anti-pride) - No. If the law says everyone is entitled to a bank account then that's the law. Would I object if the law was different - IDK but possibly not. While as a base position I subscribe to the same as (attributed to) Voltaire; in reality there are some views I find so divergent to my own that I do struggle with the right to hold them.
So back to Farage (and I know others want to broaden this to general) - I restate what I said yesterday, after reflection and more analysis, I defend the right for the bank to make decisions on special accounts based on a effort-reward matrix including how much hassle and bad press they will get by managing that account. However (and the on reflection bit) I think Coutts possibly / probably put too much weight on Farage's views - at least in their somethingion. At the same time, he is dodgy AF, Russian money, etc., and didn't meet the wealth threshold either.....if they hadn't gone in so big on the views being misaligned and had simply said that after analysis the effort-reward balance no longer supports him as a customer, it would have been hard to argue against.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/09/14/lgb-alliance-transphobia-charity-history/
You managed a couple of hours ago to bring brexit onto this thread out of absolutely nowhere.
It's a thread about Nigel Farage, it has Brexit to the core written through it from post #1.
Brexit has damaged my business, cost the business money and made it more difficult to run, if NF came in I would refuse service based purely on his hand in Brexit. I would be essentially refusing service based on political beliefs.
You don’t consider political beliefs count as beliefs?
Well, from reading the follow report from an industrial tribunal quoted above, the law was not intended to cover political beliefs, although ONE tribunal seem to think it did, but its not binding and so still undecided.
If it was intended to cover political beliefs, you have the situation where the law protects people from racist discrimination AND protects people who espouse racism as a political belief.
Which given that racist behaviour is a sacking offence in most workplaces these days, is an interesting one.
Edit: though given that the tribunal quoted relates to DWP, and the civil service has separate rules about political activity and views, it's not a great sample of one anyway.
You want to shut down all discussion of brexit
What a daft comment. I couldn't give a monkeys how much you want to discuss brexit. The referendum was about 7 years ago and if you want to discuss brexit every day for the next 7 years then that's up to you, why would it bother me?
What I wouldn't rather you didn't do though is constantly derail threads by shoehorning brexit into every discussion and then accuse me of having a blind spot because I don't believe that it is appropriate. Maybe occasionally try a different argument?
Yes Nigel Farage wants to claim that Couttes decision is all tied in with his support for brexit, and is milking it for all it's worth by trying to scare people into believing that they might have their bank accounts closed if they voted Leave. And you want to equally milk it for all it's worth and claim the whole Couttes debacle is tied up with brexit. But it doesn't make either of you right.
Brexit has damaged my business, cost the business money and made it more difficult to run, if NF came in I would refuse service based purely on his hand in Brexit. I would be essentially refusing service based on political beliefs.
But it is not the reason that Couttes closed Nigel Farage's account. You might have a personal vendetta against Farage because of brexit but it doesn't mean that the NatWest has.
No it doesn't, but would or could I be prosecuted for refusing a service to a customer based on political beliefs. When those beliefs have had a greater negative impact on my business?
The whole argument goes around and around in circles.
NF is only in the news, in this thread, because of his political beliefs around Brexit. To dismiss Brexit as irrelevant to the thread is short sighted at best.
Looks like Gina Miller has been debanked too. Would be pretty funny to see her and Farage running a campaign to fix this together 🤣
What needs to be fixed? 🤷♂️
Neither had accounts closed based on political beliefs....
To dismiss Brexit as irrelevant to the thread is short sighted at best.
And to back Farage's claims that it is to do with his support for brexit is daft.
If reputational considerations played a part, which it appears to have, it is that they believed he is a xenophobic chauvinistic racist.
Two sides of the same coin and none of us here have backed Farages claims. What I said was Farage has the tories running scared of his political power which only exists because of brexit.
I find myself agreeing with ernie.
But, of course, he does forget to point out that:
support for brexit
goes hand in glove with...
xenophobic chauvinistic racist
What I said was .....
Yeah I know what you said but I nevertheless don't agree with you.
Farage is an odious twerp not worth a sentence to talk about. Anyway seems more to this story and not a surprise that he is/was a banker:
JeZ
sorry just got back to this one @inkster your threshold for 'cancelling' is absolute nonsense
they literally reported the judges verdict on her victory & her statement after the judgement
if the guardian article was genuinely biased against her it would have pointed out that the LGB Alliance was set up at 55 tufton street , presumably (who knows they are notoriously opaque) funded by the same farage funding clowns expressly to stir up these culture war issues
from the LGB alliance because they were ‘far right transphobes’. This was done without due process and had no precident, it was merely the opinion of one director.
and its not just the opinion of 1 director
https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/08/23/lgb-alliance-far-right-extremist-group-gpahe/
bully and harassing her has no place and she rightly won ger tribunal, but you cant cry bias when you yourself are not being upfront
this has gone rather OT, but it all comes back to culture war nonsense, its fascinating how much seems to be funded by the same organisations....
the LGB Alliance was set up at 55 tufton street
Now that is interesting and does nothing to allay my fears that it's their supporters rather than them with the anti-trans agenda.
@morecashthandash:
Which is why banks have to offer everyone a basic account. No one is stopped from having access to banking.
This is completely irrelevant. It's clear you don't know what a "basic bank account" actually is. The basic bank account is a fee-free bank account that the biggest banks have to offer customers. It's nothing to do with people having access to it but is a mandatory commercial offering. If you don't meet their criteria then you don't get it.
This is about their criteria involving personal views - which is unacceptable. @Kerley is wilfully ignoring that. Which is why we'll end up legislating to specifically to exclude banks taking people's political or personal views into account - so they can't hide behind the "reputational risk" bullcrap.
Banks are taking personal views into account when deciding whether to bank someone or not. It should be financial suitability and fraud/money laundering and whether someone is on a sanction list. End of.
People are being de-banked because of personal views.
This is about their criteria involving personal views – which is unacceptable.
This is about their criteria involving personal views – which is unacceptable.
Coutts and other banks like it (Hoares for instance) have long worked exactly like this, and up until this point the Tory party (or the banking ombudsman for that matter) couldn't have given less of a shit about it. There's nothing stopping Farage from having a normal bank acct at [what amounts to] a different branch to the one he's currently at, he just doesn't want it.
Banks are taking personal views into account when deciding whether to bank someone or not. It should be financial suitability and fraud/money laundering and whether someone is on a sanction list. End of.
We know that this is what Coutts did. That they also had a dossier on Farage becasue he is a PEP, and the source of his money is/was shady, is, under the current law, perfectly legal. (which is why presumably they didn't break the law and offered him alternative facilities.)
Fact: It's important to remember given the way some folks are trying to make this about the thing that its not about. Nat West are content to continue to have Farage as a customer.
There's a BBC reports that suggest the banking ombudsman has 1400 complaints in the last year about bank accounts being closed, although obviously we have no idea how many (if any) were closed specifically because of personal views. without that we cannot know if;
People are being de-banked because of personal views
You can laugh about it @kelvin, or you can deny it @nickc - but there's enough smoke that parliament is investigating whether banks are drawing up blacklists of people who hold views which don't align with their corporate views.
As banks are a fundamental pillar of our western democracies this IS unacceptable - hence the actions being taken.
When Coutts have a record that the odious prick Nigel Farage has "racist, xenophobic..." whatever views - then they're at the very least making a record of those views (which in itself is "not on" (am I allowed to use "not on" @Kelvin or is there another glib video in the offing?) and likely taking those views into account.
We all hate Farage. But if that fact doesn't give you cause for concern then you're the proverbial ostrich.
Coutts won’t give me a bank account either, and I see no reason to be up in arms about it at all. NatWest will have me though (because my mortgage is with them). All a fuss about nothing. That their discussion of him internally included reference to him being perceived as racist and xenophobic means nothing really. If the law is changed to mean reference to “politics” can’t be discussed internally, then it won’t be… fine… but it’ll change nothing… the same decisions will be made to protect the bank, without any internal reference to the nature of the obvious risk posed to the bank by the “politics” of individuals balanced with the amount of business they are worth to it. That assessment will still need to be made, just not with the same straight forward language being used and recorded. They’ll keep taking a risk to their reputation with extremely well off customers, and not take the same risk for those less well off (or at least not giving them enough business to be worth the risk).
or you can deny it
Once again, he has not been de-banked because of his personal views, Nat West are happy to offer him a bank account. There's 1400 complaints about acct closures and we just have no idea whether they are because of personal views. So far from "denying it" what I've actually said is 1. It hasn't happen in this case, and 2 we just don't know.
(which in itself is “not on”)
Farage is a PEP, not only is it "on" it's a requirement.
but there’s enough smoke that parliament is investigating whether banks are drawing up blacklists of people who hold views which don’t align with their corporate views.
The Govt are only showing any interest because a folk hero to a part of their party has been [in their opinion] slighted. That's the start middle and finish of this story. I will bet you an overdraft facility that this govt would be more than content if say; JTO campaigners or asylum seekers have had their accounts closed, this is purely a political story that affects one of their own.
but there’s enough smoke that parliament is investigating whether banks are drawing up blacklists of people who hold views which don’t align with their corporate views.
Guessing we will never see that those blacklists (not a good term to use anymore by the way!) or whether they even exist at all.
Lot to unpack in your response but here goes 😀
You don’t consider political beliefs count as beliefs?
As a protected characteristic, no. Which is what we're talking about since you were the one who said he was illegally being discriminated against.
You ask for proof and it’s been provided from gov.uk but it doesn’t suit your narrative.
Nope, you provided a list of protected characteristics with no further info as to whether political beliefs count. "Beliefs" on it's own means nothing, the context it's set in is clearly supposed to incorporate the non-religious believers (scientologists etc.).
Your view seems to be discrimination is fine as long as it’s not a protected characteristic.
I didn't say that, I'm disputing your assertion that discriminating against someone's political beliefs is illegal.
You quote TJ who still can’t remember (like always) his source for his IIRC.
No, I quoted you. I haven't quoted TJ anywhere in this exchange.
So as I said, prove it. If it's a protected characteristic or even illegal in its own right there must be loads of proof out there, fill your boots.
You quote TJ who still can’t remember (like always) his source for his IIRC.
I put the IIRC to make it clear I am doing it from memory because I cannot be bothered checking sources. Not because I don't remember them.
Once again, he has not been de-banked because of his personal views, Nat West are happy to offer him a bank account.
I'm going to disagree on this. I know that's different to what i said before but part of debate includes listening to and considering other's points, which in this case I think are right.
The docs from Coutts refer heavily to his views which 'do not align with the banks purpose and values' and that has been a factor (but not the only factor) in closing his account. If they'd only stuck with the effort to reward profile they'd be on very solid ground. He has been debanked by Coutts, that Natwest own them and have offered a replacement account doesn't change that in my mind.
It also seems pretty clear that there are others (Wings over Scotland, the anti-Pride vicar) that have had accounts cancelled for their views. FWIW Gina Miller is a red herring, hers is/was a Monzo account that shouldn't have been opened for a political party.
So the issue then is whether you should be allowed to refuse to deal with someone because of them / their views; whether that is different if that is a protected characteristic; and whether political beliefs are a protected characteristic.
That's where I struggle - as I said before I try to be Voltaire but there are some views that really stretch my ability to live that desire. Back to the case in point - Farage's support for Brexit doesn't trigger me (enough); his racist and xenophobic actions do.
So I don't know whether monkeyc should be allowed to refuse to serve Farage or not. Head says no, heart says yes, but then the balance of that is whether I'd accept the reverse.
@theotherjohnv
That's the most thoughtful response I've ever received on here, especially considering the contention surrounding the topic in question.
I didn't realise that LGBA was set up at Tufton St. Ordinarily that would be a red flag for me, as would taking seriously anything said on GB News or in the Mail etc. As I said, I found myself there because they actually interviewed Denise, they gave her a voice and provided context where the Guardian hadn't.
Kimbers comment was interesting- 'they literally reported the judges verdict on her victory & her statement after the judgement'.
For Kimbers, the accurate reporting of the verdict and Denises response was enough, for me it wasn't. The Guardian reported accurately the outcome of the case but gave no real history or context. In order to know more I had no choice other than to go to outlets that were reporting in depth.
Perhaps that's what LGBA found too, that they couldn't get support or a voice in mainstream or left wing media so ended up having to do a deal with the devil in order to be heard?
I'd like to emphasise that Denise didn't come to this as a supporter of LGBA, she was questioning what she though was an unethical, unilateral decision by a director in a group meeting (which is why I see a relevance to this thread topic).
Her issue at the time was separate and unrelated to the charity status of LGBA, in your post you said that you would have challenged her on that too. I'm not even sure that she was aware of the charity status issue, or even the nature of LGBA at the time of the meeting that started all this.. Her issue was one of due process.
This issue is being played out within a left / right culture war, when in reality it is a philosophical question about the nature of things as well as questions surrounding tolerance, (your Voltaire quote.)
Foucault's said that things have no 'essence', they are what is projected upon them and what happens to them. I'm paraphrasing but I understand that as we are what we become, we don't become what we are.
Hegel said similar with his observations about being and becoming. That's not to say that our individual genetic make-up doesn't influence what we as human beings become, but that's difficult to quantify, whilst the idea that we are what we become is irrefutable.
Guessing we will never see that those blacklists (not a good term to use anymore by the way!) or whether they even exist at all.
Oh good grief. Save us from leftist idiocy!
It also seems pretty clear that there are others (Wings over Scotland, the anti-Pride vicar)
Stuart Campbell 'believes' his acct was closed becasue of his "stance on gender views" i.e. He doesn't know and the bank that closed the Vicar's acct essentially said, no it was because you were very rude to our staff.
that's not 'pretty clear'
edit: I know the Vicar says he was very polite to the staff when he made his complaint, but given how many complaints from the public I've dealt with (I've worked in healthcare for a long time) most of the time, they either embellish or just outright lie if they think that'll get them what they want, so colour me sceptical when folks says "I was very polite"
