New Alternative News Channel "GB News" chaired by Andrew Neil launching - read OP before posting

None of that is cancel culture, but good effort all the same. Thankfully I'm neither a republican nor live in the US.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

"There is a pervasive understanding amongst the public, journalists and politicians that tax avoidance is all ‘perfectly legal’.

This idea is promoted by tax advisors who have a direct financial interest in convincing their clients that what they are doing will not get them into trouble.

The claim that tax avoidance is ‘legal’ is used as defence by companies who are accused of the practice, and the idea has been adopted by politicians who claim that businesses and individuals have a moral (not legal) obligation not to engage in tax avoidance.

Even HMRC’s own definition of tax avoidance makes reference to “bending the rules” (not breaking them), and stating that tax avoidance involves “operating within the letter, but not the spirit, of the law”.

This idea, that all tax avoidance is legal, is a myth. In most cases tax avoidance is not legal at all, and for several decades courts around the world have taken an increasingly aggressive stance towards tax avoidance schemes, striking them down and imposing penalties on those involved.

HMRC, the UK tax agency, claims to have won pretty much every time it has challenged a tax avoidance scheme in court in recent years.

Tax avoidance, as viewed by the courts, frequently falls into this category. Tax avoidance takes advantage of the fact that the wording of the law may not be clear, or that a particular law conflicts with another, creating ambiguity around how the law should be applied. Because it seeks to exploit gaps and loopholes in the law, it is not positively prohibited, but public policy is very clearly opposed to tax avoidance. What this means in practice is that the courts can determine that a tax avoidance scheme has no effect, reversing the advantage that any taxpayer sought to gain, and imposing a civil penalty. "

Farage preaches to others about avoiding paying tax and then tried a sneaky move to do the exact same himself.

As I said before, he's a hypocrite.

Who's "they"? Weren't you criticising a poster recently for using generalisations?

Nope. Colin Kaeoernick was canceled, seems like that lad who took the knee for GB News was aswell. Happens more with people on the left however, albeit a minority ('progressives'). Happy you finally accept cancel culture exists all the same. It's a good start :)

Nope. Don't need to forget any of them. I said still want to believe it's *mainly* a right wing phenomenon, which it is no longer. It is now mainly a left wing fiasco, unfortunately. Elements of it exist of the right, but most of the canceling that happens is a result of those on the (usually progressive) left, and a lot of the time those being targeted are themselves left wing. The two most recent noteworthy examples being Kathleen stock and jk Rowling.

Many of those on the receiving end of cancel culture are genuine racists and bigots though. People like JK Rowling and Stock would be much more of a minority (i.e. they themselves have no time for the racists and bigots but have run into problems on some very specific issue).

So one person in one University?

Search for teachers being disciplined, reassigned or fired for having BLM symbols in their classroom and you'll find examples from schools in Texas, Florida, North Carolina and probably more.

You can teachers fired for announcing they were atheists.

Go to YouTube and you'll find video after video of people threatening school board members for having the audacity to suggest wearing masks to keep people safe.

Or as already pointed out, schools all over the southern states of the US cancelling the teaching of Martin Luther King and in Texas, cancelling the requirement to teach that the KKK is morally wrong.

On another thread here, you yourself are advocating the cancelling of peoples citizenship if they were granted it and then committed a crime.

But, in your view, the utterly evil human beings are those who stand up for themselves against someone who challenges their existence.

Sorry but this is entirely and wilfully, either deliberately or lazily, disingenuous. If the objections to her were based simply on her belief that "biological sex exists", then we should expect a similar clear out of 100s, even 1000s, of academics across the country. The initial anger towards her was based on several factors, including her trusteeship of the LGB Alliance, which many allege to have an anti trans agenda, and her co signatory of the wdhr which her opponents claim calls for the denial of trans rights. By all means stand up for Kathleen Stock and refute the charges against her, but if you reduce the argument to such a gross and inaccurate over simplification, then i simply cannot accept your opinion in good faith.

Some people here should watch GBNews because if they did they wouldn't be so blatantly ignorant on the trans issues, or LGB Alliance, as is clearly the case judging by some of the previous comments.