Tim Farron reveals himself as a liar

[Gordon]

I find his beliefs both baffling and abhorrent. But in terms of his political career his lying is the thing. His views are incompatible with mainstream politics in our country and at some point he would either have to lie or get out.

I agree: and if he doesn't get out voluntarily I suspect that at some point he will be got out, via the electorate in his constituency expressing their view of his lying.

[Rhiannon]

Yes and no - the point is that had he indicated those beliefs he wouldn't have been likely to have been elected leader of the LibDems. That's my point - he was unfit fr public office due to his beliefs - the lying was a way to try to cover over his unfitness for public office.

Again, kind of - he could have been honest and put it to the test - he didn't.

Important to note that this isn't about religious belief in general - Cameron appears to be an Anglican of sorts and also introduced marriage equality, for no reason other than he considered it the right thing to do as far as I can tell.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes and no - the point is that had he indicated those beliefs he wouldn't have been likely to have been elected leader of the LibDems. That's my point - he was unfit fr public office due to his beliefs - the lying was a way to try to cover over his unfitness for public office.

I don't think that because he thinks active homosexuality is a sin he is 'unfit for public office'. That seens ti me a step to far.

[Rhiannon]

I don't think that because he thinks active homosexuality is a sin he is 'unfit for public office'. That seens ti me a step to far.

I think it should have been put to the test. Be open, let the people (his party, the electorate) decide.

I can see that in some forms of public office it is possible to act in a fair and compassionate manner while holding certain beliefs - divorcing the public from the private as it were. We expect it all the time from teachers, doctors, the police, anyone in public service. When it comes to politics, there is a need to vote on legislation and I think it is this more than anything that makes honesty so important. I wouldn't want a politician that lied; equally I wouldn't want one who didn't vote in line with his or her conscience.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think the whole idea of the default position is a red herring here. And I don't think it is as easy to seperate beliefs and actions as if they are unrelated.

Despite some posts alleging thst people were looking to outlaw beliefs, I haven't seen anyone suggest that . The points are that someone's beliefs have to in some way influence their actions. To take the case of JRM as mentioned earlier, iy's one of his beliefs that he shouldn't seek to legislate on homiseciality in line with his religious beliefs.


Further if someone is say sexist, then unless they never say anything sexist, you wob't know. But if they do happen to fill their twitter feed with such comments, then that is actions as well as belief. And it would seem to me perfectly reasonable for me to judge then as someone I wouldn't want to see in certain positions .

I agree it is impossible to separate beliefs and actions in the real world - judges who are supposed to be impartial are influenced by their beliefs and juries who are supposed to consider the evidence impartially are influenced by their beliefs - decisions are a mix of emotion and evidence.

I would say one of the issues that Farron's admission highlights is how much tolerance there is for differing beliefs, given that everyone's beliefs influence their actions to some degree. And the complexity is that what one person finds unacceptably racist another person would not - different people have different tolerances not just for other people's beliefs but also different tolerances for the risk of how those beliefs influence actions.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I agree: and if he doesn't get out voluntarily I suspect that at some point he will be got out, via the electorate in his constituency expressing their view of his lying.

I don't think I would be that bothered by the lying - if the person came clean afterwards because their conscience was bothering them, I would give them another chance. I think many people lie. I think many politicians lie - at least this one had a change of heart and told the truth.

The constituency may well decide that his belief is not acceptable to them and do not want him to represent them on other matters unrelated to homosexuality because of his belief on homosexuality - or they may not.
 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think this ‘default position’ argument doesn’t work - society constantly shifts as to what is its ‘default’. But clearly the LibDems have a well established position on equality and rights, in common with the other main parties except UKIP. To attempt to run a party while holding beliefs contrary to what the party stands for is hypocritical. The problem isn’t his beliefs, but his lies.

I can see some sense in Farron's argument that his theological position is separate from his political position. My theological position is that sex outside marriage is a sin. My real world position is that sex outside marriage happens - and therefore as somewhat of a liberal I would believe it was not my place to judge/ control the behaviour of other people who hold different views on this issue and I would not advocate banning it. I'd be quite surprised if my daughters carried that theological position into the real world - and seriously amazed at their self-restraint given all the freedom and opportunities they would have at university. Same for drinking alcohol - my theological position is that it is a sin - my real world position...see above.

When politicians talk about policy decisions such as banning something they would have to look at real world considerations , not theological positions - for a start if the ban is impossible to police it would be pointless. I think liberals would think that a behaviour has to be causing some serious havoc in society and leading to major health issues and a massive drain on resources for them to even consider banning something - and they would probably still be against it as it would be unenforceable though it may send a message that influences behaviour.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Do you really want to live in a society where it is acceptable for people in public roles to express racist views without sanction or being frowned upon by those institutions and broader society. Blimey!

If it's a joke - absolutely. Depends on the situation though - some jokes can be too provocative for me. But clearly I would draw the line at a different place from you, which is fine I think that we have different lines.

Actually I'm not largely talking about people I chose to hang around with (there is a choice there and that is relevant)- I am taking about people I am required to hang out with as they are my colleagues in various organisation I either work for or have formal roles with. I don't choose these people anymore than they, by and large, choose me. In every case the notion of casual racist comments expressed within those contexts would be considered totally unacceptable and, frankly, doesn't happen.

Yes that's true - but again it would depend on what is considered racist - that is not clear cut. I don't consider blacking up or browning up or dressing up as South Asian and adopting a funny accent racist but you might.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree it is impossible to separate beliefs and actions in the real world - judges who are supposed to be impartial are influenced by their beliefs and juries who are supposed to consider the evidence impartially are influenced by their beliefs - decisions are a mix of emotion and evidence.

I would say one of the issues that Farron's admission highlights is how much tolerance there is for differing beliefs, given that everyone's beliefs influence their actions to some degree. And the complexity is that what one person finds unacceptably racist another person would not - different people have different tolerances not just for other people's beliefs but also different tolerances for the risk of how those beliefs influence actions.

And I agree. I think on this thread there is a different take between whether Prof D and I see what would appear to be Farron's actual beliefs and whether they make him unfit for public office. I doubt I would vote for him precisely because of the risk and given that he is there as leader of the Lib Dems, it would seem an even bigger risk. I think the estimation of the risk is hugely dependent on the job, and further that increases the risk that you already mentioned that they couldn't actually to their job because others would not be able to trust them.


I don't think that all lying is necessarily a bar to all positions but if Fsrron tries a leadership position elsewhere, I would be concerned that he might not be up to it. Not for the simple morality of it but whether someone who did this is suited to that position.


I think some of the reason that Farron's views caused him some trouble here was that he wasn't sure himself about whether it quite fitted with what was right for the leader of the Lib Dems. 

[Walter]

As a matter of historical interest did the gay vote go left, right or evenly distributed?

i think it went straight up the middle 👺

[ProfessorDavey]

If it's a joke - absolutely. Depends on the situation though - some jokes can be too provocative for me. But clearly I would draw the line at a different place from you, which is fine I think that we have different lines.

And if it isn't a joke? Noting too that many people try to pass off offensive views as 'merely joking' and when someone takes offence they come back with, 'come on, can't you take a joke' effectively rubbing salt into the wounds.

[Rhiannon]

And if it isn't a joke? Noting too that many people try to pass off offensive views as 'merely joking' and when someone takes offence they come back with, 'come on, can't you take a joke' effectively rubbing salt into the wounds.

This is actually classic passive aggression employed by abusers of all kinds. Useful gaslighting tool as well.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And if it isn't a joke? Noting too that many people try to pass off offensive views as 'merely joking' and when someone takes offence they come back with, 'come on, can't you take a joke' effectively rubbing salt into the wounds.

If people aren't finding it funny I suggest finding a new audience. There are people who will find it funny and people who won't.

If it wasn't meant to be a joke - I guess I would consider if there was any truth in the statement and address what I thought were the inaccuraciesand hopefully have a friendly discussion. My experience is that people make all kinds of generalisations or assumptions, and often appreciate their assumptions being challenged in a non-aggressive way and end up asking a lot of questions they would not have normally asked and end up adopting a different position based on being willing to listen to the answers to their questions or the responses to their points.

I would get offended if people start swearing at me or spitting in my face or threatening me  or excluding me.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is actually classic passive aggression employed by abusers of all kinds. Useful gaslighting tool as well.

Exactly - and it is doubly damaging. First the victim is demeaned in the first place and then is made to feel that they are at fault for being upset.

And within an organisation this is where 'institutional' - isms take hold. The classic 'is you want to get on here you have to be able to take the 'banter'' approach which is toxic, making certain groups within the organisation feel marginalised and also it rapidly pervades to those members of the public who interact with those services - effectively that you cannot act in an appropriate professional manner with colleagues how on earth can you with clients. And once this impression becomes set, groups within society begin to lose confidence in that organisation. Hence my earlier comment that:

'I cannot see how accepting the expression of racist views by officers in the course of their duty cannot make the police service less effective.'

Same is true for the expression of sexist and homophobic views by officers.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

If expressing their views makes them less effective in their jobs and they need the good will of minorities to police then obviously they should not express their views and put people’s safety at risk. If racism such as profiling or stop and search is effective - my priority would be people’s safety. My husband regularly gets searched at Heathrow when going to the US as he is a Muslim. I don’t know if the policy is effective - we just shrug it off as we just want to get on the plane and get to our destination.

My view is that a lot of people express racist views in the course of their duties, including ethic minorities - I hear it all the time especially from ethnic minorities when white people aren’t around. In fact we all sometimes indulge in racist jokes, sometimes at our own race, sometimes at other races.  I think it would be racist of me to want to punish white people for expressing their racist views while ethnic minorities around me are free to express their casual racism. I’d stick to regulating behaviour. If their views are aggressively expressed and causing a person to feel under threat or if informants aren’t coming forward because of racism that’s an issue that needs to be tackled. In a perfect world no one would hold racist beliefs but in our imperfect world I’d tackle the worst effects of racism and regulate behaviour.

At school there are kids who don’t like Muslim - my daughter just chooses not be friends with them as she doesn’t have time / can’t be bothered to find out if their dislike is based on misconceptions.

I will put a qualification on your post-which for the most part I agree with.

My kids are no longer "white", thanks to the likes of Frage, and Ukip they are now Anglo Romanian-"mixed race". Racism is not just about colour of skin. And "Ethnic Minority" is about more than "race".

[ProfessorDavey]

If people aren't finding it funny I suggest finding a new audience. There are people who will find it funny and people who won't.

But we are talking about views being expressed within an organisation - e.g. employee, post holder etc either towards colleagues or clients.

Why on earth should someone going to work to earn a living be expected to endure racist, sexist or homophobic comments within that workplace. And that there might be a cabal of colleagues who do find it funny doesn't make it better, quite the reverse, it makes it worse. The point about racist, sexist and homophobic comments is that someone is the butt of the joke - and frankly that isn't funny of you are that person and no-one should be expected to have to endure that abuse. In other contexts we call it bullying.

[ProfessorDavey]

I will put a qualification on your post-which for the most part I agree with.

My kids are no longer "white", thanks to the likes of Frage, and Ukip they are now Anglo Romanian-"mixed race". Racism is not just about colour of skin. And "Ethnic Minority" is about more than "race".

Not sure if they are still at school - but if so they shouldn't be expected to endure derogatory comments, be the butt of joke (or worse) due to their ethnic origin. It isn't funny and it isn't acceptable.

And of course when you accept such attitudes it becomes pervasive as kids learn to replicate what they see. So a school that turns a blind eye to one group of kids victimising another due to their ethnic origin effectively sanctions that victimised group using the same tactic on another group - perhaps kids who might be gay etc. It is a race to the bottom.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But we are talking about views being expressed within an organisation - e.g. employee, post holder etc either towards colleagues or clients.

Why on earth should someone going to work to earn a living be expected to endure racist, sexist or homophobic comments within that workplace. And that there might be a cabal of colleagues who do find it funny doesn't make it better, quite the reverse, it makes it worse. The point about racist, sexist and homophobic comments is that someone is the butt of the joke - and frankly that isn't funny of you are that person and no-one should be expected to have to endure that abuse. In other contexts we call it bullying.

How are they being forced to endure the jokes if the person telling the jokes only tells them to people who find it funny i.e. the new audience I spoke of? Which doesn’t include the person who doesn’t find the jokes funny. My experience at work is that some jokes are made to a wide audience and some jokes are made to a select few who share the joker’s sense of humour.

You are aware that at your workplace people (of mixed ethnicity) are probably making what you would consider racist jokes you don’t approve of out of your earshot in order to not offend you and you are none the wiser, right? And many of them don’t consider it racist or find it problematic. That’s why there is no default position on racism. Differently people define racism in different ways. Apparently some millennial find Friends racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic . Other people just find it funny.

[ProfessorDavey]

How are they being forced to endure the jokes if the person telling the jokes only tells them to people who find it funny i.e. the new audience I spoke of? Which doesn’t include the person who doesn’t find the jokes funny. My experience at work is that some jokes are made to a wide audience and some jokes are made to a select few who share the joker’s sense of humour.

Don't be so naive.

Firstly how on earth are you to assess who does and does not find such jokes funny - my experience of such toxic environments (fortunately from many year ago) is that they become bullying, that individuals use such humour as a way to dominate, and often want those who are the butt of the joke to be present as belittling is part of the power game. But of course if you speak out, you will be told that 'it's only a joke' and accused of having no sense of humour. So people often keep quiet despite feeling deeply uncomfortable about the tone of the 'banter'.

But further, how on earth does it help if, for example, you are a woman and although when you are in the room everyone is on their best behaviour, but you know that as soon as you leave someone will make a joke about the size of your breasts as part of the 'banter' with the lads. In a way that is even more isolating than were they made directly to your face, albeit that might be more directly offensive.

Nope the expression of racist, sexist or homophobic comments, regardless of whether couched as 'a joke' or 'banter' has no place in the workplace and a good workplace creates an ethos where it is clear that such behaviour is unacceptable and employees (or clients) feel that ethos so they recognise that the organisation is on their side were such behaviour to arise.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Don't be so naive.

Firstly how on earth are you to assess who does and does not find such jokes funny - my experience of such toxic environments (fortunately from many year ago) is that they become bullying, that individuals use such humour as a way to dominate, and often want those who are the butt of the joke to be present as belittling is part of the power game. But of course if you speak out, you will be told that 'it's only a joke' and accused of having no sense of humour. So people often keep quiet despite feeling deeply uncomfortable about the tone of the 'banter'.

But further, how on earth does it help if, for example, you are a woman and although when you are in the room everyone is on their best behaviour, but you know that as soon as you leave someone will make a joke about the size of your breasts as part of the 'banter' with the lads. In a way that is even more isolating than were they made directly to your face, albeit that might be more directly offensive.

Nope the expression of racist, sexist or homophobic comments, regardless of whether couched as 'a joke' or 'banter' has no place in the workplace and a good workplace creates an ethos where it is clear that such behaviour is unacceptable and employees (or clients) feel that ethos so they recognise that the organisation is on their side were such behaviour to arise.

I think you are being naive.

You'll just have to accept that your experience and views do not define reality for everyone else.

My experience is that yes some people want the power of belittling people but most people share jokes with like-minded people who find it funny but who would object if there was discrimination for job opportunities, promotions or if the situation was not a joking matter. You may well have had a different experience but you are naive to deny the reality of alternative experiences.

I have not worked in academia and have no reason to doubt your experiences. I have been part of the British army and worked in investment banking and worked in accountancy and have therefore met a wide range of people. I have met people who said they used to be racist but are less so now, had drinks with them in the pub and enjoyed their company, and they mine.

As for jokes about my breasts - if I think the person was genuinely trying to be funny and not to belittle me or another woman  - I could laugh about it, and have done. I am not saying I am infallible so if I got it wrong about their motives then I live and learn.

As we already established I don't think I would want to adopt your world view on this issue and you clearly would not want to adopt mine.

[ProfessorDavey]

My experience is that yes some people want the power of belittling people but most people share jokes with like-minded people who find it funny but who would object if there was discrimination for job opportunities, promotions or if the situation was not a joking matter.

Ever heard of unconscious bias - if not I suggest you go find out, and perhaps test yourself (there are plenty of available tests on the web).

My point being that someone who overtly engages in sexist, racist or homophobic comments (regardless of whether they perceive them as a joke or not) is very likely to also demonstrate unconscious bias against certain groups too. And that will manifest in all sorts of discriminatory practices regardless of whether that person thinks they are being discriminatory (or even wants to be).

I'm afraid your type of thinking should be consigned to the dustbin of history, and indeed increasingly is being in forward thinking organisations all over the place. Interesting you talk about the army and investment banking - an organisation and a sector that have appalling records in this regard - in the former bullying culture and lack of diversity that has been literally fatal, in the latter an old boy macho type culture that not only is detrimental on an equalities basis, but part of the 'culture' that was linked to the casino banking type activities that have produced so much pain over the past decade.

So perhaps it is because your experiences is in sectors that have some of the worst practices that you see this type of behaviour as somehow acceptable and even 'normal'. It isn't acceptable and isn't tolerated in all sorts of organisations that really do demonstrate best practice.

[Walter]

Ever heard of unconscious bias - if not I suggest you go find out, and perhaps test yourself (there are plenty of available tests on the web).

My point being that someone who overtly engages in sexist, racist or homophobic comments (regardless of whether they perceive them as a joke or not) is very likely to also demonstrate unconscious bias against certain groups too. And that will manifest in all sorts of discriminatory practices regardless of whether that person thinks they are being discriminatory (or even wants to be).

I'm afraid your type of thinking should be consigned to the dustbin of history, and indeed increasingly is being in forward thinking organisations all over the place. Interesting you talk about the army and investment banking - an organisation and a sector that have appalling records in this regard - in the former bullying culture and lack of diversity that has been literally fatal, in the latter an old boy macho type culture that not only is detrimental on an equalities basis, but part of the 'culture' that was linked to the casino banking type activities that have produced so much pain over the past decade.

So perhaps it is because your experiences is in sectors that have some of the worst practices that you see this type of behaviour as somehow acceptable and even 'normal'. It isn't acceptable and isn't tolerated in all sorts of organisations that really do demonstrate best practice.

who gave you the job of judge and jury?

[ProfessorDavey]

who gave you the job of judge and jury?

No one.

But what I am saying is merely the current accepted legal position in the UK regarding protection in employment. See the link as an example:

https://www.thebalance.com/examples-of-sexual-and-non-sexual-harassment-2060884

So it isn't me being judge and jury, but the actual judges and juries - in other words the law of the land.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ever heard of unconscious bias - if not I suggest you go find out, and perhaps test yourself (there are plenty of available tests on the web).

Why - is that one of your past times - testing yourself for unconscious bias? What do you find you are biased about? Or is that a requirement in the academic field - regularly check and identify your biases as part of your appraisal process?

My point being that someone who overtly engages in sexist, racist or homophobic comments (regardless of whether they perceive them as a joke or not) is very likely to also demonstrate unconscious bias against certain groups too. And that will manifest in all sorts of discriminatory practices regardless of whether that person thinks they are being discriminatory (or even wants to be).

I'm afraid your type of thinking should be consigned to the dustbin of history, and indeed increasingly is being in forward thinking organisations all over the place. Interesting you talk about the army and investment banking - an organisation and a sector that have appalling records in this regard - in the former bullying culture and lack of diversity that has been literally fatal, in the latter an old boy macho type culture that not only is detrimental on an equalities basis, but part of the 'culture' that was linked to the casino banking type activities that have produced so much pain over the past decade.

I have no idea about what you define as overt racism, sexism or homophobia - not that it matters on here as this all seems very subjective and seems to very much revolve around your personal tolerance levels on the issue. Feel free to consign my type of thinking to whatever dustbin you like - as a liberal I don't need you to believe what I believe - and if it makes you feel all warm inside to feel morally superior to me, knock yourself out. Glad to have been of service.

I didn't experience bullying or a lack of diversity in the army - I had a good laugh though. We were informed about rules and practices to deal with bullying so maybe these practices had worked in the areas I experienced, which is why I didn't experience any - only banter, jokes, camaraderie and lovely helpful people who would look out for me.

The middle office areas I worked in in banking did have some banter but also seemed quite diverse - some Asians, some black people, some gay people, quite a few women - lots of jokes aimed primarily at straight, white men but if they liked you and wanted to include you then they'd joke with you too. There were a couple of issues with mild bullying - I sorted my experience of sexism and bullying in a humorous way with an elaborate wind-up - in fact one of the VPs of the bank at my first job called me a "bastard" to my face while laughing as I roped him into the wind-up of the head of my team for mildly bullying me - the VP added that he used to feel sorry for me being the only girl on an all-male team but now he felt sorry for them. I was a bit shocked but it was a nice feeling when he called me a bastard. And I ended up being friends with the head of my team.

As we already established I probably would not want to adopt your world view on this issue and you clearly would not want to adopt mine.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No one.

But what I am saying is merely the current accepted legal position in the UK regarding protection in employment. See the link as an example:

https://www.thebalance.com/examples-of-sexual-and-non-sexual-harassment-2060884

So it isn't me being judge and jury, but the actual judges and juries - in other words the law of the land.

I didn't experience a hostile work environment but did experience lots of jokes and banter that as far as I know did not interfere with my success as an employee. Where I did briefly experience a hostile work environment I sorted it with humour.

I agree that harassment and hostile work environments and stopping employees from succeeding or people feeling harmed by jokes is unacceptable. All of these are subjective - work friends who share a similar sense of humour don't feel harassed by the jokes. If people feel harassed by jokes, you generally don't tend to joke with them.