Refund due for hate speech.

Isn't that what the 'accused' did? i.e. 'operated his mouth'.

If someone gave me ten million quid and it later turned out that they were a racist, I wouldn't give the money back either. 

There is no common human morality. This varies, by culture. I have my own of course, but I have no right to impose this on others. I'm not superior and I don't represent a superior culture.

If there was a common human morality folk wouldn't be palming their elderly relatives off to the state. But they do. Within a culture in which many feel superior to those who, quite rightly, consider it their duty to care for their family members. Fancy that.  

Is it acceptable to say you don't beleive Sharia Law is the right way to deal with 'issues' anywhere in the world?

Yes. Oh dear let me explain in small words…

The accusation is that he is racist. That is just a cheap unintelligent accusation thrown at people who have a different view. Of course he is racist, as I said most people are. So it is a pointless cheap accusation.

What is more relevant is whether his words were lawful or not. Whether it was hate speech that could incite others to commit acts on grounds of race and in particular cause harm to the woman in question.

Bearing in mind it was a private conversation within a small group about 5 years ago, that was not recorded (or at least we don’t have access to any recording), and so we are just hearing what someone else’s recollection of what he said was, missing the context and intent behind it, I would say that it was not hate speech nor was the woman in question in any way endangered by it nor even the slightest bit concerned about it - because neither she, nor anyone else outside the small group, knew about it.

It only became an issue when someone decided 5 years later to breach confidence and publicise a short extract from a private conversation, for reasons of personal gain. So now the woman in question knows about it and probably feels unsettled or threatened by it.

So IMO that person is more the guilty party, or at least just as guilty as the original “perpetrator”. Putting fear and alarm into an elderly black lady for personal and political gain.

Let's be aware, the individual denies the words quoted, but admits insulting Ms Abbot. Even the BBC qualifies this in its revelry of the turmoil it is fomenting. His apology should be accepted in the same way that Ms Abbot's antisemitic tropes which led to her suspension in August last year. Obviously her 'apologies' were heartfelt, yet she still said the same in December last year.
i suppose it was all raised to take the steam out of Angela Rayner's waffle which still needs explaining fully.
Political sponsorship is always going to be contentious, but any attempts to curb this in the past have been fraught with difficulties, not least the Electoral Commissions restrictions on spending dependent on the the party/individual concerned. On top of those limits, sponsors can support individual M.P.'s such as Unions sponsoring an M.P.

So what if he has made further donations? So what if he has made the odd “racist” comment in private? (although we only have other people with an agenda’s word for that). You only have to look on here, most people have said some sort of racist thing, usually in jest of course. But this is in writing on a public forum, not a private verbal chat. Taken out of context most of our members could be outlawed from donating to the Tory (or labour) party. The tragedy!

Angela has allegedly not done anything actually illegal, but it is rather sleazy and not in keeping with a socialist ethos.