ECCOnoob

I am intolerant of people who deliberately and maliciously use it as some tool to prejudice others and deny access to their services. Anyone is entitled to believe in whatever they want, they can have faith in whichever spirit they desire and practice it in such a way that they wish BUT they have no right to force that position on others OR deny others their rights to live freely when they CHOOSE to provide a public service. As for your clarification, the fact that these people refused non married couples to share a room is even worse. What decade do they think they live in. Not fit to be running a business if they are going to have outdated and ridiculous prejudices like that. Wonder if Mr and Mrs Moralistic would have allowed Mary to stay in the stables. After all, woman turns up in the middle of the night pregnant by someone other than her husband and being followed by three male strangers who gather around her and are present at the birth! Oh dear. Quick, someone inform the Daily Mail.

Horse crap. They were forcing their so called beliefs on others. Where exactly in their "religious beliefs" does it say that people who are homosexual should be refused accommodation. Does that apply to people of differing faiths or non faith too? Where exactly in the bible does it say the words "homosexuality is wrong and thus persons of that sexual orientation should be refused service" Where exactly in any part of Christian teachings does it say that so called "sinners" should be excluded a right to live their lives the same as any other citizen by god WITHOUT tolerance and forgiveness. Its a fairy tale which is INTERPRETED and PRACTICED a million different ways by hundreds of different types of "Christian" churches.

What planet are you on? So in your world, everyone should have a right to run their business the way they choose in line with their beliefs. So I could choose to run my business with a refusal to serve black people, Chinese people, no women and choose that everyone under 25 should be paid 50% less than anyone else for the same job because my "belief" is that young ones don't deserve it eh? Remember the 40s 50s 60s do you? Remember how things used to be, you know when those pesky coloured people were mocked, taunted, abused and only good for service jobs hidden out of the way. Remember when those gay people were publically persecuted, arrested, attacked and insulted on a daily basis. Remember back in those good old days when women were only good enough to be tea ladies and typists. Its simple. If you CHOOSE to run a business you run it within the laws of this country. Those laws include anti-discrimination. If you don't like that, you don't run a business or bugger off somewhere else who has laws more in line with your beliefs. Its academic whether someone is running a sandwich bar out of their kitchen or 800+ staffed law firm.

This is what so many people cannot understand. It is media. By "posting" something. You are putting a statement/comment/picture or whatever else out there into the vast uncontrolled world of public gaze. You have no control over who sees it, passes it on, responds to it and/or how those people will react. Facebook postings / Twitter / Forums are not private communications unless they are strictly set as so. 99% of the time people happy chuck stuff on without thought as to how to or even caring about limiting the sight of it and/or restricting such posts to a small number of authorised persons. They are not emails full of disclaimers about privileged information. If people actually sat and thought for a moment I doubt half of the comments / opinions / jokes / "banter" would be so openly disclosed. Would they put such a view in writing to say, a national newspaper, named with their photograph next to it? Would they happily send their drunken picture or silly duck faces onto a national television show to be broadcast to the world? I highly doubt it. Seriously, why do people not realise that social media is no different. ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 13:26 ---------- Totally irrelevant. It was a business. A business which sole purpose was accommodation for people to stay in. They had absolutely no grounds to discriminate the gay couple solely because of someone's sexual orientation. They CHOSE to be in business and they have to realise that not all guests will have the same beliefs as themselves. They are perfectly entitled to choose not to allow such people in their own private home. However, as soon as they decide to open part or all of it up as a business its a totally different situation.

Absolutely spot on. This is the crux. There are criminal lawyers who in their minds deplore everything about their client and who would bet their house on them being guilty. BUT they still know their professional duty is to act in their client's best interests and instructions. There are police officers with hugely prejudiced, offensive and inappropriate views. However, they keep their mouths shut and keep away from spouting such online because they have a professional duty. Even shop assistants and service workers who inside think their customer is a cow or fatso shouldn't be ordering dessert or ugly face looks a dog in that dress, BUT they maintain their professional appearance and would know better than air such opinions in a public forum. All aspects of the working world have unwritten and written rules such as this. Obviously the more professional and regulated ones have even stronger rules. Its about being an adult and being in the working world.

Does it. Where is that quote exactly? Oh for the record, the Bible is just one of many items that people can swear in a court of law, including the ability to affirm if a person is non religious. Its content is not taken literally. Even religious leaders treat it as an interpretation. You are still missing the clear fact about this incident. The student PUBLICALLY posted comments on a media source which some would find inappropriate / offensive and unacceptable. That act of PUBLICALLY posting his opinion was against very clear and very set codes of conduct for his chosen profession. He broke the rules and that's the end of the matter. What he personally and privately thinks is his business. He can believe in god, believe in Button Moon for all people care. However, as soon as he CHOOSES to express those in a public forum its a totally different matter. That action instantly shows a potential bias, lack of judgement, lack of trust from service users and colleagues, lack of understanding for other views and a lack of independence which can be fatal to a career and/or the reputation of the Department concerned.

Well the university and/or social services commission are not going by your book. They have a code of conduct and a set of regulations. This person breached them. IMO, best for them to get rid now rather than in 5 years time when his "opinions" and "views" might cause some real problems.

Because by its very nature "social media" is just that. MEDIA. Its publishing / broadcasting / announcing or any other term you want to deem it. Views which may be deemed contravertial, unethical, deflamatory, racist, homophobic or otherwise broadcast in a public forum are against the code of conduct / contract or professional compliance of xxx organistaion. They have a right to remove such person from their organisation if they breach the rules. When will people realise that social media is PUBLIC. Its not a private email. Its not a private phone call. Its not whispering in someone's ear. Laddo will have been well aware of the regulations and professional conduct for his industry. He breached them now he has to face the consequences. Its not a new concept. Lots of organisations bar people from having any form of social media and discipline if they go against such wishes.

I think the complete opposite. In modern times, particularly compared to 20 years ago, there has never been so many opportunities to get into the "Arts". Open access is an understatement. If you want to be the next top comic, shove a few childish pranks or skits on youtube and if you are good enough and popular enough, before you know it, you could be on tv with your own series. Want to be the next Andrea Bocelli, get yourself noticed on one of the multiple Simon Cowell debacles. There are multiple arts festivals with open auditions all the time, gaudy lifestyle shows with "scripted reality" (is that not Acting in any other language?) The internet is creating stars from just being known on the internet. People are creating and distributing their own short films and full length movies without touching the precious sanctuaries of Hollywood or Pinewood. Even the serious business of News and Current Affairs has given up bothering to do some journalism and would rather let us public chuck in our own opinions and videos on subjects we know piddle all about. Plenty of performers who are big names today have not come from the "luvvie" scene and there are plenty others who have no magic contact with a key to the door. I think things have changed dramatically and certainly have not become restrictive. Go back a few decades and it would have been unheard of for untrained, uneducated, unknown "talent" to be getting spots on TV or Theatres. Look around what we have now.

Maybe if the LABOUR MPs had not started their childish taunting by bringing Cameron's mother into it, there would have been no retaliation at all. Maybe if Corbyn himself had dismissed such remarks from his own party then Cameron might not have fired in his direction. He is the leader after all. Regardless of any of the above, it was not "personal" or "insulting" it was a jokey remark in response to taunting from the other side of the house. If Corbyn really cant take it, he needs to get out the Kitchen. Whether he wanted to or not, he CHOOSE to be leader of the party. He needs to grow a pair and get some ticker skin. He is going to be in for far worse as time goes on. Its all well and good posting a video and gather faux outrage from your sheepish followers 24 hours after the event - where was his response in the house? The man is weak as water. The quicker he accepts he is not fit for the job, the better.

Not all the time. Dublin Airport's new terminal has often shoved domestic flights through normal passport controls channels.

Because the claim will have several elements and the assault itself is just a tiny part of it. You are right in that the punch and associated injuries is trivial. What is not trivial is the BBC's vicarious liability for failing to control their employee and allowing it to happen on their watch. For the failure to deal with the situation accordingly after it happened. For allowing (directly or indirectly) the media to run with the story and thus splashing both parties all over the papers. There is potential time off work, affects on future employment, potential slander and abuse suffered, injury to feelings etc etc. All those can add up. An employer is always responsible for their employees conduct in an active working environment and can be pursued accordingly, even if the actions of the individual employee was totally and utterly out of their control. At the end of the day, is not "licence monies". Like any other organisation they have insurance. They will have vast reserves set aside for legal disputes and the insurers will be paying out accordingly. I bet the BBC Legal and Governance Department get dozens of proceedings served upon them each week. This one is just one of the more interesting ones.

^^^^^^^ Absolutely spot on. The fact they are seemingly upsetting both sides from all opinions must mean they are at the right levels.

Did you have a constructive counter argument?

Why??? Its only a collection of OPINIONS and about as valid an argument as comments on here. You getting commission from it or something? ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 22:18 ---------- The reporting is impartial. That's why they quote BOTH sides in the content and provide the BALANCE in the second paragraph. There is nothing to stop the BBC having a headline. Its not false or misleading. SOME of those people said it. You are muddling issues up. A headline is just that. Its the CONTENT that's impartial. The BBC has to get your attention just as much as any media source. Why do you think they have fancy graphics and videos and multi-media sources. They still need to attract viewers, listeners and web traffic. If some grey suited bloke sat in front of a MDF desk in front of a poo brown backdrop it would hardly get us tuning in would it.

Of course they didn't because that's no as appealing as a headline. Its the whole point of them - grab your attention. However, they have mentioned it in the second paragraph of the story and provided quotation comments from those both signing and refusing to sign the letter. That's the balance we are talking about. A newspaper or a more biased network such as fox would, as we all know, choose to forget to mention those parts and merely push the headline grabbing points.

Im not sure that much influence. Its not even in the headlines on the BBC news homepage at the moment. Mars bars are higher up in the coverage.

I get what you are saying BUT, they can only be impartial if there is a no campaign story or statement or speech to report. News of any time from any angle can only be reported when they have something. As other have said, with exception of the usual attention seekers, I have heard very little actual cohesive details from the OUT campaign. IMO, the "impartiality" line thrown at the BBC is often misunderstood. Is not as simple as black vs white. If there is a story about Starbucks not paying their tax they don't have to automatically balance it out with a story about Costa paying theirs properly. Its more about not reporting flatly. Matter of fact . Not giving an angle or opinion all over it - (eg: fox news or RT)

Well I'm no expert but it might have something to do with the fact that his show still pulls in around 4-5 million viewers each episode and is currently sold to 15 different countries around the world. Its constantly well above any offering from the commercial channels. I say again, just because YOU don't like it, who cares. Popular talent that makes money keeps their job and gets paid. Don't worry, as soon as the ratings drop and saleability ends they will soon drop him. I just don't get the point of silly threads like this. Its one thing having a criticism or rant but this talk about "ridiculous monies" and "insults to licence payers" is just silly. Who are you to impose your personal tastes on others. Its about popularity. Me PERSONALLY,I cant stand Eastenders. I could say that All the cast members are overpaid, its an insult to me and licence payers. It should be stopped immediately . BUT, im not going to say such a stupid thing because I cannot argue with the fact that EE gets millions of viewers each night and makes a fortune for the BBC and its commercial arms. We ALL pay tv licence and sometimes we accept that not EVERYTHING is made for our own personal tastes. Get over it.

Saw these two words and stopped reading. "not illegal" Come back when companies are compelled by law to be moral.

Maybe its the TRADERS who need to visit other markets to see hows it done. What has the choice of goods and price got to do with the Council?

All I read there is "pursuing claims..." "pending hearing..." Claimant Lawyers believe....." "....will be determined later this year" I will await the outcome before making further comment. Making a claim does not prove anything. Companies get claims against them all the time. Does not mean they are successful. As for the MPs bitching about Mike Ashley not attending their committee. Well, unless he has done something wrong - what's compelling him to do so. The MPs might not like it, but last time I looked Zero Hours Contracts were not illegal. Until such time as they are Sports Direct, and many many other retailers, will continue to use them SD is being used as a complete scapegoat. Has been for years. The leftie media and certain windbag MPs love nothing better than to pick holes and smear their business all over the press. If they want change, THEY are the ones in a position to do something about it. If they don't like the practice of zero hour contacts, change the law. If they don't like businesses using foreign labour, change the law. Its pathetic.

....and I ask again. What has the company done that is illegal? What has the company done which is against either English Employment Regulations or EU Laws? What has the company done that has directly caused alleged problems in the Shirebook / Mansfield Areas? The windbags can talk all they want about ethics and morals and bad influences and setting examples. Its a business. Its there to make money. It provides extremely cheap products which WE the public lap up from their stores. How the hell do people think it makes money AND sells its goods so cheap. Not often I agree with Bercow but he is damn right. There is a war going on, a migrant crisis and a potential massively changing referendum coming up. Until we stop shopping there, who gives a toss what Umunna and old fart Skinner have to whinge about some company.

What evidence did he have to make the claim? What action did he take to deal with this issue in his area?

Did the Daily Mirror kick off about how much Labour spent on all those self congratulatory Tax Credit advert campaigns? How about the AimHigher funding ad campaigns? The Climate Change ones? People in glass houses and all that..... I agree its a complete non story. Typical daily mirror. Don't know why they don't just merge with the Morning Star and get on with it.