"Pubs for all you racists"

[charmer]

More lazy stereotyping.

 

How can you possibly know that? You can't possibly know he isn't speaking from years of experience and statistical analysis.

 

Some of my relatives are travellers and I spent 3 or so years of my childhood about 5 minutes work from a site.

 

I would agree with Smithy, travellers (again I have some traveller blood) are in my experience more likely to be involved in crime than the average gorga (non traveller). Many travellers would not only admit this but actually be proud of it. Travellers take great pride in distancing themselves from the wider society, following their own rules rather than the rules of wider society.

 

It is not racist to label a group if one feels sufficient evidence exists to support the label. An easy example of this is the almost definitely true stereotype that the average Brit is far more interested in football than the average Japanese person.

[loraward]

That could suggest

1. They are more likely to be imprisoned

2. They are disproportionately targeted by the police

 

Other minorities suffer the same issues.

 

It could, but without proof that the police and courts are disproportionately targeting them we are left to assume that they do in fact commit disproportionately more crime than other groups of people.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2015 at 15:10 ----------

 

Difficult to believe that you can't see why it's not a fair comparison.

 

Being a supporter of a particular football club is incidental to the rest of your life. The only time that you are discriminated against is when you choose to attend a football match.

Even then I tend to resent it but it's a temporary inconvenience which I have learned to put up with over the years, it happens only in the football season and then only for the duration of the game plus traveling to and from the match.

 

Imagine if that state of affairs were to be imposed on you every day of your life.

 

That's the situation with ethnicity and race plus lifestyle in the case of the gay community for instance.

 

Discrimination is disgusting, and when you take into consideration that everyone can be discriminated against for some reason - should some other person choose to - condoning it is a pretty stupid position to take.

 

So the same as the pub then, they only prevented this group which included travelers because they had a conference next door, and the last time the conference took place the people attending caused trouble, the rest of the time the pub didn't refuse them service.

 

No different to the cake shop, they had no problem serving gay people and only refused to make one cake because of the wording, a cake that they would have refused to make for everyone.

 

In both cases the refusal of service was temporary and wouldn't have been imposed on them every day of their life.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2015 at 15:14 ----------

 

If you'd ever had any encounters with gypsies you'd know they have earned their reputation.

 

Asking people to not prejudge gypsies is like ask a gazelle not to prejudge a lion. People who ignore form and experience are the ones Mother Nature likes to weed out.

 

I1L2T3 claims to have had encounters with gypsies, but excused their criminal behavior because of the social group they belong to.

[mjw47]

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2015 at 15:10 ----------

 

 

So the same as the pub then, they only prevented this group which included travelers because they had a conference next door, and the last time the conference took place the people attending caused trouble, the rest of the time the pub didn't refuse them service.

 

No different to the cake shop, they had no problem serving gay people and only refused to make one cake because of the wording, a cake that they would have refused to make for everyone.

 

In both cases the refusal of service was temporary and wouldn't have been imposed on them every day of their life.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2015 at 15:14 ----------

 

 

Are you really that obtuse?

 

No, nothing like the pub, they were discriminated against for something that they are totally powerless to change, they were born gypsies.

 

They personally had done nothing wrong, but they were refused service because of their familial background.

 

That is against the law and that is why they were compensated by the court.

 

The police officer, the barrister and the priest didn't receive compensation because whilst a landlord can refuse to serve anyone in his pub he can't do so on grounds of ethnicity.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Flicensinglaws.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F01%2F04%2Fthe-21st-century-right-of-refusal%2F&ei=to9gVYf3MKX17AaNmIAw&usg=AFQjCNFbVaqYd966pvRQZt8YCT9h7z-sZQ&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU

 

It's pretty simple and straight forward and really difficult to understand why the debate is still going on.

 

Whilst one or two of you may be bigots, the law does not support your view.

 

I know, it's political correctness gorn mad!

[loraward]

Are you really that obtuse?

 

No, nothing like the pub, they were discriminated against for something that they are totally powerless to change, they were born gypsies.

 

They personally had done nothing wrong, but they were refused service because of their familial background.

 

 

Of cause they can change, just like someone can stop supporting Sheffield Wednesday, they didn't have to attend the conference, they don't have to travel and squat on land they don't own, they don't have to leave rubbish everywhere they go, they don't have to commit crime. All these things can be changed and then they won't be treated differently to other groups that don't cause the same problems.

 

Thousands of football fans have personally done nothing wrong but they are banned from some businesses because of the reputation that precedes them.

 

Thousands of young people that have not been involved in car accidents are charged more for the same insurance as older people, simply because young people are more likley to have an accident.

[charmer]

Are you really that obtuse?

 

No, nothing like the pub, they were discriminated against for something that they are totally powerless to change, they were born gypsies.

 

They personally had done nothing wrong, but they were refused service because of their familial background.

 

That is against the law and that is why they were compensated by the court.

 

The police officer, the barrister and the priest didn't receive compensation because whilst a landlord can refuse to serve anyone in his pub he can't do so on grounds of ethnicity.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Flicensinglaws.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F01%2F04%2Fthe-21st-century-right-of-refusal%2F&ei=to9gVYf3MKX17AaNmIAw&usg=AFQjCNFbVaqYd966pvRQZt8YCT9h7z-sZQ&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU

 

It's pretty simple and straight forward and really difficult to understand why the debate is still going on.

 

Whilst one or two of you may be bigots, the law does not support your view.

 

I know, it's political correctness gorn mad!

 

I imagine you don't know what the word bigot means. You are the bigoted one. Get a dictionary, look up the word and then read your first sentence

[mjw47]

Of cause they can change, just like someone can stop supporting Sheffield Wednesday, they didn't have to attend the conference, they don't have to travel and squat on land they don't own, they don't have to leave rubbish everywhere they go, they don't have to commit crime. All these things can be changed and then they won't be treated differently to other groups that don't cause the same problems.

 

Thousands of football fans have personally done nothing wrong but they are banned from some businesses because of the reputation that precedes them.

 

Thousands of young people that have not been involved in car accidents are charged more for the same insurance as older people, simply because young people are more likley to have an accident.

 

So, just to be clear, you want people to change their way of life completely because you have preconceived ideas about what that life entails?

 

Couple of questions, do you believe that all traveling people behave in the way you describe above?

 

Secondly do you believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty?

[loraward]

So, just to be clear, you want people to change their way of life completely because you have preconceived ideas about what that life entails?

 

Couple of questions, do you believe that all traveling people behave in the way you describe above?

 

Secondly do you believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty?

 

No I don't and yes I do, I also believe in a fair society, one in which everyone is treated equally, the cake shop owner would have been allowed to not make the cake for most people, meaning it is unfair that they couldn't refuse to make it for some people. The land lord can refuse to serve most people and it is clearly unfair that he can't refuse to serve everyone.

 

Most football fans are innocent yet they are still refused service based on the conduct of some football fans. It has to be the same rule for everyone with no special treatment for some.

[Zamo]

More lazy stereotyping.

 

What exactly do you mean by 'lazy'? You make a lazy counter argument i.e. you don't actually offering one.

 

Is the stereotype inaccurate? Can you honestly tell us that you wouldn't be more wary drinking in a pub with gypsies in? You wouldn't be more worried about the bike you left outside getting nicked? You know full well that the lazy stereotype is in fact a well deserved reputation that would influence your reaction and behaviour just as it would anyone else. Don't beat yourself up about it... you're only human.

[JFKvsNixon]

No I don't and yes I do, I also believe in a fair society, one in which everyone is treated equally, the cake shop owner would have been allowed to not make the cake for most people, meaning it is unfair that they couldn't refuse to make it for some people. The land lord can refuse to serve most people and it is clearly unfair that he can't refuse to serve everyone.

 

Most football fans are innocent yet they are still refused service based on the conduct of some football fans. It has to be the same rule for everyone with no special treatment for some.

 

So what you're saying is, it is only a fair society if people are free to discriminate against whoever they want to?

[loraward]

So what you're saying is, it is only a fair society if people are free to discriminate against whoever they want to?

 

No, it's fair when everyone is treated equally, if a pub can legally ban football fans on the basis that some football fans cause damage, they should be able to ban conference goers on the basis that some conference goers cause damage.

 

If a cake shop can refuse to make a cake for one person, they should be allowed to refuse to make a cake for everyone, with no special treatment for some groups people.

Edited May 23, 2015 by loraward