"Pubs for all you racists"

[loraward]

If loraward is under the impression that barring football fans because they support a particular team is exactly the same as barring travelers because of their ethnic background then loraward is totally wrong as has been proven by the judgement of the court.

 

They wasn't barred because of their ethnic background, they was barred because the last time that group of people went into the pub they caused trouble.

 

 

A landlord can refuse service to anyone that they want to, for any reason that they wish to, except on grounds of race or ethnicity.

 

Clearly didn't work in this instance, they wasn't barred because of their ethnicity, they was barred because the last time that group frequented the pub there was trouble. The group was made up of people from different ethnic backgrounds yet they were all bared because of the trouble that took place the last time that group went into the pub.

 

 

 

That is the law and therefore travelers and football fans are quite clearly different aren't they?

 

No, they are all human and it is unfair to treat one group of humans differently to another group of humans.

 

 

It would appear that you are the one who needs to look up the meaning of the word bigot, disagreeing with someones views -that are quite obviously mistaken - and pointing out the facts is not intolerance, it is merely setting the record straight, isn't it?

Otherwise, every time someone explained the truth of any matter to someone they would be being bigoted, and that would be ridiculous wouldn't it?

 

A bigot is someone that is intolerant of someone because of the opinions they hold. You can usually tell when someone is intolerant from the language they use, verbally abusing someone because of the opinions they hold would be a sign of intolerance.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2015 at 19:23 ----------

 

So they knew the individuals who caused the last time were the same this time?

 

It was a conference about a specific subject, the people attending caused trouble, so the pub landlord rightly decided that no one from that conference would be welcome in the pub.

 

He did to that group of people the same thing that happens every week to other groups of people.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2015 at 19:25 ----------

 

The only connection between the group denied entry and the group that caused trouble is that both were travellers. They were not the same individuals.

 

Some of the conference goers were not travelers but was still denied service. Everyone at the conference despite being from different ethnic backgrounds was treated the same.

[SnailyBoy]

 

It was a conference about a specific subject, the people attending caused trouble, so the pub landlord rightly decided that no one from that conference would be welcome in the pub.

 

He did to that group of people the same thing that happens every week to other groups of people.

 

No, the conference was a Traveller conference. The landlord freaked out thinking that the recent site eviction issues would mean that there would be trouble in the pub. So banned Travellers from entering the pub.

 

 

 

Try something in your little story, replace Travellers with Black and see how it goes.

[Penistone999]

No, the conference was a Traveller conference. The landlord freaked out thinking that the recent site eviction issues would mean that there would be trouble in the pub. So banned Travellers from entering the pub.

 

 

Try something in your little story, replace Travellers with Black and see how it goes.

 

Which is a perfectly understandable stance for the landlord to take to try and safeguard his property .

[loraward]

No, the conference was a Traveller conference. The landlord freaked out thinking that the recent site eviction issues would mean that there would be trouble in the pub. So banned Travellers from entering the pub.

 

 

 

Try something in your little story, replace Travellers with Black and see how it goes.

 

It wasn't the first time they held that conference, the year before he did allow them into the pub and they caused trouble and damage, hence the reason he banned them the year after, it was the trouble they caused and not their ethnicity.

 

 

I will take that challenge.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2015 at 19:50 ----------

 

Try something in your little story, replace Travellers with Black and see how it goes.

 

Hypothetical.

 

The Black police federation hold a meeting in a pub, whilst in the pub they cause trouble and damage, the landlord should have the right to ban the Black police federation from holding any further meeting in the pub. They shouldn't ban all black people but should have the right to ban anyone associated with the Black police federation.

 

Now did the pub in question ban every traveler for all time or did they simply ban everyone associated with the conference that caused last years damage?

Edited May 23, 2015 by loraward

[SnailyBoy]

Which is a perfectly understandable stance for the landlord to take to try and safeguard his property .

 

Nope, it's discrimination.

[mjw47]

It wasn't the first time they held that conference, the year before he did allow them into the pub and they caused trouble and damage, hence the reason he banned them the year after, it was the trouble they caused and not their ethnicity.

 

You wonder why people get a little irritated with you and post the odd 'sharp' comment?

 

It's because you simply don't listen to the facts which are being pointed out to you and keep on repeating complete nonsense, that's why.

 

They did no such thing they were not the same people that had caused trouble the year before, if they had been the same people then they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on with their claim.

 

The landlord would have then had a perfectly reasonable and acceptable reason to ban them which would not have involved their race.

 

But that isn't what happened, he chose to bar a completely different set of people based upon ethnic stereotyping and was found guilty of discrimination by the court.

 

Read the Judges ( who heard all the evidence and arguments of the defence council ) summing up on this link.

 

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

 

 

Wetherspoons were found in breach of the Equality act 2010. Nothing to do with what happened the previous year which involved a different set of people.

 

These facts have been pointed out to you by several posters, and yet you continue to churn out your distorted version of events.

[SnailyBoy]

It wasn't the first time they held that conference, the year before he did allow them into the pub and they caused trouble and damage, hence the reason he banned them the year after, it was the trouble they caused and not their ethnicity.

 

 

I will take that challenge.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2015 at 19:50 ----------

 

 

Hypothetical.

 

The Black police federation hold a meeting in a pub, whilst in the pub they cause trouble and damage, the landlord should have the right to ban the Black police federation from holding any further meeting in the pub. They shouldn't ban all black people but should have the right to ban anyone associated with the Black police federation.

 

Now did the pub in question ban every traveler for all time or did they simply ban everyone associated with the conference that caused last years damage?

 

So this constant reference to previous trouble and damage. There's no mention of that at all, the only defence that was given at the time was that they were refused entry because they were a large group.

 

So do you want to have a rethink?

[Harrystottle]

The only answeris for Snailyboy and Mjw47 to open a pub next door to a travellers site.

 

Live your life like you talk it.

[SnailyBoy]

The only answeris for Snailyboy and Mjw47 to open a pub next door to a travellers site.

 

Live your life like you talk it.

 

Let me take a wild guess..... English, white male?

[mjw47]

The only answeris for Snailyboy and Mjw47 to open a pub next door to a travellers site.

 

Live your life like you talk it.

 

Why don't you read my post at 41 on page 3?

 

Then read again my post at 146 above, paying particular attention to the fourth paragraph down which starts ' The landlord'.

 

After you've done that, please point out where I've said that travelers or any other minority for that matter should receive special treatment.

 

What I am saying is very simple, we should all be treated equally and only when you have actually done something yourself should you be held responsible for it.

 

Perhaps you disagree and would like to explain to us how you think that discriminating against someone on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity is acceptable?