"Pubs for all you racists"

[loraward]

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.

 

You mean I don't share your opinion of the facts, I have read the facts, and it is fact that they banned everyone from the conference despite some of them not being travelers, they didn't just ban travelers or all travelers, just the people attending the conference.

 

And I understand why some people get abusive, its because they are intolerant of different opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

How do you know they were not the same people, its was a conference about the same issues and the last time the landlord let people from the conference into his pub they damaged it. So he banned people from the conference based on their attendance at the conformance and not their ethnicity.

 

 

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

The land lord in question didn't ban them based on their race, he banned them based on their attendance at a conference.

 

 

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.

 

He banned the people attending the same conference that caused the damage the previous year. No different to banning football fans on the basis that some football fans caused damage.

 

 

 

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

 

I read it and disagreed with it.

 

 

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.

I tend to think for my self and on this occasion I disagree with the judge.

 

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

 

I've read the facts and think the judge got it wrong.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2015 at 21:32 ----------

 

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?

 

There is.

 

 

The group said that “the doormen told them that they were not allowing travellers or people from the traveller conference to enter”.

 

Another doorman appeared to say the group were barred from entering as a result of “problems after the traveller conference last year”

[mjw47]

 

And I understand why some people get abusive, its because they are intolerant of different opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you know they were not the same people,

 

 

 

 

I read it and disagreed with it.

 

 

I tend to think for my self and on this occasion I disagree with the judge.

 

 

 

I've read the facts and think the judge got it wrong.[/quote ]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No, it's because they are trying to explain things to someone who is so arrogantly convinced that they are right and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong that patience becomes stretched.

 

Because if they were the same people then that would have been Wetherspoons defence, and what's more it would have been a successful defence.

 

Banning someone for having caused trouble in the past is perfectly acceptable, and nothing to do with discrimination.

 

You claim to have read the facts, did Wetherspoons claim that they were the same people as last year?

 

The trial lasted for three weeks, the judge heard all the evidence from both parties and gave a damning indictment of the behaviour of the manager.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.standard.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flondon%2Fwetherspoons-ordered-to-pay-24000-to-irish-travellers-after-bouncer-barred-them-from-the-coronet-10258083.html&ei=QeNgVe7MM8q57gbXpoPoBw&usg=AFQjCNHG3yVyHaEbD22Dywu4l59FBEbIYg&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

You disagree, and believe that you know better having just read the newspaper reports, if that?

 

It is clear that you have missed your vocation, you are completely wasting your time posting on this forum you could be earning serious money as a criminal defence lawyer!

 

Why don't you offer your services to Wetherspoons for future cases? Obviously they were seriously let down by their representatives in this case.

Edited May 23, 2015 by mjw47

[SnailyBoy]

There wasn't any previous trouble, that's a red herring.

[loraward]

 

No, it's because they are trying to explain things to someone who is so arrogantly convinced that they are right and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong that patience becomes stretched.

 

 

Are you not arrogantly convinced that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

[milquetoast1]

Whilst not wanting to consider the discriminatory refusal to serve these people in this case, what I find odd is that the licensing trade has always been immune from the same discrimination rules that apply to other businesses. Presumably a result of dealing with people that are intoxicated, publicans have always had a right to refuse service to anybody.

 

I was always of the opinion that a publican's right of refusal is a ‘common law’ right, meaning that a member of the public could not insist on being served in a public house.

 

This decision seems to go against over 100 years of precedent.

[I1L2T3]

Whilst not wanting to consider the discriminatory refusal to serve these people in this case, what I find odd is that the licensing trade has always been immune from the same discrimination rules that apply to other businesses. Presumably a result of dealing with people that are intoxicated, publicans have always had a right to refuse service to anybody.

 

I was always of the opinion that a publican's right of refusal is a ‘common law’ right, meaning that a member of the public could not insist on being served in a public house.

 

This decision seems to go against over 100 years of precedent.

 

I disagree. If anything it supports the last few decades of progress in fighting back against racists and bigots in this country.

 

Certain people want to roll that back so they can sit on their sofas feeling angry about a minority they've probably never ever come into contact with.

[ghost rider]

Well that is unacceptable, the police should have dealt with the matter, there was CCTV evidence and prosecutions should have taken place.

 

No one is saying that any ethnic group should be given carte blanche to act as they wish simply because they are an ethnic group.

 

They should be treated equally with the rest of the population.

 

Being treat equally means that they should answer to the law and pay the price for breaking it just like everyone else.

 

Making allowances for peoples behaviour because they belong to either a minority or majority is not only wrong it encourages racism.

 

"This is our country and look what them uns are getting away with " is a recipe for increasing bigotry.

 

The law should apply equally across the board, apart from football fans obviously.

You have hit the nail on the head,a lot of people do feel that ethnic minorities are being given special treatment by the police and councils and time and again we see cases of this happening example syp and Rotherham council.I was turned away from a pub in Nottingham along with my mates because we spoke with a Sheffield accent(and that was the actual reason he gave).And we are not young we are all middle aged.I would like to guess that if I complained to the police about it I would have got laughed at and sent on my way.Perhaps it is because I am a white man.I would have a good bet that if I had been from an ethnic minority something would have been done about it.Positive discrimination is going too far and it could turn out to be a big mistake further down the line.Some white English people are beginning to feel alienated and I hear this said time and time again in my line of work from people from all walks of life.

[mjw47]

Are you not arrogantly convinced that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong?

 

Once again you show an amusing lack of grasp upon reality.

 

I am in agreement with the Judge who listened to three weeks evidence which was assembled following three years of legal argument between the two parties.

 

You on the other hand believe that your opinion is more important, and that you know what the true facts are, having heard none of the evidence personally and being totally confused about the reality of the case.

 

It was about discrimination!

 

Nothing to do with what may or may not have happened the previous year.

 

And you think I am convinced that I am right?

 

NO you barmpot, I think the court was right!

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2015 at 23:40 ----------

 

Whilst not wanting to consider the discriminatory refusal to serve these people in this case, what I find odd is that the licensing trade has always been immune from the same discrimination rules that apply to other businesses. Presumably a result of dealing with people that are intoxicated, publicans have always had a right to refuse service to anybody.

 

I was always of the opinion that a publican's right of refusal is a ‘common law’ right, meaning that a member of the public could not insist on being served in a public house.

 

This decision seems to go against over 100 years of precedent.

 

This explains it. 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

[Penistone999]

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.

 

If you ran a boozer and a group of football fans came in and caused trouble and damage to your pub , would you not refuse entry to the same clubs supporters the next time they were in the area to rule out the risk of it happening again ?

[mjw47]

You have hit the nail on the head,a lot of people do feel that ethnic minorities are being given special treatment by the police and councils and time and again we see cases of this happening example syp and Rotherham council.I was turned away from a pub in Nottingham along with my mates because we spoke with a Sheffield accent(and that was the actual reason he gave).And we are not young we are all middle aged.I would like to guess that if I complained to the police about it I would have got laughed at and sent on my way.Perhaps it is because I am a white man.I would have a good bet that if I had been from an ethnic minority something would have been done about it.Positive discrimination is going too far and it could turn out to be a big mistake further down the line.Some white English people are beginning to feel alienated and I hear this said time and time again in my line of work from people from all walks of life.

 

I don't disagree with you.

 

If the 'authorities' had sat down and thought ' How can we set about causing racial unrest and peeing off the native population' they couldn't have done a better job.

 

Despite which, my contention is that we should all be treat equal.

 

Break the law and face the consequence without favour.

 

Obey the law and be accorded the benefit of the doubt, and be allowed to go about your business until you do otherwise.