"Pubs for all you racists"

[SnailyBoy]

No it wasn't in that link, but it was still a valid nondiscriminatory reason to refuse entry.

 

No, it was the excuse used to refuse entry.

[loraward]

No, it was the excuse used to refuse entry.

 

Would you have been up in arms if it had been a large group people attending an EDL meeting. In your opinion can there ever be a valid reason to refuse service to someone that just happens to have protected characteristic. If they had been travelers attending an EDL meeting for instance do you think the landlord would have had grounds to refuse service?

[I1L2T3]

 

You do understand that people with protected characteristics can still be treated the same as everyone else, if a pub landlords want to ban football fans, he can even the black or gay fans, if a landlord wants to ban people attending a demonstration, they can even the black or gay attendees. They can do this because the ban isn't based on their ethnicity or sexuality, its based on their attendance of a football, match, a demonstration, a meeting, a conference.

 

Yes I do understand that. What you don't understand is you can't tell somebody they are barred because of their ethnicity. It's illegal.

[loraward]

Yes I do understand that. What you don't understand is you can't tell somebody they are barred because of their ethnicity. It's illegal.

 

They didn't say it was because of their ethnicity, one reason was group size, another was trouble at the last annual meeting, another was the main topic of the conference.

[I1L2T3]

They didn't say it was because of their ethnicity, one reason was group size, another was trouble at the last annual meeting, another was the main topic of the conference.

 

The evidence is that they did.

[Halibut]

They didn't say it was because of their ethnicity, one reason was group size, another was trouble at the last annual meeting, another was the main topic of the conference.

 

They wouldn't, would they?

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2015 at 22:39 ----------

 

They didn't say it was because of their ethnicity, one reason was group size, another was trouble at the last annual meeting, another was the main topic of the conference.

 

Where's your evidence for that assertion?

[mjw47]

They didn't say it was because of their ethnicity, one reason was group size, another was trouble at the last annual meeting, another was the main topic of the conference.

 

Yes they did Two bouncers stationed on the door told them gypsies were barred.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-3086374%2FWetherspoon-s-pays-thousands-racial-discrimination-against-gipsies.html&ei=mvVhVauqMKPB7Aba04H4Bw&usg=AFQjCNF7niVR6wi6Al-nw7wplp1eqiXwiA&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

This is the third time that this has been pointed out to you, but as usual you choose to ignore what you have no answer to and continue to churn out the same old garbage.

 

Snailyboy has asked you several times to provide evidence of trouble taking place the previous year.

 

When you have no answer you just keep talking tripe.

 

Any chance you'll reply to the questions I asked of you in post 193?

[loraward]

The evidence is that they did.

 

The evidence is that they didn't, they banned them because they were attending a conference about Dale farm and the previous conference there was trouble.

 

Was they banned on any other day other than the day of the conference? No

 

Did they just ban travelers or everyone attending the conference? No

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2015 at 08:10 ----------

 

Yes they did Two bouncers stationed on the door told them gypsies were barred.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-3086374%2FWetherspoon-s-pays-thousands-racial-discrimination-against-gipsies.html&ei=mvVhVauqMKPB7Aba04H4Bw&usg=AFQjCNF7niVR6wi6Al-nw7wplp1eqiXwiA&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

This is the third time that this has been pointed out to you, but as usual you choose to ignore what you have no answer to and continue to churn out the same old garbage.

 

Snailyboy has asked you several times to provide evidence of trouble taking place the previous year.

 

When you have no answer you just keep talking tripe.

 

Any chance you'll reply to the questions I asked of you in post 193?

 

Ignore the headline and look at what they said.

 

This from your link.

 

When the first group of delegates arrived at 4.45pm, the doormen told them they were not allowing travellers or people from the traveller conference to enter the Coronet.'

 

A third doorman appeared and said that the gipsies were barred because of 'problems after the traveller conference last year'.

 

 

 

 

So everyone from the conference was banned because of problems after the traveller conference last year. The conference was also focusing on the illegal activities at Dale farm, and the problems they cause at Dale farm aren't going to be welcome anywhere else.

 

 

Why do you keep asking me to post the evidence which supports my stance when the evidence is in the link you keep posting?

Edited May 25, 2015 by loraward

[retep]

Yes they did Two bouncers stationed on the door told them gypsies were barred.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-3086374%2FWetherspoon-s-pays-thousands-racial-discrimination-against-gipsies.html&ei=mvVhVauqMKPB7Aba04H4Bw&usg=AFQjCNF7niVR6wi6Al-nw7wplp1eqiXwiA&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

This is the third time that this has been pointed out to you, but as usual you choose to ignore what you have no answer to and continue to churn out the same old garbage.

 

Snailyboy has asked you several times to provide evidence of trouble taking place the previous year.

 

When you have no answer you just keep talking tripe.

 

Any chance you'll reply to the questions I asked of you in post 193?

 

According to the bold you keep pointing out, the bouncers said Gypsies were barred, in which case there should be no case to answer as they were talking to Irish travellers.

[Halibut]

The evidence is that they didn't, they banned them because they were attending a conference about Dale farm and the previous conference there was trouble.

 

Was they banned on any other day other than the day of the conference? No

 

Did they just ban travelers or everyone attending the conference? No

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2015 at 08:10 ----------

 

 

Ignore the headline and look at what they said.

 

This from your link.

 

When the first group of delegates arrived at 4.45pm, the doormen told them they were not allowing travellers or people from the traveller conference to enter the Coronet.'

 

A third doorman appeared and said that the gipsies were barred because of 'problems after the traveller conference last year'.

 

 

 

 

So everyone from the conference was banned because of problems after the traveller conference last year. The conference was also focusing on the illegal activities at Dale farm, and the problems they cause at Dale farm aren't going to be welcome anywhere else.

 

 

Why do you keep asking me to post the evidence which supports my stance when the evidence is in the link you keep posting?

 

So you think the court should have just listened to one uncorroborated report from a bouncer and ignored all the other evidence?