"Pubs for all you racists"

[SnailyBoy]

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 this third bouncer is the source of your previous trouble position?

 

JD Wetherspoon's chief executive, John Hutson when giving a statement to the BBC in 2011 didn't mention it all.

 

He would have had chance to talk to all the staff concerned before making that statement.

 

I guess to leave it out of the statement avoids the awkward question...."What previous trouble?"

[Halibut]

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.

 

Ha, yeah, like if the bouncer said darkies weren't allowed and it didn't matter because they were talking to blacks.

 

Or if the bouncer turned queers away but it was actually homosexuals that were barred.

[DerbyTup]

Surely the landlord of a pub has the right to deny anyone entry for whatever reason he/she likes? They are not obliged to give a reason. The fact that one was given in this case has led to this crazy trial.

[retep]

Ha, yeah, like if the bouncer said darkies weren't allowed and it didn't matter because they were talking to blacks.

 

Or if the bouncer turned queers away but it was actually homosexuals that were barred.

 

Aren't you the big boy 2 non PC words in 1 post, give yourself a star.

[mjw47]

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.

 

Couple of points,firstly ignorance is no defence against the law.

 

Secondly as the comment was addressed directly to the group and they were the ones he was refusing entry to then the meaning was crystal clear, wasn't it?

 

The same principle would apply if he had said Pakistanis are not allowed entry and turned away a group of Indians.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2015 at 11:03 ----------

 

 

---------- 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.'

 

'[/b].

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

See what you just did?

 

'At 4.45 pm they were told that they were not allowing travelers to enter the Coronet.'

 

There it is, nice and straightforward, it is against the law to ban people for reasons of race or ethnicity, do you understand now?

 

Thank you for posting the evidence which supports my ( and the laws ) stance.

[I1L2T3]

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?

 

Oh dear. Why spend days arguing then shoot both your feet off.

 

At the point where the third bouncer arrived the other two bouncers had already broken race discrimination laws. It's that simple - entry to the pub had been refused on grounds of ethnicity. That's illegal.

[retep]

Couple of points,firstly ignorance is no defence against the law.

 

Secondly as the comment was addressed directly to the group and they were the ones he was refusing entry to then the meaning was crystal clear, wasn't it?

 

The same principle would apply if he had said Pakistanis are not allowed entry and turned away a group of Indians.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2015 at 11:03 ----------

 

 

See what you just did?

 

'At 4.45 pm they were told that they were not allowing travelers to enter the Coronet.'

 

There it is, nice and straightforward, it is against the law to ban people for reasons of race or ethnicity, do you understand now?

 

Thank you for posting the evidence which supports my ( and the laws ) stance.

 

Crystal clear or not it wouldn't have been racist as it would not have been directed at their race or ethnicity,

the same would be applied in the case of the Pakistanis and Indians.

[harvey19]

This is similar to the Irish cake fiasco.

Surely a business can do business with or decline to do business with customers as they wish.

We are now in a situation where if a truthful reason is given the business can be prosecuted.

If the business lied about the reason for not accepting the customers they are OK.

We have created an unintentional culture of hypocrisy and lying.

[retep]

This is similar to the Irish cake fiasco.

Surely a business can do business with or decline to do business with customers as they wish.

We are now in a situation where if a truthful reason is given the business can be prosecuted.

If the business lied about the reason for not accepting the customers they are OK.

We have created an unintentional culture of hypocrisy and lying.

 

Yep it's far easier for a business to give a simple two word answer and no reason for it.

[mjw47]

Crystal clear or not it wouldn't have been racist as it would not have been directed at their race or ethnicity,

the same would be applied in the case of the Pakistanis and Indians.

 

That is not how it works, the law states that businesses cannot discriminate on racial or ethnic grounds.

 

Just because the bouncer is that thick he doesn't know that he's using the wrong racist description makes no odds.

 

He is expressing a clear intent of the business to break the law.