"Pubs for all you racists"

[retep]

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.

 

If the bouncer had said to a Chinese man no Irish travellers allowed would it have made any difference, of course it would, wouldn't fit in with your mindset though would it.

[mjw47]

If the bouncer had said to a Chinese man no Irish travellers allowed would it have made any difference, of course it would, wouldn't fit in with your mindset though would it.

 

Whilst I appreciate that some people have an obsessive need to argue for the sake of it, I really do prefer it when they at least put some effort and thought into the process.

 

You don't appear to bother with either.

 

If a bouncer tells Travelers that gypsies are barred and then attempts to deny them entry it is obvious that he is confused, but non the less acting in a discriminatory fashion.

 

The same would apply with the Indian, Pakistani scenario.

 

However, if a bouncer tells a Chinese man that no Irish travelers are allowed and tries to bar him then he is a moron.

 

If he simply tells him that - and allows him entry - then he would be telling the Chinese man that whilst his company are discriminatory and prepared to break the law, they like to pick and choose the form that their bigoted behaviour takes.

[Halibut]

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

 

Interesting that you don't bother to refute my post though - which illustrates that you were talking cack.

[loraward]

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.

They banned the travelers not because they were travelers but because they were attending a conference, and at a previous conference there was trouble and also lots of trouble at Dale Farm which was the subject of the conference.

[mjw47]

They banned the travelers not because they were travelers but because they were attending a conference, and at a previous conference there was trouble and also lots of trouble at Dale Farm which was the subject of the conference.

 

What you quoted in your post directly contradicts that though, doesn't it?

 

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

 

That is a straightforward explicit and precise statement.

 

It makes it perfectly clear that they were discriminating against travelers who are an ethnic group.

 

That is against the law, and that is why they were found guilty issued an apology from their CEO and are not appealing the judgement.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fjd-wetherspoon-ordered-to-pay-24000-in-damages-after-judge-rules-staff-denied-gypsies-and-travellers-entry-10258848.html&ei=HFRjVb2HLeSX7QboqICADQ&usg=AFQjCNElGR4rBrD7yXvqv3ggrtPIAnC4qw&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Weatherspoons have accepted that they were in the wrong, and it's about time that you did the same.

[loraward]

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.

 

I disagree, it was on the grounds that they were from the conference next door.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2015 at 18:13 ----------

 

What you quoted in your post directly contradicts that though, doesn't it?

 

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

 

That is a straightforward explicit and precise statement.

 

It makes it perfectly clear that they were discriminating against travelers who are an ethnic group.

 

That is against the law, and that is why they were found guilty issued an apology from their CEO and are not appealing the judgement.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fjd-wetherspoon-ordered-to-pay-24000-in-damages-after-judge-rules-staff-denied-gypsies-and-travellers-entry-10258848.html&ei=HFRjVb2HLeSX7QboqICADQ&usg=AFQjCNElGR4rBrD7yXvqv3ggrtPIAnC4qw&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Weatherspoons have accepted that they were in the wrong, and it's about time that you did the same.

 

Travelers come from all walks of life and all ethnic groups, they are called travelers because they travel.

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/traveller

 

 

And even if a traveler was a clearly defined ethnic group, he didn't say it was because of their ethnicity, it was because they was attending a conference next door.

[retep]

Whilst I appreciate that some people have an obsessive need to argue for the sake of it, I really do prefer it when they at least put some effort and thought into the process.

 

You don't appear to bother with either.

 

If a bouncer tells Travelers that gypsies are barred and then attempts to deny them entry it is obvious that he is confused, but non the less acting in a discriminatory fashion.

 

The same would apply with the Indian, Pakistani scenario.

 

However, if a bouncer tells a Chinese man that no Irish travelers are allowed and tries to bar him then he is a moron.

 

If he simply tells him that - and allows him entry - then he would be telling the Chinese man that whilst his company are discriminatory and prepared to break the law, they like to pick and choose the form that their bigoted behaviour takes.

 

The Indian-Pakistani scenario could only have worked if the bouncers had barred the Indian as they are both of the Indian race, therefore it would have been racist.

Irish Travellers and Gypsies are not the same race.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2015 at 18:43 ----------

 

Interesting that you don't bother to refute my post though - which illustrates that you were talking cack.

 

There's nothing worth refuting, now run along.

[mjw47]

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2015 at 18:13 ----------

 

 

Travelers come from all walks of life and all ethnic groups, they are called travelers because they travel.

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/traveller

 

 

And even if a traveler was a clearly defined ethnic group, he didn't say it was because of their ethnicity, it was because they was attending a conference next door.

 

You have now got to the point where you are making yourself look totally ridiculous.

 

Travelers are a recognised ethnic group under the law of this country.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fthis-britain%2Firish-travellers-gain-legal-status-of-ethnic-minority-710768.html&ei=DVxjVemcA4Sj7Aa1zYGwDg&usg=AFQjCNGc9kbEjbJzIpOYoD-tL1_dYKRQ1g&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU

 

Stop going on and on about the conference nonsense, read the fourth paragraph down.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fjd-wetherspoon-ordered-to-pay-24000-in-damages-after-judge-rules-staff-denied-gypsies-and-travellers-entry-10258848.html&ei=HFRjVb2HLeSX7QboqICADQ&usg=AFQjCNElGR4rBrD7yXvqv3ggrtPIAnC4qw&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Are you suggesting that a police inspector a barrister and a priest conspired to lie under oath by claiming that the bouncer told them that the pub " Was not allowing travelers or people from the Traveler conference to enter "?

 

The case was proven, Weatherspoons have accepted the ruling and amended their instructions to staff, give yourself a break and accept that you too have been completely wrong on this issue.

[loraward]

You have now got to the point where you are making yourself look totally ridiculous.

 

Travelers are a recognised ethnic group under the law of this country.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fthis-britain%2Firish-travellers-gain-legal-status-of-ethnic-minority-710768.html&ei=DVxjVemcA4Sj7Aa1zYGwDg&usg=AFQjCNGc9kbEjbJzIpOYoD-tL1_dYKRQ1g&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU

 

Stop going on and on about the conference nonsense, read the fourth paragraph down.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fjd-wetherspoon-ordered-to-pay-24000-in-damages-after-judge-rules-staff-denied-gypsies-and-travellers-entry-10258848.html&ei=HFRjVb2HLeSX7QboqICADQ&usg=AFQjCNElGR4rBrD7yXvqv3ggrtPIAnC4qw&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Are you suggesting that a police inspector a barrister and a priest conspired to lie under oath by claiming that the bouncer told them that the pub " Was not allowing travelers or people from the Traveler conference to enter "?

 

The case was proven, Weatherspoons have accepted the ruling and amended their instructions to staff, give yourself a break and accept that you too have been completely wrong on this issue.

 

I have seen no evidence that the bouncer said anything about Irish travelers, all the links you have posted appear to claim he said travelers, and that word means something entirety different to the term Irish travelers.

 

" Was not allowing travelers or people from the Traveler conference to enter "

 

The word Irish appears to be missing, the word traveler refers to anyone that travels, hence not a an ethnic group. But even if travelers were an ethnic group they still wasn't barred because of their ethnicity.

[mjw47]

The Indian-Pakistani scenario could only have worked if the bouncers had barred the Indian as they are both of the Indian race, therefore it would have been racist.

Irish Travellers and Gypsies are not the same race.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2015 at 18:43 ----------

 

 

.

 

First of all I would strongly advise you not to try to tell an Indian or a Pakistani that they are the same.

 

Their cultural and ethnic differences are completely different and they are no more the same than differing European races are the same, try telling an Italian that he's the same as a Spaniard or a Dutchman that he's the same as a German.

 

Secondly it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference in the Indian/Pakistani barring situation.

 

The offence is barring someone on racial or ethnic grounds, therefore it makes no difference as to whether or not the doorman is mistaken as to the nationality of the person concerned.

 

He could bar a Japanese man thinking he was Chinese makes no difference the ban was imposed on racial grounds and that is against the law.

 

Can't see why you are finding this so difficult to understand.

 

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=DGNjVbz7DIXe7Aatl4OoDA&usg=AFQjCNFbVaqYd966pvRQZt8YCT9h7z-sZQ&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU

 

Sixth paragraph down explains it.

 

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

 

I have seen no evidence that the bouncer said anything about Irish travelers, all the links you have posted appear to claim he said travelers, and that word means something entirety different to the term Irish travelers.

 

 

 

The word Irish appears to be missing, the word traveler refers to anyone that travels, hence not a an ethnic group. But even if travelers were an ethnic group they still wasn't barred because of their ethnicity.

 

Travelers is the description that anyone but the most obtuse knows is common to both Irish travelers and English gypsies, both of those groups are protected under the law.

 

In this link the subject is Gypsy travelers but if you read it you will see that 'Gypsy' is regularly dropped and the word 'traveller' used alone, same rule applies to Irish travelers.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ethesis.net%2Fgypsy%2Fgypsy.htm&ei=uGdjVajmBsy57gb4_YG4Bg&usg=AFQjCNG9Kst5dwPkGi0lQ7tqN6KX2HsOCg&bvm=bv.93990622,d.ZGU&cad=rja

 

Therefore, it is immaterial whether the word Irish was used isn't it?

 

The pub landlord hired the bouncers because of the travelers conference ( you know the one you keep referring to ) as the bouncers weren't normally employed and were there specifically for that event, clear premeditated intent to discriminate was shown.

 

Are you saying that the police inspector , the barrister and the priest all lied to the court when giving evidence as to what the bouncer said?