"Pubs for all you racists"

[loraward]

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 ----------

 

 

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?

 

So if I say I met some travelers you would instantly assume that I meant Irish travelers or gypsies, how bizarre.

 

So you agree then, it was about the conference and not an ethnic group, he hired the bouncers because he didn't want people from the conference in his pub and the people at the conference came from many different ethnic backgrounds. I accept that the police inspector , the barrister and the priest all told the truth, they ware also denied entry because the pub didn't want the conference goers to spill over into his pub, if it was about Irish travelers he would have let them in and only denied entry to the Irish travelers.

[I1L2T3]

So if I say I met some travelers you would instantly assume that I meant Irish travelers or gypsies, how bizarre.

 

So you agree then, it was about the conference and not an ethnic group, he hired the bouncers because he didn't want people from the conference in his pub and the people at the conference came from many different ethnic backgrounds. I accept that the police inspector , the barrister and the priest all told the truth, they ware also denied entry because the pub didn't want the conference goers to spill over into his pub, if it was about Irish travelers he would have let them in and only denied entry to the Irish travelers.

 

You killed the debate with your own post earlier. You stated that the door staff said that travellers weren't allowed in. At that point the door staff broke the law. The judge agrees. Wetherspoons are not contesting the judgement and are investing in staff training.

 

You can't win this argument. Why are you wasting your time.

[JFKvsNixon]

You killed the debate with your own post earlier. You stated that the door staff said that travellers weren't allowed in. At that point the door staff broke the law. The judge agrees. Wetherspoons are not contesting the judgement and are investing in staff training.

 

You can't win this argument. Why are you wasting your time.

 

Attention.

[mjw47]

So if I say I met some travelers you would instantly assume that I meant Irish travelers or gypsies, how bizarre.

 

So you agree then, it was about the conference and not an ethnic group, he hired the bouncers because he didn't want people from the conference in his pub and the people at the conference came from many different ethnic backgrounds. I accept that the police inspector , the barrister and the priest all told the truth, they ware also denied entry because the pub didn't want the conference goers to spill over into his pub, if it was about Irish travelers he would have let them in and only denied entry to the Irish travelers.

 

You are beyond daft, completely in a realm of your own, but hugely amusing at the same time.

 

If I was talking to someone and they said that they met some travelers then it would obviously depend on the context wouldn't it?

 

For instance, if I was a bouncer who had been specifically hired to prevent travelers from entering the pub I was stationed at the door of, and someone said that they had met some travelers, then yes I'd assume Irish or Gypsy travelers.

 

Likewise, if I'd just come from a conference centre where a conference was taking place specifically devoted to Travelers, and someone said that they were not allowing travelers or people who had been at the travelers conference to enter the premises I'd hazard a guess that they were not referring to tourists.

 

But then I'm like that, pretty sharp on the uptake for an old geezer.

 

And no I don't accept that it was about the conference, the only reason that the conference was involved was because it was about Travelers.

 

Glad to hear that you accept that the police inspector, barrister and priest were telling the truth.

 

Because this is what they said, " The doorman at the pub told them that the pub was not allowing Travelers or people from the Traveler Conference to enter.

 

Note the added differential Travelers or people from the convention.

 

Blows your argument out of the water doesn't it?

 

For your - somewhat barmy - theory to hold any credence the doorman would have had to have just said " people from the convention " then there may have been a doubt that they were discriminating on ethnic grounds.

 

But by mentioning 'travelers' specifically and separately, all doubt was removed as to what the intention was.

 

Please don't be disheartened by this, I'm sure you can come up with another straw to grasp.

[loraward]

You killed the debate with your own post earlier. You stated that the door staff said that travellers weren't allowed in. At that point the door staff broke the law. The judge agrees. Wetherspoons are not contesting the judgement and are investing in staff training.

 

You can't win this argument. Why are you wasting your time.

 

I'm not trying to win the debate and there is no law which states that a pub landlord can't refuse service to travelers.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2015 at 21:32 ----------

 

For instance, if I was a bouncer who had been specifically hired to prevent travelers from entering the pub I was stationed at the door of, and someone said that they had met some travelers, then yes I'd assume Irish or Gypsy travelers.

 

 

How would you recognise them, do they look different to everyone else, do they have a sign saying they are Irish travelers?

 

I would say that the landlord instructed them not to let people from the conference in the pub, the bouncers only means of knowing who came from the conference would be to watch them come out, they wouldn't have a clue who was travelers and who wasn't.

[I1L2T3]

I'm not trying to win the debate and there is no law which states that a pub landlord can't refuse service to travelers.

 

If the refusal is discriminatory counter to the laws of the land then actually there is.

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/protected-characteristics/gypsies-and-travellers-race-discrimination/

 

Just give up and stop trying to have the last word on this. You've already killed the debate yourself by posting the killer piece of evidence.

[mjw47]

I'm not trying to win the debate and there is no law which states that a pub landlord can't refuse service to travelers.

 

:hihi: You have got to be kidding us, have you been paying any attention whatsoever to this thread or do you just fire of random posts without thinking?

 

It has been proven on this thread that travelers are an ethnic group.

 

It has also been proven that there is such a law.

 

A landlord can refuse service for virtually any reason or no reason, but what he can't do is refuse service on grounds of racial or ethnic difference.

 

What exactly do you think Weatherspoons were found guilty of?

 

[loraward]

If the refusal is discriminatory counter to the laws of the land then actually there is.

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/protected-characteristics/gypsies-and-travellers-race-discrimination/

 

Just give up and stop trying to have the last word on this. You've already killed the debate yourself by posting the killer piece of evidence.

 

But they didn't discriminate they treated everyone at the conference the same, they banned everyone regardless of ethnicity.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2015 at 21:39 ----------

 

:hihi: You have got to be kidding us, have you been paying any attention whatsoever to this thread or do you just fire of random posts without thinking?

 

It has been proven on this thread that travelers are an ethnic group.

 

It has also been proven that there is such a law.

 

A landlord can refuse service for virtually any reason or no reason, but what he can't do is refuse service on grounds of racial or ethnic difference.

 

What exactly do you think Weatherspoons were found guilty of?

 

 

Travelers are actually multiple ethnic groups, the terms refers to all people that travel.

[mjw47]

I'm not trying to win the debate and there is no law which states that a pub landlord can't refuse service to travelers.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2015 at 21:32 ----------

 

 

How would you recognise them, do they look different to everyone else, do they have a sign saying they are Irish travelers?

 

I would say that the landlord instructed them not to let people from the conference in the pub, the bouncers only means of knowing who came from the conference would be to watch them come out, they wouldn't have a clue who was travelers and who wasn't.

 

The police officer, barrister and priest stated that the doorman said " Travelers OR anyone from the conference.

 

For the umpteenth time, it is illegal to deny service on ethnic grounds.

 

By stating 'travelers' separately as being barred the doorman was admitting to intending to carry out an illegal act.

 

'You would say' blind stab in the dark guess then, like all your comments.

 

Did you read the 91 page summation of the trial?

 

If there is no law to stop a landlord from refusing to provide service to travelers, could you please tell us exactly what Weatherspoons were found guilty of and fined for?

[loraward]

The police officer, barrister and priest stated that the doorman said " Travelers OR anyone from the conference.

 

For the umpteenth time, it is illegal to deny service on ethnic grounds.

 

By stating 'travelers' separately as being barred the doorman was admitting to intending to carry out an illegal act.

 

'You would say' blind stab in the dark guess then, like all your comments.

 

Did you read the 91 page summation of the trial?

 

If there is no law to stop a landlord from refusing to provide service to travelers, could you please tell us exactly what Weatherspoons were found guilty of and fined for?

 

Because courts don't always get it right and this is one of those occasions, and we have already been down this road, and you already agreed that courts aren't always right.