"Pubs for all you racists"

[Halibut]

So if I take to a caravan does it make me one of the travellers by ethnicity??

 

No, but if you were barred from a pub because you lived in a caravan you'd feel pretty peed off would you not?

[mjw47]

Not so much codswallop just not enough proof.

 

"in 2011 an analysis of DNA from 40 Travellers was undertaken at the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin and the University of Edinburgh.

 

The study provided evidence that Irish Travellers are a distinct Irish ethnic minority, who separated from the settled Irish community at least 1,000 years ago.

 

However, not all families of Irish Travellers date back to the same point in time; some families adopted Traveller customs centuries ago, while others did so more recently.

 

Some families centuries ago and some others more recently.

 

That doesn't detract from the DNA evidence showing that the core group have a difference in genetic makeup to the rest of the population.

 

In order to state that this difference occurred 1,000 to 2,000 years ago the two university's must have been satisfied that there was some evidence to that effect, presumably this took the form of some element of their DNA which was unique to that specific group and not present in the general population.

 

Although the travelers sample group was small the information on the general populations DNA is extensive, therefore an anomaly which was present in all of the traveler DNA and was absent in the general population would show a difference.

 

All presumption on my part but it seems logical as two universities have backed the claim.

 

Anyway it is irrelevant to the central point, which was that people who had caused no problem were refused service because some different people had previously caused a problem.

 

The law backed their case and Tim Martin apologised, case closed in their favour.

[loraward]

No, but if you were barred from a pub because you lived in a caravan you'd feel pretty peed off would you not?

 

Why would you want to support a business owner that doesn't like you?

 

Surely if the local pub landlord let it be known that they hate you, you would simply find another pub to drink it.

[retep]

No, but if you were barred from a pub because you lived in a caravan you'd feel pretty peed off would you not?

 

Not if I made myself part of a trouble causing group, I'd expect it.

 

---------- Post added 20-05-2015 at 17:19 ----------

 

Some families centuries ago and some others more recently.

 

That doesn't detract from the DNA evidence showing that the core group have a difference in genetic makeup to the rest of the population.

 

In order to state that this difference occurred 1,000 to 2,000 years ago the two university's must have been satisfied that there was some evidence to that effect, presumably this took the form of some element of their DNA which was unique to that specific group and not present in the general population.

 

Although the travelers sample group was small the information on the general populations DNA is extensive, therefore an anomaly which was present in all of the traveler DNA and was absent in the general population would show a difference.

 

All presumption on my part but it seems logical as two universities have backed the claim.

 

Anyway it is irrelevant to the central point, which was that people who had caused no problem were refused service because some different people had previously caused a problem.

 

The law backed their case and Tim Martin apologised, case closed in their favour.

 

You'd need more than 40 samples to prove it.

 

If the landlord presumed it was a similar group of people who had given him grief, he had every reason to refuse.

[Halibut]

If the landlord presumed it was a similar group of people who had given him grief, he had every reason to refuse.

 

Utter garbage. If some black men once had a fight in his pub is it OK to bar all blacks?

If he had a problem with two fat women, is it OK to bar all fat women?

If he had a problem with cockneys is it OK for him to bar all cockneys?

 

Of course it isn't and there's no difference here except that some folk are too dim to see it.

[loraward]

Utter garbage. If some black men once had a fight in his pub is it OK to bar all blacks?

If he had a problem with two fat women, is it OK to bar all fat women?

If he had a problem with cockneys is it OK for him to bar all cockneys?

 

Of course it isn't and there's no difference here except that some folk are too dim to see it.

 

Its about a pub banning people based on the fact they attended the same conference that caused trouble the previous year, its a reasonable assumption that some of the people that attended last year will also have attended this year.

 

A comparison would be a pub bans football fans on the basis that the last time fans from that club went into their pub they trashed the place. It could well be an entirely different set of people that just happen to support the same team, but why should the pub take the risk?

[retep]

Utter garbage. If some black men once had a fight in his pub is it OK to bar all blacks?

If he had a problem with two fat women, is it OK to bar all fat women?

If he had a problem with cockneys is it OK for him to bar all cockneys?

 

Of course it isn't and there's no difference here except that some folk are too dim to see it.

 

Garbage to you, sense to me, why invite trouble.

[I1L2T3]

A lot of bickering here but one point in the judgement is critically important, and that is the bit about not making the assumption that because one person from a minority did something all people from that minority will do the same.

 

The football fans analogy is lame because they are not banned from pubs based on ethnicity so there is no legal line to cross in banning them. If you want to ban people based on ethnicity, sexuality etc... then you are crossing a legal line and can expect people to quite reasonably seek legal redress. No amount of bickering can change that. Its the law.

[loraward]

A lot of bickering here but one point in the judgement is critically important, and that is the bit about not making the assumption that because one person from a minority did something all people from that minority will do the same.

 

The football fans analogy is lame because they are not banned from pubs based on ethnicity so there is no legal line to cross in banning them. If you want to ban people based on ethnicity, sexuality etc... then you are crossing a legal line and can expect people to quite reasonably seek legal redress. No amount of bickering can change that. Its the law.

 

They wasn't banned based on ethnicity, the group attending the conference was banned because the last time they attended the conference they cause troubled. So no different at all to football, one group of football fans causes trouble and they all get banned regardless of ethnicity, the same rule was applied to the conference goers, some of which were not travelers, you will note that only the travelers won compensation, the other people that was stopped from entering the pub did not win anything.

[mjw47]

.

 

---------- Post added 20-05-2015 at 17:19 ----------

 

 

You'd need more than 40 samples to prove it.

 

If the landlord presumed it was a similar group of people who had given him grief, he had every reason to refuse.

 

Would you really?

 

How do you know that? What scientific knowledge do you personally possess which brings you to that conclusion?

 

Both the universities of Edinburgh and Dublin were satisfied that the tests they carried out proved that " They are as distinct from the settled community as Icelanders are from Norwegians ".

 

Why would they make such a claim unless they were sure that they had proof of it's veracity?

 

Forty samples seems small to me but I know next to nothing about DNA testing and am therefore prepared to take the word of those who do.

 

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why I shouldn't?

 

As for the landlord presumed, it turned out that he had no right to presume didn't it?

 

As explained to him in a court of law, meaning that he didn't have ' every reason to refuse ' and he won't make that mistake again will he?