Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Delayed]

2 hours ago, trastrick said:

I think parents should decide the risk factor in photographing their own kids in public places.

 

The kids are not prisoners, or in a zoo!

 

And there's some dodgy people that get jobs looking after kids! 

 

 

 

Thankfully, it's Venue Owners/Management that make the rules and not their patrons.

 

If someone doesn't like the rules, they can try somewhere else.

[trastrick]

7 minutes ago, Delayed said:

Thankfully, it's Venue Owners/Management that make the rules and not their patrons.

 

If someone doesn't like the rules, they can try somewhere else.

You ok with a religious nut, refusing to bake a wedding cake, or sell flowers to a gay couple?

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Annie Bynnol said:

   You confuse mathematics with your personal beliefs several times.

   "I am 100% convinced..." is personal belief, backed only by the assumption "... I know I am right". You have come to the conclusion by now not ever body thinks you are right.

    "(B)asic risk probability" requires at least two possible outcomes. Something you admit in the very next sentence when when you say "...significant danger ...". 

    You also misuse the word "...significant..." as it has a different meaning in the world of belief to that of mathematics.

No, I KNOW I am right.

Any child being driven to the pool is at more risk of death from a car accident than from any benign outcome from someone videoing a swimming gala.

 

 >>not ever body thinks you are right<<

 

OK, tell me how I could be wrong then.

 

>> "(B)asic risk probability" requires at least two possible outcomes.<<

 

Obviously, but personally I have never heard of any child ending up dead as  a result of someone videoing a swimming race, have you ?And, if you'd bothered to read and understand what my posts said you would realise the chances of it happening are as close to zero as it is possible to be without actually being zero.

 

Your answers are consistent with your excessive risk aversion and willingness to accept any and all petty disproportionate rulings "to keep us safe [at any cost]".

PS I won't want to be going on any steam hauled train though the Scottish Highlands if I cannot look out and see the loco, which I have now been banned from doing because one person every 10 years is stupid enough to not look what he is doing.

 

32 minutes ago, trastrick said:

You ok with a religious nut, refusing to bake a wedding cake, or sell flowers to a gay couple?

Very good point T.

These Leftie authoritarians really are such hypocrites.

They have empathy alright, but only for people who think like they do......

Edited October 17, 2023 by Chekhov

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, trastrick said:

You ok with a religious nut, refusing to bake a wedding cake, or sell flowers to a gay couple?

Which is an entirely different thing, as sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and as such refusal of provision of goods and services on that basis is unlawful.

 

3 hours ago, Chekhov said:

It's called creative writing. ...

So fiction, then.  Good to know.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Guest

[Delayed]

45 minutes ago, trastrick said:

You ok with a religious nut, refusing to bake a wedding cake, or sell flowers to a gay couple?

Yes. It's their business and in a competitive market there's always alternatives. 

 

But it doesn't matter what I think 

[Irene Swaine]

1 minute ago, Delayed said:

Yes. It's their business and in a competitive market there's always alternatives. 

 

But it doesn't matter what I think 

That's discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. A business cannot refuse to provide goods or services to a person based on their sexuality. 

[Chekhov]

We have just been talking about this at work and concluded that the world is dumbing down so that the most sensitive, stupidest, least responsible and most risk averse and paranoid person is happy (or as happy as they're ever going to be).

And it is accelerating toward that nightmare.

 

44 minutes ago, Hecate said:

So fiction, then.  Good to know.

I can assure you neither anecdote was "fiction", even if you seem unwilling to accept that kids, and people generally, are not as at much risk as you seem to think.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Chekhov

[Delayed]

4 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

That's discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. A business cannot refuse to provide goods or services to a person based on their sexuality. 

That's right. Which is why it's not really a fair comparison in respect of photography restrictions 

[Chekhov]

31 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

That's discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. A business cannot refuse to provide goods or services to a person based on their sexuality. 

What reason can they use to refuse to provide goods or services ?

It's interesting actually because those ludicrous signs in shops "we have zero tolerance to abuse", if taken to the Nth degree (and they sometimes are), would discriminate against many people with mental health issues.

 

26 minutes ago, Delayed said:

That's right. Which is why it's not really a fair comparison in respect of photography restrictions 

Yes it is because you said the business owner should be able to decide what happens in their business. And, somewhat inconsistently, I agree with you. I just happen to know that any pool banning videoing of swim galas is over reacting to a massive extent.

Quote from swim England BTW :

 

"Swim England do not wish to stop parents photographing their children if they wish at their “moments of glory”

Edited October 17, 2023 by Chekhov

[Irene Swaine]

2 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

What reason can they use to refuse to provide goods or services ?

It's interesting actually because those ludicrous signs in shops "we have zero tolerance to abuse", if taken to the Nth degree (and they sometimes are), would discriminate against many people with mental health issues.

A 'reasonable adjustment' would need to be made for someone with a mental disability. For example, the shopkeeper could ask them to calm down, give them a second chance and ask if they'd prefer to speak in a calm, quiet corner of the shop. Any abuse after that and the 'reasonable adjustment' has been fulfilled, so they can refuse service, arguing that it's not reasonable to continue to face abuse.