Honest, Friendly, Salt of the Earth Traveller Fraud Probe

Honest, Friendly, Salt of the Earth Traveller Fraud Probe

Author
Discussion

Thom987

3,185 posts

168 months

Wednesday 16th March 2011
quotequote all
Pupp said:
Dispute with who and from what section of the community? Rather a lot of assumptions going on....
Its highly unlikely that someone with a poorly tarmaced drive decided to seek retribution now is it.

Ganglandboss

8,316 posts

205 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Miranda said:
Negative Creep said:
Englishrom said:
But I honestly can't believe how out and out racist it is. If this was directed at any other ethnic group
They aren't an ethnic group
"Case law established Gypsies as a recognised ethnic group in England in 1989 (Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton)" http://www.rcn.org.uk/development/practice/social_...

Fail.
Yes, this particular ruling was an enormous 'fail'.

Miranda

75 posts

159 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Thom987 said:
Pupp said:
Dispute with who and from what section of the community? Rather a lot of assumptions going on....
Its highly unlikely that someone with a poorly tarmaced drive decided to seek retribution now is it.
Why?

AndrewW-G

11,968 posts

219 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Miranda said:
Thom987 said:
Pupp said:
Dispute with who and from what section of the community? Rather a lot of assumptions going on....
Its highly unlikely that someone with a poorly tarmaced drive decided to seek retribution now is it.
Why?
why not?

dudleybloke

19,993 posts

188 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
even cher has an opinion on them.
smile

Miranda

75 posts

159 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Ganglandboss said:
Miranda said:
Negative Creep said:
Englishrom said:
But I honestly can't believe how out and out racist it is. If this was directed at any other ethnic group
They aren't an ethnic group
"Case law established Gypsies as a recognised ethnic group in England in 1989 (Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton)" http://www.rcn.org.uk/development/practice/social_...

Fail.
Yes, this particular ruling was an enormous 'fail'.
Non the less, we have this thing called `democracy` around here (you may want to look that one up)which tries to ensure that no minority group is subjected to discrimination. Sorry if you have a problem with this, but if you do, why not join some political party that opposes the concept, get elected, and change the law? Give Nick Griffin a call for details. Or move to a country that thinks discrimination is a fun concept - try Mugabe or Ahmadinejad.

Pupp

12,281 posts

274 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
dudleybloke said:
even cher has an opinion on them.
smile
Gypsies Tramps and Thieves? It's actually a song about prejudice and abuse; pretty apt really rolleyes

Bing o

15,184 posts

221 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Miranda said:
Non the less, we have this thing called `democracy` around here (you may want to look that one up)which tries to ensure that no minority group is subjected to discrimination. Sorry if you have a problem with this, but if you do, why not join some political party that opposes the concept, get elected, and change the law? Give Nick Griffin a call for details. Or move to a country that thinks discrimination is a fun concept - try Mugabe or Ahmadinejad.
Godwin's law?

Kwai Chang Caine

6,613 posts

188 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
whoami said:
Stuart, thank you for taking the time to reply.

I appreciate the point(s) you are making but ask again; how often are websites, not just PH, prosecuted under the guise of the many "equality/race hate etc" laws?
No point in trying to sue a website with no assets (libel etc). I suspect the rest of the time, nobody really cares (equality/race stuff).

Haymarket are a big, big house. I would guess they have had many chancers over the years taking libel shots at them. These things cost big money to defend.

In a former life as a publisher even we, with only a handful of niche titles, would get a couple per year. Initially, I had libel insurance but found them to wish to settle even spurious claims if they believed the claimant was rich or bothered enough to pursue it. They'd much rather pay out a small amount now than a few hundred K in legal fees to win.

All of my titles were held privately and neither the company nor the directors had any assets. After a couple of enraging settlements and a huge libel insurance premium hike, I decided we'd just go it alone and just make it clear we were't worth suing. Never paid out a penny afterwards (although I must make it clear that we were always, even with insurance, very careful about what we printed).

AndrewW-G

11,968 posts

219 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Bing o said:
Miranda said:
Non the less, we have this thing called `democracy` around here (you may want to look that one up)which tries to ensure that no minority group is subjected to discrimination. Sorry if you have a problem with this, but if you do, why not join some political party that opposes the concept, get elected, and change the law? Give Nick Griffin a call for details. Or move to a country that thinks discrimination is a fun concept - try Mugabe or Ahmadinejad.
Godwin's law?
Already invoked after "miranda"'s first post biggrin

AndrewW-G

11,968 posts

219 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Miranda said:
Ganglandboss said:
Miranda said:
Negative Creep said:
Englishrom said:
But I honestly can't believe how out and out racist it is. If this was directed at any other ethnic group
They aren't an ethnic group
"Case law established Gypsies as a recognised ethnic group in England in 1989 (Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton)" http://www.rcn.org.uk/development/practice/social_...

Fail.
Yes, this particular ruling was an enormous 'fail'.
Non the less, we have this thing called `democracy` around here
Neither the CFRE or the judiciary are elected by the public, therefore it is not a democratic decision to declare people who make a lifestyle choice a seperate race. . . . . . . . are you really suggesting that you agree that the “good honest traveling folk” are geneticaly different from the “nasty bigoted racists with their inside toilets”?

thinfourth2

32,414 posts

206 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Miranda said:
Non the less, we have this thing called `democracy` around here (you may want to look that one up)which tries to ensure that no minority group is subjected to discrimination. Sorry if you have a problem with this, but if you do, why not join some political party that opposes the concept, get elected, and change the law? Give Nick Griffin a call for details. Or move to a country that thinks discrimination is a fun concept - try Mugabe or Ahmadinejad.
Strangely enough that is exactly what I want.

Everyone is treated the same.

If I leave large piles of rubbish behind me I would get fined but others don't.

As to all White males are a threat to children you will discover this is already the case.

Stuart

11,635 posts

253 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
whoami said:
I appreciate the point(s) you are making but ask again; how often are websites, not just PH, prosecuted under the guise of the many "equality/race hate etc" laws?
I don't know the answer to that. Without wishing to appear flippant though, when there's little or no case law, and this is certainly the case with defamation on forums and bulletin boards, we're even less inclined to leave ourselves open to action; nobody wants to become case law...

Stuart

11,635 posts

253 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Ganglandboss said:
Yes, this particular ruling was an enormous 'fail'.
I was making precisely this point in my long post a couple of pages back; you, others, the majority of people on this thread perhaps, might think it wrong or a "fail," but it is case law. Which means that it is this which must be the yardstick by which we measure our actions, rather than the views of a limited number of PH members who care enough about such things to have an opinion. I can understand how frustrating this must be, but one of the points I've been making all along is that it is this which is governing our actions, rather than a high handed decision that you aren't in some way allowed to express your opinion on the subject here.

Digga

40,478 posts

285 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Stuart said:
whoami said:
I appreciate the point(s) you are making but ask again; how often are websites, not just PH, prosecuted under the guise of the many "equality/race hate etc" laws?
I don't know the answer to that. Without wishing to appear flippant though, when there's little or no case law, and this is certainly the case with defamation on forums and bulletin boards, we're even less inclined to leave ourselves open to action; nobody wants to become case law...
Sadly, if someone wants to employ a shyster lawyer - perhaps on a no-win-no-fee trawling basis - they are not liekly to take action against some tuppeny-hapeny website, owned by some anorak. They will go for a website, like PH, owned by a nice, well capitalised company, because that way they're likely to get some money and are even more liekly to get a nice, (relatively) hassle-free out of court settlement.

Pupp

12,281 posts

274 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
AndrewW-G said:
Neither the CFRE or the judiciary are elected by the public, therefore it is not a democratic decision to declare people who make a lifestyle choice a seperate race. . . . . . . . are you really suggesting that you agree that the “good honest traveling folk” are geneticaly different from the “nasty bigoted racists with their inside toilets”?
Like with most subjects in life it's probably best to argue from at least a partially informed perspective. Try reading the judgment and then pick holes in the logic if you can. Won't make a jot of difference to the law but might save your embarrassment smile

AndrewW-G

11,968 posts

219 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Pupp said:
AndrewW-G said:
Neither the CFRE or the judiciary are elected by the public, therefore it is not a democratic decision to declare people who make a lifestyle choice a seperate race. . . . . . . . are you really suggesting that you agree that the “good honest traveling folk” are geneticaly different from the “nasty bigoted racists with their inside toilets”?
Like with most subjects in life it's probably best to argue from at least a partially informed perspective. Try reading the judgment and then pick holes in the logic if you can. Won't make a jot of difference to the law but might save your embarrassment smile
Conversely, you may want to read prior to suggesting the person who wrote it is at risk of embarrassing themselseves wink
.
.
.
.
My post was essentially two parts;
Part 1 was pointing out that the legal process resulting in a judgement that classified travellers as a race, was not an example of a democratic process, it was a judicial process and therefore “miranda”’s comments about democracy were at best inappropriate.

Part2 was asking whether or not “she” agreed with the outcome of the judgement.

Neither part of my post was reliant for its content in any way on any of the details of the judgement.

IainT

10,040 posts

240 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Bing o said:
Miranda said:
Non the less, we have this thing called `democracy` around here (you may want to look that one up)which tries to ensure that no minority group is subjected to discrimination. Sorry if you have a problem with this, but if you do, why not join some political party that opposes the concept, get elected, and change the law? Give Nick Griffin a call for details. Or move to a country that thinks discrimination is a fun concept - try Mugabe or Ahmadinejad.
Godwin's law?
Indeed, Miranda in here inability to debate or discuss sucessfully has now ended the argument. Although, technically, she didn't mention Adolf.

Damn.

PaulHogan

6,251 posts

280 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Interesting advice from an American state regarding the race of Irish Travellers:

http://consumer.georgia.gov/portal/site/OCP/menuit...

Ganglandboss

8,316 posts

205 months

Thursday 17th March 2011
quotequote all
Miranda said:
Ganglandboss said:
Miranda said:
Negative Creep said:
Englishrom said:
But I honestly can't believe how out and out racist it is. If this was directed at any other ethnic group
They aren't an ethnic group
"Case law established Gypsies as a recognised ethnic group in England in 1989 (Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton)" http://www.rcn.org.uk/development/practice/social_...

Fail.
Yes, this particular ruling was an enormous 'fail'.
Non the less, we have this thing called `democracy` around here (you may want to look that one up)which tries to ensure that no minority group is subjected to discrimination. Sorry if you have a problem with this, but if you do, why not join some political party that opposes the concept, get elected, and change the law? Give Nick Griffin a call for details. Or move to a country that thinks discrimination is a fun concept - try Mugabe or Ahmadinejad.
At what point have I said our traveller friends should be subject to discrimination? My beef is they are protected from the rules and laws (which are set by a democratically elected government) that the 'settled population' have to obey, because some cretin of Cherie Blair's ilk has decided they are an ethnic group. I expect the law to be applied equally to all, regardless of whether you are black, white, Buddhist, Muslim or your daddy plays golf with the chief inspector.

I would also thank you not to suggest that I support discrimination or that I would feel at home in a party run by a pig-ignorant, holocaust-denying racist criminal.