Pontins told to stop screening Irish names
Discussion
Since my surname is included on the list I've had the break the disappointing news to my wife that the trip to Pontins she was looking forward to will not now happen. We will just have to hope that the Croatian company we will try to charter a yacht from to sail around in the Med as a poor second best don't have the same policy.
Electro1980 said:
I refer you back to “no blacks no Irish”.
Again, what they may think or what their reasoning may be, to treat an entire ethnic group differently because of the actions of some is illegal racial discrimination. You can think what you want but that doesn’t change the facts.
But they weren't blocking all travellers just those with the names on the list (us McDonaghs are fine..... Again, what they may think or what their reasoning may be, to treat an entire ethnic group differently because of the actions of some is illegal racial discrimination. You can think what you want but that doesn’t change the facts.
Edited by Electro1980 on Wednesday 3rd March 19:11
) Thing is, its not a race thing, its a turn up and stay uninvited and leave a right mess thing.
Locally we have had groups staying and its cost thousands to clear up after, now us non itinerants make a mess but we put it in receptacles and pay for it to be taken away, we pay to defecate in a toilet and that be flushed away and dealt with.
Trouble is, when humans aren't tied or obligated to pay for things, they don't, so like locally the piles of broken electrical goods, refuse, tarmac etc just get left and they move on as no systems are in place.
People dont get offended at the race of someone that broadly looks similar, its more them squatting and having a poo on the footpath or the pile of old tellies they leave.
If the travellers turned up, did good and reasonably priced work for the locals, conducted themselves in accordance with local rules and didnt just half inch loads of stuff, cleaned up after themselves etc, then nobody would bat an eyelid, in fact they would be welcomed.
But, they don't, they leave a biohazard, and its not once, it seems to be endemic, anyone I know who has had them on their land is never keen to welcome them back.
Race seems a bit of a defence to avoid criticism, and I am sure there are plenty of decent travelling folk and it must be so depressing being tarred with that brush but the weight of experience points towards negative interactions, not positive ones.
Locally we have had groups staying and its cost thousands to clear up after, now us non itinerants make a mess but we put it in receptacles and pay for it to be taken away, we pay to defecate in a toilet and that be flushed away and dealt with.
Trouble is, when humans aren't tied or obligated to pay for things, they don't, so like locally the piles of broken electrical goods, refuse, tarmac etc just get left and they move on as no systems are in place.
People dont get offended at the race of someone that broadly looks similar, its more them squatting and having a poo on the footpath or the pile of old tellies they leave.
If the travellers turned up, did good and reasonably priced work for the locals, conducted themselves in accordance with local rules and didnt just half inch loads of stuff, cleaned up after themselves etc, then nobody would bat an eyelid, in fact they would be welcomed.
But, they don't, they leave a biohazard, and its not once, it seems to be endemic, anyone I know who has had them on their land is never keen to welcome them back.
Race seems a bit of a defence to avoid criticism, and I am sure there are plenty of decent travelling folk and it must be so depressing being tarred with that brush but the weight of experience points towards negative interactions, not positive ones.
SpeckledJim said:
It seems Pontins can demonstrate that there are twenty-ish surnames who, on average, cause a disproportionate amount of damage, theft, and assaults in their hotels.
Banning those surnames is very sensible, from the point of view of trying to run a business, isn't it?
And if, behind that data, those 20 surnames happen to all be prevalent Irish traveller names, then that's just the most gigantic fluke, isn't it, because we know that travellers behave as well as everyone else. We know it is every bit as likely that the Patels and the Fujikawas and the Fortescue-Smythes would be raising hell at Pontins as the O'Donaghs.
The hotelier isn't going to come up with this very embarrassing and illegal policy for any other reason than they're absolutely desperate to keep certain people out of their hotels. Hoteliers don't generally try this hard, breaking the law, to keep people OUT of their hotels, so what can be motivating them?
Is it to be mean and nasty racists for no reason? Or is it just to try to stay in business?
Susan Boyle and (when alive) Martin McGuinness would have been banned? Policy still make sense?Banning those surnames is very sensible, from the point of view of trying to run a business, isn't it?
And if, behind that data, those 20 surnames happen to all be prevalent Irish traveller names, then that's just the most gigantic fluke, isn't it, because we know that travellers behave as well as everyone else. We know it is every bit as likely that the Patels and the Fujikawas and the Fortescue-Smythes would be raising hell at Pontins as the O'Donaghs.
The hotelier isn't going to come up with this very embarrassing and illegal policy for any other reason than they're absolutely desperate to keep certain people out of their hotels. Hoteliers don't generally try this hard, breaking the law, to keep people OUT of their hotels, so what can be motivating them?
Is it to be mean and nasty racists for no reason? Or is it just to try to stay in business?
vaud said:
SpeckledJim said:
It seems Pontins can demonstrate that there are twenty-ish surnames who, on average, cause a disproportionate amount of damage, theft, and assaults in their hotels.
Banning those surnames is very sensible, from the point of view of trying to run a business, isn't it?
And if, behind that data, those 20 surnames happen to all be prevalent Irish traveller names, then that's just the most gigantic fluke, isn't it, because we know that travellers behave as well as everyone else. We know it is every bit as likely that the Patels and the Fujikawas and the Fortescue-Smythes would be raising hell at Pontins as the O'Donaghs.
The hotelier isn't going to come up with this very embarrassing and illegal policy for any other reason than they're absolutely desperate to keep certain people out of their hotels. Hoteliers don't generally try this hard, breaking the law, to keep people OUT of their hotels, so what can be motivating them?
Is it to be mean and nasty racists for no reason? Or is it just to try to stay in business?
Susan Boyle and (when alive) Martin McGuinness would have been banned? Policy still make sense?Banning those surnames is very sensible, from the point of view of trying to run a business, isn't it?
And if, behind that data, those 20 surnames happen to all be prevalent Irish traveller names, then that's just the most gigantic fluke, isn't it, because we know that travellers behave as well as everyone else. We know it is every bit as likely that the Patels and the Fujikawas and the Fortescue-Smythes would be raising hell at Pontins as the O'Donaghs.
The hotelier isn't going to come up with this very embarrassing and illegal policy for any other reason than they're absolutely desperate to keep certain people out of their hotels. Hoteliers don't generally try this hard, breaking the law, to keep people OUT of their hotels, so what can be motivating them?
Is it to be mean and nasty racists for no reason? Or is it just to try to stay in business?
They’re not trying to do anything more than run a hotel. Accidentally banning Susan Boyle isn’t ideal. But neither is selling some nice normal families their hard-earned annual holiday and putting them next door to the Kebab Kebab Kebab Balls lads!
SpeckledJim said:
If these 20 families are no trouble, then why would pontins break the law to try to filter them out?
Oh, I didn't realise it was actually 20 families, because that's fine. They can ban individual families no problem. I thought it was 40 common Irish surnames (not exclusively traveller, just Irish). But now you say it's families, that makes sense. Obviously Pat Cash, the Aussie tennis player is the brother of Bill Cash, Tory MP, and the late Johnny Cash, American signer. And Paddy McGuiness turned out ok, considering he grew up under the shadow of his dad, IRA bigwig Martin. But it leaves me with one question. Were Bruce Lee and Spike Lee twins, or just brothers?
My name is on the blacklist but if I had a desire to use one of their facilities I’d respect their right to select clientele on whatsoever basis they choose and, in consequence, to refuse my business. It’s a free market and they are not offering an essential service. There are plenty of things I can’t buy... club memberships, allocated wines, watches etc because I don’t fit the right profile. Their business model = their decision imho.
Hang On said:
My name is on the blacklist but if I had a desire to use one of their facilities I’d respect their right to select clientele on whatsoever basis they choose and, in consequence, to refuse my business. It’s a free market and they are not offering an essential service. There are plenty of things I can’t buy... club memberships, allocated wines, watches etc because I don’t fit the right profile. Their business model = their decision imho.
It's a free but regulated market. Their business, their model, their decision, so long as it's within the law. Would you be happy with a firm refusing to do business with black people, Asians, Jews, Gays?
It's not an essential service as other options are available, just like your bank. Would you be happy for your bank to close your accounts, based on bad debts incurred by others with an Irish surname.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's a free but regulated market. Their business, their model, their decision, so long as it's within the law.
Would you be happy with a firm refusing to do business with black people, Asians, Jews, Gays?
It's not an essential service as other options are available, just like your bank. Would you be happy for your bank to close your accounts, based on bad debts incurred by others with an Irish surname.
Well I certainly wouldn’t be happy with a firm refusing business for reasons of ethnicity or sexual preference (though I do think refusing that cake was ok so it isn’t black and white). But such a refusal would be immoral and illegal. Refusing business based on some statistical analysis of surname is imbecilic but likely not immoral (depends on motive) and I’m not sure about legality. Postcode discrimination isn’t illegal for example and doesn’t seem different to me.Would you be happy with a firm refusing to do business with black people, Asians, Jews, Gays?
It's not an essential service as other options are available, just like your bank. Would you be happy for your bank to close your accounts, based on bad debts incurred by others with an Irish surname.
The free market argument trumps it for me (absent any demonstrable illegality) because I don’t expect as a consumer to have an absolute right to buy what I want when I want it and from whom. Protections are necessary for essential services (such as bank accounts eg) but not for staying at filthy holiday resorts at which to contract food poisoning; the latter being an optional service.
Isn’t the bigger question why the government doesn’t step in to address the traveller issue?
Here we have a U.K. holiday company who to keep their guests safe and their business profitable feel the need to ban an entire “ethnic” group.
Something is wrong with the system whereby a criminal underclass can rely on the concept of discrimination to get away with being a criminal underclass.
Here we have a U.K. holiday company who to keep their guests safe and their business profitable feel the need to ban an entire “ethnic” group.
Something is wrong with the system whereby a criminal underclass can rely on the concept of discrimination to get away with being a criminal underclass.
mrporsche said:
Tom Logan said:
Romanians and Roma are two totally different ethnic groups.
You think their Roma population haven’t travelled round Europe commiting crimes ?Stats just show Romanians, but I doubt it is the it workers arrested .
mrporsche said:
Isn’t the bigger question why the government doesn’t step in to address the traveller issue?
Here we have a U.K. holiday company who to keep their guests safe and their business profitable feel the need to ban an entire “ethnic” group.
Something is wrong with the system whereby a criminal underclass can rely on the concept of discrimination to get away with being a criminal underclass.
Exactly. It can't go on forever though, or can it? Here we have a U.K. holiday company who to keep their guests safe and their business profitable feel the need to ban an entire “ethnic” group.
Something is wrong with the system whereby a criminal underclass can rely on the concept of discrimination to get away with being a criminal underclass.
catweasle said:
I assume you know the difference but posted this for the "comedy" value?
Forgot to include the pointed nosesYep They are well known both locally and in another town where they are watched like hawks by store detectives because they are always trying to rob stuff out of the shops.
Usually very amateurishly
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff