Pontins told to stop screening Irish names
Discussion
mrporsche said:
What extensive interactions / experience do you have of travellers ?
How could pontins protect their business and clients ?
Anyone want to see a straw man argument, this is one.How could pontins protect their business and clients ?
Not my problem how pontins, or anyone else, runs their business. If they want to pay me for some consultancy I’ll happily bill them £1k a day. Just like every other business they need to obey the law and ensure their policies are legal. How they do that is not my problem.
Electro1980 said:
So you understand that it’s racist. Other businesses manage to deal with violent or criminal behaviour without racist blanket policies. What makes pontins special?
Do you have any examples of how other companies manage to deal with travellers, especially companies whose interaction lasts several days like pontins ?Appleby horse fair.
Pubs either close or are boarded up and serve take away. They have managed the traveller situation by closing or refusing everybody entry during that week. They are open the rest of the year so I assume racist ?
The council tip near me has had to bring in security guards to deal with them, and they might not have any interaction for days, let alone have them on site for several days.
Pubs near me have closed rather than continue being a traveller pub.
Petrol stations don’t want them, shops are wary of them and ultimately would preferred not to have the headache of dealing with them, but the interaction is short not several days.
Body shop I used, the guy sold it as he was sick of dealing with them.
They use the local gym in the summer as their own personal swimming pool and bar, the police end up being called as they appear to terrorise the other guests.
Electro1980 said:
Anyone want to see a straw man argument, this is one.
Not my problem how pontins, or anyone else, runs their business. If they want to pay me for some consultancy I’ll happily bill them £1k a day. Just like every other business they need to obey the law and ensure their policies are legal. How they do that is not my problem.
I am guessing that puts you in the Vanessa Redgrave camp, no experience full of good intentions, but ultimately a gullible old fool. She looked at the discrimination that gypsies experienced during the Second World War and mistakenly thought this traveller underclass were the same.Not my problem how pontins, or anyone else, runs their business. If they want to pay me for some consultancy I’ll happily bill them £1k a day. Just like every other business they need to obey the law and ensure their policies are legal. How they do that is not my problem.
Not my problem means I don’t know or have any idea, excellent.
No, not my problem means it’s not my business. I don’t run pontings so it’s not down to me to explain how they run their business other than to say every business should run legally. I’m not saying that Irish travellers don’t cause problems. I’m saying that racist policies are illegal and this policy was racist because it’s aim was to target an ethnic group rather than a behaviour. Laws are not optional.
Personally I think fear of any minority group by a majority is usually a manifestation of racism. The effect of this fear is subtle and builds over time through active prejudice.
The fact that a group of people who are feared and subjected to prejudicial treatment turn increasingly hostile towards the majority is hardly surprising.
The suggestion that strong arm tactics like banning travellers en masse or raiding their homes will fix the problem is ridiculous. I understand it’s difficult to find the right solution but I know that isn’t it.
I’ve experienced the ‘descent’ of travellers en masse a few times and it is undeniably a bit unsettling when it happens. They don’t follow ‘our’ rules and they do feel like an invading army. I was in Westport on the West coast of Ireland one time and every pub refused travellers, pretended to be closed or placed reserved signs on the tables. The locals all knew ‘the tinkers’ were in town and pulled together. There was a real air of fear in the town.
As we were staying with a local family who knew everyone in town, I was sympathetic to their situation and understood the desire to avoid trouble and confrontation. It did occur to me at the time though that these kinds of tactics only kick the can down the road and can’t be viewed as a solution to a problem that affects both sides.
The fact that a group of people who are feared and subjected to prejudicial treatment turn increasingly hostile towards the majority is hardly surprising.
The suggestion that strong arm tactics like banning travellers en masse or raiding their homes will fix the problem is ridiculous. I understand it’s difficult to find the right solution but I know that isn’t it.
I’ve experienced the ‘descent’ of travellers en masse a few times and it is undeniably a bit unsettling when it happens. They don’t follow ‘our’ rules and they do feel like an invading army. I was in Westport on the West coast of Ireland one time and every pub refused travellers, pretended to be closed or placed reserved signs on the tables. The locals all knew ‘the tinkers’ were in town and pulled together. There was a real air of fear in the town.
As we were staying with a local family who knew everyone in town, I was sympathetic to their situation and understood the desire to avoid trouble and confrontation. It did occur to me at the time though that these kinds of tactics only kick the can down the road and can’t be viewed as a solution to a problem that affects both sides.
Electro1980 said:
Mr Whippy said:
If there were some method to filter out people ‘bad for business’ without resorting to the method Pontins have used, then it’d be applied without hesitation.
I doubt anyone at Pontins is a racist. They’re just trying to keep their jobs.
This isn’t active racism, it’s passive racism. It’s unfortunately a well correlating property of the criminals that are damaging their business, are also of a particular ‘culture/ethnicity/race/religion’
They’re using that property to get a quick win, but not for the reason of being racists, but to save their business and jobs.
If every business who is frequented by these muppets closes down because they don’t want to appear racist, and all the employees go on benefits then maybe that is the best thing.
Government can then figure out how to deal with the rising unemployment and benefits costs... rather than feigning outrage but being happy that these businesses persevere and keep generating taxes and economic activity.
So you understand that it’s racist. Other businesses manage to deal with violent or criminal behaviour without racist blanket policies. What makes pontins special?I doubt anyone at Pontins is a racist. They’re just trying to keep their jobs.
This isn’t active racism, it’s passive racism. It’s unfortunately a well correlating property of the criminals that are damaging their business, are also of a particular ‘culture/ethnicity/race/religion’
They’re using that property to get a quick win, but not for the reason of being racists, but to save their business and jobs.
If every business who is frequented by these muppets closes down because they don’t want to appear racist, and all the employees go on benefits then maybe that is the best thing.
Government can then figure out how to deal with the rising unemployment and benefits costs... rather than feigning outrage but being happy that these businesses persevere and keep generating taxes and economic activity.
"racist
adjective
prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
They're not prejudicing against the people with those surnames because they correlate with their race or ethnicity.
They're prejudicing against the people with those surnames because the net effect of doing business with those surnames is negative on their finances and reputation.
It just so happens that those surnames correlate with a race/enthnicity fairly well too... but only fairly well. Ie, a black person can have any of those names, a native american indian can have one of those names. "White" people can have any of those names.
Unless you believe Pontins are racist towards all races, because all races could have those names?
This isn't racism. It's exclusion based on a parameter (surname) with correlation with criminals, which also unfortunately correlates a bit with a race/ethnicity... but that doesn't mean the exclusion is based on race/ethnicity.
Using your logic, then the decline in classical stereotype pirates has caused global warming.
Electro1980 said:
No, not my problem means it’s not my business. I don’t run pontings so it’s not down to me to explain how they run their business other than to say every business should run legally. I’m not saying that Irish travellers don’t cause problems. I’m saying that racist policies are illegal and this policy was racist because it’s aim was to target an ethnic group rather than a behaviour. Laws are not optional.
The issue here is that you keep harping on about the law, and that is your only defence; you can see no further than the law. You cannot see any moral issues - they don't matter because the law is always right in your mind. You won't do hypotheticals - e.g. suggesting what other course of action might be open to Pontins because it's "not your business", so I guess there's little point in asking whether, if travellers were not already considered to be a race, you would support them being defined as one ? You're just happy with the law as it is, and don't see any point in questioning it.Mr Whippy said:
But it's not racist is it?
"racist
adjective
prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
They're not prejudicing against the people with those surnames because they correlate with their race or ethnicity.
They're prejudicing against the people with those surnames because the net effect of doing business with those surnames is negative on their finances and reputation.
It just so happens that those surnames correlate with a race/enthnicity fairly well too... but only fairly well. Ie, a black person can have any of those names, a native american indian can have one of those names. "White" people can have any of those names.
Unless you believe Pontins are racist towards all races, because all races could have those names?
This isn't racism. It's exclusion based on a parameter (surname) with correlation with criminals, which also unfortunately correlates a bit with a race/ethnicity... but that doesn't mean the exclusion is based on race/ethnicity.
Using your logic, then the decline in classical stereotype pirates has caused global warming.
Pontins made it clear that they were using name and accent as a proxy for race."racist
adjective
prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
They're not prejudicing against the people with those surnames because they correlate with their race or ethnicity.
They're prejudicing against the people with those surnames because the net effect of doing business with those surnames is negative on their finances and reputation.
It just so happens that those surnames correlate with a race/enthnicity fairly well too... but only fairly well. Ie, a black person can have any of those names, a native american indian can have one of those names. "White" people can have any of those names.
Unless you believe Pontins are racist towards all races, because all races could have those names?
This isn't racism. It's exclusion based on a parameter (surname) with correlation with criminals, which also unfortunately correlates a bit with a race/ethnicity... but that doesn't mean the exclusion is based on race/ethnicity.
Using your logic, then the decline in classical stereotype pirates has caused global warming.
Lily the Pink said:
The issue here is that you keep harping on about the law, and that is your only defence; you can see no further than the law. You cannot see any moral issues - they don't matter because the law is always right in your mind. You won't do hypotheticals - e.g. suggesting what other course of action might be open to Pontins because it's "not your business", so I guess there's little point in asking whether, if travellers were not already considered to be a race, you would support them being defined as one ? You're just happy with the law as it is, and don't see any point in questioning it.
Because the question is not “what should be done about the prevalence of violence in the traveller community” it is “should pontins be refusing service to travellers”.Pontins rule was aimed at excluding a all Irish travellers. Irish Travellers are considered an ethnic minority. Their for Pontins rule is racist and illegal.
Anything else has not been about a reasonable discussion about what should be done but an attempt to justify Pontins rule as either not racist or justified racism.
All the other stuff has been straw man arguments to support this. So, no, I’m not interested in hypothetical discussions. They are not genuine questions or discussion, they are aimed at trying to justify the policy and justifying racism.
Are you just doubling down on a nice safe ‘legal’ position or do you genuinely believe that travellers deserve the protections they are (wrongfully, IMO) afforded? If they were not considered a race, would you still be of the same position?
I’ve got news for you... businesses choose who to deal with all the time, whether it be through inflated prices, lack of service, plain old ignoring people.... or in the case of pontins, making it about the name, not the label.
some of these practices would not meet your high criteria for legal probity. It’s called real life... come join us some time. Some customers just aren’t worth the hassle.
Just banging the ‘it’s illegal’ drum doesn’t adequately deal with this group’s failings and why nobody wants to deal with them. When the law is an ass, then you need to look around the side, which is why they have chosen to filter by name... that is simply not illegal or racist, regardless of what the end result is.
And as for your £1,000/day consultancy fee
best of luck with that...
I’ve got news for you... businesses choose who to deal with all the time, whether it be through inflated prices, lack of service, plain old ignoring people.... or in the case of pontins, making it about the name, not the label.
some of these practices would not meet your high criteria for legal probity. It’s called real life... come join us some time. Some customers just aren’t worth the hassle.
Just banging the ‘it’s illegal’ drum doesn’t adequately deal with this group’s failings and why nobody wants to deal with them. When the law is an ass, then you need to look around the side, which is why they have chosen to filter by name... that is simply not illegal or racist, regardless of what the end result is.
And as for your £1,000/day consultancy fee
best of luck with that...coppernorks said:
It would be worth Pontins getting a decent legal team and taking this to court,
is The Equality Act being contravened if a company discriminates by surname ?
The Equality Act applies to discrimination based on:
Age
Race
Sex
Gender reassignment
Disability
Religion or belief
Sexual orientation
Marriage or civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
No it wouldn't be worth getting a decent legal team and taking this to court. If you think it is, you don't understand the law. Luckily pontins do which is why they've held their hands up and said "fair cop guv". Probably after consulting with their decent legal team. is The Equality Act being contravened if a company discriminates by surname ?
The Equality Act applies to discrimination based on:
Age
Race
Sex
Gender reassignment
Disability
Religion or belief
Sexual orientation
Marriage or civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Double Fault said:
Suspect the discrimination against you was not as a result of your behaviour but because of your skin colour, religion etc. And of course that is unacceptable.
The situation here though relates to a community who behave with total disregard for laws and norms. I”d never had any interaction with them but since they invaded the village I moved to I understand exactly why others have a problem with them. Local park facilities destroyed.....local wildlife shot or coursed.....illegal occupation......many break-ins.....threats against locals and local businesses etc etc. I personally witnessed two of them in a car force some SGN workers to open a closed round they were laying pipes in otherwise they would “smash yer f
king faces in”.
My village has stumped up over £50k trying to get rid of them so far, and we’re all the way to a High Court injunction.
How to you deal with a community who don’t play by any of the rules and even seem to be protected?
We need to get much tougher on them. I’m hoping the recent death of PC Harper will start to make the authorities think about redressing the balance.
They need to be hit where it hurts, in the pocket. Full HMRC inspections and audits. That £100K Range Rover, demonstrate it’s procured from legitimate, post tax funds or its seized. Same with all other ‘assets’. In other words, the same treatment that you or I would expect to receive. It has to cut both ways. The situation here though relates to a community who behave with total disregard for laws and norms. I”d never had any interaction with them but since they invaded the village I moved to I understand exactly why others have a problem with them. Local park facilities destroyed.....local wildlife shot or coursed.....illegal occupation......many break-ins.....threats against locals and local businesses etc etc. I personally witnessed two of them in a car force some SGN workers to open a closed round they were laying pipes in otherwise they would “smash yer f
king faces in”. My village has stumped up over £50k trying to get rid of them so far, and we’re all the way to a High Court injunction.
How to you deal with a community who don’t play by any of the rules and even seem to be protected?
We need to get much tougher on them. I’m hoping the recent death of PC Harper will start to make the authorities think about redressing the balance.
Greg_D said:
Are you just doubling down on a nice safe ‘legal’ position or do you genuinely believe that travellers deserve the protections they are (wrongfully, IMO) afforded? If they were not considered a race, would you still be of the same position?
I’ve got news for you... businesses choose who to deal with all the time, whether it be through inflated prices, lack of service, plain old ignoring people.... or in the case of pontins, making it about the name, not the label.
some of these practices would not meet your high criteria for legal probity. It’s called real life... come join us some time. Some customers just aren’t worth the hassle.
Just banging the ‘it’s illegal’ drum doesn’t adequately deal with this group’s failings and why nobody wants to deal with them. When the law is an ass, then you need to look around the side, which is why they have chosen to filter by name... that is simply not illegal or racist, regardless of what the end result is.
And as for your £1,000/day consultancy fee best of luck with that...
Whataboutism and what ifs are irrelevant. The fact is they are an ethnic minority. All your other stuff is irrelevant.I’ve got news for you... businesses choose who to deal with all the time, whether it be through inflated prices, lack of service, plain old ignoring people.... or in the case of pontins, making it about the name, not the label.
some of these practices would not meet your high criteria for legal probity. It’s called real life... come join us some time. Some customers just aren’t worth the hassle.
Just banging the ‘it’s illegal’ drum doesn’t adequately deal with this group’s failings and why nobody wants to deal with them. When the law is an ass, then you need to look around the side, which is why they have chosen to filter by name... that is simply not illegal or racist, regardless of what the end result is.
And as for your £1,000/day consultancy fee
best of luck with that...I, and many other people, have been discriminated against because it’s “too much hassle”. Wheelchair users, the blind, the deaf, people with learning disabilities. Afro Caribbean’s were refusing housing and service because businesses thought that they were going to be trouble. Muslims are refused service because halal is seen as being to difficult (hint all vegetarian food is halal). I assume all of those are all ok to because “business”. Businesses have a legal framework to work within. Pontins failed to do that. This is a fact. You can keep arguing white is black if you want, but reality disagrees with you.
You can keep on trying to justify racism but it is still racism and is illegal. Have a problem with a customer? Deal with that customer. It’s not complicated.
Greg_D said:
Agreed. Except they are a near 100% flight risk.
I suppose the only viable way to deal with it is to seize all the shiny assets and cash immediately and return once accounted for. Should be easy enough, right!!!!
Not a bad idea, I suspect the vast majority of the asset haul would be unclaimed. Might raise a few quid for govt coffers. I suppose the only viable way to deal with it is to seize all the shiny assets and cash immediately and return once accounted for. Should be easy enough, right!!!!
Businesses decide who they want and don’t want to transact with all the time. Insurance companies are a classic. Don’t want the business? Sky high quote so folk go elsewhere. Totally legal, standard practice.
So you ARE doubling down on that one point, and ignoring all others. Ok, as long as we know.
From a literal POV, What pontins has done is maintain a list of surnames of customers that they don’t want to do business with. Linking that to a ‘race’ is pure supposition on your behalf if we are all being literal about it.
If I were to change my surname to Doyle, I too would be denied service under those terms, and I’m not a traveller. So why is that policy racist again???
Ps. The fact that pontins have folded like wet toilet paper at the first challenge is a reflection of their lack of backbone and a strong desire to not be subject to trial by Twitter, not an admission of legal culpability.
From a literal POV, What pontins has done is maintain a list of surnames of customers that they don’t want to do business with. Linking that to a ‘race’ is pure supposition on your behalf if we are all being literal about it.
If I were to change my surname to Doyle, I too would be denied service under those terms, and I’m not a traveller. So why is that policy racist again???
Ps. The fact that pontins have folded like wet toilet paper at the first challenge is a reflection of their lack of backbone and a strong desire to not be subject to trial by Twitter, not an admission of legal culpability.
The problem here is the balance between trying to establish business continuity against a repeated behaviour that harms that business and its customers against going down a slippery slope that ends up being illegal.
If Pontins had barred customers, as defined by name and address, who had been shown to cause trouble, there would be nothing wrong in that. If it turned out that every single one of those barred had been from traveller community, well so be it. As long as the bar for being put on the list was actual behaviour I don't see how anyone could complain.
If having done that they then had discovered that bookings in the same family name had a definite tendency to cause trouble, and then instituted a ban on that name, would that have been illegal, arguable both ways, I don't know for sure.
What Pontins have done is clumsy and frankly stupidly illegal, assuming the instructions to staff were as reported.
Problem is the slippery slope, make no apologies for referring to the race war in the 30s and 40s from the Germans. Look at how that slippery slope went, within a month or so of Hitler coming to power Jews were being pushed around in the street, then it rapidly went downhill, they weren't allowed to keep pets, but also were not permitted to give them away, so not only are we going to take your dog away we're going to shoot it. We all know where it ended up. People stood by and tbh effectively condoned it, I don't get the schtick that "we didn't know what was happening." Maybe they were frightened to speak out for risk of being included as the non Germans.
Now the issue with travellers IS different. It's not a race war, it really isn't, it's a stance against a subset who have zero regard for law and order and want to do as they wish, backed up by threats of physical violence if anyone objects. Furthermore what will people's reactions be if/when hard line enforcement starts.
Locally we have a traveller community and things are finally being done about illegal motoX and quad bike racing on common land. It's been an issue for some time, personally a minor issue true. Chatting with a friend who is a serving police officer resulted in him admitting he didn't want to get involved in traveller issues as "Don't want my house windows putting through." There's been a general belief for a long while that the police or council had no intention of getting involved, which came to a head when a non traveller was given an S59 notice for riding his bike off road elsewhere, and was told if he wanted to do that to go to this area of common land as "We don't enforce there."
It all then kicked off on Facebook, residents complaining about the noise and danger, and to be fair it is dangerous, and in particular the lack of police action after their many previous complaints. After some embarrassment finally police have started action. Yet the subset just carried on, local Neighourhood team announce we've taken action, during the next week, 5 days out of 7, illegal racing. Big flicking of the V's "We will do as we likey and you can't stop us" The enforcement has now even got an official operation name but still seems ineffective, police asking for film, photos and names, and of course on Facebook the racist card is now being played. That's the issue, it's not racist, but action against unacceptable and anti social behaviour, and the local non traveller public seems to be completely behind the enforcement action, as in "they deserve to be dealt with." Yet the push back as in going to carry on. It's a battle, not over race, but anti social and illegal behaviour, which IS different from a race war.
Not just the off road biking, we all see the illegal behaviour, the drug dealing, fly tipping, I've personally caught some at it and cleared them off, likewise some lads "Just out looking for me dag mister". "Nope you were casing the joint, now feck off"
Now take that slippery slope further. I have a neighbour who is of the traveller community, lot of previous, any interaction has always been pleasant, but he and his family have previous, a lot. Suffice to say every so often the police turn up, mob handed, every time with armed backup. As I say he's been perfectly pleasant with me, but suppose it stopped being simple enforcement of justice over criminal behaviour to something else, and would seeing him being dragged off make me shrug and go "live by the sword die by the sword." Who knows. At what point will the public / authorities say "Enough". Rule of law has to be the defining factor, and back to Pontins, they have crossed a line.
Make no apologies for referring to Nazi crimes, yes that was over 80 years ago now, Uighur oppression by Chinese Govt, happening right now. Not the only example around the world.
And yet while agonising over this there are times when in a really bad mood, probably another load of ste has been fly tipped by the roadside, when a small part of me thinks that one of the local traveller camps in particular where the situation could only be improved by deployment of drones equipped with Hellfire missiles. Shame on me.
If Pontins had barred customers, as defined by name and address, who had been shown to cause trouble, there would be nothing wrong in that. If it turned out that every single one of those barred had been from traveller community, well so be it. As long as the bar for being put on the list was actual behaviour I don't see how anyone could complain.
If having done that they then had discovered that bookings in the same family name had a definite tendency to cause trouble, and then instituted a ban on that name, would that have been illegal, arguable both ways, I don't know for sure.
What Pontins have done is clumsy and frankly stupidly illegal, assuming the instructions to staff were as reported.
Problem is the slippery slope, make no apologies for referring to the race war in the 30s and 40s from the Germans. Look at how that slippery slope went, within a month or so of Hitler coming to power Jews were being pushed around in the street, then it rapidly went downhill, they weren't allowed to keep pets, but also were not permitted to give them away, so not only are we going to take your dog away we're going to shoot it. We all know where it ended up. People stood by and tbh effectively condoned it, I don't get the schtick that "we didn't know what was happening." Maybe they were frightened to speak out for risk of being included as the non Germans.
Now the issue with travellers IS different. It's not a race war, it really isn't, it's a stance against a subset who have zero regard for law and order and want to do as they wish, backed up by threats of physical violence if anyone objects. Furthermore what will people's reactions be if/when hard line enforcement starts.
Locally we have a traveller community and things are finally being done about illegal motoX and quad bike racing on common land. It's been an issue for some time, personally a minor issue true. Chatting with a friend who is a serving police officer resulted in him admitting he didn't want to get involved in traveller issues as "Don't want my house windows putting through." There's been a general belief for a long while that the police or council had no intention of getting involved, which came to a head when a non traveller was given an S59 notice for riding his bike off road elsewhere, and was told if he wanted to do that to go to this area of common land as "We don't enforce there."
It all then kicked off on Facebook, residents complaining about the noise and danger, and to be fair it is dangerous, and in particular the lack of police action after their many previous complaints. After some embarrassment finally police have started action. Yet the subset just carried on, local Neighourhood team announce we've taken action, during the next week, 5 days out of 7, illegal racing. Big flicking of the V's "We will do as we likey and you can't stop us" The enforcement has now even got an official operation name but still seems ineffective, police asking for film, photos and names, and of course on Facebook the racist card is now being played. That's the issue, it's not racist, but action against unacceptable and anti social behaviour, and the local non traveller public seems to be completely behind the enforcement action, as in "they deserve to be dealt with." Yet the push back as in going to carry on. It's a battle, not over race, but anti social and illegal behaviour, which IS different from a race war.
Not just the off road biking, we all see the illegal behaviour, the drug dealing, fly tipping, I've personally caught some at it and cleared them off, likewise some lads "Just out looking for me dag mister". "Nope you were casing the joint, now feck off"
Now take that slippery slope further. I have a neighbour who is of the traveller community, lot of previous, any interaction has always been pleasant, but he and his family have previous, a lot. Suffice to say every so often the police turn up, mob handed, every time with armed backup. As I say he's been perfectly pleasant with me, but suppose it stopped being simple enforcement of justice over criminal behaviour to something else, and would seeing him being dragged off make me shrug and go "live by the sword die by the sword." Who knows. At what point will the public / authorities say "Enough". Rule of law has to be the defining factor, and back to Pontins, they have crossed a line.
Make no apologies for referring to Nazi crimes, yes that was over 80 years ago now, Uighur oppression by Chinese Govt, happening right now. Not the only example around the world.
And yet while agonising over this there are times when in a really bad mood, probably another load of s
te has been fly tipped by the roadside, when a small part of me thinks that one of the local traveller camps in particular where the situation could only be improved by deployment of drones equipped with Hellfire missiles. Shame on me. Greg_D said:
From a literal POV, What pontins has done is maintain a list of surnames of customers that they don’t want to do business with. Linking that to a ‘race’ is pure supposition on your behalf if we are all being literal about it.
Not my supposition, the outcome of an investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.Greg_D said:
Ps. The fact that pontins have folded like wet toilet paper at the first challenge is a reflection of their lack of backbone and a strong desire to not be subject to trial by Twitter, not an admission of legal culpability.
Not Twitter, findings by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is a legal ruling, forces the company to take action and is a statement of legal culpability.I suggest reading the BBC article on page one if you want to have a sensible conversation.
Electro1980 said:
Not Twitter, findings by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is a legal ruling, forces the company to take action and is a statement of legal culpability.
I suggest reading the BBC article on page one if you want to have a sensible conversation.
The fact the EHRC say Pontins contravened the 2006 Act by implementing a Race/Ethnicity I suggest reading the BBC article on page one if you want to have a sensible conversation.
policy is merely the opinion of the EHRC and as such can be challenged in court.
The EHRC requires that Pontins agree to and adhere to the recommendations, if they don't there will be an investigation
under Section 20 of the 2006 Act. Oh, we're really scared.
Bad laws need to be challenged.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff