Pontins told to stop screening Irish names

[troika]

Look, can’t we just ignore all the race this and rights that. It’s irrelevant. If you behave like a ****, you should be treated like one. I don’t care who you are.

[vaud]

troika said:

Look, can’t we just ignore all the race this and rights that. It’s irrelevant. If you behave like a ****, you should be treated like one. I don’t care who you are.

So as a business, how do you identify those that might cause you hassle / loss?

[troika]

vaud said:

So as a business, how do you identify those that might cause you hassle / loss?

Well, Pontins clearly felt they had a method of screening to protect their business. They knew they’d lose legitimate customers but the threat was sufficient to make that call.

[anonymous-user]

troika said:

vaud said:

So as a business, how do you identify those that might cause you hassle / loss?

Well, Pontins clearly felt they had a method of screening to protect their business. They knew they’d lose legitimate customers but the threat was sufficient to make that call.

I agree with you Troika. It's a bit like shops having signs outside saying "no more than 2 school kids at a time in the shop" because they know from experience they get stuff stolen by school kids. Not all school kids of course but certainly some; it's tough luck on the honest kids who can be trusted but the shop keeper can't afford to keep subsidising those that take advantage. They have to be able to protect their business from those that do steal so implement a rule. Pontins are the same. As you said, they will lose some legitimate business but at least they stay in business. Aside from shouting racist no one here has suggested a viable way businesses can protect themselves from groups they have identified as being detrimental to their business.

[Electro1980]

troika said:

Look, can’t we just ignore all the race this and rights that. It’s irrelevant. If you behave like a ****, you should be treated like one. I don’t care who you are.

No one is disagreeing with that. It’s the fact that a whole ethnic group is being treated the same way because of the actions of some. Race IS relevant because Pontins made it relevant by implementing a policy to exclude a whole ethnic group.

[Greg_D]

coppernorks said:

The fact the EHRC say Pontins contravened the 2006 Act by implementing a Race/Ethnicity
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.

I absolutely agree. As I said in a previous post, the management folded like wet toilet paper when it ‘went public’

I’d have taken it as an opportunity to reassure law abiding customers that we offered a pleasant environment, free of people who will add nothing but negativity to your holiday experience. It was a missed opportunity IMO.

[Electro1980]

MikeStroud said:

I agree with you Troika. It's a bit like shops having signs outside saying "no more than 2 school kids at a time in the shop" because they know from experience they get stuff stolen by school kids. Not all school kids of course but certainly some; it's tough luck on the honest kids who can be trusted but the shop keeper can't afford to keep subsidising those that take advantage. They have to be able to protect their business from those that do steal so implement a rule. Pontins are the same. As you said, they will lose some legitimate business but at least they stay in business. Aside from shouting racist no one here has suggested a viable way businesses can protect themselves from groups they have identified as being detrimental to their business.

So you think business should be allowed to discriminate if it suits them? Do you feel the same about companies that don’t want to spend money on accessibility?

[troika]

Electro1980 said:

troika said:

Look, can’t we just ignore all the race this and rights that. It’s irrelevant. If you behave like a ****, you should be treated like one. I don’t care who you are.

No one is disagreeing with that. It’s the fact that a whole ethnic group is being treated the same way because of the actions of some. Race IS relevant because Pontins made it relevant by implementing a policy to exclude a whole ethnic group.

The problem is, it isn’t the actions of some, it’s the actions of many. Therefore businesses need to be able to protect themselves, unless the government wish to indemnify against damages and losses.

Edited by troika on Saturday 6th March 23:07

[Cold]

Electro1980 said:

So you think business should be allowed to discriminate if it suits them? Do you feel the same about companies that don’t want to spend money on accessibility?

Depends. Do people with limited mobility have a reputation for stealing things, smashing the place up and leaving excrement wherever they visit?

[troika]

Cold said:

Electro1980 said:

So you think business should be allowed to discriminate if it suits them? Do you feel the same about companies that don’t want to spend money on accessibility?

Depends. Do people with limited mobility have a reputation for stealing things, smashing the place up and leaving excrement wherever they visit?

And generally being a complete pack of *****.

[slow_poke]

troika said:

Look, can’t we just ignore all the race this and rights that. It’s irrelevant. If you behave like a ****, you should be treated like one. I don’t care who you are.

Ok as far as you go but Pontins went too far. They were treating like s people who were not acting like s.

[anonymous-user]

Electro1980 said:

MikeStroud said:

I agree with you Troika. It's a bit like shops having signs outside saying "no more than 2 school kids at a time in the shop" because they know from experience they get stuff stolen by school kids. Not all school kids of course but certainly some; it's tough luck on the honest kids who can be trusted but the shop keeper can't afford to keep subsidising those that take advantage. They have to be able to protect their business from those that do steal so implement a rule. Pontins are the same. As you said, they will lose some legitimate business but at least they stay in business. Aside from shouting racist no one here has suggested a viable way businesses can protect themselves from groups they have identified as being detrimental to their business.

So you think business should be allowed to discriminate if it suits them? Do you feel the same about companies that don’t want to spend money on accessibility?

Nope I think businesses should be able to choose their customers based on their experience, insurance companies do this. I never mentioned accessibility at all, don't know where you pulled that from; in many years of running businesses I have never had any issues with disabled customers at all. However if some particular group - let's say they suffered from some mental illness xyz that meant they had to smash every glass window they see, then yes I don't see whay a glaziers couldn't ban said group from their shops.

People like you could always put your money where your mouth is and write to Pontin's underwriting all damage caused by travellers from now on.... or do you principles only stretch as far as other people suffering the loss?

[anonymoususer]

Electro1980 said:

So you think business should be allowed to discriminate if it suits them? Do you feel the same about companies that don’t want to spend money on accessibility?

Yes
Mine does just that
Feel free to pity me or criticise me or look down upon me from your position of enlightened grace.
In fact I do it even on a low level via my e bay sales as well
Shall I be damned ?

Before you answer let me explain
Building wise I will discriminate against someone i think may be a bad payer by asking for/ adjusting the level of deposit I will take before commencing work.
Quite obviously that is done if I suspect they may be bad payers. It can be based on information from other builders etc
SO blatantly I discriminate as it suits me

[Mr Whippy]

Electro1980 said:

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.

That’s because they’re idiots.

They did it to save their business.

Had the names on that list brought booming business, good craic as it were, then it wouldn’t be a thing.

Had Pontins had the brain cells they’d have argued their case better.
Instead they were brutally honest and ended up with the terminally offended on their case.

[troika]

slow_poke said:

troika said:

Look, can’t we just ignore all the race this and rights that. It’s irrelevant. If you behave like a ****, you should be treated like one. I don’t care who you are.

Ok as far as you go but Pontins went too far. They were treating like s people who were not acting like s.

It’s their business and their prerogative as far as I’m concerned. They’ll have done the sums against losing perfectly decent customers and saving on damages caused by the *****. Many pubs and hotels don’t let it stag parties for example. No doubt many are absolutely fine, but they’ve made the calculation and decision that their business is best off without them.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

troika said:

Cold said:

Electro1980 said:

So you think business should be allowed to discriminate if it suits them? Do you feel the same about companies that don’t want to spend money on accessibility?

Depends. Do people with limited mobility have a reputation for stealing things, smashing the place up and leaving excrement wherever they visit?

And generally being a complete pack of *****.

But they can be unprofitable. a business may never recoup the costs from disabled customers of disabled employees that they had to spend making the premises wheelchair friendly. So should they have the right to say "fk 'em, I won't have any customers in wheelchairs but they're more trouble than they're worth."?

[troika]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

troika said:

Cold said:

Electro1980 said:

So you think business should be allowed to discriminate if it suits them? Do you feel the same about companies that don’t want to spend money on accessibility?

Depends. Do people with limited mobility have a reputation for stealing things, smashing the place up and leaving excrement wherever they visit?

And generally being a complete pack of *****.

But they can be unprofitable. a business may never recoup the costs from disabled customers of disabled employees that they had to spend making the premises wheelchair friendly. So should they have the right to say "fk 'em, I won't have any customers in wheelchairs but they're more trouble than they're worth."?

A business knows the costs involved in making a building accessible for wheelchair users and rightly has an obligation to do so. It doesn’t know the untold costs involved when a certain pack of ***** cause utter carnage whenever they pitch up. Completely different situation.

[slow_poke]

Amazing the number of racists defending a racist policy here.
I would say to take a good long look at yourselves and you should be ashamed of yourselves but that would be pointless really.

Because you have no shame.

[fido]

slow_poke said:

Amazing the number of racists defending a racist policy here.

It's discriminatory but not racist. As someone pointed out before the Mafia would be a better analogy. Problem is the surname thing doesn't work and the underlying issue here isn't racism - it's lack of enforcement when problems arise with the group that the surname policy is attempting to remedy. In other words if the scoundrels weren't so easily given refuge then this wouldn't be an issue. This must be an issue with other businesses - e.g. service stations - wonder how they deal with the problem?

Edited by fido on Sunday 7th March 16:54

[Colonel Cupcake]

slow_poke said:

Amazing the number of racists defending a racist policy here.
I would say to take a good long look at yourselves and you should be ashamed of yourselves but that would be pointless really.

Because you have no shame.

Burnishing your right-on credentials defending a bunch of protected criminals that you have zero experience of.

Now, that's shameful.