Pontins told to stop screening Irish names

[Electro1980]

eldar said:

Electro1980 said:

Insurance cannot price based on gender, or race.

And because of that, the lower risk categories pay more to subsidise the higher risk people.

Which is always the case no matter how insurance is calculated, and is the point in insurance. Rightly it is not longer assumed that being male makes you automatically higher risk. Why should I, who has had one accident in 22 years, with a total cost of £1500, be penalised for other men and my neighbour, who had about one minor accident a year, be subsidised by other women purely because of our gender?

[Electro1980]

Type R Tom said:

Do pub licensing laws allow refusal of service due to any reason? I've been turned away from a bar due to age, sexual orientation, race and gender over the years. Not that I would stand and argue the Equalities Act with a bouncer but those points have been the sole reason to refuse service.

No one is allowed to discriminate for any of those reasons unless there is an objective justification (for example baring under 18s when it is part of the licensing conditions).

All of those, with the possible exception of age, would likely be illegal.

[slow_poke]

Interesting.

https://www.sfi.ie/research-news/news/new-study-on...

Irish Travellers genetics started drifting from the settled Irish population genetics 12 generations or 360 years ago, making them a separate ethnic group now.

[p4cks]

Wouldn't it just be easier for them to ban that list of names and just not mention the Irish connection to them?

Job done

[Type R Tom]

Electro1980 said:

Type R Tom said:

Do pub licensing laws allow refusal of service due to any reason? I've been turned away from a bar due to age, sexual orientation, race and gender over the years. Not that I would stand and argue the Equalities Act with a bouncer but those points have been the sole reason to refuse service.

No one is allowed to discriminate for any of those reasons unless there is an objective justification (for example baring under 18s when it is part of the licensing conditions).

All of those, with the possible exception of age, would likely be illegal.

That was kind of my point, I bet companies make "business" decisions all the time that are probably illegal, 99% probably get away with it. I guess if you are going to discriminate, you better make sure you have a water tight back up for when someone complains.

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

p4cks said:

Wouldn't it just be easier for them to ban that list of names and just not mention the Irish connection to them?

Job done

That's pretty much all they did.

[Jaguar steve]

towser44 said:

Having had the 'pleasure' of being stuck in a hotel in Fuerteventura with a load of them a few years ago, it's a shame that this screening can't not only be done, but expanded to all accommodation providers!

Corralejo Beach?

Found out the hard way some 25 years ago that particular hotel was popular with Irish and after our experience staying there along with with several extended Irish families, all best buddies one moment and the next shift-faced drunk and causing carnage I can see exactly why Ponins isn't ready to welcome them with open arms.

Included in the holiday highlights was one of their brats throwing up off a balcony onto sunbathers below, the Guarda Civil arresting two idiots after a punch up broke out out one evening outside the restaurant and being woken every night by arguing and shouting when the bar closed. The hotel staff had to repeatedly fish sun loungers out of the pool and tidy up tons of litter and dropped fag ends and we ended up having to use the stairs as the lifts were turned off because their kids wouldn't stop playing in them.

A thoroughly unpleasant experience.

[slow_poke]

Jaguar steve said:

Corralejo Beach?

Found out the hard way some 25 years ago that particular hotel was popular with Irish and after our experience staying there along with with several extended Irish families, all best buddies one moment and the next shift-faced drunk and causing carnage I can see exactly why Ponins isn't ready to welcome them with open arms.

Included in the holiday highlights was one of their brats throwing up off a balcony onto sunbathers below, the Guarda Civil arresting two idiots after a punch up broke out out one evening outside the restaurant and being woken every night by arguing and shouting when the bar closed. The hotel staff had to repeatedly fish sun loungers out of the pool and tidy up tons of litter and dropped fag ends and we ended up having to use the stairs as the lifts were turned off because their kids wouldn't stop playing in them.

A thoroughly unpleasant experience.

Were you also pissed off at the Germans hogging all the sun loungers before the crack of dawn?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Electro1980 said:

Which is always the case no matter how insurance is calculated, and is the point in insurance. Rightly it is not longer assumed that being male makes you automatically higher risk. Why should I, who has had one accident in 22 years, with a total cost of £1500, be penalised for other men and my neighbour, who had about one minor accident a year, be subsidised by other women purely because of our gender?

But being male does make you a higher risk. That's not even is dispute by those that implemented the rules. The number of accidents male v female is much the same, but the costs aren't. Socio economic reasons mean women have more low speed bumps, in supermarket car parks, and men have more higher speed expensive A road and motorway accidents.

This sex equality in insurance arose because a woman was paying more for private medical insurance than her husband of the same age, even though both were in good health. But women cost medical insurers more than men. They are more likely to go to the docs, and thus get stuff treated, and any reproductive issues are internal and expensive as opposed to external and cheaper.

Women used to pay more for life insurance because they live longer. They no longer do, but they still live longer. Men used to get better pension annuity rates because they die sooner. They don't anymore, but they are still dying sooner.

They can change the law, but the facts don't give two fks.

[hidetheelephants]

slow_poke said:

Interesting.

https://www.sfi.ie/research-news/news/new-study-on...

Irish Travellers genetics started drifting from the settled Irish population genetics 12 generations or 360 years ago, making them a separate ethnic group now.

Inbreeding is a protected characteristic now?

[mrporsche]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Electro1980 said:

Which is always the case no matter how insurance is calculated, and is the point in insurance. Rightly it is not longer assumed that being male makes you automatically higher risk. Why should I, who has had one accident in 22 years, with a total cost of £1500, be penalised for other men and my neighbour, who had about one minor accident a year, be subsidised by other women purely because of our gender?

But being male does make you a higher risk. That's not even is dispute by those that implemented the rules. The number of accidents male v female is much the same, but the costs aren't. Socio economic reasons mean women have more low speed bumps, in supermarket car parks, and men have more higher speed expensive A road and motorway accidents.

This sex equality in insurance arose because a woman was paying more for private medical insurance than her husband of the same age, even though both were in good health. But women cost medical insurers more than men. They are more likely to go to the docs, and thus get stuff treated, and any reproductive issues are internal and expensive as opposed to external and cheaper.

Women used to pay more for life insurance because they live longer. They no longer do, but they still live longer. Men used to get better pension annuity rates because they die sooner. They don't anymore, but they are still dying sooner.

They can change the law, but the facts don't give two fks.

The not pricing on gender when it can be demonstrated that certain genders are a better or worse risk is just nonsense.

For several years now you have been unable to exclude pregnancy after week 36 on travel polices, because men cant get pregnant so the policy is discriminatory. Even though there are increased risks between a 36 week pregnant women going on an 8 hour flight to the US vs a man who is not pregnant.

[poo at Paul's]

It is slightly ironic that now, in Covid, no one wants to go to Pontins anyway, but people are fighting over caravan holidays!

[Electro1980]

Type R Tom said:

Electro1980 said:

Type R Tom said:

Do pub licensing laws allow refusal of service due to any reason? I've been turned away from a bar due to age, sexual orientation, race and gender over the years. Not that I would stand and argue the Equalities Act with a bouncer but those points have been the sole reason to refuse service.

No one is allowed to discriminate for any of those reasons unless there is an objective justification (for example baring under 18s when it is part of the licensing conditions).

All of those, with the possible exception of age, would likely be illegal.

That was kind of my point, I bet companies make "business" decisions all the time that are probably illegal, 99% probably get away with it. I guess if you are going to discriminate, you better make sure you have a water tight back up for when someone complains.

People and companies brake the law all the time. That doesn’t make it right.

[Previous]

slow_poke said:

Interesting.

https://www.sfi.ie/research-news/news/new-study-on...

Irish Travellers genetics started drifting from the settled Irish population genetics 12 generations or 360 years ago, making them a separate ethnic group now.

Only 12 generations over that time frame?

Slow_poke username apt for the story, but seems contradictory to perceptions of traveller community family planning approaches!

[coppernorks]

hidetheelephants said:

Inbreeding is a protected characteristic now?

If it is it produces excellent results.

[Electro1980]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Electro1980 said:

Which is always the case no matter how insurance is calculated, and is the point in insurance. Rightly it is not longer assumed that being male makes you automatically higher risk. Why should I, who has had one accident in 22 years, with a total cost of £1500, be penalised for other men and my neighbour, who had about one minor accident a year, be subsidised by other women purely because of our gender?

But being male does make you a higher risk. That's not even is dispute by those that implemented the rules. The number of accidents male v female is much the same, but the costs aren't. Socio economic reasons mean women have more low speed bumps, in supermarket car parks, and men have more higher speed expensive A road and motorway accidents.

This sex equality in insurance arose because a woman was paying more for private medical insurance than her husband of the same age, even though both were in good health. But women cost medical insurers more than men. They are more likely to go to the docs, and thus get stuff treated, and any reproductive issues are internal and expensive as opposed to external and cheaper.

Women used to pay more for life insurance because they live longer. They no longer do, but they still live longer. Men used to get better pension annuity rates because they die sooner. They don't anymore, but they are still dying sooner.

They can change the law, but the facts don't give two fks.

Yes, but the point is that people were paying more not because of something they do or have control over but because of things that are statistically important at population level but not at personal level.

The initial issue is a very good example of why it is a problem:

Let’s ignore the traveler issue and assume that all Irish travellers are the same, for the sake of simplicity. Let’s assume that refusing to allow Irish travellers is a legitimate aim.

Is it fair that Conner Boylan, native Dubliner and no connection to the traveller community, is also banned from going on holiday where they wish?

[irc]

Previous said:

Only 12 generations over that time frame?

Slow_poke username apt for the story, but seems contradictory to perceptions of traveller community family planning approaches!

Looks more like 24 traveller generations or 60 SNP generations.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

mrporsche said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Electro1980 said:

Which is always the case no matter how insurance is calculated, and is the point in insurance. Rightly it is not longer assumed that being male makes you automatically higher risk. Why should I, who has had one accident in 22 years, with a total cost of £1500, be penalised for other men and my neighbour, who had about one minor accident a year, be subsidised by other women purely because of our gender?

But being male does make you a higher risk. That's not even is dispute by those that implemented the rules. The number of accidents male v female is much the same, but the costs aren't. Socio economic reasons mean women have more low speed bumps, in supermarket car parks, and men have more higher speed expensive A road and motorway accidents.

This sex equality in insurance arose because a woman was paying more for private medical insurance than her husband of the same age, even though both were in good health. But women cost medical insurers more than men. They are more likely to go to the docs, and thus get stuff treated, and any reproductive issues are internal and expensive as opposed to external and cheaper.

Women used to pay more for life insurance because they live longer. They no longer do, but they still live longer. Men used to get better pension annuity rates because they die sooner. They don't anymore, but they are still dying sooner.

They can change the law, but the facts don't give two fks.

The not pricing on gender when it can be demonstrated that certain genders are a better or worse risk is just nonsense.

For several years now you have been unable to exclude pregnancy after week 36 on travel polices, because men cant get pregnant so the policy is discriminatory. Even though there are increased risks between a 36 week pregnant women going on an 8 hour flight to the US vs a man who is not pregnant.

I agree with your first para.

Not sure your 2nd para is true. I've just looked at my own travel policy, and it excludes travelling if pregnant beyond 32 weeks. Also, airlines have a policy banning heavily pregnant women from flying, which they couldn't do it you're correct.

[towser44]

Jaguar steve said:

towser44 said:

Having had the 'pleasure' of being stuck in a hotel in Fuerteventura with a load of them a few years ago, it's a shame that this screening can't not only be done, but expanded to all accommodation providers!

Corralejo Beach?

Found out the hard way some 25 years ago that particular hotel was popular with Irish and after our experience staying there along with with several extended Irish families, all best buddies one moment and the next shift-faced drunk and causing carnage I can see exactly why Ponins isn't ready to welcome them with open arms.

Included in the holiday highlights was one of their brats throwing up off a balcony onto sunbathers below, the Guarda Civil arresting two idiots after a punch up broke out out one evening outside the restaurant and being woken every night by arguing and shouting when the bar closed. The hotel staff had to repeatedly fish sun loungers out of the pool and tidy up tons of litter and dropped fag ends and we ended up having to use the stairs as the lifts were turned off because their kids wouldn't stop playing in them.

A thoroughly unpleasant experience.

Costa Calma. Was a bit of a surprise, because the year before it was all Germans, Italians and we were just about the only English. The following year, there were lots of English and the travellers!

[SpeckledJim]

Electro1980 said:

Type R Tom said:

Electro1980 said:

Type R Tom said:

Do pub licensing laws allow refusal of service due to any reason? I've been turned away from a bar due to age, sexual orientation, race and gender over the years. Not that I would stand and argue the Equalities Act with a bouncer but those points have been the sole reason to refuse service.

No one is allowed to discriminate for any of those reasons unless there is an objective justification (for example baring under 18s when it is part of the licensing conditions).

All of those, with the possible exception of age, would likely be illegal.

That was kind of my point, I bet companies make "business" decisions all the time that are probably illegal, 99% probably get away with it. I guess if you are going to discriminate, you better make sure you have a water tight back up for when someone complains.

People and companies brake the law all the time. That doesn’t make it right.

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?