Pontins in trouble for filtering traveller types
Discussion
InitialDave said:
OK, but did you actually do it?
The issue for Pontins isn't that they're refusing to do business with people who are known to be a liability.
It's that they're trying to achieve that end by not having anything to do with people who have the same name or accent.
If there were someone who was named similarly to you, looked similar to you, or had the same accent as you, and you were refused service for things you definitely hadn't done and they definitely had, that would be the equivalent example here.
The way I see it, rightly or wrongly, a business can refuse my service for whatever reason they see fit.The issue for Pontins isn't that they're refusing to do business with people who are known to be a liability.
It's that they're trying to achieve that end by not having anything to do with people who have the same name or accent.
If there were someone who was named similarly to you, looked similar to you, or had the same accent as you, and you were refused service for things you definitely hadn't done and they definitely had, that would be the equivalent example here.
105.4 said:
InitialDave said:
OK, but did you actually do it?
The issue for Pontins isn't that they're refusing to do business with people who are known to be a liability.
It's that they're trying to achieve that end by not having anything to do with people who have the same name or accent.
If there were someone who was named similarly to you, looked similar to you, or had the same accent as you, and you were refused service for things you definitely hadn't done and they definitely had, that would be the equivalent example here.
The way I see it, rightly or wrongly, a business can refuse my service for whatever reason they see fit.The issue for Pontins isn't that they're refusing to do business with people who are known to be a liability.
It's that they're trying to achieve that end by not having anything to do with people who have the same name or accent.
If there were someone who was named similarly to you, looked similar to you, or had the same accent as you, and you were refused service for things you definitely hadn't done and they definitely had, that would be the equivalent example here.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
pork911 said:
Yes, if they want to. They have a set criteria in which to lend large amounts of money. Criteria based upon risk analysis vs chances of default.If a customer doesn’t fit the criteria, even at higher interest rates to reflect the perceived higher risk, then the bank has a right to refuse to lend.
Was this supposed to be some sort of a ‘gotcha’ moment from you? Did you even read what my question was in the thread that you’ve linked? Ie; would previous occupants credit defaults affect my chances of getting a mortgage on the same property?
If this was supposed to be a ‘gotcha’ moment from you, it would appear to have backfired somewhat.
105.4 said:
InitialDave said:
OK, but did you actually do it?
The issue for Pontins isn't that they're refusing to do business with people who are known to be a liability.
It's that they're trying to achieve that end by not having anything to do with people who have the same name or accent.
If there were someone who was named similarly to you, looked similar to you, or had the same accent as you, and you were refused service for things you definitely hadn't done and they definitely had, that would be the equivalent example here.
The way I see it, rightly or wrongly, a business can refuse my service for whatever reason they see fit.The issue for Pontins isn't that they're refusing to do business with people who are known to be a liability.
It's that they're trying to achieve that end by not having anything to do with people who have the same name or accent.
If there were someone who was named similarly to you, looked similar to you, or had the same accent as you, and you were refused service for things you definitely hadn't done and they definitely had, that would be the equivalent example here.
Randy Winkman said:
Sorry - dont understand the first two bits of your sentence. "The way I see it" and "rightly or wrongly". Does that mean the last bit of the sentence is how you would like things to be rather than how they actually are in law??
What is morally correct isn’t always the law. What is the law isn’t always morally correct.
HTH?
andymc said:
what about the chap who decided to live with them to understand their culture, they s
t on his windcsreen
I watched that too, it was Ed Stafford. They also smashed his windscreen and ripped the door off his caravan, it's ironic that he faced such hostlity as he is of Romani gypsy heritage himself.t on his windcsreen What does "protected group" actually mean, are they protected when they are crapping on your windscreen, I expect Polar Bears are protected but not sure would want them marauding round Pontins either.
For me its a conduct thing, if you conduct yourself respectably, pay for what you use, dont destroy anything, dont wreck the place, all good, if you are sat on a car bonnet with your pants round your ankle, crimping one out then your conduct is likely not good.
Guess business owners and the general public arent a "protected group", the kid gloves and pussyfooting around is partly what is enabling that behaviour, that an the Police dont want to deal with Traveller stuff as they dont play like the rest of us.
For me its a conduct thing, if you conduct yourself respectably, pay for what you use, dont destroy anything, dont wreck the place, all good, if you are sat on a car bonnet with your pants round your ankle, crimping one out then your conduct is likely not good.
Guess business owners and the general public arent a "protected group", the kid gloves and pussyfooting around is partly what is enabling that behaviour, that an the Police dont want to deal with Traveller stuff as they dont play like the rest of us.
J4CKO said:
Guess business owners and the general public arent a "protected group", the kid gloves and pussyfooting around is partly what is enabling that behaviour, that an the Police dont want to deal with Traveller stuff as they dont play like the rest of us.
This is the crux of it, it’s a combination of being awarded a status which makes it very easy to garner sympathy and ‘understanding’ where it simply isn’t due, and a chosen ‘lifestyle’ which doesn’t combine well with a society which requires people to be traceable in order for them to be held accountable to the law.It’s a similar situation to running a car in the UK with foreign plates, you’ll routinely get away with plenty of low to mid level offending because the police can’t turn up at your front door and nick you or send you a nice fine or summons in the post. If you run someone down and kill them or commit a series of ram raids the authorities will try a bit harder to track you down, and similarly there are plenty of travellers in prison for serious offences. But of course it’s the widespread smaller stuff that causes the more noticeable societal issues.
Edited by Southerner on Monday 19th February 11:30
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff