No all male groups

The "racist landlord" thread got me thinking. The landlord was wrong to ban travellers in general despite previous experience with other travellers.

Some holiday resorts say "no all male parties". Is this allowed under sex discrimination legislation?

Well you're not allowed to discriminate on gender for car insurance, so possibly.

Thing is.............who cares???

I think it's different for landlord's/ property owners. They aren't a corporation, they can choose who they do/ do not want.

I think it's different for landlord's/ property owners. They aren't a corporation, they can choose who they do/ do not want.

I posted because refusing to serve all male groups on the basis of all male groups in general seemed no different from refusing to serve travellers in general, based on past experience with similar groups.

Shielas Wheels, etc. All female vehicle insurance schemes are banned because they discriminate on the basis of sex. The fact that female drivers ARE safer has no bearing on the matter

I posted because refusing to serve all male groups on the basis of all male groups in general seemed no different from refusing to serve travellers in general, based on past experience with similar groups.

British soldiers have be refused service in some pubs in the past.

British soldiers have be refused service in some pubs in the past.

If this refers to The Globe in Leicester city centre then you should be careful:

"A man who maliciously started an internet rumour...was refusing to serve members of the armed forces ...to avoid upsetting the city’s ethnic minorities.... was given a two-year community order... ordered to complete 180 hours unpaid work and to pay £85 to his victim and £60 court costs". Source.

Or of course you could be referring to numerous daily situation where groups of British servicemen or just men/women are often refused service on the grounds that a licencee is required to maintain an orderly house for fear losing their licence/living.

A patron of an establishment in North Yorkshire asked us if we were aware that as we were in a garrison town, that we might wish to avail ourselves of refreshment in the pub across the street due to the imminent arrival of customers from the otherside of the fence.

PS The Travellers on Attercliffe had a sign in the window "No travellers" for many years-a long time ago. No rumour.

The fact that female drivers ARE safer has no bearing on the matter

I thought this was just a biased statistic though because there are more male drivers than women, and more women on men's insurance policies?

Shielas Wheels, etc. All female vehicle insurance schemes are banned because they discriminate on the basis of sex. The fact that female drivers ARE safer has no bearing on the matter

I agree.

This doesn't though.

It's official! Women drivers ARE more dangerous behind the wheel, scientists discover

Researchers looked at 6.5million car crashes that took place in the U.S. between 1998 and 2007

The results are even more surprising as men spend more time driving than women.

Women drivers are more likely to be involved in an accident, according to scientists.

Researchers looked at 6.5million car crashes and found a higher than expected number of accidents between two female drivers.

They also discovered that women have a tough time negotiating crossroads, T-junctions and slip roads.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2012188/Women-drivers-ARE-dangerous-wheel-scientists-discover.html#ixzz3bELTOKkJ

 

Women drivers are more likely to be involved in an accident, according to scientists.

 

Researchers looked at 6.5million car crashes and found a higher than expected number of accidents between two female drivers.

 

They also discovered that women have a tough time negotiating crossroads, T-junctions and slip roads.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2012188/Women-drivers-ARE-dangerous-wheel-scientists-discover.html#ixzz3bELTOKkJ

Or you could believe this study, which suggest the exact opposite:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/577366/women-better-drivers-men

Don't believe everything you read in the papers, Mrs Troll.

---------- Post added 27-05-2015 at 15:18 ----------

You’re protected from discrimination in these situations:

• at work
  
• in education
  
• as a consumer
  
• when using public services
  
• when buying or renting property
  
• as a member or guest of a private club or association
  

(From HM Gov website on discrimination)

I would interpret that as meaning that a pub landlord could not legally refuse to serve a group of males simply because they were male. He could refuse to serve 'large groups' of either gender; he could refuse to serve a group of males on the grounds that they are already drunk/behaving antisocially.

The same problem arises at times for students trying to find shared houses to rent. My son was one of a group of 6 lads who were told by several letting agents 'Sorry, the landlord won't let just to boys as they are more likely to trash the place. He'll only let to all girl groups, or mixed'. It is of course illegal but how many letting agents care about that?

Or you could believe this study, which suggest the exact opposite:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/577366/women-better-drivers-men

 

The one I posted looks at accident stats from 6.5 million accidents and this one looks at the driving abilities of a couple of hundred people which in my opinion makes it an unreliable indicator of how safe someones driving is. A safe driver doesn't have accidents, so if two people drive the same distance on the same roads, one always speeding and approaching junctions fast but never has an accident, and the other always stays within the speed limit and approaches junction slowly but has several accident, then the speeding motorist is the safest driver.

The one I posted looks at accident stats from 6.5 million accidents and this one looks at the driving abilities of a couple of hundred people which in my opinion makes it an unreliable indicator of how safe someones driving is. A safe driver doesn't have accidents, so if two people drive the same distance on the same roads, one always speeding and approaching junctions fast but never has an accident, and the other always stays within the speed limit and approaches junction slowly but has several accident, then the speeding motorist is the safest driver.

But if the speeding motorist causes one 100+ mph head on crash in 20 years of driving is he safer than someone who causes one very minor scrape per week over the same 20 years