"Pubs for all you racists"

But they didn't discriminate they treated everyone at the conference the same, they banned everyone regardless of ethnicity.

Well, the judge ruled otherwise and Wetherspoons are not contesting it.

How many more times

But they didn't discriminate they treated everyone at the conference the same, they banned everyone regardless of ethnicity.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2015 at 21:39 ----------

 

 

Travelers are actually multiple ethnic groups, the terms refers to all people that travel.

Not in the context of the case being discussed they aren't.

Why don't you take the trouble to learn something?

British Anti-Discrimination Legislation and

its Protection for Gypsies and Travellers

‘…Gypsies and Travellers are still experiencing

discrimination of the most overt kind:

‘No blacks, no Irish, no dogs’ signs

disappeared decades ago, but the ‘No Travellers’ signs,

used intentionally to exclude Gypsies and Travellers,

are widespread indicating that discrimination against these groups

remains the last ‘respectable’ form of racism in the UK.’

Legal Action Group (2004)

This paper will briefly outline the main provisions of British anti-discrimination legislation and examine what significance it has for Gypsies and Travellers. It will then signpost sources of comprehensive information on this subject.

The Legislation

The Race Relations Act 1976 is the main anti-discrimination legislation in force in Great Britain. The Mcpherson Inquiry (1999) into the death of Stephen Lawrence in 1998-9 and the accusation that the police was institutionally racist led to significant changes to the Race Relations Act. The Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) and subsequently the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations (2003), that transposed the EU Race Equality Directive into British law, provide the following provisions:-

Scope of the legislation: It is unlawful to discriminate on racial grounds in employment, education, housing and planning, the exercise of public functions (public and private bodies), and in the provision of goods, facilities and services.

Race equality duty As stated in the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) public bodies have a statutory duty to promote the principle of equality of opportunity and to promote good race relations. Public bodies need to be pro-active and to monitor the impact of their polices and practice on racial groups.

Equality body The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has the duty to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations. The CRE has the power to enforce the law by taking selective cases; reviewing the law; and to take action against public bodies which do not comply with the race equality duty.

Legal redress

Individual victims of discrimination are able to bring cases before tribunals and the courts. However, Cohen (2003) outlines that the success rate for racial discrimination cases are very poor. She also points out that compensation for victims of discrimination who take their cases to tribunals are not “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” as stated in the Race Equality Directive. Also in Great Britain there is no provision for public interest litigation allowing for social actors to bring proceedings on behalf of victims and to bring class actions.

Protection for Gypsies and Travellers

Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are defined by law as racial groups and thereby are protected by British anti-discrimination legislation. However, in reality due to a interplay of other laws that have a discriminatory impact, in particular planning and criminal justice, the race equality legal framework provides limited protection. However, according to the Legal Action Group (2004) Article 14 of the Race Equality Directive provides for the opportunely to challenge British laws which are not compatible to the principle of equal treatment, and could be used to challenge laws which discriminate against Gypsies and Travellers.

Although discrimination against Gypsies and Travellers is widespread many cases of discrimination are not taken to court or tribunal. This is due to a lack of knowledge that they are included in race relations legislation; a lack of awareness of their rights; a lack of access to free legal advice; and a lack of faith in the legal process.

The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), as part of their strategy for Gypsies and Travellers in England 2004 – 2007, commissioned an inquiry into local authorities’ arrangements for planning, providing and managing sites in the context of their statutory duty to promote race equality and good race relations. This was the first time that the CRE took on board the issue of Gypsies and Travellers.

“The aim of the CRE’s inquiry, launched in October 2004, was to see how far local authorities in England and Wales were meeting the duty to promote race equality and good race relations in respect of Gypsies and Travellers. In particular, it sought to assess the way local authorities were balancing the rights and responsibilities of different groups in the communities they serve on the question of Gypsy sites, and how they promoted good relations and encouraged integration.”

Read more Common Ground – Equality, good race relations and sites for Gypsies and Irish Travellers – report of a CRE inquiry in England and Wales http://www.cre.gov.uk/about/gtinquiry.html

To conclude the Legal Action Group (2004:266) comments:-

‘While the race equality legislation has developed considerably over the last 25-30 years, it has had relatively little impact on the discrimination that Gypsies and Travellers experience within our community. However, there is no doubt that the recent changes to the legislation have strengthened the provisions designed to combat racism and that it could be used in the future to bring significant improvements to the lives of Gypsies and Travellers.’

Sources of further information

Commission for Racial Equality (2006) Common Ground – Equality, good race relations and sites for Gypsies and Irish Travellers – report of a CRE inquiry in England and Wales – available to order at http://www.cre.gov.uk/about/gtinquiry.html

Commission for Racial Equality Gypsies and Travellers: A strategy for the CRE, 2004-7 – available to download from http://www.cre.gov.uk/policy/gypsies_and_travellers.html

Cohen (2005) Report on measures to combat discrimination – directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC – country report UK Migration Policy Group - available to download from http://www.migpolgroup.com

Gypsy and Traveller Law (2004) eds. Johnson, C. and Willers, M. Legal Action Group – available to order at http://www.lag.org.uk

Cohen (2003) Executive summary on race equality directive state of play in the United Kingdom European Commission Employment and Social Affairs – Anti-discrimination and relations with civil society unit – available to download from http://www.//europa.eu

Proof that your rambling on about travelers not being entitled to protection against discrimination as an ethnic group in their own right is complete nonsense.

This precisely why Weatherspoons were found guilty and you are wrong.

Because courts don't always get it right and this is one of those occasions, and we have already been down this road, and you already agreed that courts aren't always right.

I think when someone feels strongly about something then they can find court judgements that fail to validate their views difficult to cope with.

Don't worry, you'll get over it.

Well, the judge ruled otherwise and Wetherspoons are not contesting it.

 

How many more times

That's a matter for Wetherspoons and it has no bearing on my opinion.

That's a matter for Wetherspoons and it has no bearing on my opinion.

Good for you, you don't want to let something like a few facts shape your opinion.

I think when someone feels strongly about something then they can find court judgements that fail to validate their views difficult to cope with.

 

Don't worry, you'll get over it.

I'm not finding it difficult to cope and I won't loose any sleep over it.

---------- Post added 25-05-2015 at 22:24 ----------

Good for you, you don't want to let something like a few facts shape your opinion.

My opinion is based on the facts.

Mod Note:

Please do not edit members quotes to make them appear to say thing that they have not said.

Thank you.

Do you always agree with authority?

 

Has there never been a guilty or innocent verdict that you disagreed with?

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2015 at 07:45 ----------

 

 

My opinion and my right to express it is only important to me. I tend to look at the facts, think for my self and form an opinion which doesn't always agree with authority.

 

You are of cause free to go with the flow and agree with authority if that is your choice, I won't try to dissuade you but I will support my own stance.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2015 at 07:51 ----------

 

 

If 90% of twenty year old that came in the pub caused trouble and damage, eventually it would make sense to ban all twenty years olds.

 

This is way they pay more for insurance, its not because they are all poor drivers, its because on average they drive worse than older people, and because the insurance company doesn't know which will drive well and which will drive bad they treat them all the same and increase their premium.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2015 at 07:55 ----------

 

 

So if a football team was made up of black players only and all its fans were black, a pub wouldn't be able to ban the fans because the fans are not from every race and creed.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2015 at 08:00 ----------

 

 

Why? is it because they are all racist or because they have all suffered adverse consequences of having them in the town?

Both reasons. Appleby which has the biggest gypsy horse fair in the country make a big thing of it and the town gets lots of extra non-gypsy visitors. Hotel and self catering prices go through the roof.

Stow-on-the-Wold which has the second biggest fair takes the opposite approach and want to ban it. There's a huge long tale which I won't relate here, but there's no love lost between the town and the gypsies.

The latest ploy by the town is to buy the land the gypsies hold the fair on and build a medical centre plus housing.

There was a local meeting about the fate of the fair, but it had to be closed early because it had "descended into a racist rabble". Those were the words used in the minutes.

Both reasons. Appleby which has the biggest gypsy horse fair in the country make a big thing of it and the town gets lots of extra non-gypsy visitors. Hotel and self catering prices go through the roof.

 

Stow-on-the-Wold which has the second biggest fair takes the opposite approach and want to ban it. There's a huge long tale which I won't relate here, but there's no love lost between the town and the gypsies.

 

The latest ploy by the town is to buy the land the gypsies hold the fair on and build a medical centre plus housing.

There was a local meeting about the fate of the fair, but it had to be closed early because it had "descended into a racist rabble". Those were the words used in the minutes.

Housing and a medical center are far more important to a town than an annual fair.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cotswold-town-calls-foul-on-fair-gypsies-gathered-at-stowonthewold-are-alarming-the-volvodriving-classes-will-bennett-reports-2322723.html

I can see the point of the local residents, their opinions appear to be based on behavior and nothing at all to do with ethnicity.

 

I can see the point of the local residents, their opinions appear to be based on behavior and nothing at all to do with ethnicity.

Well I can't say I have ever met anyone that would either want gypsies leaving near by or not want to take steps to stop them living near by.

Just because people choose to live nomadically in gangs and call themselves gypsies does not make them a separate race...wherever they are originally from.

If we are being honest no one wants gypsies, travellers..whatever.. living anywhere near them and lots of the reasons people would give, were we not in a sick and weak PC society, are justified.

.

.

---------- Post added 29-05-2015 at 15:06 ----------

 

Proof that your rambling on about travelers not being entitled to protection against discrimination as an ethnic group in their own right is complete nonsense.

Just because at one time the LAW thought it would be a good idea to legislate in gypsies favour ... maybe just to provide more work for barristers and solicotors... maybe it was to upset landowners... does not make anything right.

When you choose to move into an area supposedly with planning controls (maybe even ones you object to) you don't want the area to change and you don't want a great herd of parasites to move in. So moving them out is only right..... its justice but you can't get that from the law.