Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

I don't think providers of services and goods should be able to decline services on the basis of their personal opinion that the recipient is, or might be, a 'reprehensible piece of sh*t sorry excuse for a human being'. I think it's morally wrong and, with extreme exceptions, it is quite rightly considered discrimination in UK law.

Such sentiments as 'reprehensible piece of sh*t' are subjective opinions, the like of which have been used in the past to refuse services to people of certain races, religions, sex, and nationality.

I'm astonished that you can't see that allowing discrimination against people you think deserve it could inevitably lead to discrimination against people you think don't deserve it.

 

[Bromptonaut]

That simply isn't the case when you are offering the public goods and services.

Is this how you want the law to work? It only protects those with deep enough pockets to sue?

It may not be the case if you're offering such services. Whether actions are slam dunk contempt for the law or one of those things your legal insurer gets cold feet over is fact dependent.

As to suing for your rights, that's how our law works; open to all like the Ritz Hotel.

I don't like it either but how else would you enforce rights that others contest?

 

[AndyRM]

The Arches have been played here, which is a shame, because they'll be the ones coming out looking like dickheads who support cancel culture.

 

[winjim]

I don't think providers of services and goods should be able to decline services on the basis of their personal opinion that the recipient is, or might be, a 'reprehensible piece of sh*t sorry excuse for a human being'. I think it's morally wrong and, with extreme exceptions, it is quite rightly considered discrimination in UK law.

Such sentiments as 'reprehensible piece of sh*t' are subjective opinions, the like of which have been used in the past to refuse services to people of certain races, religions, sex, and nationality.

I'm astonished that you can't see that allowing discrimination against people you think deserve it could inevitably lead to discrimination against people you think don't deserve it.

Businesses can decide who they want to provide a service to.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It may not be the case if you're offering such services. Whether actions are slam dunk contempt for the law or one of those things your legal insurer gets cold feet over is fact dependent.

As to suing for your rights, that's how our law works; open to all like the Ritz Hotel.

I don't like it either but how else would you enforce rights that others contest?

You can only sue for discrimination because we already have a law to sue under. A law which is aimed at preventing discrimination in the first place. I'd rather the providers of goods and services adhered to this law than that individuals have to resort to suing a company after the event in order to be treated fairly. Should you have to sue for your rights?

Businesses can decide who they want to provide a service to.

Legally they can't, with some extreme exceptions. Obviously companies get round this all the time but they are open to legal action.

 

[winjim]

The Arches have been played here, which is a shame, because they'll be the ones coming out looking like dickheads who support cancel culture.

I bet when they heard there was going to be a mystery guest it didn't cross their mind it was going to be someone so awful and high profile. Probably thought it was going to be Geoff Norcott or something.

 

[Bromptonaut]

You can only sue for discrimination because we already have a law to sue under. A law which is aimed at preventing discrimination in the first place. I'd rather the providers of goods and services adhered to this law than that individuals have to resort to suing a company after the event in order to be treated fairly.

Should you have to sue for your rights?

Rights are not some sort of binary question but rather one of degree etc.

Mine rights v yours is a balancing exercise.

 

[winjim]

Legally they can't, with some extreme exceptions. Obviously companies get round this all the time but they are open to legal action.

If I tried to book the local social club for me and my mates to have a massive gabba night what do you think they'd say?

 

[AuroraSaab]

I expect they'd say they were booked already, or their amps were broken, or they have noise restrictions agreements, or staff were off sick, or any other of a million excuses companies use to deny you equal access to the goods and services they are obliged to fairly offer. If they are refusing just because they don't like that kind of music, I'd say it's unfair. If it's based on having held the same events and they've ended in disturbing the neighbours or riots, they might have a point.

 

[winjim]

I'm gonna need to see some evidence that my local social club is legally obliged to play happy hardcore on request.

 

[Pale Rider]

It is amusing watching the woke tendency - again - trying to fit their selfish we know best attitude into their anti-discrimination freedom for Tooting ideology.

Why not be honest?

You dislike the guy and think his concert should be cancelled purely for that reason.

 

[newfhouse]

Businesses can decide who they want to provide a service to.

Legally they can't, with some extreme exceptions. Obviously companies get round this all the time but they are open to legal action.

You're wrong. When I owned and ran a business I declined to provide goods and services on more than one occasion to entities that were involved in the 'defence' industry.

 

[winjim]

It is amusing watching the woke tendency - again - trying to fit their selfish we know best attitude into their anti-discrimination freedom for Tooting ideology.

Why not be honest?

You dislike the guy and think his concert should be cancelled purely for that reason.

Not quite, I also think the venue have the right to cancel his appearance because they dislike him. I've been very very clear that I don't consider this to be an issue of discrimination and that I simply think he's an ars*hole.

 

[Pale Rider]

The venue's position is not as clear as it might be.

Years ago I did a story about a mob touring the country running dodgy mock auctions in which the public were fleeced for shoddy goods.

Typically, they operated from function rooms above pubs - just the sort of venue under discussion here.

I spoke with one of the major brewery's head of legal who said they were more or less obliged to take the booking, given the enterprise was outwardly legal.

They certainly didn't have the full discretion over bookings which I thought they might have.

What happened in the finish, as Aurora alluded to, is the directors simply said 'sod it, they don't operate in our places'.

That was against legal advice, but the directors correctly judged a criminal enterprise would be unlikely to mount a determined action.

 

[theclaud]

You dislike the guy and think his concert should be cancelled purely for that reason

If Glinner was planning to sing, I think it justifies measures more extreme than merely pulling the show...