Gender again. Sorry!

[matticus]

Either show me where I've made an accusation, apologise or get to f*ck.

Mate, you've made 5 from two twos. No amount of profanities is gonna change that.

(Apologies aren't part of the playground rules that were established here quite some time back, but I know who should be apologising on this thread, if normal etiquette applied. Hey-ho, we are where we are etc etc !!!

 

[Pale Rider]

Wouldn't be necessary if a handful of people weren't so determined not to understand things.

Picking and choosing to whom anti-discrimination laws are applied to does take some understanding.

I agree the venue in this case won't be in any legal bother for lots of reasons.

But they could try to hold themselves to a slightly higher standard than barely compliant.

Mate, you've made 5 from two twos. No amount of profanities is gonna change that.

(Apologies aren't part of the playground rules that were established here quite some time back, but I know who should be apologising on this thread, if normal etiquette applied. Hey-ho, we are where we are etc etc !!!

I apologise to Matticus for making Winjim swear at him.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I agree the venue in this case won't be in any legal bother for lots of reasons.

The main and most important one probably because they have not done anything illegal.

 

[Pale Rider]

The main and most important one one probably because they have not done anything illegal.

Very likely, I've not suggested they have done anything illegal.

But they need to be careful about who they turn down and have a sound ready-made excuse for doing so.

Giving someone the heave-ho simply due to the high volume of woke squawking is sailing close to the wind.

Newspapers/magazines are in a similar position with advertising.

Turning down an advertiser on the simple basis you don't like them is not defensible in law.

Practically, there are ways of doing it, but it then becomes a tax avoidance/tax minimisation situation.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The thing that you are unable to grasp on account of being both fixated and completely ignorant of Fringe ecology or any other context is that Glinner, or Unleashed or whoever, doesn't have a scintilla of a case against the venue under equality law, and threats to sue on that basis are vexatious bullying, cock-waving, and scandal-mongering.

What does Fringe ecology have to do with it? It's a question of whether a provider can withhold goods and services based on not liking the person buying them because of their beliefs. Even Peter Tatchell has called it discrimination on the grounds of belief. Your personal dislike for the man blinds you to the wider issue that this law applies to all of us and you can't discriminate just because you don't like someone's legally held views. I could give you more links to the court cases where this has been established - including The Stand comedy club's admission that cancelling an event at which Joanna Cherry was to appear was unlawful - but you seem to think arts venues don't have to abide by the same laws as other providers so there's no point.

Anyway, they've got another venue and the Arches and it's supporters are left looking like authoritarian mugs so that will probably be the end of it. More publicity than the show could have dreamed of, all for free courtesy of the Arches.

 

[winjim]

I have to say that I'm quite enjoying the bizarro way in which showing support for a small business and trusting it to make its own business decisions for the good of its business is now being characterised as a left wing position.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Likewise I'm enjoying the gymnastics you supposedly liberal folks are doing in order to justify removing legal protection from people you don't like, whilst presumably thinking it should apply to those you do.

 

[multitool]

Are we still pretending that Linehan isn't a hate-monger?

There's a universe of difference between him and someone like Cherry.

 

[newfhouse]

But it is ok to 'discriminate' against someone being transphobic, or homophobic .

Exactly. Being a twunt is not a protected characteristic. And Linehan's show wasn't rejected for his thoughts but was based on his past behaviour and rabble rousing.

Picking and choosing to whom anti-discrimination laws are applied to does take some understanding.

Just an educated guess, but it's likely to mostly be people with the protected characteristics mentioned in the legislation.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Likewise I'm enjoying the gymnastics you supposedly liberal folks are doing in order to justify removing legal protection from people you don't like, whilst presumably thinking it should apply to those you do.

I suspect that wherever you are on the political spectrum, certainly away from dead centre, there's a certain frisson when it's the other side who are being barred, banned or whatever.

I'm not clear in this case that either Lineham or anyone else on the card for that night actually has any legal protection.

 

[icowden]

Exactly. Being a twunt is not a protected characteristic. And Linehan's show wasn't rejected for his thoughts but was based on his past behaviour and rabble rousing.

Actually it was. And it wasn't his show. He was participating in a show called "Comedians unleashed" which specifically platforms "non-woke" comedians. They knew that when they agreed to let the show perform there. They have then got their handbags out when they found out one of the line up was Graham Linehan.

I think it puts the venue in a difficult position and their actions are those of censorship which goes against the spirit of the fringe.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Exactly. Being a twunt is not a protected characteristic. And Linehan's show wasn't rejected for his thoughts but was based on his past behaviour and rabble rousing.

Being a twunt in the past wouldn't be grounds for cancelling a booking though. Lots of people are twunts. Are his twunt-ish opinions legal to hold? No doubt if they'd somehow managed to avoid booking him in the first place there wouldn't be an issue, but they did, even if it was inadvertent. Who decides which opinions are twuntish enough to be denied protection under UK law? At the minute the bar is very high - Holocaust denial would be one - would you like to see it lowered? To include what exactly?

'Belief' is a protected characteristic. Would you regard philosophical and political beliefs as not being worthy of the same protection as religious beliefs? Which would mean a comedian could have an appearance cancelled for being a Communist but not for being a Christian. This position that people aren't protected by laws because they aren't nice people is illiberal nonsense.

 

[winjim]

Being a twunt in the past wouldn't be grounds for cancelling a booking though. Lots of people are twunts. Are his twunt-ish opinions legal to hold? No doubt if they'd managed to avoid booking him in the first place there wouldn't be an issue, but they did, even if it was inadvertent. Who decides which opinions are twuntish enough to be denied protection under UK law? At the minute the bar is very high - Holocaust denial would be one - would you like to see it lowered? To include what exactly?

It's astonishing the way you repeatedly manage to argue yourself into agreeing with me.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Very likely, I've not suggested they have done anything illegal.

But they need to be careful about who they turn down and have a sound ready-made excuse for doing so.

Giving someone the heave-ho simply due to the high volume of woke squawking is sailing close to the wind.

Newspapers/magazines are in a similar position with advertising.

Turning down an advertiser on the simple basis you don't like them is not defensible in law.

Practically, there are ways of doing it, but it then becomes a tax avoidance/tax minimisation situation.

Given you said this:

I agree the venue in this case won't be in any legal bother for lots of reasons.

I was just wondering what reasons there would be other than not doing anything illegal.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's astonishing the way you repeatedly manage to argue yourself into agreeing with me.

I don't think that people should be refused goods and services because I don't like their opinions, if those opinions are legal to hold. So we don't agree. What I think of the individual in this case has no bearing on that. Unlike you, my view of who should be protected by the law doesn't change based on whether I like their personality or not.

Here's another last minute cancellation made because the values of the owner of the venue clash with those making the booking. Morally wrong, and clearly discrimination in law.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-51280256.amp

You can't have laws that allow you to refuse goods and services based on personal assessment of someone's morals or personality.