Gender again. Sorry!

[winjim]

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.

Gay. They are gay. It's discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation because they are gay. It's not the same thing. Graham Linehan is not a victim here, these situations are not equivalent.

Please stop mischaracterising my position, it makes it very difficult to have a sensible conversation.

 

[newfhouse]

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?

I wonder if you're confusing possible contractual issues - loss of earnings, consequential loss, and so on as a result of the late withdrawal of the venue - with discrimination law.

In the past I have refused to deal with customers that I simply don't like.

Unless someone legally qualified and trustworthy turns up here to tell me different I'm going to assume that a private business can choose whether to enter a contract or not, provided that they do not use any of the legally protected characteristics as their reason for declining service.

As an example, if I ran a petrol station I could choose to not supply diesel for red cars on alternate Thursdays. If it turned out that red diesels in my catchment area belonged exclusively to Sikhs there may be a challenge, but if it's just me being quirky I reckon I'd avoid legal consequences.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Gay. They are gay. It's discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation because they are gay. It's not the same thing. Graham Linehan is not a victim here, these situations are not equivalent.

It's refusal to provide goods and services that someone has already booked based on your own view of them. In that case it's discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, in Linehan and Joanne Cherry's case it's on the grounds of belief.

In the past I have refused to deal with customers that I simply don't like.

There are all sorts of ways of getting out of dealing with customers you don't like. Surely you can see that once you'd entered into a contract with them and then later reneged based on what you discovered about their beliefs, race, sex, diability, or sexuality, that would be discrimination under UK law?

Unless someone legally qualified and trustworthy turns up here to tell me different I'm going to assume that a private business can choose whether to enter a contract or not, provided that they do not use any of the legally protected characteristics as their reason for declining service.

See the court cases for Joanne Cherry, Julie Bindell, Franklin Graham ..... belief is a protected characteristic. Companies can lie to get out of providing a service, and of course they do, but if they are found out they are open to legal action.

 

[winjim]

Read this


View: https://twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1692197306034954359?t=V8VZR9oV0Wdq9kCJiWaYaA&s=19


Then watch this


View: https://twitter.com/GlinnyHill/status/1692059966675259625?t=gt27gUcH3rdTAMzsBoo96w&s=19



Now read this


View: https://twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1691934452321059204?t=2HYvTJGH5tQABk7B2elHNw&s=19

See how she references the channel and holds them responsible for their content?

 

[winjim]

It's refusal to provide goods and services that someone has already booked based on your own view of them. In that case it's discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, in Linehan and Joanne Cherry's case it's on the grounds of belief

Not a cult at all then.

 

[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 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?

BTW, do you have any evidence that Holocaust denial is illegal in this country. As far as I'm aware it's legal and under your system a Jewish meeting room would be obliged to host a Holocaust denier.

Willing to be corrected, this is a genuine enquiry.

 

[Bromptonaut]

It's refusal to provide goods and services that someone has already booked based on your own view of them. In that case it's discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, in Linehan and Joanne Cherry's case it's on the grounds of belief.

See the court cases for Joanne Cherry, Julie Bindell, Franklin Graham ..... belief is a protected characteristic. Companies can lie to get out of providing a service, and of course they do, but if they are found out they are open to legal action.

As I keep saying, it's not clear that cancelling a booking including Linehan engages any protected characteristic.

It's possible - as in Ms Forstater's employment case - that GC views are protected as a philosophical belief. If that's the reason Linehan's performance was cancelled then an unlawful act might have occurred.

OTOH, a venue might say that they wouldn't book him because he's an objectionable c-unit. He then slips in under their radar as part of a group booking. They can still say he's a c-unit, we're not having him and here's your deposit for the booking.

If Linehan thinks doing that is an unlawful act because his GC views are protected he'll have to sue or, at the very least, produce a convincing case that if he did sue he'd likely win. That's how the law works. Cherry made a case she'd win and the venue rolled; same with Bindel.

It's all dependent on the facts and how they play out in law...

 

[qigong chimp]

The thing is, I can disagree with his views on the Sun; and yet not suggest he's raped his wife during a discussion on gender.

Wife?

 

[winjim]

LOL. LMAO.


View: https://twitter.com/CriticalCupcake/status/1692203663333130564?t=RifFzVImMh-D-CB--HF1mQ&s=19

 

[newfhouse]

belief is a protected characteristic

Some beliefs, some of the time.

I’m quite enjoying your argument that Linehan’s beliefs outweigh the material reality of his vileness BTW.

 

[Pale Rider]

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

The comics can't raise the money to sue and the venue/operating company is not worth suing because it doesn't have any money to pay a decent settlement, which in any case may be unlikely because the damages suffered by the comics could be assessed as modest.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Read this


View: https://twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1692197306034954359?t=V8VZR9oV0Wdq9kCJiWaYaA&s=19

You choose the best advocates to support your cause, Winjim. You really do. I suggest you do a bit more googling on this person. Have a look at their long history of suing people - Linehan, Kate Scottow, Mumsnet, Associated Newspapers. Are they an actual qualified UK lawyer? Find out and let me know ....

Here's just one case about Twitter comments:

https://www.wiggin.co.uk/insight/hi...mplained that the,” and “vexatious” litigator.

Now read this


View: https://twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1691934452321059204?t=2HYvTJGH5tQABk7B2elHNw&s=19

See how she references the channel and holds them responsible for their content?

You are presenting this person as an authorative source. Find me the practise they work at as a qualified UK lawyer.... should be easy enough.

I would consider the similar cases both from court and settled before court - Julie Bindell, Franklin Graham, Joanne Cherry etc. - as a better indication than the postings from this particular individual.

BTW, do you have any evidence that Holocaust denial is illegal in this country. As far as I'm aware it's legal and under your system a Jewish meeting room would be obliged to host a Holocaust denier.

Willing to be corrected, this is a genuine enquiry.

You can just Google this stuff, you know. It's not illegal to be a Holocaust denier (I didn't say it was), it's just not a protected belief under discrimination law.

Sex is immutable is a protected belief:

https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/comment/protected-beliefs-what-s-in-and-what-s-out/

Holocaust denial, racial superiority isn't:

https://www.spencershaw.co.uk/emplo...n-at-work/religion-and-belief-discrimination/

 

[Rusty Nails]

The comics can't raise the money to sue and the venue/operating company is not worth suing because it doesn't have any money to pay a decent settlement, which in any case may be unlikely because the damages suffered by the comics could be assessed as modest.

So nothing illegal then.

 

[AuroraSaab]

As I keep saying, it's not clear that cancelling a booking including Linehan engages any protected characteristic.

It's possible - as in Ms Forstater's employment case - that GC views are protected as a philosophical belief. If that's the reason Linehan's performance was cancelled then an unlawful act might have occurred.

That's it exactly. See the links above. Gender critical beliefs are protected beliefs.

OTOH, a venue might say that they wouldn't book him because he's an objectionable c-unit. He then slips in under their radar as part of a group booking. They can still say he's a c-unit, we're not having him and here's your deposit for the booking.

If Linehan thinks doing that is an unlawful act because his GC views are protected he'll have to sue or, at the very least, produce a convincing case that if he did sue he'd likely win. That's how the law works. Cherry made a case she'd win and the venue rolled; same with Bindel.

It's all dependent on the facts and how they play out in law...

Correct, but case law seems to be on the side of those who made the booking not the venue. I doubt they will sue - time, effort, money - but they might demand an apology.

 

[winjim]

You choose the best advocates to support your cause, Winjim. You really do. I suggest you do a bit more googling on this person. Have a look at their long history of suing people - Linehan, Kate Scottow, Mumsnet, Associated Newspapers. Are they an actual qualified UK lawyer? Find out and let me know ....

Here's just one case about Twitter comments:

https://www.wiggin.co.uk/insight/high-court-declines-to-continue-interim-injunction-in-relation-to-posts-made-on-social-media-in-harassment-defamation-and-misuse-of-private-information-claim/#:~:text=Ms Hayden complained that the,” and “vexatious” litigator.




You are presenting this person as an authorative source. Find me the practise they work at as a qualified UK lawyer.... should be easy enough.

I would consider the similar cases both from court and settled before court - Julie Bindell, Franklin Graham, Joanne Cherry etc. - as a better indication than the postings from this particular individual.



You can just Google this stuff, you know. It's not illegal to be a Holocaust denier (I didn't say it was), it's just not a protected belief under discrimination law.

Sex is immutable is a protected belief:

https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/comment/protected-beliefs-what-s-in-and-what-s-out/

Holocaust denial, racial superiority isn't:

https://www.spencershaw.co.uk/emplo...n-at-work/religion-and-belief-discrimination/

I was really just using her as an example of putting responsibility on the channel, which I see as analogous to the venue. Whether her cases are vexatious or not is beside the point, someone going through the motions of preparing to sue, or even of suing and then losing is still a headache for the organisation they are suing.

I see after what seems like absolutely f*cking ages you're modifying your idea of 'belief'.