monkers
Legendary Member
N here.
Seriously? I go out for a few minutes to satisfy a chocolate craving and it kicks off.
Now then @AuroraSaab, if you don't wish for anybody to call you 'an idiot' I have some advice for you. It's simply this, stop saying idiotic things.
This but one example of this idiocy.
If a general exclusion is made on an entire group of people with a shared protected characteristic, and not considered on a case-by-case basis, then it is not lawful.
There is no legal merit in the arguments you present. Not only does the 'in limited circumstances' apply, but the bar must also be set very high. This is not some casual process that can be made while making value judgements while scratching one's chin. The decision processes needs to be formal and made with rigour.
In others words, the intent must be a starting point to include. I can tell you frankly, reading any of your posts that I have, would very quickly bring any judge to believe that your starting point is to include is bogus. Your attempts using highly charged emotional and inaccurate writing to persuade others to your cause would very quickly lead to them being assessed as inadmissible due to being a bad faith actor.
Although I don't actually approve of the exchange of abuse between you, it does seem that Monkers has made a correct assessment of your words.
Addendum: @AuroraSaab.
In order to show that Monkers has consistently posted to say what you say she has said, can you provide at least two examples?
Seriously? I go out for a few minutes to satisfy a chocolate craving and it kicks off.
Now then @AuroraSaab, if you don't wish for anybody to call you 'an idiot' I have some advice for you. It's simply this, stop saying idiotic things.
Nobody has asked for blanket bans for trans people. It remains lawful to exclude people on the basis of their sex (or age, or religion, or sexuality etc etc) in limited situations. It doesn't have to be done on a case by case, one individual person at a time basis.
This but one example of this idiocy.
If a general exclusion is made on an entire group of people with a shared protected characteristic, and not considered on a case-by-case basis, then it is not lawful.
There is no legal merit in the arguments you present. Not only does the 'in limited circumstances' apply, but the bar must also be set very high. This is not some casual process that can be made while making value judgements while scratching one's chin. The decision processes needs to be formal and made with rigour.
In others words, the intent must be a starting point to include. I can tell you frankly, reading any of your posts that I have, would very quickly bring any judge to believe that your starting point is to include is bogus. Your attempts using highly charged emotional and inaccurate writing to persuade others to your cause would very quickly lead to them being assessed as inadmissible due to being a bad faith actor.
Although I don't actually approve of the exchange of abuse between you, it does seem that Monkers has made a correct assessment of your words.
Addendum: @AuroraSaab.
In order to show that Monkers has consistently posted to say what you say she has said, can you provide at least two examples?
Last edited: