-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Shop Refused to serve British servicemen
- Thread starter Y961 XBU
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Yes - if there was no racial element in the incident, as there does not appear to be in this one.
one rule for all , but apparently the other way round there would be a much larger group of knuckle draggers . Yes Im sorry that is prejudiced .
You started of prejudiced but then tried to balance it out by saying one rule for all . Its a bit like a UKIP member singing a racist song but then claiming to have Caribbean friends . You cant backtrack on being a prejudiced daily mail reader just with a few words
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Exactly. Colleagues of mine have been refused sale of certain things in uniform - like a bottle of wine on the way home on the basis of being in uniform. Nobody whinged to the papers (likely would have been ignored anyway), you either get changed or go to a different shop.
This isn't prejudice; this is someone who doesn't like service men or women and has a right to exercise that opinion. If they didn't want to serve that person, then they have a right to it.
Any prejudice is innuendo and you cannot apportion blame based on innuendo, no matter how hard you try.
Any prejudice is innuendo and you cannot apportion blame based on innuendo, no matter how hard you try.
So as opposed to Johnuk123's belief that this was a deliberate attempt to humiliate a member of the Armed Services is really does appear that the people who run the shop really don't know all that much and have made a genuine mistake.
It is unfortunate that the EDL/BNP/NF/Britain First types will use this unfortunate error to have a go a people who 'look' Muslim.
I find Britain First status updates being shared are a great way of deciding who you delete or not.
I've had friends of friends add me after I've been on a night out with them in a group and I've accepted out of politeness. Once they share anything from Britain First they are deleted. It helps bring the idiots to the fore.
A shop can refuse to sell anything to anyone should they so wish as long as it is not for discriminatory reasons - religion or race.
It is called an invitation to treat or something and they can point blank refuse anyone and everyone if they just said no.
starrymarkb
Established Member
In the US there have been a few incidents with Soldiers* kicking off at airlines for not getting complimentary upgrades. (The Airlines will often upgrade Serving Military if they have a spare seat in First/Business but they won't bump paying passengers)
*Usually desk job ones
*Usually desk job ones
ExRes
Established Member
Why don't you shut up with the Daily Mail trash, it's not funny in the least, just pathetic and childish
Personally I'm sick and fed up with not being able to say a single word without being accused by people like you of racism, so don't tell me what I'm saying and what I'm thinking, I've absolutely no need to justify myself to you
.... or age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, sex, and sexual orientation AFAIK.
Amberley54
Member
So pubs, hotels and shops can put back in the window their old 'No blacks, no Irish, no dogs' signs?
You must have missed the bit where Clip said "as long as it is not for discriminatory reasons - religion or race"?
Amberley54
Member
So if 10 white people walked into a shop and 10 black people walked into the same shop, and the shop keeper refused to sell to the ten black people is that not discrimination regardless of the shopkeepers assertion that they just didn't want to sell to those 10 particular individuals and it was just a co-incidence that they all happened to be black?
90019
Established Member
Are you being deliberately obtuse or just stupid?
Amberley54
Member
Neither, so perhaps you will provide evidence to justify your comment to someone who has experienced direct and indirect discrimination on many occasions through my life not dissimilar to the anecdotal example I cited?
I think you are being obtuse, it was pretty obvious that my post was to encompass all issues but I pointed out two as the person I quoted was banging on about race/religion.
But carry on.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
See how many different aspects of life that are catered for in this country.
ISIL do not appear to run to such differentiations.
ISIL do not appear to run to such differentiations.
90019
Established Member
Clear enough?
Giving two examples doesn't mean those are necessarily the only reasons.
It is clear now that this service man was refused sale either coz the shop owner is a racist or coz the Shop owner has no clue on the law
In his *Sorry* Paragraph he did say he thought it was against the law to sell such Products to Servicemen in Uniform but also in his Paragraph he said the legal age to sell these Products is 16 when it was lifted to 18 some time ago.
Either way it does not look good on the firm and some people are no refusing to use the shop.
In his *Sorry* Paragraph he did say he thought it was against the law to sell such Products to Servicemen in Uniform but also in his Paragraph he said the legal age to sell these Products is 16 when it was lifted to 18 some time ago.
Either way it does not look good on the firm and some people are no refusing to use the shop.
ATW Alex 101
Established Member
starrymarkb
Established Member
I'd go with the latter. I mean do people complain about white run bars that ban forces personnel (as some of the ones around here did after trainee Marines got into fights with locals)
I do seem to have missed something. Where is there anything in the original story to suggest a hint of racism. Other, of course, that the shop owner is Pakistani? I think this does say rather more about those on the fringe of the story and some commentators. For all I know, the squaddies could themselves have been of Pakistani heritage.
That is far and away the more likely - though, of course, there would then have been little or no story.
IMHO, this story makes me far more worried about the general populace of Britain than about the beliefs of a shopkeeper.
Exactly , as long as you dont give any reason you can be doing it for prejudiced reasons but unless a pretty obvious pattern appears there aint a lot people can do about it . , not just that but a shop can bar you for whatever reason they see fit . You have an implied license to enter it and that can easilly be repealed by the shop . when I was a shop manager we often repealed peoples implied license to enter the shop because it was decided their behavior was not acceptable , the usual cases where threatening staff and shoplifting .
You start off telling me to shut up but then say youve no need to justify yourself make your mind up , are you upset or clear in your convictions . I have never asked you to justify yourself just pointing out where you have been prejudiced and appeared like someone that reads the daily mail and votes UKIP.
I suspect if you stop posting prejudiced and daily mail esque comments people would cease to mention the old rag .
No they cant , but at the time that was socially acceptable it certainly isnt now though .
Wot is that kind of spelling?
am Dyslectic so i only type words i can spell, Because is a bugger as i keep putting the A and the U in the wrong order.
Sightly OT but closely related: big on the news today is the assertion by (ex-)serviceman's organisations that they aren't getting priority service in the NHS. Will that be interpreted by the public as one group of peoples demanding a 'privileged' service at the expense of everybody else, from an already underfunded health service?
Contrary to the right-wing press assertions, there is not universal approval of our military forces, especially when they are the physical instruments of the Government's political aspirations.
That's what I thought but there was a case not long ago about a hotel owner being sued refusing the custom of a gay couple.
Clearly some clarification is needed here, either you can refuse to do business with anybody (without having to give a reason) or you can't, it's either one or the other.
A hotel is not a shop selling stuff which my post was about. But again the same applies here - the hotel discriminated against someone for their sexuality and thats not right and is against the law.
So it's ok to discriminate against somebody for any other reason? And surely the hotel were not obligated to give a reason anyway?
- Status