Fighting Back

[Andydevon]

The new Pat ex

 

[Pat ex]

The new Pat ex

I'm still here.
What makes you think I need a new username?
I understand it's not allowed under the rules to have more than one username at the same time.
Maybe it's some idiot trying to impersonate me. Now why would anyone try to do that?

 

[Pat ex]

Do you support lgbt issues?

We must be using two different computers, and two different usernames, and two different addresses with different IP addresses, all at the same time.

Is it me that keeps flitting next door, or across the river, or out of town, etc?

 

[Pat ex]

This reminds me about that joke about the solitary soldier that goes to the top of the hill and challenges the champion of the other army to come and fight him, man to man. The champion goes up, and is never seen again.
Next the same soldier appears at the top of the hill and challenges ten of the other side to fight him. Ten go up, over the hill and are never seen again.
The same soldier appears again and challenges 100 of the other side to fight him. 100 go up, over the hill, and after a lot of noise, shouting etc, a lone soldier crawls back to the top of the hill, and shouts to his comrades, "GET BACK, GET BACK, IT'S A TRAP, THERE'S TWO OF 'EM!"

It looks like the mods have evened up the odds again. I was beginning to like Bi_Pat's wit and repartee.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It would be lawful to refuse to offer service to someone on the basis that you thought they may be asylum seekers, trouble makers, moderately fat, brown shoe wearing, unable to pay, conservative voters. etc etc. Not lawful to discriminate on the basis that they are English, Iranian, Catholics, Muslims, disabled, old, gay, male, etc.. Pretty easy to understand really.

And then the question becomes. On what grounds were they refused service ?

 

[motorbiking]

Exactly. Without any evidence that the driver discriminated against them on the basis of protected characteristics and did not have a good reason to do so, creating an exemption, we have no evidence that this was a racially motivated unlawful discrimination. It is wrong to assume that because a person has protected characteristics, it must be those which are the basis of the discrimination. Not wanting to pick up asylum seekers up from that hotel, because of previous problems or a perception of problems, is not unlawful discrimination.

As has also been said on this thread, indirect discrimination, which indirectly discriminates against protected characteristics (e.g. a policy), can be lawful on operational grounds if there is a justifiable reason. We must not jump to the conclusion that the driver is a racist, just because they have problems dealing with a certain group of people.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Exactly. Without any evidence that the driver discriminated against them on the basis of protected characteristics and did not have a good reason to do so, creating an exemption, we have no evidence that this was a racially motivated unlawful discrimination. It is wrong to assume that because a person has protected characteristics, it must be those which are the basis of the discrimination. Not wanting to pick up asylum seekers up from that hotel, because of previous problems or a perception of problems, is not unlawful discrimination.

As has also been said on this thread, indirect discrimination, which indirectly discriminates against protected characteristics (e.g. a policy), can be lawful on operational grounds if there is a justifiable reason. We must not jump to the conclusion that the driver is a racist, just because they have problems dealing with a certain group of people.

No.

He refused service. And it seemed like it was for a specific reason. Unless that reason was applied at other stops to other people then there was some criteria applied. So what was the reason? Only then can you decide.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

No.

He refused service. And it seemed like it was for a specific reason. Unless that reason was applied at other stops to other people then there was some criteria applied. So what was the reason? Only then can you decide.

For his own safety and the safety of his passengers the driver should be the judge, at the time of the incident, of who he lets on the bus. It should not and cannot be judged after the event by people who weren't there. Thanks to the failure of policing in this country bus drivers have a difficult job.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

For his own safety and the safety of his passengers the driver should be the judge, at the time of the incident, of who he lets on the bus. It should not and cannot be judged after the event by people who weren't there. Thanks to the failure of policing in this country bus drivers have a difficult job.

so what was his criteria for refusing service? The driver made the decision, not people who were not there

I agree about lack of police resources, but affecting us all, not just bus drivrrs

 

[Pat ex]

It should not and cannot be judged after the event by people who weren't there.

The vast majority of crimes are judged by people who weren't there at the time of the event.

 

[Pat ex]

Exactly. Without any evidence that the driver discriminated against them on the basis of protected characteristics and did not have a good reason to do so, creating an exemption, we have no evidence that this was a racially motivated unlawful discrimination. It is wrong to assume that because a person has protected characteristics, it must be those which are the basis of the discrimination.

But if there was no other reason to not pick up the passengers other than that the driver assumed they were asylum seekers is unlawful discrimination.

Not wanting to pick up asylum seekers up from that hotel, because of previous problems or a perception of problems, is not unlawful discrimination.

There is only the belated claim from the bus company (not from any drivers) that one bus driver was spat at, but there were no details given of when, nor where this occurred, nor by whom. It is easy to claim one bus driver was spat at, as an excuse for racism, with no other corroborating evidence. If bus drivers are going to refuse to stop for those they perceive as threatening, based on the driver's perception of their ethnicity or nationality, then it is a serious and worrying case of unlawful discrimination. There were corroborating witnesses that the asylum seekers were regularly discriminated against, and this was not an isolated case, which you not only ignore, but seek to excuse for other reasons.

Some bus drivers working on a route near Bristol have been accused of refusing to pick up asylum seekers who live in an isolated rural hotel.

Asylum seekers who need to get into Bristol from the hotel in north Somerset for medical appointments, college classes or legal appointments have little choice but to wait on the A38 for a Stagecoach West bus.
But some asylum seekers and local people have claimed that men have been left at the side of the road by drivers refusing to pick them up.
A local person contacted the police and told them she believed the incident was racially motivated.

Angie Bual, who lives nearby and has been supporting the asylum seekers, said she was “outraged” by reports that the bus did not always stop – and angered at the initial police response.

She said: “The bus is their only transport in and out of Bristol. For some they use it to go to college, health appointments, to receive legal aid – or to simply leave the hotel, which is far from amenities.”

Two asylum seekers waiting for the bus on Monday claimed the bus often drove past them when it was not full.

Bus drivers near Bristol accused of refusing to pick up asylum seekers

Stagecoach West deny finding evidence incident was racially motivated after complaint to police

www.theguardian.com

We must not jump to the conclusion that the driver is a racist, just because they have problems dealing with a certain group of people.

We can assume the driver(s) is/are racist when he/they refuses to stop for asylum seekers for no other reason than they are asylum seekers.
This was not an isolated case.

There is no excuse for such racism, despite your attempts to excuse it for your other imaginary reasons.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

The vast majority of crimes are judged by people who weren't there at the time of the event.

Yes, but judgement is used in other situations, it is not just for crimes.

But if there was no other reason to not pick up the passengers other than that the driver assumed they were asylum seekers is unlawful discrimination.


There is only the belated claim ... that one bus driver was spat at

Discrimination (and prejudice) is a necessity and is quite normal and natural behaviour. If a person has been stung by a wasp it is quite reasonable for him to be cautious of all other wasps, and to want to avoid or eliminate other wasps.

 

[Pat ex]

Yes, but judgement is used in other situations, it is not just for crimes.

Irrelevant.
You said that

It (crime) should not and cannot be judged after the event by people who weren't there.

Which is nonsense. The vast majority of crimes are judged by people who weren't there, and after the event.

Discrimination (and prejudice) is a necessity and is quite normal and natural behaviour. If a person has been stung by a wasp it is quite reasonable for him to be cautious of all other wasps, and to want to avoid or eliminate other wasps.

Discrimination might appear to be normal to some, but in some cases, especially those issues in this thread, it is illegal.
I think you don't understand the definition of the word 'discrimination' in this issue:

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

Discrimination might appear to be normal to some, but in some cases, especially those issues in this thread, it is illegal.
I think you don't understand the definition of the word 'discrimination' in this issue:

The discrimination in this issue might be against people who spit at you rather than against race, age, sex or disability.

The point of my thread is that people need to fight back, as these bus drivers have done. A few years ago, after the sexual abuse scandals in Rochdale, there were people unwilling to get in taxis driven by "Asians" in the town, and these people were requesting white drivers instead. Perfectly reasonable in those circumstances, in that area and after those events.

 

[Pat ex]

The discrimination in this issue might be against people who spit at you.

There was an excuse out forward by the bus company, and not until they were asked.. There was no excuse given by the bus driver, nor any other bus driver, nor any witnesses, i.e. no other corroboration.
There was no explanation by the bus company when, where, by whom this spitting incident occurred.

Stagecoach West insisted it had found no evidence to support the allegations and did not tolerate discrimination. It said one of its drivers had been verbally abused and spat at.

So it was an excuse for why the drivers were not stopping to pick up passengers.
If the drivers were discriminating on the basis of ethnicity or nationality, I suspect their employers would also be at fault. So it was an excuse to protect the company also.