|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 12, 2017 0:28:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 12, 2017 1:07:04 GMT
He was wrong to oppose Muslim immigration and I hope this experience has taught him a lesson. He will not oppose it anymore. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 1:08:13 GMT
Charged after he refused to serve a customer. That's not a thought - that's an action, and an illegal one. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 12, 2017 1:16:25 GMT
Charged after he refused to serve a customer. That's not a thought - that's an action, and an illegal one. 1) No he wasn't. 2) No it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 12, 2017 1:17:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 1:21:05 GMT
Charged after he refused to serve a customer. That's not a thought - that's an action, and an illegal one. 1) No he wasn't. 2) No it isn't. 1) Your own link says he was. "A burger van owner has been prosecuted after he refused to serve a sausage sandwich to a customer." 2) The law society says otherwise : "It is unlawful to refuse to provide a service to a prospective client on the basis of age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex or sexual orientation." |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 12, 2017 1:30:21 GMT
1) No he wasn't. 2) No it isn't. 1) Your own link says he was. "A burger van owner has been prosecuted after he refused to serve a sausage sandwich to a customer." 2) The law society says otherwise : "It is unlawful to refuse to provide a service to a prospective client on the basis of age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex or sexual orientation." 1) The link states he was charged with a "racially aggravated public order offense" 2) You have no legal right to service. Nor can you force a company to accept you as a customer. You have no legal right to enter a place of business or commerce. You cannot be refused service BECAUSE of the things you list, but unless you can show that those were the reasons you were refused service, then you have no case. Any service provider can refuse to serve you, provided they are not being discriminatory on the above grounds. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 12, 2017 1:52:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 12, 2017 2:23:40 GMT
What if you had a business and I didn't like your political views? Should I report you to the police? Will you learn not to have political views I don't like? Is that how adults deal with each other? |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 12, 2017 2:29:00 GMT
1) No he wasn't. 2) No it isn't. 1) Your own link says he was. "A burger van owner has been prosecuted after he refused to serve a sausage sandwich to a customer." 2) The law society says otherwise : "It is unlawful to refuse to provide a service to a prospective client on the basis of age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex or sexual orientation." |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 12, 2017 2:29:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 12, 2017 2:32:44 GMT
Don't you have to wonder about a person who holds political views they cannot defend? Do you honestly feel that Muslim immigration is good for England, even though you are not capable of defending that view? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 12, 2017 2:42:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 12, 2017 2:47:44 GMT
What the heck are you going to do if you come across a business owner who is pro-Brexit? The government isn't going to step in for you unless it's about racism. It must be a terrible feeling to be so helpless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 2:53:28 GMT
1) Your own link says he was. "A burger van owner has been prosecuted after he refused to serve a sausage sandwich to a customer." 2) The law society says otherwise : "It is unlawful to refuse to provide a service to a prospective client on the basis of age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex or sexual orientation." 1) The link states he was charged with a "racially aggravated public order offense" 2) You have no legal right to service. Nor can you force a company to accept you as a customer. You have no legal right to enter a place of business or commerce. You cannot be refused service BECAUSE of the things you list, but unless you can show that those were the reasons you were refused service, then you have no case. 1) Because he refused service. 2) You have no right to deny service on the grounds listed. But he was. Tough titty to him. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 12, 2017 2:54:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 12, 2017 10:26:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jul 12, 2017 11:10:32 GMT
2) You have no legal right to service. Nor can you force a company to accept you as a customer. You have no legal right to enter a place of business or commerce. You cannot be refused service BECAUSE of the things you list, but unless you can show that those were the reasons you were refused service, then you have no case. He kind of confessed to it, going by that article: |
|
|
|
Post by Superdude6091 on Jul 12, 2017 12:58:31 GMT
So as I read through this thread I see a complete misrepresentation of what this man was charged with. He was charged and ultimately convicted on "a religiously aggravated public order offence" This was nothing to do with a refusal to serve somebody although that was the alleged reason for this incident being reported to police. Let's take a look at what religiously aggravated public order offence actually means. So it's clear they used the leaflets he kept in his burger van as an easy way of prosecuting him and finding him guilty under this act. And he could have got a much harsher sentence than he did: Now this recent act has been used as a de facto blasphemy law by certain individuals and groups to stop any criticism of Islam. It is direct attack on free speech within this country. And the man who reported this incident to police revealed that agenda here: Yes and the definition is so broad for what he calls "hate speech" that the agenda is to criminalise all types of speech certain people disapprove of. When the Charlie Hebdo shooting occurred in Paris many members of the board stood up for the right to free expression and free speech to ridicule Islam. In 2017 Britain Charlie Hebdo couldn't exist, its journalists and publishers would be prosecuted and jailed if they even published one issue. And many people don't know that several Islamic groups brought private prosecutions against Charlie Hebdo in an attempt to shut them down. However the French judiciary stood firm and Charlie Hebdo continued to publish until Muslim terrorists used extreme measures in an attempt to silence them You might think this guy's a crusty old bigot but I believe he had a right to say what he did. And as for the accuser you like picking on 70 year old men and taking money from them they can ill afford. Try having that conservation with me and watch what happens. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 12, 2017 13:52:20 GMT
tpfkar Superdude6091 said: No amount of dumping can flush away that he was 1) disturbing the public order, on both his initiation and perseverance, and 2) it was religiously aggravated. Old dude needed to have some sense imparted on him. There's got to be better examples than these invariably atrociously poor ones you guys field.
There is a serious problem within the Muslim Asian community when it comes to the sexual abuse of young girls(mainly white). |
|
Man, you guys are around the bend. He picked a fight with a customer over Muslims. The customer wasn't interested, so he wouldn't serve him the sausage he already ordered. 
