[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Carers UK Forum • disability discrimination - Page 2
Page 2 of 2

Re: disability discrimination

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:40 pm
by Sparklingtechie
Is there a notice up in the bar saying "only people who can actually sing will be allowed to use the mike?" Or has anyone previously been denied the use of it? If not, it's just as likely to be an attempt to get around discrimination laws. I've heard some really awful examples. But no one ever stops them...do they?

And if the answer is no, there really is only one conclusion.
No there is an assumption not a conclusion...these things are used at managers discretion in ANY venue there is no law saying they have to provide this notice, if you read some of the comments of the people that know the manager you will read as I have, they all know that going on the karioke and screaming down it is not accepted.

Re: disability discrimination

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:41 pm
by Sparklingtechie
the manager is a new one. He had not heard them.He told them that evening, a karaoke night. He let them buy drinks first. Their money is good enough, just not their voices.
Yes he told them that evening, where does it say he had not heard them? this is what is in print...


He said: “These guys definitely can’t sing and they keep getting up every week. Don’t get me wrong, we have people who are totally tone deaf and those who aren’t ever so clever at singing up there, but they’re not up there every week.”

so he must of heard them
Mr Bartholomey denied the group had been banned from singing at the karaoke in future, adding: “If they want to come along and have a go every couple of weeks that’s fine.

As for money being good enough not just their voices then that quite frankly is the buisness world all over...nothing new...money always speaks...there is nothing in what has been reported that says discrimination...if anything the quote from the article above proves the very opposite.

Re: disability discrimination

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:08 am
by charles47
Sorry, I don't agree. There are several things wrong here.

Firstly, you don't pointedly ignore one table when handing out the song sheets. You have a word with them about it.

Secondly, they claim it's about one individual - named - and then say it's all of the group. Are they ALL lacking any vocal talent? Or is it an assumption based on prejudice?

Thirdly, if there is a rule it must be seen to be applied fairly - the onus is on the business to show that it has done so, hence my comment that there is only one conclusion if they are the only ones who have ever been prevented from singing.

Fourthly, the suggestion is that they "hog" the mike. Apparently, mainly on the grounds that the group go every week and want to take part every week. Is anyone else prevented from taking part every week? Is there any evidence that this manager understands that for people with a learning disability there is a tendency to go for routines? Ignoring that point, has he never heard of "regulars"? Most pubs have at least one or two customers who are in every night, let alone every week. And where there are karaoke nights, there are also regulars - some talented, some less so.

Finally, if it's about a total lack of talent, as claimed in the statement for the press, why is he suggesting allowing them to take part "every couple of weeks"?

There are so many inconsistencies in the pub's version of what is going on here that any lawyer would have a lot of fun.

Re: disability discrimination

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:37 am
by Guest
I agree with Charles and I also believe that his statement, albeit unwittingly, gave an insight into his attitude towards people with LD.

Re: disability discrimination

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:43 am
by Sparklingtechie
Sorry, I don't agree. There are several things wrong here.

Firstly, you don't pointedly ignore one table when handing out the song sheets. You have a word with them about it.

Secondly, they claim it's about one individual - named - and then say it's all of the group. Are they ALL lacking any vocal talent? Or is it an assumption based on prejudice?

Thirdly, if there is a rule it must be seen to be applied fairly - the onus is on the business to show that it has done so, hence my comment that there is only one conclusion if they are the only ones who have ever been prevented from singing.

Fourthly, the suggestion is that they "hog" the mike. Apparently, mainly on the grounds that the group go every week and want to take part every week. Is anyone else prevented from taking part every week? Is there any evidence that this manager understands that for people with a learning disability there is a tendency to go for routines? Ignoring that point, has he never heard of "regulars"? Most pubs have at least one or two customers who are in every night, let alone every week. And where there are karaoke nights, there are also regulars - some talented, some less so.

Finally, if it's about a total lack of talent, as claimed in the statement for the press, why is he suggesting allowing them to take part "every couple of weeks"?

There are so many inconsistencies in the pub's version of what is going on here that any lawyer would have a lot of fun.
Charles you are welcome to your opinion as everyone the world over is. I went on the evidence said and presented in the article.

Lets look at all 3 of your points

Your point no 1...Yes they were ignored, yes it was rude, no it is not discrimination to be rude.

Your point no2 ...That sounds more like bad reporting than anything to do with the people concerned.

Your point no 3.. it is only your opinion the onus is on the buisness, it is not law. Again something that is unfair is not the same as discrimination.

Your point no 4...my reply is the same as to Lazydaisy
He said] as you can tell from the way that has been said...he has heard them...it was only lazydaisy saying that he hadn't...now unless shes been there and knows the place .....

Your final point...because he is being kind...did that not occur to you?

Re: disability discrimination

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:43 am
by Sparklingtechie
This seems to have posted twice so I edited this one as I can't delete.

Re: disability discrimination

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:45 am
by Sparklingtechie
I agree with Charles and I also believe that his statement, albeit unwittingly, gave an insight into his attitude towards people with LD.
You're more than welcome to agree with him Image and yes peoples attitude to those with LD can be abysmal...I am not denying that....I'm simply showing that I do not see, from the evidence presented, discrimination.

Re: disability discrimination

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:09 am
by rabidrabbit
I have read the articles relating to this and it looks as if the landlord is reacting to the behaviour of other customers who he claims are being put off attending the sessions and this could affect his business. The carers of the young men also have a responsibility to teach the young men appropriate social skills. It could only be discrimination if people without learning a disability who behave in the same way are treated differently. If the group can prove that anyone else who hogs the mike and sing badly are treated differently then they might have a case.

Re: disability discrimination

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:31 pm
by Lazydaisy
On that basis, it is very difficult to prove discrimination.

My husband was a guide dog owner. He went to the cinema with our younger son a few years ago.He wouldn't see much,but the cinema had a policy at that time that children under the age of 16 had to be accompanied,and it was a teenage film that my son wanted to see.They went,and my husband was refused access because of his guide dog. They said it wasn't discrimination because they would not have allowed anyone in who had a dog,and they were just treating him the same as anyone else!Thankfully, the authorities declared that it was discrimination,and the cinema had to change its policy.

Re: disability discrimination

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:12 pm
by charles47
Charles you are welcome to your opinion as everyone the world over is. I went on the evidence said and presented in the article.

Lets look at all 3 of your points

Your point no 1...Yes they were ignored, yes it was rude, no it is not discrimination to be rude.

Your point no2 ...That sounds more like bad reporting than anything to do with the people concerned.

Your point no 3.. it is only your opinion the onus is on the buisness, it is not law. Again something that is unfair is not the same as discrimination.

Your point no 4...my reply is the same as to Lazydaisy
He said] as you can tell from the way that has been said...he has heard them...it was only lazydaisy saying that he hadn't...now unless shes been there and knows the place .....

Your final point...because he is being kind...did that not occur to you?
Sorry, I still disagree] is [/b]the law. They have to prove they are not acting unlawfully.

“The residents would only sing one or two songs each week depending on how busy the pub was, and they were in no way ‘taking over’." - the manager of the residential home, in the same article. Who's got most to lose in the "he said she said" war? Not the manager of the residential home, that's for sure.

Two different stories about who decided - the pub owner says the karaoke organiser, who blamed the pub's owner. Hmmm.

"Mr Bartholomey said he was not aware of any complaints being made against James’s singing, but said he believed people had left the pub on occasions because of it." - so guilty by inference without evidence, then?

And no one has supplied any evidence that others have been treated in the same way, just that they "can be asked to desist" - meaning "stop", not "don't start".

Finally, there's nothing kind about being allowed to turn up and pay for your drinks but never be sure whether or not you'll actually be allowed to do what everyone else is being allowed to - because they haven't even tried to explain it to you.