Please boycott Metro Hotel in Woking - read for more details

moore493

Cardelia wrote: »

Trying to argue the soldier stereotype is unrealistic is pointless, not least because you've already admitted the opposite. And yes, you can exclude people on the basis of a stereotype. See my examples in the above post - curfews on the young. No pets in rented accommodation. No students. All enforced on the basis of a stereotype.

I actually said that "[soldiers] belong to a group of people who have been identified as having a greater than average chance of causing trouble". Who's identified them? Well, Kipling for one. And if hoteliers thought that soldiers wouldn't cause any trouble, why would they ban them from staying at their hotel?

Cardelia please tell,

Dont you think these principles are worth defending. To judge one on the behaviour of others is fundamentally wrong is it not. That is the real crux.

And I for one would fight for anyones right whatever their grouping, minority group to not be discriminated against.

I have defended my considered enemies becuae they have been unlawfully attacked i defend their right to their opinion, I very much doubt that you have ever experienced anything similar, so dont talk to me about tolerance.
You have no concept of what you are really discussing here.

MoneyHoney

Originally Posted by MoneyHoney
Why is this a good reason? Young men technicly belong to a group identified as having a greater than average chance of causing trouble but we don't apply that as a reason to ban them from places.

Cardelia wrote: »

Oh yes we do. And it's not just men:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7523084.stm


I've not denied he was turned away because he was a soldier. The whole point of me posting on this thread was to say that turning someone away on the basis that they're a soldier is not necessarily a bad thing. If a hotelier wants to enforce a "no squaddies" rule then that is their prerogative. Yes, in this situation, some common sense could have been applied because the soldier was quite clearly not drunk out of his mind and threatening violence with a group of friends. But it's still the hotelier's decision whether or not to admit squaddies.

Your link above refers to under 16's and not young men. "Parents are being encouraged to have under 10s home by 2000 BST and 16-year-olds off the streets by 2100 BST ". There's some difference between this and the problems caused in town centres/police station/hospitals after pubs/night-clubs close which is what I was using as an analogy. This is a larger group of our society involved in this type of behavior than the few squaddies you keep mentioning. This larger group would not have been refused entry to this Hotel (unless they had a military ID card), nor would an ex prisoner . Therefor my point is why does this Hotel not bar all young men, ex prisoners or young women for that matter?

You keep mentioning 'squaddies' which is a very blinkered way of viewing our forces: Your earlier Quote "The current size of the British Army is just under 100,000 soldiers. If just 0.5% of these soldiers cause trouble in a year, that's almost 500 incidents".

Let's remember the IF in your quote above. The army is not 100 000 of squaddies!
A large proportion of this 100,000 includes married personnel with families. Many are way beyond the age you seem to have as a stereotype.

Another large proportion of this figure will be away on operations, a fairly equal number will be involved in pre-training to take over from those out on operations, another large number will be living overseas (Germany, Cyprus etc), the figure includes Drs/Nurses/ Vets/Pilots/Padre's/Dentists/ bomb diffusers and many other trades requiring far more responsibility than the average job in a local town. Towns and cities have a far higher crime rate per capita (the general population) than the random speculative example above.

This could have been someones Husband/Wife/Mother/Father being banned from this Hotel, purely by showing their military ID. So, turning someone away purely on the basis that they're a soldier is ridiculous.

mymatebob

moore493 wrote: »

Cardelia please tell,

Dont you think these principles are worth defending. To judge one on the behaviour of others is fundamentally wrong is it not. That is the real crux.

And I for one would fight for anyones right whatever their grouping, minority group to not be discriminated against.

I have defended my considered enemies becuae they have been unlawfully attacked i defend their right to their opinion, I very much doubt that you have ever experienced anything similar, so dont talk to me about tolerance.
You have no concept of what you are really discussing here.

TBH I have kind of lost what it is that is meant to be being discussed.

We seem to have moved on to "all soldiers are bad/no they are not/everyone is a bad as each other" sort of theme now.
With bits of "my Dads better than your Dad" type of bravado thrown in for good measure.

A traveller, for he was described as thus, was refused admittance at an hotel.

Hotel has a policy on who it admits.

Does what the hotel did constitute anything illegal does anyone know?


Edit to include this from the above post - This could have been someones Husband/Wife/Mother/Father being banned from this Hotel, purely by showing their military ID. So, turning someone away purely on the basis that they're a soldier is ridiculous.

You may not agree with it but it is not necessarily ridiculous. Unpleasant, thoughtless and immoral perhaps but their hotel their rules.

Cardelia

moore493 wrote: »

As I have previously explained, the whole point of stereotypes is that they are a misreprerentation an exagerated truth, they are not the truth in themselves, you need to grasp that concept before you can even enter into discussion.

Erm, you've not explained that the soldier stereotype is a misrepresentation. You've admitted it's true, here, in post #44:

Of course the stereo type is true thats the point its a true stereotype thats kiplings point!

To judge one on the behaviour of others is fundamentally wrong is it not.

Not necessarily, no. If a man walks into a bank wearing a balaclava and carrying a shotgun, you are going to think the bank is about to be robbed. The man hasn't actually done anything except walk into a bank, and for all you know he may just want to sort out his overdraft, yet you are predicting his future behaviour on the basis of what previous people who walk into banks wearing balaclavas and carrying shotguns have done. That's discrimination (well, actually it's prejudice but this whole thread has used discrimination as a catch-all term). And I'm sure banks have a policy of not allowing people to enter their establishments wearing balaclavas and carrying shotguns. That's discrimination. Are you going to argue that banks should not prevent people from walking into their branches carrying shotguns and wearing balaclavas because it's fundamentally wrong?

Wig

mymatebob wrote: »

You may not agree with it but it is not necessarily ridiculous. Unpleasant, thoughtless and immoral perhaps but their hotel their rules.

Which are probably based on their previous experience, and having had enough of it decided to do this. Trouble is they didn't have the balls to tell the truth to the media.

MoneyHoney

This does, however, have such wider implications.

He was barred not as a traveler but as a traveler with a military ID card. It seems it was because of his job as a serving member of the British Army that he was denied a stay at this Hotel.

It does seem ridiculous to ban someone from a Hotel for no other reason than they are a serving member of the British Army. Just as it would seem ridiculous to ban Postal Workers or Fire Fighters etc.......like I said, this has wider implications.

mymatebob

MoneyHoney wrote: »

This does, however, have such wider implications.

He was barred not as a traveler but as a traveler with a military ID card. It seems it was because of his job as a serving member of the British Army that he was denied a stay at this Hotel.

It does seem ridiculous to ban someone from a Hotel for no other reason than they are a serving member of the British Army. Just as it would seem ridiculous to ban Postal Workers or Fire Fighters etc.......like I said, this has wider implications.

Maybe they do ban other people as well.
If it is illegal then someone should be reprimanded in some way.

Otherwise, I think they, and any other establishment can do what they like.

Some pubs/clubs ban people for all sorts of reasons - there was a thread about this a while back - some may ban soldiers. So?

Tojo_Ralph

moore493 wrote: »

Whats your point.

I doubt I could have explained myself any better...... If you missed the point, so be it.

moore493 wrote: »

You have no idea do you!!!!

You are welcome to yet another one of your opinions based on zero fact.

moore493 wrote: »

You pay your taxes which by bullets and bombs which servicemen use, I suggest if you feel so strongly about violence stop paying your taxes be arrested and criminalised because of it, do some time in prison for you legitimately held beliefs, come out unable to get a job turn to crime and join the violent masses!!!!

It is about now that I really do think that you need to take a long hard look at your combat johnny diatribe and realise that you are responding to comments that were never made.

Cardelia

MoneyHoney wrote: »

Your link above refers to under 16's and not young men. "Parents are being encouraged to have under 10s home by 2000 BST and 16-year-olds off the streets by 2100 BST ". There's some difference between this and the problems caused in town centres/police station/hospitals after pubs/night-clubs close which is what I was using as an analogy. This is a larger group of our society involved in this type of behavior than the few squaddies you keep mentioning. This larger group would not have been refused entry to this Hotel (unless they had a military ID card), nor would an ex prisoner . Therefor my point is why does this Hotel not bar all young men, ex prisoners or young women for that matter?

Well, we're now getting away from the facts of the case. But speaking hypothetically, it would be because that particular hotel had not had problems with young men in general, but because it had had problems with a specific subset of people. Namely, soldiers.

You keep mentioning 'squaddies' which is a very blinkered way of viewing our forces: Your earlier Quote "The current size of the British Army is just under 100,000 soldiers. If just 0.5% of these soldiers cause trouble in a year, that's almost 500 incidents".

Let's remember the IF in your quote above. The army is not 100 000 of squaddies!
A large proportion of this 100,000 includes married personnel with families. Many are way beyond the age you seem to have as a stereotype.

Another large proportion of this figure will be away on operations, a fairly equal number will be involved in pre-training to take over from those out on operations, another large number will be living overseas (Germany, Cyprus etc), the figure includes Drs/Nurses/ Vets/Pilots/Padre's/Dentists/ bomb diffusers and many other trades requiring far more responsibility than the average job in a local town. Towns and cities have a far higher crime rate per capita (the general population) than the random speculative example above.

This could have been someones Husband/Wife/Mother/Father being banned from this Hotel, purely by showing their military ID. So, turning someone away purely on the basis that they're a soldier is ridiculous.

It was a simplistic example to illustrate the point that "a small percentage" does not always equate to a small number, which was the implication being made at the time. I have no idea of the exact numbers involved, so I used round figures and used 0.5% as an example of a small percentage. Frankly, for such a simplistic example, I felt that detailed research to gain accurate figures was totally unnecessary. I'm quite happy to admit that the figures are almost certainly wrong, but the point of the calculation was not to get an accurate number.

Paul_Herring

meester wrote: »

Indeed there is.

But what's your connection to this, Mr. newly registered user who seems to know the area quite well?

Considering it was a reply to my post wondering why he felt the need to martyr himself by sleeping in his car, rather than drive to another hotel, I wonder why the accusation in your reply.