Homophobia at the Premier Inn

Indie_Kid

ThumbRemote wrote: »

The equalities act contains a provision that a practice is discriminatory if "it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it,
and it isn't "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."

So if the practice of blocking the keyword 'lesbian' put lesbians at a particular disadvantage over non-lesbians then it is discriminatory and illegal. I'd think it's fairly easy to show that this is the case: it makes it impossible to search for lesbian friendly bars, clubs, social networks, etc.

Unless, of course, it's a proportionate measure - which given there are much better internet filters around is unlikely to be the case.

It's not discrimination if it can be justified.

daytona0

ThumbRemote wrote: »

I really don't think a criticism of OPs website or business was necessary. And certainly not so from someone whose business acumen doesn't stretch to them being able to afford £5.99 to buy a new keyboard.

I do.... should it rank number one on google (keyword: lesbian) then I can kinda side with OP to an extent. Should it not rank on page 1 then I can't really support it.

The criticism (which is evident to anyone without business acumen) is just trying to give the OP a bit more perspective as their site is slightly limited (should it be OP's site) and so they shouldn't be acting like they have a spot on the 1st page o google when you type in "lesbian"


Also, I own a laptop so it is either replace the laptop or buy a PC. No point as this is still working ok despite the 2 broken keys. I suppose I could buy a USB keyboard but that is just unnecessary clutter



I will concede though that typing "Lesbian" into google *seems* to dislpay harmless sites in general. Not sure whether I have a ilter on at the moment or not but an interesting result

daytona0

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Blocking the word 'lesbian' is certainly a means of doing that. I'm not sure it's proportionate, since there are plenty of alternative ways of blocking adult websites which don't cause discrimination to lesbians.

Can't you argue that the premier inn simply restrict the service 4 ALL users and not simply those people who are lesbian?

That is my interpretation o discrimination. Were Premier Inn to give access to everyone EXCEPT lesbians then that would be discrimination. But they have removed access 4 everyone (citing a valid reason) and so they can't be discriminating solely against lesbians.... just as they aren't discriminating against gay men, or islamic terrorists or any other group.


As I previously said they could just give you access to your email account. Does that discriminate against pretty much everyone?

CC-Warrior

Thunderxx wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I own a lesbian social network with around 100, 000 members.

18 months ago I stayed at the Premier Inn at Heathrow and was annoyed and upset when I was unable to get onto my website because their firewall blocked the keyword Lesbian stating that it was "Harmful to the young public".

There is absolutely no adult content on my website.

I had several emails and calls with their complaints department who said that it would be changed.

I hadn't been to another Premier Inn until Friday night when I took my partner to London for her Birthday.

I needed to make a small change on my site that I could not do from an Apple device so I used the public computer provided by the Premier Inn.

To my dismay any site that has a keyword of lesbian is blocked because it is "Harmful to the young public".

I feel that it is out-dated homophobia. If keywords belonging to other minority groups were banned I think lawyers would be suing for discrimination!

What does anyone else think and has anyone any advice on how I can try to get this changed?

Thanks in advance,

Jane

The public internet terminal was probably locked down in addition to the filters in place, with it being a public machine and in view of the general public.

You could have tethered your internet connection on your phone and used that instead.

ThumbRemote

daytona0 wrote: »

Can't you argue that the premier inn simply restrict the service 4 ALL users and not simply those people who are lesbian?

That is my interpretation o discrimination. Were Premier Inn to give access to everyone EXCEPT lesbians then that would be discrimination. But they have removed access 4 everyone (citing a valid reason) and so they can't be discriminating solely against lesbians.... just as they aren't discriminating against gay men, or islamic terrorists or any other group.


As I previously said they could just give you access to your email account. Does that discriminate against pretty much everyone?

You could argue that, but your definition of discrimination is not the extent of the law. It covers direct and indirect discrimination; indirect discrimination is something the in some way disadvantages a person because they have one of the protected characteristics.

There's a bit more definition on this website: http://www.victorianhumanrightscommission.com/www/simplified-definitions

For example if someone can use a Premier Inn PC to research 'nights out', an older person can use it to research 'nights out for the elderly', a disabled person can use it to research 'nights out with disabled access' but a lesbian cannot research 'nights out in lesbian friendly bars' then that could be indirect discrimination.

Coopdivi

SlowCooker wrote: »

I might be wrong but I think this thread is just an ad for the "lesbian social network with around 100.000 members"

I wouldn't have thought that they would have any members.

tomtontom

ThumbRemote wrote: »

You could argue that, but your definition of discrimination is not the extent of the law. It covers direct and indirect discrimination; indirect discrimination is something the in some way disadvantages a person because they have one of the protected characteristics.

There's a bit more definition on this website: http://www.victorianhumanrightscommission.com/www/simplified-definitions

For example if someone can use a Premier Inn PC to research 'nights out', an older person can use it to research 'nights out for the elderly', a disabled person can use it to research 'nights out with disabled access' but a lesbian cannot research 'nights out in lesbian friendly bars' then that could be indirect discrimination.

Odd that you have omitted to respond to my post. PI restrict access to a myriad of sexual terms, including those relating to heterosexuals. How can you assert that one group is disproportionately affected when all groups are affected?

JReacher1

You can find discrimination anywhere if you look hard enough.

The trick is to fight discrimination that's actually important and worthwhile doing.

Fighting to let you search for the word lesbian on the public computer in a premier inn doesn't strike me as being something worth fighting for!

daytona0

ThumbRemote wrote: »

You could argue that, but your definition of discrimination is not the extent of the law. It covers direct and indirect discrimination; indirect discrimination is something the in some way disadvantages a person because they have one of the protected characteristics.

There's a bit more definition on this website: http://www.victorianhumanrightscommission.com/www/simplified-definitions

For example if someone can use a Premier Inn PC to research 'nights out', an older person can use it to research 'nights out for the elderly', a disabled person can use it to research 'nights out with disabled access' but a lesbian cannot research 'nights out in lesbian friendly bars' then that could be indirect discrimination.

Putting in place a rule or way of doing things that has a
worse impact on someone with a protected
characteristic than someone without one, when this
cannot be objectively justified (known as indirect
discrimination).


It can be objectively justiied....

Two points;

1. You seem to be gunning 4 a case law or legislation which could potentially end up having such public services restricted as Premier Inn MAY decide, should they be discriminating here, to scrap the service. This could potentially be over a 100k member and 6 year old site which is shadowed by countless lesbian !!!!!! sites on google. Also, setting such a precedent would ensure that other lesbian sites would claim discrimination so they may otherwise need to remove the block on lesbian words which would give children access to !!!!!!.


2. Who cares? There is no intentional discrimination as they are obviously protecting children and OP (and you) should respect that on a moral level. It is a non issue really but I'm not going to lie you MAY be right in what you are sticking up 4. It would just be a silly thing to pursue on this occasion because it is not genuine discrimination.

Valli

The lad (law student) says it's not discrimination; also that it would be financially unfair to expect PI to vet, and check, every website for content. It's not discriminatory because the motivation behind it is not intended to discriminate (against lesbians, in this example) but to protect other users.

They have taken the view that the simplest way to ensure vulnerable people (children) are not exposed to content their parents/carers might not approve of is to block searches involving a RANGE of key words, one of which is lesbian.