ChatterBank1 min ago
Everyday Racism Or Sensible Business Practices?
I’m going for the former.
This is clearly prejudiced behaviour (in that the waiter was prejudging the customers based on their race alone).
http://
This is clearly prejudiced behaviour (in that the waiter was prejudging the customers based on their race alone).
http://
Answers
jackdaw - // If I go to the local Chinese/
10:40 Tue 01st May 2018
-- answer removed --
TTT - // It's people like you that make this such hard work as we are not allowed to react to the inescapably obvious lest we be labelled with and "ist" //
'People like me' as you so politely put it, live in a socieety where rulea against dsicrimination exist to protect innocent people from prejudice based on colour.
Can you say that your restaurant has a higher proportion of black people who skip without paying, that white people? Yes you can.
Can you instigate a policy where you make black customers pay in advance because they are black, and therefore by inference may be criminals? No you can't.
'People like me' as you so politely put it, live in a socieety where rulea against dsicrimination exist to protect innocent people from prejudice based on colour.
Can you say that your restaurant has a higher proportion of black people who skip without paying, that white people? Yes you can.
Can you instigate a policy where you make black customers pay in advance because they are black, and therefore by inference may be criminals? No you can't.
you keep repeating it Andy but you do not tell us why we must ignore known risk scenarios lest we be labelled. Once I went to Gibraltar and the animals there very quickly become tiresome , they rip open your bags to steal food. They sell heavy canvas bags to stop that, are they/I being simianist? No, they are merely reacting to what they know will happen if you do not react. PS before you start frothing this is not a racist comparison merely an analogy that fits well.
YMB - // Clearly AH does not own a restaurant so is ok with known groups doing a runner from them. //
I do not own a restaurant, but I am conversant with the concept of, and laws governing racism.
The notion of 'known groups' in this context shows that you appear to think that the restaurant's policy is justified.
No problem - except that it is against the law.
I do not own a restaurant, but I am conversant with the concept of, and laws governing racism.
The notion of 'known groups' in this context shows that you appear to think that the restaurant's policy is justified.
No problem - except that it is against the law.
-- answer removed --
andy-hughes
/// Perhaps so - but assuming that one black customer running before paying means that all black customers will potentially do the same, is racism. ///
Yes but we don't know it was just one black person who did a runner do we? Perhaps they had a particular reoccurring problem with a particular group, this is not the UK, different countries have their own particular problems.
/// Perhaps so - but assuming that one black customer running before paying means that all black customers will potentially do the same, is racism. ///
Yes but we don't know it was just one black person who did a runner do we? Perhaps they had a particular reoccurring problem with a particular group, this is not the UK, different countries have their own particular problems.
TTT - // you keep repeating it Andy but you do not tell us why we must ignore known risk scenarios lest we be labelled. //
I am running out of ways to explain the same thing, but I will have one more go.
If you want to assume that black customers are more likely to do a runner, then that's your choice. What you are not able to do is to make a blanket presumption that black customers are a risk simply because they have black skin.
If you have an issue with customers skipping, then charge everyone upfront, and that's fine.
Charging black customers only is not fine, it's racist and it's illegal.
I really don't want to have to do this again, so if you don't grasp what I am saying, then we will simply have to agree to differ.
// Once I went to Gibraltar and the animals there very quickly become tiresome , they rip open your bags to steal food. They sell heavy canvas bags to stop that, are they/I being simianist? No, they are merely reacting to what they know will happen if you do not react. PS before you start frothing this is not a racist comparison merely an analogy that fits well. //
It's not an analogy that fits at all, never mind well!
How can you compare the measures in place to prevent wild animals from acting on instinct which cannot be altered, and must be allowed for, with the notion of deciding that an entire ethnic group are potential criminals, and the best way to prevent them from being criminals is to make them pay up front, and allow the white criminals who skip out without paying to get away with it.
I believe I have explained my point well enough and often enough - if you don;t understand what Iam saying, then we must leave it there.
I am running out of ways to explain the same thing, but I will have one more go.
If you want to assume that black customers are more likely to do a runner, then that's your choice. What you are not able to do is to make a blanket presumption that black customers are a risk simply because they have black skin.
If you have an issue with customers skipping, then charge everyone upfront, and that's fine.
Charging black customers only is not fine, it's racist and it's illegal.
I really don't want to have to do this again, so if you don't grasp what I am saying, then we will simply have to agree to differ.
// Once I went to Gibraltar and the animals there very quickly become tiresome , they rip open your bags to steal food. They sell heavy canvas bags to stop that, are they/I being simianist? No, they are merely reacting to what they know will happen if you do not react. PS before you start frothing this is not a racist comparison merely an analogy that fits well. //
It's not an analogy that fits at all, never mind well!
How can you compare the measures in place to prevent wild animals from acting on instinct which cannot be altered, and must be allowed for, with the notion of deciding that an entire ethnic group are potential criminals, and the best way to prevent them from being criminals is to make them pay up front, and allow the white criminals who skip out without paying to get away with it.
I believe I have explained my point well enough and often enough - if you don;t understand what Iam saying, then we must leave it there.
-- answer removed --
TTT - // what we have taken nearly 100 posts to say here is that inj modern society we are not allowed to react to known problems, we must endure, or AH and cop will call us nasty names. I doubt AH has ever run any sort of retail establishment, well not for long anyway. //
No-one, including me, has suggested that we must not react to known problems.
If the restaurant has an issue with skippers, they charge up front with a nice big notice explaining why. People who are happy to pay do so, people who are not happy eat elsewhere.
I have not called anyone 'nasty names', I simply repeatedly and doggedly refer back to the law, which we all have to live by.
You don't get a swerve because some black people have ripped you off - that's not how laws operate.
No-one, including me, has suggested that we must not react to known problems.
If the restaurant has an issue with skippers, they charge up front with a nice big notice explaining why. People who are happy to pay do so, people who are not happy eat elsewhere.
I have not called anyone 'nasty names', I simply repeatedly and doggedly refer back to the law, which we all have to live by.
You don't get a swerve because some black people have ripped you off - that's not how laws operate.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.