Is This Being Discriminating Towards The General Public?

[anotheoldgit]

/// A note on the hotel entrance states: ‘Dear all, please note the hotel is closed until further notice to all general public. We are sorry for the inconvenience caused.’ ///

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2519280/Dozens-asylum-seekers-luxury-hotel-NINE-WEEKS--costing-taxpayer-300-000.html

[emmie]

no, but agree with Pixie, waste of money, i wonder if the hotel is happy with the arrangement.

[LazyGun]

I am still not getting this "discrimination to the general public" thing. If your are trying to equate the note in the door of the hotel in this occasion with actual,discriminatory notes posted in hotels - notes like "no blacks, no irish" then you would be wrong.

I am struggling to see the discrimination here.

[anotheoldgit]

bednobs

/// it cannot possibly be discriminatory - "the general public" includes everyone ///

Open to asylum seekers, closed to the general public, discriminatory towards the general pubic, get it?

[ummmm]

lol...but it's not. They are full.

[emmie]

you need to spell check, general pubic, oh ho ho...

[jackthehat]

The hotel management are informing anyone turning up on the off-chance that they have no available rooms.

How would you word such a notice?

[emmie]

closed to genuine customers.

[jackthehat]

Gosh.....and that's in no way insulting to the people they have staying there!

The hotel has rooms 'for sale' and they have all been 'sold', all the management need is to communicate this fact to any door-steppers.

[bednobs]

as "the general public" also includes asylum seekers, still not getting your point (unless you are suggesting every single UK asylum seeker is actually in this hotel)

[emmie]

genuine means paying customers, not asylum seekers, unless they do pay of course, which is not my understanding of the matter, going on the link.

[emmie]

which is the purpose of the post, that they have been all stuck in this hotel at a set rate, which the taxpayer ultimately picks up, or did i read it completely wrong.

[bednobs]

so, you were to pay for a night at a hotel out of, say, your pension, or your child benefit, or your income support are you not a genuine customer (because really it's the taxpayer paying it)?

[jackthehat]

Really?
AOG seemed to be asking if the note was discriminatory rather than taking issue with the actual reasons behind this hotel being fully occupied.

[FredPuli43]

AOG it has contracted for block booking and , happily for the owners, the hotel is full in consequence.

You post this particular case of block booking because the people booked in a foreign, ethnic minority, asylum seekers, therby ticking three of your favourite boxes at once. Next time the Conservative or Labour Party or some international conference of, say, doctors, block books a hotel to capacity, we can look forward to you complaining about discriminating against the general public and saying that a notice saying that the hotel is not open to the general public is discriminatory, can we ?

[emmie]

gromit, friends ran a guesthouse and when they had trouble because out of seasons bookings went down, bad weather was part of the problem they were referred by social services to take in benefit claimants, i don't think they wanted to, but needs must.

[emmie]

general public is us all. however perhaps he means those who have landed here with no where to stay, asylum seekers in this case - going on how long it could take to process their cases, i wonder how long they get to stay in that hotel, or are moved on to other premises?

[emmie]

bednobs there is significant difference being that in my case if i chose to spend a night in a hotel which quite honestly would be very unlikely, that money would come from current benefits, which i have very generously contributed to from a lifetime of work. Whereas those people have not, there is a difference. How is it that we don't hold holding centres for asylum seekers whilst their claims are being investigated, and not hotel, B&B and whatnot.