Who's been eating my carp?

[philocalist]

Noticing how many responses this thread had attracted, I had another, closer look at the original article; the closer I look at this, the more it smells.

First off, the signs ARE racist; there's no grey area to argue here, it's a very simple, plain fact. If' you substituted 'Eastern Europeans' (which, incidentally EXCLUDES POLES ... they are NOT classed as 'Eastern European' despite what our 'educated' newspapers would have you believe! ) for 'Blacks', Asians' or - God forbid ... 'Muslims' ... there would be war on the streets over it - go figure THAT one out?

I'm not going to speculate on the true motivation for putting up the signs - I'm guessing that it was maybe initially a knee-jerk reaction to uneducated comments made to him, which was reported by a member of the public, since such time it's been milked for its publicity.

The article talks of '£10,000 of carp being stolen' - in the video, the owner talks of stocking THREE lakes (totalling, I estimate at least 6 acres) with just short of that value of fish - a slight difference, no?

Now, I could be missing something here - I've only had slightly less than 30 years experience dealing with fisheries and fish farms - but re-stocking of lakes is pretty much par for the course on commercial fisheries - and £10,000 split over 3 lakes / 6 acres doesn't go very far, particluarly when one of them is apparently a specimen carp water.

 

Ignoring all of the above, whose fault is this, really? Don't misunderstand me, I'm not condoning fish theft by anyone (including the home-grown muppets who will happily and blithely 'liberate' large specimen carp from one water to relocate to another lake in which they have an interest), but this guy is supposedly running a business, and apparently doing bugger-all to safeguard it - as any normal business might expect to do as a matter or routine.

He's selling day tickets: WHY sell them to 'Eastern Europeans' if he has a problem with them? The sale could be declined at that point for many reasons, not least of which might be the inability to produce a current EA licence ... no racism involved at all, just selective admission, for which he needs give no reason whatsoever.

There is no night fishing allowed - yet these people (to whom he sells a ticket - are apparently turning up at closing time .........

No keep nets allowed unless it's for silvers only ......

Even at night, this place must be populated to some degree - it's a campsite, amongst other things, and in my experience, people who willingly break the law rarely do so in full public gaze.....

The whole think is riddled with anomalies - but as someone once said, why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

[Phone]

Steve,

 

You are of the same "RACE" as EE's. (different culture)

 

Phone

[Phone]

Steve,

 

I guess I'm asking - if the sign said "NO EE ethnic anglers allowed" would that be racist?

 

Phone

[nick]

Phone, as you are either incapable of or unwilling to click on a link which would help you to understand the law as it stands in England I have copied the content of my earlier link here the paragraph in italics is of particular assistance:

 

What is Race Discrimination

The RRA sets out the circumstances in which discrimination on the grounds of race is unlawful. It defines four types of discrimination: direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimisation and harassment.

Direct Race Discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when a person treats you less favourably on racial grounds than he or she would treat, or treats, some other person.

The RRA defines ‘racial grounds’ as being on the grounds of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. Most people think of race discrimination as being less favourable treatment on the grounds of colour or race. However, discrimination on the grounds of nationality, ethnic or national origins is equally unlawful. Thus if a workplace contains Afro-Caribbean and African employees and the employer treats the African employees less favourably by allocating them the menial or less interesting work, that could amount to less favourable treatment on racial grounds. Similarly, if a Japanese bank offered its services to Korean customers on less favourable terms than those offered to other customers the bank’s actions could constitute less favourable treatment on racial grounds.

It is equally unlawful to treat someone less favourably on the grounds of another person’s race, so that it is discrimination to treat a white employee less favourably because he or she has a black partner. Similarly, if a white employee were dismissed for refusing to obey his or her employer’s instructions to refuse to serve Asian customers, he or she would have a direct discrimination claim under the RRA.

Sometimes direct discrimination is very obvious, but it can be more subtle. The following are all examples of direct discrimination:

• Racist name-calling or abuse.
• Refusing to give someone a job or promote him or her because of stereotyped ideas about his or her abilities or conduct, based on his or her race.
• Refusing to give someone a job or promotion on the grounds that customers will not like being served by a person of that race.
• A pub or club operating quotas to prevent black members or customers from exceeding a specific number or proportion.

Generally, you need to point to someone compared to whom you have been treated less favourably, called a ‘comparator’. However, if you cannot do this, the court or tribunal considering your case should construct a hypothetical comparator for you.

The intention and motive of the discriminator are irrelevant to the question of whether a person has been subject to unlawful direct discrimination on the grounds of race. Moreover, race does not need to be the sole or even the principal reason for the way someone is treated for the treatment to be discriminatory. Discrimination can be made out if race is a contributing cause in that it is a "significant influence" on the treatment in question.

Segregation on racial grounds is defined by the RRA as a particular type of direct discrimination. Providing separate washing facilities for white and Asian employees, even if the facilities are of the same standard, might be an example of segregation on racial grounds. Similarly, only employing ethnic minorities in ‘back room’ roles where they have no contact with the public but allowing others a full range of roles and duties might be an example of segregation on racial grounds.

Indirect Race Discrimination

Indirect discrimination aims to challenge practices and procedures which on their face apply in the same way to everyone but which in practice have different, unfair effects on certain groups.

Indirect race discrimination is defined in the employment context and several others as being the application of a specific provision, criterion or practice, which places a racial group at a disadvantage, in a way that cannot be justified. You can only bring a complaint if you suffer the disadvantage yourself. The following are examples of indirect race discrimination:

• A policy that requires all employees to be clean-shaven, as this would put Sikhs in general at a disadvantage.
• A practice of excluding job applicants who live in a certain area of a city where that area is occupied by a higher proportion of ethnic minority people as this would put ethnic minority candidates at a disadvantage.

U nlike direct discrimination, indirect discrimination can be justified. If the person doing the discrimination can show that the provision, criteria or practice is objectively justified on grounds other than race, then the discrimination will not be unlawful.

There is another, older, legal definition of indirect discrimination which refers to a ‘condition or requirement’ rather than a ‘provision, criterion or practice’. Although the new definition applies to claims of discrimination in employment, education, services and certain public functions such as healthcare, the old definition will continue to apply to other sorts of discrimination, which makes the law in this area complex. Therefore, if you consider that you have been indirectly discriminated against you should consider seeking specialist help.

Victimisation

Victimisation occurs when one person treats you less favourably than he or she treats, or would treat, someone else in those particular circumstances because you have done any of the following 'protected acts':

• Alleged that the discriminator or any other person has committed an act which (whether or not the allegation so states) would amount to a contravention of the RRA.
• Brought proceedings against the discriminator or any other person under the RRA.
• Given evidence or information in connection with proceedings brought by any person against the discriminator or any other person under the RRA.
• Otherwise done anything under or by reference to the RRA in relation to the discriminator or any other person.

The same also applies if the discriminator knows that you intend to do any of those things or suspects that you have done, or intend to do, any of them.

If bringing a claim, it is not necessary for you to show that the alleged discriminator was consciously motivated by the fact that you had done a protected act.

Allegations of discrimination must be made in good faith in order to be protected by the victimisation provisions of the RRA. An example of a situation in which a claim of victimisation might arise is where an employee accuses his or her boss of discriminating against him or her on the grounds of race and as a result of the complaint is demoted or disciplined. Alternatively, if a white colleague suggests that a manager has treated a black employee unfairly and then finds him or herself ostracised or subject to unwarranted criticism from that manager or his employer, this too might amount to unlawful victimisation.

Racial Harassment

Regulations introduced in 2003 amended the RRA to make it unlawful for an individual to harass you on racial grounds at work, in education, services and some other areas such as healthcare. Harassment is defined as unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating your dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for you, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins. This should be a useful tool for those who have been subjected to repeated bullying at work, as it is a more straightforward definition than that of direct discrimination. It should, however, be noted that, for technical reasons, harassment is only unlawful if it is on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins and not nationality or colour.

Edited April 14, 2013 by nick

[chesters1]

Its a shame in this day and age you cannot be racist ,in other words you become second class to foreigners who have no such restrictions in their country ,the first sign of trouble facing them (real or imagined) and out come the flag burning and banners .

Typical british softness

I cannot see still how banning eastern europeans is racist as there is no such country or even race

On the other hand a certain section of society often play tbe race card and get everything they damn well want ,seems it only works one way

Try setting up for instance a white version of this

http://www.nbpa.co.uk

Perhaps the chap (for safety reasons) should only allow people fluent in english in incase (for their own safety ofcourse) they may not read a sign erected for their protection

Trouble is in this damn country he would probably be forced to erect them in their bloody language

If its his lake ,land ,garden or home he should be allowed to allow or not allow anyone in he damned well chooses and warn those he doesnt want in just as you can burglers ,hawkers, door step sellers and other undesirables

Edited April 14, 2013 by chesters1

[Tigger]

Its a shame in this day and age you cannot be racist ,in other words you become second class to foreigners who have no such restrictions in their country ,the first sign of trouble facing them (real or imagined) and out come the flag burning and banners .

Typical british softness

I cannot see still how banning eastern europeans is racist as there is no such country or even race

On the other hand a certain section of society often play tbe race card and get everything they damn well want ,seems it only works one way

Try setting up for instance a white version of this

http://www.nbpa.co.uk

Perhaps the chap (for safety reasons) should only allow people fluent in english in incase (for their own safety ofcourse) they may not read a sign erected for their protection

Trouble is in this damn country he would probably be forced to erect them in their bloody language

If its his lake ,land ,garden or home he should be allowed to allow or not allow anyone in he damned well chooses and warn those he doesnt want in just as you can burglers ,hawkers, door step sellers and other undesirables

 

 

Couldn't agree mor chesters !!

I find it funny how anyone I speak to all have that same opinion and yet on the internet the do-gooders come out beating their racist drums !

[Steve Walker]

Steve,

 

You are of the same "RACE" as EE's. (different culture)

 

Phone

Indeed - however the definition in UK law includes national and ethnic origin. "No Irish" is treated the same legally as "No blacks".

 

Would US law treat "No Mexicans" differently to "No Hispanics"?

[Phone]

Nick,

 

Unwilling. I am suggesting the sign denotes "cultural differences" not racial differences as defined by RRA. However Chesters1 is wrong also. The fishery owner cannot allow or not allow at his choosing it he benefits from a fee (commerce).

 

Another of the British "habits" that stick in my craw is the use of acronyms. For example, contact RRA to get your CRE publications. (one of many attached)

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/PSD/35_red_local_government_procurement_guidelines.pdf

 

 

Phone

BTW - I would "guess" the issue is about race. It's not the point that the guy is an uneducated jerk. He could be found 'stupid' IMO but not 'racists'.

[Phone]

Steve,

 

You came along whilst I was typing.

 

No Mexicans is OK. BUT - you can't say "NO - fence fairys" or "river niggers" (in reference to a persons border crossing status)

 

I'm in no way an expert on British "do gooders" or racial issues. I am an American "do gooder" and I don't believe the guy was "smart" enough to be politically correct. That's his crime.

 

Phone

[wotnobivvy]

Nick,

 

Unwilling. I am suggesting the sign denotes "cultural differences" not racial differences as defined by RRA. However Chesters1 is wrong also. The fishery owner cannot allow or not allow at his choosing it he benefits from a fee (commerce).

 

Another of the British "habits" that stick in my craw is the use of acronyms. For example, contact RRA to get your CRE publications. (one of many attached)

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/PSD/35_red_local_government_procurement_guidelines.pdf

 

 

Phone

BTW - I would "guess" the issue is about race. It's not the point that the guy is an uneducated jerk. He could be found 'stupid' IMO but not 'racists'.

Phone,

 

You complained about abbreviations, not acronyms. Get it right Then to demolish your argument you used two abbreviations in your final comment

Edited April 14, 2013 by wotnobivvy