McDonald's bans tracksuits

[FoolKiller]

'Fascism (pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology'

We don't want you to dress like this because in our Dailymail view of the world people who do are no good. The Germans blamed the Bolshevik Jews for Germany's economic troubles and rallied the every day people behind their persecution and now rather than tackling the real causes of crimes the police are pointing the finger in a dangerously broad sweeping way.

Wow, I'd hate to find out what you think school uniforms are if you think a single store refusing to serve people dressing in a certain style is comparable to events leading to the holocaust.

No this policy is a recommendation by the local police:

''The local police are working with us at the moment and their advice is to take a zero tolerance approach.''

So rather than doing any policing they are selling them snake oil.

Actually the article is rather light on what else the police are or are not doing. Unless you have information that I don't I would say you are drawing your own conclusions. For all you know part of "the police are working with us at the moment" is anything from just this to having a patrol officer always at the restaurant. In fact, had the manager not been explaining how they came about the idea the police wouldn't be mentioned in this story at all.

If this were a story about youth violence and the police response I would see your point, but right now all this details is the policy. Nothing outside that narrow topic is covered.

Note the "shirt and shoes". There's a US phenomenon of "white trash" wandering around outside barefoot and barechested (similar to the UK phenomenon of people wandering around outside in their pyjamas in less salubrious housing areas) and many establishments refuse entry or service to these individuals. They put up signs saying "No shirt, No shoes, No service".

Nothing to do with this case. Thus:

This kind of sign can be found in nearly every McDonald's in the US.





This song can be found on nearly every country station in the US.

This man can be found in nearly every Walmart across America.

 

[NFSCARBON1]

A 'Chav' is generally someone who can't be bothered to work for a living, drinks a lot, goes on the dole as soon as possible, wears tracksuits, lives in a council house, mouths off at everything that moves and thinks their a 'Gangsta'.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

Thanks for reminding us of the definition. Now explain how any of those things apply to this situation, because:
This isn't radical.
This isn't authoritarian.
This isn't nationalistic.
This isn't political.
This isn't even an ideology.

For crying out loud, it is a dress code put in place (only partially, even!) in a single privately owned store which is part of a multinational business franchise. How that is remotely analogous to pre-war Germany I'll doubt I'll ever understand, but please explain if possible.

Fascism is a slippy slope. Germany didn't wake up one morning and as a nation think right, eugenics that sounds like a pretty good idea. It was seeped into the public consciousness that their countries failings were because of a certain group of people, this helped a demoralised nation pick it self up and feel proud again. The persecution was a gradual thing, signs in shop windows saying 'no Jews', then making them wear an arm band and so on and so on.

I mean the very phrases 'white trash', 'chav' are prejudice and small minded. I've had 2 guys in track suits try and mug me, I've had eggs thrown at my window by people in track suits and I've had 'mosher!' yelled at me by them. Three very different levels of anti-social behaviour, but yet we would group them all in as being 'chav' because they all shop at JJB?

As for a school uniform comparison, that is an ordered structured environment with purpose. At the end of the day most of us end up in a work environment with a dress code so that is just preparation. Outside of those hours it's meant to be a free society but here we are saying that if you fall under a certain demographic defined simply by what you wear you aren't welcome.

 

[Joel]

Fascism is a slippy slope. Germany didn't wake up one morning and as a nation think right, eugenics that sounds like a pretty good idea. It was seeped into the public consciousness that their countries failings were because of a certain group of people, this helped a demoralised nation pick it self up and feel proud again. The persecution was a gradual thing, signs in shop windows saying 'no Jews', then making them wear an arm band and so on and so on.

I mean the very phrases 'white trash', 'chav' are prejudice and small minded. I've had 2 guys in track suits try and mug me, I've had eggs thrown at my window by people in track suits and I've had 'mosher!' yelled at me by them. Three very different levels of anti-social behaviour, but yet we would group them all in as being 'chav' because they all shop at JJB?

As for a school uniform comparison, that is an ordered structured environment with purpose. At the end of the day most of us end up in a work environment with a dress code so that is just preparation. Outside of those hours it's meant to be a free society but here we are saying that if you fall under a certain demographic defined simply by what you wear you aren't welcome.

But this isn't a slippery slope at all, nor is it fascism... It's a private business regulating itself. Nothing more.

 

[FoolKiller]

Outside of those hours it's meant to be a free society

Thus why a private business owner is allowed to exercise his property rights by saying you have to meet a certain criteria to be served.

 

[FryImaging]

Changing what people wear won't change how they act.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

A McDonald's restaurant in Lancashire, UK has banned sports style clothing worn by under 18's after 7pm.

[...]

This contrasts to France which I believe has completely banned the religious dress of Muslims, the full head covering types of clothing I believe.

I just wanted to point out these two comments. These cases are not separated by a fine line. They are separated by the Grand Canyon.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

Thus why a private business owner is allowed to exercise his property rights by saying you have to meet a certain criteria to be served.

A local corner shop is one thing. My local won't let more than 2 children in at a time. They can't afford the risk caused even by a small minority.

But this is advice being issued by the police, the people who are paid with tax money from a great number of people who may well fall victim to this discrimination.

If this was just a private business taking these steps, I wouldn't bat an eye lid. I don't eat at McDonalds, and quite frankly they would be doing the people they turn away a favour. It's the support from the police I find offensive.

 

[Tornado]

Fascism is a slippy slope.

Fascism is slippery slope. Fascism also generally requires government action to actually be the root cause of the so-called "fascist" ideals. Not private establishments.

Germany didn't wake up one morning and as a nation think right, eugenics that sounds like a pretty good idea. It was seeped into the public consciousness that their countries failings were because of a certain group of people, this helped a demoralised nation pick it self up and feel proud again. The persecution was a gradual thing, signs in shop windows saying 'no Jews', then making them wear an arm band and so on and so on.

There is a rather massive cause and effect relationship that you seem to be missing here.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

Are people just not reading the article or prior posts that this action is through advice and support of local police, who are public servants of local authority, i.e. government.

 

[Dotini]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

'Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.'
---Benito Mussolini

Fascism's theory of economic corporatism involved the management of sectors of the economy via government or privately controlled organizations (corporations). Each trade union or employer corporation would, in theory, represent its professional concerns, especially through negotiation of labor contracts and the like. This approach, it was theorized, could result in harmony amongst social classes. Authors have noted, however, that de facto economic corporatism was used in specific instances of silencing opposition and rewarding political loyalty.[38]

In Italy from 1922 until 1943, corporatism became influential amongst Italian nationalists led by Benito Mussolini. The Charter of Carnaro gained much popularity as the prototype of a 'corporative state', having displayed much within its tenets as a guild system combining the concepts of autonomy & authority in a special synthesis. This appealed to Hegelian thinkers who were looking for a new alternative to popular socialist & syndicalist stances which was also a progressive system of governing labor and still a new way of relating to political governance as a whole. Alfredo Rocco spoke of a corporative state and declared corporatist ideology in detail. Rocco would go on to become a member of the Italian Fascist regime Fascismo.[39]

Italian Fascism involved a corporatist political system in which economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level.[40] This non-elected form of state officializing of every interest into the state was professed to better circumvent the marginalization of singular interests (as would allegedly happen by the unilateral end condition inherent in the democratic voting process). Corporatism would instead better recognize or 'incorporate' every divergent interest as it stands alone into the state organically, according to its supporters, thus being the inspiration behind their use of the term totalitarian, perceivable to them as not meaning a coercive system but described distinctly as without coercion in the 1932 Doctrine of Fascism as thus:

[The state] is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual... Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State... Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers.[41]

This prospect in Italian fascist corporatism claimed to be the direct heir of Georges Sorel's anarcho-collectivist, wherein each interest was to form as its own entity with separate organizing parameters according to their own standards, only however within the corporative model of Italian fascism each was supposed to be incorporated through the auspices and organizing ability of a statist construct. This was by their reasoning the only possible way to achieve such a function, i.e. when resolved in the capability of an indissoluble state. Much of the corporatist influence upon Italian Fascism was in part due to the Fascists' attempts to gain support of the Roman Catholic Church that itself sponsored corporatism.[42]

However fascism's corporatism was a top-down model of state control over the economy while the Roman Catholic Church's corporatism favoured a bottom-up corporatism, whereby groups such as families and professional groups would voluntarily work together.[42][43] The fascist state corporatism influenced the governments and economies of a number of Roman Catholic countries, such as the government of Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria and António de Oliveira Salazar in Portugal. Fascists in non-Catholic countries also supported Italian Fascist corporatism including Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists who commended corporatism and said that "it means a nation organized as the human body, with each organ performing its individual function but working in harmony with the whole".[44] Mosley also saw corporatism as an attack on laissez-faire economics and "international finance".[44]

 

[Tornado]

Are people just not reading the article or prior posts that this action is through advice and support of local police, who are public servants of local authority, i.e. government.

I read the article. It simply does not say what you are acting like it does. FoolKiller even specifically asked if you had some other knowledge of this news that isn't in the article.

 

[blaaah]

That sign is unenforceable in any legal sense as it is has no connection to what it is intended for, it's just the word No followed by three other words, it has not attribution to rules or any meaning. It's basically just a picture.

Thus why a private business owner is allowed to exercise his property rights by saying you have to meet a certain criteria to be served.

This is overruled by discrimination laws which state that any private business which offers a service must offer that service to anyone without discrimination. To block a certain group from service is against the law. If the people can associate themselves to a group then they can demand service or take the private business to court.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

I read the article. It simply does not say what you are acting like it does. FoolKiller even specifically asked if you had some other knowledge of this news that isn't in the article.

''The local police are working with us at the moment and their advice is to take a zero tolerance approach.''

''We are taking advice at the moment and the police have been brilliant with us. We are taking a zero tolerance approach for the short term.''

So our public servants, paid for with tax money, when confronted by a tax paying corporation on issues of crime advise them and support them to impose prejudicial and discriminatory measures, something that the police are not even permitted to do.

If the police stopped you for any reason you are within your right to ask why they selected you, and if they answered because you are wearing a track suit they would be in a whole mess of trouble.

 

[blaaah]

It depends if the police comment was from low ranking staff or written approval from high level officers. There are as we know many idiotic police personal that would be better studied in a zoo, just as there are great police staff as well that are a great asset to the community. "Police" approval can mean anything. We don't really know what it means, I'm pretty sure it would not be an official state sanctioned policy. It would need to be debated in the Commons first. In short I don't think it is a policy, and if people took a dim view of that action or comments from the police I think they could get it reversed by taking legal action against the police or the shop involved. It depends if people care enough though.

 

[Danny]

Just consider this a precursor to the era in which I am boss of the world, whereupon I shall be banning the following:

• Tracksuits
• Anything velour
• Ugg Boots will be banned outright with death penalty on sight.
• Sandals and Crocs
• Male fake tans
• 'Ironic' lenseless nerd glasses. Fine for Michael Cera. Unholy for everyone who is not Michael Cera.
• ALL ED HARDY PRODUCTS, INCLUDING ALL FUTURE PRODUCTS.
• Maxi Dresses/Skirts/Blouses
• Jumpsuits and Ponchos
• Male T-Shirts that have some fake retro business name on. 'Chuck's Garage 55' doesn't make it acceptable.
• Cargo Pants
• Hawaiian shirts
• Chinos.
• Arc Leg Chinos will carrier a heavier penalty.
• Piping pants
• Anything beige
• Berets, Bobble hats, hunter caps and baseball caps.

And once I've banned all these, you will all humble yourself and bow in reverence.

 

[Tornado]

That sign is unenforceable in any legal sense as it is has no connection to what it is intended for, it's just the word No followed by three other words, it has not attribution to rules or any meaning. It's basically just a picture.

Someone comes into my restaurant without a shirt and/or shoes. I ask them to leave. They don't. I call the cops. They go to jail, probably for Trespassing.
Sounds pretty enforceable to me.

This is overruled by discrimination laws which state that any private business which offers a service must offer that service to anyone without discrimination. To block a certain group from service is against the law. If the people can associate themselves to a group then they can demand service or take the private business to court.

This is only true if you can prove that discrimination was the basis for the refusal. Keep in mind that laws surrounding such discrimination are incredibly hypocritical, as well.
It would look pretty bad if I was tossed some guy out of my restaurant because he was black. If I tossed said black guy out of my business because he was disturbing other customers with indecent language, the color of his skin is absolutely immaterial to his ejection regardless of what he claims.

''The local police are working with us at the moment and their advice is to take a zero tolerance approach.''

''We are taking advice at the moment and the police have been brilliant with us. We are taking a zero tolerance approach for the short term.''

None of this equals fascism. It equals, at most, "The police are telling us that we are able to do this on our own private property." It in no way means "the police are the ones who told us to implement this policy," nor does it mean "the police will start implementing similar policies in public places."
In fact, the very idea that the police cannot do such a thing (which you so proudly brought up) is probably the reason that the McDonalds implemented this policy in the first place.

So our public servants, paid for with tax money, when confronted by a tax paying corporation on issues of crime advise them and support them to impose prejudicial and discriminatory measures, something that the police are not even permitted to do.

Which is why the police aren't doing it. The police aren't the ones forcing people to not wear tracksuits in McDonalds after a certain time at night. The police by and large have nothing to do with this situation at all, which is probably why they were only mentioned in passing a grand total of two times in the entire article.

If the police stopped you for any reason you are within your right to ask why they selected you, and if they answered because you are wearing a track suit they would be in a whole mess of trouble.

Profiling isn't anywhere near as cut and dried as you are portraying it to be. And it never is.

 

[MatskiMonk]

This is overruled by discrimination laws which state that any private business which offers a service must offer that service to anyone without discrimination. To block a certain group from service is against the law. If the people can associate themselves to a group then they can demand service or take the private business to court.

So many ways to get round that it must be un-enforcable!

Actually, it's just occured to me.. terms and conditions of sale!!! if you have a problem with them, draught your own terms and conditions of purchase and get the manager of McDonalds to sign it... ... shyeah enjoy your Whopper!

 

[blaaah]

Someone comes into my restaurant without a shirt and/or shoes. I ask them to leave. They don't. I call the cops. They go to jail, probably for Trespassing.
Sounds pretty enforceable to me.


This is only true if you can prove that discrimination was the basis for the refusal. Keep in mind that laws surrounding such discrimination are incredibly hypocritical, as well.
It would look pretty bad if I was tossed some guy out of my restaurant because he was black. If I tossed said black guy out of my business because he was disturbing other customers with indecent language, the color of his skin is absolutely immaterial to his ejection regardless of what he claims.

What you say is correct, but does not apply for the article at McDonalds, It bans a group from service, It is not banning tracksuits as people with tracksuits who are over 18 can get served, and it is not banning people who are under 18 as they can get served if they are not wearing a tracksuit. It is specifically targeting a group of people which is absolute discrimination and is illegal I believe. I would like to see it go to court to see what a Judge thinks.
What it is like is saying you will not serve any black people who are disturbing customers but you will serve white people who are disturbing customers, you can argue black people are not discriminated because if they are well behaved you will gladly serve them. But what you are in fact doing is still discriminating against colour as you allow white people to be disturbing to customers. I hope that analogy works, if not properly you get my point.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

In fact, the very idea that the police cannot do such a thing (which you so proudly brought up) is probably the reason that the McDonalds implemented this policy in the first place

Not too far back you couldn't be detained without trial. Civil liberties are handed over one reasonable step at a time.

It's a knee jerk reaction to a problem and it indiscriminately targets people of a certain socioeconomic status. I mean statistically speaking, most uninsured drivers probably drive a car 10 or more years old. How would people on here who for economic reasons drive such a car feel if they were refused entry to car parks?

 

[blaaah]

Re: Descrimiation laws:

So many ways to get round that it must be un-enforcable!

Actually, it's just occured to me.. terms and conditions of sale!!! if you have a problem with them, draught your own terms and conditions of purchase and get the manager of McDonalds to sign it... ... shyeah enjoy your Whopper!

Just recently in the news a Christian couple got prosecuted because they refused to let a couple of men stay in their hotel/Bed and Breakfast.
They had a policy of married couples only, the two men were legal civil partners the equivalent of marriage. The men took the couple to court and the Judge ruled it was discrimination. He said the husband and wife were offering a public service and their private business had to abide by the rules of law, the fact of their religion not approving of same sex marriages does not exempt them from the law.

 

[Tornado]

It bans a group from service

But it is not doing that. It is banning a specific type of clothing from being worn by a specific group of people after a specific time. It is basically a curfew with very specific parameters.

Now, it is being done in the hopes of keeping the groups that wear said clothing out of the restaurant, but it isn't actually banning said group from the restaurant. And even if banning certain clothing from being worn in private businesses was a legal gray area (and, outside of religious garb, it isn't), there isn't a judge in the world who would rule against it when it is only being done in the first place to try to keep people from being threatened by those who the restaurant feels typically wear such clothing.

Not too far back you couldn't be detained without trial. Civil liberties are handed over one reasonable step at a time.

Probably true. This situation has nothing to do with that.

It's a knee jerk reaction to a problem

Probably.

and it indiscriminately targets people of a certain socioeconomic status.

No it doesn't.

I mean statistically speaking, most uninsured drivers probably drive a car 10 or more years old. How would people on here who for economic reasons drive such a car feel if they were refused entry to car parks?

The only way this analogy would be remotely comparable is if the people who drove said cars were committing crimes when they entered the car parks.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

The only way this analogy would be remotely comparable is if the people who drove said cars were committing crimes when they entered the car parks.

Driving uninsured is a crime.

 

[Tornado]

One that is irrelevant to the analogy.
Employees of a McDonalds having their life threatened by people generally associated with a single group is a crime that directly concerns the people who own the McDonalds.
Someone driving a car uninsured is not something that directly concerns the owners of the car park.



This is basically a meaningless distinction anyways, because the analogy is still pretty much incomparable to this news story.

 

[blaaah]

But it is not doing that. It is banning a specific type of clothing from being worn by a specific group of people after a specific time. It is basically a curfew with very specific parameters.

Now, it is being done in the hopes of keeping the groups that wear said clothing out of the restaurant, but it isn't actually banning said group from the restaurant. And even if banning certain clothing from being worn in private businesses was a legal gray area (and, outside of religious garb, it isn't), there isn't a judge in the world who would rule against it when it is only being done in the first place to try to keep people from being threatened by those who the restaurant feels typically wear such clothing.

True, It is in some sense voluntary as those groups can choose to wear something else ( unless as I mentioned in the beginning it was a religious dress code). But the 'spririt' of the rule is discriminatory one might argue.
Why can't they just have a rule that any bad behaviour will have zero tolerance and the police will be called for any disorder.
Of known youths they don't want in the store they can post a picture in the window and say this person is banned. This is what happened in my town, but the police were involved as that person had an anti-social behaviour order against them. But that may have been temporary as i would have thought it would have breached privacy laws having their image displayed in public.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

One that is irrelevant to the analogy.
Employees of a McDonalds having their life threatened by people generally associated with a single group is a crime that directly concerns the people who own the McDonalds.
Someone driving a car uninsured is not something that directly concerns the owners of the car park.

This is basically a meaningless distinction anyways, because the analogy is still pretty much incomparable to this news story.

Well if they collide with an insured customer or staff member it is.

But that's besides the point I wasn't aiming for a 100% like for like example I was simply aiming for something that I'm sure people on here can appreciate and relate to. A situation where by because of a chance statistic you could find your self discriminated against.

It also doesn't change one of my first points, in the news story the lad was able to get to the counter and order in a reasonable manner before being refused service because 'he looked like trouble' at that point if he had been trouble the staff member was already in danger and only likely to provoke him.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Wow, people are comparing wearing a tracksuit to gender, creed and religious discrimination.

Are you guys for real?

It's a very simple, enforceable law. No different to charging men below 25 more for car insurance than females of the same age. It's not a prejudice, it's a fact, a statistically enforced fact. Same as under 18s that wear tracksuits to Mcdonalds are more likely to cause problems.

 

[hayden walker]

This is pathetic they are clearly discriminating people for what they are wearing who's to say every under 18 is a chav im 16 and wear tracksuits because thats what i find comfortable and like wearing along with my other jeans etc shorts

this is exactly the sort of thing that is driving this country into the gutter instead of targetting the real problem the "chavs" the normal human beings like me coming home from college cant buy a happy meal cos of what i have on its pathetic.

It doesnt matter bout what you wear to a fast food restraunt its hardly the hilton hotel for godsake,

arent you allowed to wear what u want to go buy a processed burger out of mcdees.

If things like this arent looked into what does the future hold a ban on young people buying a bottle of cola incase they do damage with it get a grip:tup:

 

[Stevisiov]

McDonalds can ban anyone from entering, I don't see what the problem is. Their venue, their rules.

 

[F1GTR]

Great, now I can no longer roll out of bed and get breakfast there.