McDonald's bans tracksuits

[MarinaDiamandis]

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

And no more going straight from the gym to undo all my hard work. Bob Saget!

 

[blaaah]

Statistics of risk are no excuse for discrimination. They are futile when used in a court of law judging on that discrimination. No one in the UK is allowed to divide genders according to statistical risk, the ONLY exemption was the insurance industry. And even that has been a hot issue for many years, the 2004 EU gender directive, focused on it more for very strict controls of what the insurance industry is doing and they must publish concrete facts to support their statistics, and also regularly update and publish them to be in accordance with article 5. 2, the exemption clause. But even this is considered completely out of order as it still discriminates on gender. To which end the insurance exemption is being currently investigated in EU law, challenged by Advocate General Juliane Kokott, who in an opinion delivered to the European Court of Justice on 30th September 2010 advised the court to declare article 5 (2) invalid.
The opinion is not binding, the law will be decided sometime this year. It could be soon that all gender statistical risk differences are made illegal, insurance included, that includes all the other insurances not just car cover but medical etc. also.
The UK 2008 regulations revision allows an easier route for people to claim against discrimination, the burden of proof is now reversed, meaning that if a person claims they have been discriminated against they do not have to provide any proof, it is now down to the other party that they must prove they did not discriminate. The claimant must just establish the facts of the matter, and if the respondent does not adequately explain then a case can go ahead.

Further the The Equality Act 2010 prohibits conduct that discriminates directly or indirectly against someone with a "protected characteristic". Nine such characteristics are listed: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

Which leads me to think Insurers will get stuffed on age related premiums also.

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

They can do it, but they can still be prosecuted for doing so, and it is they who have to provide proof they did not discriminate. For each sports wearing youth could file a claim for discrimination, McDonalds would I beleive have to go to court for each individual case and provide a legal defence. The youth would have to do nothing but confirm he/she was not allowed service and did nothing wrong and believed the discrimination was down to one or more of the protected characteristic's.
McDonalds would not wish for this to happen.

 

[Dapper]

 

[Tornado]

Statistics of risk are no excuse for discrimination.

They absolutely are. And whoever penned whatever EU law that says otherwise clearly has no idea what the word actually means.

the burden of proof is now reversed, meaning that if a person claims they have been discriminated against they do not have to provide any proof, it is now down to the other party that they must prove they did not discriminate. The claimant must just establish the facts of the matter, and if the respondent does not adequately explain then a case can go ahead.

This is completely illogical.

For each sports wearing youth could file a claim for discrimination, McDonalds would I beleive have to go to court for each individual case and provide a legal defence. The youth would have to do nothing but confirm he/she was not allowed service and did nothing wrong and believed the discrimination was down to one or more of the protected characteristic's.

Seriously, having the system set up this way is just asking for the abuse of it.

 

[ledhed]

The older I get the weirder the world gets .

its not fair --it was my turn to be weird.

 

[blaaah]

They absolutely are. And whoever penned whatever EU law that says otherwise clearly has no idea what the word actually means.


This is completely illogical.


Seriously, having the system set up this way is just asking for the abuse of it.

The same thing is happening in the US since last year, over many years women have been charged much more for medical insurance than men, the reasons must be statistically based on overall risk (child bearing factors). New senate bills have been made to amend that issue, as it's gender bias.
You may think logically the maths of statistics or basic science should rule. But the law has to apply morality and ethics to society, and statistics separating characteristics do not have any legitimate voice in that aspect. I'm not saying that's right or wrong but that is the way it is with law and discrimination.

 

[Keef]

Ever considered that maybe, just maybe, modern discrimination laws are wrong, and that discrimination isn't properly understood? Why would you say "but the law says so" if the law is wrong?

 

[blaaah]

I think the law needs mentioning when people say a private business can make it's own rules of service, when actually it can not.
In the end the public can decide the laws of it's country (supposedly), if the consensus is that it feels wrong then maybe it could change. That's certainly not the direction it is heading in though. It is becoming more and more protective.

 

[GTP_Ingram]

I can't help but feel my local McDonald's would lose about 98% of their demographic if they enforced this rule. They would be left with just myself, and anyone else looking to purchase a hangover cure.

 

[Famine]

That sign is unenforceable in any legal sense

You might want to check on that. Some States actually have that as a law - and it's worth noting that while I agree with the right of the private business owner to adopt and enforce that rule I don't agree with it being required by law.

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.

And that sounds either fair or logical to you?

They can do it, but they can still be prosecuted for doing so, and it is they who have to provide proof they did not discriminate. For each sports wearing youth could file a claim for discrimination, McDonalds would I beleive have to go to court for each individual case and provide a legal defence. The youth would have to do nothing but confirm he/she was not allowed service and did nothing wrong and believed the discrimination was down to one or more of the protected characteristic's.
McDonalds would not wish for this to happen.

Yeah, they could organise themselves and file a class action tracksuit.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Statistics of risk are no excuse for discrimination. They are futile when used in a court of law judging on that discrimination. No one in the UK is allowed to divide genders according to statistical risk, the ONLY exemption was the insurance industry. And even that has been a hot issue for many years, the 2004 EU gender directive, focused on it more for very strict controls of what the insurance industry is doing and they must publish concrete facts to support their statistics, and also regularly update and publish them to be in accordance with article 5. 2, the exemption clause. But even this is considered completely out of order as it still discriminates on gender. To which end the insurance exemption is being currently investigated in EU law, challenged by Advocate General Juliane Kokott, who in an opinion delivered to the European Court of Justice on 30th September 2010 advised the court to declare article 5 (2) invalid.

So they'll get rid of age discrimination as well, allowing older people to pay less life insurance, and younger people to pay more?

Which leads me to think Insurers will get stuffed on age related premiums also.

And this shows how naive your whole argument is. If they enforce "equality" then all they'll do is raise the female insurance and keep the male the same. So no one saves money, insurers simply make more.

 

[ledhed]

Big giant Fat lady wears tracksuit...customers flee .

is that the issue ?

 

[Moglet]

Yeah, they could organise themselves and file a class action tracksuit.

Oh god....
Im all in favour of this ruling, I've never seen anyone in McDonalds wearing a tracksuit who isn't basically an ape. I work with one, he has no respect for anyone and thinks he owns the place. He appears to not have fully evolved. His arms swing about loosely like a gorilla, his face looks like the troll from Fellowship Of The Ring and he can't speak properly. If people like him are banned I have no problem with waiting for my mate to change after going to the gym before heading for a burger.

 

[DK]

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

• Chav/Jersey Shore cast clothing/accessories
• Cargo Pants
• Chav/Jersey Shore cast clothing/accessories

You're so evil!

 

[birksy82]

Will they ban chavved up saxos and corsas etc from the drive through next?

Or what if your wearing a tracksuit while in your car at the drive through will you be banned then?

 

[FoolKiller]

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.

Wait. What support? The article just says advice. See your quote below.

''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.

And I ask you again (since you blatantly ignored me the first time) where is your evidence that the police aren't actually doing something to attempt to curb the illegal activities that have created this problem? You have presented none so far and to say the police are doing any more or less than just offering the advice mentioned in the article, os to comment on it either way is being presumptuous.

The fact is the article isn't about what the police are doing, so there is no details regarding the police. In fact, all we have is a quote from teh restaurant manager, which the reporter does not bother to verify.

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

Like private property rights?

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.

Well, I didn't expect bouncers at the door. The first person you interact with at McDonald's is the front counter person, and people tend to walk up and just start rambling off their order. It sound to me like that is what happened and when he stopped talking long enough for her to say something she explained the policy.

That is assuming his story is true. He also claims he had to wear a shirt and tie to get service. So, I am expected to believe he went home, put on his Sunday best and then went back to a McDonald's that just turned him away based on his clothing? How bad did he want that Big Mac? Or was he looking to create a media story? Sounds to me like this is a case of exaggeration or purposeful media sensationalization by this guy.

Or are we supposed to just 100% believe the word of everyone who complains about unsatisfactory service?

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.

Odd, when I worked at Meijer I have seen people escorted out by security for violating that rule. I also once had security tail a guy for wearing a heavy coat in the summer. The amusement park I worked at gave you one warning for not wearing a shirt or shoes before escorting you out. When food or heavy objects are involved it is unsafe and unsanitary to allow shirtless and shoeless people to wander around. I toured a brewery once, where certain kinds of foot wear was banned by law. Nothing could be exposed below the ankle.

Be careful of what you think the law says.

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 I can't ask a man disturbing customers to leave? Never mind that I disagree with that law personally (see the Rand Paul senatorial campaign issues from May in the Congress 2010 thread to see my stance on this), but the simple fact is that the group they associate with must be demographically based. Saying they associate with track suit wearers does not cut it. That is a choice of clothing, not a demographic group. Sure, anyone can file discrimination charges but how they actually play out in court is what matters. And that means the often media ignored appeals court ruling that overturns most of these frivolous lawsuits. Don't forget that when Oprah claimed racism was why a closed store wouldn't open just for her the rest of the world laughed at her. People can claim whatever bullcrap they want, but they have to prove it. The burden of proof is on them.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

Wait. What support? The article just says advice. See your quote below.

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

Again I don't care about private business/property, they can do what they want and we can exercise our distaste for their policy with our wallets.

Now you said it's a quote from a member of staff and unverified, and if bad journalism is the case then fair enough, I would have nothing to be unhappy about. But if as the article has stated it's through advice from the local police and they are working with (which would be the support part) them to implement a policy of profiling and discrimination, I find that appalling.

 

[FoolKiller]

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

Again I don't care about private business/property, they can do what they want and we can exercise our distaste for their policy with our wallets.

Now you said it's a quote from a member of staff and unverified, and if bad journalism is the case then fair enough, I would have nothing to be unhappy about. But if as the article has stated it's through advice from the local police and they are working with (which would be the support part) them to implement a policy of profiling and discrimination, I find that appalling.

I worked with a guy yesterday to get help on a project. I sat at his desk asking him for advice since he has had to do one of these before.

It is an ambiguous statement. Unless you can show me where cops are showing up and enforcing this rule then all we have is the police telling them to see if refusing to serve these guys will make them go elsewhere.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

I worked with a guy yesterday to get help on a project. I sat at his desk asking him for advice since he has had to do one of these before.

It is an ambiguous statement. Unless you can show me where cops are showing up and enforcing this rule then all we have is the police telling them to see if refusing to serve these guys will make them go elsewhere.

We've got side tracked here as to the nature of support. I mean I support Manchester United (in spite of being from Manchester I know) but I don't go down on the pitch and try and play for them. I watch/listen to the games on tv/radio and hope they win.

The police may not be on the scene doing the door job for them, but from the statements taken in the article it's quite clearly sounds like the manager has their support and is being advised by them in his actions.

 

[FoolKiller]

The police may not be on the scene doing the door job for them, but from the statements taken in the article it's quite clearly sounds like the manager has their support and is being advised by them in his actions.

I fail to see why that is an issue.

 

[Max Powers]

The police may not be on the scene doing the door job for them, but from the statements taken in the article it's quite clearly sounds like the manager has their support and is being advised by them in his actions.

Over here, the motto of the police is "to protect and serve". Sounds to me like the police are simply doing their job.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

Over here, the motto of the police is "to protect and serve". Sounds to me like the police are simply doing their job.

I fail to see why that is an issue.

Because they are also there to protect and serve the public. Which includes normal, decent people who are being tarred with the same brush. If you come from a certain background this is just how you dress. As a teen at that age it's how I dressed because it was socially important to be wearing brand name clothes so that every one didn't call you a 'stig' and it was just normal, I didn't know any different until I showed up to do music in college and found people initially resistant to speak with me because I was apparently a 'trendy'.

To be told we won't serve you because you look like trouble to an entire demographic of people because that's the visual marker most identified be the people forming the prejudice is wrong.

 

[ASH32]

Over here, the motto of the police is "to protect and serve". Sounds to me like the police are simply doing their job.

Well it sounds to me like the police are just hoping the problem will go away, as they can't be bothered to deal with it as the courts will let the thugs causing the trouble off anyway, that always happens. Whatever way you look at it, the police advice is rubbish as it isn't dealing with the problem properly, it is at best, moving it somewhere else.👎 Mcdonalds are doing the only thing they can do, but while Mcdonalds may be yob free, somewhere else won't be.

 

[FoolKiller]

Because they are also there to protect and serve the public. Which includes normal, decent people who are being tarred with the same brush. If you come from a certain background this is just how you dress. As a teen at that age it's how I dressed because it was socially important to be wearing brand name clothes so that every one didn't call you a 'stig' and it was just normal, I didn't know any different until I showed up to do music in college and found people initially resistant to speak with me because I was apparently a 'trendy'.

To be told we won't serve you because you look like trouble to an entire demographic of people because that's the visual marker most identified be the people forming the prejudice is wrong.

So, are you saying the police should instead arrest the restaurant manager instead of doing the best he can to stop the trouble before it starts?

Is a fashion style a protected demographic? Really? Employers can use it to discriminate, why not business men?

Well it sounds to me like the police are just hoping the problem will go away, as they can't be bothered to deal with it as the courts will let the thugs causing the trouble off anyway, that always happens. Whatever way you look at it, the police advice is rubbish as it isn't dealing with the problem properly, it is at best, moving it somewhere else.👎 Mcdonalds are doing the only thing they can do, but while Mcdonalds may be yob free, somewhere else won't be.

Where does the article say the police aren't doing anything on their own? Where does it say they are? Claiming the police are avoiding their jobs is making a presumption.





I do find it interesting that this situation has brought up the subject of prejudice, and then people are making assumptions about how the police are acting. Pre-judging them in fact.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

And if any one wants an example of how effectively the police deal with the kinds of people who are the problem have a read of this.

I actually know the guy this is about and can tell you he was 3 times over the limit by the time they managed to actually test him, and that was just the alcohol not the other things he was on. He threatened the chasing driver with the broken bottle and resisted arrest when the police finally arrived. So that's driving under the influence, drugs possession, hit and run, threatening behaviour and resisting arrest. Five crimes in total and I can assure you there is no remorse and apparently some community service is fitting for someone like that.

 

[FoolKiller]

And? Your point would be?

 

[Famine]

His sentence is nothing to do with the police, rather the criminal justice system and, most notably, the Crown Prosecution Service, who are a bunch of useless

 

[BigYoSpeck]

His sentence is nothing to do with the police, rather the criminal justice system and, most notably, the Crown Prosecution Service, who are a bunch of useless

That's a fair point.

And? Your point would be?

That the reason McDonalds feel they are forced to resort to excluding an entire demographic is due to those who are genuinely the problem not being effectively dealt with by the legal system.

 

[FoolKiller]

That the reason McDonalds feel they are forced to resort to excluding an entire demographic is due to those who are genuinely the problem not being effectively dealt with by the legal system.

You specifically mentioned the police. They appear to have done their job here.

I am starting to wonder if you have a personal issue with police.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

You specifically mentioned the police. They appear to have done their job here.

I am starting to wonder if you have a personal issue with police.

I'm a law abiding citizen who sees injustice on a day to day basis while other law abiding citizens pay the costs so yes I have issue with not just the police but the whole system which is to blame.

I'll hold my hands up, with my example I lumped the police and prosecution service together, the police on the street did their job just fine there, the failing was in the leniency of the prosecution. And it's not the police on the street I'm unhappy with over the McDonalds issue, it's who ever in a position of responsibility would advise and support McDonalds with a prejudicial, discriminatory action.