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

[Gromit]

Without bothering to read the link, I assume the Hotel is full with asylum seekers. The hotel is a private business and all its rooms are occupied and being paid for. So they cannot fit anyone else in. So the notice is not discriminating against anyone, it is a polite notice.

[THECORBYLOON]

Is that the sound of barrel-bottoms being scraped that I hear?

[mikey4444]

Agree with Gromit here...you will have to have another go at finding an anti-asylum seeker story aog.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

It is the wording on the notice "closed until further notice to all general public", and not just a "Hotel Full" notice, that's the difference.

[anotheoldgit]

When you exclude a certain group, in favour of another group, then surely that is being discriminative,

[mikey4444]

nonsense aog !

[sp1814]

AOG

There is a slight difference between 'Hotel full' and 'Hotel closed to the general public'.

The second statement is says "We have no more room", whereas the second could be interpreted as , "We have rooms, but we're keeping them in reserve".

However, you cannot discriminate against the general public! because the general public is made up of men! women, different races! different sexual orientations, and the able bodied and handicapped.

So no - I don't think this is properly discriminatory,

[sp1814]

That should read 'The first statement is says...'

[Gromit]

AOG

No it isn't.
If I go to an hotel and it has no vacancies, I am not being discriminated against.
If I ran an hotel business, it is up to me if I decide to fill it with asylum seekers. At the end of the day, I just want paying for someone to occupy a room. It can be the general public paying for a room or the Government paying me to house Asylum Seekers, the colour of the money is just the same.

This is no different than holiday guesthouses filling their rooms with people on housing benefit.

[mikey4444]

The only reason that this news item is being posted is because the Hotel appears to be used for asylum seekers. If it had been fully occupied by people that had been made homeless because of flooding for example, or perhaps because it was being used for a Conference, I doubt if aog would have bothered.

[FredPuli43]

No, it isn't, any more than the Ritz closing its public bars to all who are not already resident is (they do this at Christmas, for example), or a hotel closing its rooms and facilities to all who are not attending the Conservative Party conference is. This is a block booking of the whole hotel, by a local authority. It cannot be discriminating against the 'general public'

AOG, did you pick this story as further evidence, to you, of preferential treatment given to ethnic minorities ? Or is it the waste of taxpayers money that concerns you? If the latter, why did you write about discrimination?

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814
Your 3rd paragraph regarding ''you can't discriminate against the general public because it can contain gays etc, is exactly the point I am trying to make.
The sign says the hotel is closed until further notice to the general public.

[trt]

Nothing surprises me anymore what happens in the UK with the past two Governments!

Quote from article:

The families will stay in the hotel until alternative accommodation is found – and the bill for the taxpayer could be as much as £300,000.

It will probably cost that much to revamp the place when they have left!

[trt]

##The only reason that this news item is being posted is because the Hotel appears to be used for asylum seekers. ##

mikey, yes quite right it should be posted as well, the taxpayers are paying, that's you and us!!!!!

[trt]

## No, it isn't, any more than the Ritz closing its public bars to all who are not already resident is ##

Big difference Fred, they are paying, the asylum seekers don't!

Does anybody know what other Country offers this service, would be interesting to know?

[pixie373]

It is such a waste of taxpayers money. I would prefer it to go to the homeless.

[pixie373]

I believe, from the link, the hotel aren't happy about it, but had no choice.

[bednobs]

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

[FredPuli43]

trt, for your information, some 90 per cent of people who stay at the Ritz are not paying. They are corporate or foreign government customers, paid for by someone else. These asylum seekers are paid for by someone else too.