You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
nor do those saying it is down to the individual to make their ID match their “look”
Well, sure. People change their 'look' all the time. I have friends who don't have the same haircut month-to-month. Most of my photo ID is sporting ponytail and goatee, I've had neither for years. Yet I still get recognised by people I haven't seen since infant school, I don't even recognise me from back then. It would be ludicrous to suggest that I get a new passport every time I shave.
Yet in this tale, the victim was sufficiently different from their photo ID that they were allegedly unrecognisable. So either:
a) the 'spoons staff were talking bollocks,
b) she should have updated her ID,
c) she should realise and accept that her photo ID is no longer valid.
And I appreciate (with Jon's input, thank you) how difficult b) might be, she might not want to do that until she's got other ducks in a row and can change everything over in one bounce. But it says in that very article that she's been having issues with ID for 18 months now so refusal shouldn't have been sufficient of a surprise that she ran away crying unless there's more to it than reported and the staff were being horrible to her about it.
a) the ‘spoons staff were talking bollocks
We can’t know, we haven’t seen the photoID. It could be that they made no real effort to see if it was the same person in the photo given the information that she was trans. We can’t judge that.
But it says in that very article that she’s been having issues with ID for 18 months now so refusal shouldn’t have been sufficient of a surprise that she ran away crying
If on previous occasions, an explanation from her, and a second close look at the ID, has proven sufficient… then not having her explanation excepted this time could obviously still be upsetting, not hard to empathise with that, is it?
Agreed.
But we can't automatically conclude the opposite either. As you say, we can't know.
And y'know,
If we saw both her and the ID, that wouldn't necessarily change anything. Unless it was very obviously the same person or very obviously apparently not, it's all subjective.
Which is why, from the start of this thread, I have said that we can not judge the staff … but then people are keen to judge the woman … just as you have by saying she shouldn’t be upset when her explanation of being trans didn’t lead to the reappraisal of her ID in the way she was expecting … or that she should have updated her ID, when there can be many reasons for a young trans person not doing so, or not being able to do so.
then not having her explanation excepted this time could obviously still be upsetting, not hard to empathise with that, is it?
Fair. But again, as you say, we can’t know. We're five pages of speculation in now, what you're suggesting here is broadly what I was suggesting also, which is that the 'spoons staff could well have been atypically unpleasant about it.
Or not, of course.
i’d just like you to explain specifically what bit of law you are talking about which defines the action the barkeeps have taken as being discriminatory because I don’t understand why you think it is.
Are you after a page number too? I've provided the Home Office guide for doorstaff and the piece of legislation that it refers to, coupled with the fact that the company has apologised and is promised to provide further training; yet you still think I am wrong?
You are aware that discrimination isn't just hate, it's ignorance too? In some cases the ignorance is wilful, and if that ignorance results in you unintentionally committing a hate crime then the individual is responsible for the consequences. Which is why the company has apologised for their mistake.
Some people are looking for excuses to justify their prejudices, it's getting lame
I have said that we can not judge the staff … but then people are keen to judge the woman
Hang on. I'm not judging anyone, apologies if that's how it appeared. Rather I'm trying to be objective when presented with minimal information.
just as you have by saying she shouldn’t be upset
I didn't say that, I said she shouldn't be really surprised when by her own admission this has been the case for months. She's every right to be upset but on the face of it I don't see why this one case upset her unless it's different from the others. What did 'spoons staff do differently, did they boot her out when previous challenges have gone "oh, right, OK then"?
there can be many reasons for a young trans person not doing so, or not being able to do so.
I said exactly this.
I’m not judging anyone, apologies if that’s how it appeared.
No, I don't think you were judging her really... but others have made out that it's all on her to keep her ID "up to date" in a way not expected of the rest of us, and not a realistic expectation, and likened her experience to being turned away for wearing trainers, and that training staff to appreciate the issues around ID and young trans people was unnecessary. We all need to learn more as regards all this... but some are proud of refusing to learn... and want young trans people to bend to our expectations, rather than have us learn more about their lives so as to accommodate them... even in the centre of our society... our pubs.
Are you after a page number too? I’ve provided the Home Office guide for doorstaff and the piece of legislation that it refers to
The piece of legislation you referenced states that gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, which I doubt that many readers of this thread didn't already know. I don't think it carries with it a mandate to serve potentially underage drinkers. And as our Retro friend suggests, "guidance for doormen" is not legislation.
If you're going to cite laws to back up your argument then this is STW so yes absolutely, page number please. We all have a burden of proof in our assertions otherwise without qualification an equally valid counter-argument is "no it isn't."
coupled with the fact that the company has apologised and is promised to provide further training; yet you still think I am wrong?
I think they've shat themselves and are now arse-covering, I don't see any bearing on your rightness or wrongness here.
Some people are looking for excuses to justify their prejudices
Some people are looking for prejudice.
others have made out that it’s all on her to keep her ID “up to date” in a way not expected of the rest of us,
Credit where it's due, that's bang on the money. Thank you.
Read the thread before commenting, eh?
Sorry but the gender of the person is irrelevant. Doesn't matter what you think you are. If your appearance does not match the photo then why would you accept it.
Like I said - storm in a tea cup. Heck it isn't even worth while news.
Your appearance doesn’t have to “match”, it has to be possible to tell that you are you from your photo. Staff already have to cope with people growing beards, changing their hair colour or style, wearing contact lenses or loads of makeup for a night out when they don’t in day to day life… some staff (again, might not be the case here, we can’t tell, the woman in the story may not be identifiable from her photoID) will need training and guidance to cope with young trans people and the difference between how they present themselves down the pub and what their official ID says and shows.
no scratch that… any young person… might be changing how they look at this time of their life
Yup ... and tens of thousands of them don't get served ...
A pub is presented with a teenager wearing a long blonde wig and an ID that they seemingly bear no resemblance to and says ‘male’ on it, is it so outlandish to countenance that they just didn’t want the hassle of potentially serving underage drinkers, rather than leaping to the conclusion with cast iron certainty that they kicked her out because they were bigots?
It's a bit more than hassle, it's a criminal offence and it is down to the individual not the bar.
Mistakes can be made. Staff need to be trained to not treat a young person using ID which seemingly does not match the gender they present as somehow pulling a fast one
Staff are trained to assume every teenager is trying to pull a fast one.
This seems fairly sensible given most people I know it was a right of passage to get served underage.
And, yes, they are generally laughed at in pubs, good for age related travel and entertainment tickets though (where getting it wrong just risks someone getting a cheap ticket). Young people use passports and driving licences for a reason
Yet as I said earlier corroborates their other photo ID.
and as I said earlier getting some corroborating ID is hardly in the top 10 difficult things for a teen that is transitioning.
Quite a few thought provoking posts and it looks like the barman might have been in al lose-lose situation.
Picture a similar scenario- young group of people want a drink so barman asks the youngest looking for ID. She presents a passport where (subjectively, to the barmans eyes) the picture doesnt look like the customer. He is going to refuse service, until the customer says she us Transgender and hasn't changed her ID. She starts quoting discrimination legislation so the barman decides just to serve them booze.
A few hours, and several drinks later (barman didn't realise how drunk they were as they had to remain seated and ordered via an app), the group leave the bar, the Transgender customer then is seriously injured (or worse) by staggering onto a busy road/into a canal.
At the investigation, it turns out she was 16 and had used her 19year old brothers passport for ID........
What is the point of a photo on photo ID?
(Though I sometime have a beard and sometimes not, I’ve never been queried about it).
My passport photo is a clean shaven me, applied for just before i decided to grow a beard.
UK Borders use the facecamera doodad, and that never recognises me, so i have to go to the real people queue.
Once, the guy in the box said he didn't believe it was me, made me sign a piece of paper to prove it was me (to compare the signatures)
Then he asked me where I was going "Basildon" i replied and he must have known no-one in their right mind would want to go there voluntarily, and waved me through.
/CSB
Anybody won yet?
Most of my photo ID is sporting ponytail and goatee, I’ve had neither for years.
Photos or it didn't happen.
Cougar as Baader-Meinhof gang member...
😄
Anybody won yet?
It was a long race for the amount of information provided.
OP was winning from the off. Bait was swallowed whole. Turned out everyone (excepting Hugo) is ‘naive’ and that it was an anti-Wetherspoons trap set by the teenager in question. Possibly with collusion from the Biased Broadcasting Communist ‘reporter’ and the LGBT brigade.
As a coup de grâce OP threw the chew-toy/witch/ball under a bus car and ding dong/end of thread.
Can we do the three black cyclists now? </sarcasm>
No-one won, but a few losers outed themselves.
but a few losers outed themselves
Ah, they always do. They always do.
Neither driving licences nor passports are issued for life. Heck, my PHC is renewed every three years and even then they won't accept the previous photo.
The legislation doesn't spell it out for you but it covers almost every example of discrimination that you can and can't think of, including alcohol licensing. I'm sorry to say that ignorance and intent are not excuses that let you off the hook in those circumstances, even online.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=
I thought this link might be useful
Getting back on topic here's examples of how to apply the Equality Act to various situations
Equality Act 2010, Part 2, Chapter 2, Section 19
"19 Indirect discrimination
(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's if—
(a) A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic,
(b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it,
(c) it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and
(d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(3) The relevant protected characteristics are—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation."
I can't find any piece of alcohol licensing legislation regarding ID which the Equality Act doesn't apply to, can you give me a link to official guidelines or legislation where it says that her passport isn't acceptable?
I've provided several pieces in support of my "opinion", whereas I've only read anecdotal tales of having the wrong footwear and sunglasses; neither of which are protected characteristics.
If I was the member of staff I would of asked for another corroborating piece of ID like bank card etc.
Might as well list all 9 protected charcteristics...
...Preganancy and maternity.
Getting back on topic here’s examples of how to apply the Equality Act to various situations
Equality Act 2010, Part 2, Chapter 2, Section 19
Awesome. Nice and easy for the bar bod to understand. As opposed to the ultra simple age laws which means I need to be sure someone is old enough.
Without knowing more details, which none of us do, it could be the barstaff being arses but it could just be them erring on the side of caution with regards to them getting a fine.
Sorry theotherjonv, I dread to think how much of this stuff and your family are going to be up against over the next few years. "Lord of the Rings false beard", "Nice and easy for the bar bod to understand"... the thing is, the adjustments needed to understand and cope with situations like this are miniscule really... and are possible... and it's great that the chain have said they'll try and do more to embed them in their pubs... resistance to them aren't just because they are "difficult", or because being a young trans person on a night out is some kind of geeky cosplay... they are mostly because people are scared of people who are outliers and minorities, and are ignorant (sometimes wilfully) of the lives of so many people pushed aside too much, and too easily, in our society.
Hot off the press - stop press!
Compulsory digital ID cards planned.
Righties, Lefties and Overton-Window-brickers alike are reported ‘conflicted’ as the final push to gulag and/or track/monitor/data-mine every living soul is straining at the gates. Shall the locks hold or shall they be burst open? It’s now or never. What ‘gates?’ are they? You say? There must be gates, right?
Confusion and distraction has never been higher. Will our unelected neurocrat (The Dominator) get it done? The stakes drawbridge has been raised.
they are mostly because people are scared of people who are outliers and minorities, and are ignorant
Lucky you are superior eh and so well informed.
Can you list your background in both barwork and licensing work which makes it so easy for you to judge how easy it is to adjust. Bear in mind that the chain can talk about adjustments since they wont be the ones with their necks on the line (it has to be really, really bad before it starts being an issue for licencing and even then i tend towards the belief that the authorities tend to like a couple of known underage pubs to keep the kids concentrated).
All I have seen is people pointing out why the barstaff might make the decisions they did.
The reality is barstaff spend a lot of time dealing with underage kids using dodgy ids of one description or another up and are personally responsible for fines if they are caught. It leads, or did when i did barwork, to a certain cynicism.
Sorry theotherjonv, I dread to think how much of this stuff and your family are going to be up against over the next few years
Back to the list of the 10 most difficult things...
“Nice and easy for the bar bod to understand”
Yes.. because they have a job to do that amounts to serving as many drinks as possible ...
Making it as easy as possible to age ID is just polite... they don't set the laws they are just the ones having to enforce them whilst serving drinks and managing pissed up customers. Pretty much any barstaff I know would prefer not to have to have this thrust upon them as part of the job.
It's not about whether the person is transitioning or not... if you frequently don't get served because of your ID then just replace it or get some supplementary ID.
All I have seen is people pointing out why the barstaff might make the decisions they did.
Well I was one of those saying we should not judge the bar staff. But I'm not one of those comparing being a young trans person as like someone wearing the wrong footwear, or a comedy beard... etc etc. If someone can't be identified in their ID (rather than not having the same "look") then of course pub staff will have to deny them access... and that is probably what has happened here. I have no problem with the staff, or the company, in how they have handled this. I do have a problem with how this is seen by so many people here as a problem for the woman involved to solve, and for young trans people generally to solve, without any attempt to appreciate the difficulties in doing so, rather than for professionals to learn and adapt to their existence. I don't underestimate bar staff the way some people do, everyone I know in this industry can handle what this means for them (check the ID carefully, don't be phased by an apparent gender mismatch between the ID and how the young person is presenting themselves), and any of their employers getting behind that tiny change is a good move, and welcoming that change is not "hand waving".
if you frequently don’t get served because of your ID then just replace it or get some supplementary ID
If that's because staff can't recognise you from your ID, on a regular basis, that makes perfect sense. If it's because you appear a different gender in you ID, then the onus should not be on young people to make their apparent gender match the photo in their ID, or visa versa, staff can companies can and should adapt their policy to cope with that.
Round we go again. Dissonance, that is why I posted the Home Office PDF guidance for doorstaff and explained that although they may not have intended to discriminate they still did, and that is grounds for prosecution if she chooses to take that route. Hence 'spoons apology.
I'm not blaming the staff, there's is a breakdown of understanding and confusion as to what's discriminatory and what is not throughout society and Savanna has experienced that. I'm well aware of the devious tricks used to get a drink, I used to be a teenager and I've worked in several pubs so I know of the repercussions to bar staff for serving under agers. However, applying the Occam's razor principle, I do think it would be extremely unlikely that someone would go to those lengths to get a drink.
Round we go again. Dissonance, that is why I posted the Home Office PDF guidance for doorstaff
Who cares about doorstaff, where is the guidance and overrides for the licensing law for the barstaff?
Saying its guidance is pushing it. It basically just abdicates responsible. So on the one hand I need to check ages and use id to do so but on the other hand its saying the id might be useless. So when should I decide to ignore it and what protections do I get?
I do think it would be extremely unlikely that someone would go to those lengths to get a drink.
Possibly but then the lengths some people have gone to with fake id is impressive (in some cases and really shite in others). I vaguely recall at least some cases where the id was clearly someone elses and also bear in mind we dont know the staffs side of the story. It sounds nice and simple as presented but if its a busy night and especially if the customer has already had a beer or two then it makes things a tad harder.
I can’t find any piece of alcohol licensing legislation regarding ID which the Equality Act doesn’t apply to, can you give me a link to official guidelines or legislation where it says that her passport isn’t acceptable?
Can you show me where it says they have to serve her because she's transgender even if they otherwise believe she's underage? Discrimination is not defined as "an absence of positive discrimination."
We're going round in circles now. It's entirely possible that she was discriminated against, yes. It's also entirely possible that the staff saw someone who in their opinion was presenting photo ID belonging to someone else irrespective of whether she was trans or not, is it not?
A teenager trying to buy alcohol underage is far from an unusual occurrence. Staff are going to be far more used to dealing with 17-year old chancers than they are young trans people. Which is no excuse of course, but it's really not hard to see why it panned out the way it did - if their conclusion was "we don't really know what to do here" then they're naturally going to err on the side of caution and refuse service. The alternative could pose a threat to their licence.
Getting back on topic here’s examples of how to apply the Equality Act to various situations
None of which you know for sure happened or not in this particular instance.
If that’s because staff can’t recognise you from your ID, on a regular basis, that makes perfect sense. If it’s because you appear a different gender in you ID, then the onus should not be on young people to make their apparent gender match the photo in their ID, or visa versa, staff can companies can and should adapt their policy to cope with that.
Precisely. Well said.
I do think it would be extremely unlikely that someone would go to those lengths to get a drink.
This is still as much of a straw man as it was last time you suggested it.
On the subject of ID incidentally,
I have a friend who is a transvestite. Sometimes he goes out as a bloke, sometimes he presents as his female persona (and looks very different). So in effect he potentially has a similar issue to the lass in this tale, only not permanently, so the "get new ID" argument isn't appropriate here. He's old enough not to need photo ID any more (and to the best of my knowledge he wasn't 'out' back when he did need ID), but what would readers suggest he do here if he did? Obtaining two passports might well come with a free jail sentence.
Being told you aren’t getting in or you aren’t getting served is part of going out on the lash
I once got thrown down the stairs to the pavement outside of a club in Newcastle because the bouncer thought I was someone else
If people can’t handle a bit of social injustice maybe best to stay in .
You’ll never get all the people to care all of the time
I do think it would be extremely unlikely that someone would go to those lengths to get a drink.
This is still as much of a straw man as it was last time you suggested it.
You've clearly never been to the Counting House, it's like a human zoo in there. I can't think of anywhere worse that I'd rather not be drawing attention to myself, maybe the Goose.
Obtaining two passports might well come with a free jail sentence.
Plenty of folk have 2 passports, I'm not sure what the rules are regarding the picture though.
You’ll never get all the people to care all of the time
Well clearly you're a lost cause.
This is from Midlothian licensing board "7.3 The Board will, at all times, have due regard to the Equality Act 2010 and any
subsequent and similar legislation and to the need to: -
eliminate unlawful discrimination, and
promote equality of opportunity."
This one is from another piece of government guidance, although good practice guidelines aren't law in themselves they can be used in court to demonstrate discrimination or malpractice, like ACAS.
" Good Practice 5: Accept a range of ID other than a birth certificate –
you do not usually need to see a GRC to amend personal details
Transgender people can change most of their identity documents including their passport
and driving licence early on in transition. Not all transgender people will choose to obtain
a GRC and change their birth certificate. If your business requires proof of identity, it is
therefore good practice to accept other forms of identification to avoid ‘outing’ or
embarrassing transgender people. Service providers can only ask for a GRC in very few
circumstances and it should never be asked for as proof of gender."
If people can’t handle a bit of social injustice maybe best to stay in .
I think that attitude perfectly sums up why I’ve been posting what I have. So glad that the company involved didn’t take the same line.
Obtaining two passports might well come with a free jail sentence.
Check if he can get an Irish passport (looking increasingly useful anyway) and then have one for each?
More seriously not sure. There are the various id card schemes but not sure if they have got any more traction since when I was young enough to care.
It is more one for the government. If they want people to be checking ids then they need to ensure those who might need alternate ids have legal access to them.
Check if he can get an Irish passport (looking increasingly useful anyway) and then have one for each?
I'd be surprised if he were eligible, he gets a nosebleed if he ventures North of the M25.
This one is
from another piece of government guidancemore irrelevant whataboutery.
FTFY.
You don't need to prove that discrimination is either bad or illegal. Anyone with half a brain knows this to be the case. But banging on about birth certificates and proof of gender and random bits of "guidance" has absolutely no bearing on this incident. She's not even entitled to a GRC let alone being demanded to provide one.
She tried to get served in a pub. She couldn't provide photo ID that the staff deemed to be valid, so she was refused service. Just like every other under-25 year old in the country. Nowhere in that article does it suggest at any point that they objected to her gender identity and indeed if it occurred as reported then it's her who brought up the subject of gender in the first place.
Could they have handled it more sensitively? Probably. But they've held their hands up and said they're going to provide diversity training. I don't expect Glasgow to be awash with 19-year old TG women, she was probably the first one they'd ever knowingly met.
Lessons learned and it's raised awareness amongst a wider audience, I'm not sure what else we can reasonably expect here.
I don’t expect Glasgow to be awash with TG 19-year old women, she was probably the first one they’d ever knowingly met.
and you were doing so well 🙄
My mistake, I'm sure there's thousands. Far more than there are underage kids trying to get served illegally, obvs.
I did say "knowingly." Most don't carry signs.
Thanks Cougar, I forgot my place but don't put words in my mouth. I haven't been been banging on about birth certificates or proof of gender, I've not even mentioned them. I've simply been promoting human rights and how they apply to the law. The random bits of guidance are because they refer to legislation, which is law. I have said several times that the company has recognised their mistakes and learned their lessons, which is why I can't understand why some people are saying that they would repeat the same mistakes.
This discussion is taking the course of previous conversations regarding discrimination and I've learnt to step back when the gaslighting begins. I hope that what I've said provides some support to those who are discriminated against and something to think about for those who aren't.
I haven’t been been banging on about birth certificates or proof of gender, I’ve not even mentioned them.
Apart from in the guidelines in the post I replied to at the bottom of page 5. Are you not even reading what you're posting?
I’ve simply been promoting human rights and how they apply to the law.
Whereas I and everyone else had been discussing the OP so your posts are simply non sequiturs.
I am pretty well versed in protected characteristics, thanks. I had to learn all about it when I was conducting interviews a few years ago. I doubt I'm the only one.
This discussion is taking the course of previous conversations regarding discrimination and I’ve learnt to step back when the gaslighting begins.
What do you mean by that?
I’ve learnt to step back when the gaslighting begins.
I know this forum is slow sometimes, but pretty sure it runs on electricity now.....
Cougar, I thought we all had to abide by rule one.
I posted in response to questions which were directed to me, even you asked me for evidence regarding the Equality Act and how it is applied to licensing laws, yet now you are berating me for providing it and saying that government legislation and guidelines are irrelevant. If you were well versed in protected characteristics as a moderator you'd be less inclined to deny discrimination has occurred and provide support to those who do experience it and express it on the forum, yet you always explain it away allowing others to do the same until the person who has objected is silent.
Gaslighting is the act of manipulating someone
Are you not even reading what you’re posting?
"They tell you or others that you are crazy.
This is one of the most effective tools of the gaslighter, because it's dismissive. The gaslighter knows if they question your sanity, people will not believe you when you tell them the gaslighter is abusive or out-of-control. It's a master technique."
Did they discriminate or did they apply the criteria in this case as in other ones?
The criterion being you don't look enough like your id so no alcohol for you.
I know this forum is slow sometimes, but pretty sure it runs on electricity now…..
When did they phase out the hamsters?
When did they phase out the hamsters?
We're testing out some guinea pigs.
When they were accidentally gassed in the gas powered upgrade test.
Edit - and now I look crazy! The hamsters, I’m referring to the hamsters.
I agree with pretty much everything Cougar has posted.
faerie, I’m sorry but you have lost me. I admire your determination to call out prejudice when you see it, but like Cougar says I don’t see how you can be so certain what happened here. Are you saying (I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but this is my understanding of what you’ve said), that no trans person would use fake id and they should serve the person alcohol regardless of how young they look? The laws are there to protect the young from themselves, surely taking a more lenient approach to any group is in itself discriminatory as it reduces the protection you afford them?
I’m not berating you, don’t be melodramatic.
That's berating - To scold or condemn vehemently and at length, it's beginning to look like you have a grudge against me. Trivialising an individual and discrediting to others in an attempt to get them to side with you are also indicators of gaslighting.
I’m well versed in protected characteristics as part of my job
Your previous posts suggests otherwise.
I have entertained the idea that she could have used an older brothers ID, but I concluded that it would be elaborate and unlikely for someone to go to such lengths.
I've posted with an answer to questions I've been asked, looking back at the quote I think you are referring to it was in response to Dissonance's query not yours. The main focus of my argument has been the Equality Act, which I've referenced frequently as it influences other legislation, including the licensing and gambling act . Others have provided more information and an account of lived experiences regarding the acquisition of ID and you are conflating the two.
You being a moderator is relevant as it gives you power over regular forum users. I have to be very careful as to what I say because I will face retribution, I can't call you melodramatic or a liar as I'd be banned for doing so. It feels like I'm being goaded into doing so, I've said several times that I've said my piece and that I've nothing further to add to the discussion, yet I receive further questions asking for more. If I don't answer then my view point is invalid and if I do it's irrelevant.
You being a moderator is relevant as it gives you power over regular forum users
Hang on ...
I've stayed out of this as I know that once I start I find it difficult to withdraw (steady on). However, I feel I have to say something here.
I've had long arguments with Cougar over a similar topic. At times it got a bit testy, but at no point did I ever feel I'd be unfairly modded because of Cougar's 'power' over me. I don't think in your discussion I've seen anything that could be an implied threat. I don't think you're being at all fair here.
I'm also pretty sure that I have been modded by Cougar on another occasion. I didn't really think it was reasonable to mod me - but hey! I survived the experience, and I could see why I was modded even though I didn't really think I should have been.
Calling you melodramatic isn't berating you @faerie - as far as I can see from this thread it's just a simple dispassionate description of fact.
@easily thank you.
I’m also pretty sure that I have been modded by Cougar on another occasion.
You've received a warning from me (ironically) for offensive comments about transgender people, and one from a colleague for promoting ad blocking. That's all I can see aside from deleted posts which I've not bothered looking for.
As I see it, Cougar is just having a civilised discussion. You don't agree with him, so accuse him of abusing you / Gaslighting (whatever that is).
I'm sure you're both really nice people in person, but @faerie you're not coming across as rational / level headed in this discussion.
Some of Couger's posts can come across somewhat adversarial at times, especially with the quote-response-quote-response posting style.
Faire hasn’t been melodramatic in the slightest. He (a guess, sorry if wrong) sought to inform people of the protections in place in law, for those that wrote as if no such protection exists, or as if they should not impede on good old common sense. He was repeatedly asked to elaborate and give more detail, and he did, and was then mocked for it. Where Cougar has pointed out that we do not know enough to know if the law was crossed is absolutely fair and correct as well. The company doing the right thing and promising to help their staff with handling of this issue in the future is not an admittance of guilt or fault, but, the existence of that law, and the risk of being seen to break it, will probably have helped prompt them to respond quickly as they did. Laws can help us understand what we should be trying to do, even when the law is not brought into it by any party directly effected.
Some of Couger’s posts can come across somewhat adversarial at times
No they can't.
especially with the quote-response-quote-response posting style.
Is that actually an issue for people? I never really considered that, it's just my way of keeping track and not missing points.
He sought to inform people of the protections in place in law
She.
Yeah, I thought I might have got that wrong.
No cougar, I've never made offensive comments about transgender people. I did however point out the bigotry regarding gender, misogyny and racism on the forum, including yours for which I received a ban because my sense of humanity is extreme and unpopular. The second one came after I pointed out your racism again under a different profile, and the connection was made to me.
I have only ever promoted compassion and equality towards others.
Again, you are demonstrating gaslighting and I learnt early on to take screenshots for evidence which I can provide in situations when false accusations are made against me on a public forum.
As I've pointed out before that these threads follow a particular pattern, remember the Danny Baker thread?
The same is happening here although it's a different topic. Hop on guys and belittle the one who has the courage to say it's not all right, then if I'm to break you can be satisfied in the knowledge that I'm just an angry woman with a chip on her shoulder and you can carry on in the safety of your echo chamber without challenge.
Thank you Kelvin, I appreciate your kind words.
I'm going to have a cuppa and take a step away from the character assassination before I get another ban.
When echo chambers go bad, part two...
🙂
I received a ban because my sense of humanity is extreme and unpopular.
Truly, we are not worthy.
I did however point out the bigotry regarding gender, misogyny and racism on the forum, including yours for which I received a ban because my sense of humanity is extreme and unpopular. The second one came after I pointed out your racism again under a different profile, and the connection was made to me.
Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, you weren't banned for any of those reasons. This is simply a fabrication.
And for what it's worth, despite your earlier accusations you have never, ever received either a warning or a ban from me as moderator.
This is hilarious.
Woah! Steady on there cougar, those allegations are libelous slander and untrue. Anyone else would be banned for your attack.
You launched a targeted smear campaign across social media CC:ing half the Western world, targeting STW generally and me personally, based on a misunderstanding. When I finally got it into your skull that you’d made a mistake you apologised and thanked me for the role I provide here – quietly via PM where no-one else could see your climb-down. I can give you a screenshot of that for your collection if you like.
Yes, I took to twitter to highlight the bigotry on the forum and cc'd in Cycling UK as they had just launched their cycling inclusion campaign. I was silenced on here but you can't crush me on twitter, cycling and human rights are two things I'm passionate about and it deeply saddens me to see the largest mtb magazine in Europe being so demeaning and exclusive and unwelcoming towards minorities.
YOU were the one who then made contact with me on twitter, I go by my old profile name on it and I had no way of knowing who you are on that platform.
You say you are one of the least prejudice people yet you were blaming "Asians" playing in the park for the spread of covid, you've used the N*word on the forum and attempted to justify it, you think it banter to equate black people to monkeys and call people P* and none of your views have been in support of minorities.
How do you think Rachel felt when she begged for the bigotry to stop, how do you think I feel now that you have the sycophants on board?
The only time I've reached out to you was to apologise, but you even used that against me and now YOU'RE playing the victim. Grow up
This is hilarious.
It's frustrating.
@scotroutes, are you jumping on the wagon? I should have put quote marks as that was an accusation against me
crikey
This is hilarious.
It’s gone past that, now it’s just ****ing weird.
How do people take posting on a chat forum so damn seriously?
I know!
Brig back Kylie Friday - those were the days!!
This is hilarious
It isn't. It's a bit sad frankly. Both cougar and faerie have some valid points to make but this spat is derailing what was an interesting and informative thread to the point where it should probably now be closed.
It had been informative and I'd like to think a few readers (not necessarily participants) might stop and think on whether their first instincts about the worthiness or otherwise of the story were right. Others may have learned from it, some may have changed their opinions on it, others still may have had their opinions reinforced - whether for good or bad depends on their and your viewpoint.
It's not an easy subject, spiritually or legally and those that try to present it as a simple choice miss the point. It's very nuanced. But by talking and explaining I think those that are willing can learn.
Well... I tried to lighten things earlier with a joke that ...didn't quite er... make the grade. It was canned and I got a mod warning*.
These threads are developing a pattern of intensity which doesn't really work on what should be a relatively light hearted chat forum.
*with a bit more explanation and body language, it went down a bit better in the pub.
How do people take posting on a chat forum so damn seriously?
Because it is a difficult subject area and I think people are talking past each other pretty badly now. Hence why I am just responding to this rather to one of the answers to my point.
those allegations are libelous slander and untrue
It's a statement of fact. Go check your screenshots.
YOU were the one who then made contact with me on twitter, I go by my old profile name on it and I had no way of knowing who you are on that platform.
My Twitter handle is UKCougar and you had no way of knowing who I was when I replied to you in response to your attack on me?
You say you are etc etc...
You twist everything anyone says in order to make it suit your narrative and are still asserting in public now that things were a certain way after admitting to me in private that you realised they weren't and apologised for misunderstanding.
I've just explained exactly what you did to me and your "too extreme degrees of compassion" reaction is to slap me down?
Oh I give up. You probably think I'm making that up too.
Have we added gender to politics, religion and wheel size yet? Think of the Guinea pigs.