Cookham Discussion Board
April 20, 2018, 03:38:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
22 April 2018 - Odney Club - Open Garden

24 April 2018 - Give Blood at the Pinder Hall

26 April 2018 - Buckinghamshire in the Civil Wars 1640-1660

1 May 2018 -  The Wonderful World of Whisky

TO REGISTER TO POST ON THIS DISCUSSION BOARD email the Webmaster@cookham.com with a User name you would like. This is due to spammers.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11
  Print  
Author Topic: I was shocked to learn...  (Read 97373 times)
Newshound
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2010, 01:00:50 PM »

As Bagheera has eloquently argued - neither of us are claiming that what the lady involved has done puts her on any sort of moral high ground. Au contraire, I personally would never stay there after her behaviour.

What I am questioning is whether going to the police (and the newspapers) is really something that should have happened? It really, really cannot help the situation. If you think about how much this will cost the residents of Cookham (and let's just take a rough stab at the figures :

20 hours of police time, computers etc (say 2500 including all of their calls on the matter)
6 hours for lawyers to consider it (say 1200 before the decision on whether or not to go ahead)

So say that gets us to around 3500 before a decision on whether or not to prosecute (coming straight out of your local council tax fyi).

Then if there is a prosecution there will be at least another 15,000 of costs ranging from court fees, lawyers, judges costs etc etc etc.

So let's say that we are looking at around 17,000-20,000 to push this on to court to give her a slap on the wrists. her beliefs won't change and her business will still not be particularly hospitable to same-sex couples even if she is less vocal about it and the two gents involved don't get to travel back in time and stay there when they wanted. Is this really how you want your council tax wasting?



Logged
Joni
Newbie
*
Posts: 44


« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2010, 01:07:37 PM »

Watch the 1 o'clock news on BBC1, there is a report in the BBC London bit at the end...
Logged
MLP
Guest
« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2010, 01:16:23 PM »

So, reading between the lines Newshound what you are really saying is that this is just a silly little issue that should be brushed under the carpet and forgotten about?  That the people to which this happened are not valid or valued members of society because they are gay?  That the investigation of this broken law does not warrant having 20k spent on it because of the subject matter?  That the two gentlemn involved should have just shut up rather than bringing this to the attention of the wider community?  I personally do not consider it a waste of money and in the same way I would not consider it a watse of money if the investigation invloved a couple of a different colour, race, creed or religion to me.  Or indeed if it involved an investigation into a crime against a heterosexual couple.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 02:20:35 PM by MLP » Logged
Showem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 365


« Reply #33 on: March 22, 2010, 01:22:32 PM »

Bagheera, I notice you answered all of my last post, other than the question of whether you would be supporting the B&B owner if she had turned away a mixed races couple? And my point still stands regarding beliefs. If her beliefs are that 2 adult men shouldn't share a bed, then she shouldn't be running a B&B that is open to the public. Whether that is part of her house or not is irrelevant. She should choose to earn her money in an area where her beliefs don't get in the way of the business.
Logged
ZM
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2010, 01:29:49 PM »

What's next?  Take away women's right to vote?!  Absolutely disgusting!  I fully support taking the matter further - she should be made to pay the costs involved (perhaps Bagheera and Newshound could pitch in) and I am confident that her punishment will be more than 'a slap on the wrist'!  
Logged
Ricardo
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 99


WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 22, 2010, 01:36:01 PM »

In a separate matter, I have been asked to point out that, although my discussion board pseudonym is 'Ricardo' I am not, repeat NOT David Ricardo of Cookham. I would have thought that the details listed under my name to the left would have made that obvious, but still..

Now, back to the matters that matter...
Logged
Bagheera
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 435

e tenebris lux


« Reply #36 on: March 22, 2010, 02:36:30 PM »

She should choose to earn her money in an area where her beliefs don't get in the way of the business.

Many years ago, Mr Barclay and Mr Lloyd were prevented from entering the professions because of their beliefs. 

So were Mr Cadbury, Mr Rowntree and Mr Fry.

But, as MLP says, "Thankfully we have moved on from that blatant discrimintaion and it is now time that we moved on from all forms of discrimination."
Logged
arty
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 74



WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 22, 2010, 02:39:26 PM »


She shouldn't be running a B&B that is open to the public.


This is he whole point of the problem. Showem is absolutely right in that. When she rents out rooms for the night as a business then it is no longer a private home solely for her family use. Bagheera is right in saying she is entitled to her beliefs ( however out of step with a tolerant society) but these convictions however firmly held do not apply in this case. I wonder that this is the first time her policy of turning people away has come to light!
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 02:41:55 PM by arty » Logged
Showem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 365


« Reply #38 on: March 22, 2010, 03:01:29 PM »

Once again Bagheera, you haven't answered my question. I'll repeat again:

Would you be supporting the B&B owner if she had turned away a mixed races couple?
Logged
Bagheera
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 435

e tenebris lux


« Reply #39 on: March 22, 2010, 03:30:06 PM »

Why are you attacking me personally because I have put a view that is contrary to yours, Showem?
Logged
Showem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 365


« Reply #40 on: March 22, 2010, 03:39:57 PM »

Asking you a question isn't a personal attack. Sidestepping the answer however, makes me think you aren't that committed to your argument. Which is fine, but there's no need to ruffle more feathers just to get a reaction.
Logged
Bagheera
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 435

e tenebris lux


« Reply #41 on: March 22, 2010, 03:48:28 PM »

I do not really see that the question is relevant since, as far as I am aware, it is not one that would be contrary to her beliefs - or any other religion that I am aware of.
Logged
MLP
Guest
« Reply #42 on: March 22, 2010, 03:52:43 PM »

I don't think Showem is Bangheera, but you have been very vocal and eloquent in your support of Mrs Wilkinson's decision.  Perhaps Showem trying to ascertain how far people's support of discrimination goes.  I think this whole discussion does open up a far wider subject of why people find it ok to be discriminatory towards a person because of their sexuality, but not for any other reason.  After all I am sure Mrs Wilkinson would not have turned away a mixed race couple, any more than anyone else reading this would.  So why a gay couple?  Why is one action indefensible, whilst Mrs Wilkinson's behaviour to some is defensible?  That is why it is important that these issues are discussed and brought to the attention of the wider community.  It is only then, that people's predjucies will be broken down and attitudes will change.  Only then will people begin to understand how hurtful such discrimination is.  We are all human beings at the end of the day and as such should show our fellow man/woman respect regardless of their gender, sexual preference, religion or colour.

On a slightly more light hearted note, what I do find amusing in all of this, is how Mr and Mrs Wilkinson turned a couple away from their inn.  Sound familiar?  Now that's ironic!
Logged
Bagheera
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 435

e tenebris lux


« Reply #43 on: March 22, 2010, 03:57:08 PM »

I think this whole discussion does open up a far wider subject of why people find it ok to be discriminatory towards a person because of their sexuality, but not for any other reason.

But the consensus seems to be that it is okay to discriminate against a person on the basis of their religious beliefs but not their sexuality.

I agree entirely with you that there needs to be respect for one another's views.  I don't know about you but I am appalled at the homophobic comments that the thread on Yahoo has raised (okay I can guess that we are in agreement on that).

But in many ways that is my point. This seems to have aroused an undercurrent which I suspect is equally abhorrent to Mrs Wilkinson.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 04:08:07 PM by Bagheera » Logged
Simes
Full Member
***
Posts: 119


« Reply #44 on: March 22, 2010, 04:03:24 PM »

Bagheera, please can you explain how the Wilkinsons are being discriminated against in any of this?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 11
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!