spen666 wrote:Darlogramps wrote:spen666 wrote:
Argue all you like.
I have merely stated correctly the legal position.
Yep, you've repeatedly stated the legal position. In multiple posts, it's all you can muster.
And at the same time you've ignored the flaws and criticisms of your argument.
Now if you're just repeating yourself, as opposed to actually engaging with counter points others have raised, that says a lot about the weakness of the argument you're forwarding.
The reason you're refusing to engage with the points myself, Shawry and DarloOnTheUp have raised is that you understand these points are legitimate and expose your argument as reductionist.
So unless you're going to directly challenge the counter-arguments, I don't see what else you have to add to this discussion.
The reason I repeat myself and refuse to engage in your debate is because the point I am making is simple and correct. Namely the public have no right of entry and the owner or manager can refuse entry without having or giving a reason
anything else you state is not something I am commenting on.
I am stating the law and nothing more.
You may care to look up the law, here are a couple of cases for you to start withIn R v Armagh Justices (1897) 2 Ir 57, R v Rymer (1877) 2 QBD 136,
You admit you're refusing to engage in the debate, even though the counter points raised to your simplistic argument are relevant.
As has been stated repeatedly, this is not just about the law. It is about the wider social and cultural factors that impact on the organisation's decision-making.
Simply stating one section of the law in the context of this discussion is a flawed argument. You ignore additional factors and other sections of law which damages your argument's credibility.
Intriguingly, the examples you state once again fail the reductionist test. Doing reading on R v Rymer, analysis actually cites discrimination law as a factor which says private organisations cannot ban at random or for whatever reason they like. Therefore, that as an argument is far too simplistic.
So you've been hoisted by your own petard. The analysis of examples you've provided actually backs up what myself, DOTU and Shawry have stated earlier in this thread. You conveniently ignored the analysis which didn't fit with your argument.
Now I'm happy to go on all day with this because I believe I'm right. You've stated what you believe to be correct - I've stated this is a reductionist point in the wider debate we're having.
But other people on this thread have stated the debate is getting tedious for them (it has gone on several days in fairness). So I suggest if you wish to continue this, we carry on via DM.