'Are you a Gypsy?' Ikea tells caravan owner that Travellers are barred from its car p

[scotjimland]

I am sorry I did not know it was possible to own a thread oh:

Of course, you can't own in the accepted meaning .. ultimately all threads are 'owned' by Jim, but when a thread is used by others just to have a rant that has nothing or little to do with the OP it is called hijacking.. This is rude, and bad internet etiquette.

The OP was about Ikea's policy, it's employee and how he questioned a members of the public about their ethnicity ..

For example, you start a thread asking for information about a wild camping spot, then it is hijacked by a poster to have a rant about freeloading motorhomers. Clearly related , but would you be happy?

If a member wants want to have a rant about Gypsies they should start their own thread in the appropriate forum.. but that is just my opinion..

Also bear in mind this thread is not in the U shaped lounge so it can be seen by visitors and found by Google.. we should think about this before posting racist remarks.. is this how we want to be seen? Not having a pop at you or anyone else.. just pointing out.

 

[joner8888]

I really don`t think anyone in their right mind would want to start a thread (about gypsies) because the outcome would always be the same.

I think because the word (Gypsy) was listed, it fired off some feelings or dealings some of us have had with them.

I notice in other threads that have been started, the subject has drifted somewhat to sometimes something completely different.

Is it that it provokes deep hostile feelings on the subject, that you think it ought to be shut?

Anyway,i am looking at my MH at the moment and i have hostile feelings that i have been informed that it is going to rain Again when i want to go off in it

 

[Spacerunner]

Are not all public car parks and supermarkets who use height barriers just as guilty as Ikea in discriminating against, not only, travellers but owners of higher vehicles.
If only this case would go to court we would then have some case history to get height barriers and other obstacles that prevent motorhomers from having the same freedom to park as the rest of the community.

 

[GJH]

Are not all public car parks and supermarkets who use height barriers just as guilty as Ikea in discriminating against, not only, travellers but owners of higher vehicles.
If only this case would go to court we would then have some case history to get height barriers and other obstacles that prevent motorhomers from having the same freedom to park as the rest of the community.

The use of height barriers is justified by both public and private bodies which install them for various reasons. Examples I have come across in the course of research are:
a) to prevent the setting up of unauthorised campsites
b) to stop commercial vehicles clogging up shopper car parks
c) to prevent heavy vehicles from using car parks designed for max weight of 1500 Kg
d) to prevent use by large vehicles to avoid danger where space is tight.
I expect it would be very difficult to show unjustified discrimination in any of those cases. However, without knowing which part of Hampshire you live in, I am aware that most Hampshire boroughs operate at least some car parks with height barriers. Perhaps you might like to "take up the cause" in your local area to see if discrimination can be demonstrated.

 

[Spacerunner]

I already took up the 'cause to get an aire on Hayling Island and look where that got me!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

I already took up the 'cause to get an aire on Hayling Island and look where that got me!

Good start then

 

[vwalan]

using one of grahams excusses for height barriers are they going to start banning range rovers or heavy cars then. ?
as a motor home is a car with a special body .the eu as already got rules that could be used to stop height barriers . it was on its way to eu court a few years ago but it somehow never got there . will have to look into it .

 

[GJH]

using one of grahams excusses for height barriers[HI] are they going to start banning range rovers or heavy cars then[/HI]. ?
as a motor home is a car with a special body .the eu as already got rules that could be used to stop height barriers . it was on its way to eu court a few years ago but it somehow never got there . will have to look into it .

I've asked councils about this. The individual responses are recorded on my web site for all to see.

In some cases height restrictions physically prevent tall vehicles like Range Rovers (or similar) from proceeding. I've personally witnessed one receiving rather a nasty scrape on its roof

 

[vwalan]

it wasnt actually your excuses i know .you are only putting forward ideas. unfortunatel they also are discriminate for disabled as well.
as it is they really are just disciminate against high cars .
any excuses are feable . many you can bounce over a kerb and still get in if you want to. just a bad thought out idea by authority really.

 

[GJH]

it wasnt actually your excuses i know .you are only putting forward ideas. unfortunatel they also are discriminate for disabled as well.
as it is they really are just disciminate against high cars .
any excuses are feable . many you can bounce over a kerb and still get in if you want to. just a bad thought out idea by authority really.

As I said originally, the use of height barriers is [HI]justified[/HI] by both public and private bodies which install them for various reasons. Whilst a very few may be excuses I am quite content to accept the validity of the vast majority of justifications. I base that assertion on having communicated extensively with all local authorities in the UK and several other public and private organisations which run car parks and having received responses in writing.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[joner8888]

The use of height barriers is justified by both public and private bodies which install them for various reasons. Examples I have come across in the course of research are:
a) to prevent the setting up of unauthorised campsites
b) to stop commercial vehicles clogging up shopper car parks
c) to prevent heavy vehicles from using car parks designed for max weight of 1500 Kg
d) to prevent use by large vehicles to avoid danger where space is tight.
I expect it would be very difficult to show unjustified discrimination in any of those cases. However, without knowing which part of Hampshire you live in, I am aware that most Hampshire boroughs operate at least some car parks with height barriers. Perhaps you might like to "take up the cause" in your local area to see if discrimination can be demonstrated.

Sometimes i see high top vans driving in for a estimate with the over windscreen area flattened in ,with red paint on it.
I know they have made a mistake or forgotten, and turned in to the local pound plus free car park with a overhead barrier.

 

[TDH]

The use of height barriers is justified by both public and private bodies which install them for various reasons. Examples I have come across in the course of research are:
a) to prevent the setting up of unauthorised campsites
b) to stop commercial vehicles clogging up shopper car parks
c) to prevent heavy vehicles from using car parks designed for max weight of 1500 Kg
d) to prevent use by large vehicles to avoid danger where space is tight.
I expect it would be very difficult to show unjustified discrimination in any of those cases. However, without knowing which part of Hampshire you live in, I am aware that most Hampshire boroughs operate at least some car parks with height barriers. Perhaps you might like to "take up the cause" in your local area to see if discrimination can be demonstrated.

FWIW, these justifications may be discriminatory but they're not unlawful.

In IKEA's case, if they are discriminating against a particular ethnic, racial or national group when providing their service, they're breaking the law.

And just to make it even more interesting, the latest legislation (The Equality Act 2010) makes 'discrimination by perception' unlawful as well. In other words, if you're discriminated against because someone thinks that you are in one of the groups that the law protects, whether you are or not, there's a breach of the law. In the past, if someone thought you were of a particular racial background and discriminated against you, you had no recourse unless you were from that background. Now you do. So the bloke who was asked if he was a gypsy, if he'd refused to answer and was turned away, the law would have been on his side.

Simple isn't it? And that's before we even start thinking about 'discrimination by association'!

The interesting thing is that, if IKEA banned all motorhomes from its carparks, they'd probably be acting within the law.

It strikes me that IKEA should be a bit more diligent in how they choose their security contractors - any company operating with such a high profile organisation should make sure that their employees are at least told what the outcome of such a stupid question is likely to be.

And if they want training I can tell 'em exactly where they can get a good course from!!