More Great Publicity For The Island....

[manxman1980]

It must be the sheer relevancy of the comment that you are having problems with.

The topic is gay discrimination - n'est pas? As in prospective tenants being discriminated against because we don't have the same laws as uk. The fact is that those who apply for private rentals are discriminated against constantly and have been for as long as I can remember. (1) Private landlords frequently state :No DHS. This means those in receipt of any form of benefit eg. DLA, incapacity etc.. (2) Landords are also at liberty to refuse to have children in their properties. So this affects families. Therefore, families and benefit recipients are discriminated against on a constant basis. However. when the same tactics are applied to a gay couple we have international headlines and the CM declaring he will take rapid action against the dire situation we still have in discrimination towards gays. Where is the equality there?

 

If you still have problems understanding this perfectly simply and relevant question don't expect me to respond any further. Everyone else that I have explained this to has understood me perfectly.

 

I am going to answer some of your points (with my own views) and have inserted references as needed;

 

(1) I would like to know more about why private landlords state "No DHS". I would imagine that under the UK Equality Act that this would be indirect discrimination against persons with a disability but I do not know enough about private rental. Considering my own property it would be very unsuited to those with limited mobility as it can only be accessed via a stairwell with no lift access. The stairwell does not form part of my property so making a modification would be impractical/impossible. However, I would imagine that anyone with mobility problems would already have decided that the property is unsuitable.

 

(2) Was this not part of the issue with this case? As I recall the landlord stated that the property was for a family and that a homosexual couple were not a "family". If we take that at face value then surely there is some form of equality as there are properties designated as being only for families?

 

I have previously tried to make the point that the central point of this case is the unfair discrimination. How is it fair to refuse to rent a property to anyone on the grounds of their sexuality? This has nothing to do with whether or not they make a good tenant.

 

I hope that you can see that I am not trying to force any agenda onto you, or anyone else, just merely trying to give you my honest views and trying to clarify the points you have made.

[ballaughbiker]

Now I'm not keen on the French

The feeling might be mutual.... However I agree with your observation that they seem to be considerably less hampered by the ridiculous levels of political correctness that blight the British Isles.

 

Edited to add : Strangely enough, this arrived about 10 seconds after I wrote the above. http://www.survivefrance.com/profiles/blogs/an-ump-front-national-alliance-a-sign-of-things-to-come. Some say Marine Le Pen is the much milder form of her dad J-M. Others (including me) believe otherwise.

[Silentbob]

 

I am not a fan of homosexuality,

 

it is my opinion that at an animal level we have 2 sexes to propagate the human race, although I do understand that the mind is a ridiculously complicated thing and people will be as they are; live and let live.

Well that's a stupid thing to say for starters. Do you realise what a tit you sound with mention of that - especially with the live and let live at the end. Not a fan? What is that supposed to mean? Does it mean you don't like it?

 

It is homophobic to make comments on disliking homosexuality because any sort of liking or disliking are based on value judgements that really have no place in the topic of sexuality.

 

Mention of biology and procreation is completely irrelevant.

 

By all means demonstrate why you think that your dislike is based on the question of propagation. But I doubt you can do so.

I am not a fan of putting my nuts in a blender, I have never tried it, but I am sure I would not enjoy it.

 

I am not religious, my family are not religious, I have had a bi-sexual girlfriend which I did not have an issue with (surprisingly enough, but never got to partake ). It is a simple bloke thing, if you prefer the company of sausage then that is your decision, I am not going to try to alienate you from the world, put you out in the cold or abuse you (fnar fnar) for it, all I ask is that you do not tell me to accept that playing with another man's cobblers would ever be my idea of fun.

 

Because I don't think it would be fun......ever....at all.

 

In direct response to your challenge, men have willies, girls have vaginas, you put the willy in the vagina and 9 months later you have a baby....propagation, did you not learn this at school? I did, it was great. At no point did they say that sticking your giblets in another man's rusty bullet hole would achieve the same result though.

 

So I thought at this point, if I ever want to have children, I best find a vagina.

 

I became a big fan of them from then on....end of story.

 

 

[ballaughbiker]

I would like to know more about why private landlords state "No DHS".

A lot of this is caused by the recent change to now pay the Tenant direct so they have the opportunity to spend rent normally received direct to the landlord on more important things. This along with many local authorities advice to wait until the bailiffs arrive following a Sect.21 repossession means that savvy landlords will not take the chance. There are plenty of very good DHS tenants out there but like so many things in life, the bad ones spoil it for the rest.

 

Whilst I personally think it is crazy to reject tenants based on their sexuality, many landlords do and it is their property after all. If it all goes wrong nobody cares 'cos is rich innit? (Hey, that could lead into a long side debate about property ownership from the usual suspects which I won't bother getting involved in).

[ballaughbiker]

Bob I haven't had my lunch yet.

[Lxxx]

 

It must be the sheer relevancy of the comment that you are having problems with.

The topic is gay discrimination - n'est pas? As in prospective tenants being discriminated against because we don't have the same laws as uk. The fact is that those who apply for private rentals are discriminated against constantly and have been for as long as I can remember. (1) Private landlords frequently state :No DHS. This means those in receipt of any form of benefit eg. DLA, incapacity etc.. (2) Landords are also at liberty to refuse to have children in their properties. So this affects families. Therefore, families and benefit recipients are discriminated against on a constant basis. However. when the same tactics are applied to a gay couple we have international headlines and the CM declaring he will take rapid action against the dire situation we still have in discrimination towards gays. Where is the equality there?

 

If you still have problems understanding this perfectly simply and relevant question don't expect me to respond any further. Everyone else that I have explained this to has understood me perfectly.

 

I am going to answer some of your points (with my own views) and have inserted references as needed;

 

(1) I would like to know more about why private landlords state "No DHS". I would imagine that under the UK Equality Act that this would be indirect discrimination against persons with a disability but I do not know enough about private rental. Considering my own property it would be very unsuited to those with limited mobility as it can only be accessed via a stairwell with no lift access. The stairwell does not form part of my property so making a modification would be impractical/impossible. However, I would imagine that anyone with mobility problems would already have decided that the property is unsuitable.

 

(2) Was this not part of the issue with this case? As I recall the landlord stated that the property was for a family and that a homosexual couple were not a "family". If we take that at face value then surely there is some form of equality as there are properties designated as being only for families?

 

I have previously tried to make the point that the central point of this case is the unfair discrimination. How is it fair to refuse to rent a property to anyone on the grounds of their sexuality? This has nothing to do with whether or not they make a good tenant.

 

I hope that you can see that I am not trying to force any agenda onto you, or anyone else, just merely trying to give you my honest views and trying to clarify the points you have made.

 

If he would have said 'Listen love, this is a family home and I'd much rather rent it to a family for no other reason than there are a lot of families out there who cannot get a decent home to fit them all fit in and two people rattling round in a big ol' house like this just isn't fair, especially on a small island with such a low housing stock as this.'

 

Would they still have claimed it was prejudice though?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am not a fan of putting my nuts in a blender, I have never tried it, but I am sure I would not enjoy it.

 

I am not religious, my family are not religious, I have had a bi-sexual girlfriend which I did not have an issue with (surprisingly enough, but never got to partake ). It is a simple bloke thing, if you prefer the company of sausage then that is your decision, I am not going to try to alienate you from the world, put you out in the cold or abuse you (fnar fnar) for it, all I ask is that you do not tell me to accept that playing with another man's cobblers would ever be my idea of fun.

 

Because I don't think it would be fun......ever....at all.

 

In direct response to your challenge, men have willies, girls have vaginas, you put the willy in the vagina and 9 months later you have a baby....propagation, did you not learn this at school? I did, it was great. At no point did they say that sticking your giblets in another man's rusty bullet hole would achieve the same result though.

 

So I thought at this point, if I ever want to have children, I best find a vagina.

 

I became a big fan of them from then on....end of story.

 

 

Rather than 'homosexuality', are you simply saying that you don't like the idea of doing anal sex with another man? Is that it?

 

Why didn't you say that?

 

But this stuff about procreation is just not relevant. It isn't the case that you're not keen on having gay sex because you know that a man and woman are needed to make a kid. That's a stupid explanation.

 

You just grew up straight and that's that. Why you need to tell everyone else that you don't care to have gay sex is just irrelevance and probably homophobic.

 

I say that because of its irrelevance to the topic. There is no need to slap it into your post with your opinions. If I mention my support of straight people in gaining certain rights (such as civil partnerships) I don't have to make it clear that I think straight intercourse is distasteful.

 

Or do you think your recognition that gay people should have these rights almost makes you seem like you are getting in the bum and therefore you need to make it clear you're straight? (Just an idea to help you out).

[Lxxx]

 

I am not a fan of putting my nuts in a blender, I have never tried it, but I am sure I would not enjoy it.

 

I am not religious, my family are not religious, I have had a bi-sexual girlfriend which I did not have an issue with (surprisingly enough, but never got to partake ). It is a simple bloke thing, if you prefer the company of sausage then that is your decision, I am not going to try to alienate you from the world, put you out in the cold or abuse you (fnar fnar) for it, all I ask is that you do not tell me to accept that playing with another man's cobblers would ever be my idea of fun.

 

Because I don't think it would be fun......ever....at all.

 

In direct response to your challenge, men have willies, girls have vaginas, you put the willy in the vagina and 9 months later you have a baby....propagation, did you not learn this at school? I did, it was great. At no point did they say that sticking your giblets in another man's rusty bullet hole would achieve the same result though.

 

So I thought at this point, if I ever want to have children, I best find a vagina.

 

I became a big fan of them from then on....end of story.

 

 

Rather than 'homosexuality', are you simply saying that you don't like the idea of doing anal sex with another man? Is that it?

 

Why didn't you say that?

 

But this stuff about procreation is just not relevant. It isn't the case that you're not keen on having gay sex because you know that a man and woman are needed to make a kid. That's a stupid explanation.

 

You just grew up straight and that's that. Why you need to tell everyone else that you don't care to have gay sex is just irrelevance and probably homophobic.

 

I say that because of its irrelevance to the topic. There is no need to slap it into your post with your opinions. If I mention my support of straight people in gaining certain rights (such as civil partnerships) I don't have to make it clear that I think straight intercourse is distasteful.

 

Or do you think your recognition that gay people should have these rights almost makes you seem like you are getting in the bum and therefore you need to make it clear you're straight? (Just an idea to help you out).

 

I don't think he'll reply as he's probably gone back to school. Lunch break is over.

[ScotsAlan]

 

I am not a fan of putting my nuts in a blender, I have never tried it, but I am sure I would not enjoy it.

 

I am not religious, my family are not religious, I have had a bi-sexual girlfriend which I did not have an issue with (surprisingly enough, but never got to partake ). It is a simple bloke thing, if you prefer the company of sausage then that is your decision, I am not going to try to alienate you from the world, put you out in the cold or abuse you (fnar fnar) for it, all I ask is that you do not tell me to accept that playing with another man's cobblers would ever be my idea of fun.

 

Because I don't think it would be fun......ever....at all.

 

In direct response to your challenge, men have willies, girls have vaginas, you put the willy in the vagina and 9 months later you have a baby....propagation, did you not learn this at school? I did, it was great. At no point did they say that sticking your giblets in another man's rusty bullet hole would achieve the same result though.

 

So I thought at this point, if I ever want to have children, I best find a vagina.

 

I became a big fan of them from then on....end of story.

 

 

Rather than 'homosexuality', are you simply saying that you don't like the idea of doing anal sex with another man? Is that it?

 

Why didn't you say that?

 

But this stuff about procreation is just not relevant. It isn't the case that you're not keen on having gay sex because you know that a man and woman are needed to make a kid. That's a stupid explanation.

 

You just grew up straight and that's that. Why you need to tell everyone else that you don't care to have gay sex is just irrelevance and probably homophobic.

 

I say that because of its irrelevance to the topic. There is no need to slap it into your post with your opinions. If I mention my support of straight people in gaining certain rights (such as civil partnerships) I don't have to make it clear that I think straight intercourse is distasteful.

 

Or do you think your recognition that gay people should have these rights almost makes you seem like you are getting in the bum and therefore you need to make it clear you're straight? (Just an idea to help you out).

I'm with LDV on this. Well said LDV.

[ScotsAlan]

 

 

 

 

And don't forget discrimination against Manx people.

Well it is not bloody surprising there is discrimination against the Manx. Given they seem like such an indolent lot they will take anything and barely complain, nevermind fight for themselves.

 

What are we supposed to do? If we fight for our rights and protest about how they mistreat us, we just get w-nkers like MDO calling us "bitter" and saying we have a "chip" on our shoulders.

 

No you're bitter because you are a failed civil servant. Not because you're an oppressed anything.

 

Wrong, idiot. It's called political persecution.

Nop. It's called conversation. Get a grip.

 

I could have a drink in any bar in the world, have a good chat, agree to disagree and meet up to have another beer at a later date.

 

I would never dismiss someone as an idiot because we disagreed. That would be an idiotic thing to do,

[manxman1980]

 

I would like to know more about why private landlords state "No DHS".

A lot of this is caused by the recent change to now pay the Tenant direct so they have the opportunity to spend rent normally received direct to the landlord on more important things. This along with many local authorities advice to wait until the bailiffs arrive following a Sect.21 repossession means that savvy landlords will not take the chance. There are plenty of very good DHS tenants out there but like so many things in life, the bad ones spoil it for the rest.

 

Whilst I personally think it is crazy to reject tenants based on their sexuality, many landlords do and it is their property after all. If it all goes wrong nobody cares 'cos is rich innit? (Hey, that could lead into a long side debate about property ownership from the usual suspects which I won't bother getting involved in).

 

Thanks for the explanation. I had a feeling that might be the case so essentially it is the perception that those in receipt of benefits are scroungers and miscreants that is the problem there rather than people with disabilities.

 

 

If he would have said 'Listen love, this is a family home and I'd much rather rent it to a family for no other reason than there are a lot of families out there who cannot get a decent home to fit them all fit in and two people rattling round in a big ol' house like this just isn't fair, especially on a small island with such a low housing stock as this.'

 

Would they still have claimed it was prejudice though?

 

If you were in their position wouldn't you be more satisfied with that explanation? If I was told that I would be very dissappointed but at least it is better than "we don't like you because you are gay".

 

If I was a landlord, however, I would be trying to ensure that I always have an income that covers my costs rather than pee about deciding who is more worthy of the property. I would be focusing on who will be a good tenant, pay the rent on time and not damage the place. All this other stuff in my view is just nonsense and not why you become a private landlord.

[John Wright]

we are getting into the esoteric realms of indirect discrimination and definitions of words.

 

Assuming this one bed apartment was only suitable for families, what is a family. Is it a married couple (with or without a screaming babe in arms), an unmarried couple male and female (with or without the screaming babe in arms), a married gay or lesbian couple (with or without the proverbial screaming bundle of joy), a gay or lesbian couple who are civil partners (with or without baby) a married couple where one is a trangendered person who has fully transitioned and changed their birth certificate (with etc). Only allowing married or families may not in itself be directly discriminatory, but may be indirectly so.

 

In any decent 21st century western democracy I would hope to see equality and anti discrimination legislation covering employement, housing and access to goods and services for the following

 

Age
Disability
Gender
Race
Religion / politics
Sexual orientation

 

Refusing to rent to those on benefits may be indirect disability discrimination in some cases, it will depend.

 

What happens if I state no under 5 years old or no pets because physically the accomodation I am renting out is not suitable and then I refuse the apartment to a black lesbian couple, one of whom has had gender reassignment, one of whom is blind, the other has only one leg and they have a baby and a cat and one is in UKIP and the other is a muslim and to finish one is aged 70. Do I discriminate?

 

Its not easy and yes its a minefield and rich potential pickings for lawyers, but Id rather have some protection and the symbolism of a society that cares.

[ScotsAlan]

Erm JW. Many advertised apartments specify no children.

 

And no smokers.

 

Is that legal?

[John Wright]

Scots Alan, yes under our legislation. Probably under the Northern Ireland legislation. But it may depend on how you apply it

 

I dont discriminate on racial grounds but I only let to blue eyed blonds, eg.

[ScotsAlan]

Blue eyed Blondes with screaming sticky fingered kids who smoke 20 a day?

 

Registerd drud addicts?

 

Where does discrimaination start and stop?

 

An interesting point for the bigots to pick up on I think.