parent and child spaces in sainsbury's car park

[Pearson]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm really surprised you got away with that. Try

> opening a 'whites-only' shop with that logic and

> see how far you get.

>_____________________________________________________

Try publishing a 'white pride' magazine:

http://pridemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/SeptCover.jpg

[zeban]

Pearson, get a brain cell!

Western culture has historically reverred white women and white beauty, instilling a dominant attitude in society that white is best- thus there has already been a subconcious pride of being white. This is an attempt to create some pride for non-white women. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Pearson]

zeban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pearson, get a brain cell!

_________________________________________

>Charming....You're clearly a superior human to me.

I disagree with your post though.

[DJKillaQueen]

Unfortunately Pearson if white people (men mostly if we are honest) hadn't conquered, subjegated and enslaved half the globe, not to mention a whole gender (and that still goes on in some parts) historically then you might have a point.

[Pearson]

My post was a flippant response to Loz and the 'whites-only' shop comment.

But there are apparent discriminations in all walks of life, you could argue.

Depends on which side of the fence you sit...

[*Bob*]

From pushchairs.. crotchless panties.. slavery.

Where to next?

[Loz]

There is nothing illegal about publishing a magazine for men, women, white people, black people, gay people, whatever, because there is nothing stopping someone not in your target group from purchasing the magazine. There are 'gay bars', yes, but again, straight people are not barred.

Actually denying someone entrance to a shop on the basis of gender, sexuality or race is not allowed without some legal reason (e.g. women only spas).

[pinkhalf]

If places providing goods or services are dumb enough to refuse you entry to say AND it is connected with your genitals, skin colour or choice of bedfellows then you can sue them. They don't have to serve anyone, of course. It is up to them to contract with you, they don't have to. But my top tip to businesses is that they do not give any reason at all for refusing service or entry to their premises.

Regarding the women's only shop, I seem to remember that it was that men were allowed to visit, but that they needed a female escort to do so. That was permissable once but no longer, now it would have to classify itself as an exception as a "single sex service" to only permit women entry, and that decision would have to be "objectively justified".

[DJKillaQueen]

Anyway back to parking spaces. I usually borrow a neighbours kid when I want to take advatage of doorstep parking. Only costs me a comic and a small bag of sweets :D

[DJKillaQueen]

I think objective justification is the key isn't it. A spa can oprate men or women only spaces/ membership whereas a golf club can't.

[*Bob*]

That's my midgets-only golf club dream up in smoke.

[Loz]

pinkhalf Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Regarding the women's only shop, I seem to

> remember that it was that men were allowed to

> visit, but that they needed a female escort to do

> so.

Would a blow-up doll count?

[pinkhalf]

I've never attributed sex to a malformed balloon - sounds like a matter for the courts though.

[QueenMab]

Great discussion. Anyway, let's get back to supporting the RIGHTS of the bloated minority of able-bodied pinheads to park their cars wherever they like...within a 50m radius of a superstore, FFS. We're not talking about asking people to scale Kilimanjaro here.

[*Bob*]

The able-bodied pinheads are scaling Kilimanjaro too these days

[katie1997]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> From pushchairs.. crotchless panties.. slavery.

>

> Where to next?

Sainsbury's car park?

(its either that or square plates...)

[Damian H]

peckhamboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Come on pearson, get with it. Sainsburys are

> discriminating against the able-bodied and those

> without children by providing dedicated spaces to

> the disabled and those with young children. Of

> course, amongst other things, Damian H is making

> an enormous and unjustifiable leap of logic by

> claiming that parking spaces for people with

> children is discriminatory on the grounds of

> marital status. I don't recall any signs saying

> that you can't park there if you're not

> married...

>

> But whilst we're at it. there's a dedicated space

> for electric cars too. Isn't that discriminatory

> against people with petrol cars?

>

> There's a lot of crap on this thread imo. Disabled

> people have their own spaces because they often

> need more room either side of the car to get

> themselves and wheelchairs in and out. It also

> makes sense to give them spaces near the entrance.

> People with young kids need more space either side

> of the car to get babies in and out (I think it's

> a bit ridiculous to extend the definition of young

> kids up to 12 though - frankly, once the kids are

> about 5 they should be more than capable of

> getting in and out with minimal help), and it also

> helps if you can get the pushchair down the side

> of the car rather than trying to get a small child

> into a pushchair in the 'road'. So I have no

> problem with spaces for those with young kids. Do

> they need to be right by the entrance? No. In fact

> they would be better slightly further away so that

> selfish ar5eholes don't feel the need to park in

> them. The point of the spaces ought to be extra

> width rather than proximity.

I dont think there is any huge logical leap at all. Let me enlighten you a little about discrimination law. There are two types of discrimination - direct and indirect. Direct discrimination is where overt, stated discrimination against one group takes place. Indirect discrimination is where a policy is implemented that does not overtly and intentionally discriminate but which will indirectly have a dspoportionate effect or disadvantage to a group that is legally protected from discrimnation. As I pointed out I am not entirely sure of the exact law relating to discrimination on gruonds of marital/family status but I believe that may now be illegal. Since the simple fact is (not a value or moral judgment, just a statement of fact) that most people with children in modern society tend to be married there is indirect discrimination (or very possible direct) if certain services are provided only to those with children.

Let me give you an example - when I was in the Civil Service there was a concept introduced called Term Time Working Hours. This would allow staff to request that they be permitted to take a substantial amount of time off work during school holiday periods to be able to be with their children more. Their salary would be calculated and paid pro rata in order to reflect the reduction in working hours. This was designed initially as a 'family friendly policy. It was then pointed out that this policy provided a benefit to a group with a certain marital/family status and therefore unlawfully discriminated against those who were single and without children. I understand that legal opinion confirmed this and Term Time hours had to be offered as an equal option to those who were single or had no children to avoid the potential of claims of unlawful discrimination.

Sainsbury's from what I can see may be doing the very same thing. They are offering a service to customers that is restricted to one group of customers and discriminates against others based solely upon marital/family status. If Sainsbury's want to offer 'Extra Wide Parking Bays' that might be a very good idea - but to state that they are only for the use of those with children may well onstitute unlawful discrimination for the reasons I have just outlined. As I have said, I am not a lawyer but have been involved in a number of discrimination cases and tribunals as a witness and as a Trade Union rep and the law in these areas is remarkably complex, convoluted and sometimes bizarre.

The matter is made worse by the fact that one of the earliest posts on this thread implied that Sainsbury's actually planned to trace and fine someone for parking in one of these bays. If my point outlined above is correct that would be adding further discriminatory acts and would very possibly compound any existing offence.

With regard to bays for parking electrical cars rather than petrol vehicles - there is no legislation making it illegal to discrimnate on the basis of the way a person's vehicle is powered. There is however, I believe, legislation making it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of marital/family status. If, of course, it was shown that petrol cars are proportionaely driven more by the disabled, ethnic minorities, people of one gender, sexual orientation etc etc, there might be a case of indirect discrimination involved as one protected group would be disporoportionately disadvantaged whether that was the intention of the legislation or ot.

[DaveR]

"I am not a lawyer but have been involved in a number of discrimination cases and tribunals as a witness and as a Trade Union rep..."

Now it all becones clear

Man the pickets brothers, them mums are taking away our rights to wide parking spaces!! Scabs!!

[peckhamboy]

Damian H - lighten up dude. And no need for the lecture on discrimination - I do happen to know a little about it. Incidentally, the law on marital status is that you can't discriminate against somebody on the grounds of their being married or in a civil partnership. Nothing to stop you discrimnating against singletons though, so you're fighting a losing battle there.

Hope that helps.

[taper]

"They are offering a service to customers that is restricted to one group of customers and discriminates against others based solely upon marital/family status"

The service of being able to park in the car park is offered to all customers. The fact that the children bays are marginally closer to the store is not material in the definition of service, surely. I don't suppose there is case law on this matter, but I think you would be on a loser with your argument.

And quite right too: it's the interest of the child that is paramount here. Of all the cr&p going on in the world, it's jaw-dropping that people are bellyaching about this.

Let's us unite instead against perfidious cyclists. Or people living in vans.

[pk]

Damian H Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> Sainsbury's from what I can see may be doing the

> very same thing. They are offering a service to

> customers that is restricted to one group of

> customers and discriminates against others

so offering disabled parking to disabled customers discriminates against abled bodied customers so should also be outlawed?

[Jeremy]

Surely Damian's absurd claims of discrimination warrant no further discussion.

[Loz]

Of course, Sainsburys can't 'fine' you as such anyway - no private company can. What they can do is put an invoice on your car for ?50 cunningly disguised as an official looking fine.

When you park in Sainsbos, you form a contract with them and part of that contract is a charge of ?50 if you park where you are not supposed to. But, this contract is with the *driver* of the vehicle - not the owner. So, even though Sainsburys will send the owner the fine (since they do it via the DVLA), they still have to prove that you (or someone else) were the driver in order to pursue the contract. They generally do this by asking you, so if you don't (or can't...) tell them, then they are a bit stuffed. They would have to pursue it like they would any other unpaid invoice and have to prove in court who the person the contract was made with. So, if you don't tell them then unless they have some other proof (CCTV or something) that you, the owner, was the driver then they're unlikely to get anywhere.

Usual disclaimer: I am, of course, not a lawyer.

[ladyruskin]

Damian H Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If Sainsbury's

> want to offer 'Extra Wide Parking Bays' that might

> be a very good idea

Sainsbury's do offer extra wide parking bays, in the area immediately to the right of the car park entrance. They are available for everyone to use, but are as far from the store as possible so obviously not as attractive.

[njc97]

Damian - I think the "term-time" working has been viewed as discriminatory on the grounds of being indirect sexual discrimination, not on the basis of "familial status", which I dont think is illegal.

On this basis, I dont think the parent and child parking spaces are discriminatory. The disabled bays are, but I suspect there's a specific carve out for providing additional facilities for disabled people like this.