Southampton Boat Show 2021 Covid test to enter regardless of Vaccination status

[Graham376]

Not correct, if a business refuses to serve a customer on discriminatory grounds, it is illegal. Discrimination includes issues such as gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion or disability, which are all protected characteristics.

Doesn't need to be discriminatory on the grounds of ethnicity, gender etc. Maybe you should read the notice on display in many retailers(as we had) the management reserve the right to refuse service to any person without having to give reason. If someone is objectional to staff for instance, there's a right to refuse to serve them and request they leave.

 

[JNKScot]

Doesn't need to be discriminatory on the grounds of ethnicity, gender etc. Maybe you should read the notice on display in many retailers(as we had) the management reserve the right to refuse service to any person without having to give reason. If someone is objectional to staff for instance, there's a right to refuse to serve them and request they leave.

Exactly, especially if you are a Publican, you can eject and bar anyone without having to give a reason; in fact the less you say the better; if asked why, say absolutely nothing other than "Out!" and/or, "You're barred"

 

[INT QRK]

Doesn't need to be discriminatory on the grounds of ethnicity, gender etc. Maybe you should read the notice on display in many retailers(as we had) the management reserve the right to refuse service to any person without having to give reason. If someone is objectional to staff for instance, there's a right to refuse to serve them and request they leave.

Wrong again, start by reading the Equality Act 2010 and then have a look at these cases

Bull v Hall (Supreme Court)

and

Black v Morgan (Court of Appeal)

 

[dom]

Wrong again, start by reading the Equality Act 2010 and then have a look at these cases

Bull v Hall (Supreme Court)

and

Black v Morgan (Court of Appeal)

He’s not wrong again at all.

You are merely offering a potentially valid argument to another potentially valid one.
?

 

[INT QRK]

He’s not wrong again at all.

You are merely offering a potentially valid argument to another potentially valid one.
?

Let's see, on one side we have a notice put up by some area retail manager and on the other we have statute and case law, hmm.

 

[JNKScot]

Wrong again, start by reading the Equality Act 2010 and then have a look at these cases

Bull v Hall (Supreme Court)

and

Black v Morgan (Court of Appeal)

Which is why you never give any reason or attempt at justification.

 

[Graham376]

Let's see, on one side we have a notice put up by some area retail manager and on the other we have statute and case law, hmm.

Never heard of folks being banned from one or more pubs or shoplifters banned from some stores? Just have a Google, virtually all case law revolves around discrimination.

 

[alan_d]

Beware! You are in danger of falling into the base rate fallacy and/or its cousin, the prosecutor's fallacy. Basically, the false negative rate has to be taken in conjunction with the actual rate of infection. Since very people have COVID (latest ONS estimate for England is 1 in 65) a negative result is even more likely to be a real one than a false one than the false negative rate might suggest.

I'm glad you said I was in danger of falling into error rather than I had actually done so. I am aware of the importance of prevalence in assessing the practical relevance of false negative rates, but I was trying to be brief. Because of the missing word, I am not sure whether you think the prevalence of 1 in 65 is very low or very high. I does seem as though the false negative rates for LFTs depend on who carries them out and in the case of d-i-y can approach 50%, even without conscious cheating. (I do wonder how many people can accurately locate their tonsils . )

 

[Tomahawk]

Doesn't seem un-reasonable to me. If you can't be arsed to go and get a test to prove that you don't have covid, then why should they let you in.

OTOH,
I am the customer. I am also an offshore yachtsman. Safety is the first thing on my mind from start to finish. Were it not, I would be a corpse by now, but seeing as I am alive I feel confident im my ability to assess risk. This year I am looking for a new sail for my boat. And new oilies bor the both of us. Try treating me like something to be ordered about and regulated and I am not interested.

 

[capnsensible]

OTOH,
I am the customer. I am also an offshore yachtsman. Safety is the first thing on my mind from start to finish. Were it not, I would be a corpse by now, but seeing as I am alive I feel confident im my ability to assess risk. This year I am looking for a new sail for my boat. And new oilies bor the both of us. Try treating me like something to be ordered about and regulated and I am not interested.

If that was truly so, then you would know you have a duty of care to your fellow crew....citizens......and wouldn't take unecessary, avoidable risks. Being too lazy to take a simple safety test is not actually being ordered around.

 

[Tomahawk]

If that was truly so, then you would know you have a duty of care to your fellow crew....citizens......and wouldn't take unecessary, avoidable risks. Being too lazy to take a simple safety test is not actually being ordered around.

A duty of care to my crew... definitely yes. But a duty of care to total strangers?
As to avoiding unnecessary risks, it is an outside event. All the news stories are saying transmission outside is rare and low level, even on the crowded beach raves and football terraces of the recent Euro. The spike in infections following the tournament was attributed to groups of males gathering indoors to watch a game on TV. Them there is the question about how crowded it is likely to be? Twenty years ago it was absolutely mobbed all week long. However crowds have been falling to the extent that our last visit there was ample room all day. The question would have been, will it be mobbed to make up for lockdown? If so
I would probably avoid regardless. But being instructed to take a test and go through a process is a complete turn off for me.

I will probably buy on line instead.

 

[dom]

Let's see, on one side we have a notice put up by some area retail manager and on the other we have statute and case law, hmm.

The findings in these cases were immensely detailed and interwoven with specific factors including sexual orientation. They cannot be reliably applied to circumstances which are optically similar but subtly different.

Let alone to situations which are very different indeed.

 

[capnsensible]

People seem to want to spend more time arguing than taking a simple, free test to protect others. Particularly those on the stands that may meet hundreds. Seems selfish to me.

 

[jordanbasset]

I am sure there will be some who will not attend because they do not want to be vaccinated and or take a test. I am equally sure some would not attend if the organisers allowed everyone in with out a test and or vaccination. The organisers have made a decision, I suspect for public health reasons and that the latter figure would be bigger than than the former

 

[syvictoria]

A duty of care to my crew... definitely yes. But a duty of care to total strangers?
<snip>

Yes, it's called being a human. Sadly compassion and respect seem to be the marks of something akin to a subspecies nowadays, rather than the norm...

 

[lustyd]

People seem to want to spend more time arguing than taking a simple, free test to protect others. Particularly those on the stands that may meet hundreds. Seems selfish to me.

I must have missed that, who said they wouldn't take a test?

Whether or not I "show my papers" at the entrance it's trust based system that some will abuse and the majority will not abuse, either way the outcome is identical from a protection perspective but not from a privacy perspective. If people want protection then they should get vaccinated, the whole of the UK have now had this opportunity. Vulnerable people who can't have the vaccine and are wanting to attend take the same risk either way, and that's a risk they need to manage, but everyone providing papers at the entrance does not change in any way. People who decided for one reason or another not to get the vaccine have already made their choice on the risks involved.

 

[lustyd]

I am sure there will be some who will not attend because they do not want to be vaccinated and or take a test

The majority who changed their mind will, like myself, be fully vaccinated and taking tests. The idea of Covid passports is abhorrent to me, and I will not support their introduction in any way. A great many people have died for our freedom, we must not give it up at the first sign of fear. I'm not necessarily fighting for my own freedom here, but for the freedom of others who have different circumstances.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I am aware of the importance of prevalence in assessing the practical relevance of false negative rates, but I was trying to be brief. Because of the missing word, I am not sure whether you think the prevalence of 1 in 65 is very low or very high.

Sorry. I decided to change "very low" to "low" and deleted the wrong word. Now sorted. Actually 1 in 65 does seem pretty low, but since it was 1 in 1200 at this time last year, it's less reassuring.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I am the customer. I am also an offshore yachtsman. Safety is the first thing on my mind from start to finish. Were it not, I would be a corpse by now, but seeing as I am alive I feel confident im my ability to assess risk.

Which part of Yachtmaster Offshore covers assessing the risk of infectious diseases?

This year I am looking for a new sail for my boat. And new oilies bor the both of us. Try treating me like something to be ordered about and regulated and I am not interested.

Do you object with equal vehemence to the need for a ticket and the one-way system over the bridge?

 

[Bilgediver]

So, they're obviously not expecting any overseas visitors this year.

They will have obtained a test to get here.