Respectfully @LLPunting The issue is not up for debate! Other members have expressed their appreciation for the thread.
Respectfully G_P, everyone against discrimination, on whatever grounds, would appreciate what PAYM is trying to do. However, there are some flaws in the approach which cannot be fully addressed because of the various limitations that PAYM and any of his volunteer assistants will have in maintaining the validity of this "list".
So far:
- We have profiles that are not currently trading but remain on the list, even if someone else without a discriminatory policy takes it over.
- We have profiles that are seemingly for another SP but recorded here because a previous owner had an offending policy.
- We have profiles where we know the policy was added and enacted by a previous owner but no one has confirmed that the current user is pursuing the same policy, and we know that some SPs are completely ignorant of what's on the profile and we can safely say that some SPs may not be discriminatory but their management may be, for whatever reason other than race.
- We have profiles where the SP is the same but the policy has been removed and no confirmation that it is being enforced.
Any update with substantiation of a retraction of policy and its practice will rely on someone knowing or finding the profile listed here, not experiencing any discrimination from the SP and then reporting the good news or notify PAYM so he can update the thread. This would be above and beyond just calling it out on a review or indeed just saying that the punt happened as it did, good or bad, and make no mention of any offending discrimination because it didn't happen.
Is PAYM going to check every review where a booking actually happened to see if the profile (not necessarily the SP) is listed here, establish the race of the reviewer, deduce that no discrimination took place or indeed regardless of reviewer's race establish that they did not get asked any discriminatory questions?
Is PAYM (or anyone else) going to read every review and if it doesn't mention anything discriminatory despite the reviewer being from a minority check to see if it clears a profile on this list?
We'll also be presented with situations where a punter claims he was a victim of discrimination by a conversation or a text exchange or a challenge at the premises but cannot or will not substantiate it.
How about punters who don't want to confide their ethnicity to this forum and so refrain from contributing to condemn or clear an entry?
How about reviews where punters take offence at the actions of an SP and interpret them as discriminatory when they weren't, especially as the punter may not reveal the context because it's detrimental to them or it's a risk to their identity/privacy or it exposes their lies?
This is just some fo the complexity.
So now we have any punter from a minority left to decide whether to assume the extra overhead of becoming familiar with this fallible source as part of his consideration of any SP he wants to engage with..
If we're going to challenge discriminatory behaviour we have to do it from a better place than a discriminatory list that cannot guarantee that the person someone is checking out is definitely the person running the profile and actively conducting a discriminatory policy.
It's like walking down a street saying to your companion, "Bunch of racists lived at that house once, new people now, but best watch out."
So, to be clear, I am totally against discriminatory practices that disrespects anyone and denies them opportunity solely because of their perceived ethnicity but I am also against labelling someone a potential racist because they inhabit the same space or use the same advert (which they might not control) as a previously suspected or confirmed racist.
