I'm working today. Have a poll!

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1547520]

Comments

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to run a B&B in your own home.

Accordingly, if you're opening your home to the public on a commercial basis, you should bloody well obey the law.

(If you're not doing it for money, but letting folks stay for free on a non-commercial basis, that's another matter entirely.)

The only remotely controversial aspect to this affair is that the B&B owners are renting out their spare bedroom to the public while continuing to live on the site where they conduct their business. Thus blurring the distinction between their business and their home life -- in their own heads. If a big hotel chain discriminated in this way, they'd be pilloried.

[andrewducker]

That would be my opinion also. Any other option under law would mean that having the manager sleep on-site would allow for discrimination.

Poll was prompted by reading about the Tories having had _exactly_ the same arguments about race rather than sexuality back in the 60s...

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes. The days of "no blacks, no irish, no dogs." And before that, "no jews, no irish, no dogs."

Long gone and good riddance. (I'm glad to see that Grayling's comments over the weekend seem to be being perceived as highly damaging by the Tories -- or at least by their leadership.)

[thakil.livejournal.com]

Well, if said b&b customers are disruptive and rude, then the manager is surely within their rights to deny access? But otherwise, no.

[andrewducker]

Aha! Here's the quote:

Hogg, in discussing what he thought was a flawed bill, said there needed to be a distinction between individuals who, say, chose not to sell their house to a black man because of feeling for their neighbours, and great commercial concerns that systematically discriminated. He said he hoped to move amendments in committee.

From

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

It depends.

If I was in a position where reform was viable, then I would attempt this option first. If it was clear that the corruption was greater than I could manage without completely messing up my employment record (like going to the media with a fascinating story) then I would leave, and try a different organisation.

If there were others who felt the same way I did, then we could leave together and start our own organisation.

I would be cautious about starting an organisation on my own, and I would be cautious going solo or freelance unless I knew I had clients who would follow me, or a market which I could immediately take an income from.

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

1. Depends on how much they are paying you and if they are prepared to cut you in on what they are stealing. If you are making 50k and they won't cut you in, go to another organization. If you are making 200k and they offer to cut you in for another 200k to look the other way, stay with them for a year or two, sock money away and then just don't show up for work one morning.

2. You should be allowed to have a "no children" policy because people come to B&Bs for peace and quiet and children could annoy your other patrons.

[andrewducker]

Interesting that the comments about corrupt organisations are so far referring to employers, whereas I was thinking of people's responses to both the Catholic Church and the New Labour Party.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Other: openly armed (and unwilling to lock their weapons away in your safe, locked [by you] closet, or whatever), obviously infested with fleas or other vermin, drunk & disorderly, shouting violent threats, or any other state that is an obvious threat to either your health or safety. However, that's pretty much it.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

You should be allowed to have a "no children" policy because people come to B&Bs for peace and quiet and children could annoy your other patrons.

That's an excellent point, but I think it could simply be put in under a more general no loud or disorderly conduct rule (most definitely including such conduct by children).

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

You can't do that because most parents think that their children are not loud or disorderly and that the rule would apply to other people's children.

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

Well, if you find out a co-worker is corrupt, you simply blackmail them.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

*nods*

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I think Julie's point is still comparatively viable.

[andlosers.livejournal.com]

Interesting that at the time of writing I'm the only person who's clicked "start your own organisation." That's my first impulse, and I'm sort of surprised to be alone in having it.

[andrewducker]

I don't think most people think of organisations as things that can be started, just things that can be joined or left.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

It's interesting actually because many pubs/restaurants have notices up saying "We reserve the right to refuse service or ask you to leave for any reason/without giving reason" and we don't really question it as a general rule because we say "Oh, well, they mean if they know you to be a thug/arsehole but can't prove it and want their arses covered, don't they?" And they almost always do. But it's the same thing, really, isn't it?

At the end of the day though if you were chucked out for being gay/black/whatever and you could prove it later I guess they'd be onto a loser.

Butyeah, what everyone else said. You're welcome to not allow people into your home as a general rule. But if you're running a business you have to obey the law.

It's interesting; it's a little like the discussion Lizzie and I had with our* new letting agents when I was signing conracts. He's been studying law at Napier, and so was very keen to impart his wisdom on property law, which was nice. He was saying that a lot of the things landlords attempt to 'ban' in the flats they let, they really can't, legally. I mean, they can refuse to let to you on any basis really, and if they want to end your lease after it's up or onto the rolling notice period, then fine, but once you're there, you can get cats and take up smoking and they can't call breach of contract, because they can't legally put it in the contract in the first place, because this is legally your home, and you have certain rights in your home. They also can't force you to use certain fuel or telephone providers. This came up 'cause I asked him about the cats again and he was like "Meh, I didn't tell the owner, she's a bit precious. At the end of the day damage is damage."

*'Our' being Erin and I, not Lizzie and I.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

True, but I see absolutely no problem with asking parents with children to leave if the children actually prove to be disruptive.

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

See, I think that some places should be dedicated as "Adult" childfree spaces. I think a B&B could reasonably be assumed to be one of those spaces.

[andrewducker]

I didn't realise that the cats thing wasn't legal! That's fascinating!

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Also, doing so is generally either a pointless statement or a truly vast amount of work (that has no guarantee of success), and so it's far easier to join a new organization.

[henriksdal.livejournal.com]

I've stayed at a B&B that had gun lockers! (nearly typoed fun lockers)

[heron61.livejournal.com]

but once you're there, you can get cats and take up smoking and they can't call breach of contract, because they can't legally put it in the contract in the first place, because this is legally your home, and you have certain rights in your home.

Wow, that's very different from the ownership-based private property evils that abound in the US (where all such rules are perfectly legal). One of the biggest changes I'd love to see in US law is the adoption of UK property law, a change that would almost certainly utterly horrify much of the US population, who believe they have a god-given right to do whatever they wish with any piece of land they own.

[momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com]

Mmyeah... if you open a business you are opening yourself to custom from all and sundry.

I keep thinking though, are there people none of us would want in our hypothetical B&B? BNP members? Fox hunters? I guess that's why we're not opening B&Bs...

And yes, I took the org thing to be a company rather than something like a party... interesting.

[theferrett.livejournal.com]

My answer should be self-evident, since I'm still here on LiveJournal. *g*