London Letting Agents Refuse Black Tenants

[tomandlu]

If it is deemed that the kind of people who can adequately play a hobbit are short, white ones, then is there a difference?

Since they used normal sized people plus some CGI and clever camera work (and, indeed, there were some complaints about this from PORG actors), I'm not quite sure if you've made your point or shot it in the foot...

[Ologhai Jones]

Since they used normal sized people plus some CGI and clever camera work (and, indeed, there were some complaints about this from PORG actors), I'm not quite sure if you've made your point or shot it in the foot...

It's the principle that counts... and anyway, I was talking about the scale doubles!

[tomandlu]

If it's okay to choose someone over someone else on ANY grounds (even merit), then I'm a bit hazy on why it's not okay to choose someone over someone else for ALL reasons. Even choosing based upon merit discriminates against those with less merit. And I'm really not being flippant (just in case you think I'm attempting to be).

Because it's reasonable to be allowed to choose people for a job, etc. based on their suitability for the role (aka merit). Their race is (usually) irrelevant (except when it isn't).

[Ologhai Jones]

Because it's reasonable to be allowed to choose people for a job, etc. based on their suitability for the role (aka merit). Their race is (usually) irrelevant (except when it isn't).

Isn't suitability (of an employee, say) entirely down to what the employer thinks it is? It may be partly down to ability, or wholly down to ability... or nothing to do with ability, as the employer chooses?

I'm still hazy on why it seems okay to choose a spouse based upon ethnicity (or anything else as far as I can tell), but not to use any criterion you like to choose other things, such as who to employ or who to allow to stay in your hotel.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong... only that I'm hazy on how to separate what kinds of discrimination are generally deemed to be okie-dokey (and some are) from those that are 'wrong'.

[BlokeInDurham]

If it is deemed that the kind of people who can adequately play a hobbit are short, white ones, then is there a difference?

If it's okay to choose someone over someone else on ANY grounds (even merit), then I'm a bit hazy on why it's not okay to choose someone over someone else for ALL reasons. Even choosing based upon merit discriminates against those with less merit. And I'm really not being flippant (just in case you think I'm attempting to be).

I didn't think you were being flippant. The problem there as I see it is with your "deeming". Discrimination is fine, we can't get through life without it. But discrimination which is not relevant is the issue. If someone can play a hobbit is relevant. If they are white, or short isn't. It might be that more short people end up being better at it, and that short people are over-represented as opposed to the general population. That's fine, but you can't use shortness as a shortcut to assume "hobbit-playing ability". That is the very definition of unfair discrimination based upon a particular trait, grouping people based on arbitrary attributes and assuming other abilities based upon certain averages of those previous groupings, rather than judging people on their individual abilities.

Down that theoretical road leads locking up all people of certain ethnicities because as a group they are statistically more likely to commit crimes, for instance.

So if someone is likely to trash your house, or not pay their bills, or run naked through next door's garden while putting their knickers back on, don't let to them. You oughtn't assume the likelihood of any of those things from another, irrelevant attribute though.

[Ologhai Jones]

Down that theoretical road leads locking up all people of certain ethnicities because as a group they are statistically more likely to commit crimes, for instance.

This doesn't feel much different than your murdering for ethnicity thing. Like murder, isn't locking anyone up speculatively something that may or may not be wrong independently. (And something that, as far as I know, we don't do at all, for ethnicity reasons or otherwise.)

Someone entrusted Peter Jackson with ultimate responsibility for the movie he's making. It's down to him to decide what makes someone suitable, isn't it?

If he decided that the proverbial disabled, black lesbian was just what he was looking for to play Bilbo Baggins, that's his call. He may turn out to be mistaken, or it may turn out to be ever so savvy, when the box office receipts come in, but either way, isn't it his party/funeral?

[tomandlu]

Isn't suitability (of an employee, say) entirely down to what the employer thinks it is? It may be partly down to ability, or wholly down to ability... or nothing to do with ability, as the employer chooses?

It's worth pointing out that, in the public sector at least, it's (in theory) not down to the employer. The employer sets the criteria, but the suitability is not meant to be based on opinion. i.e. if you're employing an accountant, you can set criteria such as "able to account", but not "cannot be mentally handicapped".

I'm still hazy on why it seems okay to choose a spouse based upon ethnicity (or anything else as far as I can tell), but not to use any criterion you like to choose other things, such as who to employ or who to allow to stay in your hotel.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong... only that I'm hazy on how to separate what kinds of discrimination are generally deemed to be okie-dokey (and some are) from those that are 'wrong'.

The state hasn't yet got around to dictating people's romantic choice. In the professional arena, only those aspects of the person that are relevant to the job/rental in question are supposed to be considered. Anti-discrimination legislation is to prevent race (or other aspect, such as gender) being used where it's not relevant.

I'm ambivalent on the state's record on this, but the bottom line is do we really want to see "no dogs, no blacks, no irish" in estate agent's windows?

[Ologhai Jones]

I'm ambivalent on the state's record on this, but the bottom line is do we really want to see "no dogs, no blacks, no irish" in estate agent's windows?

Personally, I don't. But I wonder whether the state only reflects (rather than dictates) the cultural zeitgeist anyway.

I think that, for the most part, 'no blacks, no irish' in a B&B window would cause many/most people in this country to gasp these days, and I'm not convinced it's because the state disallows it.

[DEATH]

I can't say I ever seen any of my landlords as associates, some I never even met. I felt of them more like feudal oppressors than associates.

[BlokeInDurham]

This doesn't feel much different than your murdering for ethnicity thing. Like murder, isn't locking anyone up speculatively something that may or may not be wrong independently. (And something that, as far as I know, we don't do at all, for ethnicity reasons or otherwise.)

It is currently tolerated. We lock people up for society's safety (maybe in addition to their own) if they are deemed to pose a risk of an as-yet-uncommitted harm. This principle occurs both in the case of the mentally ill and for prisoners applying for parole. In both of the above cases, the harm is based upon an assessment of the individual in question, a case of reasonable and relevant discrimination.

If you cross the intellectual Rubicon of assessing people not on their own merits, but on the average merits of a larger, arbitrarily-defined group of people of which they are part, then there is no longer any moral objection to locking people up based upon the risk of harm they may cause based upon, say, their ethnicity. Once you have made the assumption that allows definition by group average, the potential harm that a person may cause be definition no longer has any relation to their own behaviour.*

* Or rather their behaviour defines exactly 1/n of their assumed characteristics, where n is the number of people in that group.

[pjw]

Personally, if I were an employer and ran my own business, there is no way I would employ certain types of people. The idea that I would give an equal chance to a woman dressed in a burqa and niqab - is just ridiculous - because as an employer, I wouldn't want an unpleasant person trying to make an extreme "look at me, I'm deliberately not fitting in to your country, and I love the fact you find it unpleasant" point on my dime!

There is no way it is right for the so-called "law" to tell you what sort of people you should pay your own money to employ. I would only want people around me who I wanted to have around me.

As someone said, there should be freedom of association in employment and provision of services (like lettings), but people should also be free to boycott firms whose policies they disagree with. On the other hand, people only feel strongly about 'racial discrimination' because they are subjected to constant propaganda on the subject via the BBC, equal opportunities legislation etc. If the state drops this propaganda, people will revert back to thinking what they like. Funny how people don't realise that their opinions are being formed by others - they all think they're really intelligent and came up with their views all by themselves - and they just so happen to coincide with those of the government...

The same for the feminist nonsense too - employers should be free not to hire staff who are likely to get pregnant, and there should be no maternity leave, no attempts to equalise pay or anything like that - people should sink or swim according to their own merits or lack of them, and their ability (or lack of ability) to persuade other people to recognise those abilities. Time to stop the scrounging.

[workingpoor]

Just watched the BBC video link, I'm suprised there hasn't been a huge outcry over this, I suppose it depends on who the letting agent is.

[workingpoor]

Just watched the BBC video link, I'm suprised there hasn't been a huge outcry over this, I suppose it depends on who the letting agent is.

Edit: I suppose it depends on finding out who the letting agent is, couldn't make out the name from the video

[Dorkins]

Just watched the BBC video link, I'm suprised there hasn't been a huge outcry over this, I suppose it depends on who the letting agent is.

Most people think of the private rental sector as a grubby subterranean world where chancers prey on down-and-outs. They don't think of it as part of normal society.

[Squeeky]

I don't get how people can defend this and claim it is diversity gone wrong.

Landlords are small business owners offering a service. You wouldn't expect something like a car rental or hotel to turn people away based on their ethnicity or any other daft criteria. As long as you can pay, pass the credit checks etc... They take your money and you get the services, it is purely a business transaction.

[(Blizzard)]

I don't get how people can defend this and claim it is diversity gone wrong.

Landlords are small business owners offering a service. You wouldn't expect something like a car rental or hotel to turn people away based on their ethnicity or any other daft criteria. As long as you can pay, pass the credit checks etc... They take your money and you get the services, it is purely a business transaction.

What service?

Landlords hoard government land permits in order to prevent people from living somewhere without paying them a fee.

The entire purpose of a landlord is to turn people away.

It's just that we've just become conditioned to accept turning people away because there's an olympics, or because people can't afford a rent rise.

Don't get me wrong, the story is terrible, but the entire concept of landlordism is terrible. It's like criticising a racist serial killer for being racist.

Edited October 14, 2013 by (Blizzard)

[Byron]

We've got to create a free society where the chips fall where they fall. Close down the Equality industry. Close down all the tribunals. If you're sacked - take it on the chin. If the landlord doesn't want you because you're black, white, female, male, etc - crawl under your stone and don't make a scene about it. The state should not be intervening to enforce equality.

+1

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

But discriminating on ethnicity is illegal, just like murder. You were proposing to remove laws to be replaced by "free market" solutions. If racial discrimination, why not murder (for whatever reason)?

Violent loss of life and homelessness are both social ills. Why should anyone have to suffer either to pander to a political philosophy?

Because involuntary loss of life is more serious, permanent and irreversible social ill. If one landlord will not rent you a home because of his or her personal prejudices, the chances are that you'll easily find another one who will. If someone murders you, there is no remedy or alternative.

[pjw]

I don't get how people can defend this and claim it is diversity gone wrong.

Landlords are small business owners offering a service. You wouldn't expect something like a car rental or hotel to turn people away based on their ethnicity or any other daft criteria. As long as you can pay, pass the credit checks etc... They take your money and you get the services, it is purely a business transaction.

Offering a service doesn't mean they HAVE to offer it to all. In English Common Law goods or services for sale are just an "invitation to treat" - they don't mean the company has to do business with you. So it is a serious overriding of the Common Law - which the Queen is sworn to uphold and which judges and magistrates are sworn to enforce - that a statute has been passed forcing companies to deal with everyone. Of course this law is only there to facilitate the state's demographic reconfiguration of England plans. Do you remember a few years ago a café in London got in trouble for refusing service to Albanians - they did so because of a long history of trouble with Albanians - so it was not an irrational thing for them to do to not want to serve that community - and yet it would be inconvenient for the state to allow cafés to choose their customers, as indeed they can under English Common Law.

[happy_renting]

Offering a service doesn't mean they HAVE to offer it to all. In English Common Law goods or services for sale are just an "invitation to treat" - they don't mean the company has to do business with you. So it is a serious overriding of the Common Law - which the Queen is sworn to uphold and which judges and magistrates are sworn to enforce - that a statute has been passed forcing companies to deal with everyone. Of course this law is only there to facilitate the state's demographic reconfiguration of England plans. Do you remember a few years ago a café in London got in trouble for refusing service to Albanians - they did so because of a long history of trouble with Albanians - so it was not an irrational thing for them to do to not want to serve that community - and yet it would be inconvenient for the state to allow cafés to choose their customers, as indeed they can under English Common Law.

Disgraceful.

i hope the Queen was round to the café sharpish to sort things out.

[BlokeInDurham]

Because involuntary loss of life is more serious, permanent and irreversible social ill. If one landlord will not rent you a home because of his or her personal prejudices, the chances are that you'll easily find another one who will. If someone murders you, there is no remedy or alternative.

It is true that murder is worse that homelessness. But we surely shouldn't allow social ills simply because we can prove that there is a worse one that could have befallen you? Shouldn't we try to prevent them all?

The "always more fish (homes)" argument is a valid one as I mentioned previously if, and only if, you assume that all irrelevant discrimination under the "completely free market" solution will impact everyone equally. If there is any inequality in power/influence/landlordship between any of the self-segregating groups of "thems" and "uses" then members of the less influential groups will suffer a disproportionate amount of homelessness and/or substandard housing purely on the basis of these arbitrary social divisions.

I think that maybe at the nub of this is a hang-up on the "free market" idea of protecting the self-agency of the individual in the form of the landlord, without a recognition that in this case (allowing irrelevant discrimination to impact on a potential tenant) it would directly undermine the very notion of the individual in the form of the prospective tenant who gets their self-standing individualism reduced to "one of them 'uns", however "them 'uns" is defined.

[Austin Allegro]

Offering a service doesn't mean they HAVE to offer it to all. In English Common Law goods or services for sale are just an "invitation to treat" - they don't mean the company has to do business with you. So it is a serious overriding of the Common Law - which the Queen is sworn to uphold and which judges and magistrates are sworn to enforce - that a statute has been passed forcing companies to deal with everyone. Of course this law is only there to facilitate the state's demographic reconfiguration of England plans. Do you remember a few years ago a café in London got in trouble for refusing service to Albanians - they did so because of a long history of trouble with Albanians - so it was not an irrational thing for them to do to not want to serve that community - and yet it would be inconvenient for the state to allow cafés to choose their customers, as indeed they can under English Common Law.

Good post. Sadly, the concept of Common Law (as opposed to top-down law such as the Code Napoleon, of the type favoured by statists) is more or less dead in the UK.

Nowadays, if I see any story on the BBC with a 'racism revealed in xyz' headline I just assume it is click fodder - something to push the buttons of the BBC's bien pensant audience - a left wing mirror version of the Daily Mail's ire-provoking stories on single mums, benefits scroungers etc.

[Squeeky]

What service?

Landlords hoard government land permits in order to prevent people from living somewhere without paying them a fee.

The entire purpose of a landlord is to turn people away.

It's just that we've just become conditioned to accept turning people away because there's an olympics, or because people can't afford a rent rise.

Don't get me wrong, the story is terrible, but the entire concept of landlordism is terrible. It's like criticising a racist serial killer for being racist.

It is a service. The bricks didn't lay themselves, the tiles didn't miraculously appear on the roof. As with most things in life you can choose to either rent/lease or buy. Very few things in life allow you to just rock up and claim usage of without a financial transaction being involved.

[(Blizzard)]

It is a service. The bricks didn't lay themselves, the tiles didn't miraculously appear on the roof.

Brick-layers. Roofers. It's not really difficult to understand this stuff.

Without landlords the same houses would exist in the same places, so what exactly do you think you are paying for?

As with most things in life you can choose to either rent/lease or buy.

Very few things in life allow you to just rock up and claim usage of without a financial transaction being involved.

Well obviously someone just rocked up and claimed exclusive usage, and you fell for it.

Edited October 15, 2013 by (Blizzard)

[pjw]

It is a service. The bricks didn't lay themselves, the tiles didn't miraculously appear on the roof. As with most things in life you can choose to either rent/lease or buy. Very few things in life allow you to just rock up and claim usage of without a financial transaction being involved.

The bricks didn't lay themselves, but the majority of the property price is the land value, not the building value - and the landlords as sure as hell did not create the land. In fact HPI is down to increases in the site location values, as a result of social activity and public spending, and this is not created by the landlords either. The land is a common natural resource that didn't belong to anyone to begin with but that has been commandeered by the few.

This is why the land value tax would be levied on the site location value - the value of the unimproved land - and not the building erected on it. That way, a landlord could genuinely invest in a nicer building without attracting a higher LVT. The land was there before English people ever set food in England.