Pesky client

[Khriss]

 

[Mark J]

When I was a climber I got the best money off the travelling folk.
If you know you're going to haggle a price then start high.
Casual racism can do one.

[Mesterh]

On 12/10/2019 at 14:30, benedmonds said:

Pretty sure that is illegal.  And wrong.. 

Its certainly not wrong to have your time wasted again, and again, and again.....

The amount of times I have had an Asian GP fckin whinge about money is not worth counting, they are unbelievable.

 

 

 

[Mesterh]

1 hour ago, Mark J said:

When I was a climber I got the best money off the travelling folk.
If you know you're going to haggle a price then start high.
Casual racism can do one.

life's far too short for that.  I know plenty of climbers that have been well and truly done over by travellers, steam of piss comes to mind.

 

 

[tree-fancier123]

What about asian farmers?

[peatff]

8 hours ago, tree-fancier123 said:

What about asian farmers?

 

How many goats for the job ?

[struie]

On 12/10/2019 at 20:28, Haironyourchest said:

I can see that law applying to "Goods & Services" of a static and regular nature, like a shop, or a hairdresser. I think it would be incredibly hard to get a conviction on a roving tradesman though, where each job is different, and warrents a different quote. It's often said on here that if the job looks like a pain in the ass, just quote stupid high. Who's to say that refusing a job, or quoting high has a racist motive, in any given situation? I wonder if any such case has ever been brought and successfully prosecuted? Naturally, if one said to the prospective client "Sorry mate, I don't work for (whatevers)" then it's addmittance of guilt. Is refusing to quote based on address a crime as well? (Halting sites, rough estates?) If the recent political circus has taught us anything, it's that Law is whatever  people with power want it to be, can convince others it is, and how they choose to interpret and apply it. My legal mind is intregued.

       Personally, all the times I've had issues it was always with the Dutch!

could go on n on about who is not too clever to work for, i have found females too can be irksome?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 12/10/2019 at 21:28, Haironyourchest said:

I can see that law applying to "Goods & Services" of a static and regular nature, like a shop, or a hairdresser. I think it would be incredibly hard to get a conviction on a roving tradesman though, where each job is different, and warrents a different quote. It's often said on here that if the job looks like a pain in the ass, just quote stupid high. Who's to say that refusing a job, or quoting high has a racist motive, in any given situation? I wonder if any such case has ever been brought and successfully prosecuted? Naturally, if one said to the prospective client "Sorry mate, I don't work for (whatevers)" then it's addmittance of guilt. Is refusing to quote based on address a crime as well? (Halting sites, rough estates?) If the recent political circus has taught us anything, it's that Law is whatever  people with power want it to be, can convince others it is, and how they choose to interpret and apply it. My legal mind is intregued.

       Personally, all the times I've had issues it was always with the Dutch!

Memory suggests there have been a few cases. 
 

The baker that wouldn’t make a cake for a gay wedding. 
 

A B&B that wouldn’t allow same sex room sharing. 
 

Trouble is, if you say / make it known you ain’t working / providing a service for someone because they are * (select protected characteristic) you wouldn’t have a defence. 
 

If it’s just because that particular potential customer comes across as someone you don’t wish to transact with, well that’s just fine and dandy - just don’t mention the protected characteristic! 
 

I don’t mind haggling. It goes something like:

 

”...how much money can you take off...”

 

”...as much as you want, which bits don’t you want me to do? Call me when you’ve made your mind up...”

 

 

[Haironyourchest]

37 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Memory suggests there have been a few cases. 
 

The baker that wouldn’t make a cake for a gay wedding. 
 

A B&B that wouldn’t allow same sex room sharing. 
 

Trouble is, if you say / make it known you ain’t working / providing a service for someone because they are * (select protected characteristic) you wouldn’t have a defence. 
 

If it’s just because that particular potential customer comes across as someone you don’t wish to transact with, well that’s just fine and dandy - just don’t mention the protected characteristic! 
 

I don’t mind haggling. It goes something like:

 

”...how much money can you take off...”

 

”...as much as you want, which bits don’t you want me to do? Call me when you’ve made your mind up...”

 

 

That pretty much my understanding. I don't know if you're referring to the gay wedding cake in the US or somewhere else, I know in the US case the supreme Court found in favor if the baker (the couple wanted two marzipan men engaged in sexual intercourse atop their cake, whether that made any difference to their ruling I don't know).

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

19 minutes ago, Haironyourchest said:

That pretty much my understanding. I don't know if you're referring to the gay wedding cake in the US or somewhere else, I know in the US case the supreme Court found in favor if the baker (the couple wanted two marzipan men engaged in sexual intercourse atop their cake, whether that made any difference to their ruling I don't know).

I hadn’t heard that, I thought there was a UK case too. 
 

Bum sex on a wedding cake - for the love of God and they were offended by being told to Foxtrot Oscar ? talk about unjustifiable sensitivities!