A Goth couple have been banned from travelling on a couple of buses recently:
A goth who leads his girlfriend around with a dog lead and collar was stopped from getting on a bus amid fears for passenger safety, a bus firm confirmed.
Now, whatever you may think about this couple’s lifestyle, they are two consenting adults and whatever floats their boat is up to them.
And… Arriva is a private company, so I believe they should have the absolute right to refuse service to anyone they choose. Frankly, then, this should be a non-story. If the goths choose to conduct themselves – perfectly legitimately – in a manner that the mainstream finds objectionable, then they should expect some consequence of their actions. This is a bit like my approach to freedom of speech. Say whatever you like; but be big enough to take the consequences of what you say.
What really, really, pisses me off is the justification given by Arriva for this ban:
The bus firm said safety came first, but it was investigating the complaint.
I’m sorry? What safety? if a passenger boarded with a dog on a leash, would that have been unsafe?
Bus operator Arriva claimed other passengers could be put at risk if the bus braked sharply.
Oh, pull the other one.
Let’s be clear here, people didn’t like it – that is the reason. It had fuck all to do with anyone’s safety; that is merely the dressing on the prejudice. A little honesty would have been nice…
All that said:
…we are asking that Miss Maltby remove her dog lead before boarding the bus.
Why not just do that in the first place? Or, did they, and the couple refused – in which case, why is this a story at all?
It’s this sort of story that gets decent health and safety practitioners a bad name.
Arriva is a private company, undoubtedly receiving a public subsidy from the local council to run its routes. Private companies do not have an unqualified right to refuse to trade, remember the issue of B&Bs refusing to accept gay couples – good or bad thing. And those periodic stories of swarthy fellows being booted off flights because they looked funny, talked foreign, etc. All private companies keeping the vast majority of their customers feeling happy and secure.
Paul » Er, private companies do have the right to refuse to trade. It may be against their best interests, but they can and do. I’ve been on the receiving end of it. Publicans will turn people away on the basis of what they are wearing, for example. Apparently my leather jacket was known to cause trouble… Make of that what you will.
And, at the risk of wandering off topic too far, I’ve made it clear elsewhere that B&Bs should have the absolute right to decide who stays on their premises. Again, it may be a bad business decision as people choose to take their trade to more open minded traders. The change in the law on this was pernicious.
All private companies should have the absolute right to choose with whom they trade. That refusing such trade is short sighted and may cost them money is neither here nor there; they must accept the consequences of their decision.
Whether Arriva is accepting public subsidy or not isn’t really the issue here – they may have perfectly good reasons to refuse entry to their buses; and should be allowed to do so. I don’t accept that in this case that applied, though. Certainly I don’t accept the health and safety excuse, which is all too frequently trotted out by the hard of thinking to justify their own prejudices – which is what I believe is happening here. Arriva behaved badly, I just wish they were more honest about it and stopped this nonsense about health and safety.
No blacks. No dogs. No Irish. Why don’t you see that anymore?
Private businesses do not have an UNQUALIFIED right to refuse to trade. (not shouting, just don’t know how to do italics)
The public subsidy issue is a stronger point than you acknowledge and I see you studiously avoided the thorny issue of amateur racial profiling.
Italics – the tags are shown above the comment post text box. you can use either the i tag or the em tag with the same tag preceded by a back slash; / at the end of the italics.
“No Blacks, No Irish”. Ah, yes, that old canard. They are an urban myth. That is why you no longer see them. The type of blatant prejudice that is stereotyped by this little myth would rapidly put any business out of business if the proprietor tried it – so it doesn’t really apply.
As for avoiding racial profiling… I’m not studiously avoiding it; it simply does not apply. This discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with race. It is, at the risk of dragging the conversation back to the original topic, about using health and safety as an excuse for refusing trade.
I repeat, businesses should have the right to choose with whom they trade – irrespective of whether that right currently exists, unqualified or not. I am an independent trader, I would object to anyone telling me that I must trade with a particular business or individual. It is reprehensible for government to be involved in what are private contractual arrangements. But, as I’ve pointed out – I had this discussion before.
Nor do I underestimate the public subsidy issue. Setting aside whether a private business should be in receipt of such subsidies, they should still have the right to refuse business – or are drivers to accept unconditionally, passengers who are filthy dirty and stink to high heaven, are abusive or violent, or drunk? All would be perfectly reasonable justifications for refusal.
I do not accept that this couple fell into those categories and therefore, refusal appears to have been based on prejudice. The health and safety excuse is a smokescreen. As I said, I’d have a little more respect for Arriva if they were open about their reasons.
The bus company is almost certainly operating with the twin advantages of subsidy and monopoly on top of which it applies its prejudices. It’s not a sound basis for libertarian assertions. A market, and the agents within it can only be truly free if it operates without prejudice.
Yes, of course you can refuse to accept any individual as a customer, as they can walk away from you. And you could exercise a wide range of prejudices without any come back (and yes, you could have perfectly sound reasons, not just prejudices). And, just like this bus company, you could make up a story about health and safety as cover. Said a bus company spokesman, ” It wasn’t because he and his friend were black, it was because their thick lips and curly hair might get caught in the pneumatic doors.”
There are very obvious differences in the effect that picking and choosing customers has between small independents and multinationals operating near monopolies. It is also obvious that some reasons have more validity than others. We both know that the bus company is being disingenuous, it didn’t like the look of them. But they weren’t a threat to the bus, it’s driver or passengers so there were no justifiable grounds to refuse them. Giving them the fig leaf of “right to refuse service without explanation” is bollocks. What next, a bag over the head of a burns victim?
Just out of interest, have you ever directly refused a customer (rather than, for example, quote an impossible price) And did you tell them why?
For the most part, we appear to be violently agreeing on this particular case. It does appear to be nothing more than prejudice.
If anything it underlines rather than undermines my case for businesses refusing to trade with whomsoever they wish. After all, a bad decision has consequences. This case hasn’t exactly done Arriva a power of good, just as a driver insisting that a burns victim wear a paper bag over their head would make the national press and damage the company.
To answer your question; yes, I have. When I was a driving instructor, I would turn away custom if it involved too much travelling – this was on a case by case basis and depended on how full my diary was. And, yes, I did tell them. I also turned away people who wanted short notice tests. This was a policy decision followed by many instructors. You need time to assess a pupil’s readiness for their test. Someone who just wants your car for their test next week isn’t good for business, so I always refused these people and told them that I did not take on such business. I did once, refuse to continue teaching one client because she seemed to think that I was a taxi service and messed me about once too often. And, yes, I told her somewhat bluntly that she was wasting my time.
If they were masochists, they probably got a thrill out of the humiliation…
“boots is extra”
Roger Thornhill’s last blog post..Improvements in lead-acid batteries.