It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

British soldier refused access to hotel cause hes a soldier.

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by alien life uk
 


I did that from memory, as I once studied it as part of a course I did in Hotel Business Management - it was long ago so I don't have any textbooks anymore.

I'd suggest looking up links to Hospitality Law, Common (ancient) law, discrimination, refusal of service, ability to pay, legal obligations of landlords, publicans, owners and proprietors.

I haven't got the time right now, but if I get some tomorrow (doubtfull) I'll try and dig some stuff up.


Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956 CH62
An Act to amend the law relating to inns and innkeepers.
[2nd August, 1956]
B E it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament
assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1.—( 1) An hotel within the meaning of this Act shall, and any Inns and
other establishment shall not, be deemed to be an inn; and the innkeepers.
duties, liabilities and rights which immediately before the
commencement of this Act by law attached to an innkeeper as
such shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, attach to the
proprietor of such an hotel and shall not attach to any other
person.
(2) The proprietor of an hotel shall, as an innkeeper, be under
the like liability, if any, to make good to any guest of his any
damage to property brought to the hotel as he would be under to
make good the loss thereof.
(3) In this Act, the expression "hotel" means an establishment held out by the proprietor as offering food, drink and, if so required, sleeping accommodation, without special contract, to any traveller presenting himself who appears able and willing to pay a reasonable sum for the services and facilities provided and who is in a fit state to be received.
2.-( 1) Without prejudice to any other liability incurred by him
with respect to any property brought to the hotel, the proprietor of
an hotel shall not be liable as an innkeeper to make good to any
traveller any loss of or damage to such property except where —
(a) at the time of the loss or damage sleeping accommodation
at the hotel had been engaged for the traveller; and
1
4 & 5 ELIz. 2 Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956 CH. 62
CHAPTER 62
Modifications
of liabijities and
rights of
innkeepers
as such.
CH. 62 Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956 4 & 5 Euz. 2
(b) the loss or damage occurred during the period commencing
with the midnight immediately preceding, and ending
with the midnight immediately following, a period for
which the traveller was a guest at the hotel and entitled to
use the accommodation so engaged.
(2) Without prejudice to any other liability or right of his with
respect thereto, the proprietor of an hotel shall not as an innkeeper
be liable to make good to any guest of his any loss of or damage to,
or have any lien on, any vehicle or any property left therein, or any
horse or other live animal or its harness or other equipment.
(3) Where the proprietor of an hotel is liable as an innkeeper to
make good the loss of or any damage to property brought to the
hotel, his liability to any one guest shall not exceed fifty pounds in
respect of any one article, or one hundred pounds in the aggregate,
except where —
(a) the property was stolen, lost or damaged through the
default, neglect or wilful act of the proprietor or some
servant of his; or
(b) the property was deposited by or on behalf of the guest
expressly for safe custody with the proprietor or some
servant of his authorised, or appearing to be authorised,
for the purpose, and, if so required by the proprietor or
that servant, in a container fastened or sealed by the
depositor; or
(c) at a time after the guest had arrived at the hotel, either the
property in question was offered for deposit as aforesaid
and the proprietor or his servant refused to receive it, or
the guest or some other guest acting on his behalf wished
so to offer the property in question but, through the
default of the proprietor or a servant of his, was unable to
doso:
Provided that the proprietor shall not be entitled to the protection
of this subsection unless, at the time when the property
in question was brought to the hotel, a copy of the notice set
out in the Schedule to this Act printed in plain type was
conspicuously displayed in a place where it could conveniently
be read by his guests at or near the reception office or desk or,
where there is no reception office or desk, at or near the main
entrance to the hotel.
Short title, 3.—(l) This Act may be cited as the Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956.
repeal, extent (2) The Innkeepers' Liability Act, 1863, is hereby repealed.
mencement. (3) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.
26 & 27 Vict. (4) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of
41. January, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven.
2
4 & 5 ELIz. 2 Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956 CH. 62
SCHEDULE Section2.
NOTICE
Loss OF OR DAMAGE TO GUESTS' PROPERTY
Under the Hotel Proprietors Act, 1956, an hotel proprietor may
in certain circumstances be liable to make good any loss of or
damage to a guest's property even though it was not due to any
fault of the proprietor or staff of the hotel.
This liability however—
(a) extends only to the property of guests who have engaged
sleeping accommodation at the hotel;
(b) is limited to £50 for any one article and a total of £100 in
the case of any one guest, except in the case of property
which has been deposited, or offered for deposit, for safe
custody;
(c) does not cover motor-cars or other vehicles of any kind or
any property left in them, or horses or other live animals.
This notice does not constitute an admission either that the Act
applies to this hotel or that liability thereunder attaches to the
proprietor of this hotel in any particular case.
© Crown copyright 1956
Printed in the UK for The Stationery Office Limited
under the authority and superintendence of Carol Tullo, Controller of
Her Majesty's Stationery Office and Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament.
1st Impression August 1956
15th Impression December 1999
Dd758329 12/99 1731 56219


This is the act which has it's basis in common (ancient) law and pertains to the responsibilities of the innkeeper or hotelier - bold is mine to point out the relevant part.
Note this is not exhaustive, and other regulations and laws apply - but this is an indicator of what you need.
I found this quickly and it contains the right wording with regards to the law although this part pertains to property of guests.

Hope this helps, I'll try and find more tomorrow, time permitting.




[edit on 4/9/2008 by budski]




posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
That's truly bizarre...

What possible conceivable reason did this clerk have to think that being a soldier somehow disqualifies a guy from staying at a hotel?!?

Between this story, and the one about the lady with the "lesbian.com" t-shirt being banned from a federal building, I'm starting to think that a lot of people who work with the public really shouldn't



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by jerico65




I can see how you may believe that that is a relevant to the discussion but since there are plenty of men who do or have served who holds the same opinion about the issue of committing war crimes by serving the oppressive machinery of state.

There are legitimate ways to defend one's country and they never include shooting civilians ( 'terrorist') in the streets of other countries.

Stellar [edit on 4-9-2008 by StellarX]


If you had served in the military you would know that soldiers are caring people. Not mindless drones. Here's one for you did you know any member of the military can refuse any order they are given if they believe it to be unlawful or even immoral. And according to ucmj (uniformed code of military justice) can be tried for caring out an unlawful order. But know if you never been to Iraq then you don’t know whats going on if you think your getting the true stories your very naïve. I suggest 1st thing you do when you read something is ask yourself who put this out and why?
Why don’t you hop on a plane and visit Iraq if your so concerned go talk to Iraqis for every 1 Iraqi you could find that didn’t want the troops there I can find 10 that do you know how I know this I had men woman and children come up to us on the street and thank us. They know if coalition forces were to leave right now violence in there country would sky rocket do to ethnic wars.

Study your subject before you pass judgment don’t rely on someone else's opinion or you become the mindless drone. If it would help you can ask me any questions you would like at least I was there for 2 years. And if I don’t know the answer still have friends I met in Iraq and still chat with so im sure they can help as well.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
As far as the "anti-war" argument goes, first - it's not some clerk's job or right to express his personal political opinions by refusing someone service... anyone who does that should be fired, period. Also, as Budski pointed out, it's probably illegal in the UK (and probably in the US as well) - another reason the guy should lose his job: if he's exposing his employer to lawsuits or criminal prosecution, he's a lousy employee.

Next - IMO blaming soldiers for the wars they are sent to fight is like blaming forest fires on "all those damn trees" - it's that silly.

Soldiers give up their freedom to some extent when they sign up, and they certainly do not have any clearly defined right to refuse to participate in a war they don't believe in - if they do that, they go to jail as deserters.

Soldiers do not get to pick the wars they fight in.
If you don't like the war, blame the politicians who started it, not the soldiers. They have no real choice but to go where they are ordered.

Soldiers are not lawyers, they are not qualified to judge the technical legality of the wars they fight. To expect them to be is absurd.

The right of a soldier to refuse an illegal order is intended to allow soldiers to reject orders which are clearly and unambiguously illegal, IE:
"Corporal, go shoot all those women and children over there."
"No sir, I cannot obey an illegal order" - not very ambiguous.

Does not require years of study in international law to realize it's an illegal order.

See the difference?

[edit on 9/4/08 by xmotex]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
In my opinion, this is vile, the discrimination (if true) against this soldier who....only followed orders.

As an airline employee, it is my experience that we sometimes can get a discount, when paying on our own at hotels, by virtue of being in the Industry. I would imagine that Military personnel are offered similar 'perks'.

Again, I refer everyone to my first paragraph....this is a vile form of ignorance and discrimination against an individual. It's tantamount to discrimination based on ethinicity or sexual orientation....it is simply stupid and disgusting. OR....refusing a room to someone based on Party affiliation!!

No place for this, no matter your stance on the issues.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I feel its a low down dirty shame to turn away a soldier in his own country.

No matter what the argument may be. A soldier is a soldier simple as that, and lets face it when people join the military as a normal run of the mill grunt / infantrymen they are just ordinary people. They are not a willing part in some global conspiracy to take over the world for the new corporate empire ( if you go for all that stuff )

Now maybe some guy in the top levels of military intelligence, you might have issues with that, but not a soldier.

Even if you don't believe the military puts their butts on the line daily to try to keep you safe at home, never forget that's what a lot of them believe. Im sure you could get into many an argument about soldiers being indoctrinated by the governments they serve etc. etc. but that's a totally different topic.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


im just curious as to how he did serve his country when he was not even in it ?
he was wounded in afganistan so wouldent that make him a servant of the afgan people not the brittish.

till this day i havent seen any afgan milita in the uk ,


the afgan war is nothing more then securing the poppy lines to medical facilities in europe,

www.poppyformedicine.net...



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I think its the person who served him.
They could have very well been a muslim or someone who was anti war.
And not liked or agreed with what they were doing in Afghanistan.
For the hotel to say it was a mistake obviously means it is NOT the hotels policy at all.
The result you often get with things depends alot on the person you deal with.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by deltaboy
 


im just curious as to how he did serve his country when he was not even in it ?
he was wounded in afganistan so wouldent that make him a servant of the afgan people not the brittish.

till this day i havent seen any afgan milita in the uk ,


the afgan war is nothing more then securing the poppy lines to medical facilities in europe,

www.poppyformedicine.net...


hmmm boy Im not even sure where to begin with. In world war 2 does that mean British and US soldiers that died on D day were not fighting for there country really confused by your logic. And to answer your question on opium the coalition forces are fighting the opium trade.

In fact here is a 2006 report to congress that talks about everything that wen on in 2006 its actually interesting

U.S. and Coalition Military Operations in
Afghanistan: Issues for Congress
italy.usembassy.gov...



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Jerico, your wrong this is about illegal wars and about people not supporting those who prosecute them and its got nothing to do with being liberal or anything else its about recognising when something is wrong and illegal.

If you cannot tell the difference between right and wrong then thats your problem. Dont ask others to respect and support murderers of innocent people. If an individual or a group do not support their Govermen, its action or the actions of its servicemen and women then they have every right to show their dissent if you like it or not.

Those who fight in the ME are at best duped fools and at worst hired killers of innocents so they do not deserve the respect of no one.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


Again, restating my earler position, we shouldn't be blaming people who are basically doing the job they get paid for - despite my opposition to the war.

I have respect for soldoers who stand up and speak out against the war, but I also respect those who go and fight.

Their perception is that they are helping their country, even if it is a misguided perception.

There is a case to say that they are pawns like many others, and as such, my belief is that little or no blame can be attached to them, providing they are not committing an illegal act themselves.

If they are following lawfull orders, they are not committing an illegal act, and as much as we say the war is illegal, it is a bit of a grey area.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Bud, as these wars are illegal then it makes the Goverment and those who participate in these wars war criminals its as simple as that. Its to easy to say oh they are just pawns and they are doing what they are told to do. How many times have we heard that in the past from so many different sources.

These soldiers are not fighting to save or protect the UK as others have done before them. The people of this country told our Goverment that we did not want this war, that it was illegal and what did they do, they went to war and millions have died because of our actions so dont ask me to respect and support war criminals.

They have killed innocent men, women and children, occupide their land destroyed their homes and infastructure and for what not for you and I but for the greed and power off the corrupt who start these conflicts. Not one Iraqi or Afgani has ever hurt or killed a UK/US citizen so why are we killing them, answer that please.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65
And you know what would happen if you spit on a soldier, too.


Nothing worse than what normally happens when you pick fights with people. It's funny that you think soldiers are normally martial artists of some description.

And well done on once again saying what you want instead of responding to what i said.


Nope, but as Budski just posted, you're breaking the law. As I said, people would be up in freakin' arms if this hotel turned down a Muslim.


If you simply worked at the hotel you would be stupid to do that but if it's yours you can turn away people you know to be criminals.


Yes, it is relevant. You don't have the same frame of reference as a soldier does. You don't see how wrong this is.


I see that obeying those who send you to war simply because they have superior ranks makes you no less of a war criminal than those who gleefully go. It is your mistake to presume that one has to serve in the military to serve your country ( how was the British people served by the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan and why did they vote against it if they felt so 'served' by it?) and certainly your mistake to think that i should RESPECT those who do not employ the laws enacted to prevent them from having to fight illegal wars in my supposed name. Sure you can have sympathy for them not wanting to destroy their careers in the army then that's them making selfish choices irrespective of the wishes of those ( the citizens of britain) who are paying their salaries.


This thread is about a soldier being denied a room at a hotel because he is a soldier. I'm sure there are plenty of other threads where you can call this soldier a war criminal.


Maybe now the soldier will get some idea of how it feels for British citizens to pay his salary and for him to ignore their wishes so completely? Maybe this will give him some perspective as to why he should do what's right instead of what his told next time around?

Stellar



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 03:50 AM
link   
No-one's really asking why the soldier was banned.
I reckon this establishment has a history of trouble with soldiers in the past, partying & wrecking rooms etc. Someone probably decided years ago, unofficially, that soldiers checking in were to be thoroughly scrutinised & turned away if appropriate. And that this local policy over the years has, with staff turnover etc, turned into a general ban on all military personnel.
It's not right, no. But neither's wrecking hotels either. Wearing a uniform doesn't give folks carte blanche to do as they like, they're still subject to the usual laws of the land like everyone else. They shouldn't be blaming the hotel, rather the previous military guests who've caused all the problems.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
If you had served in the military you would know that soldiers are caring people. Not mindless drones.


I you had served in the military you would know that soldiers are human beings that were trained to defend themselves in combat whatever their level of car or state of empathy with others might be. When soldiers are taking part in illegal wars it really does not matter if they shoot to wound, shoot to kill or bomb entire cities into oblivion as they are taking part in the ultimate crime ( a war of aggression ) from which all other directly and logically flows.


Here's one for you did you know any member of the military can refuse any order they are given if they believe it to be unlawful or even immoral. And according to ucmj (uniformed code of military justice) can be tried for caring out an unlawful order.


I would give you a cookie but i am not sure if you could appreciate it while in your state. I am very well aware of the basic premise of the UCMJ and that is why i am so disappointed that citizen soldiers of various countries are not employing these types of rules to avoid having to take part in illegal wars. We have fought long and hard to get these rules enacted and despite the fact that we overwhelming tell our soldiers to stay home they still follow illegal orders and receive their paychecks and promotions.


But know if you never been to Iraq then you don’t know whats going on if you think your getting the true stories your very naïve. I suggest 1st thing you do when you read something is ask yourself who put this out and why?


This is not the first war that has ever been waged on the citizens of one country or another and it's supremely arrogant to believe that this one is much or any different than the aggressive wars of past years. Once you can get past this type of nationalistic arrogance we may be enabled to discuss the 'facts' of this war as you seem to wish to defend them.


Why don’t you hop on a plane and visit Iraq if your so concerned go talk to Iraqis for every 1 Iraqi you could find that didn’t want the troops there I can find 10 that do you know how I know this I had men woman and children come up to us on the street and thank us. They know if coalition forces were to leave right now violence in there country would sky rocket do to ethnic wars.


They have held referendums and polls just this question and Iraqi's have voted overwhelmingly for soldiers to leave. They are being nice to you because you have a bulletproof vest, a automatic weapon, grenades ( you can well afford to get away with violence) and air support waiting to rain death on locations you might deem worthy of such. Fact is they are nice to you because that means you might be nice to them and less prone to destroying their neighbourhood when the resistance chooses to launch attacks in that area.


Study your subject before you pass judgment don’t rely on someone else's opinion or you become the mindless drone.


I agree and the most telling difference between us is that you or friends are trying to get your ideas across at the point of a gun while i am attempting to discuss it on a more level playing field that will probably not involve anyone dying.


If it would help you can ask me any questions you would like at least I was there for 2 years. And if I don’t know the answer still have friends I met in Iraq and still chat with so im sure they can help as well.


Thanks. Even if you were all the nicest of people imaginable ( and i presume you could then get jobs that don't involve guns; ever heard of sales?) and conducting this occupation in the spirit and efficiency in human history it's still illegal and still the wrong thing to be doing in the wrong country. There are plenty of countries that desperately need armed intervention to prevent mass starvation or further bloodshed; Iraq only required the lifting of the genocidal sanctions to recover from most of the hardships it's people were suffering.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   
It is an absolute disgrace that any squaddie should be treat in such a manner.
No matter one's opinion on the rights or wrongs of the conflicts we are currently involved in these brave people deserve our utmost respect and gratitude.
Unfortunately occurences like this are becoming more and more frequent.

Imagine the uproar if someone was denied admittance on grounds of race, religion or sex, (unless of course they were white, working class male!)

Things like this really boil my piss!



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


There are laws governing how a hotel can behave and what the obligations of a hotelier are.

It was an illegal act for them to refuse accomodation - see my post at the top paying attention to the part I bolded



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Delta, soldiers do not fight for their country they fight for the Military Industrial complex. Soldiers today especially in the West are nothing more than hired mercenaries who murder and maim for Corporate Greed.


Nonsense. Please don't commit the insult of equating the morals of those who fight our wars for us, with those of the ones who start them.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   
good to see this happen .....

this would make brits,US etc soldiers realise that they are guilty of murdering poor humble third world people , who their govt is explioting and murdering for its benefit



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


And if they were to refuse you because you are Indian what would your reaction be?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join