"Locals only" shop service

DubCount

I have heard a couple of examples of shops in rural locations implementing a "locals only" rule and not serving any "outsiders". I fully agree with the restrictions on travel other than for essential reasons, but I think this is going further than the remit for a shop. If someone was refused service due to race, creed or membership of the travelling community, there would be protection under the Equal Status Act. However, there seems to be nothing stopping shops implementing a locals only policy.

Does anyone else think this is wrong?

gmisk

DubCount wrote: »

I have heard a couple of examples of shops in rural locations implementing a "locals only" rule and not serving any "outsiders". I fully agree with the restrictions on travel other than for essential reasons, but I think this is going further than the remit for a shop. If someone was refused service due to race, creed or membership of the travelling community, there would be protection under the Equal Status Act. However, there seems to be nothing stopping shops implementing a locals only policy.

Does anyone else think this is wrong?

Insert league of gentleman image.

I am not sure how you would enforce it for a start.

Atlantic Dawn

If they arrived before the lockdown they should be served, if they arrived after they should not be.

antix80

DubCount wrote: »

However, there seems to be nothing stopping shops implementing a locals only policy.

Does anyone else think this is wrong?

Nope.. Private business. I'd go one further and let them discriminate against whoever they please.

Of course if they're receiving taxpayer funds (like covid payment for employees) maybe that's a different story.

DubCount

DubCount wrote: »

I have heard a couple of examples of shops in rural locations implementing a "locals only" rule and not serving any "outsiders". I fully agree with the restrictions on travel other than for essential reasons, but I think this is going further than the remit for a shop. If someone was refused service due to race, creed or membership of the travelling community, there would be protection under the Equal Status Act. However, there seems to be nothing stopping shops implementing a locals only policy.

Does anyone else think this is wrong?

I think management have right to refuse admission/serve anyone

I know.this applies to pubs anyway

KiKi III

DubCount wrote: »

I have heard a couple of examples of shops in rural locations implementing a "locals only" rule and not serving any "outsiders". I fully agree with the restrictions on travel other than for essential reasons, but I think this is going further than the remit for a shop. If someone was refused service due to race, creed or membership of the travelling community, there would be protection under the Equal Status Act. However, there seems to be nothing stopping shops implementing a locals only policy.

Does anyone else think this is wrong?

I think anyone who disregarded the government rules and travelled to somewhere they don’t normally live has to accept people are fearful they might have brought the virus with them.

If you drive from a virus hotspot to somewhere with no cases or a handful of cases, how would you expect locals to receive you?

splinter65

DubCount wrote: »

I have heard a couple of examples of shops in rural locations implementing a "locals only" rule and not serving any "outsiders". I fully agree with the restrictions on travel other than for essential reasons, but I think this is going further than the remit for a shop. If someone was refused service due to race, creed or membership of the travelling community, there would be protection under the Equal Status Act. However, there seems to be nothing stopping shops implementing a locals only policy.

Does anyone else think this is wrong?

No I don’t see anything wrong with it at all under the current circumstances. Unless someone is being discriminated against under one of the 9 grounds as specified in the Equality Act then the owner of the shop has the absolute right to refuse admission to whomever he chooses.
Can you give me an example of why you think it’s wrong?

mossie

If you have people arriving for the weekend or whatever despite the lockdown I would fully support the shop refusing to serve them.

suicide_circus

a local shop, for local people

RobbingBandit

Out of towners tax might help keep the shops pure

JPCN1

DubCount wrote: »

I have heard a couple of examples of shops in rural locations implementing a "locals only" rule and not serving any "outsiders". I fully agree with the restrictions on travel other than for essential reasons, but I think this is going further than the remit for a shop. If someone was refused service due to race, creed or membership of the travelling community, there would be protection under the Equal Status Act. However, there seems to be nothing stopping shops implementing a locals only policy.

Does anyone else think this is wrong?

I doubt very much this is happening and just idle hysteria. (No offence meant OP).

However if it is actually the case then I find it disgusting. There are no shortages of food and once social distancing and guidelines are met...

This virus will pass by hopefully sooner rather than later and people will remember these things.

I btw certainly am not condoning people who flouted the rules but a good many left before Friday last when it was permissible to do so.

DubCount

splinter65 wrote: »

No I don’t see anything wrong with it at all under the current circumstances. Unless someone is being discriminated against under one of the 9 grounds as specified in the Equality Act then the owner of the shop has the absolute right to refuse admission to whomever he chooses.
Can you give me an example of why you think it’s wrong?

Firstly, I'm not in favour of breaking current rules on travel. The stay at home rules are helping our hospitals and front line staff and should be respected.

I just think that a shopkeeper should not be making the decisions as to whether someone's presence in a particular location is legitimate or not - that's a job for Gardaí. If someone is getting essential supplies for a relative or repairing some piece of essential infrastructure etc., I don't think rural shops should be implementing a policy of only serving people they know to be local.

I'm sure the intention is to protect an area with a low incidence of the virus, but I think that would be better achieved with social distancing guidelines etc. rather than a "No Outsiders" policy.

Harry Palmr

and how would this be enforced? By recognition? accent? by car reg ("quick Mary nip outside and check the plates") by skin colour? or by pure luck?

Loads of bollocks

DubCount

JPCN1 wrote: »

I doubt very much this is happening and just idle hysteria. (No offence meant OP).

No offence taken.

I would say it is not widespread. This is a UK example in the news, but I'm sure it is happening
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shop-owner-praised-new-locals-21840845

Judging by many of the responses on this thread, a lot of people seem to support this kind of policy.

Exodus 1811

DubCount wrote: »

No offence taken.

I would say it is not widespread. This is a UK example in the news, but I'm sure it is happening
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shop-owner-praised-new-locals-21840845

Judging by many of the responses on this thread, a lot of people seem to support this kind of policy.

What I find most annoying is this constant whipping up of city folk vs country folk nonsense that you hear on the radio and see in the papers. How many of these stories have you heard, you start the thread by saying you have heard stories and your quote here says "you're sure it's happening"?

RandomViewer

Harry Palmr wrote: »

and how would this be enforced? By recognition? accent? by car reg ("quick Mary nip outside and check the plates") by skin colour? or by pure luck?

Loads of bollocks

I'm guessing for the Dubliners it's the fake accents and the sunglasses perched on their heads, Nordies it's the Celtic shirt and the dress shoes

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

DubCount wrote: »

I have heard a couple of examples of shops in rural locations implementing a "locals only" rule and not serving any "outsiders". I fully agree with the restrictions on travel other than for essential reasons, but I think this is going further than the remit for a shop. If someone was refused service due to race, creed or membership of the travelling community, there would be protection under the Equal Status Act. However, there seems to be nothing stopping shops implementing a locals only policy.

Does anyone else think this is wrong?

Well, like you say, it’s not one of the characteristics names on the Equal Status Act so not much can be done really.

Beasty

Makes absolute sense to me. They don't want to encourage others to travel to their shop from afar. That would be totally irresponsible.

And I am sure that as a business they would be delighted to be able to open up to everyone, but that's clearly not feasible in the current environment. Nothing to do with discrimination rules, just applying common sense in incredibly difficult circumstances

Pistachio19

JPCN1 wrote: »

I doubt very much this is happening and just idle hysteria. (No offence meant OP).

However if it is actually the case then I find it disgusting. There are no shortages of food and once social distancing and guidelines are met...

This virus will pass by hopefully sooner rather than later and people will remember these things.

I btw certainly am not condoning people who flouted the rules but a good many left before Friday last when it was permissible to do so.

I doubt it's anything to do with food supplies and more to do with people being annoyed at holiday makers travelling and therefore shop owners giving them the 2 fingers. We have been asked for the past 2 weeks not to make non essential journeys over 2km. Travelling to a holiday home is a non essential journey. The virus will possibly be passed on by these people flouting the rules, bringing it to areas where otherwise locals would have escaped infection. And of course people will remember these things - the local people will remember the disrespect and disgusting sense of entitlement these holiday home owners appear to have.

RandomViewer

I think there has to an example made of the holiday home owners who breached the restrictions, loss of driving licence and passport and fine proportional to income, if they are public servants then dismissal

KiKi III

Harry Palmr wrote: »

and how would this be enforced? By recognition? accent? by car reg ("quick Mary nip outside and check the plates") by skin colour? or by pure luck?

Loads of bollocks

In small villages and towns people know who’s local.

DubCount

Exodus 1811 wrote: »

What I find most annoying is this constant whipping up of city folk vs country folk nonsense that you hear on the radio and see in the papers. How many of these stories have you heard, you start the thread by saying you have heard stories and your quote here says "you're sure it's happening"?

Sorry if you find the discussion annoying. I think its a fair question to ask, and it seems most people disagree with me.

There was a report on Newstalk today about a shop in Fethard on Sea. There was the newspaper report I quoted from Cornwall. I'm staying within my 2KM range so I haven't seen any examples personally and am unlikely to do so.

read the replies on this thread. There is a lot of support for "local shop for locals only"

mossie

DubCount wrote: »

Sorry if you find the discussion annoying. I think its a fair question to ask, and it seems most people disagree with me.

There was a report on Newstalk today about a shop in Fethard on Sea. There was the newspaper report I quoted from Cornwall. I'm staying within my 2KM range so I haven't seen any examples personally and am unlikely to do so.

read the replies on this thread. There is a lot of support for "local shop for locals only"

I support people who follow the restrictions, not those who feel they have an entitlement to travel to their holiday homes or caravans and then expect to be welcomed. If they aren't welcomed with open arms they have nobody to blame apart from themselves and I would be 100% behind the shopkeeper in this case.

JPCN1

Pistachio19 wrote: »

I doubt it's anything to do with food supplies and more to do with people being annoyed at holiday makers travelling and therefore shop owners giving them the 2 fingers. We have been asked for the past 2 weeks not to make non essential journeys over 2km. Travelling to a holiday home is a non essential journey. The virus will possibly be passed on by these people flouting the rules, bringing it to areas where otherwise locals would have escaped infection. And of course people will remember these things - the local people will remember the disrespect and disgusting sense of entitlement these holiday home owners appear to have.

Would perhaps have been better if you had read all of my post where I did not condone people who had travelled after the restrictions.
There is a difference even if you are unable to grasp that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, like you say, it’s not one of the characteristics names on the Equal Status Act so not much can be done really.

You'd have travellers putting in discrimination cases left right and centre.


And you'd have 'settled' people willing to chance it by putting in cases because they mentioned that they ID'ed as a woman or a transgender or a traveller or whatever, and the shop owner refused to serve them (whether that actually happened or not, one person's word against anothers).




Any shop doing it would be decimated.

FloatingVoter

KiKi III wrote: »

In small villages and towns people know who’s local.

Yes, the cousin I married and the sheep on the side.

JPCN1

RandomViewer wrote: »

I think there has to an example made of the holiday home owners who breached the restrictions, loss of driving licence and passport and fine proportional to income, if they are public servants then dismissal

Let's just hang em RV, after a fair trial of course. We could hang the bodies in Gibbets at the crossroads to deter others. Let's dispense with the half measures bull****.

All getting a wee bit Monty Pythonesque. FFS.

Sleeper12

DubCount wrote:

I have heard a couple of examples of shops in rural locations implementing a "locals only" rule and not serving any "outsiders". I fully agree with the restrictions on travel other than for essential reasons, but I think this is going further than the remit for a shop. If someone was refused service due to race, creed or membership of the travelling community, there would be protection under the Equal Status Act. However, there seems to be nothing stopping shops implementing a locals only policy.

The management reserves the right to refuse. No reason needs nor should ever be given. Any management giving a reason is leaving themselves wide open for a claim to be put in.

Sono Topolino

DubCount wrote: »

I have heard a couple of examples of shops in rural locations implementing a "locals only" rule and not serving any "outsiders". I fully agree with the restrictions on travel other than for essential reasons, but I think this is going further than the remit for a shop. If someone was refused service due to race, creed or membership of the travelling community, there would be protection under the Equal Status Act. However, there seems to be nothing stopping shops implementing a locals only policy.

Does anyone else think this is wrong?

Sounds like a completely reasonable and necessary step to protect the shopkeeper, their staff and the community from blow-ins who could well be carrying the disease.

Better safe than sorry.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Harry Palmr wrote: »

and how would this be enforced? By recognition? accent? by car reg ("quick Mary nip outside and check the plates") by skin colour? or by pure luck?

Loads of bollocks

In rural areas, everyone knows everyone. Seriously.

Quantum Erasure

"you're not on the list, you're not coming in..."

"sorry lads, regulars only tonight"

mossie

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

In rural areas, everyone knows everyone. Seriously.

I work in a small, relatively rural, town and it's true I would know 90% of the people I see every day. This would probably be even more true of people with shops in small villages who would know everyone within miles of the place.

DubCount

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Sounds like a completely reasonable and necessary step to protect the shopkeeper, their staff and the community from blow-ins who could well be carrying the disease.

Better safe than sorry.

You do know that locals can carry the virus and infect people just as well as a "blow in" can. It might be better to follow government and WHO guidelines on social distancing and hand hygiene etc. than assuming locals have immunity and blow ins are virus ridden vermin.

suicide_circus

what if youre local but not a regular?

Sono Topolino

DubCount wrote: »

You do know that locals can carry the virus and infect people just as well as a "blow in" can. It might be better to follow government and WHO guidelines on social distancing and hand hygiene etc. than assuming locals have immunity and blow ins are virus ridden vermin.

Locals can only catch the virus through interactions with outsiders. Any steps that minimise the interactions of outsiders with the local community is for the better.

splinter65

Harry Palmr wrote: »

and how would this be enforced? By recognition? accent? by car reg ("quick Mary nip outside and check the plates") by skin colour? or by pure luck?

Loads of bollocks

You don’t know much about small village life do you Harry?

hmmm

Someone taking the piss walking around with an inflatable donkey under their arm is one thing, but this is a terrible idea otherwise and hopefully is discouraged. I've some elderly relatives down the country and I'm sure the local shop doesn't know me personally, but I might want to drop in to buy supplies for them. I'd rather not get into a prolonged conversation about how long my family have been in the area and whether we took the shilling/any other prejudices.

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You'd have travellers putting in discrimination cases left right and centre.


And you'd have 'settled' people willing to chance it by putting in cases because they mentioned that they ID'ed as a woman or a transgender or a traveller or whatever, and the shop owner refused to serve them (whether that actually happened or not, one person's word against anothers).




Any shop doing it would be decimated.

The sign on the door says “locals only”. It doesn’t say “no transsexuals”.
So how are transsexuals being discriminated against by the sign?!?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

mossie wrote: »

I work in a small, relatively rural, town and it's true I would know 90% of the people I see every day. This would probably be even more true of people with shops in small villages who would know everyone within miles of the place.

Yeah, that's it. Like, my parents wouldn't know absolutely everyone in their small village but they'd know someone who does. So it's like a web of information. And the local shop owners would probably know close to 100% of people.

Stark

splinter65 wrote: »

The sign on the door says “locals only”. It doesn’t say “no transsexuals”.
So how are transsexuals being discriminated against by the sign?!?

They're all transsexual up there in Dublin.

fawlty682

Why are Gardai not using Emergency powers?

mossie

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yeah, that's it. Like, my parents wouldn't know absolutely everyone in their small village but they'd know someone who does. So it's like a web of information. And the local shop owners would probably know close to 100% of people.

Absolutely. Where I live is in the sticks. I would know most people within 3km, we wouldn't all be close friends or anything but I would know who they are and they would know me. Same with the local shops - there's a shop / petrol station 3km in one direction, a village with a supermarket and smaller shop 5 km the other way. I would know most of the staff in all these, maybe not personally but they would know me as a regular. Same in town where I work, I wouldn't know them all personally but I know they're regulars.

Pistachio19

JPCN1 wrote: »

Would perhaps have been better if you had read all of my post where I did not condone people who had travelled after the restrictions.
There is a difference even if you are unable to grasp that.

The 2km restriction has been in place for 2 weeks. So fair enough if people travelled prior to that, but in your post you mentioned those who travelled before Friday last. Last Friday people were not supposed to be travelling more than the 2km for non essential travel.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

mossie wrote: »

Absolutely. Where I live is in the sticks. I would know most people within 3km, we wouldn't all be close friends or anything but I would know who they are and they would know me. Same with the local shops - there's a shop / petrol station 3km in one direction, a village with a supermarket and smaller shop 5 km the other way. I would know most of the staff in all these, maybe not personally but they would know me as a regular. Same in town where I work, I wouldn't know them all personally but I know they're regulars.

In fairness, I'm sure this is hard to fathom for anyone who grew up in a sizeable urban area.

DubCount

Sono Topolino wrote: »

Locals can only catch the virus through interactions with outsiders. Any steps that minimise the interactions of outsiders with the local community is for the better.

Clearly nobody inside the magic circle interacts with an outsider or moves outside of the ring of steel at any time. In the unlikely event the germs make it inside the protective curtain, you can have the infected moved to the Covid-19 colony on the outskirts of the village.

Its nice to see that we are all in this together.

FrStone

Pistachio19 wrote: »

The 2km restriction has been in place for 2 weeks. So fair enough if people travelled prior to that, but in your post you mentioned those who travelled before Friday last. Last Friday people were not supposed to be travelling more than the 2km for non essential travel.

Our was only a recommendation until recently. When people heard Harris was going to sign it into law, they rushed to their holiday homes in advance.

splinter65

Stark wrote: »

They're all transsexual up there in Dublin.

They’re a terrible bunch of big girls blouses at least

Quantum Erasure

Pistachio19 wrote: »

The 2km restriction has been in place for 2 weeks. So fair enough if people travelled prior to that, but in your post you mentioned those who travelled before Friday last. Last Friday people were not supposed to be travelling more than the 2km for non essential travel.

the 2km limit is for exercise only

as someone posted elsewhere:
if your business is essential the 2km does not apply
if your business is non essential the 2km is not a waiver

KiKi III

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Yes, the cousin I married and the sheep on the side.

Townies who actually think stuff like the above are why these kinds of divisions exist!

Cienciano

KiKi III wrote: »

I think anyone who disregarded the government rules and travelled to somewhere they don’t normally live has to accept people are fearful they might have brought the virus with them.

If you drive from a virus hotspot to somewhere with no cases or a handful of cases, how would you expect locals to receive you?

Where is a virus hotspot?

KiKi III

Cienciano wrote: »

Where is a virus hotspot?

Feel free to consult the news for a breakdown of cases by county.