Flat adverts that may be breaking the law

[Yamahahahahaha]

As I said earlier, I think any multicultural society will always be naturally quite divided. As good people I'm sure we all try to integrate with other culturally different members of our society, but there will always be differences.

Agreed. Differences between people and cultures make life interesting!

Trying to force integration on all races and branding anyone simply wishing to identify only with others of their own culture in their personal lives as racist might be noble, but I think as an attempt at a force cohesive society, it might be ultimately counter productive.

It is racist. It's not forcing them to do anything other than not to exclude others simply because they don't fit their imaginary belief that "All Whites/Blacks/Non-Bangladeshi/ are bad.
Ultimately they probably will end up with a tenant who is exactly what they were looking for, but the law is there to protect everyone from that discrimination.

 

[Conscript]

I wish you lot would stop posting such interesting discussion on GD. I've been sat at my desk for over an hour now looking at this thread rather than doing my work

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

So you think there are non-Bangladeshi's who want to live in a house full of Bangladeshi people who only speak Bangladeshi?
I mean seriously? Who are these people?

For instance:
I want to live there because the rent is a good price and it's near my place of work.
So what if everyone else in the house speaks Bangladeshi? That's not my problem. I don't have to talk to them and they don't have to talk to me.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

I wish you lot would stop posting such interesting discussion on GD. I've been sat at my desk for over an hour now looking at this thread rather than doing my work

I'm in a Webex meeting barely paying attention, I'll have to go do some real work soon.

 

[inogen]

For instance:
I want to live there because the rent is a good price and it's near my place of work.
So what if everyone else in the house speaks Bangladeshi? That's not my problem. I don't have to talk to them and they don't have to talk to me.

So you'd really want to live in a house full of people that didn't speak English because the rent is cheap and it's close to work?

You think that would / should be a convenient and harmonious co-habitation?

Really?

From my experience of house-sharing I'd say that was a particularly peculiar desire.

I think you'd have to go a long way to find one person who actually felt excluded on grounds of race / culture in this scenario.

 

[antijoke]

NVM

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

So you'd really want to live in a house full of people that didn't speak English because the rent is cheap and it's close to work?

Me personally? No. People in an infinite possibility of different situations? Yes definitely.

You think that would / should be a convenient and harmonious co-habitation?

I didn't say it would be harmonious, but it certainly might be convenient if your job happens to be around the corner.

I think you'd have to go a long way to find one person who actually felt excluded on grounds of race / culture in this scenario.

It has happened and it does happen. These adverts are evidence of that.

 

[Haggisman]

Well, let's examine them.

"Double bedroom available… Asian only" - That could be a number of religions or races, it pretty much only excludes Africans/Europeans.

"Double room to let Gujarati (Indian) only" - This may have some cultural relevance, but it's still discrimination.

Close to the station and bus stops (Filipino only) - Same as the first one.

"Professional single lady or Sri Lanka professional couple" - This may have some cultural relevance, but it's still discrimination.

"House for rent… only Asian families" - A house, not house-sharing & Asian only - clear racism.

Are you reading a different article?.

My bad, there was only one which mentioned religion - the point still stands.

Clearly not allowing everyone a fair pop at living in that property is bad for society as a whole.

Where do you draw the line?

Would you argue that the landlord should fit ramps/stairlift/etc in order to allow people of reduced mobility "a fair pop" at living in the property?

How about reducing the rent so that people on a lower wage are allowed "a fair pop" at the property?

While I agree with your sentiment, I don't feel it's realistic.

It is racist. It's not forcing them to do anything other than not to exclude others simply because they don't fit their imaginary belief that "All Whites/Blacks/Non-Bangladeshi/ are bad."

Who said anything about them being "bad"? This is where people always seem to get confused - just because they are excluding them, it's not necessarily because they think they are "bad".

By the same logic that I'd far rather house share with males (OMG sexist!) around my age (OMG ageist!), it's not because I think there's anything wrong with females, or with older/younger people, it simply because males around my age are more likely to share my interests.

For instance:
I want to live there because the rent is a good price and it's near my place of work.
So what if everyone else in the house speaks Bangladeshi? That's not my problem. I don't have to talk to them and they don't have to talk to me.

It might not be a problem for you, but maybe it's a problem for them? Maybe they don't want someone unsociable living with them? Maybe they want someone they have something in common with and can chat to and become friends with?

 

[Haggisman]

It has happened and it does happen. These adverts are evidence of that.

Actually they aren't, nowhere in the article does it state that anyone complained or felt excluded based on them, they are only evidence of the fact that such adverts exist.

It also still doesn't change the fact that, regardless of what it says in the adverts, if the landlord wants "Asian only" then he's going to choose "Asian only" and no amount of legislation is going to change that. Removing the ability to filter with the advert is just going to result in people wasting time responding to adverts they're never going to get.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

Would you argue that the landlord should fit ramps/stairlift/etc in order to allow people of reduced mobility "a fair pop" at living in the property?

There was a case related to this in 2006, and the judge ruled that there is no obligation for a private landlord to make accessibility improvements (in that case, a stair lift) for an existing tenant.

How about reducing the rent so that people on a lower wage are allowed "a fair pop" at the property?

That's not discrimination under the law, that's not having enough money. More of an ideological argument than a practical one.

Who said anything about them being "bad"? This is where people always seem to get confused - just because they are excluding them, it's not necessarily because they think they are "bad".
By the same logic that I'd far rather house share with males (OMG sexist!) around my age (OMG ageist!), it's not because I think there's anything wrong with females, or with older/younger people, it simply because males around my age are more likely to share my interests.

There is nothing stopping you from turning them down when they apply. The difference is, you cannot put up an advert saying "No females, ages 75 - 90 only". You could advertise it as "Old man seeking housemate", so you are more likely to attract people who are compatible with you.

It might not be a problem for you, but maybe it's a problem for them? Maybe they don't want someone unsociable living with them? Maybe they want someone they have something in common with and can chat to and become friends with?

You are under no obligation to accept their offer of renting. If you don't like the colour of their beard, it's your choice to turn them down.

 

[Hicks]

There are a lot of people in this thread missing the point completely but I guess I'm not really surprised judging by a lot of threads in GD.

Why is it that you seem to think that you have a right to be housed in any of these properties? I don't get it.
There are people advertising rooms etc and they are saving people time and effort by explaining the situation... ie This flat is full of Bangladeshi people and really wouldn't suit anyone other than Bangladeshi etc. (Can't believe I'm actually having to spell this out tbh)
This is not "Hobdens" or any other Estate agents saying they will only house people of certain culture, origin etc. It's also not saying "No whites/blacks" which would be a fair assumption of racism.

Once again it's any chance to make an issue where there isn't one which is proved time and time again here

Originally Posted by Yamahahahahaha
It is racist. It's not forcing them to do anything other than not to exclude others simply because they don't fit their imaginary belief that "All Whites/Blacks/Non-Bangladeshi/ are bad."

Classic example here ^
You're just making things up here aren't you to fit your imaginary belief that all Asian people looking for specific tenants are racist.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

Actually they aren't, nowhere in the article does it state that anyone complained or felt excluded based on them, they are only evidence of the fact that such adverts exist.

Historically there is evidence, otherwise the legislation would not exist. Just because nobody complained doesn't make it right, although this is dangerously close to being offended on behalf of someone else.

It also still doesn't change the fact that, regardless of what it says in the adverts, if the landlord wants "Asian only" then he's going to choose "Asian only" and no amount of legislation is going to change that. Removing the ability to filter with the advert is just going to result in people wasting time responding to adverts they're never going to get.

It doesn't change it in the slightest. The landlord may still only let to Asians. On the other hand, if a nice non-asian couple with a young child offered to rent it, I don't think they would get turned down in the majority of cases.

 

[asim18]

This is nothing new. Having grown up in a truly multiculural city like London, I've been noticing this from a young age. People of the same race ALWAYS stick together. Does that mean they're racist? No. It's simply a method of increasing chances of finding someone with more things in common with you.

In every educational institute I've attended in the past 15 years, I've noticed the same trend. There's always the black cliques, the Asian cliques, Chinese cliques and even the emo clique, and so on. But that doesn't mean they hate each other, inside the classroom they get on perfectly, (except the emos, everyone hated them).

Imagine an emo kid is late to start at a school. He walks in on his first day and there's a group of black kids and a group of white kids. He will obviously try to mix with the white kids as we all know it's an impossibility to find a black emo. That doesn't mean the kid's a racist. He just wants to find other emos.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

Why is it that you seem to think that you have a right to be housed in any of these properties? I don't get it.

There is no right. If it's a private property then ultimately the landlord decides who lives there.

There are people advertising rooms etc and they are saving people time and effort by explaining the situation... ie This flat is full of Bangladeshi people and really wouldn't suit anyone other than Bangladeshi etc. (Can't believe I'm actually having to spell this out tbh)

I see your point, it's a very Common Sense answer, but see my other example; if the rent is right and if the tenant doesn't care about interacting with the other tenants, what issue is there? The implication there is that the issue would be one of race (assuming it was Asians only), and exclusion on the grounds of race is bad. Just because someone doesn't want a person of another race living next door, tough luck. Get over your prejudices.

Classic example here ^
You're just making things up here aren't you to fit your imaginary belief that all Asian people looking for specific tenants are racist.

The intention may not be racist, the choice of wording might be poor etc. but the effect is exclusive. They can just as easily say "Asian household seeks tenant", which would have exactly the same effect, without being racist.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

This is nothing new. Having grown up in a truly multiculural city like London, I've been noticing this from a young age. People of the same race ALWAYS stick together. Does that mean they're racist? No. It's simply a method of increasing chances of finding someone with more things in common with you.

I'm sorry you think that. My family have never tried to segregate themselves and infact have little or no contact with our race / culture on those grounds alone. You would think me as English as the next person if you met me.

Your points are based on quite a few faulty assumptions, but alas I must love you and leave you, there is work to be done.

Good thread this, keep it going!

 

[RoyMi6]

The thing is, they haven't said "no blacks", they've specified "Bangladeshi", etc. I think this is less being racist, more restricting applicants to those the landlord shares a familiarity with. Not much different to putting an advert out for a room share for "students only", they've just used a cultural/national identifier instead.

Think this is a good point. I'm not saying it's the case for every advert but I imagine that if I moved to India I might put up an advert saying that I'm looking for a fellow Scotsman to stay with. Wouldn't matter what race, creed, colour or sexuality they were but someone I would immediately have something in common with would be a good thing in my opinion. Hell, I would probably even write it in English to improve my odds!

 

[asim18]

I'm sorry you think that. My family have never tried to segregate themselves and infact have little or no contact with our race / culture on those grounds alone. You would think me as English as the next person if you met me.

Your points are based on quite a few faulty assumptions, but alas I must love you and leave you, there is work to be done.

Good thread this, keep it going!

I didn't say people actively segregate themselves, I just said they just stick together.

My points were only based on what I've personally seen in massively multicultural schools and colleges.

Personally, I find the best and most enjoyable friendships I've had have been with people of a colour other than mine. But I was still part of the Asian clique at school.

 

[div0]

Actually they aren't, nowhere in the article does it state that anyone complained or felt excluded based on them, they are only evidence of the fact that such adverts exist.

It also still doesn't change the fact that, regardless of what it says in the adverts, if the landlord wants "Asian only" then he's going to choose "Asian only" and no amount of legislation is going to change that.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but surely the point of the discussion is that it we (society) should be discouraging unfair prejudice.

Assuming that someone is an incompatible flat-mate, just because of one aspect of their life is pretty narrow-minded.

Even with current Employment Law, if someone is determined to only employ white people, it's quite likely they will, they just have to be careful with how they can back up their reasons for choosing one employee over another.

But the laws were made to set an example and show that blatant discrimination on such grounds is wrong.

Removing the ability to filter with the advert is just going to result in people wasting time responding to adverts they're never going to get.

I kind of see your point here too. But again, if you had an employer who was intent on only employing white people, then would you see it as acceptable to allow him to advertise as 'white-only', so as to 'save time' for anyone else who may be considering to apply.

In the case of looking for a flat-mate, the advert should really focus on the actual qualities that you would be looking for in a person, rather than dismissing an entire group based on a predetermined prejudice?

 

[inogen]

Me personally? No. People in an infinite possibility of different situations? Yes definitely.

The law isn't there to protect people in an infinite possibility of different situations, it's there to give real individuals in real situations recourse to law.

I didn't say it would be harmonious, but it certainly might be convenient if your job happens to be around the corner.

Convenient in one particular way, whilst being massively inconvenient in others.

It has happened and it does happen. These adverts are evidence of that.

The only sense of exclusion I've got is people asking themselves if they can do it, why can't I? ie "Whites Only". That's not the same thing at all.

 

[danielanthony]

I understand that an Englishman's home is his castle, BUT:

This lack of integration means the sharing of experiences and accumulation of common assumptions that bind communities together does not happen. That alone would be bad enough, but worse, it allows perceptions to go unchallenged. These layer up to create walls of assumption that not only divide communities but create a sufficient level of ‘otherness’ that people can vote BNP because they genuinely believe that the ‘blacks are taking all our houses, the Asians have got all the jobs’. And not all the bricks in these walls were laid by one side. Sweeping generalisations and destructive stereotypes work both ways.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/charlie-baker/is-there-racial-segregation-in-britains-towns

There have been a lot of assumptions made by people in this thread about other cultures or races not wanting to live together. Without even entertaining the possibility of living with someone from a different culture, how can we be expected to live in a more integrated society?