I replied like with like - I told you that I had seen many of these notices; you claimed, and as far as I can see, are still saying that they either didn't exist, or were so rare that they weren't worth bothering about - a direct contradiction to what I had witnessed and knew to be a fact.
I do not believe, nor have I claimed that Guest CS is lying - his silence on the matter indicates that he accepts that.
In your case, your reputation f distorting what othrs say, directly lying about what you have posted and not posted (eg your Pakistani implant claim), even to the extent of your fakin postings in your own support (caught red-handed and warned about that one) goes before you.
I later withdrew what was meant to be a mirror of your own behaviour, and that remains as said.
Back to subject:
Something mor to reject as the work of "agenda ridden spokespersons trying to justify their pay-packets" - this time, The Runneymede Trust.
"Discrimination
Gypsies have suffered discrimination by being refused service in public houses and shops, entry to dance halls and youth clubs, even on at least one occasion (in Sheffield) not allowed on a bus.
Discrimination is not a new phenomenon. Here is an example taken from an article in The Countryman recalling the 1920s.
"In season, the itinerants poured in, to pea pick, single out and so on; tramps, Gypsies and Travellers of every kind. 'No Gypos' read the notice on the pub door."
The Commission for Racial Equality and its predecessor, the Race Relations Board, received many complaints in particular about pubs with 'No Gypsies' signs outside. Letters 'achieved some success' in the removal of signs but recently new wording 'No Travellers' has been used. Under the Race Relations Act such a sign may be seen as discriminating indirectly against Romany Gypsies. The pub owner would need to justify the sign and a suitable test case is awaited to see how these notices could be justified. Under the Race Relations Act only the CRE can prosecute a discriminator. All that Gypsies can do is refer these signs, and refusals of service, to the CRE and leave it to the Commission to decide which cases to take up.
Notices are becoming more subtle, such as 'Travellers by Appointment only', so that a Gypsy with limited reading ability will see the sign as applying to him, but in case of prosecution the landlord might get away with arguing that he was referring to commercial travellers.
In two cases where clubs rather than pubs were concerned, the cases were settled out of court with an apology to the Traveller who had been refused entry. One involved an Irish Traveller but - because it never reached the stage of a trial - the argument that Irish Travellers are an ethnic group has never been settled."
This from 'On The Verge' by Donald Kendrick and Sian Bakewell University of Hertfordshire Press, 1995 – First published by the Runnymede Trust 1992.
If you want some real spooky bedtime reading try The Gypsy and The State The ethnic cleansing of British society' by Derek Hawes and Barbara Perez, School For Advanced Urban Studies, Bristol 1995.
You have had more than enough evidence; now address it instead of attempting to lead this up a blind alley - I have already said I do not believe you are lying (in this case - does not mean you haven't in the past).
Jim Carroll