This is not related to any particular issue but more a matter of idle curiosity and to settle a lunch room argument.

I was under the impression that the Equality Act had all but got rid of most discrimination based on Age with a few exceptions.

However I see there are plenty of services being offered which have age criteria for their customers, for instance;

- Campsites specifying 'no children' . This seems mostly done to provide a calm quiet environment for those who want it, however in the terminology of the act is this 'objectively justified'. The simple fact that other customers might not want children using the same facility seems the very essence of discrimination? 

- Assisted living type accomodation with a lower age limit often of 50ish. Why should someone who is say 45 not be allowed to avail themselves of this if they feel they need or want to?

Obviously some things clearly meet the 'objective justification test' such as children not being admitted to age certificate films etc. but the examples above don't seem to have such clear justification?

Is there some aspect I'm unaware of which means discrimination only applies upwards i.e. you can say someone is too young but not that they are too old - or is this just waiting for someone to make a legal challenge?

Edited by user 22 May 2019 12:04:44(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling and punctuation

The college I worked for advertised for a female security person. The justification is that they needed someone who was able to go into the female toilets and also to check females.

Citizens advice state:

When can a trader or service provider justify age discrimination?

It’s possible to justify both direct and indirect age discrimination. The trader or service provider would have to show they have a good enough reason for discriminating against you.

Here are examples of reasons service providers and traders often use to try to justify discrimination:

• ensuring the health and safety of customers
• protecting the welfare of individuals
• enabling people of particular age groups to enjoy activities together
• making sure that particular services are targeted at people who need them most.

But something may not be a good enough reason if the service provider or trader could have done things in a less discriminatory way. This will require the trader or service provider to show they considered the potentially discriminatory effects of the  decision or action they took and that it was necessary to act in that way. The Equality Act says they must show the action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Further reading here:https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services1/goods-and-services-what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/what-doesn-t-count-as-unlawful-discrimination-in-goods-and-services/age-discrimination-when-discrimination-is-allowed-in-the-provision-of-goods-or-services/

Originally Posted by: Hsquared14

The Equality Act list "protected characteristics" age is one of them but it comes with a load of caveats.  https://www.equalityhuma...dance/age-discrimination

In the example of assisted living being restricted to over 50s you are unlikely to want to use this service if you are under 50 unless you have another problem which also comes under the protected characteristics heading, in which case you would probably get a place in an assisted living unit.  Plenty of relatively young people with disabilities do live in assisted living facilities which cater mainly for older people.

Ah, but is it OK to discriminate just because those you are discriminating against are unlikely to want to use the service? Plenty of hale and hearty over 50's move into these facilities, indeed my own parents have since they wanted to downsize and have somewhere they could easily leave for months at a time to go travelling. This might also suit someone slightly younger?

Originally Posted by: Hsquared14

From reading the guidance your example of campsites offering "no children" services would not be considered discriminatory as the opposite argument could be made ie you are discriminating against people who don't want to be surrounded by screaming kids!

The example in the link you provided has a very similar example where a guesthouse owner shouldn't charge more for younger guests fearing they may do more damage but could charge a deposit instead.

It seems to me the assumption that kids will be noisy and badly behaved therefore wouldn't justify banning them, rather one could put noise rules etc. in place. Can you make assumptions of the behaviour of whole sections of society and choose not to deal with them on that basis?

If you remove the assumption that they will scream and just look at the argument that by not banning kids you are discriminating against those that don't want to be surrounded by them, then how would that look if you substituted an ethic group, sexual preference or disability?

It just strikes me as odd that its acceptable to ban a whole section of humanity just because other people might not like being around them..... I am playing devils advocate here a little but it's an interesting scenario.

Originally Posted by: Hsquared14

Essentially you can only use age as definitive means of discrimination if doing otherwise would leave you open to claims of discrimination from other routes or if by not applying age discrimination you would be breaching another law.   That's my take on it but it would be interesting to see how others interpret it.

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

Further reading here:https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services/discrimination-in-the-provision-of-goods-and-services1/goods-and-services-what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/what-doesn-t-count-as-unlawful-discrimination-in-goods-and-services/age-discrimination-when-discrimination-is-allowed-in-the-provision-of-goods-or-services/

Thats a pretty good link and does go further to explain, I just find this fascinating (slow day obviously).

I'm still not convinced though, look at this example from that link;

Example

A coach company is organising an over 60’s day trip to the seaside. You’re in your 50s and would like to go on the trip. You complain about direct age discrimination to the coach company.

The coach company says the aim of the trip is to bring older people together with a common interest. The whole trip has been organised with this in mind with specific facilities and services for older people on the coach. This could be a good enough reason.

Now what on earth is this example really saying? Over 60's are more interested in the seaside than over 50's? Over 60's do different things when they visit the seaside to over 50's perhaps? What specific services might they mean? Presumably things to cope with various infimities/disabilities? I'm thinking there are plenty of over 50's who might need that too? Surely it would be more in the spirit of the legislation to reserve a number of spaces on the coach for those who require those facilities rather than specify an age?

Edited by user 22 May 2019 13:20:36(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

You can only be discriminated against things that out of your control. So both your examples would not be discrimination. The person coming to your table is not in your friendship group, they can become part of your friendship group. You can choose to purchase the local rag.

Sex, gender, age, race, ethnicity and religion (you are born into a religion) are examples of things that you can't choose to change at a whim.

This is a very interesting topic and something we too had a good chat about at work the other day, primarily around the topic of drivers.

Personnally, i've often felt it unfair that young drivers should be so heavily penalised purely based on their age when obtaining car insurance. For example, a 19 year old with 2 years of faultless driving under their belt will most likely be charged 10x more than a 50 year old who passed their test yesterday. Surely it should be based on years of "clean" driving experience, rather than purely years alive?

It was the same when men paid more insurance than women. 

Now yes, maybe men crash more than women and yes, maybe 19 year olds crash more than 40 year olds but to penalise an individual based solely on the behaviour or performance of people from that particular group, rather than their own expereince or performance is surely against the principles of the Equality Act? 

What if the same stats showed that people from certain ethinic groups crashed more than those from other ethnic groups or followers of one religion were statistically worse drivers than followers of another religion...? These are all protected characteristics last time i checked...

Recent research indicates the human mind becomes adult "wired" @ 23 years of age which along with decades of accumulated claim data probably leads to the young driver being penalised.

Currently the only way I am aware of for a driver to break out of a pigeon hole is through evaluation either by a fitted black box or by using a phone based driving application.

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Recent research indicates the human mind becomes adult "wired" @ 23 years of age which along with decades of accumulated claim data probably leads to the young driver being penalised.

Currently the only way I am aware of for a driver to break out of a pigeon hole is through evaluation either by a fitted black box or by using a phone based driving application.

I'm also pretty sure that our reaction speeds etc all start to drop in our late teens, although i don't recall where i read that. 

The black boxes help but prices are still extortionate. I work with a female who was quoted almost £4000 on a Citroen C1 when she was 19. The black box bought it down to just shy of £2000. She's now 21, boxless and has almost 3 years no claims but still pays well over £1200. A newly qualifed, middle aged driver with no experience would pay a fraction of that.

But yes i would 100% agree that decades of data will, when filtered by age, show that young drivers are more of a liability. The same data, when filtered by gender, will also show that men are more of a liability. My question (and the main reason we were having this conversation at work) was why is it deemed "OK" to filter by age and gender but not by race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc when they are ALL protected characteristics?

Edited by user 28 May 2019 12:39:21(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling and punctuation

Quite a few consumer programs and advocates have done "research" on insurance quotes merely changing a single detail e.g. surname

Example report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43011882 from 2018

But then an enrolled deed poll name change is only £36 

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Quite a few consumer programs and advocates have done "research" on insurance quotes merely changing a single detail e.g. surname

Example report https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43011882 from 2018

But then an enrolled deed poll name change is only £36 

Yes i saw something about that. There was also an interesting story of a Canadian who legally changed his gender (just on paper, no surgeons involved!) and it halved his insurance!

I was driving across the North Pennines yesterday, and saw (not once, but twice) separate groups of (presumably) young male drivers out for a spin, and if you'd seen them, it's no wonder their insurance is so high !  I say "presume" because they were driving so fast and recklessly that I didn't actually see who was driving, but their cars had all the hallmarks of young male drivers - loud exhausts, dropped suspensions, tinted windows etc.  Anyway, hoofing it at approx 80/90mph across winding (and rainy) moorland roads with stray sheep around every corner and a sheer drop to one side isn't my idea of sensible driving (whatever age or gender you happen to be) !

Or maybe I'm just getting old....  :-(

Edited by user 28 May 2019 15:46:02(UTC)  | Reason: Spulling mistook !

Stern

No offence taken, but it was more a cryticism of their driving standards than a specific "dig" at their age and gender.  However, my "assumptions" that they were young and male were based largely on evidence based around those who tend to gather around a local hamburger joint and then race around the adjoining industrial estate.  When passing by, I have noted that their cars tend to have loud exhausts, dropped suspensions, two-tone paintwork and tinted windows (in a similar manner to those spotted yesterday), and - purely from my personal experiences - said vehicle occupants tend to be almost exclusively young and male.  Fact, not discriminatory...

Originally Posted by: mike52

has anyone noticed though that sometimes tbe equality act is used to stop any critism of a particular group. for example: this ais not an anedote but did bappen. i used to work with a foreign fork lift driver. he was repoted for a potentially dangerous act with the truck. when hr spoke to him he refused to sign the written warning stating the company was racist. have you also noticed like H&S political correctness is used when ever someone doez not like something eg "you cannot critisise anyone ias it MAY offend" not that it will or will not offend. mike

I can honestly say that this has never happened to me. I have never been accused of discrimination in regards to H&S which is why I found this topic interesting.

With regard to "no children" holidays, the Equality Act protects adults from age discrimination, it does not cover children.  Therefore, there is nothing stopping holiday companies from discriminating in this manner. 

I don't know about anyone else but I did my share of kids holidays, buckets, spades, real sand in sandwiches, kids clubs, screaming, crying overtired children and all at exhorbitant cost - these days "no children" option is bliss.

Yes it is an absolute joy being able to afford "adult only" hotels now the little darlings are old enough not to want to holiday with mum & dad any more :-)

If there are other holidays available in the same area which do take children then I don't think so, no.

I have no children, a conscious cdecision made a few years ago. I love camping, our faourite campsite in the NEw Forest is split, 1 site has reception toilet blocks etc, the other is just a clearing in the woods. WHich by default usually means no kids. So we always book this site, if there is no space we simply don't go at that time.

As for kids in restaurants, when I go to a decent restaurant with the wife, I want a good meal in peace and quiet. I've had it before that the next table is invaded by feral kids and their parents, I've gritted my teeth until I was at boiling point. Rather than ask to move them, I've asked to be moved, if that can't be achieved then I've voted with my feet and left.

Do these examples make me old and grumpy? Possibly or does it make me accutely aware of the lack of manners from kids.

So if I see anywhere where I want to visit/stay/eat and it says no kids then I am a happy man

Originally Posted by: ttxela

Originally Posted by: hilary

If there are other holidays available in the same area which do take children then I don't think so, no.

Just to play devils advocate would it then be okay to have a hotel that banned those of a certain sexual orientation or ethnicity simply because there is another hotel nearby where they could stay instead?

For the record I'm not particularly against adult only holidays, I'm just struggling with the logic and thinking behind them?

A bit different I think. Hotels offer an experience. Family freindly hotels will have facilities, activites and things like kids clubs, discos, etc. to entertain. Adult hotels cater more for dining and more sedate activities, etc. Nothing to sto pthose without children going to family friendly hotels. I don't think those with kids would want to consider the vice-versa though.

As for peoples sexual preference or ethnicity, I see no reason why they would want a different experience caterd for andit would be purely discrminitory from a hotel. Theres alao no reason why they would fall into either category above (adult only or kid friendly) either.