Gender control at ticketed events: legal?

[David Bailey]

As requested in another thread (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6624&p=187357), here's a typed-up copy of Franco's statement (original image here (http://www.jivetime.co.uk/img42.gif)):

------------------------
IT IS ILLEGAL FOR US NOT TO SELL TICKETS TO EITHER GENDER IN ORDER TO RETAIN A GENDER BALANCE AT OUR EVENTS

Article by Franco:

The Gender Balance Debate – I am not quite sure as to why a jive weekend should be different from any other jive event across the country where there is a gender unbalance with, generally, more women than men attending, yet I hear nobody demanding gender balance at their local club. I have no particular wish to see this unbalance, but I question whether is it right and lawful for me to screen people on the basis of their gender.
One of the main reasons as to why the jive community is so successful is because of its openness and freedom of movement, people meet, form friendships and look forward to meeting again at the next event. Who am I to prevent anyone attending simply because a person happens to be a woman?
We should all be very careful about what we wish for, to turn away someone because the event is sold out is one thing, to turn away someone because of gender is something else. It is important that all feel welcome in order to retain people within the Modern Jive circuit, moreover it might well become questionable to say that we are all a happy and friendly bunch if we start preventing people from attending because of their gender or other factors.
Tolerance and understanding of others is what makes this a great society, not all happen to have a husband, a boyfriend or a male friend to go dancing with and as such I find wholly unfair to leave anyone out on the basis of their gender.
However, whilst the above is my moral view as a human being, my view as a business man has to be that I must provide my customers with what they require subject to the law of the land. Across the years, it has always been my understanding that it would be unlawful to operate a gender balance practice in accordance with Section 29 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (as amended). I have now been advised that nothing has changed in law and that it will be unlawful for me to refuse selling tickets to women whilst continuing selling to men in order to address the gender balance at the event. I have been already advised that the membership loophole does not apply, as the events are clearly sold and advertised to all (for example via the UK-Jive web site, www.uk-jive.co.uk), whether members or not. It is similarly illegal to apportion a quota of say 750 tickets to men and 750 tickets to women in order to circumvent the law.
For those of you who wish to read the aforementioned act, it can be accessed via the following link www.eoc.org.uk/PDF/sda.pdf
As this is quite a comprehensive and long document, might I suggest that you focus on Section 29. If you are not au fair with legal jargon, than let me re-cap the salient and relevant point of section 29 as follows (the following is not the act, just a re-cap of the relevant section):

Discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services and premises
With a few exceptions, it is unlawful to discriminate directly or indirectly on grounds of sex in the provision of goods, facilities, or services to the public, or a section of the public or in the disposal or management of premises. The main exceptions include:

Discrimination by non-profit making voluntary bodies in restricting their membership by one sex or providing benefits to one sex only in accordance with their main object.
Discrimination in the provision of facilities or services to avoid serious embarrassment to users which would be caused by the presence of members of the opposite sex.

If you wish to learn more on the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (as amended) or you believe that a jive weekend or a jive event of any nomination might or might not be entitled to an exemption in law, then you might wish to talk to an expert, in confidence and free of charge, by ringing the Equal Opportunities Commission on 0845 – 601 5901 (local rate).
My advice to you is simple, if anyone refuses to sell you tickets for a jive weekend on the basis of your gender, then you should draw their attention to the fact that this is an illegal practice. This alone should be sufficient, however, if the Organiser/s of the event still refuses to sell you tickets, then you should contact the above telephone number for advice.
------------------------




So.... comments?

[Andreas]

Interesting thread. Reminds me of an article about Norway introducing high penalties to companies that do not have at least 40% women in managerial roles from next year on.

Raises the question, how can a quota system in one instance be enforced by law and the same thing in another instance illegal?

[ducasi]

I suggest someone phones "the Equal Opportunities Commission on 0845 – 601 5901 (local rate)" and asks them. :nice:

[David Bailey]

I have a number of comments on this article, but I'd love to hear from organisers of events such as Storm and Southport if possible.

Also, who's up for the first MJ jailbreak attempts for Linda & Mike, and John & Wes? :innocent:

[frodo]

... It is similarly illegal to apportion a quota of say 750 tickets to men and 750 tickets to women in order to circumvent the law...I thought this was ridiculous when I saw it in the other thread(s), but it does make some sense now.

For example if 2 people of the same gender wanted to book and dance one as a leader and one as follower.

But I'd guess that selling 750 leaders and 750 followers tickets would be OK.

[El Salsero Gringo]

I thought this was ridiculous when I saw it in the other thread(s), but it does make some sense now.

For example if 2 people of the same gender wanted to book and dance one as a leader and one as follower.

But I'd guess that selling 750 leaders and 750 followers tickets would be OK.Probably not. That would be indirect discrimination. If, of course, the SDA applies. I don't see why it would be discrimination though - as long as equal numbers of tickets for both sexes were on sale originally.

By the way, I wish the statement referred to the balance between the sexes. It's nouns that have genders - masculine and feminine - not people.

[Mary]

Interesting thread. Reminds me of an article about Norway introducing high penalties to companies that do not have at least 40% women in managerial roles from next year on.

Raises the question, how can a quota system in one instance be enforced by law and the same thing in another instance illegal?

Have to say I am really against positive discrimination.:angry: Why should anybody of any sex, race, religion whatever be favoured because they are of a minority group against someone who may be more experienced/qualified etc. Any position should be given to the person most suited regardless of gender, race, etc.etc. Discrimination of any kind sucks.

OK. Off my soapbox now. I don't think keeping a gender balance is a question of discriminating against ladies. If there were an equal number of tickets for ladies and men, when one lot is sold out - tough!

In a DWAS competition there are usually more ladies apply than men so ladies are usually having to be turned down (I guess I should say followers). Can't really see a difference. It just means the ladies either apply with a man or just get in early. May seem harsh, but that's life.

M

[Jeremy]

Perhaps one way to naturally balance events out is to publish the number of males and females attending so far. This would provide incentives and disincentives for purchasers.

Also you might want to look at the 'facilities' available for each sex. Since the venue would dictate this you could quite easily stipulate a limit based on what facilities are able and what would be comfortable for patrons. This would bring out a natural limit per gender not based on discrimination but on the venue.

It could not be said that using leader/follower tickets is indirect discrimination if you are selling these tickets to both sexes. However some measure would need to be in place to ensure that people who purchase the leader ticket do attend the event as leads rather than an available ticket.

An interesting article and subject.

[SilverFox]

a load of legal b0ll0cks in a feeble attempt to justify a disgraceful 'profits before people' attitudeSo I suppose it's also illegal not to pack 6 adults into chalets that were designed for 2 adults and a couple of kiddies.....:mad:

I can't believe the Forum is even going to debate this. It's a damn dismal excuse from Franco. Plain and simple.

[Asif]

So I suppose it's also illegal not to pack 6 adults into chalets that were designed for 2 adults and a couple of kiddies.....:mad:

I can't believe the Forum is even going to debate this. It's a damn dismal excuse from Franco. Plain and simple.
What..... ONLY 6 ADULTS!! I'm sure we can get at least 10 per chalet :eek: - would be very cosy! :wink:

[MartinHarper]

It's nouns that have genders - masculine and feminine - not people.

People too.
http://www.answers.com/gender&r=67

Regards Franco's post, it sounds totally plausible. "Common sense" is not much of a defence: the law is an ass on many issues. Fortunately, I'm not a lawyer.

Any forumites who are confident that this is not a problem could offer to indemnify Franco against any legal consequences of implementing gender control at his events. Any volunteers?

[philsmove]

Could the practice of teaching men to be leaders and women to be followers be deemed to be gender discrimination?

Some of my Argentinean Tango classes refer to leaders and followers

If there is a gender imbalance, those left over are encouraged to “partner up”

And yes men are taught to follow

And what about completions that insist couples are of opposite sex

[stewart38]

I suggest someone phones "the Equal Opportunities Commission on 0845 – 601 5901 (local rate)" and asks them. :nice:

Noooooooooooooo

Lets talk about it endlessly for a few days :yeah:

I still think its 'unfair' to stop women going because they are 'late' finding out about an event

However evenish numbers are good

:sick:

[David Bailey]

OK, having thought about this a bit (typing it up does that for you), I've got a couple of comments.

Firstly:

The Gender Balance Debate – I am not quite sure as to why a jive weekend should be different from any other jive event across the country where there is a gender unbalance with, generally, more women than men attending, yet I hear nobody demanding gender balance at their local club.
To me, the two relevant differences between regular club nights and weekenders are that :

Weekenders are ticketed events, which enable organisers to control numbers
These are generally events which people can't just "get up and leave from" - the level of expense, commitment and expectation is higher.



My advice to you is simple, if anyone refuses to sell you tickets for a jive weekend on the basis of your gender, then you should draw their attention to the fact that this is an illegal practice. This alone should be sufficient, however, if the Organiser/s of the event still refuses to sell you tickets, then you should contact the above telephone number for advice.
This smells like destructive advice to me, and I'd hate to see anyone actually taking it.

[LMC]

IANAL...

But Section 28 of the Act notes that there are a number of exceptions for physical education. Ceroc delivers education and partner dancing is a sport which "by definition" needs even numbers of woman and men to be accessible to all. Of course, the definition is only cultural - but the culture of "man leader, woman follower" is fairly entrenched in the ethos of the sport.

I agree with DJ that it matters more at a weekender.

[El Salsero Gringo]

People too.
http://www.answers.com/gender&r=67

Regards Franco's post, it sounds totally plausible.Doesn't to me. It's not women who are being discriminated against; it's against whichever group of tickets sells out first. If all the men's tickets had been sold, the same rule would be applied to them. Men and women both have an equal opportunity to get exactly the same number of tickets.

[TiggsTours]

But I don't see gender balance control as discrimination. If they were to state that they will only accept a certain number of applications for tickets from women, then they will stop selling to women, yes that would be discrimination, but they don't. They say there is a gender balancing, if all the men booked in advance, and the men's places sold faster, they'd stop selling to men, its just that it never works that way, its always the other way round. I don't see this as discrimination, just our bad luck.

I can see it would be a difficult case though, but I think you'll find that, so long as they don't outwardly say "we will be controling the number of women that come" it isn't considered as discrimination.

[TiggsTours]

Doesn't to me. It's not women who are being discriminated against; it's against whichever group of tickets sells out first. If all the men's tickets had been sold, the same rule would be applied to them. Men and women both have an equal opportunity to get exactly the same number of tickets.
:yeah:

Really should have read all the thread before I commented, this is exactly what I meant, and put so much better.:worthy:

[JonD]

From a business perspective the risk is being sued, no matter what the outcome of the case. Legal leeches are expensive beasts so most businesses try very hard to avoid having to employ them. Being the subject of a "test case" is a horrible nightmare, the prospect of which is enough to make me shudder. I've yet to find a lawyer who will give definitive advice (along the lines of "this is the law and you are quite safe to discriminate against women in these circumstances"), you normally get "weasel words" no matter how much you pay. (Trampy, you are joining an honourable profession)! A call to the Equal Opportunities Commission may elicit a straight answer if there is any directly comparable case- law but I suspect they'll suggest you consult a lawyer.

So, it's down to each businessman's perception of the risk of being sued versus the benefits of running a gender balanced event. It doesn't really matter what the law actually is because the cost of establishing that in the courts is so great. ESG's point about equal numbers of tickets being available to each gender makes sense to me. However, I have to say that I'd probably take a similar line to Franco simply because the cost of getting it wrong is so great. I'd make that decision despite the fact that I'd prefer to attend events with a reasonable balance of genders.

[El Salsero Gringo]

A call to the Equal Opportunities Commission may elicit a straight answer if there is any directly comparable case- law but I suspect they'll suggest you consult a lawyer.Well, I clearly have too little to do today, because I just called them. The helpline pointed me towards a couple of useless documents on their website (although, kindly, they did offer to put a printed copy of the same useless documents in the post.)

On the subject of being sued: Is a woman who is so aggrieved at not being sold a ticket for a weekender (because she didn't apply for one early enough) really going to court over the matter? Do we have that kind of people in MJ? The man on the phone sounded very doubtful about whether it was something the EOC would get involved in.

[David Bailey]

Well, I clearly have too little to do today, because I just called them.
I knew someone would :rofl:


The helpline pointed me towards a couple of useless documents on their website (although, kindly, they did offer to put a printed copy of the same useless documents in the post.)
I can believe that - this is why people ask lawyers to interpret these documents for them and just accept the interpretation. It's easier than trying to understand this stuff.


Is a woman who is so aggrieved at not being sold a ticket for a weekender ... really going to court over the matter? Do we have that kind of people in MJ? The man on the phone sounded very doubtful about whether it was something the EOC would get involved in.
Well, that seems to be what Franco is encouraging people to do - which, as I said, I find reprehensible.

In the real world, no, I very much doubt it. But there's always a tiny risk that someone (probably a lawyer :innocent: ) may do so, and presumably the legal advice Franco received was more biased towards avoiding that risk, than to creating a good event.

[El Salsero Gringo]

... presumably the legal advice Franco received was more biased towards avoiding that risk, than to creating a good event....He didn't say where the advice was from, did he? He might have been interpreting the pattern of bubbles from his goldfish.

[stewart38]

IANAL...

But Section 28 of the Act notes that there are a number of exceptions for physical education. Ceroc delivers education and partner dancing is a sport which "by definition" needs even numbers of woman and men to be accessible to all. Of course, the definition is only cultural - but the culture of "man leader, woman follower" is fairly entrenched in the ethos of the sport.

I agree with DJ that it matters more at a weekender.


Who says the partner needs to be of the opposite sex ? Surely thats sexual discrimination :yeah:


On the subject of being sued: Is a woman who is so aggrieved at not being sold a ticket for a weekender (because she didn't apply for one early enough) really going to court over the matter? Do we have that kind of people in MJ? The man on the phone sounded very doubtful about whether it was something the EOC would get involved in.

Stewart38, 3 male mates have all booked to go on Southport 2007 (more men now) he only hears they are going in May 2007 and they say he can come with them with open arms :what:

He knows there are 32 places left but is told he cant go as he is a man (Thats what he will hear)

What court do I go to :yeah:

[Lynn]

Men and women prefer gender balanced ticketed events. Its what the customer wants - thats why some weekenders and events have introduced it.

If some event organisers choose not to implement it - that's up to them, people will have the freedom to choose whether to attend gender balanced events or not - but I wouldn't be happy to see this changing because a few individuals or other organisers start making a big issue out of it.

[Rhythm King]

My opinion at present is that if, from the outset, 50% of tickets are for males and 50% are for females, and that this is advertised as such, then there are equal opportunities for both and neither side is discriminated against. If you don't apply in time then that's your own fault, be it men's or women's tickets which sell out first.

With regard to balancing weekenders, it is possibly more of a grey area, if the total number of tickets sold is flexible. Obviously the promoters will want to sell as many as possible, but (hopefully) try to maintain some sort of balance, be it a few either way.

As Jeremy said earlier, perhaps it would be possible to maintain a published list of the balance of ticket sales on the organiser's web site.

In this litigious age, it would be as likely that a woman would sue the organiser for a refund for not providing enough leaders, if she was the sort of person to sue for not getting a ticket in the first place. I'd like to think that the sort of person that comes to MJ would not be so vindictive in the first place.

(Similarly, it could be construed as unfair to the men to have to dance all the time with little opportunity for rest, to give all those extra ladies a chance to dance :devil: )

On another point, do you think it is discriminatory then, to provide ladies-only styling classes? What are the men supposed to do whilst these are ongoing? The last Southport was the first event where I recall seeing a men-only styling class. Well done Johnah and Wes :clap: (and Dancing Teeth of course :worthy: ).

I can't help feeling Franco's announcement has been made in order to have a dig at his competitors, rather than from any altruistic intentions. Negative advertising like this is never a good thing in my opinion.

R-K

[David Bailey]

{ snip excellent points }

I can't help feeling Franco's announcement has been made in order to have a dig at his competitors, rather than from any altruistic intentions. Negative advertising like this is never a good thing in my opinion.
:yeah: That's exactly what I was trying to say - negative advertising.

[Lynn]

In this litigious age, it would be as likely that a woman would sue the organiser for a refund for not providing enough leaders, if she was the sort of person to sue for not getting a ticket in the first place. I'd like to think that the sort of person that comes to MJ would not be so vindictive in the first place. Yes, that she has paid as much for her ticket as a man but gets far fewer dances and had less opportunity to participate in classes (if a large no of excess women and off on rotation a lot).

[stewart38]

My opinion at present is that if, from the outset, 50% of tickets are for males and 50% are for females, and that this is advertised as such, then there are equal opportunities for both and neither side is discriminated against. If you don't apply in time then that's your own fault, be it men's or women's tickets which sell out first.


R-K

Interesting logic

So if Man Utd played Woking at Wembly and each set of supporters were given 2000 tickets ,you could argue thay neither were discriminated against. I would suggest Man Utd with a bigger fan base are.

More women want to dance at weekenders then men so why shouldnt they get a larger share ?

Ive heard STORM is fairly unbalanced but thats only what ive heard.

[LMC]

Who says the partner needs to be of the opposite sex ? Surely thats sexual discrimination :yeah:
Yes it is - which is why I said the definition was cultural - not legal. But IIRC, "common law" (i.e. cultural law/"habitual use" - whatever you want to call it) is taken into account when examining civil legal cases. Would you be happy to blues with a man?

IMO, ESG has the right of it - men would be discriminated against if the men's tickets sold out first. And TT is right that it's just our hard luck that it ain't like that.

For me - in the immortal words of George III "Bu**er Bognor" - I'll stick with gender balanced weekenders.

EDIT due to cross-post:


So if Man Utd played Woking at Wembly and each set of supporters were given 2000 tickets ,you could argue thay neither were discriminated against. I would suggest Man Utd with a bigger fan base are.
The Man U fans could also pick another team to support. Just as women dancers could pick another hobby. Like cricket - usually more men than women there.

[stewart38]

The Man U fans could also pick another team to support. Just as women dancers could pick another hobby. Like cricket - usually more men than women there.

In the real world they dont and they get a larger allocation

Im not nit picking i just dont see it as black and white

ie book early women if not tough !

It will be interesting to see the Gender balance at Bognor

[El Salsero Gringo]

The Man U fans could also pick another team to support.It's also not unlawful to discriminate against ManU supporters. In fact, in some legal circles, I'm told, it's encouraged.

[killingtime]

To me, the two relevant differences between regular club nights and weekenders are that :

Weekenders are ticketed events, which enable organisers to control numbers
These are generally events which people can't just "get up and leave from" - the level of expense, commitment and expectation is higher.


I've seen gender balancing on a couple of party nights too. Again, obviously, the event was ticketed to allow for this control.

They also try and gender balance for workshops in Ceroc; on the principle that balanced leads and followers makes for a better class for everyone. I haven't heard it happen but if I woman wanted to attend the workshop as a lead I they might let her. I suppose Franck and other organisers would be the best people to ask about this. In this case, though, it could be monitored that she is taking a leading role rather than a following one (the assumed role for her gender). It would be very difficult to monitor this on a party night though.

I'd prefer numbers to be balanced and I'm sure most would but, unfortunately, I doubt "the people who did get to attend agree it's for the best" holds particularly well in a court where someone is suing for discrimination (I'm not sure how likely it is to happen but I understand why it is a concern).

[LMC]

In the real world they dont and they get a larger allocation
There don't have to be the same number of Woking supporters as Man U supporters for everyone to enjoy the match to their greatest capacity.

For me, and for many of the women on here, it IS black and white. For me to enjoy partner dancing, I kind of need a lead. I will happily dance with women, but I happen to prefer doing most of my dancing with men. I suspect that most women, both on and off the forum would say the same.

Just as an even larger proportion of the men would prefer to dance with women. Stewart, I seem to remember you being rather annoyed about there being more men than women in one of the Southport classes (due to a clash with a women's styling class). It's like that for us much more frequently.

It is just women's tough luck that there are more women than men that dance. On an individual level, most of us do our best to encourage beginner men and help them to improve - for the benefit of us all. In the meantime, to hell with the "legalities" or the "fairness", any organiser who balances events gets my vote. If I miss out, then I should have been more organised and booked earlier or found a man to book with.

deja vu anyone? - sorry, I'll shut up now

[David Bailey]

I've seen gender balancing on a couple of party nights too. Again, obviously, the event was ticketed to allow for this control.
Yep - Ceroc Greenwich run excellent events of this type; I think everyone pretty much agrees that the even numbers at these events help make them great.


They also try and gender balance for workshops in Ceroc;
Again, excellent point.


(I'm not sure how likely it is to happen but I understand why it is a concern).
It's a risk, but I'd say a very small one. The advice Franco got (I'm assuming it was from, you know, lawyer-types rather than goldfish-types, I could be wrong) was presumably biased towards extreme risk-management, to put it charitably.

More to the point, the risk IMO is outweighed by the risk of losing business to competitors who do offer more ratio-controlled events.

[stewart38]

Just as an even larger proportion of the men would prefer to dance with women. Stewart, I seem to remember you being rather annoyed about there being more men than women in one of the Southport classes (due to a clash with a women's styling class). It's like that for us much more frequently.

If I miss out, then I should have been more organised and booked earlier or found a man to book with.

deja vu anyone? - sorry, I'll shut up now

If it happen to me then of course id look for venue with even numbers

Im not against even numbers never have been (well a few more women , men dance more /longer etc) its fair for women BUT

---------------
'East Coast Jive'
03-06 February 2006

Apologies Ladies, in order to maintain a good ratio of male & female, we can only accept bookings for this event from men or mixed couples at the moment.
---------------

Im saying the more 'organised' women become the less organised men become .

[David Bailey]

Im saying the more 'organised' women become the less organised men become
That's true, it's the law of unintended consequences - men know they can leave it till the last minute, so being lazy, we do. And women know they have to get in early, so they do.

Don't get me wrong - gender-ratio-controlled events are just treating the symptom; the real solution of course is the hard one of getting more men to dance (or, possibly less women :devil: ), as discussed interminably.

But until that happens, controlling the numbers is a good make-do.

[killingtime]

Yep - Ceroc Greenwich run excellent events of this type; I think everyone pretty much agrees that the even numbers at these events help make them great.

I was trying to write about that point as well. I just ran out of steam. Though gender balancing narks those that didn't manage to get in it does hopefully increase the satisfaction of those that did. If they didn't balance then more women would get to go but all of them would probably enjoy themselves less.


More to the point, the risk IMO is outweighed by the risk of losing business to competitors who do offer more ratio-controlled events.

Yeah I'd agree on that.


Just as an even larger proportion of the men would prefer to dance with women. Stewart, I seem to remember you being rather annoyed about there being more men than women in one of the Southport classes (due to a clash with a women's styling class). It's like that for us much more frequently.

:yeah:

I imagine if you had a weekender where it was 3/4 men you would hear us whining about it for the next decade. I don't exclude myself; I think I go into a state of shock when I have to sit out.

[stewart38]

I imagine if you had a weekender where it was 3/4 men you would hear us whining about it for the next decade. I don't exclude myself; I think I go into a state of shock when I have to sit out.


Really, cant see me doing that ? :whistle:

[Lynn]

Though gender balancing narks those that didn't manage to get in it does hopefully increase the satisfaction of those that did. Likewise as does limiting the number of people attending to way below the allowed level (for insurance purposes) in order that those who are there have room to dance. I know its a seperate issue but it has the same effect - a control exercised by the event organisers in order to ensure that those attending benefit.

[MartinHarper]

I see non-lawyers slagging off Franco for cowardly avoiding a legal risk that they argue is miniscule.
Perhaps these people could show how much more fearless they are in comparison to Franco, by agreeing to underwrite any costs arising from these supposedly miniscule legal risks?

[David Bailey]

I see non-lawyers slagging off Franco for cowardly avoiding a legal risk that they argue is miniscule.
There are lots of organisers - more and more, it seems - who are organising controlled-numbers events (look at the recent London Eye posts). In other words, it's becoming the norm for ticketed events to be controlled this way.

If Franco were alone in promoting ratio-controlled events, he'd be brave, sure. As it is, he's looking more and more like the exception to the rule.


Perhaps these people could show how much more fearless they are in comparison to Franco, by agreeing to underwrite any costs arising from these supposedly miniscule legal risks?
Do these underwriters get a share in the profits as well? If so, count me in, definitely - otherwise, I'll not subsidise his business, but I'll simply vote with my feet and go elsewhere.

[TheTramp]

:yeah:

Sorry. Can't rep you again this soon :what:

[David Bailey]

:yeah:

Sorry. Can't rep you again this soon :what:
Well, I'm on the Ozzie forum... :whistle:

[El Salsero Gringo]

I see non-lawyers slagging off Franco for cowardly avoiding a legal risk that they argue is miniscule.
Perhaps these people could show how much more fearless they are in comparison to Franco, by agreeing to underwrite any costs arising from these supposedly miniscule legal risks?Apart from the fact that I'd want a share in the profits (as DJ has already said) - I'll show you how fearless I am by stating that the next time I organise a ticket-only dance event, I won't be afraid to have boy-tickets and girl-tickets. Unless I get other legal advice. Or unless I just don't feel like it.

How's that?

[TheTramp]

Well, I'm on the Ozzie forum... :whistle:

Well. Post something there worth reading then!

[killingtime]

Well, I'm on the Ozzie forum... :whistle:

Wait! There is an Ozzie forum :confused:? Crickey.

[David Bailey]

Wait! There is an Ozzie forum :confused:? Crickey.
Yep - http://www.cerocforum.com/index.php
(you'll maybe recognise some names...)

There's also a Bristol forum, and I believe a Swindon forum?

[stewart38]

I see non-lawyers slagging off Franco for cowardly avoiding a legal risk that they argue is miniscule.
Perhaps these people could show how much more fearless they are in comparison to Franco, by agreeing to underwrite any costs arising from these supposedly miniscule legal risks?

At the moment id underwrite it . Were talking here re quantum being about 'personal injury' mainly to 'feelings' . Rather then a 'financial loss'. However if there was a non Insurable fine that would be interesting

Id love to have a test case though

This is all silly but id argue in court as women in a dress. I wasnt there to partner dance but take part in women only lessons and the cha cha slide etc etc

My LORD they advertise women only lessons but dont allow women to go !

[LMC]

Easy. Have three levels of ticket: women full access, men full access, women for women's workshops only so partner dance workshops and freestyles still have a hope in hell of being balanced :D

There ya go Franco, sorted :)

[David Bailey]

This is all silly but id argue in court as women in a dress.
I've changed my mind - I'll underwrite it, just to see that happen...

[Zebra Woman]

Interesting logic

So if Man Utd played Woking at Wembly and each set of supporters were given 2000 tickets ,you could argue thay neither were discriminated against. I would suggest Man Utd with a bigger fan base are.

More women want to dance at weekenders then men so why shouldnt they get a larger share ?


Yeah you got it Stewart, they want to dance at weekenders., not hang around the edges feeling left out.

They can't have a larger share of something that doesn't exist. If there isn't a man for them to pair up with they won't be dancing will they?



Ive heard STORM is fairly unbalanced but thats only what ive heard.

??? Who from??





Gender Balance 48% men 52% ladies

(we are anticipating that this will be at 50/50 by March 2006)


That's what they're saying, I assume it's the truth.

FWIW I think Franco is talking a load of B$$$$cks, probably in the hope that he can get away with it for another year. Why anyone would consider sueing an organisation which balanced the sexes on their weekenders is totally beyond me. Has that idea ever entered anyone else's head?

Hmmm just Franco's then.:rolleyes:


I wonder why.

ZW

[stewart38]

Yeah you got it Stewart, they want to dance at weekenders., not hang around the edges feeling left out.
ZW

Thats wrong and ive always supported more even numbers its just the way its done I dont think its black and white

God when they had the Tango at Camber and there was loads more ladies who all turned up. They basically had to go as the guy teaching didnt do any rotation . Thats not good for anyone and i was the first to post about it :yeah:

I dont get any pleasure watching ladies stand out for songs they would love to dance to.

If women booking earlier and earlier and men booking later and later I dont think its healthy thats all

At the end of the day so many women wont go to Francos event there will be more men

IF they choose to then they make their choice in the full knowledge they may have to sit out, then give them a break.

[killingtime]

Why anyone would consider sueing an organisation which balanced the sexes on their weekenders is totally beyond me. Has that idea ever entered anyone else's head?

I'm sure that if it was taken to court part of the defense argument would be that it was for balancing. However the court might just look at it that there were tickets available but a woman was refused a sale on the basis of being female.

I imagine almost everyone shares your view but if someone did decide to take an organisation to court (even if the case was in the organisation's favour) it represents a cost that they could have just avoided in the first place.

However as DavidJames, a name known to all, said "the risk IMO is outweighed by the risk of losing business to competitors who do offer more ratio-controlled events".

[LMC]

IF they choose to then they make their choice in the full knowledge they may have to sit out, then give them a break.
Unfortunately, some of us aren't prepared to accept those conditions. We want the same chance of a dance as the guys. So we don't book on gender-balanced weekenders. I reckon DJ is right - the risk of loss of custom is greater than the risk of being sued.

[stewart38]

I'm sure that if it was taken to court part of the defense argument would be that it was for balancing. However the court might just look at it that there were tickets available but a woman was refused a sale on the basis of being female.

I imagine almost everyone shares your view but if someone did decide to take an organisation to court (even if the case was in the organisation's favour) it represents a cost that they could have just avoided in the first place.

However as DavidJames, a name known to all, said "the risk IMO is outweighed by the risk of losing business to competitors who do offer more ratio-controlled events".


Ok lets be really sad lets take it to court on the forum ?


Im a women
------------------------------------------

My case I wanted to enjoy a dance weekender but couldnt because Im female and they wouldnt sell me a ticket after 3/3/05 when they were still selling them to men. This is sexual discrimination
-------------------------------------------

Disclaimer . This maybe twaddle

[LMC]

We don't have all the facts of this hypothetical case.

Were equal numbers of tickets allocated to men and women?

Assuming "yes", then let's keep it simple:

1) is there anyone who does NOT want to say "Sorry luv, you should have booked earlier"
2) is there anyone who does NOT think that the following makes as much sense as the original:

Im a man (sorry, I can ignore the punctuation but I can't bear to leave the plural)
------------------------------------------

My case I wanted to enjoy a dance weekender but couldnt because Im male and they wouldnt sell me a ticket after 3/3/05 when they were still selling them to women. This is sexual discrimination
-------------------------------------------

[Zebra Woman]

Stewart, If you're saying you want a few weekenders to keep going as a free for all to balance out the effect of the balanced weekenders, so women who enjoy watching other people dance (and booking late) have got somewhere to go, then I suppose fair enough. But I don't see many of those women on this thread pleading for it, and the poll didn't really reflect your views either....:rolleyes:


Where did you get the info about Storm numbers?

[Lee]

I prefer the idea of gender controlled events (referring to Modern Jive) as it ensures a fair balance of leaders/followers (even though some women lead as well). In Camber in Nov & May 2005 there were far too many Ladies. This opinion is also the same from some women i know, so it matters not what sex you are.

IMO I think Jivetime should start to allocate tickets based on gender and we should support Ceroc for 'doing it properly'. Maybe we should stop booking events that do not ensure a good balance.

If anyone considers legal action cause they couldn't get a ticket, then i think they are really sad.


Lee

[killingtime]

Ok lets be really sad lets take it to court on the forum ?

Ooh; roleplay. Can I be a level 10 defense attorney?

*Gets out D20s*


Im a woman
------------------------------------------
My case I wanted to enjoy a dance weekender but couldnt because Im female and they wouldnt sell me a ticket after 3/3/05 when they were still selling them to men. This is sexual discrimination
------------------------------------------


Well we first point out that it would be detrimental to the enjoyment of the event if the ratio was too imbalanced. Your lawyer replies that you can lead as well as most men and therefore it's purely on your gender that you are being discriminated against. We then state that though this might be the case that we have no way to restrict you from following rather than leading. You then state that you would have led in most classes and freestyle if given the chance. We then come back with the fact you are actually Stewart38 in drag and therefore you would have been eligible to attend anyway and you are just holding up the court with frivolous cases. Then fluffy bunnies break in to the court and the hearing is resolved.

Everyone lives happily ever after :clap:.

[LMC]

*kicks fluffy bunnies out of the way and awards killingtime the purple sash of weaselness - only 5,749 to go and you'll reach Level 11*

KT, you failed to attain the green sash, which would have given you 137 points instead of just 1 because the argument that nothing prevents a woman from following is specious in that there's nothing to stop a man following either.

But I claim the jam sandwich, 'cos you missed the question of what if women don't want to dance with a woman? - unless one of the parties is wearing a taxi T-shirt, most women seem only to dance freestyle with women they at least slightly know. That's just the way it is.

It would be great if Lily would comment - I'm not sure if that would be "allowable" as she wouldn't be insured on here and her words may be used against her :rolleyes:

[johnah]

:wink:

Been reading with interest, most of which is highly amusing:rofl:

It is a fact of life in the MJ world that more ladies than men participate. Another fact is that many more ladies than men tend to book weekenders and special events much much earlier than men! In our experience the majority of men leave it quite late to book, although there are indications that this is slowly improving. :clap:

As organisers we have maximum capacities and to our minds that doesn't relate to the number of beds available either, but more importantly dance space overall. Also, dancers [men and ladies] enjoyment of an event is of paramount importance. OK, one can't please all of the people all of the time, but one can try their damnedest. Wes & I try to achieve this at our events and have done from the outset.

It is simply impossible to achieve an equal balance of men and ladies, but it has not so far proved too difficult to maintain a reasonable balance. It's really a question of how many more ladies than men is reasonable at an event. Too many ladies more than men is not, I suggest, fair to the ladies and the same would apply the other way round also! Anyone who has been to a Jive Addiction event at Southport, Scarborough or even in Spain knows that our efforts to achieve a reasonable balance enhances a dancers enjoyment.

Dancers have a choice, and it's up to the individual to make their decision on which event/s appeal to them. The dance grapevine sooner or later enables them to make informed choices. As organisers, we offer dancer's events. Whether or not dancer's choose to go to them is their decision. Ours is to maintain a reasonable balance!

PS: Just 4 weeks to go to Scarborough, around 500 dancers booked in and only a few places available for mixed couples and men only, sorry ladies!

PPS: Around 5 months to go to Southport, over 1,000 dancers booked in and currently, we're accepting bookings from everyone. BUT, keep a close eye on our website -www.jiveaddiction.com- because the situation is likely to change quickly over the next few weeks!

Happy New Year to all on The Forum

:cheers:

[killingtime]

*kicks fluffy bunnies out of the way and awards killingtime the purple sash of weaselness - only 5,749 to go and you'll reach Level 11*

Not even a +2 Purple Sash of Weaselness :(. Level 11; I might multiclass to Scoundrel :).


KT, you failed to attain the green sash, which would have given you 137 points instead of just 1 because the argument that nothing prevents a woman from following is specious in that there's nothing to stop a man following either.

Sorry. This was actually sort of a thought on an earlier point that


But I'd guess that selling 750 leaders and 750 followers tickets would be OK.

might just actually result in women saying that they can lead and therefore get lead tickets but actually go and follow. I'm sure there was a better point under that as well but I've forgotten what it was now; if it ever existed.

Anyway it looks like grown-ups are talking again :D.

[Cruella]

It does make me wonder if some men like to have alot more women so that the competition is alot easier for them. I.e. don't need to worry about giving these women great dances as there's such a shortage of men they'll be keen to dance with me however i dance!!! :devil:
Ok, i'm running!!

[David Bailey]

:wink:

Been reading with interest, most of which is highly amusing:rofl:
Been planning your jailbreak then, you Evil Criminal Mastermind, you?
Don't worry, I'm sure we'll come and visit. :innocent:


As organisers, we offer dancer's events.
And very good ones too :clap:

[stewart38]

We don't have all the facts of this hypothetical case.

Were equal numbers of tickets allocated to men and women?

Assuming "yes", then let's keep it simple:

1) is there anyone who does NOT want to say "Sorry luv, you should have booked earlier"
2) is there anyone who does NOT think that the following makes as much sense as the original:

Im a man (sorry, I can ignore the punctuation but I can't bear to leave the plural)
------------------------------------------

My case I wanted to enjoy a dance weekender but couldnt because Im male and they wouldnt sell me a ticket after 3/3/05 when they were still selling them to women. This is sexual discrimination
-------------------------------------------


Clearly MAN and WOMAN have both been aggrieved, no more artificial allocation allowed

As we live in a equal society I award damages of £100 to the 'women' and £25,000 to the MAN

[ducasi]

... Being the subject of a "test case" is a horrible nightmare, the prospect of which is enough to make me shudder. ... The likelihood is though that it'd never go to court.

If I was a event organiser, and got sued, I'd try my best to settle out of court, as it'd likely be cheaper, plus I'd want to avoid there being any precedent.

How much could you reasonably expect to win if you do sue? It's not like you could argue actual monetary loss...

[stewart38]

The likelihood is though that it'd never go to court.

If I was a event organiser, and got sued, I'd try my best to settle out of court, as it'd likely be cheaper, plus I'd want to avoid there being any precedent.

How much could you reasonably expect to win if you do sue? It's not like you could argue actual monetary loss...


Well assuming he/she has PL Insurance it would be up to the Insurance company

As said your talking about 'hurt feelings' not big bucks and yes

wouldnt want a court case

i suggest £100 to max £500

There is no financial loss and the physical inhury is limted to the above

All joking aside I do see it as good case in court

[ducasi]

Well assuming he/she has PL Insurance it would be up to the Insurance company Unless the insurance company chose not to cover you for that... Perhaps they even gave you legal advice that male- & female-only tickets would leave you liable to a law-suit. :whistle:

[stewart38]

Unless the insurance company chose not to cover you for that... Perhaps they even gave you legal advice that male- & female-only tickets would leave you liable to a law-suit. :whistle:


Id find it hard to believe any Insurance company is going to exclude what is essentially standard cover and im not aware of it being tested in the courts yet