swarb.co.uk

Should this discussion be under a different topic?

You posted under Human Rights.

The proper forum is banking . . to which.

Right. I get it now. So if TESCO refuses to serve a certain nationality, then that goes under grocery store law?

If a supermarket refuses to serve somebody on the grounds of race, then it is unlawful discrimination.

In effect the bank are selecting a group of people who cause them certain excessive an expensive administration. That is the cause of and nature of the selection. They happen also to be characterised as US citizens.
I still require to be convinced that the class of US Citizens is a race.

Many Thanks for Responding.

The term that is being used is "US PERSON". The given definition as defined by an IRS tax form called a W9 is (1) a US citizen (2) US resident alien. Would it not be similar to a "UK PERSON"? It is a small distinct group of people (maybe 200,000) in the UK which are being prevented from services, in a discriminatory manner , which are available to all other people in the UK. Something is wrong with this!!!!

Read what dls has written again. Unless you can demonstrate that the class of US persons is a race, then there is no infringement of the law. Businesses are free to turn away business if they wish.

What is Race Discrimination

The RRA sets out the circumstances in which discrimination on the grounds of race is unlawful. It defines four types of discrimination: direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, victimisation and harassment.

Direct Race Discrimination

Direct discrimination occurs when a person treats you less favourably on racial grounds than he or she would treat, or treats, some other person.

The RRA defines ‘racial grounds’ as being on the grounds of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. Most people think of race discrimination as being less favourable treatment on the grounds of colour or race. However, discrimination on the grounds of nationality, ethnic or national origins is equally unlawful. Thus if a workplace contains Afro-Caribbean and African employees and the employer treats the African employees less favourably by allocating them the menial or less interesting work, that could amount to less favourable treatment on racial grounds. Similarly, if a Japanese bank offered its services to Korean customers on less favourable terms than those offered to other customers the bank’s actions could constitute less favourable treatment on racial grounds.

As all Americans are US PERSONS - then that whole race or national identity is being refused a service based on who they are. The reason based on cost is insulting and obscene.

If you lived in America but couldn't open a bank account because you were a UK PERSON, would that not annoy you at least just a little bit?

Yes. It may be annoying - but that's not the same as illegal.

Race Discrimination in the Provision of Goods, Facilities and Services

Part III of the RRA also covers any ‘goods, facilities or services’ which are offered to the public or a section of the public. This means, for instance, the services and facilities offered by hotels, boarding houses, pubs and restaurants, banks, insurance companies, credit houses and hire purchase firms, transport authorities and local authorities. A recent case has also held that it might cover the investigation of crime too. Direct or indirect discrimination by any such organisation will be unlawful.

Any contract (for example, to buy goods or supply services) which includes a term which discriminates on racial grounds is void and can be amended by applying to the County Court to strike out that term formally.

Two hurdles: (1) Is a person of the US i.e. an American considered a Nationality and/or from a Nation? (2) If so, then does the above Part III apply?

So English is a Nationality and Scottish is a separate nationality even though they have the same passport. How does the below law apply to being Americans and being refused services?

On the question of whether the English and Scots are part of a ‘racial group’, the Court of Session followed the House of Lords’ ruling in an earlier case (Mandla v Dowell-Lee, 1983 IRLR 209), to the effect that ‘…it is possible for a person to fall into a particular racial group either by birth or by adherence’. The court also observed that, if the way the discriminator treats someone is based on her or his perception of that person’s national or ethnic origins, then their actual origins, let alone their passport nationality, are irrelevant.

This definition of racial grounds clearly takes into account the complex reality of national identity, where a person may change their nationality by marriage or geographical migration or indeed simply by association, as well as the complexity of racial prejudice, where a person who discriminates may do so in complete ignorance of the victim’s actual nationality or national background.

So Festina .. you conclude that they would be acting illegally in refusing US custom based on nationality and I would certainly agree, but note that being "Scottish" is not a recognised nationality except by us SCOTS ..

There are numerous countries in the world enjoying the day to day benefits and advantages of national sovereignty. Scotland is not one of them. Did you know Scotland is considered a "region", a mere part of another nation, in the eyes of the European Union and the UN? Did you know Scots are stripped of their rights to Scottish citizenship, and labeled "British nationals" or "citizens of the United Kingdom"? While Scotland's recently returned parliament has control over some things, the important, essential control is still out of Scotland's reach. Learn about The Problems facing Scotland right now, and then understand The Solutions you can help bring about.

Discrimination ?????