Genting Casino Club In Westcliff Caught Up In Discrimination Row

By Gabriel Princewill-

Genting Casino Club In Westcliff  has been caught up in a discrimination row, after  an embarrassing blunder that saw them suspend the membership of a black man for 6 months.

The multi-million  pounds generating casino, situated in between Southend and Leigh On Sea, has been accused of wrongly ejecting the black man, who was invited for a chat near the bar on bank holiday Monday. Genting’s Casino Club is attended by a varied crowd of individuals, though is predominantly white owing to its geographical location.

The complainant  initially presented his complaint online to the eye of media.com, who swiftly investigated the complaint. It emerged that he had been courting a man in conversation in a section near the dance floor, when a staff of the Casino called Jess, approached the man and told him he was not wanted there.
The shocked man challenged her by stating that he was invited there by a male friend in the group, and the three other girls on the table were engaged in a conversation with one another and had not uttered a word of disapproval to him.

However, Jess from Genting Casino Club In Westcliff insisted she had been privately told by another member of the group that the man was not wanted there, yet in the absence of any evidence to support her claim, the black gentleman, who insisted on not being named by the eye of media.com, did not believe her. His cynicism was also fueled by the fact that the friend who invited him there actually spoke out to confirm he had been invited there, but this made no different to the staff, who behaved deplorably in their handling of the situation.

A security man was then summoned to lead him out of the casino, after which the black man was told that he had been banned by the management for challenging the authority of the female staff.

The eye of media.com got in touch with  Genting Casino Club In Westcliff, who claimed that their staff had been told the man was not wanted there. When asked why the man courting the black man in conversation was not considered to constitute an approval of his welcome there, the Genting Casino general manager Simon Woodford told the eye of media com ” we trust the decision of our staff and the decision will not change. The area was booked, and one of the group contacted staff to express discomfort”.

The decision was made by the floor manager upon seeing via their security cameras what resembled an altercation. However ,the eventual decision was patently flawed. It smacked of recklessness, even without any evidence of racial connotation. However, the disgruntled customer told the eye of media.com

” I felt  racially targeted, he complained during a phone call to the eye of media.com I was sitting down talking to a guy I knew, next thing I had a member of their staff telling me I was not wanted there. She seemed to be saying that this invisible person told her I was not wanted there, even though I was partaking in conversation in a harmonious atmosphere.

”Next thing I saw a doorman seeing me out of the casino like I had done something wrong”. It was very embarrassing. Another doorman eventually told him the table had been booked, pointing this as the reason for the objection. A letter was given to the man which failed the first test of fairness- to state the offence he had committed that had resulted in the ban.

Woodford pointed out that the Genting club reserves the right as a private organization to deny entry to whomever it wishes. This is indeed true, though this discretion was not instituted as a free-standing rule. It was designed to avoid frivolous challenges to the sound judgment of private organizations, not to conceal covert displays of discrimination forbidden by the Human Rights Act 1998.

DISCRIMINATION.

Whilst, not a categorical affirmation that the suspension was directly motivated by discrimination, it has that semblance. Though an abysmal level of professional incompetence coupled with a deep-seated misunderstanding may have been the root of this confusion,  but  it appears alarming enough to give the impression of discrimination. discrimination could easily have been at work, by either the staff

Yet, a structural failing in handling matters like this can present such a picture, even if the discrimination alleged is not actually there. . What makes this worse is the fact there is no evidence any complaint was made in the first instance, except we charitably take the word of the member of staff in question.

HIGH CLASS

Westcliff Genting Casino  Club In Westcliff, is one of the ostensibly high-class weekend destinations of thousands of revellers in and out of the area who flock there every weekend to party. It overlooks the glorious sea -front of Southend On Sea, and has a plethora of gambling machines engaged by punters throughout the night, who collectively win and lose thousand of pounds throughout the night. The club serves drinks until 4am in the morning, so the potential for warped judgments is always high.

It has 82 dedicated free parking spaces, and a disabled- bay near the entrance.
Games available there include the American Roulette, Baccarat, and the Texas Hold’ em cash games

An objective analysis of this incidence reveals some glaring misjudgments on the part of the club. Firstly, the fact the black man was invited to the table, gave him a right to be there. If a member of the group did not approve of his presence there, they should have gone through the other member who had permitted him to be there. Contacting a member of staff was the wrong way about it, and could give the impression they were intimidated of the man because he was black. Otherwise, there would be no just explanation for her failing to approach the man himself, or even better, first establishing whether he had been permitted to be there.

This is something the staff member, Jess, should have first put straight. But this oversight is easily made and requires professional competence allied to specific training. She erred seriously in her approach, and the man was entirely justified to feel aggrieved. Further, the doorman who ejected the man for simply questioning the staff, failed to identify the real issue at hand and address it professionally. Yet, he could argue that he trusted the judgment of the staff, and that it was his duty to do so- Nevertheless, he fell short of adequate professional standards, albeit, bound perhaps by a framework that requires him to do so.

Only a third doorman, known as Ian, eventually told the man why he had been ejected, but by then a further altercation between the incensed gentleman and another member of the club was getting out of hand outside the club, after the man had derided the female staff for discriminating against him. He told the eye of media.com ” I felt she was being racist, and also thought the same of the club for wrongfully throwing me out, then suspending me fo no reason”.

There was nothing in the scenario to show any racism from Jess, or indeed the Casino. Yet the sheer scandalous process that saw an innocent man thrown out, could easily be construed to have been discrimination. It has all the hallmarks of it on the surface, though blurred by the fact that any discrimination present may have been unintended.

It begs other important questions too. Staff members should be adequately trained in effectively dealing with circumstances of dispute that may arise in the course of their duty. They must be fair and none discriminatory in their dealings at all times. Also, staff members should be conscious of the potential for covert discrimination at work in their environment, so as not to inadvertently endorse it, since it may directly reflect on the club.

And whilst the club reserves the right to prevent or eject individuals, it cannot be on the grounds of discrimination, whether covertly, inadvertently, or deliberately.Every organization, private or otherwise, has a duty to observe the laws of equal treatment devoid of any discrimination whatsoever.
The eye of media.com has asked  Genting Casino Club to internally review their operations and codes of conduct, and also promote greater levels of accountability, right through its hierarchical power structure..of our staff and the decision will not change. The area was booked, and one of the group contacted staff to express discomfort”.

General manager of the Genting Casino Club told the eye of media.com ‘‘our staf have made a decision, which has been reviewed, but the decision will not change. The area was booked, and one of the group contacted staff to express discomfort”.

The decision was made by the floor manager upon seeing on their cameras what resembled an altercation. However the eventual decision was patently flawed. It smacked of recklessness, even without any evidence of racial connotation. However, the disgruntled customer told the eye of media.com

 ” I felt targeted. I was sitting down talking to a guy I knew, next thing I had a member of their staff telling me I was not wanted there. She seemed to be saying that this invisible person told her I was not wanted there, even though I was partaking in conversation in a harmonious atmosphere.

”Next thing I saw a doorman seeing me out of the casino like I had done something wrong. It was very embarrassing. Another doorman eventually told him that the table had been booked, and this was why somebody had objected. A letter was given to the man which failed the first test of fairness- to state the offence he had committed that had resulted in the ban.

Woodford pointed out that the club reserves the right as a private club to deny entry to whomever it wishes, but this discretion was not instituted as a free-standing rule. It is designed to avoid frivolous challenges to the sound judgement of private organisations, not to conceal covert displays of discrimination forbidden by the Human Rights Act 1998.

Whilst not a categorical affirmation that the suspension was directly motivated by discrimination, it has that semblance, though an abysmal level of professional incompetence coupled with a deep-seated misunderstanding may have been the root of this confusion. The club has black employees  comprising some of its door staff, and is open to a diversity of individuals. Yet, discrimination can still be present in that sort of environment since it is not possible to device a mechanism for screening people to detect prejudicial tendencies in them.

Westcliff Genting Casino is one of the ostensibly high-class weekend destination of thousand of revelers in and out of the area who flock there every weekend to party. It overlooks the glorious sea front of Southend On Sea, and has a plethora of gambling machines engaged by punters throughout the night, who collectively win and lose  thousand of pounds throughout the night. The club serves drinks until 4am in the morning, so the potential for warped judgments is always high.

An objective analysis of this incidence reveals some glaring misjudgment on the part of the club. Firstly, the fact the black man was invited to the table, gave him a right to be there. If a member of the group did not approve of his presence there, they should have gone through the other member who had permitted him to be there. If indeed a group member contacted a member of staff to complain, that was the wrong way to go about it, and  gives the impression they were intimidated of the man because he was black. Otherwise, there would be no just explanation for her failing to approach the man himself, or even better, first establishing that he had been permitted to be there.

This is something the staff member, Jess, should have first put straight. But this oversight is easily made and requires  professional competence, allied to specific training. She erred seriously in her approach, and the man was entirely justified to feel aggrieved. Further, the doorman who ejected him for simply questioning the staff, failed to identify the real issue at hand and address it professionally. Yet, he could argue that he trusted the judgment of the staff, and that it was his duty to do so.

Only a third doorman, known as Ian, eventually told the man why he had been ejected, but by then a further altercation between the incensed gentleman and another member of the club was getting out of hand outside the club, after the man had derided the female staff for discriminating against him. He told the eye of media.com ” I felt she was being racist, and also thought the same of the club for wrongfully throwing me out, then suspending me fo no reason”.

There was nothing in the scenario to suggest any racism from Jess, or indeed the Casino, yet the sheer scandalous process that saw an innocent man thrown out, begs some important questions. Staff members should be adequately trained in effectively dealing with circumstances of dispute that may arise in the course of their duty. They must be fair and none discriminatory in their dealings at all times.

And whilst the club reserves the right to prevent or eject individuals, it cannot be on the grounds of discrimination, whether covertly, inadvertently, or deliberately.Every organization, private or otherwise, has a duty to observe the laws of equal treatment devoid of any discrimination whatsoever, whether covertly, inadvertently, or deliberately.

The eye of media.com has asked Genting casino to internally review its operations, and also promote greater levels of accountability, right through its hierarchical power structure.