Krystle used cash settlement to avoid closure over discrimination

Roro4Brit

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0128/1224263290409.html

A JUDGE threatened to close down Krystle nightclub in Dublin yesterday for having “blackguarded” a member of the Traveller community.

District Court Judge John O’Neill said Sarah Stokes had acted in a ladylike manner on the night of August 7th, 2009, when the Harcourt Street club refused to admit her to a charity event for which she had bought a €30 ticket.

Barrister Kevin Healy, for Ms Stokes, said she and a dozen friends had attended the fund-raising function in Krystle for Brainwave, the Irish Epilepsy Association charity, and her hand had been stamped at the entrance on arrival.

Later she had adjourned with two friends through a side door to Dicey Riley’s bar, in the same building, but when returning to Krystle found the side door locked and had gone to the main entrance for readmission, which had been refused.

Ms Stokes, of Cherrywood Park, Clondalkin, who sought compensation under the Intoxicating Liquor Act, said the doorman ignored the stamp on her hand and simply said “sorry” before totally ignoring her.

“I am a member of the Travelling community and I am taking this case because I believe I was discriminated against,” she told Mr Healy.

Club doorman Paul Melia said he had stopped Ms Stokes because she was wearing very high heels and he was concerned for her safety and the safety of other patrons. He denied in cross-examination by Mr Healy that the defence he was putting forward was a disguise to cover discrimination against a member of the Traveller community.

Judge O’Neill rose to allow talks with Triglen Holdings Ltd, which trades as Krystle nightclub. When told there had been no progress the judge said: “I am absolutely satisfied that because they did not like the look of Ms Stokes, she was discriminated against and I am going to make a closure order against the club. The court may be persuaded to take a more lenient view if Ms Stokes were to be compensated.’’

“This lady was absolutely blackguarded and I have no evidence other than that she was absolutely ladylike on the night. I take a very dim view of the club’s attitude,” he said.

Following further talks Mr Healy said a settlement had been reached.


_____________________________________________________________
Delighted for the bastards! I'm sick of these ****ing bouncers taking their power trips and stopping people going into clubs. I hope she takes them to the cleaners! The poor woman had paid for a chairty event and all. Boooo Krystle.

If this is in wrong place...move it. Or merge if elsewhere!

Cookie_Monster

Roro4Brit wrote: »

Following further talks Mr Healy said a settlement had been reached.

Its not going to close.

€5k plus legal cost is what was reported

My name is URL

I'd love to see that place been shut down.. just to piss off the wannabe socialites

genericguy

the power some people think they have when they wear a clip-on tie...

WindSock

How does she know he wouldn't let her in because she was a traveller?

TheGod

My name is URL wrote: »

I'd love to see that place been shut down.. just to piss off the wannabe socialites

Its mostly Polish people that go actually.

The_Kew_Tour

oh my god, oh my god, oh my god

like where am i going meet the guys for drinks now like

soooo not cool

Roro4Brit

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Its not going to close.

€5k plus legal cost is what was reported

Damn, just ruined my day. I would love them to have to close, even for a short period of time. Just to put a stop to their utter bull ****. I went there with 8 mates before xmas, had been in the morgan pervious, all had 2/3 drinks each, we knew loads of people who were having a semi-work social there so we all went up. The bouncer said two of my mates were too drunk as someone said something funny getting out of the taxi and we were laughing our tits off. Well sorry Mr. Bouncer for having a good time on a night out. Maybe next time we'll walk around with sticks up our arse like the usual clientele that go there.

I'm such a bastard of a friend I went in anyways but it wasnt the same knowing we all couldnt get in. :mad:

TheZohanS

That's bullsh!t, reverse discrimination.

Bloody judge is afraid to make a proper call. Lot of people get refused it clubs and they're not travellers. Get over it.

omb0wyn5ehpij9

My name is URL wrote: »

I'd love to see that place been shut down..

Agreed, it's a dump!

Roro4Brit

TheZohan wrote: »

That's bullsh!t, reverse discrimination.

Bloody judge is afraid to make a proper call. Lot of people get refused it clubs and they're not travellers. Get over it.

This is different. She had paid for an event which she had already been in attendence at. This is discrimination, pure and simple!

Solvo Slep

Thread title is inaccurate. I feel like I've been lied to.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Roro4Brit wrote: »

Club doorman Paul Melia said he had stopped Ms Stokes because she was wearing very high heels

WindSock wrote: »

How does she know he wouldn't let her in because she was a traveller?

Her shoe's were obviously made by Hugo Boss :P

My name is URL

To be fair, she paid for a ticket.. and I'm sure she wasn't the only girl wearing high heels

phasers

I wouldn't let someone from Clondalkin in either tbh

Roro4Brit

Solvo Slep wrote: »

Thread title is inaccurate. I feel like I've been lied to.

I'm sorry! I thought the case was still in progress!

Can I edit it somehow?

techdiver

TheZohan wrote: »

That's bullsh!t, reverse discrimination.

Bloody judge is afraid to make a proper call. Lot of people get refused it clubs and they're not travellers. Get over it.

That may be so, but clubs need to provide valid evidence as to why a person was not permitted entrance. It's well know that this place has a delusion of grandeur about it.

Maybe this kick in the arse will bring it back to earth and perhaps the staff will behave more appropriately towards members of the paying public.

TheZohanS

Roro4Brit wrote: »

This is different. She had paid for an event which she had already been in attendence at. This is discrimination, pure and simple!

How do you know?

What's to say that she didn't go off for more booze and when she came back she was unsteady on her feet?

I've been to that club a good few times and there are stairs to navigate, if the bouncers let people in and that person falls it's the clubs rsponsibility.

General Zod

Pity a judge couldn't order it demolished brick by brick.

Roro4Brit

Some posters think they are just so so funny. I hate feebleminded humour.

WindSock

You can tell that some people are travellers by their accents and perhaps crucifix jewellery (well, I do anyway). It doesn't mean that is why she was refused re-entry though. It may have been the case, but it also may not have been,

Either way, the doorman is a dick for not letting her in when she had paid.

If it was a case of traveller discrimination then fair enough, but it isn't clear that it is.

Just because she was a Traveller and refused entry doesn't mean she was refused entry for being a Traveller.

techdiver

TheZohan wrote: »

How do you know?

What's to say that she didn't go off for more booze and when she came back she was unsteady on her feet?

I've been to that club a good few times and there are stairs to navigate, if the bouncers let people in and that person falls it's the clubs rsponsibility.

The bouncer did not make that claim, thats why. His only reasoning was the high heals.

Roro4Brit

TheZohan wrote: »

How do you know?

What's to say that she didn't go off for more booze and when she came back she was unsteady on her feet?

I've been to that club a good few times and there are stairs to navigate, if the bouncers let people in and that person falls it's the clubs rsponsibility.

Don't even give me that ****. This is Krsytle. The female clientele here are practically walking on stilts, every one of them. It's quite possibly the most stupid thing I've ever heard come out of one of those knuckle dragger's mouth.

TheZohanS

techdiver wrote: »

The bouncer did not make that claim, thats why. His only reasoning was the high heals.

He did say that her heels were too high, bouncers are responsible for the well being of patrons in a club, he made a health and safety call. So what?

Red_Marauder

Look, to be perfectly honest, if I ran Krystle I wouldn't want a traveller drinking in there.
I personally have no grudge against travellers or people from Clondalkin who more importantly sound like they're from Clondalkin. I don't care less about them than I care for anybody else.

But if I were to put my business hat on - if we all were to - the simple fact is that to admit these people into a nightclub where people frequent to be part of the Dublin social scene would be commercial suicide.

It's impossible to run a high profile nightclub (whatever you think of it) and be totally non-discriminatory in practice. You'd run yourself out of business. Don't lets all kid each other to say 'i'd be the bigger man'.

Personally, no I wouldn't.

Roro4Brit

TheZohan wrote: »

He did say that her heels were too high, bouncers are responsible for the well being of patrons in a club, he made a health and safety call. So what?

Cos as he said it, I would be my annual salary that 10 more girls walked past the girl in the same, or even higher heels.

pickarooney

So the court case ruled the excuse was bollocks. Tough luck bouncer-man.

Wazdakka

R.O.A.R

Every club, pub, event has it.
You don't need a reason.

This bitch is just looking for her 15 min in the spotlight and to scam a couple of quid as far as I can see.

pickarooney

Wazdakka wrote: »

R.O.A.R

Every club, pub, event has it.
You don't need a reason.

This bitch is just looking for her 15 min in the spotlight and to scam a couple of quid as far as I can see.

Yeah, just like that pesky Rosa Parks.

28064212

Roro4Brit wrote: »

I went in anyways but it wasnt the same knowing we all couldnt get in. :mad:

This is the type of **** that means everyone who goes to these places get exactly what they deserve. Someone turns me away, or any of my group, from the door for no good reason they don't get my custom, and they don't get it in the future either.

I hate Copper's, think it's a ****hole full of retards. Know how many times I've been there? Twice. The second time was to give it a fair chance. The amount of people who complain about it over and over and then go back every week are the reason most of the nightclubs in Dublin are so ****. Why would the nightclub owners want to improve standards? People prove repeatedly that they will keep giving them their custom, regardless of what they do

citizen_p

ive been refused like that once or twice...its just she pulled out the minority card

Roro4Brit

28064212 wrote: »

This is the type of **** that means everyone who goes to these places get exactly what they deserve. Someone turns me away, or any of my group, from the door for no good reason they don't get my custom, and they don't get it in the future either.

I hate Copper's, think it's a ****hole full of retards. Know how many times I've been there? Twice. The second time was to give it a fair chance. The amount of people who complain about it over and over and then go back every week are the reason most of the nightclubs in Dublin are so ****. Why would the nightclub owners want to improve standards? People prove repeatedly that they will keep giving them their custom, regardless of what they do

You're right and in fairness to ME that is what I have done on similar occasions. Anyhow I don't go back every week. I've only been to this place 3 times, and this was the last. The girls insisted we meet up with the rest of those inside as it was christmas drinks!

Don't you attack me. I'll call my solicitor

Victor

TheZohan wrote: »

What's to say that she didn't go off for more booze and when she came back she was unsteady on her feet?

Are you suggesting that the bar next door, apparently part of the same complex and operated by the same company provided so much alcohol that she was intoxicated. It is an offence to serve people who are intoxicated.*

Are you suggesting that the doorman who had been there earlier when she entered previously was negligent in letting her in with such shoes?

Have you ever heard of someone not allowed in a club because their shoes were too big?


* Yes I realise "intoxicated" is a bit subjective in this country.

seamus

TheZohan wrote: »

He did say that her heels were too high, bouncers are responsible for the well being of patrons in a club, he made a health and safety call. So what?

But she'd already been in there. That's probably the crux of this matter. She'd been in the club, she'd interacted with the door people (she had her hand stamped) and therefore her heels were deemed fine.

This means that his excuse of "health and safety" is complete bollocks because if it had any merit, she would never have been allowed in the club in the first place.

Choke

1. This woman is a litigious traveller, so everyone should be careful what they say.

2. She had already been admitted, but was denied readmittance. So obviously her heels were not a problem the first time around.

Tbh, I doubt she was denied entrance for being a traveller, but probably for being generally classless - Krystle seems to be very strict on who it lets in and who it doesn't.

28064212

Roro4Brit wrote: »

You're right and in fairness to ME that is what I have done on similar occasions. Anyhow I don't go back every week. I've only been to this place 3 times, and this was the last. The girls insisted we meet up with the rest of those inside as it was christmas drinks!

Don't you attack me. I'll call my solicitor

Didn't mean it as a personal attack, just a platform for a general attack

WindSock

pickarooney wrote: »

Yeah, just like that pesky Rosa Parks.

Rosa Parks was challenging a clear discrimination against blacks on buses. They couldn't sit at the front because they were black.

This woman was refused re-entry to a club. No clear reason was given. She happened to be a Traveller. It still doesn't mean this is the reason why.

However there is no decent defence in this case as to why she was refused re-entry, so is it to be presumed because she is a member of the Travelling community?

TheGod

Victor wrote: »

Have you ever heard of someone not allowed in a club because their shoes were too big?

Harry the Clown v Copper Face Jacks Nightclub [2002] ISEC 1

seamus

WindSock wrote: »

However there is no decent defence in this case as to why she was refused re-entry, so is it to be presumed because she is a member of the Travelling community?

Well, what else about her stood out?
There was a reason that she was refused re-entry. The reason given was not valid, so clearly the reason was something that this girl possessed that no-one else did. Travellers do stand out like a sore thumb most of the time.

Now maybe it was nothing to do with being traveller, maybe she just looked trashy as someone else said, but again if that was the case, then the bouncer should have said that.

So I can't see any other conclusion than "He refused her because she was a traveller".

Solvo Slep

TheGod wrote: »

Harry the Clown v Copper Face Jacks Nightclub [2002] ISEC 1

He was a traveller too, funnily enough.

humanji

Choke wrote: »

2. She had already been admitted, but was denied readmittance. So obviously her heels were not a problem the first time around.

Nor was her being a traveller.

It seems to me the highheels excuse and the traveller excuse are both bollox.

pickarooney

WindSock wrote: »

Rosa Parks was challenging a clear discrimination against blacks on buses. They couldn't sit at the front because they were black.

This woman was refused re-entry to a club. No clear reason was given. She happened to be a Traveller. It still doesn't mean this is the reason why.

However there is no decent defence in this case as to why she was refused re-entry, so is it to be presumed because she is a member of the Travelling community?

Does 'presumed' stand up in court? If not then it's another verb which does, in the eyes of the judge.

Victor

TheGod wrote: »

Harry the Clown v Copper Face Jacks Nightclub [2002] ISEC 1

Bull! If you read the judgement properly, you know the only one who was too big for his shoes was the bouncer. :pac:

whiterob81

seamus wrote: »

Now maybe it was nothing to do with being traveller, maybe she just looked trashy as someone else said, but again if that was the case, then the bouncer should have said that.

Maybe she did look trashy and that was his reason for turning her away but how do you phrase that. "I didn't like the look of her", "i turned her away because she looked like a knacker", "She was more Drumcondra trashy, not our usual dundrum trashy". I don't think any of them would have went down too well.

If she looked trashy and wasn't a traveller it's more than likely she would still have been turned away from krystle.

I know i've been turned away from plenty of night clubs for inappropriate footwear over the years. i've never turned to the law. i've just stopped going to crap night clubs with a$$hole bouncers

df1985

i wouldnt let a traveller in either if i ran a pub/club tbh. you can spot them a mile off, and other people wouldnt go there as a result.

the shoe reason is nonsense though, been in krystle and as previously said the girls in there wear the highest shoes ive ever seen anyways, especially all the model types.

ScumLord

Wazdakka wrote: »

+1

How would he even know she was a traveller?

It's easy enough to spot a traveller they do have similar facial features they've been a closed community for a while and that;s had an effect on how they look, anyone who says they couldn't pick a traveller out of a crowd must not spend any time around them.

I think it's very likely she was targeted once she was away from the group she was with. Women travellers often have to bare the brunt of the hatred some people have for the group as a whole because they're easier for men to pick on, something they'd never do if there was one of the traveller men there.

The high heals excuse was completely lame, I've never seen or heard of that excuse being used anywhere ever before and he should have thought of something better by the time he got to court.

stovelid

Trying to flog carpet in the queue was a dead giveaway in fairness.

whiterob81

Maybe he thought she was Katherine Lynch

Bouncer07

I've been in that situation many a time. In general travellers can be alright. It's the odd one that cause murder. The fact of the matter is that if you don't want to let someone in through your door, you have the right to refuse entry. Was she dressed like a traveller on the night?

It's worse when foreign nationals are fighting with Irish people. When you throw them out they kick off about we're only kicking them out because they're black.

homerjay2005

this is bad news....q loads of travellers hitting the town tonight and trying to get in anyway....

Bouncer07

I wondered why security roster had doubled for this weekend!