Horrible experience in Woodlands Tralee

celticutd87

Myself and 5 friends went away for 2 night camping in kerry. We didnt book in advance and after finding 2 campsites full in camp co kerry we decided to phone around. Phoned woodlands caravan park and was answered by a lovely lady who after we enquired would there be room for 4-5 tents we were told that booking was not available it was 1st come 1st served but that the park had plenty of space so if we were there within the next half an hour we could stay no problem. We got our 2 cars and were there within 20 minutes.
We arrived and walked up to reception to be met by, who i assume, is the owner who looked at us and said no chance lads we dont do groups. This was before we could even say a word. We told the man that we had phoned and were told by the women who answered that we could but he was adamant. He said this is a family place and he didnt want our sort upsetting the place. We told him we werent going to be yelling, or cursing or even going out just relaxing and having the craic. Nope no chance. We then asked him did he know any other campsites near by and he said he did but wed have to look. He then asked us to leave.
I am absolutely flabbergasted that in this day and age with a recession that a business would turn away customers like that when, from what we could see, there were plenty of camping spots. To also be told "our sort" is a slap in the face. A group of 24 year olds dressed respectively. The fact that he then wouldnt even help us and asked us to leave when we didnt raise our voices, argue with him etc astounds me. We eventually did camp at Sir Rogers Caravan Park who couldnt have been more helpful. With many businesses struggling the fact that woodlands could treat potential customers like this is a disgrace. We were all quite angry leaving but didnt shout just left quietly and left it.
I would love to know if a family with 2 adults and 4 children (same size as us) ould be accepted as they are also a group. Horrible experience i hope to not have to experience again.
On the other hand Sir Rogers Camp Site in Banna were fantastic, very hospitable, friendly, imformative, great facilities and we had a great time.

P.S. I appeared on RTE Liveline on Friday August 12th debating my point with the owner of Woodlands Camping and Caravan Park. The man couldnt remember us 1st, then lied and said we arrived late in the evening and then said he couldnt remember again. Man is a joke. Ill post the link below it starts about 22mins in.
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/player_av.html?0%2Cnull%2C200%2Chttp%3A%2F%2Fdynamic.rte.ie%2Fquickaxs%2F209-r1-liveline-Friday.smil

charlemont

Exact same thing happened us in Killarney a few years back, Its ignorance pure and simple, Stuck in the past.

celticutd87

Chalk it down. During the debate a woman came on saying she agreed with the man and youth just cant be trusted and she wouldnt trust her nephew and his friends in her house. I mean come on like grow up

patwicklow

What a dick head turning away good trade always the same the wrong ass holes running these places that aint a clue.

tippboi

Just listened to it there. He def doesn't like young people at all. The owner and the other people who rang in weren't listening to what you were saying at all either. Don't listen to liveline myself but thought joe duffy was on the owners side a bit.

Evil Phil

In fairness, you must be new to camping. Most camping sites are family friendly and won't allow groups stay. This is nothing new and is standard practice across the country. In fact I'm taking note of the name for future reference, sounds like a good place to stay.

You talk about him loosing business, he lost yours and that's all. If he'd let you stay he could have lost the business of regulars that had been built up over many years, which is probably the only thing keep him going at the moment.

Get over it.

celticutd87

Evil Phil wrote: »

In fairness, you must be new to camping. Most camping sites are family friendly and won't allow groups stay. This is nothing new and is standard practice across the country. In fact I'm taking note of the name for future reference, sounds like a good place to stay.

You talk about him loosing business, he lost yours and that's all. If he'd let you stay he could have lost the business of regulars that had been built up over many years, which is probably the only thing keep him going at the moment.

Get over it.

Actually Evil Phil im not new to camping. Been going since I was young with the family. Just because a camping site is family friendly dosent mean that site should turn away people because of theyr age. We stayed in Sir Rogers in Banna and their was no trouble. Families enjoyed it, we enjoyed it and everybody got on fine.

I think ull find i talked about why a half full park was turning away business in the form of us. I think ull find that their will be many people who having seen the way wev been treated wud be reluctant to stay in a place such as this. And yes I agree theyr will be many families who will stay. Can I ask why he would have lost the business of regulars built up over many years if he left 24 year olds stay in his park?

Your last comment of get over it seems to suggest that you believe that if you were in the same position having been rudely and badly treted like that would just go ok sir thank you and walk away happy. Im sorry but i dont believe that people in the hospitality industry whom treat customers this way should be allowed get away with it.

celticutd87

P.S. And why do people keep giving out that its a nice place. I never said it wasnt. I dont know because we were not allowed stay.

Tabnabs

In fairness, it's notoriously difficult for groups of singles to get access to "family friendly" campsite. Even couples in their early 20s will have problems. We've all been there; phoned in advance told no problem, turn up and told no way.

Chalk it up to experience but to ring Joe Duffy is a bit OTT, but interesting to know that the site is family only

looksee

I kind of sympathise, but he has been a site owner for a good while I imagine, and as you say he is not likely to turn away custom just out of bad mindedness. His experience has been that groups of young people end up having the 'craic' that you mentioned, and don't consider 11 to midnight late. Which it isn't, unless you have a family of young children to get settled and asleep.

Possibly you were not intending to sit laughing and talking till midnight, and in fairness it would not have been unreasonable from your point of view, but he did not know that. He would rather not have the hassle of evicting a group, easier all round to refuse admission in the first place.

I have been in campsites with rules and regulations so strict that anyone would be reluctant to go there. On the other hand they are clean, safe, and quiet by 10pm.

Lesson: don't turn up with two carloads at the same time. One person goes in to register, the others stay quietly in the car. And be sure and be quiet by 10pm.

celticutd87

Tabnabs wrote: »

In fairness, it's notoriously difficult for groups of singles to get access to "family friendly" campsite. Even couples in their early 20s will have problems. We've all been there; phoned in advance told no problem, turn up and told no way.

Chalk it up to experience but to ring Joe Duffy is a bit OTT, but interesting to know that the site is family only

Not really ott. We didnt phone because we werent admitted we rang because of the way we were treated ie the man was extremely rude, nearly hostile to us and even though we were calm and tried to talk to him he told us get out for no reason. For the record this is the 1st time iv ever phoned liveline which tells you how angry we were at our treatment.

celticutd87

looksee wrote: »

I kind of sympathise, but he has been a site owner for a good while I imagine, and as you say he is not likely to turn away custom just out of bad mindedness. His experience has been that groups of young people end up having the 'craic' that you mentioned, and don't consider 11 to midnight late. Which it isn't, unless you have a family of young children to get settled and asleep.

Possibly you were not intending to sit laughing and talking till midnight, and in fairness it would not have been unreasonable from your point of view, but he did not know that. He would rather not have the hassle of evicting a group, easier all round to refuse admission in the first place.

I have been in campsites with rules and regulations so strict that anyone would be reluctant to go there. On the other hand they are clean, safe, and quiet by 10pm.

Lesson: don't turn up with two carloads at the same time. One person goes in to register, the others stay quietly in the car. And be sure and be quiet by 10pm.

Thank you thats a well thought out response. Ya that is what we will do in future. Again another part of this is us phoning ahead and then wasting our time and money getting there to be told leave the property. If wed been told no groups when we phoned we would have had no problem and kept looking.

Evil Phil

If you'd told them it was 2 carloads of twenty something year olds looking to have the craic on the phone, they'd probably have turned you down before you arrived.

The campsite owners I've talked to have all been stung by letting a group in and then having late night drinking on the campsite - which results in complaints from regulars and loss of business (to answer your question). This is why it is so difficult for younger groups to get onto a family friendly campsite.

Maybe you should try and see it from his side. It's petty to try and damage the man's livelihood just because he turned you away. Consider how difficult it would be to approach a group at 12 at night, to ask them to calm down and stop drinking? He didn't know if you would be drinking or not but it sounds like he erred on the side of caution.

I'd also like to here his side of the story with regards to rudeness considering how irate you're getting on this forum. This is a campsite that has been recommended by other boards.ie users after all. It is also his campsite, you don't have a right to use it. He does have the right to turn you away.

Evil Phil

BTW keep your complaint to this thread, don't repost elsewhere.

a148pro

I find some of the responses on this thread truly remarkable. Are 24 year olds not allowed enjoy the outdoors? Or the outdoor forum?

What your man should have done is said you're welcome to stay but this is a family campsite and noise or boozing will not be tolerated, then let the lads decide if they want to stay or not.

Evil Phil wrote: »

It is also his campsite, you don't have a right to use it. He does have the right to turn you away.

I think the equality authority might have something to say about that.

Evil Phil wrote: »

I'd also like to here his side of the story with regards to rudeness considering how irate you're getting on this forum.
This is a campsite that has been recommended by other boards.ie users after all.

Why are you getting so sanctimonious? He's linked to Joe Duffy and your man's side of the story.

a148pro

a148pro wrote: »

I find some of the responses on this thread truly remarkable.

I find the original post truly remarkable.

What next, he and his friends turn up at the door of a niteclub and are amazed that groups of men in their 20s are not allowed in?

In my experience, businesses that provide goods or services late at night, from hotels, to pubs, to clubs to campsites to 24 hour shops, don't like groups of 20something year old men landing in...even where they promise to be really really good. Many just bar them, they don't take a "sure why don't you come on in, we'll take the risk despite previous experiences" approach?

a148pro wrote: »

Are 24 year olds not allowed enjoy the outdoors? Or the outdoor forum?

Agreeing that it is understandable why a business owner would err on the side of caution is hardly the same as saying that young people are not allowed to like the outdoors.

a148pro wrote: »

What your man should have done is said you're welcome to stay but this is a family campsite and noise or boozing will not be tolerated, then let the lads decide if they want to stay or not.

What the OP should have done is advised them in the original phone call that he was part of a group of young men - that group that everyone knows are are excluded from a lot of businesses late at night. And if they told him to come along, and then turned him down, then he would have a valid gripe. Not about the policy, but about the error.

a148pro wrote: »

I think the equality authority might have something to say about that.

I presume a group of people can be excluded from any establishment. People cannot be excluded on the grounds of gender, age, race, religion etc. etc., but I would hazard a guess that this campsite owner could point out that he has no difficulty with either men or people in their 20s and has had many bookings from both, and clearly the factor at play was the size of the group.

I would think the incident was unfortunate, I myself have been part of that group of 20 something year old men turned away (not campsite, but niteclubs, hotels and pubs) and found it intensely annoying at the time.

harr

my self and a group of friends go camping 5 or 6 times a year,there are 4 couples in total and all in our 30's or 40's,we have been camping as a group for the guts of 15 years now and only once have we been turned away from a site but a lot of sites will set out the rules to us before we pitch which is fair enough.
I can see both sides in the argument, on more than once we have seen groups of lads and girls in there late teens or early 20's bring havoc to a camp site.Most camp-sites have there regulars who would go to the same site year after year, the reason they keep going to the same sites is because they know it will be only family's there and the sites will be quiet.
I do feel sorry for the OP and his friends they sound like a descent group of lads,but when you arrive at a camp site with 2 cars full of 20 something year olds looking to have a bit of craic this will set alarm bells ringing in most camp site owners.
most camp sites owners know each other so op the next time when ye are camping leave your name with the camp site and use it as a sort of reference and build up a list of sites you have no problem staying in and then if you are ever refused any where again you could get the owner to ring around,we have had to do this a few times.
As for the site owner not been allowed to refuse entry because of your age or size of the group this is wrong and the equality authority would have no say in the matter.Every business has the right to refuse admission or services to who they want.

paddylonglegs

Now a 20's only Campsite might be fun

"Whats that love, you're 35? Two kids with ya aswell Is see? Sorry love you're not getting in. NOW FACK OFF!!!!!!"


blah blah blah ageism etc blah blah blah

fergalr

I wasn't there, obviously, but taking the OPs post at face value:

I'm appalled at the treatment described, of the OP, by the owner.
And I am very surprised at the response of forum posters here, who I respect, to this story.


First off, the OP says they asked if there were space for 4-5 tents, and was told it was first come, first served.
The OP showed up with 6 people, which is completely in line with there being 4-5 tents.


If I called ahead, asking for space for 4/5 tents, was told it was fine, and then showed up to be told they didn't take groups, I would be very annoyed, and expect a very good explanation; not rudeness.


In both Evil Phil and Conor74's responses (both of whom I respect from reading their previous posts here) they make references to the age of the group.

I've a couple of issues with this.
One is ethical, and one pragmatic.

At an ethical level, it is extremely unfair to discriminate against a group of campers, because of their age.

As I understand it, it's legally dubious, too. If the group was turned away because they happened to be travellers, when they turned up, or because they were women, or because they had a skin colour the camp owner didn't like, then I think we'd all agree there'd be an ethical, and probably legal, case to answer (whether or not the case would be won).
Well, age discrimination is covered under all the same laws in our society.



The other issue I have is pragmatic.

Young people are often quite marginalised in this society. They are a vulnerable group. They don't have the financial and social power older people do. As a recent example, unemployment is particularly high in the early 20s demographic; they are the ones being forced to emigrate the country, due to the mismanagement of the generations before them.

A common result of marginalisation is a feeling of disenfranchisement.
You know, how easy it is for people, particularly young people, to feel 'well, they dont care about us, so fúck em'.

Next time you guys pass a large group of 20 year olds sitting around a big fire in the mountains - we've all seen it - drinking, having brought no rubbish facilities for their cans, and crapping, having no idea how to dispose of their crap, and generally messing the place up; remember that you argued it was OK to ban them, as a class, from proper campsites, because of their age.

I know I will.

harr

fergalr wrote: »

I wasn't there, obviously, but taking the OPs post at face value:

I'm appalled at the treatment described, of the OP, by the owner.
And I am very surprised at the response of forum posters here, who I respect, to this story.


First off, the OP says they asked if there were space for 4-5 tents, and was told it was first come, first served.
The OP showed up with 6 people, which is completely in line with there being 4-5 tents.


If I called ahead, asking for space for 4/5 tents, was told it was fine, and then showed up to be told they didn't take groups, I would be very annoyed, and expect a very good explanation; not rudeness.


In both Evil Phil and Conor74's responses (both of whom I respect from reading their previous posts here) they make references to the age of the group.

I've a couple of issues with this.
One is ethical, and one pragmatic.

At an ethical level, it is extremely unfair to discriminate against a group of campers, because of their age.

As I understand it, it's legally dubious, too. If the group was turned away because they happened to be travellers, when they turned up, or because they were women, or because they had a skin colour the camp owner didn't like, then I think we'd all agree there'd be an ethical, and probably legal, case to answer (whether or not the case would be won).
Well, age discrimination is covered under all the same laws in our society.



The other issue I have is pragmatic.

Young people are often quite marginalised in this society. They are a vulnerable group. They don't have the financial and social power older people do. As a recent example, unemployment is particularly high in the early 20s demographic; they are the ones being forced to emigrate the country, due to the mismanagement of the generations before them.

A common result of marginalisation is a feeling of disenfranchisement.
You know, how easy it is for people, particularly young people, to feel 'well, they dont care about us, so fúck em'.

Next time you guys pass a large group of 20 year olds sitting around a big fire in the mountains - we've all seen it - drinking, having brought no rubbish facilities for their cans, and crapping, having no idea how to dispose of their crap, and generally messing the place up; remember that you argued it was OK to ban them, as a class, from proper campsites, because of their age.

I know I will.

I take your point, but you have to also look at from the owners view, maybe he had trouble with groups of lads before and was unwilling to let the same happen again.
You have to look after your regular customers first and i don't think it was a age thing. I would imagine he would have acted the same way if the lads were in there 30s.
Any time I have witnessed trouble in a site before it was always groups of lads or girls after having a fill of drinks, it's not nice when you have young children with you and there is a group of pissed 20 somethings running amuck.

Hurdy Gurdy

He didn't let ye in, get over it.

It's his place and he has a right to let in who he wants and to turn away who he wants. He obviously didn't want groups of people in their 20's for good reason, people don't just come up with ideas like that in their head on the spot. It is neither your business, nor your concern as to why he didn't want a group in there.

Also, whether he can afford to turn you away or not is neither your business or your concern. His financial status in the recession is his own business.

You made a boo-boo by not telling them that you were a group of 20-odd year olds and are now trying to make it seem it is all their fault for expressing their right to decline your entry. Anybody who as been camping before, such as yourself, should know that there are strict rules when it comes to groups.

Now pick up your dummy, give it a wash off and stick it back in your gob will you for God's sake.

fergalr

harr wrote: »

I take your point, but you have to also look at from the owners view, maybe he had trouble with groups of lads before and was unwilling to let the same happen again.
You have to look after your regular customers first and i don't think it was a age thing. I would imagine he would have acted the same way if the lads were in there 30s.
Any time I have witnessed trouble in a site before it was always groups of lads or girls after having a fill of drinks, it's not nice when you have young children with you and there is a group of pissed 20 somethings running amuck.

I understand that a campsite catering mainly for families doesn't want drunk people running amok. If it was the case that the OP showed up with booze, and, upon hearing about a no-alcohol policy, decided not to camp there, I wouldn't be posting.


I am posting simply because age seemed to be a determining feature, as the OP described it; and even more so because age was mentioned in other replies here, to which I am responding.

I also see the incident was described on tripadvisor, and the owner of the campsite specifically says they do not take groups of young people; not that they do not take groups. "it is our policy to not take groups of young people"

IANAL, but as far as I know, in our society, not taking groups is one thing; not taking groups of young people is very different.[1]


At a pragmatic level, if a business owner is going to do things like this, to protect their 'family atmosphere' or whatever, they should make it their business to have a good chat with people ringing up, about how big the group will be, and whether the group is a family; to make sure not to avoid having people drive out of their way and then be disappointed.

If they fail to do this, then they should be exceedingly polite and try and smooth over the incident as best they can, and make an exception to their normal policy, or otherwise politely smooth things over.

According to the OP this does not seem to have happened.

[1] http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#sec3

celticutd87

Hurdy Gurdy wrote: »

He didn't let ye in, get over it.

It's his place and he has a right to let in who he wants and to turn away who he wants. He obviously didn't want groups of people in their 20's for good reason, people don't just come up with ideas like that in their head on the spot. It is neither your business, nor your concern as to why he didn't want a group in there.

Also, whether he can afford to turn you away or not is neither your business or your concern. His financial status in the recession is his own business.

You made a boo-boo by not telling them that you were a group of 20-odd year olds and are now trying to make it seem it is all their fault for expressing their right to decline your entry. Anybody who as been camping before, such as yourself, should know that there are strict rules when it comes to groups.

Now pick up your dummy, give it a wash off and stick it back in your gob will you for God's sake.

Did you join boards just to give out to me? As i said on the radio to the man himself we did state who we were and our age. Listen.

celticutd87

Evil Phil wrote: »

BTW keep your complaint to this thread, don't repost elsewhere.

Sorry

Hurdy Gurdy

I did yeah, and I didn't listen to your radio thing, you are taking this thing way over the top ffs.

You got turned away, he told you why, it's his business and that should be final. You learned your lesson, move on.

What are you trying to achieve here? Do you want people to get out the torches and pitchforks and storm the camp site? I think you are the one that needs to do a bit of growing up.

fergalr

Hurdy Gurdy wrote: »

He didn't let ye in, get over it.

It's his place and he has a right to let in who he wants and to turn away who he wants. He obviously didn't want groups of people in their 20's for good reason, people don't just come up with ideas like that in their head on the spot. It is neither your business, nor your concern as to why he didn't want a group in there.

Also, whether he can afford to turn you away or not is neither your business or your concern. His financial status in the recession is his own business.

You made a boo-boo by not telling them that you were a group of 20-odd year olds and are now trying to make it seem it is all their fault for expressing their right to decline your entry. Anybody who as been camping before, such as yourself, should know that there are strict rules when it comes to groups.

Now pick up your dummy, give it a wash off and stick it back in your gob will you for God's sake.

Hi Hurdy Gurdy,


It is bizarre, but in addition to laws giving people rights to decline entry to a service, there are actually other laws that limit how those rights can be used!

You can make rules saying that you don't take groups, but there are certain things that, as a society, we have decided we don't really want people making rules for. One of those is about the ages of people that a service will be provided to.



What would you say to a sexist lawyer who interviewed a legal assistant called Robin, and was shocked at the interview to find out that Robin was a WOMAN and not a man and so turned Robin away at the door?

Would you say "Hey Mr. Lawyer Man, you can't turn Robin away just because she is a WOMAN! We have laws against that!"

Or would you say "Hey Robin, you should have wrote that you were a WOMAN on your CV, because it wasn't clear from your name! You wasted Mr. Lawyer Man's time! Pick up your dummy!"

Hurdy Gurdy

There is a big difference between sexism and a campsite owner turning away a group of young people because he doesn't take groups of young people.

harr

This happens to groups of lads every weekend in different situations for example groups of lads not been let into night clubs and the likes also any decent hotels will not let stags stay.
It has happened to most lads at some stage and we all had to get over.
Just a quick question to the op, how much drink did you have with you when you arrived at the site?

Hurdy Gurdy

harr, no doubt he had "little or none". He'd never jeopardise the support he's gotten here so far by admitting to having alcohol in his possession!

celticutd87

Deleted User wrote: »

I find the original post truly remarkable.

What next, he and his friends turn up at the door of a niteclub and are amazed that groups of men in their 20s are not allowed in?

A bit off the point since a nightclub or pub would be expecting people to drink get rowdy etc and that can happen anywhere not saying its right.

Deleted User wrote: »

In my experience, businesses that provide goods or services late at night, from hotels, to pubs, to clubs to campsites to 24 hour shops, don't like groups of 20something year old men landing in...even where they promise to be really really good. Many just bar them, they don't take a "sure why don't you come on in, we'll take the risk despite previous experiences" approach?

If this was the way for everywhere shur lets just have a cap on numbers anywhere then. Ah so ur a family of 6 is it naw sorry. Teens in families go running around at night and nothings said. We were woken in the campsite we did stay at at 1am by a group of 13 year olds having a rap battle so why not ban kids?

Deleted User wrote: »

What the OP should have done is advised them in the original phone call that he was part of a group of young men - that group that everyone knows are are excluded from a lot of businesses late at night. And if they told him to come along, and then turned him down, then he would have a valid gripe. Not about the policy, but about the error.

We did advise in the original phone call that we were a group of men aged around 24. No problem then. Im assuming theyr may be a difference between hearing and seeing on the owners part.

Deleted User wrote: »

I presume a group of people can be excluded from any establishment. People cannot be excluded on the grounds of gender, age, race, religion etc. etc., but I would hazard a guess that this campsite owner could point out that he has no difficulty with either men or people in their 20s and has had many bookings from both, and clearly the factor at play was the size of the group.

I would think the incident was unfortunate, I myself have been part of that group of 20 something year old men turned away (not campsite, but niteclubs, hotels and pubs) and found it intensely annoying at the time.

I believe that the factor at play here was our ages. Theyr were groups of families camping we saw whom numbered 5 or 6. Now thats a group so its clearly not the size. I do appreciate the comments and can see where your coming from.

fergalr

Hurdy Gurdy wrote: »

There is a big difference between sexism and a campsite owner turning away a group of young people because he doesn't take groups of young people.

But, like, legally, they are treated very similarly in this society; turning away a group of people because you didn't like women (say because you were a sexist) and turning away a group of young people because you didn't want young people people staying there (because you had a bad experience with other young people before) would be considered very similar.

If you look at this page here:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#sec3

It says:

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground”),
...
(f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”)

So, very similar legal mechanisms, between providing service to someone but discriminating by sex, vs by age. (Although employment is covered under different laws, afaik).


I have some sympathy for the campsite owner, in general.

But, you know, its just not fair to treat all young people as if they'll cause trouble, just because they are young, because some young people cause trouble.

And to be rude to them on top of it, and to waste their time going to the campsite, and *then* arbitrarily discriminate against them - well, I'd be pretty pissed, too.

gavcobh

Hurdy Gurdy wrote: »

harr, no doubt he had "little or none". He'd never jeopardise the support he's gotten here so far by admitting to having alcohol in his possession!

i am one of the guys that went camping. that comment is very pessimistic in regards to our group. we left our homes and drove straight to the area and searched for somewhere to stay. we did not buy alcohol on the way there so the answer is we had none. you can believe what you like but between the 3 days on holiday i personally had 4 cans and 2 pints which isnt alot. we are as lame as we are sounding, the first night we were asleep by 12:30! i was on holiday to go to the aquadome not get drunk, i can get drunk at home.

fergalr

Hurdy Gurdy wrote: »

harr, no doubt he had "little or none". He'd never jeopardise the support he's gotten here so far by admitting to having alcohol in his possession!

Ad hominem / poisoning the well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Just makes you look bad, Hurdy Gurdy!

celticutd87

harr wrote: »

This happens to groups of lads every weekend in different situations for example groups of lads not been let into night clubs and the likes also any decent hotels will not let stags stay.
It has happened to most lads at some stage and we all had to get over.
Just a quick question to the op, how much drink did you have with you when you arrived at the site?

Hurdy Gurdy wrote: »

harr, no doubt he had "little or none". He'd never jeopardise the support he's gotten here so far by admitting to having alcohol in his possession!

Hi Harr. Stags i believe can be seen different since with a stag a hotel would know that the group are going to be getting hammered etc.
Hurdy Gurdy you seem to have a real chip on your shoulder about this. Can i assume you are friends with the owner? In fact ill be completely truthful here i had half a bottle of vodka. Thats it. A bottle i ended up not drinking that weekend. When we arrived in sir rogers campsite in banna where we did stay we went for dinner and bought a few cans in the off license in ardfert. We were conscious of the guests there so went for a few drinks on the sand dunes where we brought black bags with us and cleaned and cleared afterwards. We were sleeping in our tents by midnight

Hurdy Gurdy

Just saying fergalr, if I were him and I were trying to get a load of people on my side for something so silly, I wouldn't ruin it by saying "oh I had a slab of beer in the boot like"...would you?

This whole thing is so silly and OTT, I think a mod should delete it for God's sake. The only reason why I joined is because I saw this post and that he had gone on the radio about it lol ffs, you got turned away from the campsite, you managed to stay in a different campsite, move on. Life ain't fair, you don't need to have a song and dance about it.

gavcobh

celticutd87 wrote: »

We were sleeping in our tents by midnight

ah it was more 12:30 now to be honest

celticutd87

gavcobh wrote: »

ah it was more 12:30 now to be honest

Apologies

geordie 1

sure this is a breach of your rights m8 , thats shocking i think, just wanted some fun with your mates, if i were you i would find out where the site manager lives, break in to his house & chit in lis lasses knicker draw, thats just me though

celticutd87

Hurdy Gurdy wrote: »

Just saying fergalr, if I were him and I were trying to get a load of people on my side for something so silly, I wouldn't ruin it by saying "oh I had a slab of beer in the boot like"...would you?

This whole thing is so silly and OTT, I think a mod should delete it for God's sake. The only reason why I joined is because I saw this post and that he had gone on the radio about it lol ffs, you got turned away from the campsite, you managed to stay in a different campsite, move on. Life ain't fair, you don't need to have a song and dance about it.

But why shouldnt we raise the point and debate it and try to seek some sort of apology when life isnt fair? Why should we just accept bad things like this happening to us?

Hurdy Gurdy

gavcobh wrote: »

ah it was more 12:30 now to be honest

celticutd87 wrote: »

Apologies

Your nonchalance just there has ruined your argument in my opinion. Making a mockery of a debate.

headmaster

I would hope that the owner, yes, the owner, would and should have the right to decide, who stays, or who doesn't stay, on his property. From my own experiences, a group of young people are usually well able to create problems. They have no one to blame but themselves, just look around at weekends and see the state of them, the same with uni students. An old saying, "Don't let trouble in, then you won't have to put it out", says it all.

celticutd87

Hurdy Gurdy wrote: »

Your nonchalance just there has ruined your argument in my opinion. Making a mockery of a debate.

I think you were making a mockery of it before now to be honest.

geordie 1

Hurdy Gurdy wrote: »

Your nonchalance just there has ruined your argument in my opinion. Making a mockery of a debate.

agreed, we all like a mass debate, hope this thread runs

fergalr

Hurdy Gurdy wrote: »

Just saying fergalr, if I were him and I were trying to get a load of people on my side of something so silly, I wouldn't ruin it by saying "oh I had a slab of beer in the book like"...would you?

I don't know the people involved personally.

You are right that you have to assess these things bearing in mind you are only hearing one side of the story, and that people have a beef.
Also, the fact that the OP has been on the radio, and that they've left reviews on trip advisor, means that they are making an effort to publicize the incident.

Still, I can't fault that in and of itself; I'd be doing the same thing, if I was them.
Fwiw, they are doing a good job at convincing me that they're telling the truth, and I'm pretty suspicious of people on the Internet...

Hurdy Gurdy wrote: »

This whole thing is so silly and OTT, I think a mod should delete it for God's sake. The only reason why I joined is because I saw this post and that he had gone on the radio about it lol ffs, you got turned away from the campsite, you managed to stay in a different campsite, move on. Life ain't fair, you don't need to have a song and dance about it.

Speaking of which, Hurdy, I think itd be a good idea if you declared whether you have any relationship with the owners, or campsite etc.
You come across as very invested in the discussion for a new user!

I think its good that things like this get discussed on the Internet.


It balances power in business interactions - speaking generally - between the business owner - who previously could have told everyone to come, when they rang over the phone, and then selected who they liked, knowing that everyone else had no come back; now you have to treat people right, or others will know about it; of course, a consequence is that we all do have to be careful if we are only hearing one side of the story.

celticutd87

headmaster wrote: »

I would hope that the owner, yes, the owner, would and should have the right to decide, who stays, or who doesn't stay, on his property. From my own experiences, a group of young people are usually well able to create problems. They have no one to blame but themselves, just look around at weekends and see the state of them, the same with uni students. An old saying, "Don't let trouble in, then you won't have to put it out", says it all.

Ok then but lets see your point. You see on tv the whole time traveller groups portrayed as fighting and trouble, romanian gypsies as thieves etc. Should they be not allowed in because a few have forged the reputation for the whole group? Iv seen old fellas at fisticuffs in dublin, oxegen and cork and yet they are grand.

Hurdy Gurdy

I do not have anything to do with the owner or the campsite.

I am a long time browser of boards, never a poster, until now that is.

geordie 1

give the tent up m8, buy a caravan ,Popeye lived in one, and he was hard as fooking nails

Hurdy Gurdy

headmaster wrote: »

I would hope that the owner, yes, the owner, would and should have the right to decide, who stays, or who doesn't stay, on his property. From my own experiences, a group of young people are usually well able to create problems. They have no one to blame but themselves, just look around at weekends and see the state of them, the same with uni students. An old saying, "Don't let trouble in, then you won't have to put it out", says it all.

Correct headmaster. If you own the land/renting the land and own the business, then you surely can turn people away. If the case was that you couldn't, people would have free reign over these places and there would be no rules or regulations.

gavcobh

Hurdy Gurdy wrote: »

Your nonchalance just there has ruined your argument in my opinion. Making a mockery of a debate.

well hurdy gurdy, i am entitled to be nonchalant if i wish and it was also a way for my friend to know which one of the group i am. from what i can see of from your posts your not debating your saying passive aggressive statements like "Now pick up your dummy, give it a wash off and stick it back in your gob will you for God's sake" so if us being nonchalant offends you imagine what your commenting style is like to others. my friend came on here to have a bit of a healthy debate on a sunday afternoon, what concern is it of yours if he does. it seems to me like you are somewhat emotionally invested in this campsite but dont worry we wont judge you for it

geordie 1

gavcobh wrote: »

well hurdy gurdy, i am entitled to be nonchalant if i wish and it was also a way for my friend to know which one of the group i am. from what i can see of from your posts your not debating your saying passive aggressive statements like "Now pick up your dummy, give it a wash off and stick it back in your gob will you for God's sake" so if us being nonchalant offends you imagine what your commenting style is like to others. my friend came on here to have a bit of a healthy debate on a sunday afternoon, what concern is it of yours if he does. it seems to me like you are somewhat emotionally invested in this campsite but dont worry we wont judge you for it

agree, hurdy seems as thick as a whale omelette, probably never been out his front room , seems camp enough though

Hurdy Gurdy

gavcobh wrote: »

well hurdy gurdy, i am entitled to be nonchalant if i wish and it was also a way for my friend to know which one of the group i am. from what i can see of from your posts your not debating your saying passive aggressive statements like "Now pick up your dummy, give it a wash off and stick it back in your gob will you for God's sake" so if us being nonchalant offends you imagine what your commenting style is like to others. my friend came on here to have a bit of a healthy debate on a sunday afternoon, what concern is it of yours if he does. it seems to me like you are somewhat emotionally invested in this campsite but dont worry we wont judge you for it

Now who's poisoning the well? There is only 1 reason a guy comes onto a forum such as this, after being on the radio and God knows where else complaining about the same thing, and that is to complain some more. There is nothing "healthy" about this debate, it is called OBSESSIVE.