Stag party gets pwnd on facebook

Lollipops23

Cienciano wrote: »

Scumbag behaviour (by her and the stag party) should be ridiculed. As someone said earlier, fair play to the hotel for sticking up for themselves instead of pandering to people like this.
And if her wedding day is potentially ruined, why are you blaming the hotel and not the actions of the husband and his mates? They're the ones that brought the girl back to the room, set off the fire alarm, ruined a load of other guests nights threatened staff in front of everyone and had the police called twice on them. No, not their fault at all, nor yer ones who ignored requests to take her post down and she continuted to make accusations about the hotel. No, it was the hotel that was completely unreasonable here :rolleyes:

+1

She started this whole thing- and she started it where the whole wide world could see it, as she wanted to shame the hotel as much as possible.

I also think the fact that she did this instead of the "injured party" stags speaks volumes. She wanted to slander them and probably get something free, despite not knowing her OH well enough to wonder if she was getting the full story.

Idiots who try to get one over on others deserve to fall flat on their faces.


PS: I do NOT condone people slagging her kids. That's not on at all. I actually thought they were little cutie pies.

AEDIC

leggo wrote: »

This stuff, genuinely, makes me angry. This isn't some reality TV schmo or the like who's put herself up for public scrutiny and possible humiliation. This is an Average Joe who has to deal with the problems and limitations that we all do. Yet the Internet doesn't make that distinction when its bored and looking for a thing to click, point and, then, laugh. It's pathetic.

So your solution for your outrage is to have done to everyone who laughs and sneers at her, what she had done to her.... oooookay...sound logic there... you carry on with your anger, just ignore completely the timeline of the events and focus on your revenge and you will be fine. :rolleyes:

johnwest288

So muzh bukin dis hotal 4 mi bartday naxt wek. WTF soundz lik tis da biziness.
2 ba fare iz sondz like dey knoe ow 2 av a gud pizs Up. wat ya dink lads n lazzies. Cym on lats ere it fiur dracys otel WOOP:pac:

leggo

AEDIC wrote: »

So your solution for your outrage is to have done to everyone who laughs and sneers at her, what she had done to her.... oooookay...sound logic there... you carry on with your anger, just ignore completely the timeline of the events and focus on your revenge and you will be fine. :rolleyes:

No, not at all and :rolleyes: right back at you for having so little of an argument that you have to twist my words, then talk condescendingly to me for something I didn't even say. People are also suggesting that I'm defending the actions of the stag party. C'mon lads, you're the one's questioning people's intelligence, try and keep up with the actual point.

What I'm saying is that, if you feel this is proper behaviour and that she 'deserved' it, then I wonder if you'd feel the same if you were caught out similarly. Obviously I don't actually hope it happens to you, if I hate this kind of behaviour. But you're a dog and damnit, you want your bone!

But some of the behaviour here is just as scummy. Only where the 'scumbags' in question use their fists, the scumbags here sit behind their keyboard and let their little inadequacy issues run riot.

Again, sorry to ruin the party by adding some common sense to proceedings...

mikom

leggo wrote: »

Again, sorry to ruin the party by adding some common sense to proceedings...

Tks 4 dat.

noodler

You publicly try to sully the name of a hotel because you have poor information.

The hotel responds (via your chosen medium) with the correct information.

No sympathy.

donalg1

leggo wrote: »

No, not at all and :rolleyes: right back at you for having so little of an argument that you have to twist my words, then talk condescendingly to me for something I didn't even say. People are also suggesting that I'm defending the actions of the stag party. C'mon lads, you're the one's questioning people's intelligence, try and keep up with the actual point.

What I'm saying is that, if you feel this is proper behaviour and that she 'deserved' it, then I wonder if you'd feel the same if you were caught out similarly. Obviously I don't actually hope it happens to you, if I hate this kind of behaviour. But you're a dog and damnit, you want your bone!

But some of the behaviour here is just as scummy. Only where the 'scumbags' in question use their fists, the scumbags here sit behind their keyboard and let their little inadequacy issues run riot.

Again, sorry to ruin the party by adding some common sense to proceedings...

I didn't realise her intelligence was in question, it is quite clear she forgot to queue up when they were dishing out intelligence.

AEDIC

leggo wrote: »

No, not at all and :rolleyes: right back at you for having so little of an argument that you have to twist my words, then talk condescendingly to me for something I didn't even say. People are also suggesting that I'm defending the actions of the stag party. C'mon lads, you're the one's questioning people's intelligence, try and keep up with the actual point.

What I'm saying is that, if you feel this is proper behaviour and that she 'deserved' it, then I wonder if you'd feel the same if you were caught out similarly. Obviously I don't actually hope it happens to you, if I hate this kind of behaviour. But you're a dog and damnit, you want your bone!

But some of the behaviour here is just as scummy. Only where the 'scumbags' in question use their fists, the scumbags here sit behind their keyboard and let their little inadequacy issues run riot.

Again, sorry to ruin the party by adding some common sense to proceedings...

Oh really..... and I quote

'I hope that some of the smart arses who think ripping into her entire life now are caught out in a low moment to be openly ridiculed'

Perhaps if you had not been so angry and were too busy flailing about on the keyboard with your ire, you might have been able explain yourself properly, without wishing for (as above) like for like punishment.

Greyjoy

leggo wrote: »

"I am deeply sorry that you feel that way, however I believe you have been misled by the true events of the night. I would be willing to provide you with a full explanation and CCTV evidence to back that up if you would be willing to pursue this further. However, rest assured, that we were fully within our legal rights to decline the deposit and delivered our best service on the night in question, despite several problems with the party in question".



Job done. If she asks, in public, what the problems were specifically, THEN they can reveal all.

The hotel initially offered to contact her in private and give her their account of what actually happened but she ignored their offer and continued to slag off the hotel. She has no-one to blame but herself for looking like a fool.

Cienciano

leggo wrote: »

No, not at all and :rolleyes: right back at you for having so little of an argument that you have to twist my words, then talk condescendingly to me for something I didn't even say. People are also suggesting that I'm defending the actions of the stag party. C'mon lads, you're the one's questioning people's intelligence, try and keep up with the actual point.

What I'm saying is that, if you feel this is proper behaviour and that she 'deserved' it, then I wonder if you'd feel the same if you were caught out similarly. Obviously I don't actually hope it happens to you, if I hate this kind of behaviour. But you're a dog and damnit, you want your bone!

But some of the behaviour here is just as scummy. Only where the 'scumbags' in question use their fists, the scumbags here sit behind their keyboard and let their little inadequacy issues run riot.

Again, sorry to ruin the party by adding some common sense to proceedings...

I'm still waiting to see some of this common sense you think you added to proceedings.

Cantona's Collars

Imagine if she went on Joe Duffy to complain & he rang the hotel.......it's shocking Joe.

She went public without the full facts & deserves the reply she got from the hotel.

For anyone who can't/won't read txt spk.Here it is in all it's glory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vCYCWM2WU8

donalg1

zerks wrote: »

Imagine if she went on Joe Duffy to complain & he rang the hotel.......it's shocking Joe.

She went public without the full facts & deserves the reply she got from the hotel.

For anyone who can't/won't read txt spk.Here it is in all it's glory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vCYCWM2WU8

Brilliant, hope to god nobody leaves her in charge of anything for the wedding, could you imagine the mass booklet or table plan, even the table names.

Tis great that it is gone viral already god bless the power of the Internet.

That'll learn her.

Windchime

lol that link was so funny

Jesus Shaves

Story reeks of bull**** from the hotel
They knew the "lady" was brought back, how did they know the "lady" set off the smoke alarm and why was she only kicked out at half 6?
Why were the deposits taken off everyone when it was only 1 room that was involved.
If the guards were called why were the occupants not arrested for having "illegal substances".
Was anyone arrested at all? GBH and possession are very serious crimes.
Lots of things about it just don't make sense.

leggo

Greyjoy wrote: »

The hotel initially offered to contact her in private and give her their account of what actually happened but she ignored their offer and continued to slag off the hotel. She has no-one to blame but herself for looking like a fool.

Every day, I'll hear people making critiques of places that I'll be working in over price, quality of goods etc. Often good, sometimes bad. By going into business, you set yourself up to be judged by the public, you want to be judged...because then, hopefully, you'll be judged well and succeed.

That doesn't mean that you are entitled to ritualistically humiliate the offending person in public for the entertainment of others, even if their criticism isn't valid.

A customer, on the other hand, shouldn't be treated this way. They don't put themselves up for scrutiny in the same way the business does.

AEDIC wrote: »

Oh really..... and I quote

'I hope that some of the smart arses who think ripping into her entire life now are caught out in a low moment to be openly ridiculed'

Perhaps if you had not been so angry and were too busy flailing about on the keyboard with your ire, you might have been able explain yourself properly, without wishing for (as above) like for like punishment.

I do apologise that you were unable to read the subtext within that in your foaming-at-the-mouth fit of outrage at this young woman's Facebook comments. I do apologise if you read me saying, "I hate this behaviour," then saying, "I hope you go through this to see what it is like," in the same sentence and thought "HYPOCRISY!!!!"

Perhaps, I over-estimated your capacity for reading comprehension, in assuming that you would understand that I am not sitting at home, wishing and preying for you to be the next victim of the 'Internet justice' mob. That I was making that point for the sole purpose of putting anyone reading in this woman's shoes and juxtaposing how she'll be feeling now versus how little she'd actually done wrong, in the grand scheme. I thought that would be made perfectly clear by my initial disagreement with this kind of behaviour, but then there was you, AEDIC...

I gave you too much credit by not making that absolutely clear. That is my fault. I apologise.

noodler wrote: »

You publicly try to sully the name of a hotel because you have poor information.

The hotel responds (via your chosen medium) with the correct information.

No sympathy.

There's a difference between giving someone sympathy and participating in a campaign to spread and ritualistically mock someone's entire person, though. It's not an either/or reflex.

Sempai

It's kicking off on their facebook page as well. Her sister has made a few comments

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Treacys-Hotel-Waterford/146785665385265

Duggys Housemate

leggo wrote: »

You seem quite upset...time for a lie down perhaps?

This stuff, genuinely, makes me angry. This isn't some reality TV schmo or the like who's put herself up for public scrutiny and possible humiliation. This is an Average Joe who has to deal with the problems and limitations that we all do. Yet the Internet doesn't make that distinction when its bored and looking for a thing to click, point and, then, laugh. It's pathetic.

haminka wrote: »

She decided to start it by defaming a hotel in the open. She threatened to smear their good name among her friends and go to the media with her story about that hotel taking their customers' money and provide no service in return.
The fact is that the form she chose makes her look like an idiot. Her written communication is poor and looks like a bad imitation of a gangsta rapper.
She decided to wrongly accuse and threaten a hotel in times when good name means everything and where venues are doing their best to keep a loyal base of customers. They defended their good name in a very polite and decent way.
She has to bear responsibility for her own actions.

And here's one way of handling that professionally:

I am deeply sorry that you feel that way, however I believe you have been misled by the true events of the night. I would be willing to provide you with a full explanation and CCTV evidence to back that up if you would be willing to pursue this further. However, rest assured, that we were fully within our legal rights to decline the deposit and delivered our best service on the night in question, despite several problems with the party in question.

Job done. If she asks, in public, what the problems were specifically, THEN they can reveal all.

But the Internet doesn't want this. Why? Not because of the BS "Fair play to them!" plaudits they laud upon the hotel. Because they're bored and, truth be told, a little low on themselves and could use a gee up of being able to mock and laugh at somebody else.

And, as bad as her attempt at spelling was, that's just as sad.

And look at you mocking them. While I don't like the Internet mob on twitter, here people are mostly defending the hotel. I think her spelling is off topic a bit.

You misunderstand and misrepresent the Hotel's position. Once complained about in a public forum they have a right, and a duty to their business in terms if it's "brand" or goodwill to defend themselves. Imagine she had gone on Joe Duffy, would it not be clear that the hotel could then come on and explain the entire story, rather that make allusions to some CC tv footage, and they wouldn't like to say. Anything you put your name to is public. She dished it out and the hotel defended itself.

AEDIC

leggo wrote: »

That is my fault. I apologise.QUOTE]

no need to apologise...just get it right next time.

celt262

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

Story reeks of bull**** from the hotel
They knew the "lady" was brought back, how did they know the "lady" set off the smoke alarm and why was she only kicked out at half 6?
Why were the deposits taken off everyone when it was only 1 room that was involved.
If the guards were called why were the occupants not arrested for having "illegal substances".
Was anyone arrested at all? GBH and possession are very serious crimes.
Lots of things about it just don't make sense.

100% agree there is more or less to this than the hotel is letting on.

Boombastic

Seems like the wedding is still on according to her sister the stag probably wasn't in the hotel, never mind the room :pac:


Gullible

mauzo

Sempai wrote: »

It's kicking off on their facebook page as well. Her sister has made a few comments

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Treacys-Hotel-Waterford/146785665385265

That is gas, someone should tell them to have some tact and just drop it! Half the country is laughing at them

celt262

Boombastic wrote: »

Seems like the wedding is still on according to her sister the stag probably wasn't in the hotel, never mind the room :pac:


Gullible

Prob down the street in another hotel balls deep in some young one who was on a hen

Duggys Housemate

Jesus Shaves wrote: »

Story reeks of bull**** from the hotel
They knew the "lady" was brought back, how did they know the "lady" set off the smoke alarm and why was she only kicked out at half 6?
Why were the deposits taken off everyone when it was only 1 room that was involved.
If the guards were called why were the occupants not arrested for having "illegal substances".
Was anyone arrested at all? GBH and possession are very serious crimes.
Lots of things about it just don't make sense.

Presumably most of the guys were in the room at 1 am. Who knows why she wasn't kicked out, probably because it isn't easy to oppose 17 drunk guys, hence the 6am time when she was kicked out the guards had to be called. And she resisted even then. as for arrests the Gardai never bother with small offences or possession. Judges never convict.

Jesus Shaves

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Presumably most of the guys were in the room at 1 am. Who knows why she wasn't kicked out, probably because it isn't easy to oppose 17 drunk guys, hence the 6am time when she was kicked out the guards had to be called. And she resisted even then. as for arrests the Gardai never bother with small offences or possession. Judges never convict.

assaulting someone is a serious crime, anyone caught wait drugs gets a criminal record, there's definitely more to this story than is being told

leggo

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

And look at you mocking them. While I don't like the Internet mob on twitter, here people are mostly defending the hotel. I think her spelling is off topic a bit.

You misunderstand and misrepresent the Hotel's position. Once complained about in a public forum they have a right, and a duty to their business in terms if it's "brand" or goodwill to defend themselves. Imagine she had gone on Joe Duffy, would it not be clear that the hotel could then come on and explain the entire story, rather that make allusions to some CC tv footage, and they wouldn't like to say. Anything you put your name to is public. She dished it out and the hotel defended itself.

I agree that they should have defended themselves. The behaviour was clearly appalling and her complaint ill-informed. She'd obviously been lied to and, like most people would, assumed that her loved one was telling the truth.

However, there's a line and the hotel crossed it. The reason I alluded to CCTV in my own suggested reply was that it gets across that you may have a legitimate reason that the woman clearly doesn't know about and evidence to back it up. She'll either calm down, continue to complain or ask what the evidence is. If she does the latter publicly, then and only then is it fair game to reveal all.

She did the middle option, so they should've just blocked her from the page and been done with it. The damage will be minimal since she's no massive scope of influence. It'll probably discourage her own social circle from visiting the hotel, but that's probably a good thing.

It was an incredibly low blow to do what they did publicly, especially since this woman was clearly ill-informed, which should've always been an absolute last resort.

That's the difference here. It's not an A or B situation, there's a standard customer service procedure to follow and they jumped the gun.

Cantona's Collars

From the hotel's fb page,

We would like to thank everybody for the recent support given to us. We have since removed the comments regarding the stag party instead of letting the matter continue. We felt we needed to state the facts of that night rather than see our name sullied.

We would like to conclude on the matter. We are a family run hotel and cater for families of all ages. As a professional business we are duty bound to provide our guests with a comfortable and safe nights sleep.

Samich

PS, this savage publicity for the hotel.

mikom

God help the children is all I say.
If the gene pool don't get them the upbringing will.

AnonoBoy

Hilarious debate ongoing on the hotel's facebook page. Some friend or sister of the initial woman is having a go at everyone. "I'd rather sound like a twat than look like one."

She's also calling someone who looked at the initial girl's page a crazy stalker bitch.

ArmaniJeanss

Looking at the hotels trip advisor reviews, they seem to come out very aggressively against any criticism.

http://www.tripadvisor.ie/ShowUserReviews-g186638-d505003-r124201815-Treacys_Hotel_Waterford-Waterford_County_Waterford.html

Taxi driver describes hotel as a bit of a kip wheres there is regular trouble and the hotel has been 'looking to track down this taxi driver' and hoping that someone will pass on his details.
Strikes me that they don't take criticism well at all, and I'd be dubious whether they were as concillatory in the background of the stag-gate case as they are making out.

I'm striking them off my list of potential hotels anyway, seems something not quite right about them.