Refused entry to clarehall shopping

npride

So I went up to Clare s.c the other day and as I approached the main entrance I was confronted by the security guard who would not let me in as a deemed my trousers were too low and was in breach of a dress code they have in place.
I subsequently called management and they failed to back this up that there is a policy on how high or low your tele needs to be.

Now am thinkin of goin to my solicitor as i think this guy just wanted to abuse bis power and hsve a go at someone but before I do so just lookin for the general consensus in this?

Any feedback would be much appreciated

johnnyskeleton

npride wrote: »

So I went up to Clare s.c the other day and as I approached the main entrance I was confronted by the security guard who would not let me in as a deemed my trousers were too low and was in breach of a dress code they have in place.
I subsequently called management and they failed to back this up that there is a policy on how high or low your tele needs to be.

Now am thinkin of goin to my solicitor as i think this guy just wanted to abuse bis power and hsve a go at someone but before I do so just lookin for the general consensus in this?

Any feedback would be much appreciated

I think you should go to your solicitor and see what he/she says. Best of luck.

APM

So what exactly are you looking to get out of going to a solicitor?

mitosis

They can refuse entry. Most big shops have a policy in writing which lists things like footwear, shirts etc, but it is not exhaustive. I'd go to a solicitor if it wasn't going to cost me time or money, but wouldn't expect to be in a position to sue the centre.

npride

Fact of the name matter I would have let this go if he had been professional about and not accused me of wearing "offensive clothing". I had a Tshirt,jeans,belt and runners and I had just been in the shop 29 mins prior to this and was only returning as I forgot something. It's me local shop and am there almost every second since it was build and have never had any issues until this guy decided to flashes his badge around. And to make it worse he was rude and arrogant about it.

Esoteric_

Well, WERE your trousers low? I've seen them refuse lads with their trousers hanging off of their arse plenty of times before, and they refused me once when I was drunk (at like 3am) and had taken my heels off. I apologised, put my heels on, and they were happy to let me in. It's not an abuse of power, it's their standard dress code policy.

What's a solicitor going to do, in fairness? It's not like you have anything to sue over.

Pro Hoc Vice

A shopping centre with a dress code ffs. I would turn around and never darken their door again, I have never heard the like of it seriously what a stupid idea.

Dubl07

We're in a recession and we all have to tighten our belts.

npride

And that's my rxact point my jeans were at a decent, respectable height just as I would wear them any other day of the week. Am not takin it further for financial gain but it's too often that these security guards think they're bigger than what their job description actually entails and that is to serve and police public/private premises and not intimidate people on their personal preference.

This guy just Ddn like the look of Me Because there is nothin in the policy/dress code of clarehall s.c that states trousers height is forbidden at any time or at anyone's discretion and when I called management the next mornin they could not comprehend why their officer had an issue with this. Now my mate who was present at the time of the incident worked as a store detective for 3 years was also baffled by this and he confirms that no security guard is allowed to refuse anyone entry based on appearance because it then becomes unlawful discrimination.

Now most people are clever enough to refuse you entry and not give you specific reason as happen in most nightclubs but this guy clearly hasn't a brain cell in his skull and decided to invent his own rule on the spot which then makes his reason for refusal invalid

Esoteric_

npride wrote: »

And that's my rxact point my jeans were at a decent, respectable height just as I would wear them any other day of the week. Am not takin it further for financial gain but it's too often that these security guards think they're bigger than what their job description actually entails and that is to serve and police public/private premises and not intimidate people on their personal preference.

This guy just Ddn like the look of Me Because there is nothin in the policy/dress code of clarehall s.c that states trousers height is forbidden at any time or at anyone's discretion and when I called management the next mornin they could not comprehend why their officer had an issue with this. Now my mate who was present at the time of the incident worked as a store detective for 3 years was also baffled by this and he confirms that no security guard is allowed to refuse anyone entry based on appearance because it then becomes unlawful discrimination.

Now most people are clever enough to refuse you entry and not give you specific reason as happen in most nightclubs but this guy clearly hasn't a brain cell in his skull and decided to invent his own rule on the spot which then makes his reason for refusal invalid

Unlawful discrimination has nothing to do with how you dress, it's unlawful discrimination when things like gender, sexuality, religion, race, etc come into it.

They reserve the right to refuse admission, so they refused. Your best bet would be sending a registered letter to the manager of Clare Hall Shopping Centre, detailing what happened.

Pro Hoc Vice

npride wrote: »

And that's my rxact point my jeans were at a decent, respectable height just as I would wear them any other day of the week. Am not takin it further for financial gain but it's too often that these security guards think they're bigger than what their job description actually entails and that is to serve and police public/private premises and not intimidate people on their personal preference.

This guy just Ddn like the look of Me Because there is nothin in the policy/dress code of clarehall s.c that states trousers height is forbidden at any time or at anyone's discretion and when I called management the next mornin they could not comprehend why their officer had an issue with this. Now my mate who was present at the time of the incident worked as a store detective for 3 years was also baffled by this and he confirms that no security guard is allowed to refuse anyone entry based on appearance because it then becomes unlawful discrimination.

Now most people are clever enough to refuse you entry and not give you specific reason as happen in most nightclubs but this guy clearly hasn't a brain cell in his skull and decided to invent his own rule on the spot which then makes his reason for refusal invalid

Your friend is wrong in Ireland you can not discriminate only on certain grounds, sex, age, sexual orientation etc. full list here http://www.basis.ie/home/home.jsp?pcategory=12823&ecategory=12826&doclistid=12828&language=EN&link=link001&doc=11969&logname=The%209%20Grounds%20on%20which%20Discrimination%20is%20Unlawful%20are any other reason fair game hair colour, eye colour or really bad dress all ok.

In relation to you problem what exactly is a solicitor going to do for you? I'm not really sure its defamation (it would be a push) its not an equality issue, maybe a contract issue but really doubt it.

0ph0rce0

What style are we talking here.

Rocker?Hip hop type clothes hanging off your hole?

or

Posh boy with bet on jeans and having to show your cool colorful boxers cause its cool?


If its the second one, I hope the security slaps you next time

npride

Esoteric_ wrote: »

Unlawful discrimination has nothing to do with how you dress, it's unlawful discrimination when things like gender, sexuality, religion, race, etc come into it.

They reserve the right to refuse admission, so they refused. Your best bet would be sending a registered letter to the manager of Clare Hall Shopping Centre, detailing what happened.

Yes every premises reserves the right to refuse admission I am in no way disputing that. Now if he would told me your not getting in because I can refuse you entry and left it at that and not given me a reason there would hav bee. Nothin I can. But his mistake waa makin up a false dress code and accusing me of bein in breach of it. His view on what i was wearin bein inappropriate and offensive was clearly personal.

UDP

npride wrote: »

And that's my rxact point my jeans were at a decent, respectable height just as I would wear them any other day of the week. Am not takin it further for financial gain but it's too often that these security guards think they're bigger than what their job description actually entails and that is to serve and police public/private premises and not intimidate people on their personal preference.

This guy just Ddn like the look of Me Because there is nothin in the policy/dress code of clarehall s.c that states trousers height is forbidden at any time or at anyone's discretion and when I called management the next mornin they could not comprehend why their officer had an issue with this. Now my mate who was present at the time of the incident worked as a store detective for 3 years was also baffled by this and he confirms that no security guard is allowed to refuse anyone entry based on appearance because it then becomes unlawful discrimination.

Now most people are clever enough to refuse you entry and not give you specific reason as happen in most nightclubs but this guy clearly hasn't a brain cell in his skull and decided to invent his own rule on the spot which then makes his reason for refusal invalid

The security guard did not break any laws here so you wont get very far with your solicitor. I worked in that shopping centre for a few years and there were lots of scumbags in the area so they try to keep them out wherever possible. Not an easy job for them.

npride

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

What style are we talking here.

Rocker?Hip hop type clothes hanging off your hole?

or

Posh boy with bet on jeans and having to show your cool colorful boxers cause its cool?


If its the second one, I hope the security slaps you next time

Neither of the above. Just your regular clothing and what I don't get is I was walking towards him( so front facing) so how on gods green earth was he able to see what was on show behind me and my friend worked for a very well known high street street fashion company in the d.2 area and he had to let people crawl in with all sorts of clothing and hygiene once they were not under the influence of any substances at that time

Carawaystick

If a consumer had an issue with a product they bought off a merchant in the centre and the security prevented the consumer excercising their consumer rights; would the consumer have any recourse?

LoveCoke

Esoteric_ wrote: »

Unlawful discrimination has nothing to do with how you dress, it's unlawful discrimination when things like gender, sexuality, religion, race, etc come into it.

They reserve the right to refuse admission, so they refused. Your best bet would be sending a registered letter to the manager of Clare Hall Shopping Centre, detailing what happened.

true but if for example they banned someone because of their gender etc do they have to say why

Sulla Felix

Carawaystick wrote: »

If a consumer had an issue with a product they bought off a merchant in the centre and the security prevented the consumer excercising their consumer rights; would the consumer have any recourse?

Pretty sure if you were excluded once, threw a fit and wrote to the manager and contacted the store in question and were then let in, there wouldn't be a case to answer.
And that's almost exactly how it would go down.

npride

Just as a follow up I have consulted this with my solicitor and she strongly feels that there is case here of defamation due to the fact that there were a number of onlookers and locals who would know who I am hence causing a huge amount of undue embarrassment and false accusation of being in breach of a non existing policy.

JustAThought

npride wrote: »

Just as a follow I have consulted this with my solicitor and she strongly feels that there is case here of defamation due to the fact that there wee a number of onlookers and locals who would know who I am hence causing a huge amount of undue embarrassment and false accusation of being in breach of a non existing policy.

They let a fierce amount of scobies in there -knackers straight off their horses, obese belly flappers in leggings & bikini tops, not to mention the great unwashed. You must have been some state to be refused.

You know you can't settle in a no-win-no -fee.

And you did see the waste of space dirty dancing case that had the e100,000 costs awarded against her this week for slipping on water & cutting her arm/3months off work.

Looks like a Return to less tolerance of scobie cases.

You can be sure they have a policy in place.

More luck to them.

Have you considered that you might be done for indecency .lots of children in there. Ever been accused of indecent exposure to minors before? Or corrupting minors?

Trousers off yer arse I hear?

npride

JustAThought wrote: »

They let a fierce amount of scobies in there -knackers straight off their horses, obese belly flappers in leggings & bikini tops, not to mention the great unwashed. You must have been some state to be refused.

You know you can't settle in a no-win-no -fee.

And you did see the waste of space dirty dancing case that had the e100,000 costs awarded against her this week for slipping on water & cutting her arm/3months off work.

Looks like a Return to less tolerance of scobie cases.

You can be sure they have a policy in place.

More luck to them.

Have you considered that you might be done for indecency .lots of children in there. Ever been accused of indecent exposure to minors before? Or corrupting minors?

Trousers off yer arse I hear?

And that's the exact point everyone in this post are missing. My trousers were perfectly fine. And there are witnesses and cameras to confirm this.. Now had he received a report of me offending someone and acted upon it that' would have been a different story. Pictures were taken of exactly what I was wearin that night and this is clothing I would wear to work and have worrn plenty of time to this place and nothin as ever been said.

But alright I asked for the publics opinion and I guess the general consensus is that if someone with a bit of authority decides to do what they want were just to sit back and take it. This is the exact attitude that's brought our country to its knees lettin these white collar criminals draft up absurd policies and bump up taxes as they feel and we as a nation don't have the balls to stand up to them!

downonthefarm

ah i got refused in the blacker one night,got over it

npride

downonthefarm wrote: »

ah i got refused in the blacker one night,got over it

Good man

downonthefarm

dont take it personally op

moc moc a moc

The management of this shopping centre have no more obligation to let the likes of you into their establishment than you have to let any random punter off the street into your home. It's private property, so their rules apply.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, the case of the wagon trying to sue Coppers over nothing important goes to show that the judges of this country take a dim view of frivolous lawsuits (thankfully). Go ahead and attempt legal action - you're more likely to end up having to pay their legal fees than getting anything out of it for yourself.

And pull your pants up, you look ridiculous.

jessiblah

I've been stared completely out of it by one of the security in there before. They're mad. It makes you so paranoid! (My friends and I just want our chocolate like) Especially when they talk into their walkie talkies while looking at you. Maybe they were discussing my jeans too? Whether to kick me out or not as my high waisted jeans are too high? :P I'd love to see if they could do that!

OP, did you pull up your jeans to get in or just leave?

ardle1

moc moc a moc wrote: »

The management of this shopping centre have no more obligation to let the likes of you into their establishment than you have to let any random punter off the street into your home. It's private property, so their rules apply.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, the case of the wagon trying to sue Coppers over nothing important goes to show that the judges of this country take a dim view of frivolous lawsuits (thankfully). Go ahead and attempt legal action - you're more likely to end up having to pay their legal fees than getting anything out of it for yourself.

And pull your pants up, you look ridiculous.

Yeah I felt sorry for her, she even wore her big sun glasses to the court hearings...

npride

In all fairness all I wanted was some sour cream and I would have probably slept on the couch had I returned home without it as a punishment from my mrs.

But as I said am not doing it for financial gain. I've got a brother who works as a security guard for over 10 years and a friend who worked as a store detective abd would know the ins and outs of the trade. So I wudn just blindly go into a solicitors office for the sake of it. But keep your views comin folks

MadsL

npride wrote: »

In all fairness all I wanted was some sour cream and I would have probably slept on the couch had I returned home without it as a punishment from my mrs.

But as I said am not doing it for financial gain. I've got a brother who works as a security guard for over 10 years and a friend who worked as a store detective abd would know the ins and outs of the trade. So I wudn just blindly go into a solicitors office for the sake of it. But keep your views comin folks

I'd pay to see this case streamed on the interwebs.

Esoteric_

downonthefarm wrote: »

ah i got refused in the blacker one night,got over it

How the FCUK did you get refused from the Blacker? They let everyone in, even me. :pac:

godtabh

npride wrote: »

But as I said am not doing it for financial gain.

Thats good as chances are the costs against you for bring a frivolous lawsuits will be high.

Pat Mustard

JustAThought wrote: »

You know you can't settle in a no-win-no -fee.

A 'No win no fee' arrangement means that the solicitor won't charge a solicitor-client professional fee unless the action wins or settles. It does not mean that the parties to the action can't settle.

JustAThought wrote: »

And you did see the waste of space dirty dancing case that had the e100,000 costs awarded against her this week for slipping on water & cutting her arm/3months off work.

First, that lady fractured her arm. It's not like she just scratched it.

Secondly, the reason that her case was unsuccessful was because she couldn't prove that the nightclub was negligent and that her injuries were caused by such negligence. Although she could prove that parts of the floor were wet, she couldn't prove that the floor was slippery on the specific part of the floor where she was dancing.
Link.

Mr Justice Sean Ryan said this was an “unfortunate” accident but he could not find Ms O’Connell’s injuries could be attributed to a slippery floor and he therefore could not find the nightclub was negligent.

JustAThought wrote: »

Looks like a Return to less tolerance of scobie cases.

There isn't anything new about weak cases not succeeding. There isn't anything new about costs being awarded against unsuccessful litigants either.

npride

The Mustard wrote: »

A 'No win no fee' arrangement means that the solicitor won't charge a solicitor-client professional fee unless the action wins or settles. It does not mean that the parties to the action can't settle.


First, that lady fractured her arm. It's not like she just scratched it.

Secondly, the reason that her case was unsuccessful was because she couldn't prove that the nightclub was negligent and that her injuries were caused by such negligence. Although she could prove that parts of the floor were wet, she couldn't prove that the floor was slippery on the specific part of the floor where she was dancing.
Link.




There isn't anything new about weak cases not succeeding. There isn't anything new about costs being awarded against unsuccessful litigants either.

Half the people on this are clueless anyway and only go on personal opinion rather than giving an educated and informed view..

That's just the beauty of freedom of speech hay.

godtabh

npride wrote: »

Half the people on this are clueless anyway and only go on personal opinion rather than giving an educated and informed view..

Hence why we have something called solicitors.

Victor

infosys wrote: »

Your friend is wrong in Ireland you can not discriminate only on certain grounds, sex, age, sexual orientation etc. full list here http://www.basis.ie/home/home.jsp?pcategory=12823&ecategory=12826&doclistid=12828&language=EN&link=link001&doc=11969&logname=The%209%20Grounds%20on%20which%20Discrimination%20is%20Unlawful%20are any other reason fair game hair colour, eye colour or really bad dress all ok.

In relation to you problem what exactly is a solicitor going to do for you? I'm not really sure its defamation (it would be a push) its not an equality issue, maybe a contract issue but really doubt it.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but realise that eye and hair colours can be proxies for skin colour. Have you seen many (natural) red-haired, blue-eyed Africans or Asians?

Carawaystick wrote: »

If a consumer had an issue with a product they bought off a merchant in the centre and the security prevented the consumer excercising their consumer rights; would the consumer have any recourse?

You could lawyer up and fix your trousers.

Carawaystick

Victor wrote: »

I understand the point you are trying to make, but realise that eye and hair colours can be proxies for skin colour. Have you seen many (natural) red-haired, blue-eyed Africans or Asians?

I ate at a boer family farm and they were all freckledy gingers....
between Caledon and Riversondend

Some of the best looking women I've seen were Iranian and blue eyed.
Would have completely messed with some austrian regarding who the Ayrian are.