Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Traveller sues hotel for not having enough security for wedding

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    seamus wrote: »
    No, I don't think so. The comments of a single traveller in a court case wouldn't be that wide-reaching.

    However, it might mean there is provision for hotels to include expensive security services as part of a wedding package, or ask for a five-figure security deposit for traveller weddings.

    I can see how discrimination of this kind could be defensible by claiming that a traveller wedding is "high-risk" and therefore they're justified in asking for a large refundable deposit.
    thats a possibility, all though a simple change to the law should get rid of that?

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #63
    abff
    Registered Users Posts: 5,730 ✭✭✭abff


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This case was not dismissed for being frivolous or vexatious.

    To make lawyers responsible for losing cases is ridiculous, like making doctors liable for patients who don't succeed in getting better. Of course they may be, if there is negligence, but not fir simply taking on a matter.

    I don't think that's at all comparable. It would be more akin to a doctor performing a totally unnecessary and extremely expensive procedure.

    I'm not saying that lawyers should be responsible for every case they lose. I just think it would be nice if there was some financial disincentive that might inhibit their apparent willingness to take on ridiculous cases.

    But I know it's never going to happen.


  • Options
    #64
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    galljga1 wrote: »
    I would say no. If the case had been successfull, it probably would. The hotel industry should have allowed this hotel to settle the case. Then they would have a right enshrined in law to refuse to cater for our lovely travelling brethren.
    they may not. or if so, i should imagine the laws would be changed rather quickly.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #65
    dd972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭dd972


    Good to see the Travellers are back after the Gay events of last week, why not combine the two and have threads about Gay Travellers...:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #66
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    If these fracas are part and parcel of a traveller wedding, is it OK to charge travellers more to host the wedding? Same question with damage deposit.
    could be a gray area.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    end of the road wrote: »
    because the hotels can get away with it. shut a few of them down and ban the owners from holding any similar licences and we'l see then

    Don't blame them for closing down on the day. It's an increased chance of fracas and damage to your premises. Hard on decent travelers but it's their livelihood.

    Do you honestly think most businesses would turn down good trade on the basis of racism?


  • Options
    #68
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It may have been key to the decision by the Plaintiff to proceed.

    Clearly it was not key to the decision.

    The decision would have been the same had the victim been old, young, Irish, not Irish, traveller, not traveller, gay, straight or whatever. What the Plaintiff was obviously trying to do was to use his traveller status to suggest the duty of care increased, this was rejected.

    It was the basis for his whole case.

    The decision rejects the basis for his case.

    The rejection of his case, the refusal to accept the fact that it was a traveller wedding as a reason to beef up security is a decision.

    It was key to the decision, because it was basis for the decision.
    The whole thing turned around travellers.


  • Options
    #69
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    SeanW wrote: »
    Sure. Conceal the key facts of the case, hide the cause and the explanation for the whole incident, just to serve some liberal leftist agenda.
    "a liberal leftist agenda"

    how about to serve the fact "its not ****ing relevant"

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #70
    Patser
    Registered Users Posts: 7,963 ✭✭✭Patser


    dd972 wrote: »
    Good to see the Travellers are back after the Gay events of last week, why not combine the two and have threads about Gay Travellers...:rolleyes:

    After last week we can now have threads about gay Traveller weddings.

    The fracas will be fabulous.


  • Options
    #71
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Hans Bricks wrote: »
    Some people don't simply want to hear it. It ain't politically correct, so hush up and embrace the tummy warming diversity you've all been gifted in the form of riotous traveller functions.
    more wannabe hard done by victim nonsense as per. political correctness being a myth has nothing to do with this.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    MathDebater
    Registered Users Posts: 958 ✭✭✭MathDebater


    silverfeather wrote: »
    Why not just say man sues? What has his ethnic background got to do with it? 'Man Sues'.

    Why say man? Why bring his gender into it? Fcuk sake. The chap brought his ethnic background into play when his claim was based on fights being part and parcel of traveller weddings so the hotel should have brought in security staff accordingly.


  • Options
    #73
    dialer
    Registered Users Posts: 41 ✭dialer


    He clearly lost his case. I wonder who now is left to pay the defence costs, as i would imagine he went with free legal aid.


  • Options
    #74
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The_Minister wrote: »
    It was the basis for his whole case.

    The decision rejects the basis for his case...
    ...
    ...
    The whole thing turned around travellers.

    You had it, for two whole sentences it was flawless...and then you got it completely wrong for the last line!

    The decision did not turn around travellers. The decision said the Plaintiff failed to make the case that a duty of care existed. That is all. Not accepting an argument is very different to accepting an argument and a decision turning on it.


  • Options
    #75
    Sociopath2
    Registered Users Posts: 242 ✭✭Sociopath2


    end of the road wrote: »
    more wannabe hard done by victim nonsense as per. political correctness being a myth has nothing to do with this.

    When you have travellers claiming traveller weddings inevitably lead to violent fracas, saying they don't really is political correctness.

    We know it, they admit it, pick your battles wisely.


  • Options
    #76
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    anncoates wrote: »
    Don't blame them for closing down on the day. It's an increased chance of fracas and damage to your premises. Hard on decent travelers but it's their livelihood.

    Do you honestly think most businesses would turn down good trade on the basis of racism?

    if businesses do it on the basis of someone being gay then why not for other similar reasons. mind you businesses don't get away with refusing custom because a person is gay. its a lively hood they chose to get into knowing the risks. not everyone behaves themselves thats reality. don't go into that industry if you can't take the heat

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #77
    Sociopath2
    Registered Users Posts: 242 ✭✭Sociopath2


    end of the road wrote: »
    if businesses do it on the basis of someone being gay then why not for other similar reasons. mind you businesses don't get away with refusing custom because a person is gay. its a lively hood they chose to get into knowing the risks. not everyone behaves themselves thats reality. don't go into that industry if you can't take the heat

    We're not talking about someone having a few too many drinks. These are violent incidents where weapons are produced and people, including staff and bystanders are seriously injured.

    That is unacceptable by any standards.


  • Options
    #78
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    abff wrote: »
    I don't think that's at all comparable. It would be more akin to a doctor performing a totally unnecessary and extremely expensive procedure.

    I'm not saying that lawyers should be responsible for every case they lose. I just think it would be nice if there was some financial disincentive that might inhibit their apparent willingness to take on ridiculous cases.

    But I know it's never going to happen.

    It will never happen because common sense dictates that lawyers should not be made liable where clients lose, unless they are negligent. There is so much wrong with that that it's hard to know where to start.


  • Options
    #79
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Sociopath2 wrote: »
    When you have travellers claiming traveller weddings inevitably lead to violent fracas, saying they don't really is political correctness.

    We know it, they admit it, pick your battles wisely.
    no its not. political correctness is a myth. it doesn't exist. simply

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #80
    FionnK86
    Registered Users Posts: 1,201 ✭✭✭FionnK86


    Lumville House is my local, and the two or three people that ran it are the loveliest people going. I never heard about this before and it's awful. Good enough for him to lose the case. The Curragh and its immediate surroundings have been destroyed by Traveller "Culture".


  • Options
    #81
    Sociopath2
    Registered Users Posts: 242 ✭✭Sociopath2


    end of the road wrote: »
    no its not. political correctness is a myth. it doesn't exist. simply

    It does, you're a prime example of it.

    Claiming hoteliers should accept assaults on their staff and damage to their premises by travellers because it's part of the "heat" of the industry? An outrageous thing to say.

    Clearly you have had no experience of anything you talk about


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    end of the road wrote: »
    if businesses do it on the basis of someone being gay then why not for other similar reasons. mind you businesses don't get away with refusing custom because a person is gay. its a lively hood they chose to get into knowing the risks. not everyone behaves themselves thats reality. don't go into that industry if you can't take the heat

    If exclusively gay social gatherings were far more likely to wreck the place and attack each other with meat hooks, maybe that would be a better comparison.

    Like I said, It's hard on decent travelers but I don't really blame businesses for trying to quietly avoid traveler weddings and funerals as opposed obviously to, say, something like asking one or two travelers to leave a premises, for example.


  • Options
    #83
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Sociopath2 wrote: »
    We're not talking about someone having a few too many drinks. These are violent incidents where weapons are produced and people, including staff and bystanders are seriously injured.

    That is unacceptable by any standards.
    again, people not behaving themselves is the risk one takes when operating a business that deals with the public. if you refuse someone on the basis of them from being from a particular community then you get shut down, thats how it should be. if you refuse someone who has caused trouble on your premisys before, or someone who is a well known trouble maker and there is actual evidence of it, then that is completely different.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #84
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Sociopath2 wrote: »
    It does, you're a prime example of it.

    Claiming hoteliers should accept assaults on their staff and damage to their premises by travellers because it's part of the "heat" of the industry? An outrageous thing to say.

    Clearly you have had no experience of anything you talk about
    have i not? if you refuse someone on the basis of them being a traveler then you deserve to be put out of business. end of.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #85
    demanufactured
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,756 ✭✭✭demanufactured


    Sound like a lovely bunch of lads.


  • Options
    #86
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    anncoates wrote: »
    If exclusively gay social gatherings were far more likely to wreck the place and attack each other with meat hooks, maybe that would be a better comparison.

    Like I said, It's hard on decent travelers but I don't really blame businesses for trying to quietly avoid traveler weddings and funerals as opposed obviously to, say, something like asking one or two travelers to leave a premises, for example.
    well you should blame them. they are breaking anti-discrimination laws so they need to be forced not to do so

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #87
    Sociopath2
    Registered Users Posts: 242 ✭✭Sociopath2


    end of the road wrote: »
    again, people not behaving themselves is the risk one takes when operating a business that deals with the public. if you refuse someone on the basis of them from being from a particular community then you get shut down, thats how it should be. if you refuse someone who has caused trouble on your premisys before, or someone who is a well known trouble maker and there is actual evidence of it, then that is completely different.

    It's not a risk any business has to take. They won't be shut down for doing it either. It happens on a weekly basis around the country and is absolutely necessary for people to protect their businesses. It will continue to happen no matter how much deluded individuals like yourself bleat about rights.

    When you have travellers themselves claiming that violence is inevitable at traveller weddings then it's time to admit there's a lot of truth in it.


  • Options
    #88
    Hans Bricks
    Registered Users Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hans Bricks


    end of the road wrote: »
    no its not. political correctness is a myth. it doesn't exist. simply

    Do you have Asperger's syndrome or something ? You repeat this simple, unadulterated ****e on every thread whenever opportunity presents itself. Almost word for word every time.

    Yeah. Simple alright.


  • Options
    #89
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Sociopath2 wrote: »
    When you have travellers themselves claiming that violence is inevitable at traveller weddings then it's time to admit there's a lot of truth in it.

    Ah come on now, a person presenting a witness to advance their case is hardly proposing some universal truth on the part of a group consisting of tens of thousands.


  • Options
    #90
    Not G.R
    Registered Users Posts: 509 ✭✭✭Not G.R


    Ah lads, it's just the 99% making the 1% look bad.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Sociopath2
    Registered Users Posts: 242 ✭✭Sociopath2


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Ah come on now, a person presenting a witness to advance their case is hardly proposing some universal truth on the part of a group consisting of tens of thousands.

    No there's no absolutes in there but it is a member of the group that claims such views are stereotypical, proposing that actually those views are well grounded in reality. It carries a lot more weight than a hotelier claiming the same thing.

    No universal truths there but more weight added to the widely held view that such behaviour is typical of traveller weddings.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement