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

So 4 travellers walk into a bar.....

Options
24567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    seachto7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,863 ✭✭✭seachto7


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    See the difference here is they get free legal aid....

    They get the best of legal council and an ordinary hard worker would be laughed at.

    Simple really don't serve as you believe they are intoxicated already...

    Don't get into religion or appearances etc.

    Has anyone from the settled community ever taken a similar case? "Regulars only".


  • Options
    #33
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    riffmongous wrote: »
    I wonder which pub it was, some of them are pretty big so it'd be obvious they are ****ting

    The Roost. And the manager in question has already been moved to another Fitzgerald pub but I'm sure that's coincidence.


  • Options
    #34
    SteM
    Registered Users Posts: 6,555 ✭✭✭SteM


    I used drop into a city center pub, that has since closed, for a few pints after work now and again. The amount of times they refused travellers was amazing to me. The worst excuse I heard was 'sorry lads, locals only tonight' while a German and an Italian tourist sat at the very small bar arguing about football.


  • Options
    #35
    JustShay
    Registered Users Posts: 151 ✭✭JustShay


    jmayo wrote: »
    I don't think people should be discriminated against for who they are.

    They are pure and utter scumbags.
    seachto7 wrote: »
    If they have history of being scumbags, then fair enough.

    All travellers have a history. They steal perfume for a living and re-sell it. It is happening every day and will continue to happen. They need to be extinct to fix the issue!

    Mod note:Banned.


  • Options
    #36
    manonboard
    Registered Users Posts: 1,102 ✭✭✭manonboard


    JustShay wrote: »
    jmayo wrote: »
    I don't think people should be discriminated against for who they are.

    They are pure and utter scumbags.
    seachto7 wrote: »
    If they have history of being scumbags, then fair enough.

    All travellers have a history. They steal perfume for a living and re-sell it. It is happening every day and will continue to happen. They need to be extinct to fix the issue!
    Maybe we can also eliminate racism and that would help alleviate another part of the problem?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    corner of hells
    Registered Users Posts: 8,359 ✭✭✭corner of hells


    Deleted User wrote: »
    King George VI wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a bar is private property, the owners/bouncers have the right to refuse admission to whomever they like?

    I stand to be corrected if I'm way off on that.

    Consider yourself corrected.

    You're completely wrong. Hard to know where to start, did you actually think "private property" is a defence to an allegation of discrimination? Seriously?

    I knew this would happen.


  • Options
    #38
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,127 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    riffmongous wrote: »
    I wonder which pub it was, some of them are pretty big so it'd be obvious they are ****ting you


    Pmsl at this


    https://www.kildarenow.com/uncategorized/traveller-men-take-civil-action-maynooth-pub-refused-serve/155522

    That's hilarious. It says near the university so it could be the Roost. Although maynooth is small so it could be anywhere.


  • Options
    #39
    pgj2015
    Registered Users Posts: 8,948 ✭✭✭pgj2015


    kylith wrote: »
    It's amazing that pubs still have to be educated on anti-discrimination legislation. 15 years ago I had to tell a bouncer that if he refused me entry based on what I was wearing I'd be off to the solicitor in the morning and sue them. You can't discriminate on gender, dress, sexuality, or ethnicity. If they're not drunk you have to let them in.



    what if a man was just wearing a pair of shorts?


  • Options
    #40
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,629 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Orion wrote: »
    The Roost. And the manager in question has already been moved to another Fitzgerald pub but I'm sure that's coincidence.

    That's a pity, I used to like the Roost years ago. I thought it probably would have been whatever the Leinster Arms is called nowadays


  • Options
    #41
    Balmed Out
    Registered Users Posts: 4,713 ✭✭✭Balmed Out


    FTA69 wrote: »
    You can discriminate on the basis of dress (unless maybe it's national dress) and dress isn't considered part of any equality legislation I've ever heard of. Also lol at you whinging to the bouncers about suing the gaff, if I'd a pound for every time I heard that yarn on the door I'd be loaded.

    Id like to assume he was being sarcastic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,897 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    punisher5112 wrote: »
    Not tonight lads was a very usual saying.

    What the fcuk this sh1t has to stop.

    Republican has a right to refuse once not on discrimination grounds.
    amcalester wrote: »
    Shouldn’t have given a reason.

    It was owners fault here

    amcalester
    Shouldn’t have given a reason.

    Best quote on the thread so far & everyone seems to have missed it.

    You NEVER give a reason. If you do you can be sued


  • Options
    #43
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    King George VI wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a bar is private property, the owners/bouncers have the right to refuse admission to whomever they like?

    I stand to be corrected if I'm way off on that.
    You're way off.

    "Private property" generally refers to ownership. Private being owned by someone other than the state.

    A property being privately owned, does not automatically mean that the public needs permission to enter the property (just as land being "public property" does not automatically give you the right to enter it).

    Where a business carries out public trading (as opposed to by appointment, or as an office) on their premises, it is assumed that the public is permitted to enter for the purposes of doing business, during business hours.

    While there is a general right for any business to control entry to and from their premises, there are certain grounds upon which they are not entitled to permit or deny access to individuals or groups. Gender being one, race being another, being a traveller is another.

    If a bar is legitimately operating a "regulars only" policy, then they will need to be able to show

    - Why
    - How they identify a "regular" versus a "non-regular" (which cannot be one of the nine discriminatory grounds)
    - That everyone present in the bar that night was a "regular" according to those identification rules.


  • Options
    #44
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,629 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Grayson wrote: »
    That's hilarious. It says near the university so it could be the Roost. Although maynooth is small so it could be anywhere.

    Back in my day you'd guess the pub from the night of the week :D


  • Options
    #45
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,127 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    JustShay wrote: »
    Travellers are a race? To me, they are scum of the earth who steal stuff from your back garden and have no respect for the general public on public transport / public areas.

    lol.

    Yes it is racism according the the UN definition which encompasses discrimination on racial, ethnic, cultural or religious grounds.

    And even if we use your definition of racism which I assume is only race, it doesn't mean that every other form of discrimination is ok.

    making a blanket statement about all travellers is wrong. Yes the traveller community have a lot of problems and cause a lot of problems but that doesn't mean that you can make a blanket statement about all travellers.

    These guys had just attended a course on human rights, watched a movie about Martin Luther King and were in the company of the UN Chairwoman for the United Nations Committee on the elimination of racial discrimination. Doesn't sound like they were about to thrash the place.


  • Options
    #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    It was owners fault here

    amcalester

    Best quote on the thread so far & everyone seems to have missed it.

    You NEVER give a reason. If you do you can be sued

    It's the act of discrimination that gives rise to grounds for suing. Not whether the publican trotted out a reason or not. If a reason is provided, obviously the publican may have to stand over it.


  • Options
    #47
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,127 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Back in my day you'd guess the pub from the night of the week :D

    But on a Thursday night would you really want to bring a UN chairwoman to the roost? :D


  • Options
    #48
    twinpeaks999
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 17 ✭twinpeaks999


    You do not have the right to service, management should have just refused service with no reason. Saying anything leaves you open to the rules of discrimination.


  • Options
    #49
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    You NEVER give a reason. If you do you can be sued
    You can be sued even if you don't give a reason.

    If you refuse to serve a person - either directly or by ignoring them - while serving others and it seems pretty clear that they're being ignored because you're male/black/a traveller/etc., then you're going to be in trouble.

    The illegal discrimination doesn't have to be explicit, it just has to be effective.


  • Options
    #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    JustShay wrote: »
    All travellers have a history. They steal perfume for a living and re-sell it. It is happening every day and will continue to happen. They need to be extinct to fix the issue!

    Hugo...boss?


  • Options
    #51
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,897 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's the act of discrimination that gives rise to grounds for suing. Not whether the publican trotted out a reason or not. If a reason is provided, obviously the publican may have to stand over it.


    You never ever give a reason. Pub owner was thick enough to give a reason & he built their case for them in the process. He deserves what he got. Regulars only in a public bar? He hadn't a leg to stand on.

    All he had to say was "not tonight lads"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    JustShay
    Registered Users Posts: 151 ✭✭JustShay


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Hugo...boss?

    Cool...water?


  • Options
    #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    You never ever give a reason. Pub owner was thick enough to give a reason & he built their case for them in the process. He deserves what he got. Regulars only in a public bar? He hadn't a leg to stand on.

    All he had to say was "not tonight lads"

    Can you point to any cases where "not tonight lads" was a valid defence?

    I'd be surprised, because the legislation does not imply anywhere that giving any old reason or not giving a reason is relevant in any way.


  • Options
    #54
    twinpeaks999
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 17 ✭twinpeaks999


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can you point to any cases where "not tonight lads" was a valid defence?

    I'd be surprised, because the legislation does not imply anywhere that giving any old reason or not giving a reason is relevant in any way.

    They could have just refused entry at the door as well with no reason.


  • Options
    #55
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,629 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Grayson wrote: »
    But on a Thursday night would you really want to bring a UN chairwoman to the roost? :D
    :pac:

    Better than Mantra


  • Options
    #56
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,897 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    seamus wrote: »
    You can be sued even if you don't give a reason.

    If you refuse to serve a person - either directly or by ignoring them - while serving others and it seems pretty clear that they're being ignored because you're male/black/a traveller/etc., then you're going to be in trouble.

    The illegal discrimination doesn't have to be explicit, it just has to be effective.


    I had a security company for years & this isn't true.

    Pub owner has a right to refuse one person for no reason yet can serve 10 people beside him. Very important here, Pub owner has the right to refuse. End of. "Because I said so" is reason enough for a pub owner. These are his rights. Its only when he starts giving reasons that he can be sued

    I have several different types of businesses & I can totally refuse to sell you something or refuse to provide you a service


  • Options
    #57
    Doylers
    Registered Users Posts: 1,704 ✭✭✭Doylers


    Was walking into coppers there only 4 weeks ago. Group of 7 of us all sober and relatively early(for coppers) went to walk in, no issues but they stopped the disabled guy and said "no, you've had to much". The chap has a type of limp that I knew was medical having only met him a few hours prior but the bouncers couldn't tell or just didn't want him in because of it. I suspect the latter, seems the discriminate whenever they wish.


  • Options
    #58
    The Backwards Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭The Backwards Man


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Can you point to any cases where "not tonight lads" was a valid defence?

    I'd be surprised, because the legislation does not imply anywhere that giving any old reason or not giving a reason is relevant in any way.

    You cannot refuse to serve someone without a valid non-discriminatory reason. You don't have to tell the party what the reason is, you just have to have one.

    'I was afraid that the party in question would pose a threat to myself, to themselves, or to others.'

    That covers everybody, no matter what background they are from.


  • Options
    #59
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    King George VI wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a bar is private property, the owners/bouncers have the right to refuse admission to whomever they like?

    I stand to be corrected if I'm way off on that.

    The clue is in the name "Public House"!

    That being said, if it was my public house, I wouldn't let them in.


  • Options
    #60
    dinorebel
    Registered Users Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭dinorebel


    Surprised this thread hasn't reached the end of the road.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    twinpeaks999
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 17 ✭twinpeaks999


    Doylers wrote: »
    Was walking into coppers there only 4 weeks ago. Group of 7 of us all sober and relatively early(for coppers) went to walk in, no issues but they stopped the disabled guy and said "no, you've had to much". The chap has a type of limp that I knew was medical having only met him a few hours prior but the bouncers couldn't tell or just didn't want him in because of it. I suspect the latter, seems the discriminate whenever they wish.

    You would have to make the case the bouncer would have the ability to tell a medical condition to having to much drink. Cant see it would be expected to have a in depth medical knowledge for a doorman.


Advertisement