Refused entry.

decky1

Is it legal to refuse Traveller's entry to a pub? I was under the impression that they had the right to go in if they wished , my daughter had a function at the weekend and as she has some very good friends in the travelling community she invited one young family they came to the church but when we went to the pub which was booked for the function they did not come when i asked where they were they told my daughter that they had been refused entry on a few times when they wished to get some food, if we had known we would'nt have booked this place :mad::mad::mad:

ohnonotgmail

were they refused entry on this occasion or did they not go because they had been refused previously. Either way it is not legal to refuse entry to a traveler just because they are traveler. The problem is proving they were refused because they were travelers.

Ken.

Mod-Locked for a move do L.D.

hullaballoo

Moderator: thread reopened.

Anyone thinking about contributing is reminded to read the forum charter before posting. Any infraction of the rules will result in forum bans in this thread so if you are unsure as to the quality of what you are thinking of posting, it may be best to err on the side of caution.

CeilingFly

So the pub did not refuse on the day in question? Just the particular family had been refused previously ans because of this they did not attempt to go with you.

As above, a place cannot refuse you for the sole reason of being a traveller, but if that person caused problems previously then the pub can say they will not permit you is as in their validated opinion you could cause problems which would affect other customers which in turn affects their business.

They can also apply an age limit, but that limit must be applied to all people and not targeted to one group

coylemj

OP, the group you invited could have been refused entry on previous occasions for various reasons. An example is if they had turned up with someone who (unknown to them) was barred from the place and was trying to use them for cover.

Did you ask them why they kept going back - they told you they had been refused 'a few times'

Unless you witnessed them being turned away for no apparent reason, I wouldn't assume anything in terms of unlawful discrimination.

the_syco

decky1 wrote: »

they did not come

So, they didn't come because they had been refused entry before, for reasons unknown. You can ask the pub why they were refused entry in the past, but I doubt they'll have to answer your query.

wexie

decky1 wrote: »

Is it legal to refuse Traveller's entry to a pub? I was under the impression that they had the right to go in if they wished , my daughter had a function at the weekend and as she has some very good friends in the travelling community she invited one young family they came to the church but when we went to the pub which was booked for the function they did not come when i asked where they were they told my daughter that they had been refused entry on a few times when they wished to get some food, if we had known we would'nt have booked this place :mad::mad::mad:

decky1 wrote: »

Is it legal to refuse Traveller's entry to a pub?

Short answer : yes

It's not legal to refuse them entry because they are travelers though because that would be discrimination under one of the big nine. But they are no more immune to being refused entry to a pub than anyone else.

That's not to say it doesn't (regularly) happen, just means that the 'smart' doorman/publican won't ever tell them they are being refused on grounds of being travelers and they'll just use some other excuse : regulars only today, locals only, no runners, no gingers etc. etc.

Ideally what would have happened in this scenario is that they'd told your daughter about this in advance so she could have either booked elsewhere or collected them at the door to make sure they got in.

decky1

Thanks guys for your reply's , well most of you anyway, this couple are in their early 20's with 3 young children, the few times they went to this place was to get some lunch as the previous owner had no problem with travelers, they are a very genuine young couple born and bred in this town who are doing their best to be one of the community, they are in no way troublesome and mostly keep to themselves, i don't want to get into a legal end of it i just think in this day and age a young couple with 3 kids should not be turned away when they just want to get their kids some lunch the way any normal person can+ neither of them drink anyway so what's the problem should they not be given a chance and then judge them.? would love to name and shame this pub but no i would'nt stoop that low and with their position in the town come winter they'll be glad of any custom they can get.

Curb Your Enthusiasm

decky1 wrote: »

Thanks guys for your reply's , well most of you anyway, this couple are in their early 20's with 3 young children, the few times they went to this place was to get some lunch as the previous owner had no problem with travelers, they are a very genuine young couple born and bred in this town who are doing their best to be one of the community, they are in no way troublesome and mostly keep to themselves, i don't want to get into a legal end of it i just think in this day and age a young couple with 3 kids should not be turned away when they just want to get their kids some lunch the way any normal person can+ neither of them drink anyway so what's the problem should they not be given a chance and then judge them.? would love to name and shame this pub but no i would'nt stoop that low and with their position in the town come winter they'll be glad of any custom they can get.

As unfortunate it is, the travelling community have a bad reputation for causing trouble, among pub/hotel owners especially.

It's not right to refuse someone who has never caused any trouble before just because they're a member of the travelling community, but you can see why they'd be hesitant to let them into their premises.

AndrewJRenko

Curb Your Enthusiasm wrote: »

As unfortunate it is, the travelling community have a bad reputation for causing trouble, among pub/hotel owners especially.

It's not right to refuse someone who has never caused any trouble before just because they're a member of the travelling community, but you can see why they'd be hesitant to let them into their premises.

The northside inner city community have a bad reputation for causing trouble and shooting people, especially with hotel owners. Can you see why hotel owners would be hesitant to let them into their premises?

Homer

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The northside inner city community have a bad reputation for causing trouble and shooting people, especially with hotel owners. Can you see why hotel owners would be hesitant to let them into their premises?

Absolutely not true. A tiny percentage of the residents of the north inner city are involved in criminality. However, statistics would say that a large percentage of the travelling community are involved in criminal activity.

Travellers make up 0.6 per cent of the population yet account for 10 per cent of the male prisoner population and 22 per cent of the female prison population according to recent statistics.

rock22

Homer wrote: »

Absolutely not true. A tiny percentage of the residents of the north inner city are involved in criminality. However, statistics would say that a large percentage of the travelling community are involved in criminal activity.

Travellers make up 0.6 per cent of the population yet account for 10 per cent of the male prisoner population and 22 per cent of the female prison population according to recent statistics.

That does not mean that they are responsible for any more than crime than any other group. You need to explore causal relationships

Homer

rock22 wrote: »

That does not mean that they are responsible for any more than crime than any other group. You need to explore causal relationships

I'll stick with the facts thanks. You can rationalise it any which way you like. And I understand the definition ok.

Peregrinus

Homer wrote: »

I'll stick with the facts thanks. You can rationalise it any which way you like. And I understand the definition ok.

And the facts are that victimising people not on the basis of their personal characteristics, but on the basis of characteristics that you impute to the group to which they belong, is pretty much the definition of unlawful and invidious discrimination.

Homer

Peregrinus wrote: »

And the facts are that victimising people not on the basis of their personal characteristics, but on the basis of characteristics that you impute to the group to which they belong, is pretty much the definition of unlawful and invidious discrimination.

Im quoting statistics not victimising anyone.

Peregrinus

Homer wrote: »

Im quoting statistics not victimising anyone.

You're quoting statistics in a thread about refusing entry, which might suggest to the careless reader that they are in some way relevant to the decision to refuse entry.

I'm pointing out that they are not relevant, a clarification that - through oversight, I'm sure - you forgot to include.

Homer

It was actually in response to AndreJRenko post if you bothered to read the thread instead of making assumptions about my intentions. Have a nice day

Peregrinus

Homer wrote: »

It was actually in response to AndreJRenko post if you bothered to read the thread instead of making assumptions about my intentions. Have a nice day

I haven't made any assumption about your intentions. I just tied the facts you brought to the discussion back to the central topic of the thread. As no doubt you would have done yourself, had it occurred to you.

AndrewJRenko

Homer wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The northside inner city community have a bad reputation for causing trouble and shooting people, especially with hotel owners. Can you see why hotel owners would be hesitant to let them into their premises?

Absolutely not true. A tiny percentage of the residents of the north inner city are involved in criminality. However, statistics would say that a large percentage of the travelling community are involved in criminal activity.

Travellers make up 0.6 per cent of the population yet account for 10 per cent of the male prisoner population and 22 per cent of the female prison population according to recent statistics.

You're comparing statistical apples and oranges there. You should be comparing against the percentage of the prison population that comes from Dublin 1. John Lonergan, former Governor of Mountjoy has spoken in the past about how many of his prisoners came from two postcodes.

What is your personal threshold for justifying discrimination against an entire community.

Homer

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What is your personal threshold for justifying discrimination against an entire community.

Ditto in relation to your comments about the north inner city community?

nuac

Style note; "Pikey"

This term was used earlier in this thread, referring to travellers. That post has since been deleted but to avoid doubt pls note that term is considered here to be grossly offensive. Please do not use "pikey/pikeys/pikies" on this forum,

the_syco

rock22 wrote: »

That does not mean that they are responsible for any more than crime than any other group. You need to explore causal relationships

Most pubs will either have dealt with traveller weddings/funerals/etc going very badly after a few drinks, or have doormen that have. They will often informally blacklist anyone who was involved in said ruckus, and let other pubs in the area know of what happened.

From personal experience, whenever a traveller wedding happened to visit the pub I worked in, the boss would ring every pub nearby for doormen. Even doormen of pubs that they're in direct competition would come, as would the 3 Garda riot vans, and a couple of Garda cars. And wait for the ruckus to kick off. Can't not let them in if they hadn't entered the pub before, but you have to be prepared.

I'd wonder if any of the family were ever part of a group that caused a ruckus in a pub in the area? Publicans often have a long memory for such things.

AndrewJRenko

the_syco wrote: »

Can't not let them in if they hadn't entered the pub before,

That's not true.

Homer wrote: »

Ditto in relation to your comments about the north inner city community?

I have no such threshold. I would never suggest banning an entire community. I made the comparison simply to expose the fairly ridiculous nature of the proposal.