Blind Man Sues

Fidelis

Did anyone see the article at the bottom of the front page of the Times today? Wonders will never cease...
A visually impaired man was awarded €3,000 because he was refused access to a pub. He was refused access because he had his guide dog with him. What's the problem? It's a health hazard to bring animals into restaurants and the like. I can't believe he actually got money out of this, although he does work in the Defence Forces so I guess the whole compensation buzz went to his head.

Venom

I think he did the right thing tbh.

Guide dogs are always allowed into places that normal dogs are not for one simple reasion.....


THERE GUIDE DOGS.

As far as Im concerned the pub was was out of order in not letting him in.It would be like the refused somebody because of their race,looks,height or sex.I would consider a guide dog more like a wheelchairs or hearing aid than as a pet.Personaly I feel the amount he got was far to little as that pub should have been really made to pay for such bull****.

sceptre

Agree with Venom. Didn't see the article but based on above, I'm with the blind guy.

Slutmonkey57b

Guide dogs are legally exempted from relevant health & safety legislation as regards the public. He's also protected under anti-discrimination laws. It may be unhygenic but at least the pubican could be assured that the guide dog is trained & well behaved.

Xterminator

I reckon the bloke was completley right to sue.

Efectively they were banning blind people, without chaperones.
Thats not acceptable in anyones book.

And would someone explain to me how having a guide dog, sitting beside its master would create hygine considerations for other clients?

X

Fidelis

I don't see how they're more hygenic just because they're guide dogs. Couldn't I just as easily argue that my dog should be allowed into a restaurant because he's very well trained?

Lemming

Originally posted by Fidelis
I don't see how they're more hygenic just because they're guide dogs. Couldn't I just as easily argue that my dog should be allowed into a restaurant because he's very well trained?

Look at what you're saying Fidelis. You're effectively saying that blind people (ie. people with guide dogs) should not be allowed into any shop / premises that sells food.

Care to spot the fundamental problems with that?

dahamsta

I don't see how they're more hygenic just because they're guide dogs.

Nobody said they're more hygenic.

Couldn't I just as easily argue that my dog should be allowed into a restaurant because he's very well trained?

No, you couldn't. Not unless you use your dog as your eyes.

I acually thought you were trolling when I read your original post. Now I've come to another conclusion.

adam

Hairy Homer

Just goes to show how stupid the bouncer system is. They are supposed to keep out trouble makers, ie those who threaten with their fists. Instead they pick fights with people who threaten them with a lawyer.

So they lose. Frequently. (if the Irish Times archive service was still free I could give you links to several cases in recent months involving the Q bar, Lillie's Bordello et al) And we wonder why the price of drink goes up.

Get the bouncers off the door. Put them behind the bar to serve pints where they belong.

And this hygiene argument is a red herring. Compared with cigarettes and alcohol, without which a pub would not be a pub, a trained dog is utterly harmless unless let loose in a kitchen.

Was the blind man threatening to make a sandwich?

Dave

Let it go homer, let it go.

I'm with the blind man. What Venom said is bang on.

Fidelis

Originally posted by dahamsta
No, you couldn't. Not unless you use your dog as your eyes.

I'd be refused access to a restaurant if I tried to bring my dog in with me due to apporpriate hygene regulations. *How* are guides dogs cleaner? They're not, but they're allowed in anyway? That's verging on discriminating me because I'm not blind. Explain to me why I can't bring my well-trained dog into a restaurant.

Now I've come to another conclusion

Good for you.

Lemming, I understand & appreciate your point. I can assure that I do not have that mindset. I simply fail to see why regulations put in place to protect our health can be bypassed so easily.

Dave

Originally posted by Fidelis
Explain to me why I can't bring my well-trained dog into a restaurant.

Thats like going into a restaurant in a wheelchair for ****s and giggles.

The man is blind. He has it tough enough already. Concessions should be made to help him live a somewhat normal life, if that means leaving in his guide dog which he physically can't function without I, and i'm sure many other people (bar you obviously) are fine with that. All he wanted was a quite pint for godsake.

TwoShedsJackson

Fidelis, guide dogs are exempted under the law from the hygiene regulations you seem obsessed with. That's all there is to it. As such the guy was discriminated against.

It was 9.30 at night and they didn't want to let him in because of the food laws - they stop serving food in Madigan's at 3 p.m., and he didn't want to trek his dog through the kitchens now did he? The bouncers didn't let him because they were being dicks.

Also, the bouncers and management of Madigan's have a well deserved reputation for being a$$holes anyway, so I'm delighted that this judgement was made against them.

Xterminator

Originally posted by Fidelis
I'd be refused access to a restaurant if I tried to bring my dog in with me due to apporpriate hygene regulations. *How* are guides dogs cleaner? They're not, but they're allowed in anyway? That's verging on discriminating me because I'm not blind. Explain to me why I can't bring my well-trained dog into a restaurant.Good for you.

Lemming, I understand & appreciate your point. I can assure that I do not have that mindset. I simply fail to see why regulations put in place to protect our health can be bypassed so easily.

Hmm do you have a selective memory?

Nobody has said Guide Dogs are more hygenic, in any post.

What was said was the cuurent regulations clearly exclude guide
gogs, from any ban.
Simply the health/hygine implications of having a trained dog, sitting beside its master in the seating areas, when considered would seem very minor indeed.

It would have no practical danger for a customer, to have such a dog in the same premises, while someone smoking in the same room causes you to inhale 42 known cancer related substances.

X

Lemming

Originally posted by Fidelis
I'd be refused access to a restaurant if I tried to bring my dog in with me due to apporpriate hygene regulations. *How* are guides dogs cleaner? They're not, but they're allowed in anyway? That's verging on discriminating me because I'm not blind. Explain to me why I can't bring my well-trained dog into a restaurant.

YOU do not need to bring a dog into a restaurant in order to eat. THEY [blind people] do in order to navigate their way through said establishment. It's not discrimination since its an absolute necessity for these people but you don't need it at all.

I simply fail to see why regulations put in place to protect our health can be bypassed so easily.

So you have no problem banning smoking completely from ANY place that serves food. That would include pubs. That little act bypasses health far more than any guide dog ever will.

Saruman

I cant believe Fidelis had the gaul to start this muppet thread!
A guide dog is not a pet nor is it even seen as an animal by a blind person... To a blind person the dog is an extention of himself. He needs the dog to see otherwise he might not find the pub let alone get inside. The dog is a life long companion and not some unhygenic animal. It never leads his/her side to go roaming around the streets like any other dog.

Its simple as this... LEGALLY the dog was allowed to go in... and ILLEGALLY the dog was prevented.. The law was broken by the pub.. simple as that!!

By the way that dog is probably a lot more hygenic than half the boozers in the pub rolling around in their own puke and drink!!

EvilGeorge

I know ppl who get into pubs all the time with some of the ugliest dogs I've ever seen , dam right they should be refused!!

Seriously , I think the bouncers were wrong, the guy should have been let in and then had the whole stuation checked out , it was discrimination and thats a fact - plus I like seen the bouncers been taken down a peg or two

Fidelis

I understand everybody's points. Don't get me wrong, they're all valid to the utmost. My views are not squarely about this guy. He's arguing over the fact that he was discriminated against. If, by law, he was discriminated against, then fair enough. Dahamsta, I'm honestly not trolling here, regardless of what you may think.

I have somewhat strong opinions on this topic in general though. People taking others to court for money over being discriminated against due to race/sex/age etc. People are different.

I just dislike the common perception of equality when, in reality, there's no such thing.

amp

Hmm the quality of this thread is very low grade. Fidelis, if I didn't know better I'd think you were trolling. But you wouldn't troll Humanities would you?

Kappar

I know ppl who get into pubs all the time with some of the ugliest dogs I've ever seen , dam right they should be refused!!

I've seen people getting into pubs with the ugliest Girlfriend i have ever seen they should be refused.

Venom

Fidelis just shut the fúck up and stop posting such shíte.

Lex_Diamonds

*claps* well done kappar, sharp as a bowling ball.

Fidelis

Daz, you could at least treat this with some modicum of maturity.

It is good to know that you'll not stand idly by on these issues.
Hey! Nice signature...

Shinji

Um, I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure there are no particular laws against having dogs in a place where there's food being served - there sure as hell aren't in the UK, and I'm pretty sure they don't exist in Ireland either. They don't pose a hygiene risk except in the most exceptional of circumstances - certainly no more than a human who hasn't had a shower for a day or two does

A lot of establishments choose not to let dogs and other animals in, and that's their perogative - EXCEPT where it's a guide dog, because in that instance the owner of the dog doesn't really have any choice but to have the dog with him - besides which, they're trained to be as unobtrusive as possible to other people. In this specific instance the pub was very clearly in the wrong to refuse entry.

That said, it's astonishingly inconsiderate of the blind guy to bring his dog into a smoky crowded pub environment at half nine at night. While the pub was wrong to refuse him, I'd still say anyone who'd subject an animal to that is an awful wánker.

Xterminator

Originally posted by Shinji
That said, it's astonishingly inconsiderate of the blind guy to bring his dog into a smoky crowded pub environment at half nine at night. While the pub was wrong to refuse him, I'd still say anyone who'd subject an animal to that is an awful wánker.

Y'Cant be serious about that Shinji!

It not the blind guys fault that when you go into a pub, there is not sufficient ventelation, or an effective no smoking zone supplied.

The responsibility for that has to be layed at the publicans door.

Now i dont want to turn this ionto a smoking in pubs debate, cause its been done before, but if you were to use your thinking, then the blind peorson would find themselves excluded from entering most pubs in Ireland at certain times, and that would be the greater of the two evils.

X

Shinji

Y'Cant be serious about that Shinji!

I am totally serious about it. Just because an animal is a guide dog doesn't mean that its owner is entitled to treat it in a way which would be considered very cruel were it a pet. In fact, if anything, you'd expect a blind person to take better care of their dog than most people do of their pets - given that their lives, very literally, depend on the loyalty and service provided by the animal.

Pubs are by their nature unpleasant environments for an animal. They're exceptionally noisy, crowded, smoky, smelly and full of drunk (and hence inconsiderate) people. That's a very frightening environment for even a well-trained dog. That's what a pub is LIKE - it's not discrimination, that's just how it is - and frankly, this guy should have more consideration for his guide dog than to try and bring him into somewhere like that.

The dog devotes its life to looking after this guy, and he's not even prepared to make a minor sacrifice like that for its welfare? What a príck. He doesn't deserve that animals service.

(This doesn't change the fact that the pub were in the wrong in discriminating against him, it's just a side comment.)

Blitzkrieger

IMO nobody has made an intelligent point here. You all seem to be too emotional. As soon as someone mentions discrimination every1 gets up on their high horse........


(I'd side with the blind man)

BuffyBot

Originally posted by Shinji
That's a very frightening environment for even a well-trained dog. That's what a pub is LIKE - it's not discrimination, that's just how it is - and frankly, this guy should have more consideration for his guide dog than to try and bring him into somewhere like that.

The dog devotes its life to looking after this guy, and he's not even prepared to make a minor sacrifice like that for its welfare? What a príck. He doesn't deserve that animals service.

(This doesn't change the fact that the pub were in the wrong in discriminating against him, it's just a side comment.)

Guide dogs are intensively trained before being given to a person to deal with these kinds of situations - to cope with situations where it is busy and noisy and worse. TBH I don't think one night in a scenario like this would do any real damage to the dog, and it don't think trained guide dogs would find it a problem.

Shinji

BuffyBot - you can train an animal not to react to loud noises, cigarette smoke, having drinks spilt on it, being kicked and tripped over... However, you can't train it to /like/ it. Guide dogs are given that kind of training to enable them to cross busy roads or navigate crowded footpaths, or sit on packed buses - but anyone who has any experience of or has worked with animals can tell you that they are NOT suited to that kind of atmosphere.

Just because you've trained a dog not to react to an environment it's afraid of doesn't mean it's not cruel to expose the animal to that environment without just cause.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Shinji



Pubs are by their nature unpleasant environments for an animal. They're exceptionally noisy, crowded, smoky, smelly and full of drunk (and hence inconsiderate) people. That's a very frightening environment for even a well-trained dog.

Poor doggy woggy. Why not buy him a field full of organic grass and a little cloud for water?

Play Lotto folks!! Or it could be Shinji.

:-)

Shinji

Oh yes sorry I forgot, you only give a damn about people/animals being mistreated if it's a bouncer doing it. I'll wager if it was a bouncer that had grabbed a dog off the street and forced it to go sit in a pub for an hour, you'd be crying blue murder from the rooftops...

BuffyBot

By that logic, the dog will be afraid of *any* noisy, crowded place, and therefore this guy shouldn't come out of his house at all, never mind have a social life?

Slutmonkey57b

I think bouncers should be able to refuse who they like on whatever grounds they like and licence holders should be able to shoot annoying people at will.

Anyone who gets worked up over not being allowed into a pub deserves what they get>

Gordon

Absolutely, poor dog! It has been trained since day 10 to be the servant of a person and then forced to go into a stinkin loud pub!

Anyway, yer man was right - sue the pub etc etc.. it isn't only racism but pure pig-headed, stubborn ignorance. I wonder if the place he was going into was a club type place where every possible meter squared of space is a chance of an average €40 in the night, whereas this dog's space would lose them money by giving it... free.. milk. Or something.

Hang them, hang them aaalllll!!!

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Shinji
Oh yes sorry I forgot, you only give a damn about people/animals being mistreated if it's a bouncer doing it. I'll wager if it was a bouncer that had grabbed a dog off the street and forced it to go sit in a pub for an hour, you'd be crying blue murder from the rooftops...

Faulty logic again Shinji.

It's what I've come to expect.

Never mind. You worry that an animal who licks his own balls might be offended by the whiff of cigarette smoke and I'll worry about the corrupting effects of one human being assuming an arbitrary and often illegal right to insult and humiliate another on the most spurious grounds.

It's just a question of priorities.

Shinji

Actually I agreed with you on the issue of bouncers here, you muppet - I'm not sure why exactly you insist on being so utterly argumentative and offensive, but it might explain why even those who agree with you here seem to downright detest you - a common problem you have, I'm sure

These are two seperate issues, the bouncers were wrong but so was the blind guy. QED. End of story. Everyone happy? Good. Except Hairy Homo of course, who won't be happy until he's being beaten senseless by a bouncer in the middle of Grafton Street and screaming "I TOLD YOU SO! BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE MY FREEDOM!" at the top of his voice.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Shinji
Actually I agreed with you on the issue of bouncers here, you muppet

I'm honoured.

- I'm not sure why exactly you insist on being so utterly argumentative and offensive, but it might explain why even those who agree with you here seem to downright detest you - a common problem you have, I'm sure

Oh go take your rattle back into your pram and trundle off into the sunset, you silly little man. How dare you suggest that blind people should be any more incapacitated by the circumstances of their condition than they need to be. Why shouldn't he enjoy a social drink if he has the guts to venture into the city centre with nothing but a mute animal to guide him?

For all you know the guide dog could have been a beagle. If you don't get that reference, ask somebody about 20 years your senior, if you can find one in the sort of dive you drink in.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by Xterminator
It not the blind guys fault that when you go into a pub, there is not sufficient ventelation, or an effective no smoking zone supplied.

The responsibility for that has to be layed at the publicans door.

However, had the blind man been allowed entry, and had someone trod on his dog in the crowded bar, and had they the misfortune to injure the dog... would that be the publican's fault as well?

Personally, I tend to side with Shinji on this one. Yes, the bouncer was wrong to deny the man entry, but I wouldnt be too impressed with the guy himself either.

In the hypothetical case aboe, he strikes me as the type of person who would be after the publican had he been allowed entry and his dog subsequently was injurewd or incapacitated as a result.

Maybe I'm doing the guy a dis-service, but I think that he should be as considerate of his guide as possible, and it doesnt strike me that this is the case. I could be wrong about him, but this is how I feel at present.

jc

Shinji

How dare you suggest that blind people should be any more incapacitated by the circumstances of their condition than they need to be.

I would argue that the need to look after the animal on which their life depends in a humane way comes under the heading of "than they need to be". Of course you're so blinded by your own political correctness (and your pathetic need for the pub to be utterly intractably in the wrong, as opposed to just "wrong") that you can't see this.

You know what? He's disabled, therefore there are some things he can't do. Tough fúcking cookies, that's how it goes. It's not discrimination, it's common fúcking sense - and the sooner stupid people like you realise that, the better.

(I dunno... should we be counting stupidity as a disability? Am I discriminating against Hairy Homo by using my obviously superior intellect against him? Answers on a postcard, people!)

Dazzer

Fidelis "Venom" is not me now apologise before I spank you

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Shinji


I Am I discriminating against Hairy Homo by using my obviously superior intellect against him? Answers on a postcard, people!)

Don't confuse intellect with apoplexy, young man.

And it's Homer not Homo. Don't take your subliminal insecurities out on me.

I'm not the one who chose as his user name a fictional character of confused sexual orientation.

(Did a google search on Shinji and found the following):

'Shinji has no notion of our society's set gender roles. He has enough trouble dealing with his own basic emotions like happiness and anger; the last thing he needs is to question his sexuality. This is one reason why he responds to Kaworu's declaration of affection so deeply. It is not a question of "Am I gay? Am I attracted to another guy? I don't understand my feelings!" On the contrary, it's very simple for Shinji: Kaworu said he likes him, and Shinji knows he likes Kaworu, too. Shinji's feelings are not confined to the boundaries of gender. '

Try it. The google search that is. But only if you're comfortable with it.

Dave

By that logic you're a hairy incompetent fat bastard with an intellect equal to that of a roasted peanut.

Dustaz

My god, nicknames DO ring true!

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Dave
By that logic you're a hairy incompetent fat bastard with an intellect equal to that of a roasted peanut.

But also lovable, a devoted father and a role model to a generation. Nobody's perfect.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Dave
By that logic you're a hairy incompetent fat bastard with an intellect equal to that of a roasted peanut.

Actually the rejoinder I should have used was:

'That's no way to speak about the author of the Illiad'

Doh!! I'm slowing down.

Shinji

You know you've lost the argument when you stoop to entire posts slagging off someone's nick.

(FWIW, I've been using this nick online for about seven years and you're the first person ever to care deeply enough to do a google for it. I'm touched! I have to admit though, that I was more drawn to the "piloting a cool mech" aspect of Shinji's character than the "lack of understanding of gender roles" aspect at the time... How shallow of me, eh?)

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Shinji
You know you've lost the argument when you stoop to entire posts slagging off someone's nick.

Well, seeing as you stooped first by referring to my monicker incorrectly as the pejorative Homo, I'll take that as admission of defeat. Been a pleasure kicking your ass. :-)

you're the first person ever to care deeply enough to do a google for it. I'm touched! I have to admit though, that I was more drawn to the "piloting a cool mech" aspect of Shinji's character than the "lack of understanding of gender roles" aspect at the time... How shallow of me, eh?)

Hey, I'm only telling you what I found when I put the word Shinji into Google. That's the first non Kanji link that comes up. See for yourself.

You can't cite a single-word Google search as an example of caring; merely curiosity.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

zenith

Hopelessly OT, and guff. Locked.