Rumpy Pumpy wrote: » Has anyone else noticed a change in the type of bouncer used? For years it was the bald headed knuckle-dragger in a plastic jacket sort. That seems to have been replaced by the bearded McGregor lookalike sort of bouncer. Also a knuckle-dragger of course, with the emotional and cognitive intelligence of a newt.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Thanks for that, and fair enough for disagreeing. Maybe they were keeping an eye on her via cctv. Maybe i am wrong them. But as i said earlier, there was something not right/very off/different about this one. . She was in the front, i was in the back, ive no real idea how much suds she had, and its a very valid point, maybe her friends have responsibility for getting her that way. The point about legally keeping someone intoxicated on their premses is a new one to me. How is this enforced? Are there guidelines for workers in the trade, and does it mention any duty of care? What levelof intoxication is unacceptable? Genuinely curious!
Deedsie wrote: » Person goes out and gets so intoxicated they can't take care of themselves and some how it's the bouncers fault?
Deedsie wrote: » Not trolling just don't think it's reasonable that people should expect a bouncer to be in a position to be able to provide assistance to every person who is so drunk they can't stand up.
Deedsie wrote: » My sympathies would be with the bouncer having to deal with people with no self control. Imagine the headache something like the 12 pubs would be for bouncers.
s8n wrote: » Whats Gat ?
listermint wrote: » If I'm not mistaken, this was one of the very reasons for minimum unit alcohol pricing that the VFI their lobbyists and some TDs spent the last year airing on the radio waves , through emails and in print that pubs were safer than drinking at home because professional people won't serve you and establishments are there to ensure you are looked after. Seems like it's complete nonsense they were peddling
WhiteRoses wrote: » I get what you're saying, but as other have pointed out, exactly what can be done? Drunk people can be stubborn and aggressive. They cannot be held against their will by a bouncer until they sober up. Where would the bouncer put them while this would happen? How is a stranger to decide when someone is "sober enough" to head off, anyway? How would that be monitored? I've seen it refuted a couple of times here now that a babysitter isn't needed, just some decency (). But it sounds like a babysitter is exactly what's wanted by some here. I know I've gotten myself into sorry states on many occasions, but I'm a legal adult. I purchased the drink. I chose to drink it. Its no ones fault but my own that I got myself into that condition. The resources and legislation simply aren't in place to facilitate anything remotely like what's been suggested here. Imagine being on a night out, and wanting to go home and you feel grand, but some bouncer feels like you're still too drunk so takes your personal liberties away from you and makes you sit in the corner with a coffee for an hour. There would be uproar. If everyone could just be responsible for their own consumption this wouldn't be an issue. I've said it before, but if you don't know your own limits and surpass them, you can't get mad at the bartender for not knowing either.
Verpiss dich wrote: » Sorry you post seems to have gone way off point. Just to restate again the establishment SELLS you that last drink and then a bonucer decides your too drunk and aggressively pushes you out the door.
That is not exactly the caring supervised environment The Vintners Federation of Ireland have been telling us all about as they are lobbying the government to sabotage the off licence trade. What happens after these brain dead aggressive morons push a vulnerable person out into the night? The Lady could have been assaulted raped wondered into traffic.
They are the people saying this person is too intoxicated but yet they sold the drinks their duty of care is just a transparent lie.
Nows lets say this lady decides to drink in her home or a friends or family home. She has a couple too many either a taxi will be called for her or she will sleep it off on a sofa or bed with caring friends making sure she is ok.
If these establishments can't treat intoxicated people decently well why the hell and they selling and intoxicating substance?
WhiteRoses wrote: » They wouldn't have been served if they were too drunk. They drank too much, then they were too drunk, then they got thrown out. Did the "brain dead aggressive morons" force the drink down the womans neck? If she's that vulnerable she shouldn't be out drinking in the first place. You are having a laugh if you think that the barman or bouncer is to blame if a woman were to get raped while drunk, and its a disgusting thing to say. They were the presumably not intoxicated when they were sold the drinks. You have to drink in order to become drunk. Extremely drunk people capable of walking into traffic, as you said, simply wouldn't be served. You can't expect the barman to know how many drinks it will take for a woman to become blotto drunk. Well yes, duh?! Obviously a friend or family member is going to show more concern and take better care of someone when they've made the choice to drink themselves into oblivion, than say, a stranger working in a nightclub?? What do you want, each customer be admitted to a hospital wing attached to the club to make sure they're looked after and ok? Everyone stays for a sleepover? I've asked this and been ignored already. Define decently??? I'll give you a scenario: A woman is in a nightclub, and she's so drunk she can barely stand. She has 4 friends with her who are also drunk, but not as bad as her. She snuck drink in, in her handbag, as many people do these days. She's the 5th person tonight to be found in this condition and its early yet, so there is likely to be a few others like this later in the night. The woman just wants to leave but she can't walk. What should the club do?
WhiteRoses wrote: » They wouldn't have been served if they were too drunk. They drank too much, then they were too drunk, then they got thrown out.
kylith wrote: » If one drink will push them over the edge to the point that they need to be thrown out then they were too drunk to be served that final drink in the first place. We all know that as long as you are capable of naming a drink and handing over the money then the barman will serve you. It's laughable that vintners are trying to claim that it's safer to drink in a pub than at home so they can keep an eye to make sure you don't drink too much. They will keep serving you until you can't stand, and then they will fck you onto the street without a second thought.
WhiteRoses wrote: » But how is a stranger meant to know which drink is the one that will push them over the edge? In most cases I've seen, someone is grand one minute and demented the next. Its like a switch was flipped. And I totally agree with you about Vintners, by the way. Nice for them to be peddling that line when the hospitality industry is one of the most under resourced, underpaid professions out there.
kylith wrote: » The only cases I've seen that have been like a flipped switch is when other substances have been involved, or when shots are being drunk. IME people get noticeably drunker and drunker. Anyway, individual tolerances aside - publicans will happily serve severely inebriated people.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I should have worded that better. What I meant was that one minute, someone is able to handle their drink, and is in control, and the next, they're in a sorry state. I've seen it happen many many times. I suppose some publicans do. Anywhere I worked, no one severely inebriated would be served. But I don't doubt that there are places that serve people in that state.
Verpiss dich wrote: » Honest question have you ever had a few too many? And if so would you rather be safe and in your home or be grabbed by low IQ apes and thrown out into the night?
WhiteRoses wrote: » You aren't helping your case by consistently referring to security staff as low IQ personnel. I worked in a couple of nightclubs over the course of 7 years, I only left the industry 18 months ago or so. Of my colleagues in the security department, the majority of them were degree educated, or studying for their bachelors. One lad was doing his PhD and security work by night to help fund it. Most were guys with good day jobs, using the night work to supplement their income because they had young kids/large mortgages, or whatever. Not one of them were the knuckle dragging apes you seem determined to brand the whole industry as. I have already said on a few occasions on this thread that I've had a few too many on many occasions, but I recognise I made that decision for myself therefore the consequences are on me. I don't typically drink at home, I prefer to go out, but my point remains. It is no one else's fault but mine if I get too drunk. Another adult is not responsible for monitoring my consumption. Anyone trying to insist they are, is passing the blame for their own shortcomings.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Another adult is not responsible for monitoring my consumption.
Verpiss dich wrote: » VFI and the government seem to think they are with this MPU price for home consumption.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I don't disagree that that may be the case, but I have no idea how it would be at all enforceable without taking personal liberties away from customers. And bouncers/bar staff simply do not have the training required to give this kind of care, so I have no idea how any sort of system could be put in place without hiring medical personnel and examining customers throughout the night, and then also some sort of transport for the ones who can't be trusted to get home safely. All of this would drive up costs for an already overpriced night out. I don't disagree that more should be done per se, but I don't see how it can be done. If everyone could just cop on a bit and be a bit more self aware there wouldn't be a need for this.
leggo wrote: » I'm sorry your **** idea (which basically amounts to "someone...do...something?") doesn't work in the real world. You're wrong. I get that you're struggling with that but the rant you're looking to have is dumb and people are trying to point out the practical failures in your mindset. They did have every right to remove your friend. They don't have any responsibility towards her safety once she's not in their club. The law and insurance policies of premises would make anything that's been suggested unworkable. You're just off the mark this time out and you're best just shrugging your shoulders.
Verpiss dich wrote: » The Lady could have been assaulted raped wondered into traffic.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Sorry my anti concentration camp/internment "rant" came across as well, a "rant". Jeez, its been fairly civil thread until your hysterics , and its been an interesting exchange of ideas thus far. But seeing as you mention "the law", which particular one absolves them of responsibility for a comatose person they remove from and deposit outside their premises, having facilitated said state? maybe it us unworkable/impracticable/undesirable, im just curious about whether there is or isn't a duty of care. You say "no", fair enough. *shrugs shoulders.
leggo wrote: » Yeah but the exchange of ideas stops when you talk about another's post as being, what was it, "the champions league of ****e ideas." Btw, it was your idea we were discussing. I was just making it a reality and showing you the list of obstacles that pushed it into the Champions League spots. But this is amusing me now. So let's discuss your point in full. Here is what I think happened: You claim that the security guards simply picked up your friend for being too drunk and placed here on a bunch of kegs, right? I find that extremely contentious for a start. To qualify: I've worked in security for over 10 years, am one of the most senior employees in my current firm and train pretty much all new staff in my region at this stage, so I know what notions even rookies right out of their FETAC course have going into the job. I've worked in every aspect of security: retail, bouncing, hotels, events, festivals, you name it. I also run events and have DJ'd in nightclubs and pubs for nearly as much time, so I go into venues and tell management how to run their bar for our events, security consultation included. Therefore I know how both security and management work in a wide variety of these venues, inside-out. So two things every security guard (even the numpties) knows as soon as they've done their course is: cover your ****ing arse and don't use force or lay a finger on someone unless you absolutely have to or you could get sued. How did these security guards determine she was drunk? Was she passed out? If so, how did they determine that she hadn't, for example, had a heart attack or suffered some other medical mishap, which they would know would lose them their job if it was the case and they didn't respond correctly? Was there a complaint about her from another patron or staff member? This is the only plausible way they'd use any force without assessing the situation, in which case she was actively being a danger to herself or others and therefore fully legally liable to be removed from the premises. You wouldn't know if there was a complaint, would you? So it's not actually possible for you to know the full facts of this case, is it? When they picked her up, how did they carry her? One under the arms and one carrying her legs like a stretcher? Or did one drag her out from under the shoulders? They did this with witnesses around? Again, another logical leap is required here, as even when you hear people moan about security guards bashing them unprovoked, these contentious, one-sided stories with a clear agenda involving said 'knuckle draggers' usually take place in a place without witnesses. Point being: even the thick bouncers know don't do stuff in front of witnesses. So I highly doubt they lifted her without any assessment or due course with witnesses present, even the biggest rookie would know that's strongly risking their job, I doubt it to the point that I'm certain it didn't happen. Now let's get onto you: you were admittedly drunk too. If you tried to make a statement to the Gardaí, they wouldn't legally be allowed take it as you wouldn't be credible or compos mentis enough to recall your experience. But you don't seem to be giving this statement based off what you yourself witnessed, so now we've got a Chinese whispers element to it. Yet despite the fact that Gardaí wouldn't even be able to accept your account and you don't claim to have witnessed it all unfold, you state it with full confidence as 100% fact. That's a crazy leap of confidence huh? Almost unbelievably so. So down to what I think is actually likely to have happened: the good news is I don't think you made it all up! But that's about all the good news. I think your friend was too drunk (you say yourself she was fine one minute, then not the next, which already raises doubt about the duty of care of the nightclub since even you didn't notice this adjustment being in her company consistently), she gets escorted off the premises by security (almost definitely not carried) and sits on some kegs to regain her bearings (why would security put her on stock that staff may need in moments). Since not one of your group has witnessed this in full, a game of Chinese whispers occurs piecing things together and exaggerating it to validate the outrage that comes with being in a heightened emotional state after consuming so much alcohol. An acceptable story is created by this group of dubious witnesses. They feel more confident in their collective story to the point that one of them, who admits he hasn't even seen most of this happen himself, posts it on boards with 100% certainty that all of this totally happened. You don't even argue that much with those who raise questions about the legitimacy of your story. People decide to take you at face value and discuss the points raised, you rubbish all of said points from credible people that don't have a horse in the race who actually work within the industry, when you yourself do not or appear to have ever done so (else why wouldn't you say so and make your argument stronger?). So people, in this case me, actually take time to point out your story is absolute non-credible ****e to begin with. TLDR; why are you lying?
end of the road wrote: » you can "doubt it to the point that I'm certain it didn't happen" or accuse the op of making it up, or call his story all sorts all you like, but as you weren't there then you have no proof that what he has stated didn't happen, no more then any of the rest of us who weren't there. being over 10 years or so in the industry and being a senior employee doesn't change that fact. the op was there and he has given what is stated to have happened. your over-emotional hysterics won't make what the op stated untrue, actual facts from others who were there and who can disprove his statement is the only thing that will show whether his story is true or not.
leggo wrote: » You need to learn what the word 'facts' mean mate,
leggo wrote: » someone saying they saw something while drunk (and the OP isn't even claiming that) doesn't pass the bar for factual information. If his story ended with him saying aliens then came down and abducted his mate, there'd be plenty of doubt cast over his 'facts'. And even if you yourself are ignorant to it so more inclined to accept his account, to anyone who has the slightest clue about the industry discussed in it...he isn't far off claiming as much!
