nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

King George VI

... and walk out with €6000 each.

"FOUR TRAVELLER MEN were compensated €6,000 each after being refused service in a bar in Maynooth.
The members of the Traveller community were denied service and told that only regulars were being served on the night in question."

What do you make of that? If I got refused from a bar I'd just go to another bar.

http://www.thejournal.ie/traveller-men-compensated-3756238-Dec2017/

My fav quote from the article is:

"The group had been attending a human rights course when they had decided to go for a drink to a nearby pub."

lol

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

the_syco

kylith wrote: »

If they're not drunk you have to let them in.

If you know they'll cause damage to your pub, to your staff, and to the patrons, you'll refuse them.

riffmongous wrote: »

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

I find they generally sue one of the pubs every few years in Maynooth. The LA used to be a popular haunt for travellers after they sued the place.

=-=

It may only be a select few that cause the issues, but it'll be the same select few who make it known that they are travellers.

[Deleted User]

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's just a crock of shít to say you have to treat everyone the same regardless of how they behave.

So then we agree. People should be treated on the basis of how they behave, and not on the basis of their ethnic group.

That's pretty much the whole point of anti discrimination legislation!

the_syco

Deleted User wrote: »

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. You either tolerate it or you don't. You can't have a "well, that group kinda have it coming to them..."

Should black people welcome the KKK into their pubs?

Dr Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Last time I checked, the law is not decided by pubs and publicans. When landlords in England turned down Irish lodgers 50 years ago, I presume you would have been trotting out the "well, they must have a very good reason, after all landlords are in the business of making money".

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. You either tolerate it or you don't. You can't have a "well, that group kinda have it coming to them..."

I actually don't have a problem with "discrimination" I was once stopped from going into a gay bar because I wasn't gay and basically told I wasn't welcome because of my sexuality.

But you won't find any human rights lawyers queuing up to take on my case.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

So then we agree. People should be treated on the basis of how they behave, and not on the basis of their ethnic group.

That's pretty much the whole point of anti discrimination legislation!

Touché:D

It's a numbers game to me.

As I said before 2 out of every 3 of my interactions with travellers have been very negative, the other one was probably just slightly negative. I actually can't remember a single time where I came away thinking "that was a very nice person, I'm glad I met them", not one single time!

All my future dealings with them will be viewed through the prism of my previous experiences. If in 10 years or so I've met a few hundred more travellers and they've all been lovely, I can guarantee i'll view them differently.

Don't hold your breath though - they do themselves very few favours!

[Deleted User]

Said it before and I'll say it again. I can absolutely understand why a publican wouldn't be keen on hosting a Traveller wedding. The reputation didn't come from nowhere.

On the other hand, my heart goes out to any traveller lad or lady who simply wants to just be a normal member of society and get a job or study. Automatically put down before you're even given a shot. Imagine how hard that is.

[Deleted User]

the_syco wrote: »

Should black people welcome the KKK into their pubs?

Are you saying the KKK is not a political belief, but an ethnic group or nationality?

punisher5112

I have no issue with any traveller if they actually behave like a decent settled person or whatever way they want it.

If one does and acts like a model citizen then why would they be treated any different.

Answer to above they wouldn't be treated different only reason they would is how they act or portray themselves.

end of the road

Dr Brown wrote: »

The do gooders never seen to ask the question why travellers are "discriminated" against in the first place.

because it's irrelevant. discrimination is never the fault of those on the receiving end of it. there is no legitimate reason for it. what some travelers do or don't do doesn't get you away from the fact that if you discriminate against them, you are fully at fault of that, and you are ultimately breaking the law. don't like it, tough.

Dr Brown wrote: »

Pubs are in the business of making money they would not block a certain demographic coming into their pub unless they had a very good reason.

well, they don't. hence the anti-discrimination laws. laws which sometimes do work in terms of publicans and other businesses, which is a good result for society.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Maybe you can't. I have no problem with it.

Is it discrimination? Yes, sort of
Can I tolerate it? Yes
Is it deserved? Yes, very much so.

It's not really discrimination to use a bit of cop on. If you let a group of travellers in to your pub, or let them have a wedding in your hotel or something like that. It is way more likely to end in tears than letting basically any other group of people in. That's fact, not bigotry - this reputation didn't spring from peoples imaginations, it sprang from what they witnessed with their own eyes!

the law doesn't agree with you. the most likely reason for refusal of service to travelers is traveler. it doesn't have to be said at all, but it's known that it's the reason.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's just a crock of shít to say you have to treat everyone the same regardless of how they behave.

If every time you had dealings with the local football team, one of them robbed you, or hit you, or abused you in some way - you'd stop dealing with them. Even though there might be 1 or 2 of them who were sound, it just wouldn't be worth the hassle. If this happened for year after year even though the team members changed, you'd rightly assume that the club itself was just rotten and you'd stop dealing with them altogether even without knowing the individual players at all.

That would be discrimination, but it would also be the sensible thing to do!

discrimination comes first i'm afraid. discrimination is never sensible and any time someone involved in it has the law come down on top of them, it's a good thing for society.
nobody is talking about a situation where an individual or a couple of individuals behave badly and are thrown out and barred. there is absolutely no equation between that and refusing to serve someone because traveler.

punisher5112 wrote: »

I have no issue with any traveller if they actually behave like a decent settled person or whatever way they want it.

If one does and acts like a model citizen then why would they be treated any different.

Answer to above they wouldn't be treated different only reason they would is how they act or portray themselves.

unfortunately that isn't for the most part the case. a traveler opening their mouth would be enough for a good number to treat them differently.

davmol

Any one who defends travelers have not got a clue about them.
I worked for a security company who oversaw many shops in the city centre and 9 times out of 10 they would steal and rob anything in site.They used fake pregnant bellies and the women would come in and steal using it.They committed countless assaults on staff.They prey on old and vulnerable people(just look at the cases in Australia where they robbed an beat elderly people.
They are pure filth and this is not bigotry ,this is from experience in dealing with them every day for years.
I still remember being called into a shop where a female traveler had a dump at theback of a shop cos as she stated' I couldn't find a toilet' ,in the middle of the city centre.When told to get out she returned with 4 males who beat up a 7 stone Asian woman who worked there.
To all these lefties who love the travelers and don't understand the warranted discrimination against travelers I urge you to work in a place with direct frequent contact with them and see how long their tolerant attitude towards them lasts.
You couldn't make up the lows ive seen them stop to.

Nabber

Any resident of the state who is able to contribute to the state through income tax, CGT or corporation tax and refuses to do so should be in position that any business can refuse them entry....

“Sorry we only allow contributors to society. Oh you live off the grid, are an illegal immigrant, choose to be unemployed or are a traveller. Why didn’t you say so, I would have told you to **** off straight away”

We are an equal opportunity state. Contribute and drop the entitlement.

KrustyUCC

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Maybe you can't. I have no problem with it.

Is it discrimination? Yes, sort of
Can I tolerate it? Yes
Is it deserved? Yes, very much so.

It's not really discrimination to use a bit of cop on. If you let a group of travellers in to your pub, or let them have a wedding in your hotel or something like that. It is way more likely to end in tears than letting basically any other group of people in. That's fact, not bigotry - this reputation didn't spring from peoples imaginations, it sprang from what they witnessed with their own eyes!

My cousin works in a nice hotel in Cork City. He was telling me strory of a traveller wedding a few years ago. They had hired 2 Polish people to do the booking for them

They showed up and behaved until after the speeches

Then the 2 families started at each other. Apparently the familiies had a feud going back a while and the marriage was made to smooth things over. The hotel didn't have enough security and it really kicked off

They broke tables, chairs, curtain rails etc pretty much anything they could use as a weapon. Two lads has brought proper knives

The staff had to shut the bar and call the Guards

The staff has numerous bottles flung at their heads and one girl got a nasty injury after being struck by the mother of the bride

She never worked in the hotel again

The reputation is well deserved and I can't blame any hotel for not booking traveller wedding when that one cost a couple of grand worth of damage

end of the road

davmol wrote: »

Any one who defends travelers have not got a clue about them.

those of us who are against discrimination against travelers very much have a clue about them. we recognise that there are issues with the community and we call on all involved to try and fix those issues. however we also recognise that there are travelers not involved in criminality, and that criminality by members of a group is not a recognised justification for discrimination against the whole group, as there are no recognised reasons for discrimination against a group because they are a member of that group.

davmol wrote: »

They are pure filth and this is not bigotry ,this is from experience in dealing with them every day for years.

it is very much bigotry if you are calling the whole community "pure filth" on the basis of the actions of some. experience of some doesn't validate your views on a whole community, it validates your views on the few you have had experience with.

davmol wrote: »

To all these lefties who love the travelers and don't understand the warranted discrimination against travelers I urge you to work in a place with direct frequent contact with them and see how long their tolerant attitude towards them lasts.

there is no warranted discrimination against travelers. that is nothing to do with "ja lefties rabel rabel" but the law, and the state recognising that discrimination against travelers does not have a place within it. no matter how much you cry and rant, the state will end discrimination against travelers eventually.
this is a viewpoint held across the political spectrum, you will find people on the right who disagree with discrimination against travelers and any group. it's not just a viewpoint held by "ja lefties rabel rabel"
supporting discrimination doesn't make you right wing, or any wing.

Nabber wrote: »

Any resident of the state who is able to contribute to the state through income tax, CGT or corporation tax and refuses to do so should be in position that any business can refuse them entry....

“Sorry we only allow contributors to society. Oh you live off the grid, are an illegal immigrant, choose to be unemployed or are a traveller. Why didn’t you say so, I would have told you to **** off straight away”

We are an equal opportunity state. Contribute and drop the entitlement.

this part of your post invalidates the rest. "We are an equal opportunity state."
meaning whether you contribute or not (there are some who won't be in a position to do so even if they want to) you are able to avail of services. your wish isn't viable due to the fact as you point out, we are an equal opportunity state.

sbsquarepants

end of the road wrote: »

. discrimination is never sensible.

Something you and it have in common!

I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever in stating that I 100% believe that travellers are a group best avoided.

No good comes from dealing with them. There are probably occasional decent ones but they are very much in the minority - so much so that I just couldn't be arsed wading through the shít that comes with the rest of them in the hope of meeting that rare exception.

That has been my experience with travellers and that is good enough for me - I couldn't care less what the law or the UN says. I know what I've experienced, and I'd be perfectly happy to go through the rest of my life without ever meeting another one of them.

Pedro K

KrustyUCC wrote: »

My cousin works in a nice hotel in Cork City. He was telling me strory of a traveller wedding a few years ago. They had hired 2 Polish people to do the booking for them

They showed up and behaved until after the speeches

Then the 2 families started at each other. Apparently the familiies had a feud going back a while and the marriage was made to smooth things over. The hotel didn't have enough security and it really kicked off

They broke tables, chairs, curtain rails etc pretty much anything they could use as a weapon. Two lads has brought proper knives

The staff had to shut the bar and call the Guards

The staff has numerous bottles flung at their heads and one girl got a nasty injury after being struck by the mother of the bride

She never worked in the hotel again

The reputation is well deserved and I can't blame any hotel for not booking traveller wedding when that one cost a couple of grand worth of damage

It was probably settled people who came in after the speeches and trashed the place, just like they often go to halting sites and dump their rubbish...

davmol

end of the road wrote: »

davmol wrote: »

Any one who defends travelers have not got a clue about them.

those of us who are against discrimination against travelers very much have a clue about them. we recognise that there are issues with the community and we call on all involved to try and fix those issues. however we also recognise that there are travelers not involved in criminality, and that criminality by members of a group is not a recognised justification for discrimination against the whole group, as there are no recognised reasons for discrimination against a group because they are a member of that group.

davmol wrote: »

They are pure filth and this is not bigotry ,this is from experience in dealing with them every day for years.

it is very much bigotry if you are calling the whole community "pure filth" on the basis of the actions of some. experience of some doesn't validate your views on a whole community, it validates your views on the few you have had experience with.

davmol wrote: »

To all these lefties who love the travelers and don't understand the warranted discrimination against travelers I urge you to work in a place with direct frequent contact with them and see how long their tolerant attitude towards them lasts.

there is no warranted discrimination against travelers. that is nothing to do with "ja lefties rabel rabel" but the law, and the state recognising that discrimination against travelers does not have a place within it. no matter how much you cry and rant, the state will end discrimination against travelers eventually.
this is a viewpoint held across the political spectrum, you will find people on the right who disagree with discrimination against travelers and any group. it's not just a viewpoint held by "ja lefties rabel rabel"
supporting discrimination doesn't make you right wing, or any wing.

Nabber wrote: »

Any resident of the state who is able to contribute to the state through income tax, CGT or corporation tax and refuses to do so should be in position that any business can refuse them entry....

“Sorry we only allow contributors to society. Oh you live off the grid, are an illegal immigrant, choose to be unemployed or are a traveller. Why didn’t you say so, I would have told you to **** off straight away”

We are an equal opportunity state. Contribute and drop the entitlement.

this part of your post invalidates the rest. "We are an equal opportunity state."
meaning whether you contribute or not (there are some who won't be in a position to do so even if they want to) you are able to avail of services. your wish isn't viable due to the fact as you point out, we are an equal opportunity state.

You really don't have a clue.You can be a traveler apologist all you like but you haven't dealt with these people daily for years.It is not a few as you state above,i would have dealt with well over 150 through out the years and every single one bar 1 or 2 were up to no good.I have not ever heard of a positive story about a traveler in their daily goings on.Countless assaults on weaker smaller people,drinking to excess is the norm and then fighting anyone in sight.
Peoples opinions are based on their experiences and 99% of my experiences with a wide range of traveler families and their actions leave me with a very negative view of them.If you don't think its PC or you think im a bigot because of the consistent frequent negative experiences of travelers then so be it.
From my exposure to travelers if I could I would make it a law that premises can legally refuse travelers if they suspect there may be trouble because in 99% of cases there usually is and the result is wide scale violence,places getting thrashed,staff assaulted and theft.

[Deleted User]

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I couldn't care less what the law...says.

And that is your prerogative.

But if you don't care what the law says, I presume your issue with them can't be that they don't care about laws...

[Deleted User]

Pedro K wrote: »

It was probably settled people who came in after the speeches and trashed the place, just like they often go to halting sites and dump their rubbish...

That was my favourite of all. The person who posted it and the person who thanked it never had the balls to defend it or explain it though. One of the more surreal posts I think I've read on here ever.

CosmicJay

I'll gladly admit that I always try to judge a person by the content of their character, except travellers, I learned not to do this the hard way.

Story time;

My nan has this border collie, Zac, lovely dog, she doesn't have sheep so hes a bit useless, cant go ratting like the Russels and cant chase anything like the hounds.

Zac hates travellers, I mean absolutely despises travellers, if he sees a caravan from the road he turns into a Hellhound, absolute bouncing off the walls barking mad.

We found this out as my nan stumbled upon a group of travellers in her shed, when trying to roust them, one pushed her over.

Zac went nuclear, I mean absolutely nuclear.

He's been getting the finest cuts since.

The same group only came back round once more, dog was let out, he went absolutely schizo. That group hasnt been back around since.

Zac had finally found his purpose.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

And that is your prerogative.

But if you don't care what the law says, I presume your issue with them can't be that they don't care about laws...

You see the problem with PC bullshít is that it labours under the false assumption that all things are equal.

All laws are not created equal. We are all law breakers, each and every one of us, but downloading the latest Taylor Swift album is not the same thing as downloading kiddie porn.

Refusing to let travellers into your pub is not the same thing as smashing that pub up.

Sometimes you need to exercise some common sense, not just follow arbitrary rules!

end of the road

davmol wrote: »

You really don't have a clue.You can be a traveler apologist all you like but you haven't dealt with these people

the good news is that i really really do have a clue. i have dealt with travelers. both good and bad.

davmol wrote: »

Peoples opinions are based on their experiences and 99% of my experiences with a wide range of traveler families and their actions leave me with a very negative view of them.If you don't think its PC or you think im a bigot because of the consistent frequent negative experiences of travelers then so be it.

i don't think you are a bigot if you tar the whole group on the actions of some, i know you are. the state knows you are. the law knows you are. so it's not me making the rules here, i just happen to agree with them.

davmol wrote: »

From my exposure to travelers if I could I would make it a law that premises can legally refuse travelers if they suspect there may be trouble

not viable, as it would have to be extended to blacks, gays, and other minorities. if you support discrimination against 1 group, i find there is a high chance that you support it for all minority groups.

end of the road

CosmicJay wrote: »

I'll gladly admit that I always try to judge a person by the content of their character, except travellers, I learned not to do this the hard way.

Story time;

My nan has this border collie, Zac, lovely dog, she doesn't have sheep so hes a bit useless, cant go ratting like the Russels and cant chase anything like the hounds.

Zac hates travellers, I mean absolutely despises travellers, if he sees a caravan from the road he turns into a Hellhound, absolute bouncing off the walls barking mad.

We found this out as my nan stumbled upon a group of travellers in her shed, when trying to roust them, one pushed her over.

Zac went nuclear, I mean absolutely nuclear.

He's been getting the finest cuts since.

The same group only came back round once more, dog was let out, he went absolutely schizo. That group hasnt been back around since.

Zac had finally found his purpose.

yeah. we can safely say that the dog who hates travelers is made up. oh i'm sure your nan has a dog, and i'm sure it is probably true that there were travelers trying to rob her shed. but a dog who goes nuts when it sees a caravan or a traveler. nope. good attempt though.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You see the problem with PC bullshít is that it labours under the false assumption that all things are equal.

All laws are not created equal. We are all law breakers, each and every one of us, but downloading the latest Taylor Swift album is not the same thing as downloading kiddie porn.

Refusing to let travellers into your pub is not the same thing as smashing that pub up.

Sometimes you need to exercise some common sense, not just follow arbitrary rules!

refusing to let travelers into your pub is the same as refusing to let blacks or gays into your pub. all the time you need to follow the laws when operating a business, there is no negotiation or leeway on that fact.

kildare lad

I remember about 15 years ago, a load of travellers moved to my town. They started going down to the snooker hall there. They were loud, rude and they would try and not pay for tables that they played on. People stopped going down there. So after two weeks the owner turned it into a members only club. He gave any settled person who came in a membership card so when the travellers turned up he refused them saying that its now a members only club and memberships full up. It work out fine. I remember the local nightclub at the time let them in one night and there was absolute murder. The bouncers eventually got them all out and we were locked inside, they tried to ram the doors open. The garda came and didnt even arrest them. If you or i did it we'd be nicked. Not all travellers are like that but a very high percentage of them are. They're there own worst enemy.

CosmicJay

end of the road wrote: »

the good news is that i really really do have a clue. i have dealt with travelers. both good and bad.

i don't think you are a bigot if you tar the whole group on the actions of some, i know you are. the state knows you are. the law knows you are. so it's not me making the rules here, i just happen to agree with them.

not viable, as it would have to be extended to blacks, gays, and other minorities. if you support discrimination against 1 group, i find there is a high chance that you support it for all minority groups.

Does that mean you agree travellers are more predisposed to commit crimes?

I'll read Zac your posts and see if he goes mental, I bet he will.

I probably cant comment on if he actually hates travellers, but when family comes up with a 6 berth he has an absolute meltdown. So he does, in fact, hate caravans.

Also you*, you can safely say.

This is a bit of an unfiltered thought, but Id say Padraig Nally hasnt had to buy a pint down his local in years.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

if you support discrimination against 1 group, i find there is a high chance that you support it for all minority groups.

Many people in here said they've zero issue with gay people/black people/minoroties. I find most folks are kinda in the same wavelength there. With Travellers and opinions of them, that seems to differ. Why do you think that might be?

AnneFrank

CosmicJay wrote: »

Does that mean you agree travellers are more predisposed to commit crimes?

I'll read Zac your posts and see if he goes mental, I bet he will.

I probably cant comment on if he actually hates travellers, but when family comes up with a 6 berth he has an absolute meltdown. So he does, in fact, hate caravans.

Also you*, you can safely say.

This is a bit of an unfiltered thought, but Id say Padraig Nally hasnt had to buy a pint down his local in years.

Ask Zac has he any milk for the Baba and see what he does ?

end of the road

CosmicJay wrote: »

Does that mean you agree travellers are more predisposed to commit crimes?

no, i don't.

[Deleted User]

You think the laws about discrimination are...

sbsquarepants wrote: »

PC bullshít

You are correct about one thing, not all laws are equal. But strangely enough, you think laws to prevent damage to pubs are more important than laws that protect groups against bigotry and intolerance. I'd rank them the other way around, surely history tells us a lot more damage is caused by the latter?

end of the road

Omackeral wrote: »

Many people in here said they've zero issue with gay people/black people/minoroties. I find most folks are kinda in the same wavelength there. With Travellers and opinions of them, that seems to differ. Why do you think that might be?

it's because travelers are the last group where it is socially exceptible to discriminate against them. irish society did it to other groups in the past, and i think the old ideals haven't quite left us yet, even though most of us do recognise there is no place for discrimination.
remember, when society discriminated against blacks, gays, single mothers and so on, they often used the bad things, or what society believed to be the bad things, that some people who happened to fit into those groups did to justify their discrimination.

punisher5112

85% unemployment but yet they all have homes and nice cars.....

Find it laughable to be honest.