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

Traveller bride-to-be awarded €15,000 after hotel found to have discriminated against

Options
245678

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    seamus wrote: »
    Stating that "travellers present an extra risk", is discrimination. It's a blanket prejudice against an individual based on their genetics or heritage. Replace "travellers" with "Jews" or "Irish" and you can see why the state has to defend minorities against discriminatory practices......

    The solution as done by the insurance company is to put a price premium on everyone they can identify by age or sex, etc.

    The equivalent for weddings would be to ask some crazy deposit, like 20k for everyone who wants to do a wedding. Hire a bunch of security staff for the night. Make it almost impossible for the entire country to have weddings and such events.

    Or get out of the business. They its now impossible to insurance for somethings.


  • Options
    #33
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,694 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Zookey123 wrote: »
    I think you have to have lived under a rock to not recognise the extra risk involved in dealing with the traveller community. You also have obviously never owned a small business having to deal with constant shop lifting from said community either. If 10 travellers walk into a restaurant and 9 of them cause hassle I personally wouldn't allow any in. Yes its not a very elegant solution but better than the alternative.

    Yes but it is discrimination to not serve someone for being a traveller. If you bar all travellers from your shop because some or lots steal that is discrimination now I'm not saying you don't have your reasons or that I would do different to you but at least own it.

    No one is pretending here that there are not problems with the traveller community but if the hotel or anywhere else had suspicion there would be trouble it has to be dealt with using a bit of tact. I worked in pubs for years and there are ways to deal with the drunk and unwanted in a premises without getting sued


  • Options
    #34
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,141 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    dmn22 wrote: »
    Bit of a separate point, but I always wonder whenever you see rental property and the landlord is looking for females only.. if this traveller case is discrimination, is this common practice not discrimination also?




    You can legally do that where there are other tenants in the house.


  • Options
    #35
    Invidious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Invidious


    seamus wrote: »
    I'm making an assumption that a woman who's organising a wedding, is probably young, i.e. 30 or under.

    :rolleyes:

    You assume that a woman organizing a wedding is 30 or younger? It's news to me that women don't get married over 30.

    It might surprise you that the average age of an Irish bride is now 34.8, according to the CSO.


  • Options
    #36
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    McFly85 wrote: »
    But I would like to know, what is the process for hotels if there is serious damage done at an event? I would have assumed the persons booking the event would be liable, but if they cannot pay?
    The hotel's insurance would cover it. In general, the hotel is also the organiser of the event, which means any liability falls on their own shoulder.
    BrianBoru00 wrote: »
    That's fair enough. The problem is that it is the experience of the majority of hoteliers and publicans that travellers as a group are more likely to cause trouble - any town with a traveller funeral - all the pubs will be shut - is that discrimination?
    It's illegal discrimination if they're closing, "Because it's Travellers".

    If they're closing because, "It's the Smith family from down the road who are known for wrecking the place", then it's not illegal discrimination.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Tyrone212
    Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭Tyrone212


    Great news. The Starbucks settlement whingers were running out of things to say. This will keep yous going for the next couple of days until the next thing gets your knickers in twist. Enjoy!


  • Options
    #38
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,704 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    seamus wrote: »
    It's illegal discrimination if they're closing, "Because it's Travellers".

    If they are closing then they are closing for everyone. How could it possibly be discrimination?


  • Options
    #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    beauf wrote: »
    The solution as done by the insurance company is to put a price premium on everyone they can identify by age or sex, etc.

    The equivalent for weddings would be to ask some crazy deposit, like 20k for everyone who wants to do a wedding. Hire a bunch of security staff for the night. Make it almost impossible for the entire country to have weddings and such events.

    Or get out of the business. They its now impossible to insurance for somethings.
    What other business do most mid-market hotels have? Very few are serving tourists or business people in great numbers. Wedding receptions are where they earn their money.
    High end hotels don't rely on this business. Low end hotels can serve direct provision or local housing authority. The mid-range hotels are stuck dependent on receptions.


  • Options
    #40
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    Discrimination is a one way street.

    Discrimination was legalised when women-only jobs were created in academia.

    Just to be clear sexist discrimination in this country is when a woman is discriminated against. That's it.

    Discrimination when it suits them.

    Incidentally Id have taken the booking but I wouldnt have allowed them pay in cash.


  • Options
    #41
    Renault 5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 171 ✭✭Renault 5


    Invidious wrote: »
    You assume that a woman organizing a wedding is 30 or younger? It's news to me that women don't get married over 30.

    It might surprise you that the average age of an Irish bride is now 34.8, according to the CSO.

    You are sadly mistaken if you think the average age of a Traveller bride is 34.8.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Invidious wrote: »
    Another hotel had to pay €3,500 last year for cancelling a Traveller wedding.

    And yet this woman receives more than four times that amount?

    I'd imagine the fact that the hotel didn't engage with the WRC played a part in that award.


  • Options
    #43
    Invidious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Invidious


    Renault 5 wrote: »
    You are sadly mistaken if you think the average age of a Traveller bride is 34.8.

    I don't.

    My point is that Seamus assumes the woman is young, on the basis that she's a Traveller bride, even though the article does not state her age.

    Ironically, Seamus himself illustrates how we all make assumptions about Travellers based on patterns typical in their community. The hotel's assumption that Travellers are more violent, anti-social, or disruptive is also based on long-established patterns, and there's plenty of evidence to back that up.


  • Options
    #44
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,581 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    A quite reasonable way of avoiding traveller weddings would be to have a no cash payment policy, all funds to be sent by cleared bank transfer.


  • Options
    #45
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    What are ye on about.... some sort of massive GOTCHA because a woman of marriage age is assumed to not be an old woman? Give over.

    Seamus isn't saying he is free of all assumptions, he is saying this is CLEARLY discrimination. (Which it is)

    All you're saying is that this discrimination is based in their learned bias. That isn't a disagreement, it's context.


  • Options
    #46
    tucker1971
    Registered Users Posts: 177 ✭✭tucker1971


    ELM327 wrote: »
    A quite reasonable way of avoiding traveller weddings would be to have a no cash payment policy, all funds to be sent by cleared bank transfer.

    Excellent suggestion


  • Options
    #47
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Hotel made the right decision except for making the reason too obvious.
    Even so, I think the 15k was a saving on the potential damage caused.

    What could they say?

    1.Oh sorry, we are all booked up for the next 18 months.
    2. Quote them an outrageously inflated price so they won't take it. If questioned, they could quote very large security and bouncer costs.

    They were smart enough not to say something explicit like "oh sorry, we don't take traveller weddings" instead, they just opted for the silent treatment and ignore them, but they were not cute enough to give some other claim-proof fobb off.

    What could they have said that would have them in the clear? I don't think there is anything easy. Whatever is said, and whatever reason given, anyone looking at the situation will obviously know it is because they didn't want to run the risk of a traveller wedding ransacking the hotel.
    If they did allow it and the place was trashed, the manager who took the booking would get an absolute bollocking out of it and possibly let go. Even if it passed off peacefully, it would be bad for the hotel's reputation if it became known as a location that regularly had travellers.


  • Options
    #48
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,694 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    tucker1971 wrote: »
    Excellent suggestion

    It is a good idea and would probably work some of the time.

    But again like assuming she is young assuming no travellers own bank card or accounts is discrimination


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


    Invidious wrote: »
    My point is that Seamus assumes the woman is young, on the basis that she's a Traveller bride
    Yeah, falling flat on your face there chief. You've made a blind assumption about my assumptions, based on your own prejudices.

    Maybe you assumed she was young because she's a traveller.

    I assumed she was young because she's getting married.


  • Options
    #50
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,581 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    TheBoyConor wrote: »
    What could they say?

    1.Oh sorry, we are all booked up for the next 18 months.
    2. Quote them an outrageously inflated price so they won't take it. If questioned, they could quote very large security and bouncer costs.

    They were smart enough not to say something explicit like "oh sorry, we don't take traveller weddings" instead, they just opted for the silent treatment and ignore them, but they were not cute enough to give some other claim-proof fobb off.

    What could they have said that would have them in the clear? I don't think there is anything easy. Whatever is said, and whatever reason given, anyone looking at the situation will obviously know it is because they didn't want to run the risk of a traveller wedding ransacking the hotel.
    If they did allow it and the place was trashed, the manager who took the booking would get an absolute bollocking out of it and possibly let go. Even if it passed off peacefully, it would be bad for the hotel's reputation if it became known as a location that regularly had travellers.


    Bank transfer. Implement a "KYC" policy, ostensibly to avoid fraud, but to require photo id for the person booking and make sure the funds are legit.


    Advise that all large payments (over1k) are reported to revenue to ensure tax legit.


  • Options
    #51
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,581 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    It is a good idea and would probably work some of the time.

    But again like assuming she is young assuming no travellers own bank card or accounts is discrimination
    It's one way of narrowing down the pool.
    You can do other additional measures as I outlined too.


    The important thing is that these WRC hearings do not mean you cannot discriminate, merely that you must be covert about doing so.



    You cannot do =/= You cannot be seen doing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Zookey123
    Registered Users Posts: 340 ✭✭Zookey123


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    Yes but it is discrimination to not serve someone for being a traveller. If you bar all travellers from your shop because some or lots steal that is discrimination now I'm not saying you don't have your reasons or that I would do different to you but at least own it.

    No one is pretending here that there are not problems with the traveller community but if the hotel or anywhere else had suspicion there would be trouble it has to be dealt with using a bit of tact. I worked in pubs for years and there are ways to deal with the drunk and unwanted in a premises without getting sued
    Oh I totally agree its discrimination but a business owner need to have a risk vs reward strategy. And the risk far outweighs the reward regarding the traveller community. Is it discrimination? Yes. Is it justified?


  • Options
    #53
    Invidious
    Closed Accounts Posts: 528 ✭✭✭Invidious


    seamus wrote: »
    Yeah, falling flat on your face there chief. You've made a blind assumption about my assumptions, based on your own prejudices.

    Maybe you assumed she was young because she's a traveller.

    I assumed she was young because she's getting married.

    It would be quite reasonable to assume that a Traveller bride is young.

    You're the one taking the stand that people shouldn't make assumptions about people just because they happen to be Travellers ... and yet, by your own admission, you also assumed that a Traveller bride-to-be must be young, even though the average Irish bride is almost 35.


  • Options
    #54
    RandRuns
    Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RandRuns


    ELM327 wrote: »
    A quite reasonable way of avoiding traveller weddings would be to have a no cash payment policy, all funds to be sent by cleared bank transfer.

    This ^^^

    I know a family that run a hotel. They have never held a traveller wedding and never will, and have never been brought up for it, because they insist, clearly and upfront, that all payments for weddings must be either by a personal cheque paid two weeks in advance, or by bank transfer. If they don't know you, they make a big deal of making this crystal clear when you enquire. I had my own wedding there. In the popular wedding months, they are booked up 18-24 months in advance.


  • Options
    #55
    breezy1985
    Registered Users Posts: 24,694 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Bank transfer. Implement a "KYC" policy, ostensibly to avoid fraud, but to require photo id for the person booking and make sure the funds are legit.


    Advise that all large payments (over1k) are reported to revenue to ensure tax legit.

    These days I don't think it would be unreasonable for a hotel to state no cash on sums that large and ID is required for a room booking everywhere now so easy apply the same. How do you make sure funds are legit though what exactly does that mean.

    On this particular hotel one screw up was not even showing them around at the wedding fair and then replying to the emails. If they had just forgot to reply to emails they could fob it off as a mistake but there were too many things mounted up.
    Most likely why they didn't even show up to defend themselves


  • Options
    #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Invidious wrote: »
    I don't.

    My point is that Seamus assumes the woman is young, on the basis that she's a Traveller bride, even though the article does not state her age.

    Ironically, Seamus himself illustrates how we all make assumptions about Travellers based on patterns typical in their community. The hotel's assumption that Travellers are more violent, anti-social, or disruptive is also based on long-established patterns, and there's plenty of evidence to back that up.

    this post trying to cause an issue when there is none.
    some people call women 'young ladies' i refer to anyone younger than myself as a young lady, I am 45.


  • Options
    #57
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    She did quite well out of it. 15 G is always very welcome around wedding time. Fair play and all Hotels would need to be catching themselves on.

    If they have an issue with them trashing the place then ramp up the fee, bigtime. There is no law against that.

    Families get married all the time, in Hotels. The concept that this will lead to killings is nonsense, they only happen and christenings or funerals. Killings at weddings is banned. There woule be hape a troubla abut the trubla.

    DoyanowaImean?


  • Options
    #58
    TheBoyConor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭TheBoyConor


    seamus wrote: »
    Stating that "travellers present an extra risk", is discrimination. It's a blanket prejudice against an individual based on their genetics or heritage. Replace "travellers" with "Jews" or "Irish" and you can see why the state has to defend minorities against discriminatory practices.

    Whatever way you swing it, claiming that this young woman's family were a higher risk just because they're travellers, is discrimination. Past experiences or anecdotes may explain the reason that someone discriminates, but cannot justify it.

    If this woman or her family had been involved in past issues at the hotel, then you've got a better basis. But otherwise she must be treated the same as anyone else who walks in off the street, and no more of a risk than them.

    There's no end of stories of wealthy weddings resulting in holes in walls, toilets ripped off the walls, lines of coke being done on the bar and brawls on the dancefloor, but you'd never hear of a hotel turning down a wedding because the bride is from an RTE family in Dalkey.

    You're right. And "You can't have a wedding here because Traveller weddings always end up wrecking the place" is neither respectful or egalitarian.

    That is all grand and well in theory. But theory and real world practicalities can be very different?

    Would you be totally indifferent if the council decided to build a 40-bay traveller accommodation site 100m down the road from your house? What do you think the effect on the value of your property would be? Perhaps you'd be singing a very different tune then!!!

    We are forever hearing from people who are suggesting that travellers are sweet as pie and are no risk to anyone.....as long as they are not in their own back garden.

    I have had the misfortune of having some dealings with that community through my work. It is like nothing you would see elsewhere. I have met one sound one in fairness to him, but the majority of the interactions have been very negative, colleauges being intimidated and threatened, us having to be accompanied by Gardai to do work, contractors refusing to do work for fear of their safety and theft of their tools, the the self-arson of a newly refurbished home.

    I have also had to call a vet out to tend to one of their horses on our grounds who was left in the most appalling state. Whatever about trashing hotels, the horrific abuse and mistreatment of innocent animals in the traveller community is beyond forgivable. The emaciated horses and dogs, dog fighting. As an animal lover, I will very much hold that against the traveller community as a whole. They are a disgrace in that regard.
    I firmly believe that how a person treats animals reveals a great deal about their character.


    I, like many others, have my opinions of travellers and their culture as a whole. They are opinions that are based on direct experience. They are not just dreamed up mad notions for no reason.


  • Options
    #59
    RandRuns
    Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RandRuns


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    These days I don't think it would be unreasonable for a hotel to state no cash on sums that large and ID is required for a room booking everywhere now so easy apply the same. How do you make sure funds are legit though what exactly does that mean.

    On this particular hotel one screw up was not even showing them around at the wedding fair and then replying to the emails. If they had just forgot to reply to emails they could fob it off as a mistake but there were too many things mounted up.
    Most likely why they didn't even show up to defend themselves

    The emails thing would have been simple to sort - mark the emails you don't want to receive as spam, problem sorted. "sorry your honour, the emails from Ms. X were not received by us, but subsequent to this action, our head of IT investigated and found that they went straight to a spam folder, as the email programme marked them as suspicious"


  • Options
    #60
    RandRuns
    Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RandRuns


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    She did quite well out of it. 15 G is always very welcome around wedding time. Fair play and all Hotels would need to be catching themselves on.

    If they have an issue with them trashing the place then ramp up the fee, bigtime. There is no law against that.

    Families get married all the time, in Hotels. The concept that this will lead to killings is nonsense, they only happen and christenings or funerals. Killings at weddings is banned. There woule be hape a troubla abut the trubla.

    DoyanowaImean?

    15k would hardly pay for the hire of the pink Hummer, the 2 stretch Mercedes, and the 8-horse white carriage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    IAMAMORON
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    RandRuns wrote: »
    15k would hardly pay for the hire of the pink Hummer, the 2 stretch Mercedes, and the 8-horse white carriage.

    Ah, yah spoton.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement