Krystle used cash settlement to avoid closure over discrimination

Roro4Brit · 28-01-2010 03:55PM

28064212 wrote: »

This is the type of **** that means everyone who goes to these places get exactly what they deserve. Someone turns me away, or any of my group, from the door for no good reason they don't get my custom, and they don't get it in the future either.

I hate Copper's, think it's a ****hole full of retards. Know how many times I've been there? Twice. The second time was to give it a fair chance. The amount of people who complain about it over and over and then go back every week are the reason most of the nightclubs in Dublin are so ****. Why would the nightclub owners want to improve standards? People prove repeatedly that they will keep giving them their custom, regardless of what they do

You're right and in fairness to ME that is what I have done on similar occasions. Anyhow I don't go back every week. I've only been to this place 3 times, and this was the last. The girls insisted we meet up with the rest of those inside as it was christmas drinks!

Don't you attack me. I'll call my solicitor

Victor · 28-01-2010 03:58PM

TheZohan wrote: »

What's to say that she didn't go off for more booze and when she came back she was unsteady on her feet?

Are you suggesting that the bar next door, apparently part of the same complex and operated by the same company provided so much alcohol that she was intoxicated. It is an offence to serve people who are intoxicated.*

Are you suggesting that the doorman who had been there earlier when she entered previously was negligent in letting her in with such shoes?

Have you ever heard of someone not allowed in a club because their shoes were too big?

* Yes I realise "intoxicated" is a bit subjective in this country.

seamus · 28-01-2010 03:59PM

TheZohan wrote: »

He did say that her heels were too high, bouncers are responsible for the well being of patrons in a club, he made a health and safety call. So what?

But she'd already been in there. That's probably the crux of this matter. She'd been in the club, she'd interacted with the door people (she had her hand stamped) and therefore her heels were deemed fine.

This means that his excuse of "health and safety" is complete bollocks because if it had any merit, she would never have been allowed in the club in the first place.

Choke · 28-01-2010 04:00PM

1. This woman is a litigious traveller, so everyone should be careful what they say.

2. She had already been admitted, but was denied readmittance. So obviously her heels were not a problem the first time around.

Tbh, I doubt she was denied entrance for being a traveller, but probably for being generally classless - Krystle seems to be very strict on who it lets in and who it doesn't.

28-01-2010 04:01PM

Roro4Brit wrote: »

You're right and in fairness to ME that is what I have done on similar occasions. Anyhow I don't go back every week. I've only been to this place 3 times, and this was the last. The girls insisted we meet up with the rest of those inside as it was christmas drinks!

Don't you attack me. I'll call my solicitor

Didn't mean it as a personal attack, just a platform for a general attack

WindSock · 28-01-2010 04:02PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Yeah, just like that pesky Rosa Parks.

Rosa Parks was challenging a clear discrimination against blacks on buses. They couldn't sit at the front because they were black.

This woman was refused re-entry to a club. No clear reason was given. She happened to be a Traveller. It still doesn't mean this is the reason why.

However there is no decent defence in this case as to why she was refused re-entry, so is it to be presumed because she is a member of the Travelling community?

TheGod · 28-01-2010 04:03PM

Victor wrote: »

Have you ever heard of someone not allowed in a club because their shoes were too big?

Harry the Clown v Copper Face Jacks Nightclub [2002] ISEC 1

seamus · 28-01-2010 04:07PM

WindSock wrote: »

However there is no decent defence in this case as to why she was refused re-entry, so is it to be presumed because she is a member of the Travelling community?

Well, what else about her stood out?
There was a reason that she was refused re-entry. The reason given was not valid, so clearly the reason was something that this girl possessed that no-one else did. Travellers do stand out like a sore thumb most of the time.

Now maybe it was nothing to do with being traveller, maybe she just looked trashy as someone else said, but again if that was the case, then the bouncer should have said that.

So I can't see any other conclusion than "He refused her because she was a traveller".

Solvo Slep · 28-01-2010 04:12PM

TheGod wrote: »

Harry the Clown v Copper Face Jacks Nightclub [2002] ISEC 1

He was a traveller too, funnily enough.

humanji · 28-01-2010 04:15PM

Choke wrote: »

2. She had already been admitted, but was denied readmittance. So obviously her heels were not a problem the first time around.

Nor was her being a traveller.

It seems to me the highheels excuse and the traveller excuse are both bollox.

pickarooney · 28-01-2010 04:16PM

WindSock wrote: »

Rosa Parks was challenging a clear discrimination against blacks on buses. They couldn't sit at the front because they were black.

This woman was refused re-entry to a club. No clear reason was given. She happened to be a Traveller. It still doesn't mean this is the reason why.

However there is no decent defence in this case as to why she was refused re-entry, so is it to be presumed because she is a member of the Travelling community?

Does 'presumed' stand up in court? If not then it's another verb which does, in the eyes of the judge.

Victor · 28-01-2010 04:21PM

TheGod wrote: »

Harry the Clown v Copper Face Jacks Nightclub [2002] ISEC 1

Bull! If you read the judgement properly, you know the only one who was too big for his shoes was the bouncer. :pac:

whiterob81 · 28-01-2010 04:45PM

seamus wrote: »

Now maybe it was nothing to do with being traveller, maybe she just looked trashy as someone else said, but again if that was the case, then the bouncer should have said that.

Maybe she did look trashy and that was his reason for turning her away but how do you phrase that. "I didn't like the look of her", "i turned her away because she looked like a knacker", "She was more Drumcondra trashy, not our usual dundrum trashy". I don't think any of them would have went down too well.

If she looked trashy and wasn't a traveller it's more than likely she would still have been turned away from krystle.

I know i've been turned away from plenty of night clubs for inappropriate footwear over the years. i've never turned to the law. i've just stopped going to crap night clubs with a$$hole bouncers

df1985 · 28-01-2010 04:45PM

i wouldnt let a traveller in either if i ran a pub/club tbh. you can spot them a mile off, and other people wouldnt go there as a result.

the shoe reason is nonsense though, been in krystle and as previously said the girls in there wear the highest shoes ive ever seen anyways, especially all the model types.

ScumLord · 28-01-2010 04:50PM

Wazdakka wrote: »

+1

How would he even know she was a traveller?

It's easy enough to spot a traveller they do have similar facial features they've been a closed community for a while and that;s had an effect on how they look, anyone who says they couldn't pick a traveller out of a crowd must not spend any time around them.

I think it's very likely she was targeted once she was away from the group she was with. Women travellers often have to bare the brunt of the hatred some people have for the group as a whole because they're easier for men to pick on, something they'd never do if there was one of the traveller men there.

The high heals excuse was completely lame, I've never seen or heard of that excuse being used anywhere ever before and he should have thought of something better by the time he got to court.

stovelid · 28-01-2010 05:18PM

Trying to flog carpet in the queue was a dead giveaway in fairness.

whiterob81 · 28-01-2010 05:40PM

Maybe he thought she was Katherine Lynch

Bouncer07 · 29-01-2010 01:56PM

I've been in that situation many a time. In general travellers can be alright. It's the odd one that cause murder. The fact of the matter is that if you don't want to let someone in through your door, you have the right to refuse entry. Was she dressed like a traveller on the night?

It's worse when foreign nationals are fighting with Irish people. When you throw them out they kick off about we're only kicking them out because they're black.

homerjay2005 · 29-01-2010 02:05PM

this is bad news....q loads of travellers hitting the town tonight and trying to get in anyway....

Bouncer07 · 29-01-2010 02:08PM

I wondered why security roster had doubled for this weekend!

WindSock · 29-01-2010 02:10PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

this is bad news....q loads of travellers hitting the town tonight and trying to get in anyway....

Yes, how dare they try to socialise in the same places as us!

actuallylike · 29-01-2010 02:13PM

Leave Krystle open, the best thing that's happened this city! If it wasn't for Krystle you'd have the biggest retards and degenerates that Dublin City has to offer trying to go to the same clubs as everyone else. It's a quarantine club, as far as I'm concerned they can have it as long as they stay in it!
Kinda like Temple Bar, as long as all the manky hen parties stay there, well imo, you can have it!

TheGod · 29-01-2010 02:31PM

actuallylike wrote: »

Leave Krystle open, the best thing that's happened this city! If it wasn't for Krystle you'd have the biggest retards and degenerates that Dublin City has to offer trying to go to the same clubs as everyone else. It's a quarantine club, as far as I'm concerned they can have it as long as they stay in it!
Kinda like Temple Bar, as long as all the manky hen parties stay there, well imo, you can have it!

And Copper Face Jacks, home of those filthy, embarassing, ignorant, culchies!

I was outside it once and two lads were actually having a fight about what county was better. The gathered crowd was split in two. One shouting for Leitrim the other shouting for Mayo as these two overweight men in their levi shirts and dark blue jeans fought it out for their counties pride.

opinion guy · 29-01-2010 02:37PM

TheGod wrote: »

Harry the Clown v Copper Face Jacks Nightclub [2002] ISEC 1

Genius. Pure comic genius. I applaud you sir.

Can i just point something out here ? This thread is quite enlightening on the general attitude of people towards Travellers and the innate racism towards them. Why do i say this ? For the following reason. This lady, paid in to a function, paid high cover charge that is, voluntarily gave her own money, - why ? In order to raise money for a charity, for people in need. She was doing something to help other people suffering from epilepsy, be they travellers or not. So to all those biggots saying they wouldn't let travellers in either I ask - when was the last time you did something for charity and did you get discriminated against in the process ??

She's damn right to be pissed off. And she's damn right to be bringing the neanderthal to court

Roro4Brit · 29-01-2010 02:39PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Genius. Pure comic genius. I applaud you sir.

Can i just point something out here ? This thread is quite enlightening on the general attitude of people towards Travellers and the innate racism towards them. Why do i say this ? For the following reason. This lady, paid in to a function, paid high cover charge that is, voluntarily gave her own money, - why ? In order to raise money for a charity, for people in need. She was doing something to help other people suffering from epilepsy, be they travellers or not. So to all those biggots saying they wouldn't let travellers in either I ask - when was the last time you did something for charity and did you get discriminated against in the process ??

She's damn right to be pissed off. And she's damn right to be bringing the neanderthal to court

Amen!

phasers · 29-01-2010 03:03PM

How come she got in the first time? Did she change into her traveller costume before the second attempt?

G86 · 29-01-2010 03:11PM

She paid in, so therefore she should have got her money refunded or got back in the second time. Whether she's a traveller or not has nothing to do with it.

However, had she not paid in already then management had the right to refuse admission if they felt she wasn't dressed appropriately; just as if some lad turned up in a trackie and white trainers they could refuse him too.

pickarooney · 29-01-2010 03:14PM

Maybe the bouncers changed shifts in between her initial entry and the second attempt

techdiver · 29-01-2010 03:16PM

pickarooney wrote: »

Maybe the bouncers changed shifts in between her initial entry and the second attempt

She had a stamp on her hand.

Why bother stamping peoples hands on the way in if you ignore it as proof of previous entry?

happyfriday74 · 29-01-2010 03:19PM

Love all the Krystle bashing!

I've been in here a few times and its a good spot, staff seemed ok. I do remember them being a bit high and mighty the first few months they opened but every new nightclub was like that( Dandalion when it first opened were horrible, never got in and hence have never darkened its door since) Guess its ireland and people always like to get upset over everthing they assume is exclusive

You do meet some idiotic charactors in krystal make no mistake but you get them everywhere, I would just as easily frequent coppers as I would Krystle.

Regarding travellers, I hate to sound harsh but they are trouble, I admit there are some good ones but most of my experiences with them have been negative.

A few mates of mine worked in hotels and bars over the years hotel business if a traveller books a wedding or social function in your estabishment you have two choices:

A: let them in and have the place wrecked
B:get sued

Krystle used cash settlement to avoid closure over discrimination

Comments