Wheelchair user refused entry to Dublin Nightclub.

kidneyfan wrote: »

They rarely do tell lies though and this young man in a wheelchair has no motivation for lying about the bouncer.

Do you consider the disabled mentally incapable of lying, or do you have some other reason to deny that people in wheelchairs are just as fallible and corruptible as the rest of humanity? 'Cos I've known a couple, and they're just like every one else.

I read a statement on Facebook from the guy who took the photo.
He said this was the first nightclub he got to after getting out of the taxi.
Err, how many clubs does he go to on a typical night out??
And if this is the first time he has been refused, he's got a better ratio than a lot of non wheelchair bound people!

frank reynolds wrote: »

in my honest opinion, i really think he was out for a claim.

Not sure he'd have done his chances any good by going down this route.

If this isn't what Graham is claiming, then it looks to me like it could be a misguided attempt to get some attention.

Just after getting in and skimmed through this thread, sounds like this chap thinks being in a wheelchair is a good excuse for being a díckhead.

why was the bouncer sacked if he did nothing wrong?

kidneyfan wrote: »

He has nothing to gain out of it. Do you think that the equality commissioner is going to give him 10 grand or something? No chance.

For me the heart of the matter is the offer for his friends (female and wearing high heels) to carry him down the stairs.

If these were the friends referred to the bouncer was totally out of order.

I have been bulling when refused entry but it was usually because I was drunk and acting the prick.

So, the security men should have left their posts to carry a wheelchair down a flight of stairs, which is not only putting themselves in physical danger, as wheelchairs are large, unwieldy things, but is also contra-indicated by their insurers, and a fire hazard rather than Mr. Bolger going to one of the many other, handicapped accessible clubs in the city?

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

If he had a legitimate claim he would have contacted a solicitor, not a bunch of randomers on facebook.

And you have evidence to prove he hasn't also done this?

kidneyfan wrote: »

His eyes look bloodshot but that could be tears.

Oh good jaysus

dddmac wrote: »

Regulations that came into force after 2010 regarding disability access:
Disability Access Certificate: an Overview

*Any building work that requires Planning Permission and a Fire Cert will now also require an Access Cert.
*All non-domestic building work that starts on site after 1st Jan 2010 will need a certificate before works begin.
*Non-domestic building work includes new hotels, apartment blocks, shops, churches, offices, etc. In fact, everything except private houses. It also includes any changes to these types of buildings that will affect their layout or facilities, e.g. extensions, ramps or toilets.
*An Access Cert will normally be applied for at the same time as a Fire Cert.
*Work cannot start on site without an Access Cert. However, as there is no official time period (unlike a Fire Cert) in which the Building Control Authority are required to issue the cert, this may potentially lead to delays for applicants.

Link to building control act 2007

Dublin City Disability access cert requirements

From one of those links

From 1st January 2010 all new buildings in Ireland (except for houses), and buildings where there is a change of layout, will require a Disability Access Certificate.

Unless they changed the insides significantly, they don't need an access cert.

kidneyfan wrote: »

Pretty shocking to call a disabled man a liar.
The disabled man has not waged a vicious campaign of discrimination. I don't really know what you mean.

Why can't you accuse anyone of lying? The whole point of equality is that we treat him the same as anyone else. I'm applying the same standards that I apply to everyone else.

And don't say why couldn't the nightclub apply the same standards. the place is down a steep flight of stairs. It creates a dangerous situation for him and the other customers if they let in people that they are not equiped to help. Can you imagine a dublin bus driver letting someone carry a disabled person up to the upper deck of a bus. Of course not. It's not equipped for that and it's dangerous.

And are you actually saying that the nightclub has waged a vicious campaign against him? He's the one that's reposting again and again, even after someone got fired. That is mean, nasty and petty.

kidneyfan wrote: »

In my experience bouncers stick up for each other so the fact that the bouncer got the sack shows that he must have been really out of order.

I sincerely hope that an innocent man didn't get the sack but what would the disabled man in a wheelchair have to gain from getting the bouncer sacked?

Once again, why should he be better than anyone else? I have no idea why you constantly say "disabled man in a wheelchair " as if that means he has a higher moral code than anyone else.
It's because your argument has no strength and you're hoping to illicit sympathy. And it's obvious that he's got an agenda. He's reposting again and again. His friends were even reposting (and posting here). Some of them even created graphics.

veep wrote: »

And you have evidence to prove he hasn't also done this?

Why the social media campaign then?

I would think that this publicity would render any kind of legitimate claim impossible...

...and I would have thought that he would be quick to announce that he will sue if he had legitimate reason to do so, given the very public nature of his campaign.