Traveller sues hotel for not having enough security for wedding

anncoates · 26-05-2015 10:42PM

end of the road wrote: »

well you should blame them. they are breaking anti-discrimination laws so they need to be forced not to do so

Nope they're deciding not to open their business on a particular day. As is their right.

Their regrettable but calculated risk means their business stays intact and some other mug ends up being dragged through court because a bunch of people can't comport themselves like human beings

26-05-2015 10:47PM

Sociopath2 wrote: »

No there's no absolutes in there but it is a member of the group that claims such views are stereotypical, proposing that actually those views are well grounded in reality. It carries a lot more weight than a hotelier claiming the same thing.

No universal truths there but more weight added to the widely held view that such behaviour is typical of traveller weddings.

Was it a sociologist who gave that evidence?

Oh no, it was a "security consultant" who gave the "they need more security" evidence! Well there's a surprise.

It doesn't really carry much weight at all, does it?

jelutong · 26-05-2015 10:49PM

The Travellers,a great bunch of lads.

Pumpkinseeds · 26-05-2015 10:51PM

So they sued because there wasn't enough security. If the hotel had put on extra security they'd probably have sued for discrimination. This is one of the reasons hotels don't want traveller weddings. It was years ago, but a new hotel opened locally and they accepted a wedding booking not realising that it was a traveller wedding. They destroyed the place, literally smashed the place up inside so badly that the hotel had to close for months to repair the damage.

Forest Demon · 26-05-2015 10:54PM

I am just glad they lost the case and costs were awarded against them.

anncoates · 26-05-2015 10:56PM

Wonder has any English stag party ever taken a discrimination case against Irish pubs refusing them entry.

Clearly an Anglophobic hate crime.

prizefighter · 26-05-2015 10:56PM

silverfeather wrote: »

The f*ckin Irish I tells ya..

His ethnicity has nothing to do with it. The hotel was vindicated and found not liable.

Man sued and lost .../ end of story.

I think the fact that the complainant used the ethnicity of the guests as the key reasoning for heightened security while sharing such ethnicity is in fact a MAJOR part of this story.

abff · 26-05-2015 11:22PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It will never happen because common sense dictates that lawyers should not be made liable where clients lose, unless they are negligent. There is so much wrong with that that it's hard to know where to start.

Why is it common sense? Is it right to have a litigious society where any g*bsh*te can sue a hotel proprietor who has done nothing wrong and leave them facing a bill for legal costs that they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of collecting from the plaintiff? Or do you feel no sympathy whatever for the defendants in this case?

27-05-2015 12:08AM

abff wrote: »

Why is it common sense? Is it right to have a litigious society where any g*bsh*te can sue a hotel proprietor who has done nothing wrong and leave them facing a bill for legal costs that they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of collecting from the plaintiff? Or do you feel no sympathy whatever for the defendants in this case?

First of all, do you understand the concept of insurance? It is unlikely that the hotel owner will actually pick up the bill at all.

Secondly, do you understand the issues surrounding the duty of care when a 14 year old injured child (or "g*bsh*te" as you call him) sues? Do you appreciate the MacNamara and Purtill cases? Do you seriously think for one second that the lawyers who took those ground breaking decisions should have paid up had they lost?

Third, do you appreciate what your proposal to tear up the usual rules of negligence and apply absolute liability in lost cases would mean? It would mean the kids like those in the MacNamara and Purtill cases would live out their lives with serious injuries, caused by another, but no lawyer would put their neck on the line. In fact, no ground breaking cases would be brought at all, no risky cases would be fought. It would be a catastrophe in terms of developing the law.

Fourth, it is quiet likely that the lawyers in this case may go unpaid, or with a fraction of what they should have received. There are very few other jobs where that applies, none in the public sector, few in the private sector. That's the risk he took, to add a new risk of making them cough up...a laughable proposal.

end of the road · 27-05-2015 12:22AM

Sociopath2 wrote: »

It's not a risk any business has to take.

it is and it should be forced on them. discrimination must be eradicated at all costs

Sociopath2 wrote: »

They won't be shut down for doing it either.

i wouldn't be so sure. a well proved claim and enough of a pay out and one such business might just go bang.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

It happens on a weekly basis around the country and is absolutely necessary for people to protect their businesses.

its not necessary at all. its just bigotry, and those who do it need to be banned from operating similar businesses for the greater good. bigots must be destroyed.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

It will continue to happen no matter how much deluded individuals like yourself bleat about rights.

for now. these bigots and their businesses will be eradicated eventually.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

When you have travellers themselves claiming that violence is inevitable at traveller weddings then it's time to admit there's a lot of truth in it.

whether its the truth or not is irrelevant. refusing a traveler because he/she is a traveler is pure bigotry and those who do it are the dregs of society and they need to be severely punished and their businesses got rid of.

end of the road · 27-05-2015 12:28AM

anncoates wrote: »

Nope they're deciding not to open their business on a particular day. As is their right.

no, bigots closing costing the country money because they are bottom of the barrel bigots is all it is . the supposed "right" only exist because it seems nobody has the bottle to stand up to them, why i don't know as with a strong government there is nothing they could do if their "right" was taken away.

anncoates wrote: »

Their regrettable but calculated risk means their business stays intact and some other mug ends up being dragged through court because a bunch of people can't comport themselves like human beings

risk my backside. they signed up for the risk so its there job to have to deal with it. they don't like it, shut down and find another business. change the law and have it that if they do close they still get dragged through the courts because its obvious as hell what they are up to so it should be easy. regrettable should be change to no excuse

Sociopath2 · 27-05-2015 12:31AM

end of the road wrote: »

it is and it should be forced on them. discrimination must be eradicated at all costs

i wouldn't be so sure. a well proved claim and enough of a pay out and one such business might just go bang.

its not necessary at all. its just bigotry, and those who do it need to be banned from operating similar businesses for the greater good. bigots must be destroyed.

for now. these bigots and their businesses will be eradicated eventually.

whether its the truth or not is irrelevant. refusing a traveler because he/she is a traveler is pure bigotry and those who do it are the dregs of society and they need to be severely punished and their businesses got rid of.

They should be forced to deal with violence and assaults, seriously?? You're an absolute joke, it's entertaining reading what passes for your thoughts.

No one has or will ever go out of business for refusing to deal with travellers.

If you showed the same concern about the criminals in the travelling community who are the source of this problem, instead of directing all your anger at decent business people I might have some sympathy for your point of view. However it's clear that this is the usual extreme left at all costs nonsense you spout.

jimgoose · 27-05-2015 12:31AM

I'm surprised they were allowed within three thousand yards of the Curragh, to be quite straight.

end of the road · 27-05-2015 12:32AM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

So they sued because there wasn't enough security. If the hotel had put on extra security they'd probably have sued for discrimination. This is one of the reasons hotels don't want traveller weddings. It was years ago, but a new hotel opened locally and they accepted a wedding booking not realising that it was a traveller wedding. They destroyed the place, literally smashed the place up inside so badly that the hotel had to close for months to repair the damage.

we all don't want a lot of things, but guess what, if they come with the territory then you've got to put up with them. so if hotels don't want traveler weddings, tough they should be forced to take them, unless they can prove with vidio evidence the exact people booking the wedding have caused trouble in their hotel before. you can blame the bigots who refuse someone simply for being a traveler for this, they are the reason this needs to be implemented

jimgoose · 27-05-2015 12:34AM

end of the road wrote: »

we all don't want a lot of things, but guess what, if they come with the territory then you've got to put up with them. so if hotels don't want traveler weddings, tough they should be forced to take them, unless they can prove with vidio evidence the exact people booking the wedding have caused trouble in their hotel before. you can blame the bigots who refuse someone simply for being a traveler for this, they are the reason this needs to be implemented

Are you mad??

abff · 27-05-2015 12:34AM

Deleted User wrote: »

First of all, do you understand the concept of insurance? It is unlikely that the hotel owner will actually pick up the bill at all.

Secondly, do you understand the issues surrounding the duty of care when a 14 year old injured child (or "g*bsh*te" as you call him) sues? Do you appreciate the MacNamara and Purtill cases? Do you seriously think for one second that the lawyers who took those ground breaking decisions should have paid up had they lost?

Third, do you appreciate what your proposal to tear up the usual rules of negligence and apply absolute liability in lost cases would mean? It would mean the kids like those in the MacNamara and Purtill cases would live out their lives with serious injuries, caused by another, but no lawyer would put their neck on the line. In fact, no ground breaking cases would be brought at all, no risky cases would be fought. It would be a catastrophe in terms of developing the law.

Fourth, it is quiet likely that the lawyers in this case may go unpaid, or with a fraction of what they should have received. There are very few other jobs where that applies, none in the public sector, few in the private sector. That's the risk he took, to add a new risk of making them cough up...a laughable proposal.

First of all, I wasn't suggesting that the usual rules of negligence should be torn up. I was suggesting that there should be some form of disincentive for lawyers to take on some cases. Admittedly, I don't know the way the legal system works all that well (and you clearly do - are you a lawyer by any chance?), but the current system stinks.

I hope the defendants have adequate insurance to cover their costs, but even if they do, they probably won't get off scot free as they are likely to face increased premiums going forward. And they had to spend a considerable amount of time being dragged through the courts.

To be honest, I just felt that this thread was focussing entirely on the traveller issue and was heading towards the usual mix of racism and innuendo on the one hand and outraged political correctness on the other (although we haven't seen much of the latter so far on this thread) and I thought that there was another factor in this case that was being ignored and that was worthy of attention.

If you feel that the only way you can win an argument with me on this issue is by insulting me, then that's your prerogative. But if you are someone with a professional background, I would have hoped for better. Or am I being naive?

Sociopath2 · 27-05-2015 12:35AM

end of the road wrote: »

no, bigots closing costing the country money because they are bottom of the barrel bigots is all it is . the supposed "right" only exist because it seems nobody has the bottle to stand up to them, why i don't know as with a strong government there is nothing they could do if their "right" was taken away.

risk my backside. they signed up for the risk so its there job to have to deal with it. they don't like it, shut down and find another business. change the law and have it that if they do close they still get dragged through the courts because its obvious as hell what they are up to so it should be easy. regrettable should be change to no excuse

Why do you insist that they must accept the very high risk of travellers turning violent?

Why is it accepted that travellers are violent and the rest of us must put up with it?

Why don't you insist that travellers should not bring weapons to weddings and have riots? Would that not be a better solution to the problem?

mikom · 27-05-2015 12:40AM

Well at least they saved the violence for the reception in the hotel.
The last wedding had barely begun when a lad was shot dead in the churchyard.......

K.Flyer · 27-05-2015 12:44AM

end of the road wrote: »

[...]
risk my backside. they signed up for the risk so its there job to have to deal with it. they don't like it, shut down and find another business. change the law and have it that if they do close they still get dragged through the courts because its obvious as hell what they are up to so it should be easy. regrettable should be change to no excuse

In other words what you are saying is that people with a reputation for wrecking hotels should be allowed to do so, if that's what they want to do, and the hotel industry should put up with it.

end of the road · 27-05-2015 12:50AM

Sociopath2 wrote: »

No one will ever go out of business for refusing to deal with travellers.

ever? wouldn't be so sure

Sociopath2 wrote: »

If you showed the same concern about the criminals in the travelling community who are the source of this problem

thats the polices job. if they are refusing to deal with that issue then thats up to the relevant authorities to ensure they deal with it. i, won't be making any more of an issue of it because its travelers then i would over any other criminal as to me crime is crime whoever does it. oh and by the way, the source of the problem of businesses refusing travelers because they are travelers are the businesses themselves and their bigotry. they just use the criminals in the community as an excuse because they can get away with it. travelers and other minorities are an easy target.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

No one will ever go out of business for refusing to deal with travellers.

ever? wouldn't be so sure

Sociopath2 wrote: »

directing all your anger at decent business people

decent business people my backside. if your refusing someone on the basis of them being a traveler or being gay or whatever, your a bigot and your about as undecent as you can get.

Dangerous Man · 27-05-2015 12:53AM

Look - let's stop applying these ridiculous standards to travellers. As a different ethnic group they have different rules and traditions around things like weddings.

So they got a bit boisterous? That's normal.

We have to stop imposing our standards of normality onto them - we may be appalled at shootings with improvised shotguns at Smithfield; we may be appalled at never-ending battles with slash hooks and bottles in public; we may be appalled with organized bare-knuckle boxing and indecipherable call out videos by those same bare-knuckled pugilists; we may be appalled with rampant criminality and thievery; we may be appalled with the indifferent destruction of vast tracts of public land - littering it with empty kerosene kegs, nappies, and dead animals.

We have to understand that travellers are different to us - we're the problem.

end of the road · 27-05-2015 12:58AM

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Why do you insist that they must accept the very high risk of travellers turning violent?

they cannot refuse someone on the basis of them being a traveler so that must be enforced. they use violence as an excuse but the real reason they refuse them is simply because they are travelers.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Why is it accepted that travellers are violent and the rest of us must put up with it?

i didn't know it was

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Why don't you insist that travellers should not bring weapons to weddings and have riots?

i'm not in government or the police. not my problem or my job. if the police get evidence there is going to be trouble its their job to deal with it and stop it if they can.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Would that not be a better solution to the problem?

the solution is putting out of business those who refuse travelers just because they are travelers, and ensuring they cannot operate or work in a similar business again.

end of the road · 27-05-2015 01:00AM

K.Flyer wrote: »

In other words what you are saying is that people with a reputation for wrecking hotels should be allowed to do so, if that's what they want to do, and the hotel industry should put up with it.

no, the hotel should have to go to court with actual evidence that the particular persons have caused trouble in that hotel before to get permission to refuse them. no evidence, no right and if they do it anyway, they will be in contempt of court and face an automatic shut down and bann from operating similar businesses.

end of the road · 27-05-2015 01:02AM

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Look - let's stop applying these ridiculous standards to travellers. As a different ethnic group they have different rules and traditions around things like weddings.

So they got a bit boisterous? That's normal.

We have to stop imposing our standards of normality onto them - we may be appalled at shootings with improvised shotguns at Smithfield; we may be appalled at never-ending battles with slash hooks and bottles in public; we may be appalled with organized bare-knuckle boxing and indecipherable call out videos by those same bare-knuckled pugilists; we may be appalled with rampant criminality and thievery; we may be appalled with the indifferent destruction of vast tracts of public land - littering it with empty kerosene kegs, nappies, and dead animals.

We have to understand that travellers are different to us - we're the problem.

we have a police force to deal with criminals whoever they may be. if they aren't doing it, then any evidence of them not dealing with it needs to be passed on to those in charge and pressure put on them to deal with it.

jimgoose · 27-05-2015 01:02AM

end of the road wrote: »

no, the hotel should have to go to court with actual evidence that the particular persons have caused trouble in that hotel before to get permission to refuse them. no evidence, no right and if they do it anyway, they will be in contempt of court and face an automatic shut down and bann from operating similar businesses.

...or do like a lot of pubs, and "close" while the Caravan Utilising Nomadic Travellers are having their whatever-it-is.

whitey1 · 27-05-2015 01:15AM

I dont know if such a thing exists, but wouldnt a "known troublemaker" policy make a lot of sense. Anyone, traveller or settled, who is convicted of serious public order offenses automatically forefeits their right to get served in a public house or hotel.

27-05-2015 01:48AM

end of the road wrote: »

no its not. political correctness is a myth. it doesn't exist. simply

It does.... and you're the Undisputed Champion of it.

K.Flyer · 27-05-2015 01:53AM

end of the road wrote: »

no, the hotel should have to go to court with actual evidence that the particular persons have caused trouble in that hotel before to get permission to refuse them. no evidence, no right and if they do it anyway, they will be in contempt of court and face an automatic shut down and bann from operating similar businesses.

What a load of utter nonsense, do you really read what you write before posting.
So much for free will and choice of who you want to do business with.

Not a NSA agent · 27-05-2015 01:55AM

A traveller wedding without at least three deaths is considered a dull affair.

27-05-2015 01:58AM

end of the road wrote: »

its not necessary at all. its just bigotry, and those who do it need to be banned from operating similar businesses for the greater good. bigots must be destroyed.

these bigots and their businesses will be eradicated eventually.

You occupied Dame Street, didn't you?

Traveller sues hotel for not having enough security for wedding

Comments