Traveller sues hotel for not having enough security for wedding

anncoates · 27-05-2015 10:34AM

Might be an idea to just increase the breakage deposit required; sigh a legal disclaimer to cover any damage to the premises or even force the wedding/funeral party to foot security costs.

Unfortunately, I think you'd just see somebody taking action on discrimination grounds.

27-05-2015 10:51AM

abff wrote: »

Actually, there is one point you made in relation to which I would be grateful if you could provide some clarification.

You suggested in one of your replies that the lawyers on the winning side in a case such as this might end up having little or none of their fees paid.

No I didn't. The point you raised was about lawyers for Plaintiffs being liable where the case fails. I pointed out that, as in this case, the obvious "penalty" they will face is the prospect of getting little or no fees.

abff · 27-05-2015 10:59AM

Deleted User wrote: »

No I didn't. The point you raised was about lawyers for Plaintiffs being liable where the case fails. I pointed out that, as in this case, the obvious "penalty" they will face is the prospect of getting little or no fees.

If you go back and read your post, you said that the lawyers in this case might not get paid. You did not say that this only applied to the plaintiff's lawyer. Thanks for the clarification.

By the way, I never accused you of saying that the current system is perfect. I asked you a question about whether you think it is absolutely fine and whether there was any change that you might approve of that might make things less litigious.

Do you feel like answering this question?

Cienciano · 27-05-2015 11:14AM

MathDebater wrote: »

You evidently have absolutely fcuk all experience of working in hotels if you think that they refuse custom from travellers purely because they are travellers. If you are good for payment, won't act the bollocks or inconvenience other paying customers and or bring negative attention to the hotel(eg an extremist group holding a convention there) then they don't really give a damn who you are. Margins are tight and bringing in revenue is king.

Travellers are refused simply because of their actions. They are grand at the start, but once drink is taken; oh boy. You might get a few grand out of them for the reception, dinner and a good bar takings. But the destruction they cause and the comps and apologies you will have to dish out the next day make it not worth your while.

If you ever worked a traveller wedding you would know the score. Once the dinner and speeches are over, the same lads who were great craic at the start of the day start becoming extremely rude and threatening. So much so that it's actually unsafe to have younger and female staff on the floor. When it kicks off, welp. If you experienced it then you would change your tune.

I've worked hundreds of weddings, christenings and other types of functions featuring all sorts of different cultures and backgrounds. Sure, on occasion they have had brief moments of idiots acting out too. But that's immediately nipped in the bud and the organisers and the rest of the attendees are full of apologies for the rest of the night. Usually my biggest gripe was arseholes clicking their fingers, lads tapping me on the shoulder when I've my back turned and carrying a large drinks order or drunk, horny aul wans talking nonsense. Working a traveller function is a different ball game altogether. There's an inevitable feeling of dread throughout the shift. It's going to kick off.

Just a matter of when.

I'm sure hotels don't open up and decide they're never going to do traveller weddings. I'd say it's along the lines of out of the 20 weddings a year, 5 were traveller weddings, and maybe 4 out of that 5 were a disaster. Do that for a few years and work out that it costs you money so you stop doing them. But you're racist for not doing them.
It's not exactly the hoteliers association of ireland is run by a load of racists that would rather refuse money than serve travellers.
Any big event in ireland the pubs make a fortune. Concerts or matches around croker, pubs around towns when festivals are on. But when it's a travellers horse fair in Borris where the pubs would be jammed they'd rather close than make thousands. Are the struggling publicans actually racist? Or is it more hassle than it's worth?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/borris-pubs-and-shops-to-close-for-street-fair-1.930027
All people hotellers and publicans want from travellers is to behave in a civilised way, no agro, sure they want to take your money.

mickydoomsux · 27-05-2015 11:19AM

Cienciano wrote: »

from travellers is to behave in a civilised way, no agro, sure they want to take your money.

Let's not let a few dozen bad apples ruin the bunch.

SeanW · 27-05-2015 11:41AM

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.

A lot better than you I imagine. The insurance company is not a charity. You pay for insurance according to risk. You claim (or for any other reason) you present more risk, you pay more for insurance to compensate for the risk, so that you (or other customers) eventually pay for the cost of the claim.

Dyr · 27-05-2015 11:49AM

I knew a fella who let some travellers use a community hall for a wedding because everywhere else refused them

They were so grateful that they repaired to the football pitch outside for the inevitable post nuptial digging match rather than risk damaging the venue.

That was back in the 80s though, the current shower lack that touch of class

Dyr · 27-05-2015 11:56AM

irishgeo wrote: »

. Surely people who live on the off shore islands could be an ethnic group.

Dam right they could, If webbed toes don't qualify you for ethnicity then I don't know what does

mickydoomsux · 27-05-2015 11:59AM

Bambi wrote: »

I

That was back in the 80s though, the current shower lack that touch of class

That's down to our new,caring, sharing society.

We've basically told travellers and scumbags that they can do whatever they want because "shure, aren't they fierce deprived and don't they have a hard time of it. Isn't anyone who criticizes them for acting like animals an utter bollox/bigot who is discriminating against them. Here have some more money!"

mikom · 27-05-2015 12:09PM

Grayson wrote: »

The vast majority of travelers weddings go off without a hitch.

Bollox.
There is always a hitch.
How else are you supposed to tow the caravan.

Reoil · 27-05-2015 12:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You have to feel sorry for the kid, a 14 year old should not be exposed to such dangers and end up stabbed at a function.

Yeah, I'm sure he's a little angel alright...

27-05-2015 12:25PM

It's odd reading Conor74's posts without them being thanked by the Undisputed Champion of PC. Im sure that'll be rectified as soon as he's online. The thing is, ask any given amount of people what traveller weddings are about and I bet you the vast majority will say OTT dresses for the women (as seen on those tacky TV shows, which are harmless tbh) and the other answer you'll get for the males is violence and trouble. The stereotype isn't born out of myth.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2015 12:36PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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?

He was saying travellers need MORE security than settled people because of the fact that they are travelers and typically behave violently at weddings.

Why not take it up with the consultant and the plantiff? If he's wrong then he's making a fairly abusive statement on behalf of the traveller

VinLieger · 27-05-2015 12:38PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

A security consultant testifying traveler weddings need more security on behalf of the traveler carries quite a lot of weight imo.

suicide_circus · 27-05-2015 12:48PM

The lengths people will go to in order to maintain their liberal ethos is quite extraordinary and is not dissimilar to the way in which people maintain religious faith in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. It is hard to comprehend this level of willing delusion.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2015 12:50PM

I'm only on page 8 but I have to ask whether end of the road and conor think there is any elevated risk of violence at a traveller wedding or funeral over a settled funeral?

I'm finding it difficult to understand how you could call it discrimination if there is a reasonable expectation of different behaviour between travellers and settled people. A business could be set up for weddings and 1% might end in damage to the establish in damaged property and reputation. If traveller events pose a 10% risk of damage then the business might not be able to sustain that rate of damage.

Should a business be able to turn down a wedding because it can't afford to cater for the wedding and it's associated risks?

So do end of the road and conor think there is any elevated risk of violence at a traveller wedding or funeral over a settled funeral?

Samaris · 27-05-2015 12:56PM

I don't care if they were Travellers or not, if it's not the hotel's policy to post security, if it wasn't enquired into, and the wedding party made no request or confirmation of such, they can't complain that there was no security. It's a wedding, for heaven's sake, most weddings don't -expect- more than Mad Uncle Jimmy having a few too many and passing out under the table after swearing at the curtains.

I'd be fairly surprised if a hotel staffmember mixed up a Fat Frog cocktail for a kid of fourteen, since that particular cocktail doesn't -tend- to be on a drinks list and it's fairly well known to be a drink (a few years back) of teenagers. Also, it should, in a family function, be at LEAST as much on the parents of said sprog as to what he's drinking. Three of them? And none of the adults around even noticed? Yeah, right.

It's up to the family of the wedding party who they do or don't invite, and if they deliberately invited people that they suspected would result in trouble and chaos, it's their own fault, not the fault of the unfortunate hotel that hosts them. There's a certain duty of care and consideration that should go both ways. I'm sorry the kid got injured, but again, that was not the fault of the hotel not having "security" (for a -wedding-), it's the fault of whoever started the fight and was carrying a weapon, be it a broken glass or a knife. Sue them, not the hotel.

27-05-2015 01:08PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm only on page 8 but I have to ask whether end of the road and conor think there is any elevated risk of violence at a traveller wedding or funeral over a settled funeral?

I would certainly accept that there is an increased risk of violence.

Just as there might be at, say, events where people from poorer urban areas congregate.

But I would be much more willing to examine why that is and to accept that it may not be because poor people or travellers are just bad, and should be condemned accordingly. But whether it comes from other issues, generations of marginalisation, discrimination, stress, exposure to violence from their parents and so on. I would not say travellers are angels (although posts here that portray a 14 year old in a negative light solely on the basis that he is a traveller say much more about the poster) or there are no issues, but we cannot wash our hands of those issues and say it's their fault.

It is the exact same in other countries. Black people in the USA and the Indigenous in Australia are also likely to be hit with that tag of being bad, being predisposed to violent crime, and certainly have much higher numbers in prison and so on. But we are more willing to explore why that is so, while dismissing the issues of travellers here.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2015 01:15PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would certainly accept that there is an increased risk of violence.

Just as there might be at, say, events where people from poorer urban areas congregate.

But I would be much more willing to examine why that is and to accept that it may not be because poor people or travellers are just bad, and should be condemned accordingly. But whether it comes from other issues, generations of marginalisation, discrimination, stress, exposure to violence from their parents and so on. I would not say travellers are angels (although posts here that portray a 14 year old in a negative light solely on the basis that he is a traveller say much more about the poster) or there are no issues, but we cannot wash our hands of those issues and say it's their fault.

It is the exact same in other countries. Black people in the USA and the Indigenous in Australia are also likely to be hit with that tag of being bad, being predisposed to violent crime, and certainly have much higher numbers in prison and so on. But we are more willing to explore why that is so, while dismissing the issues of travellers here.

It has nothing to do with them being good or bad people. If taking traveller weddings would break your business because their behaviour can reasonably be expected to be more violent, then the business should be able to refuse their custom.

sbsquarepants · 27-05-2015 01:24PM

The main difference between traveller weddings and settled weddings is that there is no invite required for travellers. Your average settled wedding goes off without much trouble because if the happy couple have any sworn enemies they tend not to invite them, thus avoiding the much feared "cultural fracas"!
That's not the case with our more malodourous travelling brethren - half the guests want the other half dead - throw in a bucket load of alcohol and a sprinkling of slash hooks - it's never going to end well.
Anyone who says otherwise has most likely never had to deal with them. Their reputation for aggression, thievery and general assholery is not based on thin air. The majority of people are not racist in my opinion - but neither are they blind. If I was running the hotel - no way would I book their weddings - It's not racism, it's economics. Even if only 1 in 10 end in disaster (at a guess I'd say it's actually more than 1 in 2), that 1 negates all the profits you'd made from the other 9. If there's no money it - it's stupid to be doing it, any business that operates differently is doomed!

foggy_lad · 27-05-2015 01:32PM

Was it not shown before that certain groupings of people including Aborigines and Irish travellers as well as American Indians do not have the same physical tolerance for alcohol as other groups? it has also been shown that fast foods have an awful effect on the health of indigenous populations such as the Aborigines and Indians with many more suffering from obesity and conditions such as diabetes. it was argued that because they were not accostomed to alcohol for so long and that it was not a part of their culture over thousands of years they were basically not able to handle fast fatty foods or alcohol.

To Elland Back · 27-05-2015 01:38PM

How do I amend my settings to prompt me when certain keywords are posted? I'm always late for the good stuff

silverfeather · 27-05-2015 02:04PM

Lets use analogies.

Which do you think requires more security a tennis match or a football match?

And let us say there are two football matches one Ireland vrs France and the other England vrs Germany both happening in Dublin. Which do you suppose requires more security?

And again lets use more analogy. An English football fan decides to attend the Germany/England match. He is a lovely man , a family man and a die hard England supporter. He is from Liverpool and has a charming scouse accent. He is educated and polite. He attends the match and is accosted by another England fan who has previous form with this type of behavior and is a degenerate nut job. He sues the stadium saying that they should have realized that the match needed more security. He loses. He goes to the pub later to buy a drink wearing his England kit....he is refused because English football fans are trouble. :rolleyes: The man who attacked him goes into the same pub and is not wearing the England kit and is served. The Irish football fans wearing their kits are also served.

Read the above. Do the the decent individuals have the right to be protected from a criminal element within their social or hobby group without being the victims of discrimination against their group as individuals? I think the answer is yes.

We should distinguish between the football hooligans and the football fans and also protect the good ones from the bad ones at the same time....or try to anyway...

Luke92 · 27-05-2015 02:09PM

silverfeather wrote: »

Lets use analogies.

Which do you think requires more security a tennis match or a football match?

And let us say there are two football matches one Ireland vrs France and the other England vrs Germany both happening in Dublin. Which do you suppose requires more security?

And again lets use more analogy. An English football fan decides to attend the Germany/England match. He is a lovely man , a family man and a die hard England supporter. He is from Liverpool and has a charming scouse accent. He is educated and polite. He attends the match and is accosted by another England fan who has previous form with this type of behavior and is a degenerate nut job. He sues the stadium saying that they should have realized that the match needed more security. He loses. He goes to the pub later to buy a drink wearing his England kit....he is refused because English football fans are trouble. :rolleyes: The man who attacked him goes into the same pub and is not wearing the England kit and is served. The Irish football fans wearing their kits are also served.

Read the above. Do the the decent individuals have the right to be protected from a criminal element within their social or hobby group without being the victims of discrimination against their group as individuals? I think the answer is yes.

We should distinguish between the football hooligans and the football fans without prejudicing the football fans. And we cannot blame the law abiding football fans for objecting to the discrimination nor asking for the same protecting against the hooligans that non football fans get.

You just confused me.

silverfeather · 27-05-2015 02:14PM

Luke92 wrote: »

You just confused me.

Germany England match is being played. An English fan of good character goes and gets attacked by a fellow fan who is a criminal. The victim sues the stadium for not having enough security. He says England fans need more security especially if they play Germany. He still wants to go to the pub and not be refused because he is an English fan.

That sounds fair.

There are football hooligans. And genuine football fans. If a football fan is hurt and it's because of not enough security he has a point if he says the stadium should have known. That doesn't mean pubs can refuse to serve him because he is wearing an England kit.

kylith · 27-05-2015 02:20PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

Was it not shown before that certain groupings of people including Aborigines and Irish travellers as well as American Indians do not have the same physical tolerance for alcohol as other groups? it has also been shown that fast foods have an awful effect on the health of indigenous populations such as the Aborigines and Indians with many more suffering from obesity and conditions such as diabetes. it was argued that because they were not accostomed to alcohol for so long and that it was not a part of their culture over thousands of years they were basically not able to handle fast fatty foods or alcohol.

I believe you have a point re: Aboriginal Australians and Americans, because alcohol was not a part of their diet for many thousands of years. Irish travellers have had access to alcohol as long as the rest of the population of Ireland and Europe has. They did not develop in isolation as in Australia.

Dyr · 27-05-2015 02:27PM

Let's use another analogy, a family invite a number of guests to their wedding. Presumably they are familiar with their guests characters. The guests then proceed to leather the bejaysus out of each other on such a scale that the staff have to seek refuge and send for the shades, then *missing sequences* the venue is to blame for it all.

Sounds about right

mickydoomsux · 27-05-2015 02:30PM

Luke92 wrote: »

You just confused me.

Think it's the usual "it's only a few bad apple travellers ruining it for a majority of perfectly law abiding travellers".

Utter nonsense as shown by the high incidence of prosecutions/imprisonment among their population.

VinLieger · 27-05-2015 02:33PM

silverfeather wrote: »

That doesn't mean pubs can refuse to serve him because he is wearing an England kit.

It actually does there are many pubs in England that disallow the wearing of football jerseys due to football hooliganism rivalries

silverfeather · 27-05-2015 02:35PM

VinLieger wrote: »

It actually does there are many pubs in England that disallow the wearing of football jerseys due to football hooliganism rivalries

You can take clothes off. That's why it's different to racial or ethnic discrimination.

Traveller sues hotel for not having enough security for wedding

Comments