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 sues hotel for not having enough security for wedding

Options
123457

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


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

    You can also choose to not get blind drunk and start riots


  • Options
    #183
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    I was playing around with arguments. Trying to show just because a man asks for protection from elements in his community does not mean he should be discriminated against.


  • Options
    #184
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    VinLieger wrote: »
    You can also choose to not get blind drunk and start riots
    I'll try not to.


  • Options
    #185
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    silverfeather wrote: »
    I was playing around with arguments. Trying to show just because a man asks for protection from elements in his community does not mean he should be discriminated against.

    That's not the argument he used though. He said that due to the violent nature of his community protection should be provided as default


  • Options
    #186
    Caliden
    Registered Users Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭Caliden


    MathDebater wrote: »
    You hire a hape of security and they would probably complain and threaten to sue you for discrimination. You don't hire security and they bait the ****e out of one another and sue you.

    You cannot win.

    Well in this case they did.

    The judge dismissed the case on appeal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Caliden wrote: »
    Well in this case they did.

    The judge dismissed the case on appeal.

    I think they meant you cannot win in that no matter what you do they will always cry discrimination


  • Options
    #188
    nelly17
    Registered Users Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭nelly17


    The Lumville House is on the market now, its a quiet spot and quite nice. Owners probably thought its just not worth the bother


  • Options
    #189
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


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

    How is NOT making the assumption that pavees are violent neanderthals discrimination :confused:


  • Options
    #190
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Bambi wrote: »
    How is NOT making the assumption that pavees are violent neanderthals discrimination :confused:

    "Discrimination" is the battle cry of liberal tyranny. It doesn't matter if discrimination is actually happening, the word is used to send fear into the gutless and weak willed.


  • Options
    #191
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, they should be forced to open and take in some money so we can get more tax revenue for the economy

    Yeah, **** the potential cost of repairs/lost business to the private business owner who will have to deal with these "people".

    In fact let's just fine them if they do close their business to stop it from being wrecked by these animals!

    Want to be treated without "discrimination"? Act like a normal person then.

    People are starting to tire of the fact that certain sections of society (who contribute nothing to said society) are seen as being above reproach whilst they thumb their noses at everyone else.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Omackeral wrote: »
    You occupied Dame Street, didn't you?

    i didn't no

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #193
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


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

    Ethnicity requires a shared ancestry and culture. Why is it only the positive aspects of a culture that can be recognised?


  • Options
    #194
    Help!!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭Help!!!!


    How does one become a " Traveller "?? I think it would be a great life, travel around the country see the sights, get paid by the government. No bills to pay
    Would I only need a caravan?


  • Options
    #195
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    JaffOs wrote: »
    I want to bang my head against my desk every time I read a post of yours. Everyone one should be "forced" to deal with this but when anything is put on you "its not your problem".

    because for the purposes of the post i originally quoted its not my problem. people commiting crime is the job of the police and courts to deal with. if they refuse to do so thats them not doing their job.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #196
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    Ethnicity requires a shared ancestry and culture. Why is it only the positive aspects of a culture that can be recognised?

    Because you aren't allowed to say anything negative about a group of people regardless of how much evidence you have to back your point up.

    Only positive statistics matter.


  • Options
    #197
    silverfeather
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭silverfeather


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    Ethnicity requires a shared ancestry and culture. Why is it only the positive aspects of a culture that can be recognised?
    We are not supposed to positively discriminate either. The positive stereotypes can be patronizing.


  • Options
    #198
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    silverfeather wrote: »
    We are not supposed to positively discriminate either. The positive stereotypes can be patronizing.

    So if we cannot recognise differences without being racist then what is the point of recognising ethnicity at all and how can an ethnic group be recognised?


  • Options
    #199
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    MathDebater wrote: »
    You evidently have absolutely fcuk all experience of working in hotels

    you don't know what experience i do or don't have nor will i be telling you
    MathDebater wrote: »
    if you think that they refuse custom from travellers purely because they are travellers.

    oh they do
    MathDebater wrote: »
    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.

    well seeing as they won't take them in the first place they can't prove they aren't good for payment or will act the bollox. the fact is they can get away with refusing them because they are a minority group. if someone doesn't pay their bill thats what the courts are there for. if you can prove they didn't pay up then unless your legal deffence is completely incompetent you will win.
    MathDebater wrote: »
    Margins are tight and bringing in revenue is king.

    cry me a river
    MathDebater wrote: »
    Travellers are refused simply because of their actions.

    IE refused because they are travelers IE discrimination because they can get away with it. you can't refuse someone because of actions that person hasn't commited but as the hotels can get away with it they do which is why they need to be put out of business and a climate of fear installed.
    MathDebater wrote: »
    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.

    you serve alcohol. people behaving badly is the risk of selling alcohol. don't serve alcohol to anyone and you won't have the risk. there is no excuse for bigotry toards travelers and it should be cracked down on hard. whatever takings you do get are worth it as they go back into the economy.
    MathDebater wrote: »
    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.

    anything to back that up? people like yourself always come out with this nonsense "if bla bla bla you will change your tune" wrong. i don't change my tune and i haven't changed my tune on anything i've experienced, my opinion stays the same no matter what. whether i have or haven't experienced this particular situation you will never know
    MathDebater wrote: »
    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.

    tough. thats the industry. bankrupt businesses and their owners who refuse people because they are travelers, gay, black, brown, whatever. bann their owners from operating a business. a climate of fear against bigotry must be installed in ireland

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #200
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Schism wrote: »
    End of the road, hi. How's it going?

    Few questions if you don't mind.

    1. Can you stop typing bigot? The word has lost all meaning to me.
    2. Are you Batman?
    3. Do you live in the same world as everyone else?

    Man, you're totally blinkered to the way of the world for some reason. It seems you've got this belief that everything should be proper, correct and done exactly by the book but it's way off. Things aren't black and white like you're describing them. Let's take an example.

    You say that a hotel owner must take all and any business from anyone. OK. The hotel takes a traveller wedding, some property damage occurs, some fights break out and as a result due to breakage / comping other guests / bad press any monetary gain from the booking has been nullified.

    With me still? Good. There's one last step. You are now that hotel owner. This is your business, this is how you make a living. You've had a bad experience and being a man(woman) of the world you're surely aware of the reputation this group of people have, you've seen it first hand. Do you take another booking?

    In a perfect world the hotel owner gets sufficient remuneration for their losses and life goes on, another similar booking comes along and they take it and hope for the best but that just doesn't happen.
    thats the industry. i'm risking my business the minute i open my door. as the law states i cannot refuse to serve someone on the basis of them being from a particular commmunity, race, or skin colour, i have 2 choices. serve and put up. or get out of that industry and find another business.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #201
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    Yeah, everyone just discriminates against travellers for no reason. We have a local halting site and the same families are in court at pretty much every sitting of the District and Criminal Courts, it's not uncommon to see several family members up on the same day. They're notorious for causing trouble and last year a local bar refused them entry, they then went on to sue the bar and try to have their licence removed, a case which they lost.

    There's a lot of very good and valid reasons that travellers are disliked by the settled community and mainly it's as a result of their behaviour. Basically if someone behaves like scum they are unwanted and shunned by society, if they want to be treated differently then they're attitude and actions need to change. When I was 19 I saw a traveller guy put a broken Bulmers bottle to the throat of his wife against a pub wall, while she was holding their baby. He was threatening to kill her because she'd come over to the pub to ask him to come home. I'll never forget that.
    its only an excuse. if they are really that bothered, the hotels will gladly go to court and prove the particular person is involved in trouble before they get the right to refuse their booking. if guilty, they are put on a trouble makers list which is for all. if not guilty, the booking must be taken

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    silverfeather wrote: »
    We are not supposed to positively discriminate either. The positive stereotypes can be patronizing.

    "we are not supposed to..." that's frankly a scary comment for an autonomous adult to make.


  • Options
    #203
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    anncoates wrote: »
    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.
    well as it would be that i should imagine its what would happen indeed

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #204
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Cienciano wrote: »
    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.
    replace the word racist with bigot. some pubs do shut rather then take money yet some of them will whine about how hard things are. so forgive me if i've no sympathy for them

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #205
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    end of the road wrote: »
    well as it would be that i should imagine its what would happen indeed

    you really are talking like a mindless drone now - do you even consider the words you type? have you ever had a thought in your head that wasn't informed by some kind of ill-conceived quango mandated legislation?


  • Options
    #206
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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'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?
    to me its irrelevant. the law states travelers can't be refused because they are travelers, no matter what way the business tries to turn it or what excuse it makes, its still down to the fact its travelers or incert whatever other minority group.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #207
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    have you ever had a thought in your head that wasn't informed by some kind of ill-conceived quango mandated legislation?
    yes, all of my thoughts. i decide my own opinions

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #208
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    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.
    no, they shouldn't. discrimination laws are that, there are no exceptions nor can there be. if they want to refuse someone, get the evidence that person is a trouble maker and bring it to court to get permission from a judge to refuse them. no evidence no permission

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #209
    Help!!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭Help!!!!


    end of the road wrote: »
    to me its irrelevant. the law states travelers can't be refused because they are travelers, no matter what way the business tries to turn it or what excuse it makes, its still down to the fact its travelers or incert whatever other minority group.

    So what would you do if a group of travellers set up camp outside your home & while there the kids were causing trouble going in on your property. Hassling your wife etc
    How would you feel then?


  • Options
    #210
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    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!
    discrimination comes before economics.
    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    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!
    discrimination comes before economics. economics is no excuse and using it to discriminate should also end in a shut down indefinitely of your business.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,769 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, they shouldn't. discrimination laws are that, there are no exceptions nor can there be. if they want to refuse someone, get the evidence that person is a trouble maker and bring it to court to get permission from a judge to refuse them. no evidence no permission

    Kinda difficult when firstly members of that community have a strange difficulty with finding their way to court house's unless it benefits them financially. Secondly they also have a rather difficult time providing their real names for many things including legal proceedings so tracing back if one of them is a trouble maker or has a history of violence or criminal record can be quite difficult.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement