E7500 defamation charge for what???

hatrickpatrick · 16-01-2016 06:25PM

Paz-CCFC wrote: »

Alleged abuse. The defendant argued that the security guard was abused, but the court didn't find that she did, hence why the article headline uses "alleged" in the first place.

I always find the dichotomy of opinion between criminal and civil cases on After Hours funny. If it's a criminal cases, then the defendant is absolute scum that should be locked up, even if a judge/jury has found him innocent. However, in civil cases it's the reverse. The defendant is always a saint who acted perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. The claimant is just a scumbag, playing the system, with judges with decades of legal experience who simply don't understand the law like an occasional reader of the court pages on the Irish Independent does.

It's not so much that, really - AH adores people like bouncers and security guards, and always jumps to the defence of their right to act like complete assholes in the performance of their duties.

Azalea · 16-01-2016 06:26PM

kneemos wrote: »

She wasn't.

Wasn't what?

hatrickpatrick · 16-01-2016 06:26PM

K-9 wrote: »

Mad thing is the judge basically said it was insignificant but awarded her €7,500 anyway, encouraging compo culture.

I'd argue that it's more of a deterrent than anything else - other companies and security guards will see this and might think twice before treating a customer like crap the next time they're in a bad mood.

Azalea · 16-01-2016 06:30PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not so much that, really - AH adores people like bouncers and security guards, and always jumps to the defence of their right to act like complete assholes in the performance of their duties.

AH does in its hoop "adore" them. Which people in AH anyway? Be more specific.
Bet the reality is the way it is in real life in general - most people don't like security guards abusing their position but at the same time they acknowledge it's a difficult job and they have to deal with absolute arseholes, and whenever there are whinges of "power tripping" etc there is a chance that that's a skewed version of what really happened. Most people disagree with security guards getting heavy with innocent people, or getting violent (outside of self defence) with anyone.

Some people just want to behave as dickishly as they like without consequences - that may include bouncers but it also includes customers.

kneemos · 16-01-2016 06:31PM

Azalea wrote: »

Wasn't what?

Banned from the shop.

Azalea · 16-01-2016 06:32PM

spurious wrote: »

Anyone who knows the people involved knows the truth. This isn't the first of these cases. Another madam got a few bob out of a city centre grocery shop a few years ago after kicking the security guard. It's an industry.

Why am I not surprised.

Azalea · 16-01-2016 06:33PM

kneemos wrote: »

Banned from the shop.

You know this as a fact?

hatrickpatrick · 16-01-2016 06:35PM

Azalea wrote: »

AH does in its hoop "adore" them. Which people in AH anyway? Be more specific.
Bet the reality is the way it is in real life in general - most people don't like security guards abusing their position but at the same time they acknowledge it's a difficult job and they have to deal with absolute arseholes, and whenever there are whinges of "power tripping" etc there is a chance that that's a skewed version of what really happened. Most people disagree with security guards getting heavy with innocent people, or getting violent (outside of self defence) with anyone.

Some people just want to behave as dickishly as they like without consequences - that may include bouncers but it also includes customers.

Any time a thread like this comes up on AH, the general opinion tends to lean more towards the security than the customer, and there's a general air of "don't object, just put up with crappy treatment and leave" rather than encouraging people to actually stand up for themselves when they've been treated wrongly.

Biggest thread that comes to mind was one about a guy not being allowed into the now defunct Madison nightclub because he was in a wheelchair - huge amount of sympathy for the club / bouncer despite the obvious discrimination.

K-9 · 16-01-2016 06:38PM

There's a difference between the loudest opinion and the general opinion though.

K-9 · 16-01-2016 06:39PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd argue that it's more of a deterrent than anything else - other companies and security guards will see this and might think twice before treating a customer like crap the next time they're in a bad mood.

The safest option is to bar more people, would you agree with that?

kneemos · 16-01-2016 06:41PM

Azalea wrote: »

You know this as a fact?

Yeah,it's in the article.

Azalea · 16-01-2016 06:45PM

I actually know people who know that guy and he is supposed to be a lovely fella who wouldn't use his situation to his advantage, but most people on social media were simply saying they would have to hear the bouncer's side of the story and that the discrimination was due to the building not catering for a wheelchair so it was for his own safety, and the building owner was more at fault for not making it wheelchair friendly.

People are suspicious of stories about mistreatment when they only have one side of it - and are right to be, in my experience. That isn't the same as saying "just put up with bad treatment and don't fight it".

You see it on Facebook - "this company did xyz to me" and all their friends leaping to be outraged and then strangers joining in, without a word from the company's side (because they can't comment). Primark got such a slating on Facebook once because this woman said the security guard roughly handled her baby when she was breastfeeding there. Turned out to be bull.

And sometimes what's considered bad treatment isn't at all - it's just a company policy.

Bad treatment is of course not to be tolerated though.

22catch · 16-01-2016 06:45PM

K-9 wrote: »

Mad thing is the judge basically said it was insignificant but awarded her €7,500 anyway, encouraging compo culture.

Not as insane as awarding 18 grand because 2 kids heard some shouting when they were in a changing room in H & M during a practice raid. Christ on a bike, no wonder peoples insurance is getting higher by the year. How on earth are these cases getting to court?

hatrickpatrick · 16-01-2016 06:56PM

K-9 wrote: »

The safest option is to bar more people, would you agree with that?

Would that not lead to more cases like these though? The issue here is that when bouncers bar people for no other reason than "your appearance fits the profile of a stereotype that I don't care for", they have no choice but to provide a bullsh!t excuse for barring the person. This then opens the door to litigation for defamation. If such defamation cases are regularly won, bouncers will have no choice but to actually tell the truth about why they're being dicks, because not doing so could lead to being sued.

languagenerd · 16-01-2016 06:56PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Any time a thread like this comes up on AH, the general opinion tends to lean more towards the security than the customer, and there's a general air of "don't object, just put up with crappy treatment and leave" rather than encouraging people to actually stand up for themselves when they've been treated wrongly.

Biggest thread that comes to mind was one about a guy not being allowed into the now defunct Madison nightclub because he was in a wheelchair - huge amount of sympathy for the club / bouncer despite the obvious discrimination.

To be fair, was Madison not in a basement with no lifts? It wasn't the individual security guard's fault that there was literally no way the guy could get into the building or safely get out in a hurry if there was a fire/emergency evacuation. The building's owners were at fault there.

And I'd understand making a complaint to the relevant channels if you were badly treated, but I hate when people go looking for huge amounts of money for minor inconsequential scuffles. Especially in a he said/she said case like this.

hatrickpatrick · 16-01-2016 06:59PM

languagenerd wrote: »

To be fair, was Madison not in a basement with no lifts? It wasn't the individual security guard's fault that there was literally no way the guy could get into the building or safely get out in a hurry if there was a fire/emergency evacuation. The building's owners were at fault there.

Yes but people defended them here and attacked the guy for going after them despite the fact that they wrecked his night by discriminating against him. In my view, the venue were 100% at fault and indefensible, and the guy in the wheelchair was well within his rights to make a big deal about it rather than just "accepting it and moving on" as people here claimed he should have.

And I'd understand making a complaint to the relevant channels if you were badly treated, but I hate when people go looking for huge amounts of money for minor inconsequential scuffles. Especially in a he said/she said case like this.

As I said, it's not so much that people deserve the vast sums, I view it as a punitive / deterrent thing. In other words, if these places have the threat of losing vast sums hanging over their heads, they'll be less inclined to allow their staff to behave in this manner.

K-9 · 16-01-2016 07:01PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Would that not lead to more cases like these though? The issue here is that when bouncers bar people for no other reason than "your appearance fits the profile of a stereotype that I don't care for", they have no choice but to provide a bullsh!t excuse for barring the person. This then opens the door to litigation for defamation. If such defamation cases are regularly won, bouncers will have no choice but to actually tell the truth about why they're being dicks, because not doing so could lead to being sued.

In this case, if they catch somebody with the security tags cut off a garment they should bar that person and their friends. Then when they come back in, they can throw them out.

That's is how they learn the lesson from this case.

hatrickpatrick · 16-01-2016 07:09PM

K-9 wrote: »

In this case, if they catch somebody with the security tags cut off a garment they should bar that person and their friends. Then when they come back in, they can throw them out.

That's is how they learn the lesson from this case.

Absolutely agreed. My issue is with security people being allowed to bar / kick people out and not actually provide a legitimate reason for doing so. As with an arrest, I believe one should have a right to know their alleged offense in such cases.

CB19Kevo · 16-01-2016 07:13PM

I used do retail security and its cases like this that resulted in me leaving the industry.
Dealing with scum shoplifters,junkies,alcoholics and despite all the abuse we got from them,we just had to put up with except for the times when they tried to badly assault us or customers/staff.

Often times we would leave people walk away with stolen item's as the risk of making a false arrest was too high and some stores did not want the confrontation.

Other time's the known shoplifters would come into your store and despite the fact that you know they are thieving violent low life's you would just have to follow them and hope to catch them stealing.

I can understand why people want to defend this women,after all life is not all black and white and maybe it's that some posters haven't had to deal with these people face to face,But reading the article i can make up my own opinion.

We all pay the price for shoplifters,they might as well be taking it out of yours or my pocket.

hatrickpatrick · 16-01-2016 07:15PM

CB19Kevo wrote: »

I used do retail security and its cases like this that resulted in me leaving the industry.
Dealing with scum shoplifters,junkies,alcoholics and despite all the abuse we got from them,we just had to put up with except for the times when they tried to badly assault us or customers/staff.

Often times we would leave people walk away with stolen item's as the risk of making a false arrest was too high and some stores did not want the confrontation.

Other time's the known shoplifters would come into your store and despite the fact that you know they are thieving violent low life's you would just have to follow them and hope to catch them stealing.

I can understand why people want to defend this women,after all life is not all black and white and maybe it's that some posters haven't had to deal with these people face to face,But reading the article i can make up my own opinion.

We all pay the price for shoplifters,they might as well be taking it out of yours or my pocket.

My issue with this is, if it's so hard to catch them doing it how do you know they're doing it...?

CB19Kevo · 16-01-2016 08:19PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My issue with this is, if it's so hard to catch them doing it how do you know they're doing it...?

If you work in other store's you would know them from there,or looking back on CCTV after.

Azalea · 17-01-2016 01:26AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Yes but people defended them here and attacked the guy for going after them despite the fact that they wrecked his night by discriminating against him. In my view, the venue were 100% at fault and indefensible, and the guy in the wheelchair was well within his rights to make a big deal about it rather than just "accepting it and moving on" as people here claimed he should have.

Did you not read what Languagenerd (and I) said? The building was not safe for someone in a wheelchair and the bouncer was not in a position to let the guy in. It was horrible for the guy of course but the bouncer (what's the "they" about - the bouncer wasn't responsible for the building) cannot be blamed. There was a legitimate reason for the bouncer not giving the guy access. It was not the same as discrimination against a disabled person, which is what most people online attempted to spin it as from what I saw - not defence of the bouncer.

Yet they only had one version of the bouncer's story. Criticism of the venue for not catering for people in wheelchairs - totally fair enough, but attacking the bouncer for doing his job and accusing him of being prejudiced towards disabled people: total crap.

17-01-2016 06:44AM

CB19Kevo wrote: »

I used do retail security and its cases like this that resulted in me leaving the industry.
Dealing with scum shoplifters,junkies,alcoholics and despite all the abuse we got from them,we just had to put up with except for the times when they tried to badly assault us or customers/staff.

Often times we would leave people walk away with stolen item's as the risk of making a false arrest was too high and some stores did not want the confrontation.

Other time's the known shoplifters would come into your store and despite the fact that you know they are thieving violent low life's you would just have to follow them and hope to catch them stealing.

I can understand why people want to defend this women,after all life is not all black and white and maybe it's that some posters haven't had to deal with these people face to face,But reading the article i can make up my own opinion.

We all pay the price for shoplifters,they might as well be taking it out of yours or my pocket.

From my reading of the article, not even the defence suggested she was a shoplifter. Or a junkie. Or an alcoholic. In fact there seems to be an acceptance that there was not even a suspicion about her.

There is an argument for saying she should appeal and use this thread to demonstrate how her character has been destroyed, with so many assumptions made about her.

CB19Kevo · 17-01-2016 07:39AM

Deleted User wrote: »

From my reading of the article, not even the defence suggested she was a shoplifter. Or a junkie. Or an alcoholic. In fact there seems to be an acceptance that there was not even a suspicion about her.

There is an argument for saying she should appeal and use this thread to demonstrate how her character has been destroyed, with so many assumptions made about her.

I didn't say she was,however she was abusive to the guard and was previously accompanied by people who allegedly attempted to remove a security tag.
These 2 pieces of information would be enough for me to not want her in my store.

It was not a case of mistaken identity.

aligator_am · 17-01-2016 08:37AM

I'm no oil painting myself but good jaysus, she's a face that would stop a clock!

Liam McPoyle · 17-01-2016 09:54AM

This is all too common in places that the public have access to.

Through the course of my my job I've seen probably hundreds of claims for defamation.

It's actually staggering the gall some people have.

One claim involved a guy being told he'd had enough to drink by a barman in a pub, he brought a claim against the pub for public humiliation, defamation of character and embarrassment caused in front of his friends. He got €10k for his troubles.

Another involved a Spar shop when the security guard stopped someone leaving the shop on suspicion of shop lifting. This person had been caught trying to steal from the shop on two or three previous occasions but on this particular occasion they had done nothing. They got something like €15k for false arrest and defamation of character.

It's part and parcel of the public consciousness and many people see it as an opportunity to make a few quid.

It's also part of the reason that insurance costs are on the rise.

Many people see insurance fraud as a victimless crime and when frivolous time sink claims like this are entertained its no wonder.

17-01-2016 10:14AM

CB19Kevo wrote: »

I didn't say she was,however she was abusive to the guard and was previously accompanied by people who allegedly attempted to remove a security tag.
These 2 pieces of information would be enough for me to not want her in my store.

It was not a case of mistaken identity.

You said...

CB19Kevo wrote: »

...cases like this...
Dealing with scum shoplifters,junkies,alcoholics...

There is no suggestion that she was one of those cases at all. The article said not even a suspicion that she was a shoplifter.

VincePP · 17-01-2016 10:51AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You said...

There is no suggestion that she was one of those cases at all. The article said not even a suspicion that she was a shoplifter.

Unfortunately, you cannot bring previous convictions into evidence in a trial.

If you could (and it may change) this case would not have gone the way it did.

17-01-2016 10:55AM

VincePP wrote: »

Unfortunately, you cannot bring previous convictions into evidence in a trial.

If you could (and it may change) this case would not have gone the way it did.

Huh?

What are you on about?

This is a civil case. Of course you can bring previous convictions into it. There was no suggestion she has any.

lightspeed · 17-01-2016 12:49PM

Red King wrote: »

This kind of thing only encourages the scum.

I used to work near blanchardstowns retail park and quite often id see young girls running out of shops after thieving something with security gaurd walking outside and just looking on at them.

Several other times i seen a woman storming out shouting abuse at a security gaurd.

E7500 defamation charge for what???

Comments