Dublin Bus ordered to pay passenger €7,500 over alleged homophobic slurs...

The best thing about this story is the very people who are so fond of the snowflake moniker have magnificently shown themselves to be the touchy ****es.

The WRC doesnt have judges

LillySV wrote: »

Friend working with bus eireann told me before that they pay out for everything , they never fight accusations or claims, something that sickens him as he has seen many made up accidents and cases where the other driver was wrong , they had evidence to prove so, yet still paid out! I think the prob is that in many cases it cheaper to pay out than pay for legal fight

Possibly so but I was told the opposite.

The CIE group don't have private insurance and any successful claims come from their reserves. So they would fight hard to keep their own money

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

nobody said they did

A lot of the posts above referenced a Judge making this decision

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats the same in every walk of life though, the buck stops at the top.

The fact that the driver on at least one occasion didnt stop because this person was at the stop is pretty indefensible tbh.

I would have done the very same as the driver. Scumbag doesn't pay correct fare, argues with and abuses the driver. Causes a commotion on the bus disturbing other passengers. Keep the foot on the gas. Wave and smile as you go by.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Judges don't throw money at people for no reason.

I know we like to think they do ..they don't.

No, they just direct the defendant to hand over the money....sometimes on shockingly poor evidence and in complete dismissal of solid evidence by the defense. Easier to allow an appeal than to be seen as unsympathetic and be pasted across social media and the papers the next day.

GreeBo wrote: »

If your man filmed himself defaming the driver, why doesn't the driver sue him?

The guy takes the bus (without paying the correct fare) and spends his time fluffing his insta account. Probably not worth suing.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

He may well do but his criminal complaint needs to be finished first

A single incident may attract both criminal charges and a civil case. One need not precede the other, though it is often seen as advantageous to pursue the criminal case first in the hopes of a conviction being levelled, making a civil case a sure thing, as there is a very low bar in civil cases compared to criminal cases.

Vestiapx wrote: »

Chap at work the otherday took umbrage with my requesting his rectifying his unrequired masklessness and told me to" fcuk off you f@ggot "
No I'm not gay and I don't believe he thinks I'm gay but if I was and he didn't know is that a more serious breach of social behaviour?

I don't approve or condone anything I'm just wondering as I did at the time. Does he think I'm gay ?

The language is homophobic whether or not he thinks you're gay (and whether or not you are gay).

Does he think you're gay? I've no idea. Does it matter to you whether he thinks you're gay?

You can imagine, I think, that a gay person would be bothered by a term like " f@ggot" being used as a general term of abuse, especially when its applied to someone who the speaker has no reason to think is gay. What the speaker is saying there, I think, is that to be gay is in itself repellent, vile, unacceptable, etc, and therefore to call someone gay is to denigrate them. And that attitude, of course, denigrates all gay people, whether or not the person who is called " f@ggot" is among them.

So, yeah, this is homophobic abuse, and anyone adversely affected by it can complain about it, even if it wasn't actually directed at them. If it's foreesable that you will be affected then you have a claim, regardless of the intention of the person using the homophobic term.

Vestiapx wrote: »

Chap at work the otherday took umbrage with my requesting his rectifying his unrequired masklessness and told me to" fcuk off you f@ggot "
No I'm not gay and I don't believe he thinks I'm gay but if I was and he didn't know is that a more serious breach of social behaviour?

I don't approve or condone anything I'm just wondering as I did at the time. Does he think I'm gay ?

sue his employer for 7.5k.*

There's precedent now.


* (Not serious.)

...Ghost... wrote: »

I think the real danger here is that intent is no longer considered. It seems that anyone can claim offense at something not intended as true, or not even directed at them. When we move the line from intent to taken and we move the target from obvious to anywhere, we are really at risk of repercussions for something quite harmless, because the lines are so blurred.

My Brother often called people a "Jew" when someone refused to share with him. Thing is, i'm pretty sure he didn't even know what a Jew was at the time and simply picked up the language...but saying this now could be seen as anti-Semitic or put him at risk of being sued if someone took offense within earshot of him. Should a catholic be allowed to sue RTE for mocking their faith and causing deep offense on NYE? We are already on the slippery slope.

Calling someone a Jew for refusing to share is just as bad as calling someone a f@ggot for being concerned about hygiene and neither are acceptable, if your brother picked up the language then you can see that if less people used these unacceptable terms that they would fall out of parlance.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There is no difference. Homophobia is homophobia. In the case mentioned it wouldnt make a difference legally as the discriminatory treatment is in relation to a person who is gay or is imputed to be gay.

I agree I was just wondering what other people think. I rember when I was a kid in the 80sid call people gay but I didn't even know that it was a real thing,in my social group once we found out that gay was a thing think age 11 or 12 we would never call someone gay or any of the homophobic slurs if we thought they were gay. Since the 90s I've always tried to be more imaginative in my derogatory comments and I don't think I've used terms like that because I feel that while I might call someone a mother fcuker when I don't thik they are one and it's not a slur on a minority it's not ok to call someone a f@ffot or a clocksucker as it suggests there is something wrong with being one of them.

Vestiapx wrote: »

Calling someone a Jew for refusing to share is just as bad as calling someone a f@ggot for being concerned about hygiene and neither are acceptable, if your brother picked up the language then you can see that if less people used these unacceptable terms that they would fall out of parlance.

I disagree with the premise entirely. No matter what someone says, there will always be someone who might be offended. You could compliment someone for doing a good job and someone else might get offended on their behalf because it may have sounded like you thought the person doing the job was incompetent. What matters most is intent. If no malice is intended, then most of the time, if my brother calls me a jew for not sharing my twix, it's no problem.

You know there are a growing number of people who are offended if you assume their gender, right? Soon, it will be unacceptable to address someone as Mr. or Miss in formal settings.

Vestiapx wrote: »

I agree I was just wondering what other people think. I rember when I was a kid in the 80sid call people gay but I didn't even know that it was a real thing,in my social group once we found out that gay was a thing think age 11 or 12 we would never call someone gay or any of the homophobic slurs if we thought they were gay. Since the 90s I've always tried to be more imaginative in my derogatory comments and I don't think I've used terms like that because I feel that while I might call someone a mother fcuker when I don't thik they are one and it's not a slur on a minority it's not ok to call someone a f@ffot or a clocksucker as it suggests there is something wrong with being one of them.

I would hope that these people are very much a minority. But why is it ok to call someone a MF and not ok to call them by another derogatory name if you think they are neither of these terms?

Peregrinus wrote: »

If God had intended us to use homophobic, antisemitic, sexist, etc terms to insult people, he would not have created the term "gobsh1te".

That is all.

Sentence enhancers I call them.