Horrible experience in Woodlands Tralee

FrostyJack

geordie 1 wrote: »

well i wouldnt be rude, i would knock the fooker out , then gan to his hoose & smash his lasses back door in

Why has geordie been trolling this thread the whole time with non-funny, non-English statements?

gavcobh wrote: »

you would think it would but i am gav, his brother is gav and there is a third gav in our group all from cobh. yes it is as confusing as it sounds

I know there is only one surname name in Cobh, but only one first name too?

The point of the matter is in a "family friendly" site, no one (especially the other users) want a group of lads coming in beside them, potentially running wild. We know not all lads do this, but I would say the majority like to have a drink and have a laugh. The OP and his group seem like decent lads, hence I'm sure the reason he was offended by this. The long and the short of it is, the owner could have refused them after they gave their details, I wouldn't have been too offended, but when they turned up, the owner was in the wrong to refuse them. Case closed

the_syco

looksee wrote: »

Lesson: don't turn up with two carloads at the same time. One person goes in to register, the others stay quietly in the car. And be sure and be quiet by 10pm.

HAHAHA... did that before. 3 or 4 cars of lads. Didn't get to stay the 2nd night ^.^ To be fair, I don't think any of the lads I camped with ever camped before, and I can't see them camping again. I go camping at least once a year.

We did, however, ask for a spot away from other campers, which in their POV was just the end of a section of campsite. Meh. Next time we go camping, we'll ensure we're father away from other people, so we can have a bit of craic, without disturbing anyone.

celticutd87 wrote: »

Phoned woodlands caravan park and was answered by a lovely lady who after we enquired would there be room for 4-5 tents we were told that booking was not available it was 1st come 1st served but that the park had plenty of space so if we were there within the next half an hour we could stay no problem. We got our 2 cars and were there within 20 minutes.

Every campsite, esp family ones, will take advance bookings (have stayed in a few when camping with my family when I was young). The above sounded like "if ya come over and we like the look of ye, we'll let ya stay".

If a group of lads came in, created trouble, and left, it would tarnish the campsite for letting in yobs. The families wouldn't come back (most families will return to the same place if their kids liked it), and would spread the word.

I don't think the OP understands one thing, though.

The OP may think that by going on the radio, the OP will bring shame to the campsite. Wrong. If anything, I'd say the OP did the opposite. The OP let any families listening to the show know that the owner will not let "groups of young people" in. Most families will see this as a good thing, esp those that have had their holidays ruined by yobs drinking.

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

I don't think the OP understands one thing, though.

The OP may think that by going on the radio, the OP will bring shame to the campsite. Wrong. If anything, I'd say the OP did the opposite. The OP let any families listening to the show know that the owner will not let "groups of young people" in. Most families will see this as a good thing, esp those that have had their holidays ruined by yobs drinking.

That's a very good point.

If anyone could compile a list of hotels, clubs and pubs where they have similar admission policies, we could make it a virtue that really sells. Though suspect pubs and clubs take anyone with money in the current climate, unfortunately. I remember the good days where pubs had signs out telling stags where to go. That's not to have a go at the OP at all, but I for one am sick of that age group out and about at night time.

fergalr

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a very good point.

If anyone could compile a list of hotels, clubs and pubs where they have similar admission policies, we could make it a virtue that really sells. Though suspect pubs and clubs take anyone with money in the current climate, unfortunately. I remember the good days where pubs had signs out telling stags where to go. That's not to have a go at the OP at all, but I for one am sick of that age group out and about at night time.

But, like, this sort of thinking does 'have a go' at the OP; in very real terms.

If such lists and policies were permitted, and widespread, maybe you'd end up with a situation where no young lads would be allowed into the national parks - because some of them cause trouble.

Wouldn't you hate to be excluded from the outdoors, just because some people that you had a completely different worldview to, had previously done damage?

Would that be ok? What do you think would be the consequences of that sort of thinking?

Regardless, in this country, we have laws against such behaviour; the effect of such a list as you propose would simply make it easier to find the bad establishments.

celticutd87

Cabaal wrote: »

celticutd87, you were annoyed that in fairness I can understand but why lower yourself to the level of Joe Duffy?

To be honest i wasnt lowering myself. Joe duffy is on hols i think the other guy was in. And iv never called that show ever barely listen to it but imo my friends and i were that pissed off and angry at our treatment that ya we wanted the incident aired on a national forum so that other young people wouldnt be treated the same in other places and so that, if you listen to the piece, the owner would be exposed as a liar. I think that happened.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a very good point.

If anyone could compile a list of hotels, clubs and pubs where they have similar admission policies, we could make it a virtue that really sells. Though suspect pubs and clubs take anyone with money in the current climate, unfortunately. I remember the good days where pubs had signs out telling stags where to go. That's not to have a go at the OP at all, but I for one am sick of that age group out and about at night time.

Heres my problem with this. If we are going to decide to stop letting young people in places, any places, then why not go the whole hog. Whats so different from singling out a person because they are young and some in that group get ****faced etc and singling out somebody whos a different colour, ethnicity, background, old and so on. Why should a young person be excluded for being young, something that cant be helped?

the_syco wrote: »

I don't think the OP understands one thing, though.

The OP may think that by going on the radio, the OP will bring shame to the campsite. Wrong. If anything, I'd say the OP did the opposite. The OP let any families listening to the show know that the owner will not let "groups of young people" in. Most families will see this as a good thing, esp those that have had their holidays ruined by yobs drinking.

I didnt go on the radio to bring shame to the campsite. I went on there to try and have a debate with the owner and see why we werent allowed admission because we were young. I think, from some callers on the show and admittadly some were in favour of the man, that with the way the owner was changing his story constantly that he came off looking quite sneaky and a liar. Just my opinion though.

Evil Phil

Right, Hurdy Gurdy and Georgie 1 have been banned for 2 weeks for trolling, personal abuse and various other problems.

Keep this on topic folks, and those of you with the lower post counts? Sound like you've joined to support your mates. That's okay if I'm right, but stick to the rules regardless.

celticutd87

celticutd87 wrote: »

Heres my problem with this. If we are going to decide to stop letting young people in places, any places, then why not go the whole hog. Whats so different from singling out a person because they are young and some in that group get ****faced etc and singling out somebody whos a different colour, ethnicity, background, old and so on. Why should a young person be excluded for being young, something that cant be helped?

By suggesting that young people suffer discrimination which is comparable with that suffered by people of a different colour, ethnicity, background etc., you might be hijacking their very real persecution and suffering to make a point that actually undermines the efficacy, the very essence, of equality legislation. I accept that you do not mean to do so, but we are talking about a tent for the night, to compare it with other discrimination may trivialise the latter.

To anyone who invokes the Equality legislation, I would say have a think. You must really know it wasn't brought in so that stag nights could get into pubs in groups? And any case on that basis would make light of the legislation and possibly get short time from the equality officer. I appreciate that the OP is not in that category, but let's not pretend the campsite owner is some bigot either and keep muttering about some act that, for all the pubs, clubs, hotels, campsites etc. that apply this policy, nnone can seem to point to any case that has ruled this behaviour is within the category that is not allowed.

fergalr

Deleted User wrote: »

By suggesting that young people suffer discrimination which is comparable with that suffered by people of a different colour, ethnicity, background etc., you might be hijacking their very real persecution and suffering to make a point that actually undermines the efficacy, the very essence, of equality legislation.

First off, points made in on-line discussions do not undermine the efficacy of legislation (??)


Secondly, this is a ridiculous argument.

Basically, according to you, anyone arguing against a mild form of equality injustice is undermining the suffering of those suffering a stronger form of discrimination?

That's rubbish.


Frankly, it is you who doesn't seem to get the 'essence' of equality legislation, which is that it is unacceptable to discriminate, as a business, against members of the public, on certain grounds. One of those grounds is age.
Its seems pretty clear. Its right there, in the law, beside the other grounds, such as sex or race.

Deleted User wrote: »

I accept that you do not mean to do so, but we are talking about a tent for the night, to compare it with other discrimination may trivialise the latter.

To anyone who invokes the Equality legislation, I would say have a think. You must really know it wasn't brought in so that stag nights could get into pubs in groups? And any case on that basis would make light of the legislation and possibly get short time from the equality officer. I appreciate that the OP is not in that category, but let's not pretend the campsite owner is some bigot either and keep muttering about some act that, for all the pubs, clubs, hotels, campsites etc. that apply this policy, nnone can seem to point to any case that has ruled this behaviour is within the category that is not allowed.

A business saying they don't take stag groups is probably different than saying they are turning away people because they are young; don't know.

I'm not a lawyer; the legislation would seem very clearly against turning away a group of people, on the basis that the group was young (though over 18).

Again, not a lawyer, but there is special legislation (intoxicating liqour act) that allows pubs display notices that say they only serve people over N years.

Finally, there is a difference between people applying illegal policies, and getting caught. Maybe other people discriminating on age are just too clever to admit to it publicly. That doesn't mean it's right, or ok, or acceptable.


So, your arguments, or examples, don't really stand up.

fergalr

fergalr wrote: »

First off, points made in on-line discussions do not undermine the efficacy of legislation (??)


Secondly, this is a ridiculous argument.

Basically, according to you, anyone arguing against a mild form of equality injustice is undermining the suffering of those suffering a stronger form of discrimination?

That's rubbish.

Ummmm, I was actually paraphrasing a Judge dismissing an equality case in the UK. He was in turn quoting from another source, about how one can usurp and undermine the intent of equality legislation and turn it into a laughing stock.

Now you're making me go back to find it. Either way, I happen to like his thinking, so I'm happy to adopt it!

Afaik, the only time the age ground was invoked in equality cases in Ireland was in relation to old age, and discrimination based on people being too old for positions etc.

But if you have any example (as I said, this must be a very regular issue), I'm all ears!

I would also point out that saying an argument is "ridiculous...rubbish" doesn't make it so. I find it "ridiculous...rubbish" that the Equality Act, a piece of legislation designed to tackle serious issues such as homophobia and racism, is invoked again and again * to deal with the issue of where a group of young men can camp. You can't be making that point with a straight face, surely. Go on, yer 'avin' a larf!

And yet for all the outrage, noone can point to a supporting decision, of the hundreds made by the Equality Authority.

* Edit - I meant invoked here...

celticutd87

Deleted User wrote: »

By suggesting that young people suffer discrimination which is comparable with that suffered by people of a different colour, ethnicity, background etc., you might be hijacking their very real persecution and suffering to make a point that actually undermines the efficacy, the very essence, of equality legislation. I accept that you do not mean to do so, but we are talking about a tent for the night, to compare it with other discrimination may trivialise the latter.

To anyone who invokes the Equality legislation, I would say have a think. You must really know it wasn't brought in so that stag nights could get into pubs in groups? And any case on that basis would make light of the legislation and possibly get short time from the equality officer. I appreciate that the OP is not in that category, but let's not pretend the campsite owner is some bigot either and keep muttering about some act that, for all the pubs, clubs, hotels, campsites etc. that apply this policy, nnone can seem to point to any case that has ruled this behaviour is within the category that is not allowed.

I apologise if you think that was what i was doing i can assure u it was not. I wasnt suggesting that what happened to us was comparable to that what i was saying is that if we allow anybody to discriminate and stop people based on something such as an age or anything else then we may as well start segregating society. You own a campsite do you ban all fathers if 2 of them had an argument and were yelling in your site? No of course you dont but yet its ok because we are younger?

fergalr

Deleted User wrote: »

Ummmm, I was actually paraphrasing a Judge dismissing an equality case in the UK. He was in turn quoting from another source, about how one can usurp and undermine the intent of equality legislation and turn it into a laughing stock.

I'm sure any legislation can be turned into a laughing stock, if its badly applied.


To me this sentence:

Deleted User wrote: »

I accept that you do not mean to do so, but we are talking about a tent for the night, to compare it with other discrimination may trivialise the latter.

is an argument that its bad to call 'minor' discrimination out as discrimination, because it 'trivialises' 'major' discrimination.

If thats the argument, then I don't accept it, regardless of who made it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now you're making me go back to find it. Either way, I happen to like his thinking, so I'm happy to adopt it!

Afaik, the only time the age ground was invoked in equality cases in Ireland was in relation to old age, and discrimination based on people being too old for positions etc.

But if you have any example (as I said, this must be a very regular issue), I'm all ears!

I do not; I'm not a lawyer.

Equally, if you've any example of a case being thrown out of court here, or a judge commented on the law - which seems very clear, to me (not that law is worth much in this country without judgement) - then I'd be happy to hear them.

Deleted User wrote: »

I would also point out that saying an argument is "ridiculous...rubbish" doesn't make it so.

Of course - that's just my opinion.
I thought that when put out in the form I did, it would be obvious how absurd the argument was (assuming you accepted the form I put it in, as equivalent).

I mean, if you allow argument like that, it means that someone going to the gardai because someone punched them in the back of the head, on grafton street, although didn't do lasting damage, could be told "Oh, you are trivialising the plight of all those people who got properly assaulted!"

Like, thinking that complaining about a minor form of something trivialises the major form of it, just seems absurd to me.

Deleted User wrote: »

I find it "ridiculous...rubbish" that the Equality Act, a piece of legislation designed to tackle serious issues such as homophobia and racism, is invoked again and again to deal with the issue of where a group of young men can camp.

I'm looking at this piece of legislation:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0003.html#sec3
which seems to be called the 'equal status act'.
They do seem to have explicitly put stuff in there about age discrimination, in addition to homophobia and racism.

Deleted User wrote: »

You can't be making that point with a straight face, surely. Go on, yer 'avin' a larf!

And yet for all the outrage, noone can point to a supporting decision, of the hundreds made by the Equality Authority.

Regardless of whether its illegal (and I guess it'd be hard to know, unless the OP made a complaint) I still think its wrong.

I don't know the OP, but they seem sound, and reasonable, and seems like they'd have been no trouble.


It just seems wrong that, after going all the way there, they got chucked out, just because they were young.

a148pro

Deleted User wrote: »

Afaik, the only time the age ground was invoked in equality cases in Ireland was in relation to old age, and discrimination based on people being too old for positions etc.

This isn't true. As I recall a lad successfuly brought a case against a nightclub, think it might have been a certain nightclub on the northside which you'll be old enough to remember - where the gang goes (which means you prob didn't because you don't like gangs ) - because he was refused admission as he wasn't 21.

a148pro

Although it isn't showing up on google and I'm quite old and therefore my memory is unreliable.

SecretNinja

The Discrimination legislation is there to end all discrimination, not just the discrimination you don't agree with. That is what pubs and clubs aren't allowed have "Over 21's" or "Over 25's" signs up anymore (even though they still do). To turn someone away because of one defining reason aspect of them without proper reason is discrimination. It would be like a coffee shop saying no teenage boys allowed because one teenage boy once made a mess in here seven years ago.

Donny5

SecretNinja wrote: »

The Discrimination legislation is there to end all discrimination, not just the discrimination you don't agree with. That is what pubs and clubs aren't allowed have "Over 21's" or "Over 25's" signs up anymore (even though they still do). To turn someone away because of one defining reason aspect of them without proper reason is discrimination. It would be like a coffee shop saying no teenage boys allowed because one teenage boy once made a mess in here seven years ago.

Over 21s Only signs are not illegal as there's provision for them in law.

SecretNinja

SecretNinja wrote: »

To turn someone away because of one defining reason aspect of them without proper reason is discrimination.

No it's not.

The reason for turning them away must be one of those listed in the legislation.

Turning people away for a reason that is not contained in the "prohibited" list is perfectly legitimate. It is for the applicant to show that discrimination has taken place, there is not some presumption that every time someone is denied access to a service that discrimination has taken place.

In this thread, the OP is claiming under a specific head, he is claiming that there was ageism in the policy.

celticutd87

Deleted User wrote: »

No it's not.

The reason for turning them away must be one of those listed in the legislation.

Turning people away for a reason that is not contained in the "prohibited" list is perfectly legitimate. It is for the applicant to show that discrimination has taken place, there is not some presumption that every time someone is denied access to a service that discrimination has taken place.

In this thread, the OP is claiming under a specific head, he is claiming that there was ageism in the policy.

I still firmly maintain that if the exact same scenario were to happen with say 6 men down to play golf then they would have been allowed to stay. Thats my issue that we were singled out and asked to leave the property for no other reason than we were a group of young people.

boomerang

I thought of this thread when I stayed at a campsite during the week. On our last day there, a group of eleven young people from northern Ireland arrived on site, staying in a huge Vango tent. They looked to be about the "go" of first-year university students. I was worried that there would be a lot of noise and messing during the night. That turned out to be a completely unfounded prejudice.

They were fab people. We really enjoyed listening to a bit of light guitar playing the early evening, and liked watched them kicking a ball around and having a bit of crack with some kites. (I sound like a right aul' fuddy-duddy now don't I!) They went off later in the evening (presumably to the pub) and when they came back at twelve or one o' clock they were careful to make as little noise as possible. (Not easy when there's eleven of you cramming into the one tent!) and didn't stay up talking. Following morning they were up early to take down the tent and left the place spotless.

Sev

A lot of people seem to only register the age descrimination as the central grievance of the story. People seem to have lost sight of the fact that by all accounts the campsite owner was a dickhead. He refused them access to the site after having agreed over the phone that they would accept a group of six in their twenties. He was then deliberately unhelpful.

He comes across very poorly in the radio interview. Right off the bat he is corrected about the time at which the events took place (after being corrected he revises it to "late evening", and then is informed that it in fact took place between 2 and 3pm). From then on it becomes clear that he is either lying or does not fully remember the events and is simply making things up. His story is extremely inconsistent and he contradicts himself when questioned about whether he accepts groups and bookings.

A lot of people seem to be getting on his side, saying "he's a business man", and is running a business so should be allowed to do what he wants, and that this is a recession so we should give him a break.

Yes, he is a business man and he made a business decision to choose to only accept "families" and actively descriminate against groups of youths (he also made a business decision to be unhelpful and rude to the original poster). This was a business decision that should have required careful thought and an understanding of the risks involved. One of those risks is that some day he is going to offend a group of clever young men who just wanted to have a relaxing weekend and will reap the whirlwind of bad press.

I'm glad the guys slated him on tripadvisor and brought this to our attention. You shouldn't get away with that kind of treatment. As far as I'm concerned the man got what was coming to him.

a148pro

Well what was most surprising to me was how much support he got from posters on here, I couldn't believe it. Tbh, most young people you meet who are into the outdoors are well grounded responsible lads, probably much more so than I was when I was their age, who know that if they are staying a campsite with others there they'll have to respect them.

I mean if you're 18 / 19 and you want to get fckued up and have a good time then you go out clubbing or on the p*ss or something, you don't generally go camping.

Sev

Sev wrote: »

A lot of people seem to be getting on his side, saying "he's a business man", and is running a business so should be allowed to do what he wants, and that this is a recession so we should give him a break.

Yes, he is a business man and he made a business decision to choose to only accept "families" and actively descriminate against groups of youths (he also made a business decision to be unhelpful and rude to the original poster).

For the record (i) I don't think he should be allowed to do what he wants, he should be allowed do what he wants within the law and as is stated again and again I am not sure there is any decision in the hundreds that the Equality Tribunal has handed down which tests this issue and (ii) yet again a poster is making an assumption that refusing a service equates to discrimination. If this is discrimimnation, then I await the flood of cases testing all those service providers who take a certain view when it comes to groups of 20 something year old men.

Sev

I don't know if what happened equates to discrimination as far as the courts are concerned, I applied the dictionary definition*. But this is missing my point that whether or not the landowner was legally or morally right to refuse admission, he still needs to be taught a lesson in public relations.

*Of course the word "descriminate" probably isn't in the dictionary

Sev

Sev wrote: »

whether or not the landowner was legally or morally right to refuse admission, he still needs to be taught a lesson in public relations.

Yep. I think a course in diplomacy wouldn't be wasted on him!

Another solution would be the old security deposit system. Of course application may be difficult, not sure would the OP have been happy to fork out or risk any trouble recovering it, but seems to be getting popular when it comes to allowing young people into rented houses for a night or two anyway. I guess that involves the risk of physical damage to property though, so it is easier to quantify or address in terms of money.

rolion

I cannot believe this thread has 5 pages...and i bet you it will keep going !!

I have spent thousands on camping gear,been camping in many places along the years.I've been welcomed,greeted,refused,ripped-off,waked,scared ,kicked and so on.

I have camped in that site recently,nothing to comment so far,all ok.
I didn't expected to have "red carpet" just a nice,quiet,clean camp site for my lads.The owner is a straight man,no funny jokes,just at the point.My type.

The site is advertised as family friendly,private grounds,private business.
Called a day before going there,i have been asked when,what time,how many and what type of gear.Arrived on time,paid,got my fob key,i have followed the instructions given by the owner,without any comments !
Done my adventure,left the fob,got deposit,thanks ,see you soon !!

Al the time,while being there,i felt like i was living in the owner's home,without any jokes,respecting written and un-written rules of the camping in somebody's back-garden !!!

So,let's say i arrived there some day and the owner said to me that he won't permit access in his site !!! Possible i'm pissed-off,but trying to get the rationale behind it, i would possible leave and try find another site ! I would not let somebody,with or without valid arguments to fcuk up my life ! At the end of the day,is his business,his camp site,his home !

I would say that maybe is better that we are not staying there and move on.
Always looking at positive side,when you are at my age and having to care after few others 'crying' in the back of the car !

To make a parallel,i've been today in a petrol station,buying a coffee and a lunch.The seller say'd that in order to pay by Laser,i need to spend minimum €10.NOW,if i was young,i would start shouting and cursing and fcuking,because that is ok at that age,my feeling now ! BUT,i asked to speak with the Station'manager who explained that due to bank charges is forced to ask this silly rule,despite being illegal ! BUT,is his business,is private space,and i like or not,move on,adapt !!! Of course,he won't see me there again too soon ! But,is his business,his private stuff...


SO,if the site owner,that has a private business,private land,private site will not allow ME to camp in there...i have to understand that is not possible and move on,adapt,look around !!! At the end of the day,with his permission,i will enter his house,his home'back garden !! Not having his permission,fcuk-off and i will move on.

That's why i do not understand from your post with discrimination:is a private land,business,owner ! Is not a public house,paid by or from Aglo Irish money,is not a open space that we can walk at our pleasure !!!
IF someone comes at my door and ask for permission to play in the back garden...do i have to allow him/them ,fearing for been labelled discriminator !?????

...Simple...nope

While i do understand OPs feelings and frustration,myself,possible twice the OP's age,life exposure,experience and responsibilities,possible four times the management & planning skills of a camping' weekend,also the adaptation and flexibility that comes with the age,i will have dealt with the situation and produced a different outcome.

I've been young like others here,i hope the youngs will be like me...you get the level of judgement and understanding that comes with the so called L I F E !
There is no point to argue with people if they have built so called past -experience, and past exposure to some unpleasant events.

I will avoid camping sites that are not family friendly ! And with your permission,is 100% the same way as our OP won't go hollidaying in North France'family sites ,but rather he will chose nice,age appropiated 'noisy' places like..Ibiza !???


So,with all due respect to all,time to move on...lesson learned !

Plan your camp,camp your plan !
Respect and be respected !!!
Age has no rights or disadvantges,only plenty of doors that needs to be opened,the secret being when to open and which door....sorry,camping site !

Regards...
I might see you soon,in a sunny day,having a chat along the trees.
Have lots of fun,despite of this crappy weather !

And my friendly advise: do not promote that site as being against the youngsters...you will do a confirmed,big, free ,huge advertising campain for the owner and his back'garden !!! camping families -=> that's what they look at...

Donny5

rolion wrote: »

To make a parallel,i've been today in a petrol station,buying a coffee and a lunch.The seller say'd that in order to pay by Laser,i need to spend minimum €10.NOW,if i was young,i would start shouting and cursing and fcuking,because that is ok at that age,my feeling now ! BUT,i asked to speak with the Station'manager who explained that due to bank charges is forced to ask this silly rule,despite being illegal !

Well, whatever about the rest of your post, minimum spends for card transactions aren't illegal in Ireland.

celticutd87

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep. I think a course in diplomacy wouldn't be wasted on him!

Another solution would be the old security deposit system. Of course application may be difficult, not sure would the OP have been happy to fork out or risk any trouble recovering it, but seems to be getting popular when it comes to allowing young people into rented houses for a night or two anyway. I guess that involves the risk of physical damage to property though, so it is easier to quantify or address in terms of money.

We did offer to put down a deposit

Tubsandtiles

I remember listening to this on liveline , I think what people are missing the point here is that ok we can get over the fact you weren't allowed camp (wrong in my opinion) but the lies the camp owner told, he changed his story every five minutes and then a bunch of people ringing in about how amazing the campsite was. You weren't saying the campsite was bad only putting out your opinion on your experiences yet the callers didn't fully understand your story, I was more outraged at the lies and story changing the campe site owner did and the fact no one would bring this up on air, that was the bigger picture , and the woman that called bad mouthing youngsters, talk about stereotyping. I'd recommend people who have not heard the call listen and you'll see the bigger picture, the op was never given a true answer to his questions and was talked over by the camp owners lies and callers not knowing what was going on

celticutd87

Tubsandtiles wrote: »

I remember listening to this on liveline , I think what people are missing the point here is that ok we can get over the fact you weren't allowed camp (wrong in my opinion) but the lies the camp owner told, he changed his story every five minutes and then a bunch of people ringing in about how amazing the campsite was. You weren't saying the campsite was bad only putting out your opinion on your experiences yet the callers didn't fully understand your story, I was more outraged at the lies and story changing the campe site owner did and the fact no one would bring this up on air, that was the bigger picture , and the woman that called bad mouthing youngsters, talk about stereotyping. I'd recommend people who have not heard the call listen and you'll see the bigger picture, the op was never given a true answer to his questions and was talked over by the camp owners lies and callers not knowing what was going on

Thank you that is exactly the point.