Common Sense v Rules - Sinnotts

Bluezar

I went to go into Sinnotts on Sat night with my girlfriend. I'm living abroad at the moment and was delighted to get home for weekend to see my mates. We had a few drinks in Shortts to start and my mates left first and we agreed to follow them 5 mins later. Neither of us drunk at this stage. Got to Sinnotts and the bouncer would not leave my girlfriend in with me as she is not 21 for another 5 weeks.
I'm 22, all my mates are 21 plus and were inside waiting for us.
Tried to reason with the bouncer and he just said no chance and to go away. Said they are going to 23's soon. Told me to go to the foundry instead when my brother and mates inside. What a complete idiot

Surely a bit of common sense should prevail. Thoughts?

Thoie

Management reserves the right to do themselves out of custom. I'd have contacted the bunch already in there and got them to walk out to join you en masse, handing their pints to the bouncer on the way out.

Bluezar

Thoie wrote: »

Management reserves the right to do themselves out of custom. I'd have contacted the bunch already in there and got them to walk out to join you en masse, handing their pints to the bouncer on the way out.

Well they have lost a few customers out of this. Just thought it was completely ridiculous

kryogen

Meh, not exactly a big deal is it? Your missus did not meet the criteria for entry, could the bouncer have let her in? Of course, but he didnt have to and he is not doing anything wrong in refusing her.

Just dont go there in future if it bugged you that much

Bluezar

kryogen wrote: »

Meh, not exactly a big deal is it? Your missus did not meet the criteria for entry, could the bouncer have let her in? Of course, but he didnt have to and he is not doing anything wrong in refusing her.

Just dont go there in future if it bugged you that much

Just thought it was a bit ridiculous in fairness

dzilla

Bluezar wrote: »

I went to go into Sinnotts on Sat night with my girlfriend. I'm living abroad at the moment and was delighted to get home for weekend to see my mates. We had a few drinks in Shortts to start and my mates left first and we agreed to follow them 5 mins later. Neither of us drunk at this stage. Got to Sinnotts and the bouncer would not leave my girlfriend in with me as she is not 21 for another 5 weeks.
I'm 22, all my mates are 21 plus and were inside waiting for us.
Tried to reason with the bouncer and he just said no chance and to go away. Said they are going to 23's soon. Told me to go to the foundry instead when my brother and mates inside. What a complete idiot

Surely a bit of common sense should prevail. Thoughts?

over 21s

Thoie wrote: »

Management reserves the right to do themselves out of custom. I'd have contacted the bunch already in there and got them to walk out to join you en masse, handing their pints to the bouncer on the way out.

i doubt the bouncers would have taken the pints off them, nor would they be bothered, would prob just allow another 5 or 6 in from the queue to take their places in side

Bluezar wrote: »

Well they have lost a few customers out of this. Just thought it was completely ridiculous

Bluezar wrote: »

Just thought it was a bit ridiculous in fairness

over 21s rules are rules and I think that they are being watertight enforcing this cos they don't want it turning into a free for all like masons turned into

kryogen

Bluezar wrote: »

Just thought it was a bit ridiculous in fairness

Policy is policy though

There are enough places in the town for under 21's to go. I am sure they are under instruction to be strict with this policy so as to not let the place turn into another kiddie playground.

Which is fair enough tbh

BlaasForRafa

Bluezar wrote: »

Just thought it was a bit ridiculous in fairness

Typical irish whining about rules.

PremierDeise

Bluezar wrote: »

Surely a bit of common sense should prevail. Thoughts?

Yeah if shes not 21 then common sense would be not to go to an over 21s bar

tombliboo83

Actually it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of age. If the sole reason they gave is because she was under 21 then that is wrong. A past owner of that partiular bar as successfully sued for this as it breaches eu law. No matter what they put on the door if you're over 18 they can't (legally) turn you away based on age.

Adyx

tombliboo83 wrote: »

Actually it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of age. If the sole reason they gave is because she was under 21 then that is wrong. A past owner of that partiular bar as successfully sued for this as it breaches eu law. No matter what they put on the door if you're over 18 they can't (legally) turn you away based on age.

It's perfectly legal under Irish law, so which EU law does it break?

wellboytoo

Next

Dicky Pride

Have to laugh at the typical boards attitude of all the replies. "Rules are rules". - but if one were in the op's position you'd be just as pissed off. The op has every right to be pissed off because the last time I was in sinnotts, on Halloween night, it was full of under 21 students. Common sense should have prevailed here but the bouncer was being a prick. It was probably a busy night...if it was a night this weekend coming you can be sure that they wouldn't be as strict. Pubs do themselves no favours by acting like this.

pp_me

I would like to think rules are rules in Sinnots but they are not.

I was similarly refused entry one night, I was out for my girlfriends birthday shes 23 and I'm 19, they refused me entry even though I was with a group of 10 people that were over 21 and allowed entry.

The interesting part is, a friend of mine that was with me who is also under 21 was allowed entry as he knew one of the bouncers.. Go Figure!

tonc76

"Management reserves the right to refuse admission"

Avox

Adyx wrote: »

It's perfectly legal under Irish law, so which EU law does it break?

It's not illegal to refuse right of entry, but it's illegal to change the age requirements on a nightly basis. If the venue is always over 21, it's legal, but if the venue is 18's on one night and 21's on another, it's illegal, but usually not worth the cost/hassle of taking action against.

One example was of a nightclub in Cork doing something similar, a student took up the action and won out his case but it ended up costing a lot!

Bluezar

Dicky Pride wrote: »

Have to laugh at the typical boards attitude of all the replies. "Rules are rules". - but if one were in the op's position you'd be just as pissed off. The op has every right to be pissed off because the last time I was in sinnotts, on Halloween night, it was full of under 21 students. Common sense should have prevailed here but the bouncer was being a prick. It was probably a busy night...if it was a night this weekend coming you can be sure that they wouldn't be as strict. Pubs do themselves no favours by acting like this.

This is it exactly, I'm not looking for sympathy or a court case!

Basically, I was pissed off because I just thought it was needless, it was dead in there anyway so it's not like they need to be selective.
Bouncer told me they were going to over 23's soon so I won't get in myself next time.
I was really just suggesting that a bit of common sense should have prevailed here, my dads a publican and i'm sure he would have used a bit of common sense in this situation.

Dicky Pride

Bluezar wrote: »

This is it exactly, I'm not looking for sympathy or a court case!

Basically, I was pissed off because I just thought it was needless, it was dead in there anyway so it's not like they need to be selective.
Bouncer told me they were going to over 23's soon so I won't get in myself next time.
I was really just suggesting that a bit of common sense should have prevailed here, my dads a publican and i'm sure he would have used a bit of common sense in this situation.

This just shows the arrogance of the foundry. Going over 23s in Waterford is a stupid idea but they're obviously doing it because they think they have a monopoly and they want to force their under 23s to go into their night club. If they treat people like this now, when they have things their own way, they will lose people when competition arrives. And believe me, it will arrive.

BBM77

I agree with the OP it is completely ridiculous. It is this kind of bs from bouncers that puts me off going to these places. I know people who don’t drink or had no drink taken on the night getting turned away from night clubs for having too much, myself included. When you go to these places you are going there to enjoy yourself on your time off not be treated like dirt by some bouncer trying to feel like he has some power in his life. Night clubs are businesses at the end of the day like any other, I don’t see why a lot of people think ignorance from the staff in these places is acceptable because they have a "management reserves the right to refuse admission" sign at the entrance.

dzilla

maybe the owner had told the bouncers to be extra vigilant on that night ya don't know, but the bouncers only doing their jobs. Can't blame em..

Adyx

Avox wrote: »

It's not illegal to refuse right of entry, but it's illegal to change the age requirements on a nightly basis. If the venue is always over 21, it's legal, but if the venue is 18's on one night and 21's on another, it's illegal, but usually not worth the cost/hassle of taking action against.

One example was of a nightclub in Cork doing something similar, a student took up the action and won out his case but it ended up costing a lot!

That's not what tombliboo83 said though, he said refusing admission on the basis of age is a breach of EU law. Under Irish law, as long as the age restrictions are posted at the door and applied in good faith this is perfectly legal. I'm just curious as to what EU law supersedes this.

mitosis

Let me see if I understand OP.

You want the house rule, over 21 only, not to apply to your friend?

Is she special?

Other than to you?

If she was riding the doorman and he still said no, you might have some beef. But she didn't even try that, I'll bet. So she's only special to you.

Jesus, Judge, gimme a break, she'll be of the age of consent in 5 weeks :pac:

Smiley Burnett

couple of points===

if the government decide to raise the drinking age to 21, these nightclub owners would be the first ones to complain, yet here they are turning away people who are perfectly entitled to purchase alcohol.

nightclub owners do this to create a demand for their product i.e. they convince the punter that it is a big deal to gain entry to their club/pub

Ireland is one of the few countries in the world where people gain free admission to hear a live band in a pub, yet pay handsomely to listen to cds/downloads

it is hard to blame nightclub owners for thinking that young people are slightly thick, when you consider that they queue up to pay over-the-odds for drink (which is expensive even in a regular bar)

sparkling sea

It is illegal to discriminate and the rules are rules arguement is complete bullsh1t. If in house policy is discriminatory then its illegal. If your girlfriend was discriminated against then she will have a case under the Equal Status Act. There are some windup artists posting, you have every right to feel annoyed, some people are power mad.

Pubs and clubs stick up these discriminatory signs but they don't have legal standing and the if you point this out to the bouncers they will often have a change of heart, especially if you have witnesses. Asking to speak to the manager and pointing this out works too, as they will worry you may take a case against them.

Under the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2011, the Equality Tribunal deals with complaints of discrimination based on

- gender
- civil status (single, married, separated, divorced, widowed, in a civil partnership within the meaning of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 or being a former civil partner in a civil partnership that has ended by death or been dissolved)
- family status (including pregnancy),
- age,
- disability (see definition in section 2 of the Acts),
- race (including nationality, colour or ethnic/national origin), religion or belief,
- sexual orientation,
- membership of the Traveller community

The complaints may relate to the provision of goods, access to any of a wide range of services and facilities, education and accommodation subject to specific exceptions in the Acts. Complaints can be made of direct or indirect discrimination, harassment, sexual harassment, or failure to provide appropriate measures for a person with a disability.

The Acts apply to all providers of goods and services covered by the Acts, whether they are individuals, organisations, or public bodies, and to their employees. (The term "service provider" is used in this Guide to refer to any person who provides goods, services or facilities.)

Some action which are not prohibited are set out in sections 14,15 and 16 of the Equal Status Acts.

The Equal Status Acts also specifically protect a person against being penalised in any way by the service provider because they have made a complaint about possible discrimination under the Equality legislation, represented or supported a complainant, or indicated an intention to do any of the above. Penalising a person for any of these reasons is defined as victimisation. The Acts provide for complaints about victimisation to be made to the Equality Tribunal, in the same way as for complaints of discrimination, and with the same provision for redress. It is not necessary that a victimised complainant was successful in their original complaint, only that he or she acted in good faith.

If your girlfriend was discriminated against and you pointed this out and were victimised because of this, you would also have a case. Victimisation occurs when a person is treated less favourably than another because they opposed discrimination or were involved in a complaint of unlawful discrimination.

Claims of discrimination against registered clubs (i.e. clubs allowed to serve alcohol at their bars) and claims of discrimination against licensed premises, (pubs, nightclubs, hotel bars etc), must be referred to the District Court. For information on District Court procedures, contact the District Court Office. "

Under section 27 of the Equal Status Acts, a decision of an Equality Officer which finds in favour of a complainant will provide for compensation for the acts of discrimination or victimisation which occurred, currently €6,349 (the maximum being the same as that which can be awarded by the District Court in civil cases) and/ or an order that a person or persons take a specified course of action. "http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/Equal_Status_/Guide-to-Procedures/"

sparkling sea

Adyx wrote: »

That's not what tombliboo83 said though, he said refusing admission on the basis of age is a breach of EU law. Under Irish law, as long as the age restrictions are posted at the door and applied in good faith this is perfectly legal. I'm just curious as to what EU law supersedes this.

What are you talking about buoy Give it up buoy

Go on, under what statute or legislation is it legal; Under what Irish Law that supercedes the EU's ESA's EEA's would this be.

Once EU law has been incorporated into Irish law it supercedes the existing Irish legislation, unless its a Constitutional issue then a referendum is needed.

Adyx

sparkling sea wrote: »

What are you talking about buoy Give it up buoy

Go on, under what statute or legislation is it legal; Under what Irish Law that supercedes the EU's ESA's EEA's would this be.

Once EU law has been incorporated into Irish law it supercedes the existing Irish legislation, unless its a Constitutional issue then a referendum is needed.

The word is boy (I assume that's what you're trying to say) and what exactly would you like me to give up?

Anyway this must be at least my third or fourth time posting this in this forum but again:

Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 wrote:

(4) If—


(a) the holder of a licence or other authorisation which permits the sale of intoxicating liquor adopts a policy of refusing to supply intoxicating liquor to any person below a specified age which exceeds 18 years,


(b) a notice setting out the policy is displayed in a conspicuous place in or on the exterior of the premises, and


(c) the policy is implemented in good faith,


a refusal to serve intoxicating liquor to such a person shall not constitute discrimination on the age ground.

Now again I ask: What EU law supersedes this?

sparkling sea

Adyx wrote: »

The word is boy (I assume that's what you're trying to say) and what exactly would you like me to give up?

Anyway this must be at least my third or fourth time posting this in this forum but again:



Now again I ask: What EU law supersedes this?

You seem to be having a bit of difficulty with the EU law, incorporation and how it then supercedes domestic law.

I think you missed this bit - you've missed alot more as well

25.— Section 15 of the Equal Status Act 2000 is amended by the addition of the following subsections:


“(3) (a) This subsection applies to the option given under subsection (2), (3) or (4) of section 34 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988 to the holder of a licence of any licensed premises to allow a person under 18 to be in the bar of those premises at the times, or in the circumstances, specified in those subsections.


(b) The non-exercise of the option to which this subsection applies shall not of itself constitute discrimination.


(c) The reference in paragraph (a) to section 34 is to that section as substituted by section 14 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003.


(4) If—


(a) the holder of a licence or other authorisation which permits the sale of intoxicating liquor adopts a policy of refusing to supply intoxicating liquor to any person below a specified age which exceeds 18 years,


(b) a notice setting out the policy is displayed in a conspicuous place in or on the exterior of the premises, and


(c) the policy is implemented in good faith,


a refusal to serve intoxicating liquor to such a person shall not constitute discrimination on the age ground.


(5) Subsections (3) and (4) are without prejudice to subsections (1) and (2).”.

Section 15.1 and 15.2 as referred to above

15.—(1) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prohibiting discrimination shall be construed as requiring a person to dispose of goods or premises, or to provide services or accommodation or services and amenities related to accommodation, to another person (“the customer”) in circumstances which would lead a reasonable individual having the responsibility, knowledge and experience of the person to the belief, on grounds other than discriminatory grounds, that the disposal of the goods or premises or the provision of the services or accommodation or the services and amenities related to accommodation, as the case may be, to the customer would produce a substantial risk of criminal or disorderly conduct or behaviour or damage to property at or in the vicinity of the place in which the goods or services are sought or the premises or accommodation are located.


(2) Action taken in good faith by or on behalf of the holder of a licence or other authorisation which permits the sale of intoxicating liquor, for the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1999, shall not constitute discrimination.

Section 25 contains two amendments to the Equal Status Act 2000.
The second amendment provides that; a licensee may set a minimum age for the sale and consumption of alcohol which is above the statutory minimum of 18 as long as the policy is publicly displayed and is implemented in a non-discriminatory manner. This must be fully compliant with the superceding articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the Equal Status Act.

This is not the case with Sinnotts or hardly any other pub in Ireland for that matter - you cannot stick up a poster which says over 21's, 23's etc and then allow one person under this age into your premises and refuse another, your action negates your sign or poster and means nothing.

You cannot take S25.4 out of context or just cherry pick as you are doing. In really life Ireland these signs are not legal because all the criteria need to allow for them is virtually never
met and this is easily provable

Even if all the criteria is met by some super totally compliant pub or club in Ireland; not allowing someone to enter a pub, club,etc on the grounds of age and refusing to sell alcohol to someone on the grounds of age is not the same thing, not everyone who goes out drinks alcohol - what grounds justifies refusing non drinkers who are 18 or over entry.

PremierDeise

I wonder do they refuse entry to the estimated 50% of staff that are under 21? :rolleyes:

Adyx

sparkling sea wrote: »

You seem to be having a bit of difficulty with the EU law, incorporation and how it then supercedes domestic law.

I think you missed this bit - you've missed alot more as well

25.— Section 15 of the Equal Status Act 2000 is amended by the addition of the following subsections:


“(3) (a) This subsection applies to the option given under subsection (2), (3) or (4) of section 34 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988 to the holder of a licence of any licensed premises to allow a person under 18 to be in the bar of those premises at the times, or in the circumstances, specified in those subsections.


(b) The non-exercise of the option to which this subsection applies shall not of itself constitute discrimination.


(c) The reference in paragraph (a) to section 34 is to that section as substituted by section 14 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003.


(4) If—


(a) the holder of a licence or other authorisation which permits the sale of intoxicating liquor adopts a policy of refusing to supply intoxicating liquor to any person below a specified age which exceeds 18 years,


(b) a notice setting out the policy is displayed in a conspicuous place in or on the exterior of the premises, and


(c) the policy is implemented in good faith,


a refusal to serve intoxicating liquor to such a person shall not constitute discrimination on the age ground.


(5) Subsections (3) and (4) are without prejudice to subsections (1) and (2).”.

Section 15.1 and 15.2 as referred to above

15.—(1) For greater certainty, nothing in this Act prohibiting discrimination shall be construed as requiring a person to dispose of goods or premises, or to provide services or accommodation or services and amenities related to accommodation, to another person (“the customer”) in circumstances which would lead a reasonable individual having the responsibility, knowledge and experience of the person to the belief, on grounds other than discriminatory grounds, that the disposal of the goods or premises or the provision of the services or accommodation or the services and amenities related to accommodation, as the case may be, to the customer would produce a substantial risk of criminal or disorderly conduct or behaviour or damage to property at or in the vicinity of the place in which the goods or services are sought or the premises or accommodation are located.


(2) Action taken in good faith by or on behalf of the holder of a licence or other authorisation which permits the sale of intoxicating liquor, for the sole purpose of ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Licensing Acts, 1833 to 1999, shall not constitute discrimination.

Section 25 contains two amendments to the Equal Status Act 2000.
The second amendment provides that; a licensee may set a minimum age for the sale and consumption of alcohol which is above the statutory minimum of 18 as long as the policy is publicly displayed and is implemented in a non-discriminatory manner. This must be fully compliant with the superceding articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the Equal Status Act.

This is not the case with Sinnotts or hardly any other pub in Ireland for that matter - you cannot stick up a poster which says over 21's, 23's etc and then allow one person under this age into your premises and refuse another, your action negates your sign or poster and means nothing.

You cannot take S25.4 out of context or just cherry pick as you are doing. In really life Ireland these signs are not legal because all the criteria need to allow for them is virtually never
met and this is easily provable

Even if all the criteria is met by some super totally compliant pub or club in Ireland; not allowing someone to enter a pub, club,etc on the grounds of age and refusing to sell alcohol to someone on the grounds of age is not the same thing, not everyone who goes out drinks alcohol - what grounds justifies refusing non drinkers who are 18 or over entry.

What is the criteria needed to implement an over 21's (or whatever) policy in a non-discriminatory manner? What is this EU law that supersedes the Irish law. You're posting in a very confrontational and accusatory style by the way, I'm just curious and asking for information.

sparkling sea

Adyx wrote: »

What is the criteria needed to implement an over 21's (or whatever) policy in a non-discriminatory manner? What is this EU law that supersedes the Irish law. You're posting in a very confrontational and accusatory style by the way, I'm just curious and asking for information.

Ha haha pot and kettle come to mind by the way.

As you know, Ireland is a dualist state so law that is not domestic law must be incorporated into Irish law.

The European Communities Act 1972, provides that treaties of the European Union are part of Irish law, along with directly effective measures adopted under those treaties. It also provides that government ministers may adopt statutory instruments in order to implement European Union law and that as an exception to the general rule such statutory instruments have effect as if they were primary legislation. Once they become primary legislation they will supercede existing Irish law - it is EU law and the dualist nature of our state means it has standing that over rides existing Irish law as it is incorporated into Irish law.

Our government can also ratify international legislation but until they incorporate it into domestic law, we are are not bound by it and as you probably know, we don't uphold it either. Convention on Human Rights is always used as an example, we were one of the first countries to ratify it but we were one of the last to incorporate it or be bound be it.

The over 21's and pubs - these are public houses not private premises as some people think, they have to abide by all the elements of the ESA and the amendments of ILA 2003 and can be defeated if this is not the case. So say for example you have ID that proves your over 18 and your not drunk etc,etc, then a premises that is open to the public cannot legimate use a sign alone to stop you entering, this is discriminatory - refusal to allow yoy to enter must comply with all parts of both sections and subsections of both acts. Also if they are in breach their sign through their own actions (and they almost always are) the sign again is meaningless. Private members clubs are different.

I'll give you a better example tomorrow

Bluezar

mitosis wrote: »

Let me see if I understand OP.

You want the house rule, over 21 only, not to apply to your friend?

Is she special?

Other than to you?

If she was riding the doorman and he still said no, you might have some beef. But she didn't even try that, I'll bet. So she's only special to you.

Jesus, Judge, gimme a break, she'll be of the age of consent in 5 weeks :pac:

What a complete dope you are