Wheelchair user refused entry to Dublin Nightclub.

orestes

kidneyfan wrote: »

I have been bulling when refused entry but it was usually because I was drunk and acting the prick.

So people in wheelchairs can't be drunk and act the prick? Well, we will have to take their word for it, since they can't lie.

The Road Runner

kidneyfan wrote: »

the bad experience of being in a wheelchair helps them to become better people.

Without knowing exactly what's going down in this instant, you could argue below could also be the case.

kidneyfan wrote: »

the bad experience of being in a wheelchair helps them to become bitter people.

kidneyfan

kylith wrote: »

Do you consider the disabled mentally incapable of lying, or do you have some other reason to deny that people in wheelchairs are just as fallible and corruptible as the rest of humanity? 'Cos I've known a couple, and they're just like every one else.

He has no motivation for lying and nothing to gain from it. The bouncers do have something to gain from it. If you go to the trouble of setting up a facebook page then there is no smoke without fire.

frank reynolds

kidneyfan wrote: »

He has nothing to gain out of it. Do you think that the equality commissioner is going to give him 10 grand or something? No chance.

For me the heart of the matter is the offer for his friends (female and wearing high heels) to carry him down the stairs.

If these were the friends referred to the bouncer was totally out of order.

I have been bulling when refused entry but it was usually because I was drunk and acting the prick.

how do you know he wasnt acting the prick?

and, in case you didnt read all the other posts, it has been noted that the chap had a bottle of beer in his hand outside the door of the nightclub.

THAT is the reason he was refused.

i wouldnt be allowed in with a bottle of booze - why should anybody else?

Tar.Aldarion

orestes wrote: »

So people in wheelchairs can't be drunk and act the prick? Well, we will have to take their word for it, since they can't lie.

I think I have a new way to deal with criminals.

kidneyfan

orestes wrote: »

So people in wheelchairs can't be drunk and act the prick? Well, we will have to take their word for it, since they can't lie.

Yeah but they can't get into fights can they? Which is a pretty good reason for bouncers not to let drunks into nightclubs and pubs!

Stercus Accidit

kidneyfan wrote: »

He has no motivation for lying and nothing to gain from it. The bouncers do have something to gain from it. If you go to the trouble of setting up a facebook page then there is no smoke without fire.

He is getting international publicity, sympathy and may well receive 'compensation' from the club.

If he had a legitimate claim he would have contacted a solicitor, not a bunch of randomers on facebook.

Rayne Wooney

Just after getting in and skimmed through this thread, sounds like this chap thinks being in a wheelchair is a good excuse for being a díckhead.

why was the bouncer sacked if he did nothing wrong?

veep

frank reynolds wrote: »

it has been noted that the chap had a bottle of beer in his hand outside the door of the nightclub.

It's not a bottle of beer! It's the wheel of his chair FFS.

kylith

kidneyfan wrote: »

He has nothing to gain out of it. Do you think that the equality commissioner is going to give him 10 grand or something? No chance.

For me the heart of the matter is the offer for his friends (female and wearing high heels) to carry him down the stairs.

If these were the friends referred to the bouncer was totally out of order.

I have been bulling when refused entry but it was usually because I was drunk and acting the prick.

So, the security men should have left their posts to carry a wheelchair down a flight of stairs, which is not only putting themselves in physical danger, as wheelchairs are large, unwieldy things, but is also contra-indicated by their insurers, and a fire hazard rather than Mr. Bolger going to one of the many other, handicapped accessible clubs in the city?

kidneyfan

frank reynolds wrote: »

how do you know he wasnt acting the prick?

and, in case you didnt read all the other posts, it has been noted that the chap had a bottle of beer in his hand outside the door of the nightclub.

THAT is the reason he was refused.

i wouldnt be allowed in with a bottle of booze - why should anybody else?

The other bouncer said that they offered to let his friends (girls in short skirts and heels) carry him down the stairs. Also I don't see a bottle of beer. His eyes look bloodshot but that could be tears.

veep

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

If he had a legitimate claim he would have contacted a solicitor, not a bunch of randomers on facebook.

And you have evidence to prove he hasn't also done this?

Seedy Arling

kidneyfan wrote: »

What I do see here is the sort of vile bullying that welcomes the opportunity to attack someone for being in a wheelchair.

And i believe he got raped on facebook too. Shocking stuff.

tvnutz

kidneyfan wrote: »

His eyes look bloodshot but that could be tears.

Oh good jaysus

Kenny Logins

kidneyfan wrote: »

Yeah but they can't get into fights can they? Which is a pretty good reason for bouncers not to let drunks into nightclubs and pubs!

You're gas.

Grayson

dddmac wrote: »

Regulations that came into force after 2010 regarding disability access:
Disability Access Certificate: an Overview

*Any building work that requires Planning Permission and a Fire Cert will now also require an Access Cert.
*All non-domestic building work that starts on site after 1st Jan 2010 will need a certificate before works begin.
*Non-domestic building work includes new hotels, apartment blocks, shops, churches, offices, etc. In fact, everything except private houses. It also includes any changes to these types of buildings that will affect their layout or facilities, e.g. extensions, ramps or toilets.
*An Access Cert will normally be applied for at the same time as a Fire Cert.
*Work cannot start on site without an Access Cert. However, as there is no official time period (unlike a Fire Cert) in which the Building Control Authority are required to issue the cert, this may potentially lead to delays for applicants.

Link to building control act 2007

Dublin City Disability access cert requirements

From one of those links

From 1st January 2010 all new buildings in Ireland (except for houses), and buildings where there is a change of layout, will require a Disability Access Certificate.

Unless they changed the insides significantly, they don't need an access cert.

kidneyfan wrote: »

Pretty shocking to call a disabled man a liar.
The disabled man has not waged a vicious campaign of discrimination. I don't really know what you mean.

Why can't you accuse anyone of lying? The whole point of equality is that we treat him the same as anyone else. I'm applying the same standards that I apply to everyone else.

And don't say why couldn't the nightclub apply the same standards. the place is down a steep flight of stairs. It creates a dangerous situation for him and the other customers if they let in people that they are not equiped to help. Can you imagine a dublin bus driver letting someone carry a disabled person up to the upper deck of a bus. Of course not. It's not equipped for that and it's dangerous.

And are you actually saying that the nightclub has waged a vicious campaign against him? He's the one that's reposting again and again, even after someone got fired. That is mean, nasty and petty.

kidneyfan wrote: »

In my experience bouncers stick up for each other so the fact that the bouncer got the sack shows that he must have been really out of order.

I sincerely hope that an innocent man didn't get the sack but what would the disabled man in a wheelchair have to gain from getting the bouncer sacked?

Once again, why should he be better than anyone else? I have no idea why you constantly say "disabled man in a wheelchair " as if that means he has a higher moral code than anyone else.
It's because your argument has no strength and you're hoping to illicit sympathy. And it's obvious that he's got an agenda. He's reposting again and again. His friends were even reposting (and posting here). Some of them even created graphics.

hatrickpatrick

Seedy Arling wrote: »

And i believe he got raped on facebook too. Shocking stuff.

Careful now, wouldn't want Fidelma Healy Eames weighing in on this incident... I don't think I could bear the shame of seeing another video of her going viral and internationally representing the Irish government's knowledge of the internet

Stercus Accidit

veep wrote: »

And you have evidence to prove he hasn't also done this?

Why the social media campaign then?

I would think that this publicity would render any kind of legitimate claim impossible...

...and I would have thought that he would be quick to announce that he will sue if he had legitimate reason to do so, given the very public nature of his campaign.

DeanAustin

tvnutz wrote: »

Oh good jaysus

Hard to know what to say to that isn't it?

orestes

kidneyfan wrote: »

Yeah but they can't get into fights can they? Which is a pretty good reason for bouncers not to let drunks into nightclubs and pubs!

Yes they can, and it's pretty easy to win too. Nobody wants to hit you when you're in a wheelchair, and while they're thinking about whether or not to do it you're at a perfect height to punch them in the nuts.

The Road Runner

frank reynolds wrote: »

and, in case you didnt read all the other posts, it has been noted that the chap had a bottle of beer in his hand outside the door of the nightclub.

I've seen this mentioned before. Is there a photo of that or just something someone said? The only photo I seen was with the two girls in front of him and I didn't see a beer there.

veep

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Why the social media campaign then?

I would think that this publicity would render any kind of legitimate claim impossible.

Not sure, like everyone else on this thread I can only speculate, but I'd imagine raising awareness of accessibility issues would be part of it.

...But also two FB posts does not a social media campaign make. The posts going viral was not within his control surely. Not saying he minded it, but couldn't have planned for it.

Seedy Arling

orestes wrote: »

Yes they can, and it's pretty easy to win too. Nobody wants to hit you when you're in a wheelchair, and while they're thinking about whether or not to do it you're at a perfect height to punch them in the nuts.

I saw someone give Knackerdwarf a kick up the hole in Eyre Square in Galway before. We should get him in on this. The tide is turning!

ScumLord

kidneyfan wrote: »

They rarely do tell lies though and this young man in a wheelchair has no motivation for lying about the bouncer.

What nonsesnse, you can't honestly believe that? The wheelchair guy seems to like to be around the limelight. That's his motivation for wanting to publicise himself. Or it could be he arrived home drunk and angry and started a slander campaign (not the first one to try) which should have stopped this morning when he woke up.

tvnutz wrote: »

Bahahahahahahaaha! are you joking? Please tell me you are joking. Because he is in a wheelchair he is infallible?

This is where the church has gone wrong. The next pope should be crippled on his way into St. Petters.

kidneyfan wrote: »

What I do see here is the sort of vile bullying that welcomes the opportunity to attack someone for being in a wheelchair.

The weak, the lazy and those who cannot make a go of their own lives love to attack the marginalised. That's what is driving the attacks on Mr Bolger.

The guys character has been called into question. That's not an attack. He brought this into the public domain, now the public has the right to judge him based on his actions.

DeanAustin

Grayson wrote: »

Can you imagine a dublin bus driver letting someone carry a disabled person up to the upper deck of a bus.

I know it shouldn't and it probably wasn't your intention but for some reason this has had me pissing myself laughing.

You know when you get a mental image and it just nails you...

frank reynolds

The Road Runner wrote: »

I've seen this mentioned before. Is there a photo of that or just something someone said? The only photo I seen was with the two girls in front of him and I didn't see a beer there.

i could be wrong then. someone else just pointed out that it's the wheels of the chair.

either way, they were not insured to carry him down the stairs.

another person argued "but his friends were in there" so why didnt they ring them and ask for help bringing him in? it didnt get to that stage - for a reason - he must have been drunk, or the club didnt want to risk his injury or the injury of someone else in the club by allowing his ILLEGAL admission (it's illegal if they are not insured to have him there)

simple as that really. nobody was at fault - except for today when someone decided to turn it into a rally of the senseless.

veep

ScumLord wrote: »

now the public has the right to judge him based on his actions.

But his actions have been only to post on the nightclubs FB page and on his own FB page. I'm not seeing what he's done wrong here.

kidneyfan

Well I am surprised that people won't give a wheelchair bound young man the benefit of the doubt. I don't whether you are ignorant pricks or whether I am an ignorant prick whose attitude is patronising.

I am not calling the bouncer is a liar either by the way.

Caliden

kidneyfan wrote: »

Well I am surprised that people won't give a wheelchair bound young man the benefit of the doubt. I don't whether you are ignorant pricks or whether I am an ignorant prick whose attitude is patronising.

I am not calling the bouncer is a liar either by the way.

Well they both can't be telling the truth can they?

smash

kidneyfan wrote: »

Well I am surprised that people won't give a wheelchair bound young man the benefit of the doubt.

Is there any reason to? I don't see one.

orestes

veep wrote: »

But his actions have been only to post on the nightclubs FB page and on his own FB page. I'm not seeing what he's done wrong here.

Rather than go through the proper channels to address his grievance, he posted his side of the story in order to intentionally whip up in internet frenzy, which resulted in a man losing his job without a chance to defend himself. I think it's pretty easy to see what he's wrong here.

kidneyfan

Caliden wrote: »

Well they both can't be telling the truth can they?

They can if you read the thread you will see that the physically fit and strong bouncer offered to let the young wheelchair bound man's young attractive female friends in high heels carry him down the stairs.

veep

Caliden wrote: »

Well they both can't be telling the truth can they?

The club hasn't disputed Graham's version of events. Quite the opposite, they have issued a full apology. So why are random people on the internet who have no direct involvement suggesting he is lying about something?

The Road Runner

veep wrote: »

But his actions have been only to post on the nightclubs FB page and on his own FB page. I'm not seeing what he's done wrong here.

Do you not see a problem in that he got an apology yesterday and then started all over again today?

ScumLord

kidneyfan wrote: »

Well I am surprised that people won't give a wheelchair bound young man the benefit of the doubt.

We have given him the benefit of the doubt, as we have the bouncer. You've sanctified the man simply because he's in a wheelchair. He can do no wrong in your eyes.

DeanAustin

kidneyfan wrote: »

They can if you read the thread you will see that the physically fit and strong bouncer offered to let the young wheelchair bound man's young attractive female friends in high heels carry him down the stairs.

If that's true, then they didn't refuse him entry surely?

If he is discriminated against on that basis so will I be when I ask the next doorman I see to carry me into a nightclub.

kidneyfan

DeanAustin wrote: »

If that's true, then they didn't refuse him entry surely?

The girls could have hurt their lovely legs or strained their delightful Gluteii.

Grayson

veep wrote: »

But his actions have been only to post on the nightclubs FB page and on his own FB page. I'm not seeing what he's done wrong here.

So he didn't message them, rather he posted it on their page

then shared.

Then after an apology and a guy getting fired (last night) he get us this morning and reposts it.

Lets assume there were no holes in the story. After the apology and firing and them trying to contact him, you'd think he'd dropp it. But no, rather than respond to the club, he posts it again. He's obviously trying to stir up ****. And that goes against all his friends protesting that he's a nice bloke who wouldn't stir up trouble.
At this point he's trying to cause as much harm as possible to the business. He either loves the attention and doesn't care if people lose their jobs. Or he has some kind of gripe against the club.

veep

The Road Runner wrote: »

Do you not see a problem in that he got an apology yesterday and then started all over again today?

All I saw directly from him to day was to share the photo from the Madison FB page on his own personal FB page, I would assume to show his friends the number of likes and support he received. Was there more?

The Road Runner

kidneyfan wrote: »

They can if you read the thread you will see that the physically fit and strong bouncer offered to let the young wheelchair bound man's young attractive female friends in high heels carry him down the stairs.

That's a bit silly to be saying that. You are presuming from that photo that the only friends of his that were there was the two girls. Outside of taking the total piss I can't see a bouncer in a delicate situation like that suggesting the two women carry him down the stairs. If he did suggest that, it was wrong.

orestes

veep wrote: »

The club hasn't disputed Graham's version of events. Quite the opposite, they have issued a full apology. So why are random people on the internet who have no direct involvement suggesting he is lying about something?

Because his story and actions don't ad up from any way that I can think about it and I think that a man losing his job because of a self-righteous mob started by a guy who is acting like a tool is disgusting.

thebigbiffo

veep wrote: »

But his actions have been only to post on the nightclubs FB page and on his own FB page. I'm not seeing what he's done wrong here.

He

This guy tried to attend a nightclub that's down 2 flights of stair with, from what I can see, are 2 girls in short skirts and high heels.

What gives him the right to demand that he be admitted? Who was going to take responsibility for carrying him up and down? If the bouncers f'ucked it up they're screwed, if they allow the girls to do it (or anyone else for that matter) and they dropped him and killed him then they're also screwed.

This guys campaign, and it IS a campaign, has sickened me tbh. I can not understand the sense of entitlement he has. In my opinion he should get a life and find something useful to do.

smash

Grayson wrote: »

After the apology and firing and them trying to contact him, you'd think he'd dropp it. But no, rather than respond to the club, he posts it again. He's obviously trying to stir up ****. And that goes against all his friends protesting that he's a nice bloke who wouldn't stir up trouble.

Be gas if he was barred from everywhere else in Dublin for being a trouble maker

Stercus Accidit

veep wrote: »

Not sure, like everyone else on this thread I can only speculate, but I'd imagine raising awareness of accessibility issues would be part of it.

...But also two FB posts does not a social media campaign make. The posts going viral was not within his control surely. Not saying he minded it, but couldn't have planned for it.

He was immediately given an apology and the bouncer was let go, why hasn't he accepted the apology and tried to calm down the hate campaign? Why hasn't he given any details about what happened?

So far the only accounts are that he was refused entry, that he was drunk and abusive, and that the club's liability insurance didn't cover the bouncers carrying him down.

Those are the only accounts I've read so far, the first from the OP, the second purportedly from the second bouncer and the third from a supposed witness.

DeanAustin

kidneyfan wrote: »

The girls could have hurt their lovely legs or strained their delightful Gluteii.

Aha so you are on the wind up or one of this guy's friends.

veep

orestes wrote: »

Because his story and actions don't ad up from any way that I can think about it and I think that a man losing his job because of a self-righteous mob started by a guy who is acting like a tool is disgusting.

I absolutely agree he shouldn't have lost his job and the club are using him as a scapegoat but I'm not seeing how that is Graham's fault. He couldn't have known they would do that.

Gorilla Rising

veep wrote: »

The club hasn't disputed Graham's version of events. Quite the opposite, they have issued a full apology. So why are random people on the internet who have no direct involvement suggesting he is lying about something?

What did you honestly expect?

They'd already been convicted by a bunch of complete and utter morons on FB.

It's hardly in an establishment's interest to argue back and have the issue escalate even further. God knows what they'd be branded then.

It was purely an exercise in damage limitation.

Crackle

kidneyfan wrote: »

They can if you read the thread you will see that the physically fit and strong bouncer offered to let the young wheelchair bound man's young attractive female friends in high heels carry him down the stairs.

Well we don't know if that's true or not. This was posted earlier in the thread which came from facebook I think;

Graham Bolger is lying. My friend witnessed the whole thing that night...the bouncers said Graham was more than welcome to enter the club but they weren't insured to carry him down the stairs, but that his friends could. His friends went NUTS, screaming and mouthing off at the bouncer. It was at this point the bouncers turned away his group. It is wrong that he has spun it and is using his disability to cover up his bruised ego!

There is also another quote which is supposedly from someone who was working with the bouncer in question that said he was refused entry for being a smart arse and being too drunk.

So, basically, we don't know exactly what was said by either the bouncer or by Bolger, which kinda makes it hard to judge the whole thing.

Amalgam

kidneyfan wrote: »

For me the heart of the matter is the offer for his friends (female and wearing high heels) to carry him down the stairs.

No business is going to allow you to do that.

There's 'characters' I've worked with that have received thousands for bruising, a sprain, having something (very) small dropped on them etc..

Usually in a public place, or where the public have access and there is the risk of liability.

The cost of 'Public Liability insurance' is an astronomical cost to a business.. and rising every year.

tfitzgerald

I have to say. I think the guy is a wanker and the bouncer should be given his job back