Traveller sues hotel for not having enough security for wedding

Hans Bricks

silverfeather wrote: »

The f*ckin Irish I tells ya..

His ethnicity has nothing to do with it. The hotel was vindicated and found not liable.

Man sued and lost .../ end of story.

Ever worked traveller weddings, functions, dealt with them in hospitality ?

Long be the days when I had to hold "500 euro notes" under the light at the hotel I worked in when they would buy a round of drinks at the guest bar. Lo and behold they were always counterfeit. Don't even get me started on the weddings ....

The_Minister

The_Minister wrote: »

A core part of his case was that traveller weddings are more violent than settled weddings, therefore the hotel should have had enhanced security.

The fact that he is a traveller is key to the whole matter.

It may have been key to the decision by the Plaintiff to proceed.

Clearly it was not key to the decision.

The decision would have been the same had the victim been old, young, Irish, not Irish, traveller, not traveller, gay, straight or whatever. What the Plaintiff was obviously trying to do was to use his traveller status to suggest the duty of care increased, this was rejected.

Hans Bricks

The_Minister wrote: »

A core part of his case was that traveller weddings are more violent than settled weddings, therefore the hotel should have had enhanced security.

The fact that he is a traveller is key to the whole matter.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The traveller made his ethnicity part of the case. He got a security expert to testify that 'this type of fracas is part and parcel of a traveller wedding'.

Some people don't simply want to hear it. It ain't politically correct, so hush up and embrace the tummy warming diversity you've all been gifted in the form of riotous traveller functions.

homewardbound11

I took to replying after taking the word traveller out of if and it seemed like a stupid case of suing culture in America .

Been in that hotel for a function found the family run business to be a lovely people . So sad.

Hans Bricks

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Some people don't simply want to hear it. It ain't politically correct, so hush up and embrace the tummy warming diversity you've all been gifted in the form of riotous traveller functions.

Again, it was a core part of his case...but clearly not a core part of the decision.

This happens all the time. In many different cases. It was obviously fundamental to the case of the plaintiff, a particular duty of care existed because of the nature of the guests. The Judge rejected this.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, it was a core part of his case...but clearly not a core part of the decision.

This happens all the time. In many different cases. It was obviously fundamental to the case of the plaintiff, a particular duty of care existed because of the nature of the guests. The Judge rejected this.

It was a core part of the case so it's relevant to mention.

I'm not any kind of expert but the element of a case which I find interesting are

The plaintiff's argument
The defence argument
The point of law being contested
The outcome.

end of the road

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

And they wonder why hotels won't take traveller weddings.

because the hotels can get away with it. shut a few of them down and bann the owners from holding any similar licences and we'l see then

Ficheall

silverfeather wrote: »

Why not just say man sues? What has his ethnic background got to do with it? 'Man Sues'.

What has his gender got to do with it?

end of the road

foggy_lad wrote: »

Doesn't this leave the door wide open now for all traveller weddings christening parties funerals and other occasions to be refused by any hotel, pub, club or other hostelry due to the likelihood that there will be a breach of the peace because it is "part and parcel of travellerweddings"?

i wouldn't think so. discrimination laws still apply i should think

Massimo Cassagrande

I had my wedding reception at Lumville. Lovely spot. No rows at mine, oddly enough. Delighted this chap lost his case.

end of the road

seamus wrote: »

No, I don't think so. The comments of a single traveller in a court case wouldn't be that wide-reaching.

However, it might mean there is provision for hotels to include expensive security services as part of a wedding package, or ask for a five-figure security deposit for traveller weddings.

I can see how discrimination of this kind could be defensible by claiming that a traveller wedding is "high-risk" and therefore they're justified in asking for a large refundable deposit.

thats a possibility, all though a simple change to the law should get rid of that?

abff

Deleted User wrote: »

This case was not dismissed for being frivolous or vexatious.

To make lawyers responsible for losing cases is ridiculous, like making doctors liable for patients who don't succeed in getting better. Of course they may be, if there is negligence, but not fir simply taking on a matter.

I don't think that's at all comparable. It would be more akin to a doctor performing a totally unnecessary and extremely expensive procedure.

I'm not saying that lawyers should be responsible for every case they lose. I just think it would be nice if there was some financial disincentive that might inhibit their apparent willingness to take on ridiculous cases.

But I know it's never going to happen.

end of the road

galljga1 wrote: »

I would say no. If the case had been successfull, it probably would. The hotel industry should have allowed this hotel to settle the case. Then they would have a right enshrined in law to refuse to cater for our lovely travelling brethren.

they may not. or if so, i should imagine the laws would be changed rather quickly.

dd972

Good to see the Travellers are back after the Gay events of last week, why not combine the two and have threads about Gay Travellers...:rolleyes:

end of the road

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If these fracas are part and parcel of a traveller wedding, is it OK to charge travellers more to host the wedding? Same question with damage deposit.

could be a gray area.

anncoates

end of the road wrote: »

because the hotels can get away with it. shut a few of them down and ban the owners from holding any similar licences and we'l see then

Don't blame them for closing down on the day. It's an increased chance of fracas and damage to your premises. Hard on decent travelers but it's their livelihood.

Do you honestly think most businesses would turn down good trade on the basis of racism?

The_Minister

Deleted User wrote: »

It may have been key to the decision by the Plaintiff to proceed.

Clearly it was not key to the decision.

The decision would have been the same had the victim been old, young, Irish, not Irish, traveller, not traveller, gay, straight or whatever. What the Plaintiff was obviously trying to do was to use his traveller status to suggest the duty of care increased, this was rejected.

It was the basis for his whole case.

The decision rejects the basis for his case.

The rejection of his case, the refusal to accept the fact that it was a traveller wedding as a reason to beef up security is a decision.

It was key to the decision, because it was basis for the decision.
The whole thing turned around travellers.

end of the road

SeanW wrote: »

Sure. Conceal the key facts of the case, hide the cause and the explanation for the whole incident, just to serve some liberal leftist agenda.

"a liberal leftist agenda"

how about to serve the fact "its not ****ing relevant"

Patser

dd972 wrote: »

Good to see the Travellers are back after the Gay events of last week, why not combine the two and have threads about Gay Travellers...:rolleyes:

After last week we can now have threads about gay Traveller weddings.

The fracas will be fabulous.

end of the road

Hans Bricks wrote: »

Some people don't simply want to hear it. It ain't politically correct, so hush up and embrace the tummy warming diversity you've all been gifted in the form of riotous traveller functions.

more wannabe hard done by victim nonsense as per. political correctness being a myth has nothing to do with this.

MathDebater

silverfeather wrote: »

Why not just say man sues? What has his ethnic background got to do with it? 'Man Sues'.

Why say man? Why bring his gender into it? Fcuk sake. The chap brought his ethnic background into play when his claim was based on fights being part and parcel of traveller weddings so the hotel should have brought in security staff accordingly.

dialer

He clearly lost his case. I wonder who now is left to pay the defence costs, as i would imagine he went with free legal aid.

The_Minister

The_Minister wrote: »

It was the basis for his whole case.

The decision rejects the basis for his case...
...
...
The whole thing turned around travellers.

You had it, for two whole sentences it was flawless...and then you got it completely wrong for the last line!

The decision did not turn around travellers. The decision said the Plaintiff failed to make the case that a duty of care existed. That is all. Not accepting an argument is very different to accepting an argument and a decision turning on it.

Sociopath2

end of the road wrote: »

more wannabe hard done by victim nonsense as per. political correctness being a myth has nothing to do with this.

When you have travellers claiming traveller weddings inevitably lead to violent fracas, saying they don't really is political correctness.

We know it, they admit it, pick your battles wisely.

end of the road

anncoates wrote: »

Don't blame them for closing down on the day. It's an increased chance of fracas and damage to your premises. Hard on decent travelers but it's their livelihood.

Do you honestly think most businesses would turn down good trade on the basis of racism?

if businesses do it on the basis of someone being gay then why not for other similar reasons. mind you businesses don't get away with refusing custom because a person is gay. its a lively hood they chose to get into knowing the risks. not everyone behaves themselves thats reality. don't go into that industry if you can't take the heat

Sociopath2

end of the road wrote: »

if businesses do it on the basis of someone being gay then why not for other similar reasons. mind you businesses don't get away with refusing custom because a person is gay. its a lively hood they chose to get into knowing the risks. not everyone behaves themselves thats reality. don't go into that industry if you can't take the heat

We're not talking about someone having a few too many drinks. These are violent incidents where weapons are produced and people, including staff and bystanders are seriously injured.

That is unacceptable by any standards.

abff

abff wrote: »

I don't think that's at all comparable. It would be more akin to a doctor performing a totally unnecessary and extremely expensive procedure.

I'm not saying that lawyers should be responsible for every case they lose. I just think it would be nice if there was some financial disincentive that might inhibit their apparent willingness to take on ridiculous cases.

But I know it's never going to happen.

It will never happen because common sense dictates that lawyers should not be made liable where clients lose, unless they are negligent. There is so much wrong with that that it's hard to know where to start.

end of the road

Sociopath2 wrote: »

When you have travellers claiming traveller weddings inevitably lead to violent fracas, saying they don't really is political correctness.

We know it, they admit it, pick your battles wisely.

no its not. political correctness is a myth. it doesn't exist. simply

FionnK86

Lumville House is my local, and the two or three people that ran it are the loveliest people going. I never heard about this before and it's awful. Good enough for him to lose the case. The Curragh and its immediate surroundings have been destroyed by Traveller "Culture".

Sociopath2

end of the road wrote: »

no its not. political correctness is a myth. it doesn't exist. simply

It does, you're a prime example of it.

Claiming hoteliers should accept assaults on their staff and damage to their premises by travellers because it's part of the "heat" of the industry? An outrageous thing to say.

Clearly you have had no experience of anything you talk about

anncoates

end of the road wrote: »

if businesses do it on the basis of someone being gay then why not for other similar reasons. mind you businesses don't get away with refusing custom because a person is gay. its a lively hood they chose to get into knowing the risks. not everyone behaves themselves thats reality. don't go into that industry if you can't take the heat

If exclusively gay social gatherings were far more likely to wreck the place and attack each other with meat hooks, maybe that would be a better comparison.

Like I said, It's hard on decent travelers but I don't really blame businesses for trying to quietly avoid traveler weddings and funerals as opposed obviously to, say, something like asking one or two travelers to leave a premises, for example.

end of the road

Sociopath2 wrote: »

We're not talking about someone having a few too many drinks. These are violent incidents where weapons are produced and people, including staff and bystanders are seriously injured.

That is unacceptable by any standards.

again, people not behaving themselves is the risk one takes when operating a business that deals with the public. if you refuse someone on the basis of them from being from a particular community then you get shut down, thats how it should be. if you refuse someone who has caused trouble on your premisys before, or someone who is a well known trouble maker and there is actual evidence of it, then that is completely different.

end of the road

Sociopath2 wrote: »

It does, you're a prime example of it.

Claiming hoteliers should accept assaults on their staff and damage to their premises by travellers because it's part of the "heat" of the industry? An outrageous thing to say.

Clearly you have had no experience of anything you talk about

have i not? if you refuse someone on the basis of them being a traveler then you deserve to be put out of business. end of.

demanufactured

Sound like a lovely bunch of lads.

end of the road

anncoates wrote: »

If exclusively gay social gatherings were far more likely to wreck the place and attack each other with meat hooks, maybe that would be a better comparison.

Like I said, It's hard on decent travelers but I don't really blame businesses for trying to quietly avoid traveler weddings and funerals as opposed obviously to, say, something like asking one or two travelers to leave a premises, for example.

well you should blame them. they are breaking anti-discrimination laws so they need to be forced not to do so

Sociopath2

end of the road wrote: »

again, people not behaving themselves is the risk one takes when operating a business that deals with the public. if you refuse someone on the basis of them from being from a particular community then you get shut down, thats how it should be. if you refuse someone who has caused trouble on your premisys before, or someone who is a well known trouble maker and there is actual evidence of it, then that is completely different.

It's not a risk any business has to take. They won't be shut down for doing it either. It happens on a weekly basis around the country and is absolutely necessary for people to protect their businesses. It will continue to happen no matter how much deluded individuals like yourself bleat about rights.

When you have travellers themselves claiming that violence is inevitable at traveller weddings then it's time to admit there's a lot of truth in it.

Hans Bricks

end of the road wrote: »

no its not. political correctness is a myth. it doesn't exist. simply

Do you have Asperger's syndrome or something ? You repeat this simple, unadulterated ****e on every thread whenever opportunity presents itself. Almost word for word every time.

Yeah. Simple alright.

Sociopath2

Sociopath2 wrote: »

When you have travellers themselves claiming that violence is inevitable at traveller weddings then it's time to admit there's a lot of truth in it.

Ah come on now, a person presenting a witness to advance their case is hardly proposing some universal truth on the part of a group consisting of tens of thousands.

Not G.R

Ah lads, it's just the 99% making the 1% look bad.

Sociopath2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah come on now, a person presenting a witness to advance their case is hardly proposing some universal truth on the part of a group consisting of tens of thousands.

No there's no absolutes in there but it is a member of the group that claims such views are stereotypical, proposing that actually those views are well grounded in reality. It carries a lot more weight than a hotelier claiming the same thing.

No universal truths there but more weight added to the widely held view that such behaviour is typical of traveller weddings.

anncoates

end of the road wrote: »

well you should blame them. they are breaking anti-discrimination laws so they need to be forced not to do so

Nope they're deciding not to open their business on a particular day. As is their right.

Their regrettable but calculated risk means their business stays intact and some other mug ends up being dragged through court because a bunch of people can't comport themselves like human beings

Sociopath2

Sociopath2 wrote: »

No there's no absolutes in there but it is a member of the group that claims such views are stereotypical, proposing that actually those views are well grounded in reality. It carries a lot more weight than a hotelier claiming the same thing.

No universal truths there but more weight added to the widely held view that such behaviour is typical of traveller weddings.

Was it a sociologist who gave that evidence?

Oh no, it was a "security consultant" who gave the "they need more security" evidence! Well there's a surprise.

It doesn't really carry much weight at all, does it?

jelutong

The Travellers,a great bunch of lads.

Pumpkinseeds

So they sued because there wasn't enough security. If the hotel had put on extra security they'd probably have sued for discrimination. This is one of the reasons hotels don't want traveller weddings. It was years ago, but a new hotel opened locally and they accepted a wedding booking not realising that it was a traveller wedding. They destroyed the place, literally smashed the place up inside so badly that the hotel had to close for months to repair the damage.

Forest Demon

I am just glad they lost the case and costs were awarded against them.

anncoates

Wonder has any English stag party ever taken a discrimination case against Irish pubs refusing them entry.

Clearly an Anglophobic hate crime.

prizefighter

silverfeather wrote: »

The f*ckin Irish I tells ya..

His ethnicity has nothing to do with it. The hotel was vindicated and found not liable.

Man sued and lost .../ end of story.

I think the fact that the complainant used the ethnicity of the guests as the key reasoning for heightened security while sharing such ethnicity is in fact a MAJOR part of this story.

abff

Deleted User wrote: »

It will never happen because common sense dictates that lawyers should not be made liable where clients lose, unless they are negligent. There is so much wrong with that that it's hard to know where to start.

Why is it common sense? Is it right to have a litigious society where any g*bsh*te can sue a hotel proprietor who has done nothing wrong and leave them facing a bill for legal costs that they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of collecting from the plaintiff? Or do you feel no sympathy whatever for the defendants in this case?

abff

abff wrote: »

Why is it common sense? Is it right to have a litigious society where any g*bsh*te can sue a hotel proprietor who has done nothing wrong and leave them facing a bill for legal costs that they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of collecting from the plaintiff? Or do you feel no sympathy whatever for the defendants in this case?

First of all, do you understand the concept of insurance? It is unlikely that the hotel owner will actually pick up the bill at all.

Secondly, do you understand the issues surrounding the duty of care when a 14 year old injured child (or "g*bsh*te" as you call him) sues? Do you appreciate the MacNamara and Purtill cases? Do you seriously think for one second that the lawyers who took those ground breaking decisions should have paid up had they lost?

Third, do you appreciate what your proposal to tear up the usual rules of negligence and apply absolute liability in lost cases would mean? It would mean the kids like those in the MacNamara and Purtill cases would live out their lives with serious injuries, caused by another, but no lawyer would put their neck on the line. In fact, no ground breaking cases would be brought at all, no risky cases would be fought. It would be a catastrophe in terms of developing the law.

Fourth, it is quiet likely that the lawyers in this case may go unpaid, or with a fraction of what they should have received. There are very few other jobs where that applies, none in the public sector, few in the private sector. That's the risk he took, to add a new risk of making them cough up...a laughable proposal.

end of the road

Sociopath2 wrote: »

It's not a risk any business has to take.

it is and it should be forced on them. discrimination must be eradicated at all costs

Sociopath2 wrote: »

They won't be shut down for doing it either.

i wouldn't be so sure. a well proved claim and enough of a pay out and one such business might just go bang.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

It happens on a weekly basis around the country and is absolutely necessary for people to protect their businesses.

its not necessary at all. its just bigotry, and those who do it need to be banned from operating similar businesses for the greater good. bigots must be destroyed.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

It will continue to happen no matter how much deluded individuals like yourself bleat about rights.

for now. these bigots and their businesses will be eradicated eventually.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

When you have travellers themselves claiming that violence is inevitable at traveller weddings then it's time to admit there's a lot of truth in it.

whether its the truth or not is irrelevant. refusing a traveler because he/she is a traveler is pure bigotry and those who do it are the dregs of society and they need to be severely punished and their businesses got rid of.