So 4 travellers walk into a bar.....

JustShay

Deleted User wrote: »

Hugo...boss?

Cool...water?

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You never ever give a reason. Pub owner was thick enough to give a reason & he built their case for them in the process. He deserves what he got. Regulars only in a public bar? He hadn't a leg to stand on.

All he had to say was "not tonight lads"

Can you point to any cases where "not tonight lads" was a valid defence?

I'd be surprised, because the legislation does not imply anywhere that giving any old reason or not giving a reason is relevant in any way.

twinpeaks999

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you point to any cases where "not tonight lads" was a valid defence?

I'd be surprised, because the legislation does not imply anywhere that giving any old reason or not giving a reason is relevant in any way.

They could have just refused entry at the door as well with no reason.

riffmongous

Grayson wrote: »

But on a Thursday night would you really want to bring a UN chairwoman to the roost?

:pac:

Better than Mantra

Sleeper12

seamus wrote: »

You can be sued even if you don't give a reason.

If you refuse to serve a person - either directly or by ignoring them - while serving others and it seems pretty clear that they're being ignored because you're male/black/a traveller/etc., then you're going to be in trouble.

The illegal discrimination doesn't have to be explicit, it just has to be effective.

I had a security company for years & this isn't true.

Pub owner has a right to refuse one person for no reason yet can serve 10 people beside him. Very important here, Pub owner has the right to refuse. End of. "Because I said so" is reason enough for a pub owner. These are his rights. Its only when he starts giving reasons that he can be sued

I have several different types of businesses & I can totally refuse to sell you something or refuse to provide you a service

Doylers

Was walking into coppers there only 4 weeks ago. Group of 7 of us all sober and relatively early(for coppers) went to walk in, no issues but they stopped the disabled guy and said "no, you've had to much". The chap has a type of limp that I knew was medical having only met him a few hours prior but the bouncers couldn't tell or just didn't want him in because of it. I suspect the latter, seems the discriminate whenever they wish.

The Backwards Man

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can you point to any cases where "not tonight lads" was a valid defence?

I'd be surprised, because the legislation does not imply anywhere that giving any old reason or not giving a reason is relevant in any way.

You cannot refuse to serve someone without a valid non-discriminatory reason. You don't have to tell the party what the reason is, you just have to have one.

'I was afraid that the party in question would pose a threat to myself, to themselves, or to others.'

That covers everybody, no matter what background they are from.

sbsquarepants

King George VI wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a bar is private property, the owners/bouncers have the right to refuse admission to whomever they like?

I stand to be corrected if I'm way off on that.

The clue is in the name "Public House"!

That being said, if it was my public house, I wouldn't let them in.

dinorebel

Surprised this thread hasn't reached the end of the road.

twinpeaks999

Doylers wrote: »

Was walking into coppers there only 4 weeks ago. Group of 7 of us all sober and relatively early(for coppers) went to walk in, no issues but they stopped the disabled guy and said "no, you've had to much". The chap has a type of limp that I knew was medical having only met him a few hours prior but the bouncers couldn't tell or just didn't want him in because of it. I suspect the latter, seems the discriminate whenever they wish.

You would have to make the case the bouncer would have the ability to tell a medical condition to having to much drink. Cant see it would be expected to have a in depth medical knowledge for a doorman.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you point to any cases where "not tonight lads" was a valid defence?

I'd be surprised, because the legislation does not imply anywhere that giving any old reason or not giving a reason is relevant in any way.

More to the point can you point me to a single success at suing a "not tonight lads"? I'll settle for a single solicitor even bringing a case against " not tonight lads" don't mind winning it.

If you don't give a reason (& you don't have to) then you wont loose a case. It's only when a door staff, barman gives a reason that you are in trouble

The Backwards Man

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The clue is in the name "Public House"!

That being said, if it was my public house, I wouldn't let them in.

Open to the public does not equal owned by the public.

sbsquarepants

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Open to the public does not equal owned by the public.

No but it does mean "open to the public"

Buford T. Justice XIX

JustShay wrote: »

They are pure and utter scumbags.



All travellers have a history. They steal perfume for a living and re-sell it. It is happening every day and will continue to happen. They need to be extinct to fix the issue!

Mod note: JustShay, do not post in this thread again.

Buford T. Justice

seachto7

JustShay wrote: »

They are pure and utter scumbags.



All travellers have a history. They steal perfume for a living and re-sell it. It is happening every day and will continue to happen. They need to be extinct to fix the issue!

WTF?

ShooterSF

I work in a bar that uses regulars only signs and I always thought it was a terrible excuse. A previous boss of mine always said that one person in the group was barred from trouble that happened previously on the establishment. The rest were okay if the person barred with them left. Worst case it's mistaken identity. The funny part is you will get calls from the garda to warn you if a group are in town!
I don't like the idea of discriminating against all travellers I know a few who are very nice but many times I have served a few they either end up killing each other or on two occasions a flying glass missing my head by inches.
If you think bar owners refuse because they're bigoted you're crazy. Money is all bar owners in this country care about so if they didn't consider it a financial risk which comes from the trouble that follows them they wouldn't try and refuse. For example I have worked in 8 bars in Ireland now, everyone expects you to refuse travellers none expects you to refuse black or foreign people.

amcalester

ShooterSF wrote: »

I work in a bar that uses regulars only signs and I always thought it was a terrible excuse. A previous boss of mine always said that one person in the group was barred from trouble that happened previously on the establishment. The rest were okay if the person barred with them left. Worst case it's mistaken identity. The funny part is you will get calls from the garda to warn you if a group are in town!
I don't like the idea of discriminating against all travellers I know a few who are very nice but many times I have served a few they either end up killing each other or on two occasions a flying glass missing my head by inches.
If you think bar owners refuse because they're bigoted you're crazy. Money is all bar owners in this country care about so if they didn't consider it a financial risk which comes from the trouble that follows them they wouldn't try and refuse. For example I have worked in 8 bars in Ireland now, everyone expects you to refuse travellers none expects you to refuse black or foreign people.

Leaving yourself open to a defamation case by saying this.

The Backwards Man

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No but it does mean "open to the public"

Yep.

Doesn't guarantee right of entry though.

Ash.J.Williams

King George VI wrote: »

I think if I got refused from a bar I'd just go to another bar. Plenty of times I've heard "Not tonight, sorry" and I go to a different bar and get served. I wouldn't be thinking of suing the establishment like.

Not quite the same

seamus

Sleeper12 wrote: »

"Because I said so" is reason enough for a pub owner.

"Because I said so" is not a reason, and a court would never accept a barman's word that "I just felt like not serving that guy for no reason".

Because there's always a reason. You don't have to say it out loud, for there to be a reason.

If you stood in court and said that, "I didn't know he was a traveller, I just didn't feel like serving him", you'd be reamed/laughed out of it.

As The Backwards Man says, a dishonest but open-ended reason like, "I was afraid they would pose a threat" is more effective, because you don't have to prove an actual threat, you just need someone who can say they "felt" like there was a threat.

Orion

Grayson wrote: »

But on a Thursday night would you really want to bring a UN chairwoman to the roost?

They were in the bar. And she brought them.

Sunny Disposition

It's a difficult one, obviously no one should be badly treated on the grounds of race. At the same time if you want to run a successful licensed business your chances of doing so and allowing people from certain groups to drink there may be mutually exclusive. Even if the people you serve are the finest, if the rest of your clientele decide to go elsewhere you're in trouble.
That's unfortunate but that's how it is. Probably impossible to legislate for this in a way that is fair to everyone.

Annasopra

King George VI wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a bar is private property, the owners/bouncers have the right to refuse admission to whomever they like?

I stand to be corrected if I'm way off on that.

No

They cant refuse people on 9 grounds or imputed on those 9 grounds

The grounds on which discrimination is outlawed by the Equal Status Acts are as follows:

‘the gender ground’
‘the civil status ground’ (formerly marital status)
‘the family status ground’
‘the sexual orientation ground’
‘the religion ground’
‘the age ground’
‘the disability ground’
‘the ground of race’ (includes ‘race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins’)
‘the Traveller community’ ground

scamalert

the barman should said he felt afraid and thats it and put mugshots of the 4 upstanding citizens to prove the point along with criminal records.

this case was simply be safe then sorry situation for customers and staff, warning would been sufficient not ****ing 6k to encourage more of such cluster f that judges seem to be isolated from reality.

Annasopra

seachto7 wrote: »

Has anyone from the settled community ever taken a similar case? "Regulars only".

Well you would have to be prove that they were discriminated against because they were settled

BorneTobyWilde

I read title thread and just assumed they robbed the place.

riffmongous

Orion wrote: »

They were in the bar. And she brought them.

But it was hardly a Thursday

riffmongous

scamalert wrote: »

the barman should said he felt afraid and thats it and put mugshots of the 4 upstanding citizens to prove the point along with criminal records.

this case was simply be safe then sorry situation for customers and staff, warning would been sufficient not ****ing 6k to encourage more of such cluster f that judges seem to be isolated from reality.

You should probably read a bit more about the case, it was a group from Pavee Point along with a UN chairwoman

ShooterSF

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

They cant refuse people on 9 grounds or imputed on those 9 grounds

The grounds on which discrimination is outlawed by the Equal Status Acts are as follows:

‘the gender ground’
‘the civil status ground’ (formerly marital status)
‘the family status ground’
‘the sexual orientation ground’
‘the religion ground’
‘the age ground’
‘the disability ground’
‘the ground of race’ (includes ‘race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins’)
‘the Traveller community’ ground

Actually use can asterisk that one. We are allowed to discriminate on age if we signpost it and enforce it. I actually find that one way more disgusting.

RoboRat

I have mixed feelings on this one as being honest, I have such bad experiences with travelers including giving a group the benefit of the doubt when I used to work the door, only to have to throw them out 30 mins later for fighting and then coming back armed to the teeth looking to hospitalise the door staff.

At the same time, I don't agree with someone being judged based on their ethnicity or for the actions of others (I personally feel being a traveler shouldn't be a recognised ethnicity but that's just my opinion).

A publican has the right to decide whom they serve, especially if they have had problems in the past. It's all well and good saying everyone should be treated equally but when the **** hits the fan, they are the ones who are affected. They could end up being sued by customers if a fight breaks out, they also have to pay for the damage should anything happen, not to mention the loss of regular custom if something unsavory happens.

I think if there is to be some sort of legal quid pro quo through legislation whereby a traveler is acting up, they pay the damage and if they won't pay, then they get a nice stint in prison. I know this will never happen and it will remain as it is but it's the only way of establishing trust.

Sleeper12

seamus wrote:

"Because I said so" is not a reason, and a court would never accept a barman's word that "I just felt like not serving that guy for no reason".

Because I said so can be said at the door.

People are missing the point here. It's not unlike being arrested. You have the right to say nothing as saying something can go against you in a court of law.

It's the same when refusing someone entry, a drink, a sale or a service. By giving a reason you cut down your own defence if it ever got to court. Door staff or barmen shouldn't engage people in conversation. A simple no or I'll call the Garda.

I'm not in favour of refusing travellers service for no reason. I'm just explaining that in this case the stupid pub owner lost his case because he gave a reason. If no reason was given it never would have gotten to court.

Pub owner got what he deserved.

BorneTobyWilde

It has set a precedent that's for sure.

Grayson

scamalert wrote: »

the barman should said he felt afraid and thats it and put mugshots of the 4 upstanding citizens to prove the point along with criminal records.

this case was simply be safe then sorry situation for customers and staff, warning would been sufficient not ****ing 6k to encourage more of such cluster f that judges seem to be isolated from reality.

They had all travelled to Maynooth for the conference so he would never have seen them before. If he says "they were travellers so I assumed they were dangerous, then that's discrimination".

kylith

Re: the discrimination on dress thing. At the time there was a hoo-ha being made because of clubs refusing people who had trainers on. I recall it being reported at the time that this would no longer be considered a reasonable reason to refuse entry.

AnneFrank

Fair play to them, they are treated worse than the blacks and irish used to be

freshpopcorn

I know somewhere and they don't like letting travellers into the bar/hotel/restaurant/etc. They'll do their best to refuse them and staff members are meant to spot them.
When the do refuse they have some kind of excuse and they have the attitude if they do end up in court they'll be better off paying the compensation because it would be less than having to fix the place up if a brawl broke out and they don't want to become known as a traveller venue.

Annasopra

RoboRat wrote: »

A publican has the right to decide whom they serve

Only within the limits of the law. They do not have the right to refuse someone because they are a traveller.

RoboRat

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Only within the limits of the law. They do not have the right to refuse someone because they are a traveller.

Unfortunately the limits of the law often don't extend to travelers so publicans are left in a no win situation should anything happen. I don't agree with discrimination but I also don't agree with the laissez-faire attitude of the law when it comes to prosecuting travelers or ensuring they are prosecuted.

Richard Hillman

You should be able to discriminate against anybody for any reason when it comes to accepting their custom. It's up to society to say whether it's acceptable or not.

If your local pub says we are not allowing Gay people into their bar, they should be allowed to but the locals will probably just shun the bar until it's closed down or under new management. I can't see many people standing for such an act. They'll take their business elsewhere.

Societal engineering is meaningless.

The Backwards Man

Richard Hillman wrote: »

You should be able to discriminate against anybody for any reason when it comes to accepting their custom. It's up to society to say whether it's acceptable or not.

If your local pub says we are not allowing Gay people into their bar, they should be allowed to but the locals will probably just shun the bar until it's closed down or under new management. I can't see many people standing for such an act. They'll take their business elsewhere.

Societal engineering is meaningless.

My local doesn't allow assholes.

No discrimination needed.

c_man

Richard Hillman wrote: »

If your local pub says we are not allowing Gay people into their bar, they should be allowed to but the locals will probably just shun the bar until it's closed down or under new management.

I'm not sure this is a great idea. Take for example the likes of Panti-bar in Dublin which openly admits to discriminating against straight women. That's two of the no-no issues which you're not allowed to use. They're doing fine business wise.

freshpopcorn

Richard Hillman wrote: »

.

If your local pub says we are not allowing Gay people into their bar, they should be allowed to but the locals will probably just shun the bar until it's closed down or under new management. I can't see many people standing for such an act. They'll take their business elsewhere.

I know some areas and they'd be delighted with such a policy. It would have no effect on local trade in general and all that wouldn't go there would be a hipster on facebook!

Richard Hillman

c_man wrote: »

I'm not sure this is a great idea. Take for example the likes of Panti-bar in Dublin which openly admits to discriminating against straight women. That's two of the no-no issues which you're not allowed to use. They're doing fine business wise.

Then society indicates that it's OK with it.

c_man

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Then society indicates that it's OK with it.

I think using "society" is a bit much there. More that it shows there's always a market for discriminatory businesses.

mad muffin

When will these stupid publicans learn? All you have to say is sorry you’re too drunk to be served.

end of the road

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Then society indicates that it's OK with it.

should we extend that to other issues as well or is it just in terms of discrimination you support it because of particular groups you have an issue with?
we have laws because sometimes what society may be okay with isn't for the greater good over all.

Ash.J.Williams

Richard Hillman wrote: »

You should be able to discriminate against anybody for any reason when it comes to accepting their custom. It's up to society to say whether it's acceptable or not.

If your local pub says we are not allowing Gay people into their bar, they should be allowed to but the locals will probably just shun the bar until it's closed down or under new management. I can't see many people standing for such an act. They'll take their business elsewhere.

Societal engineering is meaningless.

Then people will get sued while waiting on the village elders to decide if they were correct or not

Orion

riffmongous wrote: »

But it was hardly a Thursday

It wasn't. I think it was a Saturday evening. Was after a conference so about 5 ish as I recall.

Yawns

The pub got sued because they were stupid to actually tell them a reason they were being refused.

Pubs can refuse to serve you as long as it's not done in a discriminatory way. Eg travelers, gender etc.

Just simply refuse and tell them they can come back tomorrow to speak with a manager.

If you have to give a reason, it's always best not to. But best way it works is a member of staff usually recognizes one and remembers having trouble before. At least one or two more get agitated at this point and gives you a valid reason to ask all of them to leave. No discrimination case.

I'm sure the social justice warriors don't like hearing this, but no pub wants the travelers in. They're messy, smash the place up and they couldn't give a ****. Those same sjw most likely wouldn't go to a pub if they knew travelers were allowed in on a regular basis. If they came across a group of them, they'd prob leave as soon as or stay on the far side of the pub away from them.

Orion

Does anyone know why no media outlet are naming the pub and the manager? It's a straightforward case of discrimination so why are the names withheld? Everyone in the town knows where and who did it - it's no secret.