Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
13567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,994 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #63
    The Backwards Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #64
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭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":confused:


  • Options
    #65
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #66
    seachto7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,863 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #68
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #69
    The Backwards Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭The Backwards Man


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    No but it does mean "open to the public":confused:

    Yep.

    Doesn't guarantee right of entry though.


  • Options
    #70
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,967 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #71
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Grayson wrote: »
    But on a Thursday night would you really want to bring a UN chairwoman to the roost? :D

    They were in the bar. And she brought them.


  • Options
    #73
    Sunny Disposition
    Registered Users Posts: 2,766 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #74
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭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

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #75
    scamalert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,739 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #76
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭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

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #77
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users Posts: 35,902 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


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


  • Options
    #78
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,718 Mod ✭✭✭✭riffmongous


    Orion wrote: »
    They were in the bar. And she brought them.

    But it was hardly a Thursday ;)


  • Options
    #79
    riffmongous
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,718 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #80
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #81
    RoboRat
    Registered Users Posts: 2,559 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,994 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #83
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users Posts: 35,902 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    It has set a precedent that's for sure.


  • Options
    #84
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,194 ✭✭✭✭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".


  • Options
    #85
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #86
    AnneFrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭AnneFrank


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


  • Options
    #87
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,454 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #88
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,062 ✭✭✭✭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.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #89
    RoboRat
    Registered Users Posts: 2,559 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #90
    Richard Hillman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    The Backwards Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement