B&B and hotel fined €2,500 each for turning away travelling woman.

Osborne

NIMAN wrote: »

This is actually quite possible. I have seen it in real life.

Hotels sell a certain number of rooms to Booking.com, as its a guaranteed sale for them that they don't have to worry about selling themselves.

This leaves them with X number of room themselves to sell. Once these X rooms are booked, they have none left.

But there could still be rooms on booking.com or other such websites.

Not sure why they didn't argue this point?

Because you are 100% wrong. There's that for a start.

That isn't how online travel agents (booking.com etc) work.

riddles

Did she not bring accommodation with her - her being a traveler and all.

biko

I wonder if this is the same Geraldine Ward as is portrayed here
https://www.bromleytimes.co.uk/news/bromley-couple-jailed-for-burglaries-across-london-kent-and-surrey-using-the-help-of-boy-13-1-3566786
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2625514/Brazen-schoolboy-burglar-12-distracted-elderly-homeowners-gang-raid-homes-steal-cashcards-jewellery.html

Deebles McBeebles

At least she didn't kill any cops.

bucketybuck

pinkyeye wrote: »

but that was 10% of the time and if you have enough security you just throw them out and lock the doors.

On the occasions that they don't you just have enough security to lock them out.

Because if there is one thing we associate with weddings it is all the security standing around...

irelandrover

Would the hotel be allowed bill the couple for all the extra security required compared to a normal wedding or would that also be discrimination?

mickdw

Surely a judge would ask themselves why are businesses happy to take 2500 euro fine instead of a paying customer for a night.
That might give a more accurate picture of true traveller behaviour than the crap we hear from john conners and paved point etc.

Turnrew

irelandrover wrote: »

Would the hotel be allowed bill the couple for all the extra security required compared to a normal wedding or would that also be discrimination?

I'd say travellers pay a lot more for a wedding

Tammy!

riddles wrote: »

Did she not bring accommodation with her - her being a traveler and all.

Or perhaps she could have found some stables around somewhere seeing as there was no room at the inn?

The b&b were wrong and she did the right thing following that. She had just come from visiting her uncle in the mortuary and was then discriminated against after making plans for accommodation and travelling from Dublin to Galway. She's not at fault here.

Tammy!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I booked a really nice hotel in Prague online years ago. When I arrived there I was told they had "overbooked" and they'd therefore transfer me to their sister hotel. In short, overbooking was a deliberate policy by the hotel owners to secure business for their less popular hotels. In an age of online booking when they know immediately whether they have room or not, overbooking should never be allowed as it removes choice from consumers (I could have got a nicer hotel than their imposed alternative).

Something like that happened my family in the canaries one year. We were told when we got there that we had to stay in another place.

Our apartment was ransacked one day and they had an unusual set up where they had the security boxes for each room not in the rooms themselves but like school lockers in the reception area. They also got robbed one night and all of our money was taken out of that ....well except a friend of ours who's shared the safety deposit box with us and separated her money from ours by putting it in a Tampax box :pac: so they didn't take her money

We insisted on being moved to other apartments after that and got all of our money back in the end.

Tasfasdf

Turnrew wrote: »

I'd say travellers pay a lot more for a wedding

with "their" well earned money:rolleyes:

B_ecke_r

do hotels not reserve the right to refuse admission like pubs do ?

does discrimination like this need to be proved beyond doubt?

Varik

B_ecke_r wrote: »

do hotels not reserve the right to refuse admission like pubs do ?

does discrimination like this need to be proved beyond doubt?

Nothing has to be proven for the WRC they just hand down judgements

sondagefaux

B_ecke_r wrote: »

do hotels not reserve the right to refuse admission like pubs do ?

does discrimination like this need to be proved beyond doubt?

The so-called 'right to refuse admission' must be carried out within the law.

No businesses in Ireland can refuse service/admission simply because a person is a Traveller.


The standard for proof required in non-criminal cases is the balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

sondagefaux

Varik wrote: »

Nothing has to be proven for the WRC they just hand down judgements

Absolutely not true.

A person who complains of illegal discrimination has to present evidence. The evidence is judged by the WRC on the balance of probabilities, as is the case with all non-criminal legal cases.

Only criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.

sondagefaux

greencap wrote: »

Maybe a way out of this dilemma could be a forum/database/facebook group of B+B's/small hotel owners.

If they could widespread blacklist individuals who trashed places before they could maybe preempt the whole affair.

I don't know that its actually happened but I could very easily believe that certain types might be repeat offenders for wrecking rooms, and it stinks that they can use legislation while no doubt flouting the law daily.

Wreck a place one week, remain anonymous, do it again later, and if anyone so much as looks the wrong way at you you're on to a winner under the same laws which you evade and laugh at.

That seems like a potential solution to keeping people who commit criminal damage out of business premises without breaking anti-discrimination laws.

There are lots of schemes for shops to co-operate together on known/suspected shoplifters.

I can see no reason why other types of business can't co-operate to put together a database of people known to cause damage, refuse to pay, start fights etc, in pubs, hotels etc.

Refusing service or admission to individuals that you can prove have done any of the above should be within the law.

bladespin

sondagefaux wrote: »

That seems like a potential solution to keeping people who commit criminal damage out of business premises without breaking anti-discrimination laws.

There are lots of schemes for shops to co-operate together on known/suspected shoplifters.

I can see no reason why other types of business can't co-operate to put together a database of people known to cause damage, refuse to pay, start fights etc, in pubs, hotels etc.

Data protection would have a field day with that one.

tayto lover

bladespin wrote: »

Data protection would have a field day with that one.

Neighborhood watch, Rural watch etc never had a problem with sharing car numbers, name and descriptions of potential burglars etc.
I thought this kind of thing was encouraged by our law enforcers.

Overheal

Tasfasdf wrote: »

with "their" well earned money:rolleyes:

?

touts

WRC is a bit of an ATM in certain sectors and now it seems in certain communities. Have heard of a growing group of people with multiple claims and multiple payments. Once they are accused of discrimination Businesses and Employers have to work extremely hard to prove their innocence as the default position seems to be guilty until proven innocent. Best you can do is have all your documentation etc in order and hope to minimise the payment. €2500 isn't a bad outcome for the business.

WRC really needs a serious overhaul. It was set up to defend workers rights etc but was established on the flawed premise that the individual needed protection from the business far more than the business needed protection from the individual. It has an inbuilt lack of balance and the onus is on the business to refute claims by the individual no matter how wild those claims may be.

Overheal

touts wrote: »

WRC is a bit of an ATM in certain sectors and now it seems in certain communities. Have heard of a growing group of people with multiple claims and multiple payments. Once they are accused of discrimination Businesses and Employers have to work extremely hard to prove their innocence as the default position seems to be guilty until proven innocent. Best you can do is have all your documentation etc in order and hope to minimise the payment. €2500 isn't a bad outcome for the business.

WRC really needs a serious overhaul. It was set up to defend workers rights etc but was established on the flawed premise that the individual needed protection from the business far more than the business needed protection from the individual. It has an inbuilt lack of balance and the onus is on the business to refute claims by the individual no matter how wild those claims may be.

Is the implication here that groups who get regularly discriminated against are only allowed one compensation for damages and should just be left to endure future discrimination? I just want to know what relevance it is, it’s not bizarre to think someone might have their rights violated on numerous occasions.

Gazzmonkey

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I was always told that it was better than pay the fine than pay for the damage that might have being caused. So,it's a win for the hotel.

Likely true, I worked at a traveller wedding years ago, management severely regretted letting it happen after the guests put their foots through every door and ripped every light fixture off every wall throughout entire hotel.

So yeah, tell them to p1ss off and just pay the fine.

bladespin

tayto lover wrote: »

Neighborhood watch, Rural watch etc never had a problem with sharing car numbers, name and descriptions of potential burglars etc.
I thought this kind of thing was encouraged by our law enforcers.

It's not.

Reporting it back to the authorities is one thing but maintaining a private database based on unverified intelligence would be something else completely.

punisher5112

Overheal wrote: »

?

Approximately 85% are unemployed but yet they can afford lavish lifestyles and huge outrageous weddings and funerals....

It's well known also that there are many into the drug trade and dodgy car dealing and driveway scams and property maintenance scams and do on. Sorry so on...

biko

We're getting off topic but the only people to keep slaves in recent times on these isles - are travellers.

pinkyeye

biko wrote: »

We're getting off topic but the only people to keep slaves in recent times on these isles - are travellers.

Yeah totally off topic.

tayto lover

bladespin wrote: »

It's not.

Reporting it back to the authorities is one thing but maintaining a private database based on unverified intelligence would be something else completely.

What’s to stop them keeping records of suspicious cars, vans and names if they get them? Absolutely nothing.

sondagefaux

bladespin wrote: »

Data protection would have a field day with that one.

Data can be held and shared for the purposes of crime prevention.

sondagefaux

bladespin wrote: »

It's not.

Reporting it back to the authorities is one thing but maintaining a private database based on unverified intelligence would be something else completely.

It wouldn't be unverified intelligence. It would be a database of individuals who have committed crimes.

sondagefaux

touts wrote: »

WRC is a bit of an ATM in certain sectors and now it seems in certain communities. Have heard of a growing group of people with multiple claims and multiple payments. Once they are accused of discrimination Businesses and Employers have to work extremely hard to prove their innocence as the default position seems to be guilty until proven innocent. Best you can do is have all your documentation etc in order and hope to minimise the payment. €2500 isn't a bad outcome for the business.

WRC really needs a serious overhaul. It was set up to defend workers rights etc but was established on the flawed premise that the individual needed protection from the business far more than the business needed protection from the individual. It has an inbuilt lack of balance and the onus is on the business to refute claims by the individual no matter how wild those claims may be.

Ireland's equality agencies were merged into one agency, the WRC, as part of government spending cutbacks.

I don't think it would be hard to refute a claim of illegal discrimination when there's CCTV or eyewitness evidence of criminal behaviour by a person claiming illegal discrimination.

There's no evidence in this case that the woman who was refused a room by the hotel and B&B had committed any crime or behaved in any way which would have justified the refusal.