Vintners Association and Travellers

Hairy Homer

What do you bright young things think of the demands by the Irish Vintners Association that its members should have the absolute right to refuse entry and/or service to members of the Traveller community if they see fit?

My views on such matter have been made before, much to the irritation of some posters who exhibit high dudgeon as well as low intelligence but just in case there's any doubt:

Go the Pavees!! Sue the socks off the buggers!!

Biffa Bacon

They should be allowed refuse entry if they believe they are going to be a nuisance. Why they should be sued over this is beyond me. Did you not read the reports on the incident that provoked this call in the first place? People don't distrust travellers for no reason you know.

DadaKopf

The Equal Status Act as it stands will not be overturned, let alone by the Irish Vinters Association.

Anyone can understand their concern for destruction to private property and loss of clientele but in considering which is more important, an equal society or permission for one minute element in Irish society to discriminate against anyone, I know I'll choose the former any day.

article6

It is my opinion that, although more Travellers cause disturbances after drinking than other people, being a Traveller is not grounds enough for refusal of entry. I would believe in the right to sue over immediate refusal.

On the other end of the spectrum, I recently became aware that many lawsuits of this type were thrown out, because the reason for refusal was previous disturbances by the individual at the pub in question. My verdict? Punish the individual, not the group.

Ajnag

Vintners are scum of the earth any way, im just surprised they still want to prove it.

put it this way they think of the general public as shít with money anyway, as if their even gonna give travelers a chance.

of coarse the general public and the travellers are still gonna fill their wallets no matter what happens, so whats the pint anyway.


kinda funny that the legalised drug dealers are starting to outdo the illegal drug dealers in terms of lower morality.

SheroN

one law for the knackers, one law for everyone else.

Hobbes

Charge people €50 to enter a pub then raise the price of all drinks to €8.

That should get rid of the riff-raff.

SheroN

alot of knackers i've met seem to be rolling in it.

MrPudding

I personally think they should have the abolute right to refuse whoever they want, not just travellers.

Hairy Homer

Indeed. At least that would let people know where they stand. And it would still be one rule for all.

Of course, if a Traveller or anyone for that matter, had a big win on the horses and wanted to celebrate with his friends, then flashing a wad of cash at the doorman would bring the 'problem' full circle wouldn't it?

bonkey

Refusing entry for race, colour, societal grouping, or any similar reason is illegal in Ireland.

In short, you cannot refuse a black man entry just because of his skin-colour, even if a group of blacks tore your place apart the previous night. Unless you can provide credible reasoning, on demand, as to why this particular individual was refuised entrance, you will be done for it.

In an identical vein, you cannot refuse someone access to a bar if (for example) they have a Northside accent.

And, for exactly the same reasoning, you cannot refuse someone just because they happen to be a member of the travelling community.

If you do, you are in breach of the Equal Status Act, and you will lose in court.

They should be allowed refuse entry if they believe they are going to be a nuisance

If you're reasoning, when asked for it, is "he's a member of the travellers, and look at the trouble they caused recently", then you will lose your case, and are guilty of discrimination.

If, on the other hand, you can show a troublesome history or some other factor, then you're fine.

At the end of the day, most people's "belief" that these people are trouble makers is based on nothing more than their societal affililiations.....just like so many people seem to think that all Romanians are in the country illegally, and are thieves.

jc

Slydice

The one thing that struck me was the argument that, statistically travellers cause more trouble in pub's/bar's (in contrast to trouble caused by non-travellers) and that was why the publican's were taking their stance,

There is another inductry which already discriminates on statistical grounds and that is the insurance industry, apparently cos young male drivers statistically crash more, I (being a young male driver) get screwed royally when i goto look for an insurance premium,

If the government force's publican's to allow travellers, I think they should force a lowering of insurance for male drivers aswell

seamus

Originally posted by bonkey
At the end of the day, most people's "belief" that these people are trouble makers is based on nothing more than their societal affililiations.....just like so many people seem to think that all Romanians are in the country illegally, and are thieves.

Well....technically, yeah, but slightly different. My only experience ever of Travellers is being troublemakers. The only behaviour I've ever experienced from any travellers is moving in and completely destroying the place, and causing hassle for the local residents. I have no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt (although I do accept there must be some good individuals).

That said, yes, anyone should be allowed access to a pub/club, ie given the benefit of the doubt. Although I believe that say someone gets thrown out of a pub one week for causing hassle, and arrives the next week with friends that weren't there the previous week, the publican should have the right to refuse them all (that night anyway) because of direct association. It might create some sort of inner policing in rowdy groups, at the very least.

If the government force's publican's to allow travellers, I think they should force a lowering of insurance for male drivers aswell

The difference here is that the insurance companies must discriminate in order to keep afloat. Examinations of the insurance companies show that premiums for young male drivers are wholly justified, it's young women and older men who are being shafted. To force anti-discrimination laws on insurance companies would increase premiums for everybody, or destory the insurance companies.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by MrPudding
I personally think they should have the abolute right to refuse whoever they want, not just travellers.

Troll.

Ajnag

The vintners have the biggest lobby in the govt, and are doing overly well.

just as with eircom they enjoy a legitimised monopoly.

so i honestly dont see why so much sympathy for them exists, especially when they screw you every 3.65 euro upwards.

if they discriminate against travellers, and pubs get burnt down, i really wont care, why?, cos the same thing has already happened in the states with black riots and history has looked back kindly on those.

the vfi have you belive the govt only is to blame for the expensive pint when in fact it is a matter of a lack of competion caused by collusion of both the vfi and the govt.

Sand

There is another inductry which already discriminates on statistical grounds and that is the insurance industry, apparently cos young male drivers statistically crash more, I (being a young male driver) get screwed royally when i goto look for an insurance premium,

Excellent point. The Equal Status Act doesnt seem to apply here though for reasons of general sanity Id assume.

Examinations of the insurance companies show that premiums for young male drivers are wholly justified, it's young women and older men who are being shafted.

And statistically Id be willing to bet a higher percentage of Travellers in bars cause trouble than settled in bars. The same logic that insurance companies utilise would then seem to apply.

As a general rule I dont think travellers are that arsed by factors such as reputation - they leave in a few weeks/months anyway on to antoher town. Settled people tend to be better in their locals cos you can get a bad rep and run out of locals fairly quickly - City centre establishments compensate with a couple of gorillas and a selective door policy when they see trouble coming, because they dont know you, and they can be sure you mightnt ever be around again - so you might feel a bit liberated of consequences for your actions.

Hobbes

Originally posted by SheroN
alot of knackers i've met seem to be rolling in it.

Simple Maths.

R = Running costs.
P = Expected profit on a drink.
E = Entry fee
C = Expected court costs from refusing entry to people.
L = Loss of business costs from allow the people entry.
N = Number of estimated customers.

Do C Where R + E + (P * N) is less then L and C is less then P else do L.

seamus

Then today in the indo:

Publicans set to push ahead with ban on Travellers

A NATIONWIDE pub ban on Travellers could be implemented within weeks despite efforts by the Government to stop it.

After a two-hour meeting of the management committee of the Vintners Federation of Ireland (VFI) in Portlaoise yesterday, publicans refused to back down on the ban which would be introduced in more than 6,000 pubs located outside Dublin.

VFI chief executive Tadg O'Sullivan said that if something is not done by the Taoiseach to ease the "violence" members have been subjected to then a ban will "have to be put in place regardless of the economic fall out".

Members of the VFI have already introduced a ban on serving Travellers in Westport, Co Mayo in two dozen pubs. The row escalated a fortnight ago when trouble flared in Westport following the annual Croagh Patrick pilgrimage.

Junior Justice Minister with responsibility for equality issues, Willie O'Dea, said he hopes progress can be made on the controversial issue but added that he has limited authority when it comes to the sort of changes in the law which vintners appear to be demanding.

Mr O'Sullivan said that for too long his members have taken the matter "lying down", that it has been ongoing for two years.

"This is a situation that has been visited upon us by the Travelling community. If this issue cannot be sorted out then the power has to be put back in the hands of publicans and VFI members," said Mr O'Sullivan.

Mr O'Dea is to meet separately with the publicans and Travellers' representatives next Tuesday.

The junior minister has asked publicans to hold off on any action on the basis that their concerns would be heard as quickly as possible.

The VFI says its proposed ban will not be implemented before the minister's meeting on Tuesday.

Mr O'Sullivan said the outcome of Tuesday's crunch talks will be discussed by the Federation's National Executive Council at a meeting in Dublin the following day. "Current legislation is abusing our members," he added.

"If the Government does not do anything to ease this situation then an overall ban on the Travelling community will have to take centre stage in our strategy," he warned.

"Publicans are caught between a rock and a hard place.

"Society tells them to serve Travellers or they will go out of business and if they don't serve them they could go to jail."

Mr O'Sullivan said that publicans could no longer be ruled by "mob law".

He added that he would go to prison rather than have VFI members and their families them subjected to violence and terror by the Travelling community.

The Vintners' chief also noted that the Federation was fully supportive of its members who will continue to reserve the right to refuse customers on the basis of threatening violence, Mr O'Sullivan said.

ReefBreak

I can fully understand why the Vintners Federation is taking this stand.

...Spend a week in Westport during the annual Traveller migration and it'll all make sense.

Von

I worked in pubs in london while the 'RA were bombing the place, and trouble tended to come from irish ex-pats - fightin', armed robbery and the like. All Irish should've been banned but they weren't sadly. Even though, there's a significant difference between blowing up a pub and smashing a barstool over your cousin's head.

Anyway, so what if the travellers like a ruck. They're keeping the 'Fightin' Irish' tradition alive while the rest of you snivelling greasy pawed scum turn into feckin' anglo saxon protestants. Proper little jintlemen to be sure.

We're the Fightin' Irish not the Reasonable Irish or the Moderate Irish or the Sit In The Corner Nursin' A Lager Shandy All Night Keep To Themselves Mostly Irish.

Why doesn't some entrepreneur open a pub exclusively for travellers, plant a few weapons around the place, egg them on, film what happens and then sell it to channel 4. The bloke from red dwarf can do commentary.

I'd watch it.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding

Originally posted by Hairy Homer


Troll.

I'm sorry, why does my comment make me a troll? It is my belief that the owners of an establishment, or their representatives, have the right to refuse entry to people. I am very well aware of your opinion of bars which have bouncers, I have seen you post several times, mostly without support, moaning about how bouncers turn people away. I don't think the issue about travellers here means anything to you, it is just an excuse for you to try to further your opinion that bouncers are the spawn of satan.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by MrPudding


It is my belief that the owners of an establishment, or their representatives, have the right to refuse entry to people..

So why doesn't that apply to shopkeepers?
'20 Major and a box of matches, please'
'Not in those trainers, son'

Bus drivers
'All the way please'
Have you drink taken? Get off my bus

Barbers
'Two off the top, four off the sides please'
I don't know yiz, lads. Sorry

It is now my belief, having heard the minister in charge on the radio, that the law wrt allowing entry to licensed premises is hopelessly ambiguous and out of date and will be looked at soon. The impression I get is that right of admission can be reserved, unless somebody thinks he or she might be discriminated against on certain spurious grounds.

That is, an ordinary person such as me who is (a) white, (b) clearly of the majority ethnic group, (c) not elderly - well not very — and(d) able bodied can be refused on arbitrary grounds whereas anybody who can claim to be a little 'special' can sue the socks off any establishment that keeps them out.

This is bad, for several reasons.

1) It perverts the intended path of antidiscrimination legislation, appearing to give special rights to minorities that do not accrue to the 'general' populace.

2) An ambiguous law inevitably leads to arbitration in the casino that is the courts, resulting in nothing except making lawyers rich and shoving up the price of entertainment for everybody else. You think Lillie's Bordello, for example, is going to pay the fines its bouncers ran up beating up a middle-aged couple a while back? Like hell. In the long run, it will be their patrons who will suffer even more ridiculous markups than they already endure.

3) It leads to a small group of people being granted arbitrary powers, which inevitably, will be badly used. As the uileann pipe player Finbar Furey, when once asked why he played his pipes so fast, replied: 'Because I bleedin' can'. So why are you playing God with members of the public, Mr Bouncer?

Don't tell me it doesn't happen.

So what do we do?

Well we could let things go on as they are, to the point where going out for the odd pint will be prohibitively expensive.

We could repeal all our antidiscrimination legislation, leaving the way open for a truly nasty elitist society.

Or we can enact sensible laws which will allow licensed establishments to refuse entry to people only on clearly definable grounds. eg no weapons, proof of age, previously barred for causing trouble, pub too packed but wait a while for people to leave etc.

The point is that a person should be able to know in advance whether they can gain entrance to an establishment without having to run the gauntlet of some toughs who think they can refuse entry 'because we bleedin' can!'

Here's hoping the law is clarified and not made more ambiguous when it is 'looked at'.

PS I see Ross O'Caroll-Kelly had some problems in his column in yesterday's Tribune. One could actually sympathise with him.

MrPudding

Originally posted by Hairy Homer


So why doesn't that apply to shopkeepers?
'20 Major and a box of matches, please'
'Not in those trainers, son'

Bus drivers
'All the way please'
Have you drink taken? Get off my bus

Barbers
'Two off the top, four off the sides please'
I don't know yiz, lads. Sorry

I believe that most shops, shopping centers and the like "reserve the right to refuse admission." I'm sure you've seen the signs.

By the way you haven't answered my question, why does my first comment make me a troll?

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by MrPudding


I believe that most shops, shopping centers and the like "reserve the right to refuse admission." I'm sure you've seen the signs.

I've seen the signs but I've never seen a bouncer on the door of a sweetshop, barber or supermarket. Have you?

Certainly I've seen security guards in supermarkets but they patrol the inside instead of standing on the door intimidating likely customers. No problem with that. As I've said before, that's the way pubs should do it.

By the way you haven't answered my question, why does my first comment make me a troll?

Because given the bald unsupported statement it made and given the history of this and related topics and given that there are some utopians who don't even like it to be discussed it was clearly intended to provoke an apoplectic reaction, which given my overall poise and self control it singularly failed to do.

MrPudding

Originally posted by Hairy Homer


I've seen the signs but I've never seen a bouncer on the door of a sweetshop, barber or supermarket. Have you?
[/B]

Yes I have there are loads of shops in Dublin which have a security guard on the door and yes they do sometimes turn people away.

I agree with you on some of your anti bouncer rhetoric, some of them are cvnts and the small amount of power they have has gone to their heads and also probably some of them find themselves having to enforce door policies handed down to them by the establishments owners 'cos they don't want any "boilers" on ther premises. On the other hand, I do believe that they are necessary in a lot of the establisments in Dublin. I personally prefer to be in a place where there are bouncers on the door.

Bouncers on a door are a preventative measure, they will try to stop the troublemakers getting in. This is protecting the patrons of the bar/club. Bouncers moving arround inside the bar are reactionary, they will react to trouble. They will try to catch the guy who walked in the door, drunk & spoiling for a fight, with no problem because there was no bouncer and shoved a glass into your face 'cos he thought you were looking at his bird.

It is for reasons like this, and having worked in bars for years myself, that I think the owners of an establishment, or their representitives, should have an absolute right to refuse entry to anyone at all. Does this still make me a troll?

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by MrPudding



I think the owners of an establishment, or their representitives, should have an absolute right to refuse entry to anyone at all. Does this still make me a troll?

No. Not now that you have presented a reasonable case to support your opinions. I don't agree with them, but there you are.

Respeck!