Belfast hotel sued over All-Ireland coverage
Friday, 3 October 2008 17:40
A five-star Belfast hotel is being sued over claims it refused to show last month's All-Ireland football final on television.
Damages are being sought from the Hilton Hotel following allegations that staff told customers the Tyrone-Kerry match would not be screened.
Brian Corey, a GAA fan from the Ormeau Road in Belfast, claims the refusal to show the match was an affront to his dignity and national identity.
His solicitor has now gone to court seeking damages, claiming a breach of the law covering services provided by hotels.
The Hilton has rejected any suggestion of discrimination.
A spokeswoman said they were unable to show the All-Ireland final as they were already screening a football match between Chelsea and Manchester United.
She said this was linked to a food and beverage promotion in the hotel, which a number of guests were enjoying at the time.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1003/gaa.html
hardstation, you should have invited him round to watch the game.
A rather flimsy excuse. The Chelsea-Man United game kicked off at 2pm and was over by about 3.45. There's no reason they couldn't have shown the Tyrone-Kerry match.
Yes, that an establishment would refuse to show the game, on one of their many devices, is something that should be challenged and challenged robustly. F*ck the Hilton, Gaels take note.
They must have had a sh1t load of Dublin supporters staying...........
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on October 03, 2008, 11:21:18 PM
Yes, that an establishment would refuse to show the game, on one of their many devices, is something that should be challenged and challenged robustly. F*ck the Hilton, Gaels take note.
Not sure about this one. Surely its up to an individual premises what they want to show on their TVs. The United match did cross over a lot of the first half. I can't see how this was an assualt on his dignity unless they were particularly abusive / sectarian towards him. Sounds more like taking offence for the sake of it. Its not as though there aren't other places in the area he could have gone to watch the game.
Spot on, TAM. This gentleman must have walked past a range of bars on the Ormeau Road screening the AI final so that he could be insulted by the soccer in the Hilton. It would have been practically half time at Croke Park before the Man Utd match finished anyway, so switching over was not an option. Seeking compensation from the hotel is pretty pathetic. I can remember being in the Casement Park social club on a Saturday afternoon not so long ago when a big game from Dublin was on RTE. Most of the regulars at the bar wanted the racing on instead, and there was a fairly heated row before the GAA coverage came on belatedly. I wonder if I can get a claim in retrospectively ?
That happens all the time up in casement MR. The lack of knowledge about our local game by the punters in that establishment is embarrassing. Bottom line is it serves cheaper beer, so I suppose your going to get that sort for that reason.
Actually think I might get an aul claim ina aginst the Hatfield when we're at it. Went to watch the football one Sunday and they'd the Celtic match on instead. Friggin affront to my national identity so it was.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on October 03, 2008, 11:33:50 PM
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on October 03, 2008, 11:21:18 PM
Yes, that an establishment would refuse to show the game, on one of their many devices, is something that should be challenged and challenged robustly. F*ck the Hilton, Gaels take note.
Not sure about this one. Surely its up to an individual premises what they want to show on their TVs. The United match did cross over a lot of the first half. I can't see how this was an assualt on his dignity unless they were particularly abusive / sectarian towards him. Sounds more like taking offence for the sake of it. Its not as though there aren't other places in the area he could have gone to watch the game.
It all depends. If you've a TV in the corner that no one (patently) is watching, and yet you refuse to change, you're on a sticky wicket. If that be the case, as the court will determine, let us all take due notice.
How the hell can someone claim damages from a hotel because they refused to show a football match on their television? How were his rights infringed upon? Surely its entirely up to the discretion of the hotel owner what entertainment they provide to attract customers?
Quote from: J70 on October 04, 2008, 04:35:21 AM
How the hell can someone claim damages from a hotel because they refused to show a football match on their television? How were his rights infringed upon? Surely its entirely up to the discretion of the hotel owner what entertainment they provide to attract customers?
Precisely, if this "gentle"man was unhappy with the hotel's decision, he should have challenged it with his feet - by simply walking out and finding a local pub. This "sue for anything" attitude pervades society today, if this ever gets to court, who's going to compensate the public for the inherent costs?
Compensation culture at its best. If the patron was so interested in the football why didnt he go to Dublin?
This kind of thing sickens my shite, no doubt there will be a photo of him in todays Irish News with a big sad face telling us how it was "shackin". Probably the kind of person that makes a fairly healthy living in spurious claims. Many times i have went into my local boozer at home in deepest North Antrim to see a match only to be told it wasnt being shown as "Selic" were playing and fair enough they do the boozing & the publican is only trying to fill the till but the best option is to go somewhere else. I might go down to the HIlton on Monday night and if they are not showing Coronation Street there will be hell to pay.
While I think they should have shown the game, it being a an affront to his dignity and national identity, ah now thats a f**king joke, yer man sounds like an arse.
I wonder could I sue all the pubs Birmingham that wont show GAA, if I was half indian could I sue them for not showing the Kabbadi as well?
Quote from: thejuice on October 04, 2008, 10:19:26 AM
While I think they should have shown the game, it being a an affront to his dignity and national identity, ah now thats a f**king joke, yer man sounds like an arse.
I wonder could I sue all the pubs Birmingham that wont show GAA, if I was half indian could I sue them for not showing the Kabbadi as well?
I'm thinking of suing Meagher's in Dublin as a few years ago when Armagh-Tyrone were filling nearby Croke Park a group of charming Dublin women in the pub insisted on watching "Bow-altun Wawne-derurs". Insulted my national identity but reinforced my already high opinion of Dublin steretypes.
What an a5se
A 3 min walk would have taken him to the front door of Magennis's which would have been full of people watching the Match.
This is just ridiculous!
Never mind the Hilton, I was in the Barleycove Beach Hotel in Barleycove, Co Cork last summer on Hols and was in one Saturday evening for a nosebag. I think some hurling qualifier game was on and I asked for it to be turned on (as nothing was on the TV), a waitress returned to my table 10 mins after I made my request and told me that they couldn't put it on as they only show international sports such as motorsport and baseball!!! I shit you not, near choked on me prawn sandwiches. I was f**king fuming.
Quote from: bennydorano on October 04, 2008, 12:06:28 PM
Never mind the Hilton, I was in the Barleycove Beach Hotel in Barleycove, Co Cork last summer on Hols and was in one Saturday evening for a nosebag. I think some hurling qualifier game was on and I asked for it to be turned on (as nothing was on the TV), a waitress returned to my table 10 mins after I made my request and told me that they couldn't put it on as they only show international sports such as motorsport and baseball!!! I shit you not, near choked on me prawn sandwiches. I was f**king fuming.
Are you serious? Do they have many Baseball fans in that part of Cork?
QuoteBrian Corey, a GAA fan from the Ormeau Road in Belfast, claims the refusal to show the match was an affront to his dignity and national identity.
This man is a p***k--- at least! >:(
What a ridiculous story. Some people really go out of their way to be insulted. So you're sitting about in Belfast on the morning of at AI deciding where to watch it and you randomly come up with the Hilton?! This is just an embarassment and a waste of court time. It should (and will) be laughed out - but not before the DUP get a few cheap shots at the GAA over it.
In actual fact this is a legitimate claim under the Fair Employment and Treatment (North of Ireland Order) 1978, part of which imposes responsibilities on hotels in terms of the goods,services and facilities they provide. The Solicitor, Seamus Leonard won a Sigerson Cup medal with Queens in 1982 and is a good friend of mine. Believe me he wouldn't be getting involved if he didn't think this guy had a case ;)
No doubt the case will also be brought to the court at the expense of the taxpayer rather then the individual from the Ormeau Road.
Hilton issued a statement, stating that they dont have a policy in regards of showing any sports. It also emerged that on the day in question they had advertising and promotions linked to the soccer match.
Why anyone from the road would go down to the Hilton to watch the All Ireland final is another question. There are many other establishments that would have a hell of lot better atmosphere. ( Altough they have the right to go to wherever they want, before the PC brigade come on board).
Completely different story however if their request to watch the AI final was met with a sectarian response.
IMO its appears very pedantic
Quote from: T Fearon on October 04, 2008, 01:14:11 PM
In actual fact this is a legitimate claim under the Fair Employment and Treatment (North of Ireland Order) 1978, part of which imposes responsibilities on hotels in terms of the goods,services and facilities they provide. The Solicitor, Seamus Leonard won a Sigerson Cup medal with Queens in 1982 and is a good friend of mine. Believe me he wouldn't be getting involved if he didn't think this guy had a case ;)
Is that the Fair Emplyment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998?
Either way, he'd have to prove that he encountered "discrimination on the ground of religious belief or political opinion; or discrimination by way of victimisation". That would appear unlikely - or at least near impossible to prove.
Anyway, what would he need to be 'compensated' for? As someone else said, it really is just this culture of compensation gone mad.
Not pedantic not trivial, basically the hotel was denying the rights of a representative of the nationalist community to see the sport of his choice and must therefore be in breach of the Fair Employment Act. The simplest solution for the hotel was to have tv sets in various locations in the premises, showing a choice of soccer or GAA, thus ensuring full complaince with the Fair Employment and Treatment Order.
Now I'm wondering, if someone took a case under the fair employment act against the IFA for the monoculututal and exclsuive use of sectarian symbols at Windsor Park, what would their chances of success be?
Maguire, he may not have a lot to prove. These tribunals, in my expereince, side with the claimant and put huge pressure on defendants. Also Seamie Leonard (a Fermanagh man himself) is big pals with Joe Brolly who would I'm sure construct a very convincing case in his role as a "learned friend". I for one can't wait to see how this pans out ;D
By the way did you know Paris Hilton has a younger brother called Templepatrick Hilton? :D
It opens a can of worms and the possibility of tit for tat legal cases.
In my local requests by some individuals to watch soccer while there has been a Major gaelic game on have be met with straight "no". On other occassions ( not major games, and own county not involved) the screens may be split depending on the demand . im sure its no different in many other places.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 04, 2008, 01:36:50 PM
Not pedantic not trivial, basically the hotel was denying the rights of a representative of the nationalist community to see the sport of his choice and must therefore be in breach of the Fair Employment Act. The simplest solution for the hotel was to have tv sets in various locations in the premises, showing a choice of soccer or GAA, thus ensuring full complaince with the Fair Employment and Treatment Order.
Now I'm wondering, if someone took a case under the fair employment act against the IFA for the monoculututal and exclsuive use of sectarian symbols at Windsor Park, what would their chances of success be?
How could a hotel deny "the rights of a representative of the nationalist community to see the sport of his choice"? Is there a law that says that hotels are obliged to broadcast whatever their customers desire? Does a legal right exist in Northern Ireland that means anyone is entitled to watch whatever they want in any hotel or pub? I hope he's laughed out of court and fined for wasting the taxpayers' time and money.
Tony Fearon, you really are a bollix! What would happen if you had an evenly split crowd with only one channel available? Spin a coin? This p***k should be laughed out of court, assuming it goes that far. Also he should incur all legal costs. You might consider paying them, though, since you seem to be taking such a keen legal interest. As I said - bollix
Quote from: hardstation on October 04, 2008, 04:09:33 PM
Relax there, you'll burst an artery.
No danger of that. I'm merely stating my opinion about the incident itself and that other eejit. Perfectly calm and collected not to mention considered.
Seems strange that a hotel chain like the Hilton wouldn't have more than one TV in a viewing area capable of accomodating both soccer and GAA supporters ??? And as the AIF was on terrestrial TV they've hardly got any excuse for not showing it other than they didn't want to. I'd say he probably has a case, frivilous and all as it undoubtedly is.
Quote from: bennydorano on October 04, 2008, 04:31:52 PM
Seems strange that a hotel chain like the Hilton wouldn't have more than one TV in a viewing area capable of accomodating both soccer and GAA supporters ??? And as the AIF was on terrestrial TV they've hardly got any excuse for not showing it other than they didn't want to. I'd say he probably has a case, frivilous and all as it undoubtedly is.
On what grounds does he have a case? How does this breach the "Fair Employment and Treatment Order"?
Quote from: J70 on October 04, 2008, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on October 04, 2008, 04:31:52 PM
Seems strange that a hotel chain like the Hilton wouldn't have more than one TV in a viewing area capable of accomodating both soccer and GAA supporters ??? And as the AIF was on terrestrial TV they've hardly got any excuse for not showing it other than they didn't want to. I'd say he probably has a case, frivilous and all as it undoubtedly is.
On what grounds does he have a case? How does this breach the "Fair Employment and Treatment Order"?
He's claiming discrimination isn't he? Up to the judicial system now.
Quote from: bennydorano on October 04, 2008, 05:40:07 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 04, 2008, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on October 04, 2008, 04:31:52 PM
Seems strange that a hotel chain like the Hilton wouldn't have more than one TV in a viewing area capable of accomodating both soccer and GAA supporters ??? And as the AIF was on terrestrial TV they've hardly got any excuse for not showing it other than they didn't want to. I'd say he probably has a case, frivilous and all as it undoubtedly is.
On what grounds does he have a case? How does this breach the "Fair Employment and Treatment Order"?
He's claiming discrimination isn't he? Up to the judicial system now.
So this was apparently equivalent to someone not getting served at all because of their race or religion? Despite the fact that the hotel in question would allow him to stay, eat and drink there?
Its bullshit.
It has all the signs of an a**se looking for money.
That bar is one of the most soulless bars you will ever go to. Why you would want to go to it when you have places like the Hatfield, the Rose & Crown not to mention the comfort of your own home to watch an AI final is beyond me.Maginnes's hasn't really been the same since your man got killed so not really a great option though.
It ranks up there with claims that people are being denied their "civil and religious liberties" for not being able to march down the "queen's highway".
If he gets anything from this claim then the law really is an ass.
Quote from: J70 on October 04, 2008, 06:20:51 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on October 04, 2008, 05:40:07 PM
Quote from: J70 on October 04, 2008, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on October 04, 2008, 04:31:52 PM
Seems strange that a hotel chain like the Hilton wouldn't have more than one TV in a viewing area capable of accomodating both soccer and GAA supporters ??? And as the AIF was on terrestrial TV they've hardly got any excuse for not showing it other than they didn't want to. I'd say he probably has a case, frivilous and all as it undoubtedly is.
On what grounds does he have a case? How does this breach the "Fair Employment and Treatment Order"?
He's claiming discrimination isn't he? Up to the judicial system now.
So this was apparently equivalent to someone not getting served at all because of their race or religion? Despite the fact that the hotel in question would allow him to stay, eat and drink there?
Its bullshit.
It sure is, hope he gets embarrassed in court, if it goes that far.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 04, 2008, 01:36:50 PM
The simplest solution for the hotel was to have tv sets in various locations in the premises, showing a choice of soccer or GAA, thus ensuring full complaince with the Fair Employment and Treatment Order.
So by that logic:
If your local was showing an Armagh game, and some punters wandered in and wanted to watch, say a Linfield game, and your local didn't have another TV and wouldn't switch over the GAA, they'd be a legitimate target for a discrimination case? Get a grip. Unless there's something more to this than what has been reported, it's a joke.
That's where our taxes go folks, accommodating this sort of shite. The lunatics has indeed taken over the ayslum. Living down here in deepest hurling territory believe me there is a distinctly frosty attitude taken the odd sunday that you might walk into your local looking to watch Cavan Against Antrim in the preliminary round of the Ulster championship particularly where it is clashing with Moan U verus Kiddeminister in an exclusive Sky Sport Preseason friendly or, indeed, the 3.15 at Market Rasen. My solution has been to stay at shagging home and watch it or, alternatively, attend a boozer that has enough screens to accommodate all events.
JOKE
It opens a can of worms and the possibility of tit for tat legal cases.
Indeed Bensars, which is the tit, and which is the tat, I'm bloody distracted to put it mildly. Fearon, the battle has been won, get yourself of the hind tit of victimhood/state dependance etc. etc. etc. It actually isn't a bad place to be you fool
What a pathetic case. This knob is obviously being given the oxygen of publicity and it does no favours to the gaa if joe public assumes this person is representing the views of northern gaels. This thread should be evidence that this man is an embarrassment.
I wonder who is pulling his strings.
Surely it couldn't be Sinn Fein.... nah, they wouldn't be so petty ::)
Quote from: carnaross on October 04, 2008, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: hardstation on October 04, 2008, 04:09:33 PM
Relax there, you'll burst an artery.
No danger of that. I'm merely stating my opinion about the incident itself and that other eejit. Perfectly calm and collected not to mention considered.
You're making yourself look like an eejit.
Joke of a case.
Im expecting an outraged editorial in the Andytown News on Monday
Quote from: hardstation on October 04, 2008, 11:47:50 PM
Quote from: Minder on October 04, 2008, 11:40:48 PM
Im expecting an outraged editorial in the Andytown News on Monday
And a half page photo of yer man staring at a TV screen, with a big sad face on him. :D
exactly HS,and probably holding a copy of a letter he has sent to the Hilton!
I went into Finn Mc Cools bar, part of Dukes hotel in Belfast to watch the 06 Football Finals and they wouldnt show them even though the bar was empty, then a few weeks later I walked past and the place was decked out with green & white balloons for NI v Spain. An Irish bar that would prefer to cater for those who dont consider themselves Irish!
Quote from: nearlymad on October 04, 2008, 10:57:28 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 04, 2008, 01:14:11 PM
In actual fact this is a legitimate claim under the Fair Employment and Treatment (North of Ireland Order) 1978, part of which imposes responsibilities on hotels in terms of the goods,services and facilities they provide. The Solicitor, Seamus Leonard won a Sigerson Cup medal with Queens in 1982 and is a good friend of mine. Believe me he wouldn't be getting involved if he didn't think this guy had a case ;)
Do you think it's mutual Tony,you and Seamus Leonard?
I would have considered seamus to have more wit
Quote from: hardstation on October 05, 2008, 12:01:37 AMI was wearing a pair of Sammy Duddys.
I've tried, but no gotta ask, what are sammy duddys?
If this lad gets a couple of pounds I'm going on the prowl around Belfast. If no one is showing the U16 All-Ireland Bog-Snorkling Championships there'll be hell to pay.
Lads this is a joke of a case. Last year after Cross and The Crokes drew in the AI club final I left half way throught the hurling match. On the way down the road I called into Hill 16 for a few pints so that we could get the 2nd half of the game. They were showing horse racing on on TV, a man united game on another and the Ireland v Italy rugby match on another. The hurling wasn't on any tv. Big deal.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 04, 2008, 01:14:11 PM
In actual fact this is a legitimate claim under the Fair Employment and Treatment (North of Ireland Order) 1978, part of which imposes responsibilities on hotels in terms of the goods,services and facilities they provide. The Solicitor, Seamus Leonard won a Sigerson Cup medal with Queens in 1982 and is a good friend of mine. Believe me he wouldn't be getting involved if he didn't think this guy had a case ;)
As far as I can see it falls under Services of a Hotel... I gather from that he must have been told the match was been screened and when he landed round they refused to show it... You would be annoyed alright if that was the case. I am sure he was looking access to a room to watch it and seeing as BBC were covering it, it would not have been a problem... Very surprised that the Hilton didn't even open one of their small rooms and stick a TV in there to shut him up. Must have been well drunk and tried starting a row. But as someone said, why would someone from the Ormeau Road not use the likes of the Hatfield, The Kitchten Bar, Magennis, The Rose & Crown or even up to the Errigal to watch it.
Must be barred from all of them for him to want to use the Palatial surroundings of the Hilton on AI final day. Know a few in the Hilton myself and must ask what the craic is.
Quote from: J70 on October 04, 2008, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on October 04, 2008, 04:31:52 PM
Seems strange that a hotel chain like the Hilton wouldn't have more than one TV in a viewing area capable of accomodating both soccer and GAA supporters ??? And as the AIF was on terrestrial TV they've hardly got any excuse for not showing it other than they didn't want to. I'd say he probably has a case, frivilous and all as it undoubtedly is.
On what grounds does he have a case? How does this breach the "Fair Employment and Treatment Order"?
I would say he would have a case if he was told they were screening the game and then they didn't. Obviously if technical problems happened the Hilton could have a point, but if they advertised showing the game, and ended up accomodating a large stag or Golf Party just to watch Man Utd V Chelsea so as to lift ,more you'd understand...
Don't agree with it, but if you advertise something and it doesn't quite happen down to an alternative decision made before the match you have a cause of complaint..
I cant see your mans case here at all. For this to succeed imo he would have to prove that the GAA is reprenstitive of only one side of the community (which is arguable) and that failing to show the AIF amounted to discrimination against that community. Both very hard legal arguments to make out especially with the can of worms they may open up in relation to other sports not being shown and what level of importance a match needed to have in order to be shown. Also his argument would need to not go too far as the hotel would then have actually been prevented from showing the match under the order to maintain a neutral working environment. All in all a difficult and pointless case. I assume this guy will not get legal aid and therefore would have to foot the bill himself should he lose. Cases like this annoy me and give our profession a bad name. Hopefully it will be thrown out early out
He ain't bringing a case about on ground of unFair-discrimination... Its on services...
If you advertise something and change it at the last minute because it suits others you must make alternative arrangements and address the problem.
Quote from: Maroon Heaven on October 05, 2008, 01:25:59 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 04, 2008, 01:14:11 PM
In actual fact this is a legitimate claim under the Fair Employment and Treatment (North of Ireland Order) 1978, part of which imposes responsibilities on hotels in terms of the goods,services and facilities they provide. The Solicitor, Seamus Leonard won a Sigerson Cup medal with Queens in 1982 and is a good friend of mine. Believe me he wouldn't be getting involved if he didn't think this guy had a case ;)
As far as I can see it falls under Services of a Hotel... I gather from that he must have been told the match was been screened and when he landed round they refused to show it... You would be annoyed alright if that was the case. I am sure he was looking access to a room to watch it and seeing as BBC were covering it, it would not have been a problem... Very surprised that the Hilton didn't even open one of their small rooms and stick a TV in there to shut him up. Must have been well drunk and tried starting a row. But as someone said, why would someone from the Ormeau Road not use the likes of the Hatfield, The Kitchten Bar, Magennis, The Rose & Crown or even up to the Errigal to watch it.
Must be barred from all of them for him to want to use the Palatial surroundings of the Hilton on AI final day. Know a few in the Hilton myself and must ask what the craic is.
Some big and daft assumptions there.
Quote from: Maroon Heaven on October 05, 2008, 02:01:39 PM
If you advertise something and change it at the last minute because it suits others you must make alternative arrangements and address the problem.
From the way the story was reported, it would appear that the soccer had been pre-advertised and tied into a food and drinks promo. There has been nothing to suggest that the hotel had ever publicised that they would be showing GAA.
No chance he would get legal aid for such a ridiculous case, I'd say the dick isn't short of a bob or 2 anyway if he's drinking in there. When I first read this I thought it must be a wind-up or else there was something more serious to it. It'll never make it to court though and can't imagine the Hilton would offer any settlement to get him to f**k off, they have enough resources to humour this boy as long as they have to.
Quote from: Maroon Heaven on October 05, 2008, 02:01:39 PM
He ain't bringing a case about on ground of unFair-discrimination... Its on services...
If you advertise something and change it at the last minute because it suits others you must make alternative arrangements and address the problem.
Ahh ok so had the Hilton for example advertised the power boating and then not showed it the guy could take the same claim? Not as annoyed about that one
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 05, 2008, 02:12:45 PM
Quote from: Maroon Heaven on October 05, 2008, 01:25:59 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 04, 2008, 01:14:11 PM
In actual fact this is a legitimate claim under the Fair Employment and Treatment (North of Ireland Order) 1978, part of which imposes responsibilities on hotels in terms of the goods,services and facilities they provide. The Solicitor, Seamus Leonard won a Sigerson Cup medal with Queens in 1982 and is a good friend of mine. Believe me he wouldn't be getting involved if he didn't think this guy had a case ;)
As far as I can see it falls under Services of a Hotel... I gather from that he must have been told the match was been screened and when he landed round they refused to show it... You would be annoyed alright if that was the case. I am sure he was looking access to a room to watch it and seeing as BBC were covering it, it would not have been a problem... Very surprised that the Hilton didn't even open one of their small rooms and stick a TV in there to shut him up. Must have been well drunk and tried starting a row. But as someone said, why would someone from the Ormeau Road not use the likes of the Hatfield, The Kitchten Bar, Magennis, The Rose & Crown or even up to the Errigal to watch it.
Must be barred from all of them for him to want to use the Palatial surroundings of the Hilton on AI final day. Know a few in the Hilton myself and must ask what the craic is.
Some big and daft assumptions there.
Quote from: Maroon Heaven on October 05, 2008, 02:01:39 PM
If you advertise something and change it at the last minute because it suits others you must make alternative arrangements and address the problem.
From the way the story was reported, it would appear that the soccer had been pre-advertised and tied into a food and drinks promo. There has been nothing to suggest that the hotel had ever publicised that they would be showing GAA.
I heard about this on the monday night after the match in Magennis's, so my assumptions are based on what I heard.
I have a business just 5 mins away from the Hilton and I'll go round tomorrow to see what the unofficial reason is.
In relation to whatelse I heard, I think there was a function on in one of the rooms who asked to watch the Soccer match, as in, when we're eating will you have the game on for us. A few went down to the Bar to watch it outside the Function room "Where I heard it was a 60th Birthday Party". The Hilton implied to your man they couldn't switch over due to this party having booked in just to watch the Soccer.
I don't know anything about the GAA been advertised and from knowing the Hilton and their staff, its not a place where they put up a big sign and says "GAA FINAL ON HERE AT 3.30PM". I'd say it was more to do with a member of staff saying "Of Course we'll have the match on" and not knowing a thing.
Quote from: David McKeown on October 05, 2008, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: Maroon Heaven on October 05, 2008, 02:01:39 PM
He ain't bringing a case about on ground of unFair-discrimination... Its on services...
If you advertise something and change it at the last minute because it suits others you must make alternative arrangements and address the problem.
Ahh ok so had the Hilton for example advertised the power boating and then not showed it the guy could take the same claim? Not as annoyed about that one
I thinks its a joke your guy doing this, I don't know the guy, but speaking from someone who owns a business in a leisure industry, if I advertise a promotion and it does not happen due to the fact I changed it at 2pm because the place was packed with 3 Stag Parties and a Golf Outing who were English and wanted to watch the soccer obviously, I have to redress who I am putting out.
Quote from: Maroon Heaven on October 05, 2008, 02:01:39 PM
If you advertise something and change it at the last minute because it suits others you must make alternative arrangements and address the problem.
Quote from: Maroon Heaven on October 05, 2008, 02:22:22 PM
I don't know anything about the GAA been advertised and from knowing the Hilton and their staff, its not a place where they put up a big sign and says "GAA FINAL ON HERE AT 3.30PM". I'd say it was more to do with a member of staff saying "Of Course we'll have the match on" and not knowing a thing.
So basically, if they didn't advertise it (which would appear to be the case), the Hilton don't have a case to answer?
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 05, 2008, 02:53:37 PM
Quote from: Maroon Heaven on October 05, 2008, 02:01:39 PM
If you advertise something and change it at the last minute because it suits others you must make alternative arrangements and address the problem.
Quote from: Maroon Heaven on October 05, 2008, 02:22:22 PM
I don't know anything about the GAA been advertised and from knowing the Hilton and their staff, its not a place where they put up a big sign and says "GAA FINAL ON HERE AT 3.30PM". I'd say it was more to do with a member of staff saying "Of Course we'll have the match on" and not knowing a thing.
So basically, if they didn't advertise it (which would appear to be the case), the Hilton don't have a case to answer?
Exactly and I would be certain they didn't. But if they did your guy would have a case, be it small and pitiful
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on October 03, 2008, 11:21:18 PM
Yes, that an establishment would refuse to show the game, on one of their many devices, is something that should be challenged and challenged robustly. F*ck the Hilton, Gaels take note.
only if its paris ;D ;D ;D
About 6/7 years ago a couple of us stayed the Sat night in Belfast before we played Antrim in the championship. My brother had his Cavan jersey on at around 3pm and walked into a shoe shop in the city center. The shop keeper threw him out for having a Cavan jersey (I assume it was any GAA jersey she took offense to). Therefore, I am not one bit surprised to read that the Hilton wouln't show the all ireland. I suggest people vote with their feet and avoid the Hilton brand.
I fail to see what doubt there is to the plaintiff's case and fair play to him for taking it and for Seamus for handling it (as to the question of a mutual friendship ,it is indeed and I was talking to him in the Premium section after Tyrone's recent fortuitous All Ireland semi final win over Wexford ;D).
I know this may be hard to grasp for those residing in the 26 counties but all legislation here, no matter how petty it may seem, is necessary to safeguard against unionist discrimination at all times. All public places must cater for the needs of both communities under the legislation,and to fail to show the AI Final on request is akin to not adequately servicing the needs of a disabled person. Add in other stuff like injury to feelings etc, I cant see how he doesn't have a case.
Undoubtedly he has a case and I have no doubt he will win (though the Hilton will settle out of court). As one who has had direct experience of these tribunals it is almost impossible for a defendant to win, and a smart barrister (Mr Brolly?) will take great delight in pushing this one.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 06, 2008, 12:01:48 PM
My brother had his Cavan jersey on at around 3pm and walked into a shoe shop in the city center. The shop keeper threw him out for having a Cavan jersey (I assume it was any GAA jersey she took offense to).
No just Cavan jerseys - it's standard policy. :P
TF - you didn't get around to answering this one:
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 04, 2008, 07:00:16 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on October 04, 2008, 01:36:50 PM
The simplest solution for the hotel was to have tv sets in various locations in the premises, showing a choice of soccer or GAA, thus ensuring full complaince with the Fair Employment and Treatment Order.
So by that logic:
If your local was showing an Armagh game, and some punters wandered in and wanted to watch, say a Linfield game, and your local didn't have another TV and wouldn't switch over the GAA, they'd be a legitimate target for a discrimination case?
Also:
Quote from: T Fearon on October 06, 2008, 12:31:39 PM
All public places must cater for the needs of both communities under the legislation,and to fail to show the AI Final on request is akin to not adequately servicing the needs of a disabled person. Add in other stuff like injury to feelings etc, I cant see how he doesn't have a case.
You really think so?!
And as for injuries to feelings...
Quote from: Maguire01 on October 06, 2008, 01:23:31 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 06, 2008, 12:01:48 PM
My brother had his Cavan jersey on at around 3pm and walked into a shoe shop in the city center. The shop keeper threw him out for having a Cavan jersey (I assume it was any GAA jersey she took offense to).
No just Cavan jerseys - it's standard policy. :P
In knew someone would make that predictable jibe and of course it would turn out to be a mushroom head from Monaghan :D
:D Happy to have obliged slasher!
Maguire01. The answer is yes, the needs of both communities must be met.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 06, 2008, 01:52:22 PM
Maguire01. The answer is yes, the needs of both communities must be met.
Surely though showing Chelsea V Man Utd would appeal more to both sides of the community than a GAA game?
Same as it would be more appealing than a Northern Ireland game.
You are missing the point your Holiness. It has nothing to do with the relative appeal of the games.The Hotel has failed to treat the guy in the same manner as it treated soccer fans on this occasion. Thats what it boils down to as far as Tribunals are concerned up here, fair and equal treatment across the board. As it stands, the GAA final was being shown on terrestrial tv, it could easily have been shown in the hotel so they have no excuse. Any half decent barrister could make out that the guy was treated less equitably on account of his religious/nationalist background. I can see why he took the case and why his legal team think it can succeed.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 06, 2008, 02:17:44 PM
You are missing the point your Holiness. It has nothing to do with the relative appeal of the games.The Hotel has failed to treat the guy in the same manner as it treated soccer fans on this occasion. Thats what it boils down to as far as Tribunals are concerned up here, fair and equal treatment across the board. As it stands, the GAA final was being shown on terrestrial tv, it could easily have been shown in the hotel so they have no excuse. Any half decent barrister could make out that the guy was treated less equitably on account of his religious/nationalist background. I can see why he took the case and why his legal team think it can succeed.
Rubbish. You are asking the courts to enshrine the principal that GAA = nationalist / catholic and soccer = protestant / unionist.
You do not have a human right to see whatever television you want to see in the bar of a hotel you are not a resident in.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 06, 2008, 12:31:39 PM
I know this may be hard to grasp for those residing in the 26 counties Ireland but all legislation here, no matter how petty it may seem, is necessary to safeguard against unionist discrimination at all times.
Just to help you out their
Shock horror, I agree with Dublinfella.
Will the universe be reversed and all existance cease????? :)
His holiness and Dublin Fella you fail to understand the sensitivities and way the law works up here. Quite simply the law demands everyone be treated equally to the nth degree. For example I know of one case up here where a guy successfully took his employers to the tribunal and won the case on the basis that his work colleagues discussed the weekend's GAA events every Monday morning in his presence, at work, and he "felt" intimidated as a result. I repeat he won the case!
Now I know this all seems trivial but I have no doubt that a tribunal up here will conclude that a patron asked a hotel to show the All Ireland Final which was freely available on terrestrial tv, and by so refusing, the hotel faled to treat patron equally as a real or imagined unionist patron was treated, as soccer, the preferred choice of unionists, was made available.
Now if they hadn't been showing soccer it could be that he had no case.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 06, 2008, 03:32:57 PM
His holiness and Dublin Fella you fail to understand the sensitivities and way the law works up here. Quite simply the law demands everyone be treated equally to the nth degree. For example I know of one case up here where a guy successfully took his employers to the tribunal and won the case on the basis that his work colleagues discussed the weekend's GAA events every Monday morning in his presence, at work, and he "felt" intimidated as a result. I repeat he won the case!
Now I know this all seems trivial but I have no doubt that a tribunal up here will conclude that a patron asked a hotel to show the All Ireland Final which was freely available on terrestrial tv, and by so refusing, the hotel faled to treat patron equally as a real or imagined unionist patron was treated, as soccer, the preferred choice of unionists, was made available.
Now if they hadn't been showing soccer it could be that he had no case.
Thats were I can't agree with your assessment of the case.
He asked for an event to be put on, they said they were already showing something else. Thats their call, not a sectarian assault on his fundamental rights.
Its a nusiance suit.
Damn you Tony, you're making the Dubs the voice of reason in here!
Yes, all perfectly logical. But Tribunals up here look at the practical measures that could have been taken to avoid this, such as the provision of a second television set, which I have no doubt was available in such a big hotel. In otherwords, they look also and not only what they did and didn't do but what they could and should have done.
Ziggy, I have had experience of tribunals up here as a defendant. You simply couldn't make up what they will do for complainants, and as I said its all about what you could and should have done not what you did and didn't do
A good barrister in this instance will quite easily argue that the guy was treated less favourably than a unionist (who had instant access to soccer) and he will win his case.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 06, 2008, 04:05:54 PM
A good barrister in this instance will quite easily argue that the guy was treated less favourably than a unionist (who had instant access to soccer) and he will win his case.
So they are going to set the legal precendent that soccer is a unionist game? ???
No chance Fearon, despite what your mate tells you.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on October 06, 2008, 12:01:48 PM
My brother had his Cavan jersey on at around 3pm and walked into a shoe shop in the city center. The shop keeper threw him out for having a Cavan jersey (I assume it was any GAA jersey she took offense to).
Are you sure it wasn't a Leaguers jersey? 8)
Wait and see.
Soccer is a British Sport, GAA is an Irish Sport. Quite simply the tribunal will conclude (at teh behest of a good barrister)that the Irish sport was not made available, it would have been easy to make it available, the British sport was made available, hence the patronwho requested the Irish sport,was treated less favourably. Its a no brainer
So if some guy rambles in to Silverbridge/Galbally/Swatragh GAA centre on the night of next year's Ulster Scór finals and demands to see loyalist marching bands instead of the set dancers and ballad groups, it will be an oppression of his yooman rights if he is told to get lost? ::)
Quote from: T Fearon on October 06, 2008, 04:23:58 PM
Wait and see.
Soccer is a British Sport, GAA is an Irish Sport. Quite simply the tribunal will conclude (at teh behest of a good barrister)that the Irish sport was not made available, it would have been easy to make it available, the British sport was made available, hence the patronwho requested the Irish sport,was treated less favourably. Its a no brainer
soccer is a Chinese sport, but anyway.
thats not what you said, or what he is claiming. to suggest that soccer is the exclusive preserve of the unionist community and that a hotel bar showing a soccer game is oppressive to nationalists is laughable.
thats before you get into the 'their house their rules' argument.
Quote from: cornafean on October 06, 2008, 04:27:26 PM
So if some guy rambles in to Silverbridge/Galbally/Swatragh GAA centre on the night of next year's Ulster Scór finals and demands to see loyalist marching bands instead of the set dancers and ballad groups, it will be an oppression of his yooman rights if he is told to get lost? ::)
or even more bizarre, what Fearon is arguing is that if a GAA fan walked into the Cliftonville Social Club and asked for the AIF but was turned down because there was soccer on, he would have been oppressed as a nationalist by other nationalists.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 06, 2008, 04:01:19 PM
Yes, all perfectly logical. But Tribunals up here look at the practical measures that could have been taken to avoid this, such as the provision of a second television set, which I have no doubt was available in such a big hotel. In otherwords, they look also and not only what they did and didn't do but what they could and should have done.
So now every hotel must have 2 tv's in every public place ? But what about the Polish , better make that 3 but the chinese better make that 4 but ......
The idea that the soccer was on for Unionists is laughable coming from someone who spends as much time on this board talking about soccer as he does GAA. Do you even know that those watching the soccer were Protestants/Unionists?
These laws were brought in to protect people from genuine discrimination. This just makes a mockery of the system and those people who need genuine protection.
Does anyone here have
1) A brain
2) Any experience of tribunals
The simple fact is that on this occasion (which will be the only "occasion" the tribunal will deal with in this case) an international hotel chain treated "a nationalist patron" less favourably than "a unionist patron", in this instance, by having soccer (which the tribunal will conclude was likely to be the preferred choice of "a unionist patron") accessible and not GAA, which the patron specifically requested, and which the hotel could easily have made available as well on this occasion. Nothing to do with what may or may not be broadcast in Silverbridge Harps club or anywhere else.As I said before, its a no brainer, I cant see how the guy can lose.
Quote from: T Fearon on October 07, 2008, 10:08:48 AM
Does anyone here have
1) A brain
2) Any experience of tribunals
The simple fact is that on this occasion (which will be the only "occasion" the tribunal will deal with in this case) an international hotel chain treated "a nationalist patron" less favourably than "a unionist patron", in this instance, by having soccer (which the tribunal will conclude was likely to be the preferred choice of "a unionist patron") accessible and not GAA, which the patron specifically requested, and which the hotel could easily have made available as well on this occasion. Nothing to do with what may or may not be broadcast in Silverbridge Harps club or anywhere else.As I said before, its a no brainer, I cant see how the guy can lose.
Tony in my experience of tribunals this is also a no brainer
Quote from: T Fearon on October 07, 2008, 10:08:48 AM
Does anyone here have
1) A brain
2) Any experience of tribunals
The simple fact is that on this occasion (which will be the only "occasion" the tribunal will deal with in this case) an international hotel chain treated "a nationalist patron" less favourably than "a unionist patron", in this instance, by having soccer (which the tribunal will conclude was likely to be the preferred choice of "a unionist patron") accessible and not GAA, which the patron specifically requested, and which the hotel could easily have made available as well on this occasion. Nothing to do with what may or may not be broadcast in Silverbridge Harps club or anywhere else.As I said before, its a no brainer, I cant see how the guy can lose.
1: Because he was not a resident in the hotel so therefore not a patron they are obliged to serve.
2: Beacuase a hotel is entitled to have the final say in what is shown on the television in its bar - in this case a game tied in with a promotion that begun before the AIF.
3: Because soccer is not an exclusively, or even predominantly, unionist game. you are proof of that.
I note you have resorted to abuse to make your point. classy fearon.
in all honesty folks, Tony isnt as mad as you may think.
The complaints/tribunals boards have had to deal with some outrageously stupid complaints in the past number of years and have to be seen to fall over themselves to 'equalise' to one side of the community or the other (depending on who is making the complaint).
it is the 'world gone mad' scenario.
However crazy this sounds, Tony (and the guy with the male leather fettish) is correct in saying that this case will be considered in serious terms. Cant say what the outcome will be - it could go either way, but it will most def be considered.
Just an observation but if this was in the non-GAA section I'd say it would have hit 20 pages by now.
Lynchboy, thank you for placing my insanity level at a moderate pitchl. Thats two pints I'll have to get you next week ;D
Soccer is not a British. It's watched the world over. You should know that, being huge fan of two great British soccer teams. Celtic and Spurs. He has no case, the hotel have a right to show what they want in their hotel. Most of Belfast was showing the AIF, why couldn't he go to one of them pubs, after all it's not like he was staying in the hotel. By your reckoning the Loyalist and Unionist communities that a case against the large percentage of pubs in Belfast that day for denying them their national right by showing the AIF and not some soccer game across the water.
Ziggy it will all boil down to how the tribunal views this incident in the Hilton Hotel (not anywhere else where the complainant could have gone. In short they will consider which sport a (hypothetical even) unionist is likely to prefer (undoubtedly soccer) which sport a (hypothetical even) nationalist is likely to prefer and will conclude that the hypothetical unionist was catered for but the nationalist wasn't and worse his actual request for equal treatment was refused. They will consider how easy it was or would have been for the hotel to cater for the nationalist's request and will conclude that it would have been very easy. They will ask for past occasions when the Hotel has screened GAA and compare it to the number of times it screens soccer, will be told that the hotel never screens GAA, and will then conclude that the hotel manager is the son of satan with a deep seated hatred of catholicism and nationalism, and in short the Hotel will be hung out to dry.
I am not necessarily saying I think its right but its how the tribunal will see it.
You haven't necessarily said you think it is wrong either. Get off the fence on this one!
Who?
Ah, yes. Sorry, bit touchy. Everyone thinks I sit on the fence.
Just like Rachel from big brother you are Ziggy.
you Welsh tart!
Quote from: ziggysego on October 07, 2008, 01:39:43 PM
Ah, yes. Sorry, bit touchy. Everyone thinks I sit on the fence.
You do sit on the fence ziggy..
THIS CASE IS WRONG
Happy now? ;)
I don't think the case is wrong myself. After all the guy could have been accommodated by the hotel quite easily.
I just hate tribunals due to my dire experience with them
could the same person have demanded that an hour long emmerdale special be turned over because eastenders is on? then take them to court because they are bein biased towards northerners by keeping emmerdale on?
i think its a case of being offended because he wanted to be offended. hes probably the same type of boy that wud climb on board a crashed bus to get a claim out of it.
If I walk into a pub & want to watch the Adult Channel & am refused, can I take the owner to a tribunal?
You wouldn't want to bump this fella in a queue of traffic. People like this make me sick.
Definately taking things to the extreme.....BUT should a five star hotel not have more than one television and more than one digital receiver in their hotel ????? Makes me think there's something fishy.. and i hope thats not just full back doing whatever hes at watchtin his programmes..... ;D
Not that I'm a good barrister but would the hotel not have two as obvious defences to this case.
Firstly soccer is not the preserve of the unionist community nor gaa the preserve of the nationalist community and therefore the guy was not being discriminated against or in the alternative .
If the gaa is a nationalist sport then the hotel still couldnt turn over to it without being in breach of its obligations to its staff to provide a neutral working environment.
Im sure one my better collegues could come up with even more arguments
If he has Gregory Campbell acting as judge, not only will the Hilton have the judgment passed in their favour but the GA supporter will be taken up the Shankill and will receive 40 lashes as well as being forced to wear a Norn Iron jersey for a month.
David, the fact that soccer was being shown but the GAA wasn't, kind of does away with your argument. Now if the hotel had refused to show both GAA and soccer then thats a different matter.
Fact is that major soccer and gaa events were taking place simultaneously,the Hotel could quite easily have accommodated patrons wanting to view soccer or gaelic, but chose not to do so and worse actually refused a request from a patron to do so in terms of GAA.
Cast iron win at a tribunal I would have thought
why did'nt he just stay @home and watch it, or just watch it in his local????
nah i reckon he wanted to make a name for himself ...... bitter wee f***er!
all this bollick ...... real gaa people would'nt lower themselves to this crap!
we all know nothing has changed in the 6 counties .... gregory campbell and thousands like him, are alive and well.
is he highlighting this ..... for our wee put down society...... "nah i don'nt think so"
there are some great prod.... gaels in the 6 counties.... who love the gaa to the core ..... and fair play to them ....
its amazing really ....... the way things are in this day and age ..... he could win this case.
maybe this is a bit long winded, ...i'm not long on the site, ....... TYRONE. are a tonic to gaelic football as ....DOWN were in the sixties
"we don'nt need to agree or diagree with what this wan**r is up to,
RISE ABOVE THIS CRAP!!! :(
Quote from: T Fearon on October 07, 2008, 04:07:35 PM
David, the fact that soccer was being shown but the GAA wasn't, kind of does away with your argument. Now if the hotel had refused to show both GAA and soccer then thats a different matter.
Not to be antagonistic Tony how does it do away with my argument? The claimaint would have to make out that he was being disciminated against on grounds of his nationalist ethos. In order to do this he would have to show that soccer is a unionist sport and that unionists were consequently being better treated than he was as a nationalist.
The respondent would have as far as i can see without reading anymore about it than is discussed here, two very obvious defences. Namely that niether sport is the sole preserve of either community. Or in the alternative that each of them are the preserve of the respective community and therefore niether should have been shown on the grounds of a neutral working environment. The latter argument would therefore negate the discrimination claim but would leave other avenues of claim open for which the claimaint in question in this incident would not have standing.
All that said your probably right they probably will win at tribunal as tribunals are strange creatures
Whether he wins or not, whether he is a twisted wee bugger or not is not really relevant.
What is relevant is why the Hilton who has more than 1 television I'm sure didn't direct him to somewhere where he could have seen the final.
It sounds like he got someobody who didn't want him to see the gaelic match.
To get back to the logistics - i've been in the Hilton lobby and bar. As far as i know there's only one public bar. Therefore, unless this punter was a resident - which he wasn't - the Hilton are not obliged to accommodate him outside of the public areas surely?
Lads come on, the day of All Ireland football final, with an Ulster team competing and your accepting that their was not malice or discrimination on the part of the Hilton in not only choosing to screen the soccer but to put on a 'food and beverage' promotion along side it. They might not be willing to say so but it sounds like they don't want Gaelic games about the place. I've encountered this even among middle class nationalists, they were brought up playing the games, they still have an interest but they are slightly embarrassed about them and send their children to play rugby or soccer. The GAA is for behind closed doors and certainly not the sort of stuff you'd show in a 5 Star hotel, mind you their ice like service and bland interior would lead me to question their real 5 star status.
This type of discrimination is hard to deal with, we get some of down south too, where pubs ban soccer and GAA jerseys but allow rugby jerseys, not acceptable in my book either.
Weither you agree or disagree with this fella, he has achieved a good result, highlighting the fact that the Hilton refused to show the AIF, will be remembered and I think it's probably safe to say that the Hilton (and alot of other places) will show the AIF if asked in future.