Okay, so someone fucked up and the resulting email caused a degree of upset – but that was all it was.
A wedding planner at a luxury hotel has been disciplined for describing a couple as not the “type of people that we would want” to get married there.
Pauline Bailey and fiance Paul Carty had wanted to hold their wedding at Stoke Park, Buckinghamshire.
But Miss Bailey said she had felt “crushed” after an email from wedding planner Michele Connelly was sent to her by mistake.
Apparently, Ms Connelley copied the bride into the email, which was pretty stupid and leaves me feeling zero sympathy for her plight. That the hotel then took disciplinary action was entirely predictable. Insulting the clients isn’t exactly in the job description, I’d suggest; not to mention the resulting bad publicity, because there is always bad publicity.
I think if it was me, I’d tell the hotel where they could get off and just take my business elsewhere. What I wouldn’t do is go to law:
Bristol-based law firm Cook & Co said it had been pursuing a discrimination claim on behalf of the couple which was now on hold.
A discrimination claim? They weren’t discriminated against. One silly employee stepped out of line. The hotel, once aware of the matter, took the appropriate action. There was no discrimination and there was certainly nothing that should be a matter for lawyers, the courts or, for that matter, the media.
Head of litigation Christopher Scroggs said: “The couple were extremely distressed from the email they received and Stoke Park did not acknowledge that they had discriminated against the couple, even though they had sent the email to them in error.”
“The response they received from the hotel was extremely unsatisfactory which is why the couple were left with no alternative but to approach the press.”
Oh, of course they hadn’t. One wonders what it was that would have satisfied them; blood, perhaps? Any sympathy I might have had for their plight (and it wasn’t much to start with) has now completely evaporated. A small private matter that should have stayed that way is now blasted across the media for all to see as this couple cry; “look at me! Look at me! See how offended I am!”
But then, some people are born attention seekers and having been offended, just have to let the world know about it – presumably so that everyone else can be offended on their behalf, which sort of leaves me wondering whether Connelly wasn’t right in the first place. The storm in a teacup becomes a tsunami in the saucer…
The plot thickens: while the BBC article has them speculating that the reason may have been Mr Carty’s piercings, the Mail (sorry!) offers another possibility:
‘Bride turned away from five-star hotel is revealed as an adult TV glamour model’
Puts rather a different complexion on her desire for maximum publicity…
So, I Googled this and initially saw some pictures of a reasonably attractive blonde and a slapheaded old geezer with metal in his ears.
My initial reaction was of course a round of applause. However there’s often more than meets the eye …
Turns out that ‘oh so offended’ Miss Bailey is a ‘glamour model’ on some late night pay channel, something that she ‘can’t give up because it pays so well’, and work that hubby-to-be knows about and is happy with. I bet he fucking is.
Have a look at the Wail photos. Still not quite sure what she’s attracted to … although her ‘glamourous’ alter-ego is also a lot less appealing to me frankly as she just looks like any other peroxide blonde tart with fake tits. Therefore I presume he’s her pimp?
I think the hotel should probably issue a public apology to Ms Connelly frankly cos she’s clearly has a nose for ‘the wrong type’.
She’s apparently some sort of adult video model, but far be it from me to say she clearly has form for screwing people out of their hard earned… 😉
Ouch!
She probably won’t be making quite such a fuss now the Mail has “outed” her as an Adult TV glamour model:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221753/Pauline-Bailey-Bride-branded-wrong-type-Stoke-Park-Hotel-adult-TV-glamour-model.html
“Not our kind of people…” Their gaff, their rules. Nuff said.
Although in this case it was one employee making it up as she went along.
Upon reflection, I think that the Wedding Planner making it up as she went along showed herself to be an excellent judge of character.
But less than competent when it comes to emails…
Can’t have everything…… 😈
Gee, didn’t we have something rather like this the other week?
Oh no, silly me, that was a couple of homosexuals deliberately trolling for trouble, they are obviously perfect and beyond criticism.
Except in this case, the hotel wasn’t barring anyone, it was one employee who was exceeding her remit. As a consequence, she has left the hotel somewhat exposed and embarrassed.
if, on the other hand, the hotel had decided that this couple was not suitable for their venue, then “their gaff, their rules” would indeed apply.
““their gaff, their rules” would indeed apply.”
But would it? If it were a homosexual couple, presumably they would have a cast iron case for for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, even if the actual grounds for discrimination were that one of the same sex couple was a gay porn actor and the other looked like a chav. Their mere sexual orientation would be enough to claim discrimination. I doubt any business could ever win a case where they had discriminated against a gay couple, but claimed as a defence that they were using other (non actionable) grounds to discriminate.
Ergo this couple have suffered sexual discrimination because they are straight. The only reason a business can even consider turning them away is because they are straight.
They are perfectly entitled to launch a civil case, even if it has little merit. And yes, they are entitled to go to press about it and have certainly done the public a service in alerting the public to this carppy hotel.
No one is suggesting that they cannot. However, we may make judgements about their actions and comment accordingly. As for the hotel being crappy, it was one employee who stepped out of line, not hotel policy.
There can surely be no case to answer, as the couple don’t fit into one of the victimhood categories.