Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
BOOKING.COM HAS apologised after multiple people turned up at a person’s home in Co Westmeath over the past three weeks because it was listed as a hotel on the accommodation website.
A number of couples arrived at the property in Kinnegad thinking it was a hotel after they had booked to stay there via the popular website, only to be told it was someone’s home.
The property in question is the family home of Rebecca Breene McDonnell, who told TheJournal that 11 people had turned at the house since the beginning of October, where her father still lives
These included two families of four and a couple celebrating their anniversary.
“Yeah, one of them was there for an anniversary. And, [they asked] ‘Oh can we just stay?’ And my Dad said, ‘No, I’m sorry’” she said.
“The hotel itself doesn’t actually exist. The rooms in the images aren’t… they’re not the rooms of my dad’s house. So they’re just from some random place.”
A Google reverse image search of the some of the pictures in question turned up some results from a hotel in Perth, Australia, that is also listed on Booking.com.
Breene McDonnell said her father contacted Booking.com on 6 October to attempt to have the listing removed from the site, but it remained there until yesterday.
“They said they would go and try get it taken down, and then nothing happened for three weeks. More people kept calling so then we rang again yesterday and this morning,” she said.
The listing was still on Booking.com when TheJournal contacted the company for comment yesterday morning. It was removed soon after.
Listed as “Kinnegad Corner Hotel”, the description claimed it was a two-star hotel offering room service, a 24-hour front desk and free WiFi. There were four different types of rooms available for booking. These ranged from a Double Room with Private Bathroom for €101 a night, to a Quadruple Room for €141 a night.
According to the listing, no prepayment was needed on the rooms, with guests informed they could pay at the property. But cash was not accepted.
Breene McDonnell said that while nothing serious had happened, she and her family were frustrated at the length of time it took for Booking.com to remove the listing.
“[My Dad] is just more concerned that if someone came up that’s really angry, you never know what could happen, you know?” She said.
“And he doesn’t understand how this happened… if security checks and all this stuff need to be done before the property can go up on Booking.com.
It’s bizarre how it’s even allowed to be published.
According to Booking.com, to list a property a person first needs to register a partner account, then fill in the address and details of the listing, which is subsequently reviewed by Booking.com before the entry goes live on the website.
In a statement, the company apologised to the homeowner and said it takes safety and security “very seriously”.
“At Booking.com, we take safety and security very seriously and have a number of checks in place before a property is ever allowed to begin welcoming guests,” the company wrote.
“We also have a team dedicated to detecting and blocking suspicious activity around the clock, with this property swiftly removed from our platform.
“All affected customers will be contacted by a member of our customer service team to offer any support required in relation to refunds, relocations or additional fees and we of course also extend our sincere apologies to the homeowner.”
Have you been affected by having your home incorrectly listed? Or have you booked to stay in someone’s home by mistake? Contact cormacfitzgerald@thejournal.ie to tell your story.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Monsters in the making….
Is could have been another James bulger case
Lucky escape from these demons !
Name and shame them .. Never mind this protecting them malarkey .. If they want to do an adult crime then they should do adult time
They aren’t adults though. Do you not see how that works?
A cautionary tale of the demonic temptations that lurk on the internet. Evil ideas and suggestions can easily attack the minds of young and old people.
Porn is not to blame for bad behaviour. The science shows porn is NOT harmful. If you’re of the feminist persuasion and believe it’s derogatory etc. then fair enough but the facts are… Michael Castleman M.A. Michael Castleman M.A. All About Sex Does Pornography Cause Social Harm? Porn causes no measurable social harm. Posted Apr 27, 2009 Many people feel offended by pornography. Those who find it odious have every right to their opinion. But some porn-haters declare that X-rated material does more than just disgust them. They contend that it contributes to significant social harm. In The Porn Trap (2008), psychotherapists Wendy and Larry Maltz assert that it’s a significant factor in sexual irresponsibility and divorce. Advertisement The late feminist activist, Andrea Dworkin, argued that by depicting women as men’s willing sexual playthings, porn contributes to rape. Her disciple, Robert Jensen, writes: “pornography alone doesn’t make men rape…[but] it may activate coercive tendencies.” And porn critic Diana Russell argues that porn undermines men’s inhibitions against rape and spurs some to commit it. Strong accusations. But are they true? The advent of Internet porn provides surprising answers. The Internet became a major force in everyday life in the late 1990s. Before then, porn was available in adult stores, through X-rated video rentals, and on some newsstands. But with the arrival of the Internet, porn availability exploded. It was just a click away 24-7 for free in tens of millions of homes and offices. In 1997, 16 percent of American adults used the Internet regularly. By 2005, the figure had quadrupled to 65 percent. The Internet has also made porn much more available to impressionable kids. How many kids, ages 10 to 17, have viewed Internet porn? According to a recent report in the journal Pediatrics, 42 percent. Advertisement If porn is a significant contributor to social harm, we would expect to see substantial increases in sexual irresponsibility, divorce, and rape since the late 1990s when the Internet suddenly made X-rated material much more available to those who might instigate sexual mayhem, overwhelmingly men. Guess what. Since the arrival of Internet porn: * Sexual irresponsibility has declined. Standard measures include rates of abortion and sexually transmitted infections. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), since 1990, the nation’s abortion rate has fallen 41 percent. The syphilis rate has plummeted 74 percent. And the gonorrhea rate has plunged 57 percent. * Teen sex has declined. The CDC says that since 1991, the proportion of teens who have had intercourse has decreased 7 percent. Teen condom use has increased 16 percent. And the teen birth rate has fallen 33 percent. * Divorce has declined. Since 1990, the divorce rate has decreased 23 percent. * Rape has declined. According to the Justice Department’s National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1995, the sexual assault rate has fallen 44 percent. Taken from Psychology Today 2009
Genuinely did not mean to post that whole thing. Point still stands.
@ TG My short post doesn’t specify porn, but mentions ‘evil ideas and suggestions’ on the internet as luring young and old people into temptation. A schoolgirl in rural Ireland a couple of years ago was hurtfully ‘trolled’ on a chat site and took her own life.
Porn is an interesting topic, suited to a different thread perhaps.
Conor, that is just excusing what they did. That child had a very narrow escape. Would you be so quick to pass it off as youthful confusion if the child had not been rescued safely? Would torture, rape or possibly murder also be explained away? Their plan was evil and depraved and some day these teens will be adults. Where is the magic light bulb that will suddenly turn on revealing to them the horror of what they were planning to do?
Those girls were 13 and 14 and knew better , James Bulgers murderes were only 10 and able to plot and plan what they did . That child was blessed and those girls should be locked up for ever
Gareth, maybe read up about Mary Bell – well before ‘evil internet’
In fairness Mary Bell was subjected to some pretty harmful things growing up.
They should never be allowed have kids or be around kids its sick – no matter what age you are to want to hurt a child – evil monsters !!!
Control your mind (brain) or it will control you!!! There is a perfect example!!
Jesus, it’s Jamie Bulger all over again. That child could have met a frightening end..
I did realise kidnapping was frowned upon by 13 Vincent, hence I’m not the topic of a journal article. These kids will be punished and re educated, clearly necessary. But they’re not demons. Or monsters. Or even evil. That sort of rhetoric leads to dehumanisation, something we’re all accusing them of. You need a clear head to deal with the situation, not a pitch fork. It’s an emotive subject and clearly I won’t be winning this one. Online commentary is fun but perhaps not the arena for debating key aspects of psychology and rehabilitation! After all these kids ARE going to get out.
I wonder if these girls parents are being investigated in some way? That these girls were going to abuse a child they way they had been?
They’re 13 yrs old. Not evil. Just totally confused, misled kids. You’d never suspect two young girls though. Anyone’s capable of going completely wrong I suppose.
We’re the two boys involved in the Jamie Bulger case just confused? No, I don’t think so. This is no different just because they were girls. The things they were researching before hand does not suggest they just wanted to mind her and play with her. They wanted to hurt her. That’s some form of evil.
Did you not no by 13 or 14 it was wrong to go out and try kidnap toddlers?
See that’s just the thing isn’t it, nobody would suspect two young girls. But psychosis knows no gender. Nobody would have suspected two young boys either before the Jamie Bulger case.
Conor
So what age is it exactly that evil kicks in at
At Jeanniejampots, yes the two ten year olds that killed little Jamie Bolger were deeply confused. That’s exactly what they were. What else is there?! Exorcism?! They are 10 year old children, completely incapable of making rational decisions on life and death. That part of the brain doesn’t even begin to develop until late teens, getting more robust in your 20′s. Hence you recruit young kids to fight wars (or believe in religion) not older more rational people. It’s why rational societies have different and far tougher penalties for adults.
One of the Jamie Bulger killers was arrested for having child pornography recently. Some people are broken from the start and it isnt all nurture issues. I wouldnt call it evil but plain dangerous.
Confused? In 2010 Venables clearly still very confused about right and wrong, was sent back to prison charged with downloading child pornography depicting children as young as two years og age being raped by adults. Well he certainly is a reformed character.
have your say