Moderators: Darran@Retro Gamer, SirClive, CraigGrannell, FatTrucker
r0jaws wrote:I read that article on the BBC website, not just the headline, and noted with interest that the policy is now being reconsidered. That is for the business to decide. If their policy leads to them going out of business, that is there own decision. They could always change their policy.
However, the policy of not serving uniformed personnel is an interesting one. The Armed forces have a policy about drinking in uniform in public, but that extends to alcohol. Soft drinks and water may be consumed when on duty.
Any shop, bar or business that decides to enact a blanket ban on serving a person based on what they are wearing should be reported. If those chaps were wearing a dishdasha and the bar refused to serve them a cup of tea, I'm sure the headlines may have been as prominent. Although, in today's climate, perhaps as acceptable to a certain breed of mind?
The fact that these guys were on pall bearer duties is one thing, but the issue to me is the fact that the bar owner held in refusing to serve the guys in the first place.
It's an almost victorian attitude to our personnel. Must keep the tommies from our premises incase they decide to cause any trouble or bring down the tone of the establishment.
I've encountered that attitude many times before, and still do today. I and my family were once asked to leave a pub, which we had booked for a meal, when they spotted my ID card in my wallet. I was with my wife, children and parents. Naturally we left, and ensured that all our friends and family were made aware of their policy and behaviour. I'm sure it has no bearing on the incident or our reaction, but that pub is under new management.
Simply put, if the staff had used some discretion or even actively thought about the consequences of their actions, then there would have been no incident. The business owner would not have lost custom, and a grieving family would not have been further upset. But who uses discretion these days when there is an overwhelming eagerness to enforce petty policy on someone. Nothing beats that smug feeling of satisfaction when you adhere to the rules thoroughly.
DPrinny wrote:Still dont know why a pub would turn people away that was going there to drink.
DPrinny wrote:Still if they let no job chavvys in and not people that have actually done something useful with there life's its probably not a good pub to go in.

stvd wrote:And most pubs around here don't allow football colours.
The fact is both these places, despite the stories hitting the headlines, are still thriving businesses.
And, as far as I know, still have these restrictions in place.
Just because it was a group of soldiers and they were going to a funeral it's the crime of the century and the place should be shut down.
Lots of places don't admit squaddies (as that is how they were known before they became "heroes") as they have a reputation for causing trouble.
oli_lar wrote:.....What if 20 people wearing 'gang colours' turn up a night club? Let them in? And then another 20 wearing another gang's colours? Let them in as well? Look at what happened to Niche in Sheffield. Sorry, but its a bit daft to say a person's appearance means nothing about them. It certainly isn't the be all and end all, but people dress as they do for reasons, to express something.
I don't think it was anyone lording their reponsibility over anyone - more that the door staff probably get tens of people a day asking them to bend the rules for trainers etc. As someone who has worked in bars and pubs getting a fair few people asking you to bend the rules, then explain the rules, then ask again, then say 'but why?', then getting angry because they don't want to actually listen to you, just get in - it gets very old very quickly. In the end you just say 'its policy' because its 100 times easier than to argue about it for 10 mins.
Essentially, what I'm saying is there are two sides to the story - the facebook warriors completely ignore half of it. ....
...but people dress as they do for reasons, to express something.
rocky1980 wrote:People who cycle to and from work and think they are so f**king superior than the rest off us
sscott wrote:I fuck1n love the fuck1n Internet and all its fuckin fu(kball opinions. I fuck1n like this fuk(her, I don't fuccckin like this fuckeeer. It's not out yet, that isn't gonna gonna stop me! No sir! and so onnnnnnnnnn........
DPrinny wrote:Drivers that "Dont see" bikers.
Seriously guys. Someone coming off there bike is not pretty
DPrinny wrote:Drivers that "Dont see" bikers.
Seriously guys. Someone coming off there bike is not pretty
greenberet79 wrote:I've noticed that car driving seems to be getting worse - people are driving faster, accelerating more, overtaking more, tailgating more, making selfish decisions. All to save themselves a couple of seconds here and there. The other day a car overtook me AND a bus that was in front of me - there's no way he could have known what was on the other side.
sscott wrote:I fuck1n love the fuck1n Internet and all its fuckin fu(kball opinions. I fuck1n like this fuk(her, I don't fuccckin like this fuckeeer. It's not out yet, that isn't gonna gonna stop me! No sir! and so onnnnnnnnnn........
The Angry Jock wrote:greenberet79 wrote:I've noticed that car driving seems to be getting worse - people are driving faster, accelerating more, overtaking more, tailgating more, making selfish decisions. All to save themselves a couple of seconds here and there. The other day a car overtook me AND a bus that was in front of me - there's no way he could have known what was on the other side.
I hate dithering, hesitant drivers that hold up traffic because of fear or indecision...that's what causes accidents.
Users browsing this forum: Black Ridge, Google [Bot], SexyWayne and 10 guests