Perhaps some people on the board can explain what official procedures - if any - there are to the banning of members of the public from a public house. Does anything have to be in writing or reported to anyone?
Can a person or persons simply be banned just because the landlord doesn't like them ? I.E without them having committed any of the normal types of offences - drunkenness, drugs, fighting, damage, swearing, threatening behaviour etc etc. that might result in such a ban?
CR
A licensee has complete discretion as to who is allowed on the premises or who is served alcohol. There is no need to give a reason.
However, if the licensee *does* give a reason, the reason has to be lawful. Some poor landlord was done for racial discrimination a few months ago after refusing to serve somebody because they 'didn't serve travellers'. It's illegal to discriminate against anybody in this way. However, if the licensee had simply refused service and not given a reason, that would have been perfectly legal.
Paul
Why does this make him a 'poor landlord' and not a nasty bigot?
E.
Yeah, right on man
Paul
It's a good question. Why is a traveller's identity as a traveller relevant to whether or not he should be served in a public house? If he (or she) is causing a problem or a nuisance then, like anyone else, of course he should be warned or banned but otherwise the landlord is acting like a bigot.
Gareth.
Yes. You are inviting people to come into your house and under the law you do not have to give a reason for not wanting someone in it.
Stuart Hudson
The group that he was barring can still be excluded though. If they come and wave the court judgement and he can use that as proof that they are not likely to behave toward him in a sociable manner if he wants, or simply say "I just don't like you, you're barred"
As you said earlier, he doesn't have to give a reason.
Reminds me of The Travellers Call in Bredbury, Stockport - when we visited that a few years ago there was a large sign on the front door stating "No Travellers" !!
-- JohnB
In message , JohnB writes
In York they have a policy of banned from one banned from all, I don't know how they communicate this to all pubs, but a friend was banned from one pub , but still goes in others( not for anything serious).
I'd have thought going in for a beer was pretty serious.
Andy R
Mmmm - so why is it called a "Public" House then ?
-- JohnB
Because it's open to the public, but the same as any such building, the people who own or manage it have discretion on who they allow to use it.
As others have said, the licensee doesn't have to give a reason for refusing to serve someone. That's always been the case as lonmg as I can remember. I learnt this years ago on the only occasion I was refused service - on that occasion I think the reason was there were a bunch of us (four or five) students who entered a pub that was as quiet as the grave, with the archtypal old blokes in the corner supping a half of mild each. Obviously we didn't fit in, and I think that was the reason for us being refused service. We queried the decision but the landlord asserted his right not to have to tell us, and threatened to call the police if we didn't leave immediately. The pub was a dump anyway and it wasn't a great loss - we only called in en route somewhere else.
It may wel be that the licensee's reasons are racist, sexist or whatever, but as long as he/she doesn't say so, they can refuse anyone.
SD
Would you serve stinking gipsies? I wouldn't.
The irony is that, i believe, common law used to say pubs were there to serve 'travellers'. I doubt that much overt refusal on racist grounds goes on now, as it's pretty obvious from the St George flags where it's unwise to venture, and even in such places not giving a reason in the absence of anything else is pretty obvious.
E.
You are confusing the old legislation that allowed a "bone fide traveller" [1] staying at the inn to be served outside normal hours as part of the refreshment of the "bone fide traveller"
Since the normal hours are virtually any the licensee declares these days then that sort of falls by the wayside.
[1] This meant someone journeying between towns and staying overnight in the inn as opposed to the modern usage which covers an extended group often referred to as gypsies.[2] [2] Erroneous labelling.Steven Pampling wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@dsl.pipex.com:
No, I was referring to the irony of pubs barring 'travellers'...
E.
No, someone staying at the inn was a resident. A bona fide traveller was someone with a home address a set distance away from the inn. Resulted in hardened drinkers swapping villages.
Was that English law as well? I remember it applying on Sundays in Scotland.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:53:41 +0000, Ian Dalziel <
It's called the Innkeepers' Act and is,I understand,still in force. I also understand that the legal meaning of "inn" isn't the same as the everyday one .
No. I wouldn't serve Pakis either!
fred18/12/06 0:06
Or nasty racist f*****ts ?
CR
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required