disabled lad barred from pub

isplumm

Hi,

Isn't the issue here the lads age ....

The age at which people are legally allowed to purchase alcoholic beverages is eighteen, though children as young as sixteen years old can have beer, wine and cider; consumed with a table meal in restaurants and pubs under supervision and as long as the drink is purchased by a adult.

So unless they were having a meal, then he was too young - the landlord could lose his license??

Mark

d-seven

The most logical thing is for the family to contact the pub again and try and get a response from the landlord.
As people have stated, it's the landlord's right to accept or reject who goes into the pub.
If he isn't willing to give a good reason, theres 2 options:
1. They can find somewhere else to drink
2. Make a big deal of it by going to the local press.

Good luck

geordieracer

ses6jwg wrote: »

The BNP say they aren't racist doesn't mean they aren't

And exactly what bearing does that have on this?

JUST TO REPEAT BECAUSE YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY HARD OF READING

novelli wrote: »

He would give no reason just told them to leave, as they are so innocent they did so without question. When they had asked for a reason they were told is the managers descretion and it wouldnt matter if they were white, black, asion or disabled, they were barred.

I used to run a pub myself some years ago and had to bar people who brought their kids in because i caught them drinking alcohol and maybe, just maybe this was the case here.. you dont know as much as i dont but it is quite clear it was not because he was disabled now get back in your box and pipe down until you say something constructive on ehre for once

biscit

geordieracer wrote: »

And exactly what bearing does that have on this?

It was a fairly obvious, and reasonable, similie. The landlord could claim not to be prejudiced, but this is not necessarily the truth.

I used to run a pub myself some years ago and had to bar people who brought their kids in because i caught them drinking alcohol and maybe, just maybe this was the case here..

There is no need to get agressive just because people see the world through different eyes to you. We all have different perspectives.

I assumed the lad was on soft drinks, because I thought that if he had been drinking they would have been more contrite and kept it quieter. Having said that we keep getting people on here defiantly calling companies X Y and Z "crooks" when they have made an obvious silly error, so the good manners of contrition aren't common.

I think if the disabled lad was drinking, that should have been the reason and a clear and unambiguous one. Maybe it was the reason but the family are leaving that bit out of the story.

Junkyard_Willie wrote: »

plus the landlord can let in whoever he wants or bar anyone he doesnt want in.. !!!! all you can do about it..

You can "vent" to 3rd and 4th parties.

hartcjhart

Op must be well p1ssed by now,went to the pub the other day and STILL not back:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::beer::beer:

OR has he found out the REAL situation

liam8282

biscit wrote: »

It was a fairly obvious, and reasonable, similie. The landlord could claim not to be prejudiced, but this is not necessarily the truth.

& are you not showing a fair amount of prejudice toward the landlord yourself?

biscit wrote: »

There is no need to get agressive just because people see the world through different eyes to you. We all have different perspectives.

I agree. But would it not be better for everybody to not jump to conclusions or make presumptions, when not knowing the full story either way?

biscit wrote: »

I assumed the lad was on soft drinks, because I thought that if he had been drinking they would have been more contrite and kept it quieter. Having said that we keep getting people on here defiantly calling companies X Y and Z "crooks" when they have made an obvious silly error, so the good manners of contrition aren't common.

I think if the disabled lad was drinking, that should have been the reason and a clear and unambiguous one. Maybe it was the reason but the family are leaving that bit out of the story.

As I said before most of this thread is just based on what people have assumed.

For all any of us know, the "disabled lad" could be a drug dealer who was dealing drugs in the pub, the mother a chain smoker who refused to stop smoking in the pub and the partner a thief who was stealing womens purses in the pub. But that would be assuming a lot. :rolleyes:

Then again, it could just be something that could easily be sorted out between the landlord and the family.