Are bouncers allowed to do this?

C

cullenswood

Guest
A couple of weeks ago myself and my mates decided after a couple of pints to go to a well-known South side late nite bar place. There was a small queue outside, so we decided to join it. While we were waiting three groups of people, (three in one group, a couple in the next and a pair of girls in the final one) were refused entry, and when they asked the bouncer why his reply was "I'm sorry, it is not this clubs policy to give the reason for refusal at the door"

I didn't think this was allowed and that they had to give a reason. We got in, but it would really have annoyed me to get an answer like that.
 
Why shouldn't they be allowed to prevent people from entering their premises ?

If they give a reason they might find it used against them in a court case later.

If they don't give a reason then it can't be used against them.

z
 
They are covering their asses by not giving a reason. If they give a reason, they will find themselves in front of a District Court regarding discrimination for agism, sexism, racism etc. So they just don't tell - and I don't believe they have any obligation to do so.

The whole idea of queueing to get into a bar seems fairly alien to me, but mebbe I'm just getting old.
 
bouncing

A friend of a friend was bouncing and this black guy and white girl came up to get in.
He refused them because she was drunk out of her mind.
The guy was sober and well dressed and would have got in on his own.
I think he did tell them that she was not in a fit state when pressed for a reason.
Then both of them stood out in the street shouting racists at the bouncers.

So its a no win situation.
 
....

ha, now here's one that really interests me. A public house is just that - it is granted a license by the representatives of the public to provide a service to that public. When providing a service to the public, one must adhere to the rules and regulations set down by the government. In return, the publican is allowed to make obscene amounts of money. If there is any privilege in this, it is the publican who is privileged to serve the public, not the member of the public who is privileged to be granted access to a public house (which the publican has willingly agreed to make available to the public).

Now here's what I want clarification on - a lawyer I knew a while back told me that a publican, or the bouncers working for him, can only refuse someone access based for a limited number of reasons, and MUST divulge the reason for denying access.....the reason for this is that the onus is on the publican to explain why access has been denied so as to allow the member of the public to challenge this, in the courts if needs be.

Can someone with a legal background please clarify whether its correct that you can only be denied access if: you fail to produce official proof that you are of legal age; you are excessively drunk; the publican can proove that you are violent or threatening violence. (As an aside can someone please verify whether a publican can now, since McDowell's latest Bill, tell an 18 yr old they are too young?).

I think the above is fairly close to the mark, but we'll see. I am pretty sure that the ludicrous 'regulars only' is completely illegal. Its this one that really bugs me as it reflects the publican's belief that they are entitled to decide what members of the public (e.g. affluent clientele only) can access their PUBLIC house. As long as they are sober, not violent, and of legal age, I firmly believe that someone who the bouncer judges to appear 'working class' should be granted access just as easily as those that look more wealthy. If either party acts up when on the premises, well then by all means turf them out, but apply the same rules to all I say.

BTW I am aware that they situation with nightclubs and private clubs is different as they are not publilc houses they have the right to restrict access (though this cannot be done on the grounds of race, religion etc.).
 
I don't see anything wrong with allowing a publican to 'manage' their business by restricting entry to certain people/groups and/or encouraging entry to others. While I wouldn't like to see such restrictions being based on class/accent/income, I can understand why a publican may want to discourage young drinkers (or maybe even older drinkers).
 
in the US

If a person is visibly drunk, it should be no entry
 
...

rainyday can you explain how you reckon a publican could make a decision on who to let in and who to reject which is not based on class/accent/income/race/religion etc.? A bouncer deciding who to let in based on any of the above is basing his decision solely on appearance and so I find it hard to believe that they can do this without pre-judging people on their appearance.

With regards to age I have been told that McDowell has said that publicans may choose to refuse people between the ages of 18-21, though I'd like someone to confirm this. Personally I'm against this as it discriminates against 18-21 yr olds and they should have as much rights as anyone else, but even with this scenario the Equality Status Act would prevent a publican discriminating between a 21 yr old and a 30 yr old.

cerberus, I fully agree and think my previous post indicates as such, that if a person is visibly drunk (again onus on the publican to demonstrate this) then they should be refused entry. What I don't agree with is the situation where the 19 yr old from Killinarden walks up to Ron Blacks wearing the requisite trousers, shirt and shoes (though his might not be adorned with the 'right' labels) only for the bouncer to claim, incorrectly, that he is drunk as an excuse to refuse entry. Basically what I am strongly against is a sort of pub-apartheid where publicans think they can say "I don't want that sort in my pub". This is fundamentally elitist and is wrong - each person should be judged on their actions and not preconceptions based on their appearance.
 
talkin to bouncers

They seem to judge the character - potential trouble or not and if in doubt keep it out.
We all make the same judgements in the first 30 secs of meeting a person.
The good bouncers, I am told are good at this snap decision making as its easier to keep trouble out that deal with it later.
Obviously some babies are dumped with the bathwater and some people are refused wrongly.

not a bouncer myself so its only hearsay
 
Re: talkin to bouncers

rainyday can you explain how you reckon a publican could make a decision on who to let in and who to reject which is not based on class/accent/income/race/religion etc.?
Click to expand...
Age? Sobriety? Accompanying parties?
 
excellent answer rainy

why do people look for race reason or accent reasons, etc.
and especially racist reasons.

This is how people who have genuine racism problems are ignored
 
Re: excellent answer rainy

I agree with rainyday and others who believe that publicans should indeed be allowed choose who to turn away from their premises. Unfortunately, this power is very often abused by bouncers...many of whom it seems get a kick out of not allowing people in. On a recent escapade into town a friend of mine turned up at the door of a nightclub where some friends had already gone inside. Unfortunately, one of them had taken his jacket (complete with wallet and mobile phone) into the club. The bouncer would not let him in even though he was well dressed and sober. He explained and pleaded with the bouncer that he didn't even mind about not getting in, he just needed his jacket because he had no money and no phone. Still the bouncer ignored him. He even asked if he could speak with the manager or be escorted in to retrieve his jacket. He stood outside the club for 40 minutes until someone inside he knew passed by the door and he spotted them.
That's just one story I could tell you about Dublin bouncers. There's definately good ones and bad ones out there, but unfortunately the bad ones are absolutely terrible and just shouldn't be allowed do that job.
 
Re: excellent answer rainy

There should be some kind of mandatory training for bouncers. Or some kind of pass given by the Gardai similar to the safe pass to allow builders on sites. This could eliminate the criminal element from the doors and hopefully eliminate the lads with the power buzz's too.
 
Re: excellent answer rainy

Er, why would you want to drink in these types of places. If someone refuses me I just don't go there again. Its my money not theirs. Avoid places with monkey suits hovering on doors. Have a look at the Barge now. Very discreet bouncers all of a sudden, no standing on doorway. Message getting through. One up for the Arthur Scargillers.
 
...

rainyday - you reiterated that bouncers should be allowed discriminate based on "Age? Sobriety? Accompanying parties?". As above, I doubt there's too many people out there who would argue that drunk people should not be refused entry.

With regards to age, what is your take on my previous post with regards people over 21 - do you endorse discrimination based on age for those above 21 (which clearly is illegal based on the Equality Status Act)?

Consider the following scenarios: A)A group of 3 21 yr olds from Ballymun with thick Dublin accents, wearing let's say black trousers, check shirt, Kickers shoes and moustaches arrive to a pub on Dawson Street stone cold sober, showing no signs of violent/agressive behaviour (or indeed no other visible signs of being trouble makers as per cerberus' post), produce their passports as proof of age only to be refused entry with the bouncer giving no excuse or the usual 'you've had too much drink' or 'regulars only' excuses. These people have been unjustly (based on their rights as sober, law-abiding citizens) denied access to a public house.

Scenario B): 3 21 yr olds from Foxrock with strong, affluent sounding D4 accents show up at the same door wearing deck shoes, prada trousers and a designer shirt with calvin klein jumpers tied around their shoulders, and also showing no signs of violence/agression. The bouncer immediately let's this group in (maybe even without even hassling them for ID) 5 minutes after refusing the Ballymun group....why? Because this group represent what management have indicated are the 'desired' clientele.

A public license does not grant the publican this discretion, its as simple as that. The publican is there to serve the public. This is pure snobbery and elitism and to me is quite disgusting as it is an attempt to segregate people based on their perceived status. I'm totally for kicking people out if they mis-behave but it is not acceptable to pre-judge this where no indication of bad intent (other then "we had some dodgy lads from Ballymun in here last week causing trouble") is evident.

cerberus makes the point that "We all make the same judgements in the first 30 secs of meeting a person.". While this may be true it does not make it acceptable for it to be done in an official capacity. If it were then we would be left with a situation where security guards in a shop could say "I'm refusing access to all people I judge to be members of the travelling community as I have had several incidents of traveller's shoplifting". Obviously that is unacceptable.
 
I see your point

but it comes down to economics. People who run pubs run businesses and are in the game to make money. Their door policy will reflect this. Rightly or wrongly people will not go to a pub if they perceive that it is full of "knackers" and on the other hand "knackers" will go there on the basis that all their friends go there.

Not saying either group causes trouble more than an other but if you walk into a pub/bar/restaurant you will make an immediate judgment call as to whether to stay or go.

In the above example what extreme social grouping would you be more comfortable in being around?
 
oh pinchy

goes down the road of a group - travellers

can a security gurad not refuse one traveller and let in another who he decides will be no trouble

In this case, people will run around shouting discrimination but it may not actually be.
The security himself could be of the Trav comm himself but the shout of racist discrimination will go still go up.

This what stops real progress in integration which is the ability of everyone to be treated equally.

And its used by the same groups that allege discrimination such a coloured peole being stopped by Garda and then alleging discrimination - UNJUSTLY

If I'm stopped, I just have to sit there and take it (the fine or the bolliking) and get on with it.

Shouting racism and discrimination all the time hurts the GENUINE claims and the process of integration
 
...

come2ireland - the travellers example was just an example of unjust prejudice and is off topic (though, for the record I feel you have over-simplified the issue), though the issue of treating people as a group rather than individuals is relevant: I think its probably harsh reality that if a bouncer has an issue with one member of your group then they may take issue with the group as a whole. However, I often find that where one of a group is refused access, the rest of the group can still go in without them. The main issue here, though, is how the bouncer makes the decision to refuse that person entry in the first place - it should not be discriminatory. If it helps to simplify the point, then maybe take the example scenarios I gave above and change them to 1 person, rather than a group of 3. Are you another that agrees with those above that its ok for a publican to hand-pick the people they let into their pub based on how they are dressed, what they look like and what accent they have?

Csider - you mention that rightly or wrongly the above will happen. I agree that it is happening, though it is wrong, unfair and (until someone informs me that the lawyer that told me about this was wrong) illegal, and so should not be allowed to happen.

In relation to your question "In the above example what extreme social grouping would you be more comfortable in being around?" I would be just as comfortable around either group. In my experience, those from wealthy backgrounds are just as likely to get into/cause trouble as those from working class backgrounds. I choose the places I go based on the style of the place, level of service, quality of the Guinness (actually this is the highest priority!).

That said, I rarely feel strongly on where we drink (though I try to stay away from places that charge way too much) and so I generally let the people I drink with decide: my friends are likeminded and are at ease with people from all social classes, though I find people from work (which is a fairly high paying high-powered kinda thing) base their decisions very strongly on what kind of person will be there. A 'kip' in their mind is generally a place frequented by working class people, and the actual physical style of the place doesn't seem to come into it. If this sort of discrimination was made on the basis of skin colour there would be an outrage, but as it is based on an inherent and unspoken sense of class superiority, it doesn't seem to be an issue with most people.
 
Re: ...

I have to agree that a public house is a PUBLIC house. Otherwise why regulate the market? The market should be opened up so we have lots of little pubs like they do in spain, each catering for all kinds of music and all kinds of people, and all welcoming you in because they value your business no matter what colour or creed.
 
Re: re:

Most pubs etc have a sign up along the lines of "the management reserves the right to refuse admission"
I think this is only right and they shouldn't have to let anyone they don't want into their business premises.
I am an accountant in practice, I have to make judgement calls regularly as to whether or not I want to do business with people- the things I take into account are- will i get paid, will they be a load of hassel, are they trustworthy etc etc. It is my business and i admit i don't get it always right but most of the time i do.
Publican's have to make judgement calls also and remember they have to "keep an orderly house" under the licencing acts. If they cant refuse people how can they do so.

There was a spate of cases for discrimination back some time ago that became a money earning routeen.
A client of mine fefused to serve a man and woman (who were together)on a sunday night, the man was of a minority group while the woman wan't. He refused because she was flutered drunk. On the Wed. he recieved a notice about a discrimination case against him, on thursday the fella called in and asked did he get post , the publican said yes. the fella said that will cost you about €8k why not settle it now for €5k cash and we will drop the case.Luckly there was a witness and the publican refused and reported it to the cops. the case never made court.In fact tehre was 5 members of the same minority group in the pub that night without any hassel.
If the law was such that the publican and like other business can refuse admission to everyone he does't want the country would be a better place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top