What are the valid reasons for refusing somebody entry into a public house/niteclub?

csirl said:
... If you refuse someone, and they go peacefull, but write a letter the next day, what do you say in reply...
Click to expand...
It never happened in my time nor were there ever any objections at the licence renewal hearings. We did have a few contrite re-engagements with people we'd refused checking if they were "barred for life". :)

It's the old tight-rope act; serve every dog and divil and eventually you won't have a business that's worth a toss and if you refuse people indiscriminately and without good reason, you'll suffer as well. We seemed to get it just about right a lot of the time.
 
ii read a story in the paper some time ago were a traveller was awarded 3500euro for being refused in a pub.....so its probably worth reporting it if you feel you have been refused unjustly.
 
Latrade said:
I thought it was up to the management as long as it didn't breach equality legislation.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was my understanding too.

This (with the mathepac model as a best practice framework :)) is the norm I would imagine.
 
If you were in a position of influence the fact that you even asked for another opinion would probably influence that person to agree with you rather than say your judgement is dodgy.

I believe the correct way would be to always give somebody the benefit of the doubt (assuming they didn't have a long history of being a trouble maker) until they do something to warrant refusal. Anything other than this is somebody on a power trip in my opinion.

But then again I'm probably a bit naive to think you can't judge a book by it's cover sometimes.
 
Niallers said:
I believe the correct way would be to always give somebody the benefit of the doubt (assuming they didn't have a long history of being a trouble maker) until they do something to warrant refusal. Anything other than this is somebody on a power trip in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's a business where the power must lie behind the counter. Barmen have a tough job as it is without the risk of some thug messing up their bar. If they feel that some one should not be served then he should not be served.
 
VOR said:
It's a business where the power must lie behind the counter. Barmen have a tough job as it is without the risk of some thug messing up their bar. If they feel that some one should not be served then he should not be served.
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone has any difficulties with the vast majority of bars who are fair. No customer wants to be in a bar with a bunch of thugs.

I think the problem is with the minority of, often high profile bars, whereby they seem to have an admission policy that defies logic. We've all come across situations whereby polite, well dressed, sober, law abiding people have been refused entry to bars for no reason. Bouncer I know once told me that some places refuse e.g. every 4th person, as they think that having a reputation of being difficult to get into is associated with exclusivity.
 
I was once refused entry (with 2 friends) from a reasonably well known pub on the grounds that myself and one other girl werent regulars, but that the third was. As it happened, it was the third girls first time in the place whereas myself and the other girl were semi regulars. We were all sober - I was actually driving and was parked in view of the bouncers.

After a minor debate they relented and rather patronisingly let us all in.

I wrote to the owner the next day and complained in strong terms about being treated like a child at the door and also about the mistaken 'regulars' excuse.

I received a very nice letter back, including a voucher for 50 pounds (prior euro days), thanking me for alerting him to the behaviour of his security staff, apologising for their behaviour and an invitation to write to him with any other issues I ever had with the place.

Nice result.
 
I agree with that point csirl. Some bars want to get a name so the bouncers refuse entry or slow down the queue so it looks like the place is a "happening" spot. I have joined queues and then realised that the bar is empty. I have also heard of bouncers refusing men but letting in women so the bar is 2:1 in favour of women.

I think that your average bar without bouncers is different though. My local has often refused people a second drink. It has refused people altogether. The locals then know that the bar is a safe environment and messing of any sort will not be tolerated.
 
Nice result indeed truthseeker but bouncers is another dimension entirely.

For a start, I simply won't go into a pub that has 'door security'.
 
I thought bouncers were there to protect the patrons not patronise the patrons
 
Ceist Beag said:
Not sure where they stand legally but pubs refuse for a lot more reasons that those you list Niallers. Some pubs refuse under 21 or even under 23 (even tho they are legally allowed to drink)
Click to expand...
Not any more - this was outlawed some years back as discriminatory.
 
On a night out with my brother (who is physically handicapped as a result of a RTA) and does appear drunk, even though he isn't. He was refused entry into a nightclub until I explained to the bouncers the situation - they couldn't have been nicer, brought him in to the club, no admission free and made sure he was looked after.
 
I have to disagree. We were walking to the car after one night out and we passed a well-known "happening" (at the time) club. It was about an hour before closing time and just as we were about to go past the doors a young man burst out with blood all over his face and ran like hell....swiftly followed by 3 bouncers who were all at least twice his size.

The young fella tripped a few feet down the road and all three bouncers decended on him, savagely beating him with their fists and feet. They then dragged him back inside the club doors and blocked the view.

Now what I don't understand here is this; if the young fella was trouble inside, surely all they want is him to be removed from the club? And once he made a run for it why didnt they leave him go? Why drag him back while beating him to a pulp?

Seeing how savage they were to him makes me think its a power thing. How anyone could do that and not have a guilty conscience is beyond me.
 
It's just another example of our government failing us.

Of course bouncers and security should be strongly regulated.. but not in this country. It is a complete joke what bouncers get away with.
 
dmos87 said:
surely all they want is him to be removed from the club? And once he made a run for it why didnt they leave him go? Why drag him back while beating him to a pulp?

Seeing how savage they were to him makes me think its a power thing. How anyone could do that and not have a guilty conscience is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Very simple. The average bouncer is a monkey, a retarded thug.

Most of them are simply using up other peoples air and food is wasted on them.
 
Yes, access to public places should be guaranteed for all citizens until it's proven they have ill intent, or until they wreck the place.


How would people feel if the guards stood at the end of Grafton St. and prevented access to certain people for no reason?... would this be tolerated by anyone? So the alternative is to allow unrestricted access to all public places (including public houses).. but that doesn't seem to be the case.

There should be exceptions.. but not 'sorry, regulars only'.. that's not a public place so. And defintely not every fourth person refused.. that's discrimination on the basis of meaningless labels applied arbitrarily to people, and not based on any facts about the person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top