Griz - I'm pretty certain a bar owner/manager can refuse entry/to serve someone without giving a reason, in much the same way as shops do not have to sell you items.

That is very true. But if you do it on the basis of race/religion/sexual orientation/age, does it not then become a different issue?

Seem to remember not that long ago that a certain retired General was banned from a mess bar following a mates funeral because he, the General, had written a book !

Griz - but it wasn't any of those, it was because they were wearing uniform, so it's not covered by age/sex/race discrimination legislation.

People have been refused employment because of their height/lack of it, for example, which is quite legal.

AA

My point is that you can't discriminate on the aforementioned grounds so why is it acceptable to do so because of someone's job?

Acceptable and legal are two different viewpoints - the bar owner has offended some people, but he's not broken the law.

Because Griz, taking the bar manager at his word, the decision was not made on the basis of their jobs but on the perceived chance of unwanted behaviour if '100 squaddies' were later all in the club.

By the same token countless bars and clubs will not allow anyone in wearing team colours or indeed baseball caps. It is an attempt to restrict tribal behaviour which when you have countless inebriated punters can lead to all manner of issues.

I, just as you, do not really know the full facts and it would seem that perhaps the establishment overreacted but lets not all get too het up over a relative non issue shall we...

Indirect Discrimination
 

FWIW

The act includes this:

If someone actually said that 'they' can come in but 'not the squaddies.' The law looks clear but then again...

Further, on 20th May 2008 Bob Ainsworth made it clear the government would be criminalising acts of "discrimination against troops in unform."

Not sure if this has actually happened or not, but in the meantime a word in the ear of that manager or the brewery would not go amiss.

Exactly the point I was trying to make, albeit a bit more clumsier like!!

Perhaps this bar needs extended visits from the HMRC,the Health and Safety Agency and a few other government agencies to ensure there is no illegal activity at this establishment.Of course,the bar will be closed when each government agency visits for the full length of the visit.Safety inspections and audits of food preparation areas can take a long while............

There is a vital fact that everyone is ignoring here: The MoD policy on wearing uniform in public was re-issued last year and the Army's Briefing Note ABN 31/08 clearly states:

c. Occasions on which uniform is not to be worn, unless specifically approved by the Chain of Command:

(1) When visiting public houses.

Any attempt to prosecute or take the landlord to task can and will be countered by this regulation.

Nevertheless, he was still a :mad:

It wasn't a smart move that's for certain, but I can undestand a bit about what the bar manager was thinking.

I was brought up in an army town and have seen first hand the chaos that can be caused when soldiers get a few drinks in them. From pitched battles between regiments causing hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage, to bouncers being chased out nightclubs and locked out after they tried to remove a pi**ed Para. It was funny seeing these steroid fuelled idiots being forcibly removed by large men with very short hair, well, it was funny until the military police turned up...

However, in this case, it was after a funeral that was well publicised, so it was a pretty idiotic thing to do. I would very much doubt that these guys would have started any trouble specifically because they were in uniform and as such far more easily identifiable. It's when they get changed into civvies and arrive en-masse after a long booze and woman free detachment that trouble normally starts.

In the PR war. Military 1. Bar manager -50.

I understand and respect the more thoughtful points raised by those appealing against an over reaction. Of course they would be right if there was a call to storm and trash this wretched man's pub, but all that is being called for here is a boycott. Surely just as this manager was within his rights to turn away these squaddies, by the same token those who decry his actions and even his explanation are perfectly within their rights to shun his establishment and to encourage others to do likewise? Before the well known IRA inspired avoidance of wearing uniform in public there was a general discouragement to do so unnecessarily anyway, for fear of enraging tax payers resentful of the level of Defence expenditure of which they would be so suddenly reminded. That general "out of sight out of mind" was wrong then and even more so now. In those days there were some nasty spats involving our continual withdrawal from colonial obligations, but they were generally seen as unavoidable and having to be seen through to the end. Some posts above remind us that there is no such consensus these days. All the more important surely then that the Forces themselves, and in particular the awful dangers and ultimate price that they can pay, are seen (literally) as separate from the Government policies that they are obliged to serve? Appeasement has been shown to be self defeating time and time again. The great mass of the British public would be proud and supportive to see you in public, booted and spurred as it were. By being kept out of sight encourages those who are vocal in their opposition to Government policy to include in their damnation HM Forces as well. When support for them is seen to be general and profound that opposition will be isolated and hence diminished. I think that commercial operations would pick up on that effect and encourage rather than deny entry to those in uniform, perhaps by reduced tariffs as in the US. The Forces need to capitalise on their popularity with the British Public. Of course there is risk, but the upside is a win win scenario which should at least discourage the Ashted nimby syndrome. As to not drinking in pubs in uniform, that is for the CoC to decide on. It certainly wasn't the basis of this man's decision!

It's Tommy this and Tommy that, but (Kipling)
 

AND EX SERVICEMEN. CLIFFNEMO