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



## z104

This question came up on a lunch break today. What are the valid reasons
for refusing somebody entry into a public house/niteclub.

I thought that somebody could only be refused entry for the following reasons

1) Private party
2) Being drunk
3) Underage

The girls at work suggested you could be refused entry for not adhering to the dress code of the pub/niteclub.

I thought this couldn't be right. Is this true?

Does a public license mean you cannot refuse the public or does that even come into the equation?


----------



## Ceist Beag

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), others refuse if you're not a "regular", and as suggested there are plenty that refuse due to dress code.


----------



## Latrade

I thought it was up to the management as long as it didn't breach equality legislation.


----------



## Shawady

A friend of mine was recently not served a drink in a pub because he was wearing a tee-shirt with a football crest on it. The barman told him "We don't serve anyone with football jerseys here". 
The crazy thing about this is, the pub is a stone's throw from Landsdowne and will be only too happy to serve people with football jerseys when the new stadium opens.


----------



## z104

I think that's disgraceful. The barman made a judgment on a persons character by the top he was wearing. Surely that cannot be legal.


----------



## Sunny

It was probably a Celtic top so fair enough!


----------



## Purple

Lol 
I can't disagree with you!


----------



## TarfHead

Shawady said:


> A friend of mine was recently not served a drink in a pub because he was wearing a tee-shirt with a football crest on it. The barman told him "We don't serve anyone with football jerseys here".


 
Similar thing happened to me in Bristol some years ago. I was wearing a casual rugby shirt - just a mish mash of colours and not a replica - and was refused entry to a nightclub cos I was wearing 'colours'  ! I then made the situation worse by trying to argue with the gorilla on the door . (_cos that always helps !_)

Was talking to someone last night who said they were asked to leave a bar in Dublin because it was a slow afternoon and the owner wanted to shut the place for a few hours.

Ultimately, the licence holder has the right to refuse admission and service.



Sunny said:


> It was probably a Celtic top so fair enough!


 
+1


----------



## Shawady

Sunny said:


> It was probably a Celtic top so fair enough!


 
League of Ireland team actually!
This happened during the day and the guy was on his own. The barman just said it was policy not to serve people wearing football tops, which was bizarre considering this place will be packed on international match days.


----------



## z104

Sunny said:


> It was probably a Celtic top so fair enough!


 

Yeah, I'd have to agree there too.


----------



## TarfHead

Shawady said:


> League of Ireland team actually!


 
Maybe it was Shamrock Rovers and the barman wasn't taking any chances  ?


----------



## Bill Struth

As a former barman In my experience Liverpool supporters are by far the most disruptive,rowdy and downright rude when watching football matches in the pub. 
People see a Celtic jersey and immediately think _scumbag. _Which obviously isn't the case all the time. Your typical scumbag walking about with his Celtic jersey on is very different to the average supporter who only wants to watch his team play over a couple of pints and go home.


----------



## mathepac

(as above) A licence-holder or his staff can refuse service or entry to a licensed premises for any or for no specific reason and they are not obliged to state the reason for refusal. He can also ask someone to leave his premises and if they refuse he can call the Guards to remove that person, physically if necessary. 

Untrained or self-important staff may  offer reasons thereby exposing the employer to prosecution under equality / discrimination legislation.


----------



## z104

Are you sure of that?
Where does equality legislation come in here?  If that's the case how come you hear of publicans being brought to court for refusing travellers.Is it not some form of discrimination.


----------



## Purple

Maybe he said he was refusing them because they were travelers?


----------



## VOR

Niallers said:


> If that's the case how come you hear of publicans being brought to court for refusing travellers.Is it not some form of discrimination.



True but the travellers very rarely win. It is a difficult thing to prove. http://www.clarepeople.com/20091001336/nine-traveller-pub-cases-dismissed.html

I asked a good friend about this a while back. He said he never gives a reason as that can land you in trouble. Best just to say the old line " not today".  If the person leaves peacefully then there is no issue. If the person gets agitated then the barman can use this as a defence if a case is taken. 

I witnessed this one night where a man was refused service. The barman did not give a reason just said he was not serving the guy that night and to try again some other time. The guy got annoyed by this and raised his voice. The barman then barred him for life for not leaving and for making a scene. His aggresive actions proved the barman was right in not serving him.


----------



## mathepac

Sure of what?  As a former hotel manager & bar owner  I have on  occasion  refused people service or entry to premises and  have never stated a reason.  I also instructed staff that certain named  individuals were not to be admitted or served.

Staff were told NOT to say it was policy or that they were  acting on instruction but simply to repeat the mantra "I will not serve  you (admit you) and I ask that you now leave the premises and if you do  not I will ask the Guards to remove you", or words to that effect. We had  little cards printed at the time with very specific wording based on legal advice we received and  every staff-member carried one.

With regard to discrimination, relevant legislation an so on maybe have a look at a document published in December 2002,  _The Commission on  Liquor Licensing, Report on Admisson and Service in Licensed Premises_ and maybe also look at the  of the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations. They may make for interesting reading in the context of your other questions.


----------



## z104

Hi Mathepac,
Out of curiosity.
What would be your reasons for refusing service/entry to a bar?

If for example your staff memeber decided to refuse a customer because they for example had a school yard fight 40 years ago and disliked a person because they last met them when they were 5 or 6 years of age( extreme example i know). Would you take the side of the customer and overrule the staff member or would you take the side of the staff member.

Would you refuse to serve somebody becuase you didn't like the look of them ?


----------



## csirl

mathepac said:


> Sure of what? As a former hotel manager & bar owner I have on occasion refused people service or entry to premises and have never stated a reason. I also instructed staff that certain named individuals were not to be admitted or served.
> 
> Staff were told NOT to say it was policy or that they were acting on instruction but simply to repeat the mantra "I will not serve you (admit you) and I ask that you now leave the premises and if you do not I will ask the Guards to remove you", or words to that effect. We had little cards printed at the time with very specific wording based on legal advice we received and every staff-member carried one.
> 
> With regard to discrimination, relevant legislation an so on maybe have a look at a document published in December 2002, _The Commission on Liquor Licensing, Report on Admisson and Service in Licensed Premises_ and maybe also look at the  of the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations. They may make for interesting reading in the context of your other questions.


 
The problem is that, as its a public license, the refused person can ask for a reason (in writing). If you refuse someone, and they go peacefull, but write a letter the next day, what do you say in reply. You'd be on very dodgy ground.


----------



## mathepac

Niallers said:


> ... What would be your reasons for refusing service/entry to a bar? ...


It could vary.


Niallers said:


> ... Would you take the side of the customer and  overrule the staff member or would you take the side of the staff  member...


I made a point of never undermining or over-ruling staff-members in front of the public. I trusted (indeed I relied on) their judgement and professionalism. They were hired, trained and paid for these attributes.  Noone can possibly be on hand 24x7, staff must know that if they make a decision they will supported.


Niallers said:


> ... Would you refuse to serve somebody becuase you didn't like the look of  them ?


 Essentially it came down to professional judgement, someone is either "right" or not. The regular thing to do  was to discreetly ask someone else's opinion if the warning antenna quivered.


----------



## mathepac

csirl said:


> ...  If you refuse someone, and they go peacefull, but write a letter the next day, what do you say in reply...


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.


----------



## starlite68

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.


----------



## Caveat

Latrade said:


> I thought it was up to the management as long as it didn't breach equality legislation.



Yes, that was my understanding too.

This (with the mathepac model as a best practice framework ) is the norm I would imagine.


----------



## z104

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.


----------



## VOR

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.



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.


----------



## csirl

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.


 
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.


----------



## truthseeker

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.


----------



## VOR

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.


----------



## Caveat

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'.


----------



## z104

I thought bouncers were there to protect the patrons not patronise the patrons


----------



## starlite68

Caveat said:


> 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 think you are right, same here.


----------



## MANTO

Niallers said:


> I thought bouncers were there to proetct the patrons not patronise the patrons


 
Too many of them think they are there to show who the boss is (and they usually think its them).


----------



## Complainer

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)


Not any more - this was outlawed some years back as discriminatory.


----------



## Rois

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.


----------



## mtk

most of the bouncers have hearts of gold


----------



## dmos87

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.


----------



## JoeB

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.


----------



## Caveat

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.


 
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.


----------



## JoeB

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.


----------



## Complainer

Door staff are quite heavily regulated already.


----------



## pixiebean22

Complainer said:


> Door staff are quite heavily regulated already.


 
It really shows.


----------



## JoeB

perhaps... but it doesn't seem to have solved any problems.


There is still discrimination and refusals based on nothing but appearance. Sober people turning up and told that they're too drunk, even if they haven't drunk a drop.


----------



## Complainer

JoeBallantin said:


> perhaps... but it doesn't seem to have solved any problems.
> 
> 
> There is still discrimination and refusals based on nothing but appearance. Sober people turning up and told that they're too drunk, even if they haven't drunk a drop.



Maybe I'm getting old, and I just don't go to these places anymore. 

Take your business to somewhere it is appreciated.


----------



## pixiebean22

Complainer said:


> Maybe I'm getting old, and I just don't go to these places anymore.
> 
> Take your business to somewhere it is appreciated.


 
I agree with Complainer.  Any nightclub/pub that I have been to that has refused me for an invalid reason (i.e. too drunk when sober, fake id when the id is clearly mine and I am of age, not a regular, etc etc etc) I just do not return to.  In the past, this has resulted in the very large company I used to work for taking their business (staff parties, client outings etc) away from various establishments based on feedback from staff, not just myself.  Simple.


----------



## PetrolHead

JoeBallantin said:


> 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.




I think you're getting confused... 

Just because the place is called a 'Public House' doesn't mean its a 'Public Place'. Its private premises and owners, managers and their representatives have the right to admit and refuse whoever they chose. 

You also seem confused about discrimination...

Arbitrary and meaningless refusal by definition, can't be discriminatory. If there is no reason (meaning) for the refusal, on what grounds can the refused claim they were discriminated against...


----------

