|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Nov 26, 2006 15:29:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 26, 2006 16:29:55 GMT
Sadly it seems you have to be over 18 to sign this petition.
|
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Nov 26, 2006 16:52:23 GMT
How will the recipient know?
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 26, 2006 18:57:49 GMT
How will the recipient know? True, but if we're signing a petition to try and uphold some decency, surely we should abide by the same code? |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Nov 26, 2006 19:30:41 GMT
Of course we should. But there's a whole dictionary worth of metaphors (not to mention hyperbole ;D ) that provide justification for taking a liberal view of rules and instructions and taking such a view is not, in my view and in this instance, behaving indecently.
As always, one judges each case on it's merits and the possibility of one's rule breaking being of harm or benefit to others.
Simply obeying the rules, as the people on the door did, is what has caused this fuss. If they had used their loaf and taken guidance from someone more senior (who might well have realised that a funeral party was unlikely to cause trouble and the resulting adverse publicity) this whole fuss would have been avoided.
If the deceased had been a copper, killed in the line of duty, and his colleagues had turned up in uniform (as they do) for a drink to "send him off", I wonder if they would have been denied entry?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2006 10:32:31 GMT
I'm a bartender, we're told never to serve anyone 'in uniform' (Armed Forces, Police etc.) as you don't know if they're on/off duty and you'll get in serious trouble (sacked) if they're working. Obviously you've got to use your noodle but if someone turns up in full dress uniform I ain't going to serve them. Jackets/Berets/Pips/ID whatevers off, no problem though.
|
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Nov 27, 2006 11:17:28 GMT
ou'll get in serious trouble (sacked) if they're working. Why should you get in trouble for serving a copper or service man or woman even if they are on on duty, it's their responsibility? Nevertheless, there's a big difference between not serving them alcohol if you're in doubt and stopping them from entering simply because they're in uniform. |
|
|
|
Post by cdr113 on Nov 28, 2006 23:39:00 GMT
Regardless of the exact circumstances, isn't entry to (private) premises such as the bar mentioned in the article purely at the discretion of the landlord/lady and his/her employees (the bouncers)? Forces personnel often don't have the best reputation for behaving afterall (I know this because the occupants of a local armed forces training camp are banned from ALL licensed premises in approx a 10-15 mile radius of the camp, for the exact reason of repeated bad behaviour over the years).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Nov 29, 2006 2:02:41 GMT
Lets not forget none of us were there at the time of the "alleged incident". Who knows what happened?. If, [and its a big if] the soldiers were refused, and were showing no signs of trouble, then maybe its a tad unfair, especially as it was 11th November.
|
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Nov 29, 2006 8:12:18 GMT
Lets not forget none of us were there at the time of the "alleged incident". Quite true, however reading various articles I get the impression they were in a group with some people not in uniform. Besides which, it's not only the specific incident of which people are disapproving, it's the policy of treating people who have one employer differently to those who are employed by another organisation or company. That's called discrimination. |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Nov 29, 2006 8:17:34 GMT
Regardless of the exact circumstances, isn't entry to (private) premises such as the bar mentioned in the article purely at the discretion of the landlord/lady and his/her employees (the bouncers)? Forces personnel often don't have the best reputation for behaving afterall (I know this because the occupants of a local armed forces training camp are banned from ALL licensed premises in approx a 10-15 mile radius of the camp, for the exact reason of repeated bad behaviour over the years). It's quite true that the landlord has total discretion over who enters their pub or not. Sadly it's not usually the servicemen who start the trouble but local youths who want to find out how hard/tough they are or want a fight for some other reason. I spent over four years in the army and was never involved in any fights, nor did most of my colleagues. As with any group there all sorts. I briefly worked on a holiday camp and one particular week there was a chap (in his early twenties or thereabouts) on holiday with his parents and family. He was in the army. Also on holiday was another chap in his mid teens, also with his family. The younger spent a large part of the week trying to provoke the older into a fight, "to find out how hard he was". The soldier was an aircraft mechanic, why should he be "tough"? Trying to suggest that all service men and women are troublemakers is using the same stereotypical bigotry that leads to racism and other forms of discrimination. |
|
|
|
Post by cdr113 on Nov 30, 2006 21:25:53 GMT
Trying to suggest that all service men and women are troublemakers is using the same stereotypical bigotry that leads to racism and other forms of discrimination. I'm certainly not suggesting that all service personnel display anti-social behaviour towards others and apologise if my point was taken in that way. Of course, you will see the same variation in peoples behaviour in the Forces as in any walk of life. I can, however, only base my opinions on what I know from personal experience of my local area and, very sadly, members of our armed forces obviously haven't conducted themselves terribly well there, in an area fairly free from the 'yob culture' found in many towns and cities in the UK. Lets face it too, if a doorman doesnt like the look of you for whatever reason he can refuse you entry, regardless of who you work for, what uniform you're wearing, what race/sex/disability you are and there's not a lot you can do about it, so you might as well just accept it and go to the next bar and stop whining about being discriminated against. These places are private property at the end of the day and the owner/occupiers decision is final. I don't see why such a fuss is being made about this incident... |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Nov 30, 2006 21:42:41 GMT
I don't see why such a fuss is being made about this incident... Because of the pathetic reason given for refusing entry to people in uniform which was along the lines of "Other people get upset". If other people get upset at the sight of men and women who are prepared to put their lives on the line for the benefit of the country having a sociable drink then it's they who need to think about their attitude. "Walkabout" claim to represent "The Awesome Spirit of Australia". I wonder what the reaction of Australians would be if an Australin serviceman was barred from entering simply becuse they were in uniform. In the US, service personnel are applauded and cheered when they walk through airport terminals and the like. |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Dec 1, 2006 21:42:34 GMT
It appears that being ridiculed in the media and having people telling them what they think of them is "feedback" according to Walkabout. They have however, changed their attitude. www.walkabout.eu.com/12uniformed.htmlCHANGE OF POLICY REGARDING UNIFORMED PERSONNEL
In light of a regrettable incident that occurred in Liverpool last week when two Royal Marines were not allowed into the bar, we wanted to clarify our policy:
There is no national policy banning uniformed service personnel. There was a non-uniform policy in Liverpool due to three incidents in the last six months where the safety of uniformed personnel was compromised. However, further to recent feedback we have revised this policy and the uniform ban in Liverpool has been lifted, bringing it in-line with the rest of our bars.
Furthermore, we welcome the group of marines that were turned away back to the bar for a free lunch in full uniform.
We deeply regret that this incident has caused upset to Cpl Nowakâs family, friends and comrades and want to re-iterate that all service personnel are welcome at all of our bars. |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Dec 1, 2006 21:53:21 GMT
From the petition comments:-
"Dear petition i am the individual that began to get agressive with the walkabout door staff. I do feel however their feeble excuse for not letting me in should be told. After my freinds who were in uniform were refused entry myself and one other, who were not in uniform said good bye to our freinds, this was done in full veiw of the doorstaff so they were well aware that me and my freind were part of the funeral group. We both then tried to enter walkabout, we were refused on the grounds that we were part of the funeral group and they dont let in funeral parties in because of their high emotions. Ater this comment i was understandedly upset but at no time was anyone in our group physically agressive or had any intention to be throughout the conversation with the doorstaff. It was at this point that another person in our group arrived and said that another club would let us in we all on mass entered the club and had a trouble free night. Thanks to the people of liverpool for their support, Ben RIP."
pete jordan
|
|
|
|
Post by cdr113 on Dec 2, 2006 15:28:42 GMT
I don't see why such a fuss is being made about this incident... Because of the pathetic reason given for refusing entry to people in uniform which was along the lines of "Other people get upset". So is being refused entry to a pub because, for example, you have the wrong footwear on worthy of taking up valuable column inches? No. This instance is no more newsworthy than a civilian person being refused entry on grounds of wearing the wrong clothes/shoes. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with patriotism or discrimination. Private premises are private premises, the owners & their representatives have the final say on who enters or not, regardless of the reason, just as you do in your own home. Fullstop. No debating it. Get over it, move on...(which it appears the individuals in question actually did, quite why it ended up in the media, I have absolutely no idea) |
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Dec 2, 2006 15:45:08 GMT
So is being refused entry to a pub because, for example, you have the wrong footwear on worthy of taking up valuable column inches? No. Perhaps when you've been refused entry or been mistreated for no other reason than because of the job you do you might begin to understand. The following is also worth giving some thought to:- It is the Soldier, not the minister who has given us freedom of religion. It is the Soldier, not the reporter who has given us freedom of the press. It is the Soldier, not the poet who has given us freedom of speech. It is the Soldier, not the student protester who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the Soldier, not the lawyer who has given us the right to a fair trial. It is the Soldier, not the politician who has given us the right to vote. |
|
|
|
Post by cdr113 on Dec 2, 2006 17:39:41 GMT
I don't think you're understanding any of the points I'm trying to make here.
Please don't patronise me and insult my intelligence with all this 'soldiers gave us everything' preaching.
I correct at least one of your statements and point out that for women at least, the suffragettes gave them the right to vote in the UK, and they couldn't be further from being soldiers...
I won't be making any further comment in this thread, as it frankly isnt awfully important to me that a couple of squaddies were refused entry into a private establishment and didnt like it much.
|
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Dec 2, 2006 17:46:04 GMT
I won't be making any further comment in this thread, as it frankly isnt awfully important to me that a couple of squaddies were refused entry into a private establishment and didnt like it much. Perhaps one day you will find out what's it's like to be treated badly for no good reason and that you will have sufficient backbone to do something about it. In the meantime you might also like to consider this incident and reader's reactions to it, www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417249&in_page_id=1770 |
|
|
|
Post by cdr113 on Dec 2, 2006 18:55:02 GMT
I've already stated that I'm going to offer no further comment in this thread.
Please DO NOT imply that I am 'spineless', you know nothing about me.
Mods, perhaps its time this thread was locked?
|
|
|
|
Post by agoodcuppa on Dec 2, 2006 19:10:45 GMT
I've already stated that I'm going to offer no further comment in this thread. For someone who professes disinterest you've had more to say on the matter than anyone else.  |
|
Tom
Administrator
Signalfel?
Posts: 4,196 
|
Post by Tom on Dec 2, 2006 21:07:23 GMT
Ok, my twopenneth worth:
Firstly it's fairly common knowledge that young people have difficulty in controlling their emotions when alcohol is consumed. Therefore it is not unreasonable for a responsible bar manager to refuse entry to persons who might provoke a disturbance of the peace. This includes soldiers in uniform. Would you be happy drinking with someone dressed as a nazi or suicide bomber? Because to some people the image of a British soldier is very similar.
Secondly, the point about soldiers giving us freedom of speech, religion etc is possibly very valid. However, it is interesting to contrast the reaction of a soldier when their actions have been less popular, when instead of 'look at what we have done' the response is more akin to 'We were only following orders - the Government told us to do it.'. At the end of the day, the armed forces are simply doing a job. If we have the army to thank for giving us the right to vote through a war, we only have to thank them for the number of bodies that were sacrificed to win the war - the decision to enter that war was made by the Government.
Thirdly, related to the Daily Mail article, not only is the aformentioned newspaper not renowned for it's unbiased, informed and objective reporting, but also the door staff at Harrods refuse many people admission on the grounds of their dress every day, thus making the case in point rather un-newsworthy IMHO.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,347
|
Post by Colin on Dec 3, 2006 0:15:58 GMT
Mods, perhaps its time this thread was locked? I think everyone has made their point - beyond that, I can't see this thread moving forward in a constructive manner. Now locked. |
|
