]]>
Statistics:Posted by Robbo — Wed 05 Nov, 2014 2:05 pm
]]>
]]>
As I said before it seems highly likely someone is putting pressure on the terms of their license due to recent trouble - whether thats the police or council who knows.
The Stone House have said that there is no connection with the recent death of a bouncer.From The Mercury:
It comes two months after 54-year-old doorman James Darrah was killed in an assault outside the club in Plain Bull, although manager Ty Younger insists the two are not linked.
Statistics:Posted by Steve — Wed 05 Nov, 2014 1:51 pm
]]>
]]>
Blunt but objective. The ability of a nightclub/bar bouncer to make an objective behavioural analysis of potential patrons must, understandably, be compromised from time to time?Exactly, just because someone's had >4 pints doesn't mean they're going to start a fight or misbehave. Conversely, just because someone's had <4 pints doesn't mean they're not going to be trouble. This is a very blunt instrument.Surely it should be on behaviour? If someone appears drunk then refuse entry?
It appears that the bad behaviour of a few people unable to hold their drink, once again ruin it for everyone else and force establishments to find a measureable objective benchmark.
Not sure why I am overly worried, I cannot remember when I went into a place that has bouncers.
Oh apart from a Saturday a few weeks ago when I went to visit a friend's daughter who has started work in the templars
Statistics:Posted by Kateg28 — Wed 05 Nov, 2014 9:32 am
]]>
Exactly, just because someone's had >4 pints doesn't mean they're going to start a fight or misbehave. Conversely, just because someone's had <4 pints doesn't mean they're not going to be trouble. This is a very blunt instrument.Surely it should be on behaviour? If someone appears drunk then refuse entry?
Statistics:Posted by Darcy Sarto — Wed 05 Nov, 2014 4:33 am
]]>
Surely it should be on behaviour? If someone appears drunk then refuse entry?
Exactly, just because someone's had >4 pints doesn't mean they're going to start a fight or misbehave. Conversely, just because someone's had <4 pints doesn't mean they're not going to be trouble. This is a very blunt instrument.Statistics:Posted by Steve — Wed 05 Nov, 2014 2:29 am
]]>
Surely it should be on behaviour? If someone appears drunk then refuse entry?
Statistics:Posted by Kateg28 — Tue 04 Nov, 2014 6:08 pm
]]>
]]>
Define "drunk".This is an excellent idea, and I can't see why anyone could possibly be against it. You should know that the law is pretty clear - a pub cannot serve alcohol to someone already drunk. Seems a very simple way of solving the problem ( also suspect they are on their last chance in this regard!)
Remember, that the effect of this is that if you want to go out drinking in town, you're not allowed any more than four pints. Say goodnight to stag dos and the like.
I'm against it because it's draconian and authoritarian.
Statistics:Posted by bubbaoshea — Mon 03 Nov, 2014 6:16 pm
]]>
This is an excellent idea, and I can't see why anyone could possibly be against it. You should know that the law is pretty clear - a pub cannot serve alcohol to someone already drunk. Seems a very simple way of solving the problem ( also suspect they are on their last chance in this regard!)
Define "drunk".Remember, that the effect of this is that if you want to go out drinking in town, you're not allowed any more than four pints. Say goodnight to stag dos and the like.
I'm against it because it's draconian and authoritarian.
Statistics:Posted by Steve — Mon 03 Nov, 2014 1:20 pm
]]>
]]>
The fact that they have bouncers on the door is not a bad thing. It deters certain people.
Which suggests that the establishment attracts certain people in the first place. If it didn't they wouldn't need bouncers in the first place.Statistics:Posted by Steve — Sun 02 Nov, 2014 2:59 am
]]>
The fact that they have bouncers on the door is not a bad thing. It deters certain people. And the fact that they have had a death of one of these means that they have to take a positive step forward.
People can go to many pubs and get tanked up before getting to the Stonehouse for a later night session. Or they can go to the many off licenses and buy whatever they want and drink it on the street. So why not control them? Why not deter those coming in who are already inebriated? Why not deter them from even being in the queue? And if they have had a death at their doorstep would they not be remiss if not proactive?
Statistics:Posted by Ewoowar — Sat 01 Nov, 2014 8:54 pm
]]>