Brewery bans bikers from Pub
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yo...
Time for a boycott of Sam Smith's pubs perhaps ?
I was used to this kind of discrimination back in the 70's thought all that had gone in these enlightened times...........
Time for a boycott of Sam Smith's pubs perhaps ?
I was used to this kind of discrimination back in the 70's thought all that had gone in these enlightened times...........
t pubs (in my experience) anyway. The Owner is well Known in Tadcaster and the surrounding area. Not a nice man is the mildest description I have heard. He interferes as if he is a Feudal landland. For example He wouldn't allow the replacement footbridge on his land when the Bridge went down. He also didn't want the constructio improved as thgey rebuilt it.
While I have no interest in going into this pub I find it infuriating that it's illegal to ban whole groups because of their race, colour, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation etc. but it's apparently acceptable to ban a whole group of people based on the vehicle they use.
I support a publicans right to ban individuals but this is simple discrimination.
I support a publicans right to ban individuals but this is simple discrimination.
There's a bit more information on the ownership here:-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Smith_Brewe...
As others have said I thought this kind of thinking died out in the 1970/80's.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Smith_Brewe...
As others have said I thought this kind of thinking died out in the 1970/80's.
telecat said:
The Owner is well Known in Tadcaster and the surrounding area. Not a nice man is the mildest description I have heard. He interferes as if he is a Feudal landland. For example He wouldn't allow the replacement footbridge on his land when the Bridge went down. He also didn't want the constructio improved as thgey rebuilt it.
+1He acts as if he owns the town (although he does own most of the land....). I suspect if this were to be challenged in court, it would not be upheld.
fergus said:
+1
He acts as if he owns the town (although he does own most of the land....). I suspect if this were to be challenged in court, it would not be upheld.
There is no legal basis for a challenge. Apart from race, sex, sexual orientation and some other exceptions they can discriminate against whoever they wish.He acts as if he owns the town (although he does own most of the land....). I suspect if this were to be challenged in court, it would not be upheld.
So this is one pub potentially tarnishing the chain? We have them in London and they're generally popular because they are one if not the only place to get a cheap(er) pint - whilst its not the best beer in the world its far from the worst.
I guess I have a different perspective in London in that when I goto the pub the bike stays at home and they don't exactly have private parking either.
For me this would be treated in the same way as less than friendly petrol stations if this happened in my local area, I'd tell each and every person and share it on social media to ensure that persons business is as significantly impacted as possible.
Banning everyone based purely on the vehicle they use is discrimination of the worst order illegal or not.
Can you imagine the vice versa approach (idiotic business sense too) Pub banning all car drivers from being served. How long before that made headline news?
I guess I have a different perspective in London in that when I goto the pub the bike stays at home and they don't exactly have private parking either.
For me this would be treated in the same way as less than friendly petrol stations if this happened in my local area, I'd tell each and every person and share it on social media to ensure that persons business is as significantly impacted as possible.
Banning everyone based purely on the vehicle they use is discrimination of the worst order illegal or not.
Can you imagine the vice versa approach (idiotic business sense too) Pub banning all car drivers from being served. How long before that made headline news?
Edited by sjtscott on Friday 14th July 10:43
hashtag said:
This is the chap who has also banned customers swearing in his pubs.
He visits the pubs and if he hears any swearing the manager is sacked on the spot.
Surely a swear word does not constitute summary dismissal by gross misconduct and leaves him wide open for a tribunal?He visits the pubs and if he hears any swearing the manager is sacked on the spot.
I'd like to see that being enforceable: sure, abusive swearing at customers would be an issue, but in a back room?
bgunn said:
Surely a swear word does not constitute summary dismissal by gross misconduct and leaves him wide open for a tribunal?
I'd like to see that being enforceable: sure, abusive swearing at customers would be an issue, but in a back room?
I read that as in if a customer swears, the manager is sacked... I'd like to see that being enforceable: sure, abusive swearing at customers would be an issue, but in a back room?
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff