Are Police to Ban the wearing of England Shirts in Pubs During the World cup ?

[Tarantella]

I think this whole story was secretly sponsored by sportswear companies wanting to get a higher profile for their google ads.

[Raistlin]

Ok, let's be clear - the 'story' is true (in as much as it exists, and certain elements of it are true).

However: The police can not 'ban' and have not 'bannned' England football shirts in ANY pub.

The whole thing has been blown massively out of proportion by people with nothing better to do than to than try to create sensationalist reaction to otherwise fairly run of the mill stories.

Originally Posted by punky

Yes it is.

Licensing Act 2003, section 161:



http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003...pt8-pb2-l1g161

And the fact that you are still being deliberately obtuse when ypu have been proven wrong just shows your character really.

Read what you want Punky, you are still wrong.
A landlords only duty is not to serve a clearly drunk person, not put up dress codes dictated to by the police.

Originally Posted by Rob M

Ok, let's be clear - the 'story' is true (in as much as it exists, and certain elements of it are true).

However: The police can not 'ban' and have not 'bannned' England football shirts in ANY pub.

The whole thing has been blown massively out of proportion by people with nothing better to do than to than try to create sensationalist reaction to otherwise fairly run of the mill stories.

well thats just taken the fun out of the thread i wanted to blame some "bloody foriegners " for taking our shirts

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by martyh

well thats just taken the fun out of the thread i wanted to blame some "bloody foriegners " for taking our shirts

Why let the truth get in the way of you blaming who ever you want for whatever you want? There are enough people around these parts only interested in the truth when it suits them Crack on, blame away

Originally Posted by Rob M

Ok, let's be clear - the 'story' is true (in as much as it exists, and certain elements of it are true).

However: The police can not 'ban' and have not 'bannned' England football shirts in ANY pub.

The whole thing has been blown massively out of proportion by people with nothing better to do than to than try to create sensationalist reaction to otherwise fairly run of the mill stories.

http://forums.liverpooldailypost.co....136520&start=0


http://forums.crewechronicle.co.uk/v...p?f=6&t=136520

http://forums.icnorthwest.co.uk/view...136520&start=0

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/368187.php

Fairly run of the mill story hey?

---------- Post added at 14:45 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

well thats just taken the fun out of the thread i wanted to blame some "bloody foriegners " for taking our shirts

Better start another thread then.

---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Rob M

Why let the truth get in the way of you blaming who ever you want for whatever you want? There are enough people around these parts only interested in the truth when it suits them Crack on, blame away

Back on topic please.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Read what you want Punky, you are still wrong.
A landlords only duty is not to serve a clearly drunk person, not put up dress codes dictated to by the police.

This states differently......

An offence also occurs when any person working in a licenced premises knowingly allows disorderly conduct on the premises

This is why, in certain cities (Glasgow, for example) football team strips are now allowed in quite a few pubs, and strangely enough, the All Sports Bar in St. Helier doesn't allow football shirts.

And it's nothing new - from 2002 (which explains why).

[Derek]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Punky, the only duty a landlord has is not to serve someone clearly over the limit, do you get that?

Or not serving someone under 18, or a whole bunch of other duties. Take a deep breath, try reading what punky posted and you might find that being a pub landlord isn't as simple as just refusing to serve drunks.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Closing a pub down because a landlord is not actively supporting the prevention of crime is bullocks.

It's not though. It's good policing. If a certain premises are a focal point for crime maybe removing the focal point is a good idea.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

if wearing a shirt is a crime

It isn't though. End of story.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

That is what we pay their wages and pensions for and they retire at 50/55 with a nice wedge.

Nice to see your knowledge of police pensions is as extensive as your knowledge of policing in general and the licensing laws of the UK.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

http://forums.liverpooldailypost.co....136520&start=0


http://forums.crewechronicle.co.uk/v...p?f=6&t=136520

http://forums.icnorthwest.co.uk/view...136520&start=0

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/368187.php

Fairly run of the mill story hey?

---------- Post added at 14:45 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------




Better start another thread then.

---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------




Back on topic please.

We will decide what is on topic thank you.

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

http://forums.liverpooldailypost.co....136520&start=0

A link to a forum thread where this is being discussed, that contains no more evidence of any bans.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

http://forums.crewechronicle.co.uk/v...p?f=6&t=136520

Exactly the same thread, started by exactly the same poster, albeit on a different site - in fact, even the comments are identical.....

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

http://forums.icnorthwest.co.uk/view...136520&start=0

Oh dear, identical thread number 3 - I'm seeing a pattern here...

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/368187.php

Ah well, at least this one's slightly different - even if it offers no more evidence of any 'ban' than the other one does.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Fairly run of the mill story hey?

You've posted links to 3 identical discussion threads and one news story. None of which offer any real evidence of a 'ban', none of which provide any new information, and none of which seem to provide any views/information not already available in this thread. You might have well just have linked back to Cable Forum or The Sun and been done with it.

It's still a run of the mill story, the fact that there are discussions of it going on about the Internet proves nothing - especially not when those discussions are started by sensationalist idiots with no less regard for the actual facts than they have for the sound of their own voices as they continue to cry fowl.

[Jon T]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Read what you want Punky, you are still wrong.
A landlords only duty is not to serve a clearly drunk person, not put up dress codes dictated to by the police.

Hmm, just ran this past the licensing officer who works for the same council as I do, not his interpetation at all(and i mean the first part of your statement).

http://www.lincs.police.uk/News-Cent...In-Boston.html

Originally Posted by Jon T

Hmm, just ran this past the licensing officer who works for the same council as I do, not his interpetation at all(and i mean the first part of your statement).

What would he know? - he just does it for a living.....

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by punky

Yes, i'm sure you're in a position to know exactly what the entire circumstances that mean a pub getting shut down. Let me guess - the ex-landlord told you?

I'm a member of the committee of the working men's club that was closed actually.

I think I should know the circumstances seeing as I was there, I talked to the police about it, and made sure I knew exactly why they were shutting it down.

Originally Posted by punky

Yes, i'm sure you're in a position to know that a pub was closed to down by a PC and not an Inspector.

Seeing as I asked the officer specifically on who's authority, and when he replied "mine" asked got his rank and badge number, yes, I think I was in a position to know that it was closed down by a PC and not an Inspector.

The fact that there was no trouble at the place when they arrived, that the incident happened 20mins before they got there, and there was no signs of anything happening mean that even if it was issued by an inspector it would have been against the legislation as there was no imminent or ongoing threat to public safety.

Also, the small matter of the letter of apology, and compensation for loss of business for having the club with a turnover of near 1mill/year closed at 9pm on a friday night kind of points to me having more than enough knowledge that the police abused their powers to shut it down.

Want to make any more assumptions?

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:01 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

This states differently......

This is why, in certain cities (Glasgow, for example) football team strips are now allowed in quite a few pubs, and strangely enough, the All Sports Bar in St. Helier doesn't allow football shirts.

And it's nothing new - from 2002 (which explains why).

Again, knowingly allows is not the same as failing to actively prevent.

Once something happens, you have a legal duty to react. You don't have a legal duty to profile your patrons to ensure you don't let in anyone that may or may not at some point in the future cause trouble.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by TheDon

How exactly does legislation allowing the police to close a licensed premises show it's the landlord's job to control their punters?
Obviously the landlord has some responsibility, but that doesn't stretch any further than making sure there's no obvious crimes being committed on their premises. Their responsibilities are purely reactive.

Also that's one of the most abused pieces of legislation going. I've seen countless officers shut down pubs for next to no reason (a fight starting outside completely unrelated to the pub for instance) citing their powers under the licensing act when the licensing act requires it to come from an Inspector or above. I've even challenged it happening citing the exact part of the act saying they didn't have the authority to and got told to go away or be arrested.

So do I trust the police to only shut down pubs when there is an actual real and immediate threat to the public, and not just because the pub has ignored it's guidance? No chance.

If a landlord allows unlawful practices to be carried out on the licensed premises, he is partly culpable. If he does not ensure the conduct and order of his customers, he is also liable.

---------- Post added at 16:28 ---------- Previous post was at 16:25 ----------

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Read what you want Punky, you are still wrong.
A landlords only duty is not to serve a clearly drunk person, not put up dress codes dictated to by the police.

No, I think you will find that it is also their duty to make sure their patrons do not cause a nuisance on, or near, their premises.