Jump to content


Indirect Discrimination or just plain drunk?


JohnnyBoyUK
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1689 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

If a pub bars a person for making calls to the police and threatening suicide - would it be indirect discrimination to ban them (disability/mental health is a protective characteristic)

 

Or could pub argue the fella was drunk and they were banning him for that.

 

Would a ban for such an incident be disproprtionate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ yep. I agree, you can't ban who you like....on the mental health issues or odd behaviour eg tourettes what might seem anti-social could be quirk someone can't control. Or with kids bad behaviour excused if it's ASD or whatever.

 

Yep, people may have depression but surely that doesn't give green light to make a scene in a pub? Anyway doesn't booze make people depressed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they can't nor have they been able to for a number of years since anti-dicrimination legistlation[/Quote]

 

Not true

 

The Licencee has absolute discretion over who is permitted on the premises and who is not. This overrides any interpretation of the Equality Act, providing that the reason for the exclusion is not the protected characteristic in itself

 

In this situation, the wish to exclude is not BECAUSE the individual has a mental illness, but due to the fact that the person with the illness causes trouble for the licenced premises which is beyond what any reasonable person might deem 'reasonable'

 

Barring somebody with a tic would be unreasonable, barring somebody whose illness caused them to be violent towards other customers would most likely be considered reasonable. Taking things to extremes, if a mentally ill customer habitually tried to harm others, or smashed the place up whenever he or she came into the pub, would it be 'discriminatory' to refuse entry? No, the law would not stand against the pub owner and the same would apply here.

 

Serving a customer when they are drunk is an offence in itself irrespective of mental state, and the customer can be asked to leave. Refusing entry where the customer makes nuisance phone calls from the premises despite requests to stop, and especially if concern was expressed that the suicide threats might be genuine would also be acceptable. In the case of the calls to police this may lead to a lack of response in a genuine situation where harm is being done, and regarding the suicide threats that is a matter for other agencies.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No they can't nor have they been able to for a number of years since anti-dicrimination legistlation.

 

Im amazed, I would have thought that being a nuisance would be the only reason needed to bar anyone, many may accuse them of being discriminatory, but I would imagine have great difficulty proving it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...