Sunday - August 21, 2011

the nanny state alive and well in the private sector.

It doesn’t come as any surprise but that doesn’t imply it isn’t a cause of the old affliction … RCOB.  How can it not?
What gives ppl working in a public place like a pub, the right to lecture parents and refuse to serve them a drink, because in their view, they should not drink in front of their kids.  Would the idiots like to follow the parents home and enforce that rule there as well?
Don’t you just hate people who take these things on themselves?  Like, who died and left them boss?

Take a look.

Responsible parent? Sorry, only binge drinkers welcome here

Two mothers were refused alcoholic drinks in a pub because the barman said it would “inappropriate” for them to drink in front of their children.

By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent

It was meant to be a refreshing pit-stop during a hectic family outing.
But when friends Ali Ineson and Emma Rutherford popped into a central London pub to buy their children soft drinks and themselves an alcoholic drink, they were shocked to find their order refused.

Although happy to sell the soft drinks, the barman would not allow them to have a white wine spritzer and a vodka and Coke because it would be “inappropriate” for them to drink in front of their children.

The decision by the staff of the Britannia pub, which is owned by one of Britain’s biggest chains, will fuel fears of a creeping “nanny state” culture over alcohol.
The mothers and their four children, aged between eight and 12, had just climbed the Monument and were about to tour the museum warship HMS Belfast when they stopped at the pub, near the two attractions, for a break.

“I thought it was a joke at first,” said Miss Rutherford.  “It seemed like it was the kind of gag a barman might make to break the ice.

“We were trying to order a white wine spritzer and a single vodka and Coke - it wasn’t like I’d asked for a bucketful of whisky with six straws.”

Mrs Ineson, who is married to the Ralph Ineson, the actor who appeared as Chris Finch in BBC sitcom The Office, and the ‘death eater’ Amycus Carrow in the Harry Potter films said: “I was totally shocked and asked the barman to reiterate.

“He said he wasn’t going to serve us because it would not be ‘appropriate’.
“The children’s drinks were served with no problem, so it was not as if the management did not want children in the pub.

“To say that you can’t have a drink when your children are present is remarkable. I’m sure this establishment serves City people after work and a lot of them leave considerably worse for wear.”

The two friends, who run a Wimbledon-based company MRA PR, said they sat outside the pub and left as soon as their children had finished their drinks.
Mrs Ineson, 43, added: “My husband was away at the time, filming the new Julian Fellowes drama Titanic. When he heard what had happened he was furious.
“He wanted to gather together all the children we know, take them to this pub and order himself a pint.”

Under the Licensing Act 2003 children are allowed into pubs and clubs if they are accompanied by an adult.
Traditional rules which barred under 14s from licensed premises had been removed as long ago as 1994, providing the hostelry had a “children’s certificate”.
However, licensees have overall discretion about who they can allow into the premises and can still enforce a “no children” rule.

A company spokesman said: “Our policy is to welcome families into our pubs during the day, providing there are no licensing conditions preventing us from doing so.
“We are therefore now going to investigate this complaint and we would request that the responsible adults concerned contact us directly in order that we can ascertain the facts of the situation.”

SOURCE FOR THE LATEST RCOB

Posted by peiper     on 08/21/2011 at 11:12 AM   
Filed Under: • Nanny State •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner