Living Bar: Racist
- Thread starter bang
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
Legally, I am obliged to respect bona fide requests to remove defamatory posts, but it would be unreasonable for me to be expected to delete any posts in a public forum the second they happened.
If, however, I refused to delete offending posts, then I may possibly become liable as publisher.
The Godfrey vs Demon Internet case would seem to bear out this interpretation of the law.
If, however, I refused to delete offending posts, then I may possibly become liable as publisher.
The Godfrey vs Demon Internet case would seem to bear out this interpretation of the law.
WATERHOUSE
New Member
Just as GOBSMACKED
Well said Mr Gobsmacked,
The Town center managers have recieved e-mail today regarding community concerns.
Mr Anyanwu has also recieved a copy. they have the reply link.
I am interested by what their responses will be.
I myself and others here ARE concerned about liable etc....
I am sure no-one has spoken a false word against Mr.Merritt. Even due to the fact "anger" is generally felt towards the 'man' for what he represents, WORDS have been chosen carefully.
A great show of control.
Basic: We have had enough of what these people represent.
We want them to go away now.
Please.
If we ask correctly, maybe we'll get to say THANK YOU.
Well said Mr Gobsmacked,
The Town center managers have recieved e-mail today regarding community concerns.
Mr Anyanwu has also recieved a copy. they have the reply link.
I am interested by what their responses will be.
I myself and others here ARE concerned about liable etc....
I am sure no-one has spoken a false word against Mr.Merritt. Even due to the fact "anger" is generally felt towards the 'man' for what he represents, WORDS have been chosen carefully.
A great show of control.
Basic: We have had enough of what these people represent.
We want them to go away now.
Please.
If we ask correctly, maybe we'll get to say THANK YOU.
John Wisehammer
lifestyle trendy vicar
"They are not your views Mike. They are the views of individuals posting here. So relax..."
Unfortunately, the English courts have interpreted the obsolete libel law in such a way that website hosts and owners can be counted as the publishers of whatever it is they're hosting, regardless of whether they're actually aware or responsible for what's there. See for instance popbitch and Jeremy Clarkson. Obviously this law made sense for e.g. newspapers where there's strict hierarchical control but not for websites where anyone can post - regardless of this, Mike could be in the shit for anything naughty that goes up here. So he can't relax.
Unfortunately, the English courts have interpreted the obsolete libel law in such a way that website hosts and owners can be counted as the publishers of whatever it is they're hosting, regardless of whether they're actually aware or responsible for what's there. See for instance popbitch and Jeremy Clarkson. Obviously this law made sense for e.g. newspapers where there's strict hierarchical control but not for websites where anyone can post - regardless of this, Mike could be in the shit for anything naughty that goes up here. So he can't relax.
John Wisehammer
lifestyle trendy vicar
Yes, but libel law works in the opposite direction: Mike would have to prove the stuff was true, not Larry prove it was false. You don't get legal aid for defamation cases. It's a totally unproductive process?
Isn't it up to Mike whether he gets into an expensive, time-consuming libel case or not? (and he seems to be saying he'd prefer not to?)
Isn't it up to Mike whether he gets into an expensive, time-consuming libel case or not? (and he seems to be saying he'd prefer not to?)
WATERHOUSE
New Member
Grammar note
or The mark of the question could make all the diference!
I'll say it ONE MORE TIME just so visitors etc et al can understand.
I truly cannot believe so many people are telling lies and slandering poor Laurence! To the point he has lost all courage to stand up for himself and put down these defamatory and liableous remarks, not a whiff of cheap solicitors after-shave anywhere! To be frank, not a peep out of Laurence. I know he knows this is brewing. We have been truthful in the entirety of this thread. The original issue of his policies has opened up into a myriad of accusations. None without foundation. Enquiry has only reinforced these claims. Facts are being found on a daily basis. Witnesses, victims, perpetrators connected to LIVING are all in front of us. How can anyone deny such a weight of factual, accurate and truthful information. People have likened this to a witch-hunt. "Mr BRIXTON" comes under attack from jealous, unappreciative locals who wish they could all be as great as him!"
THIS IS NOT A WITCH-HUNT!! Witches never had the opportunity to represent themselves, they were quickly burnt at the stake or drowned. I also want to make clear to everyone here, Aude Henry IS a respected Black businessman. It is unfortunate he has an affiliation to LIVING (only 1/3rd to my knowledge.)He is NOT responsible for the policies enforced by Management. It may be Laurence's 'cop-out' to assume because he has some partnership, why are people shouting DISCRIMINATION?
The facts remain:
Discriminatory door policies operate nevertheless.
Any excuse is given to discourage single men black/white,(mainly black men) entering their bar.
Gay/Lesbian couples also.
So there is a large section of the local populus alienated. Considering local people vote for their rights of representation by Councillors and other government officiaries, who we also pay hard earned taxes to keep in their employment.
They are not paying attention...yet. But soon.
The BIG Why? is being asked and answers will have to be given.
Accusatons of serving 'short' shorts need to be proven.
NO PROOF, NO ARGUMENT.
There is a lot of DISCRIMINATORY proof, with witnesses including their own CCTV (what are the legal requirements for retaining CCTV records? anyone?) Dubious accounting? PROOF required.
Planning violations? Full documentation required. I NEED PROOF. So will the judge.
We are working on factual data, please present your data to this link:
brixtonaction@btconnect.com
(REPAIR BREAK IN LINK IF NECESSARY)
Don't be shy or afraid of them either, cos' they can't do shit as long as you present the facts & the TRUTH.
Mike, nuff respect is due for keeping this thread live!
It is important this type of behavior is 'named and shamed'. My hope is it is not a waste of effort by all who wish to remove this 'blot' from our community.
Please can all correspondence regarding the LIVING Issue be passed to the link in this post.
Semper Fidelis.
WATERHOUSE
or The mark of the question could make all the diference!
I'll say it ONE MORE TIME just so visitors etc et al can understand.
I truly cannot believe so many people are telling lies and slandering poor Laurence! To the point he has lost all courage to stand up for himself and put down these defamatory and liableous remarks, not a whiff of cheap solicitors after-shave anywhere! To be frank, not a peep out of Laurence. I know he knows this is brewing. We have been truthful in the entirety of this thread. The original issue of his policies has opened up into a myriad of accusations. None without foundation. Enquiry has only reinforced these claims. Facts are being found on a daily basis. Witnesses, victims, perpetrators connected to LIVING are all in front of us. How can anyone deny such a weight of factual, accurate and truthful information. People have likened this to a witch-hunt. "Mr BRIXTON" comes under attack from jealous, unappreciative locals who wish they could all be as great as him!"
THIS IS NOT A WITCH-HUNT!! Witches never had the opportunity to represent themselves, they were quickly burnt at the stake or drowned. I also want to make clear to everyone here, Aude Henry IS a respected Black businessman. It is unfortunate he has an affiliation to LIVING (only 1/3rd to my knowledge.)He is NOT responsible for the policies enforced by Management. It may be Laurence's 'cop-out' to assume because he has some partnership, why are people shouting DISCRIMINATION?
The facts remain:
Discriminatory door policies operate nevertheless.
Any excuse is given to discourage single men black/white,(mainly black men) entering their bar.
Gay/Lesbian couples also.
So there is a large section of the local populus alienated. Considering local people vote for their rights of representation by Councillors and other government officiaries, who we also pay hard earned taxes to keep in their employment.
They are not paying attention...yet. But soon.
The BIG Why? is being asked and answers will have to be given.
Accusatons of serving 'short' shorts need to be proven.
NO PROOF, NO ARGUMENT.
There is a lot of DISCRIMINATORY proof, with witnesses including their own CCTV (what are the legal requirements for retaining CCTV records? anyone?) Dubious accounting? PROOF required.
Planning violations? Full documentation required. I NEED PROOF. So will the judge.
We are working on factual data, please present your data to this link:
brixtonaction@btconnect.com
(REPAIR BREAK IN LINK IF NECESSARY)
Don't be shy or afraid of them either, cos' they can't do shit as long as you present the facts & the TRUTH.
Mike, nuff respect is due for keeping this thread live!
It is important this type of behavior is 'named and shamed'. My hope is it is not a waste of effort by all who wish to remove this 'blot' from our community.
Please can all correspondence regarding the LIVING Issue be passed to the link in this post.
Semper Fidelis.
WATERHOUSE
editor
hiraethified
As a point of balance, this comment could apply to any number of West End bars:
"Discriminatory door policies operate nevertheless.
Any excuse is given to discourage single men black/white,(mainly black men) entering their bar.
Gay/Lesbian couples also"
Bar owners are entirely within their rights to refuse whoever they like, only breaking the law if their policy is provably racist (and I suspect that it might prove very difficult to prove an outright racist policy, even when it appears blatant)
"Discriminatory door policies operate nevertheless.
Any excuse is given to discourage single men black/white,(mainly black men) entering their bar.
Gay/Lesbian couples also"
Bar owners are entirely within their rights to refuse whoever they like, only breaking the law if their policy is provably racist (and I suspect that it might prove very difficult to prove an outright racist policy, even when it appears blatant)
John Wisehammer
lifestyle trendy vicar
But didn't Mrs M post something up earlier on saying that sex ratio door policy (or barring men) was also illegal (despite the fact it happens in lots of places)?
editor
hiraethified
I'd be amazed if that was a law because it would be an utterly daft one: if I ran a bar the last thing I'd want is for it to be so full of guys that women would be put off coming in.
I've certainly known clubs openly running this policy for years on end and I can't imagine how you could outlaw it: the doorman's entitled to let in who he feels like and admission is not a right to anyone.
After all, he's entirely at liberty to turn away gangs of football fans regardless of whether they're drunk or not, so discrimination has long been part of pub culture.
I've certainly known clubs openly running this policy for years on end and I can't imagine how you could outlaw it: the doorman's entitled to let in who he feels like and admission is not a right to anyone.
After all, he's entirely at liberty to turn away gangs of football fans regardless of whether they're drunk or not, so discrimination has long been part of pub culture.
C
ceridwen
Guest
I remember drinking in The Atlantic/Coach and Horses before The Merricks took over. None of the old regulars went back after the change over. So to me, right from the start I feel they wanted a more up-market i.e white middleclass clientel. Which I suppose makes business sense, but at the expense of the local community, same old,same old!!
editor
hiraethified
But let's be honest: the Coach and Horses was such a terrible pub with awful beer that it was barely troubled by customers, ever.
I don't think I ever saw more than ten people in the place, apart from the time my friend had a party in the back room - and that turned out to be a poor affair with crap bar service and rubbish food.
I'm not saying I want a street full of Living Bars, but I refuse to get all misty-eyed and nostalgic about a crap pub with no atmosphere that no one ever visited.
I don't think I ever saw more than ten people in the place, apart from the time my friend had a party in the back room - and that turned out to be a poor affair with crap bar service and rubbish food.
I'm not saying I want a street full of Living Bars, but I refuse to get all misty-eyed and nostalgic about a crap pub with no atmosphere that no one ever visited.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
er no, I don't think so.......unless something I posted has been misinterpreted......about to go with a friend to her hospital appointment so I can't check now to see if I posted something open to misinterpretation.........
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
That was certainly true at the end of its life as the Coach & Horses, but it wasn't always so......it used to be a good pub with a great atmosphere......
Unfortunately, unless something's changed recently, a licensee has the right to withhold entry to any person, or group of people, that they wish. If the licensee wishes to ban all people wearing lumberjack shirts for example, then that's their choice (although the police may raise an eyebrow if called to enforce...)
That's not to say that we shouldn't enforce our rights as customers and withold our cash from this distasteful man and establishment. I've stayed off this thread for some time (you guys are doing a great job...) but a couple of my friends who worked at Living at the beginning have confirmed every nasty suspicion about our Larry. Dodgy door policies, Larry personally singling out 'disruptive' black males and insisting that (embarrassed) security guards remove them. Add a whole ream of comments that sounds as if they're straight from the bigots handbook. Arse...
Even allowing for the potential of sour grapes, it seems remarkable that so many of Merritt's ex-friends and employees have so many bad things to say about him. I'd hate to think that my old pub staff had things half as bad to say about me.
Either way, it's clear that Merritt isn't the community spirited employer or investor that we want to encourage. ...
WATERHOUSE
New Member
This is NOT the WEST END!
It was noted: that Many bars operate this policy in the west end. Brixton is geographically SOUTH.
The population of the Brixton majority are ethnic minorities (mixed)
West end Gaybars allow Straight people in without prejudice.
It is only homophobia that creates this discrimination.
What is the ratio of the West end population black:white:gay?
Ask the same for Brixton. What are your results? The west end is home to tourism/visitors. An industry in itself. I have rarely experienced discrimination in the west end and I am interested to know where they are.
But in my own manor, well,.. this is what we are discussing at present.
I read an interesting article today in the Daily Mail where Mike Best, editor of The Voice is quoted as saying :'Truly the black community faces a national crisis. We have to accept that a number of our young people are very,very, violent and it is time for us to take stock'
Is this because he does not think that discriminatory door policies are newsworthy,( I can provide the original message recieved from the Voice as a reply to the letter which has started this thread) and the young people in Brixton being discriminated against on a daily basis by these establishments are at fault because of their frustration.
Taking stock means being fair. If you beat a dog every day, one day he'll bite you! This is the same Mike Best whose paper called for the return of stop and search in March.
Does Mr. Best live in Brixton?
It also means starting at home. How can I explain to my children about my experiences of Racism and Discrimination and tell them to stay away from 'places' because they are discriminatory.
Or not to go out because you may be harrased by police.
How do you think they will react at 15 or 16yrs old. I am writing in the future tense, as this is the future spread out in front of us if we don't challenge discrimination now. We will all be tired and old by then, and these claims about our youth will be too true. We want to pre-empt this situation by moving as a community and represent our up and coming youth so the the future will be less drug-fuelled and violent. Boredom leads to drugs, Provocation leads to violence. Do you really think the youth of today have the same tolerance as we do?, and what do you suppose will be the outcome if 'trivialities' regarding door policies are left unchallenged?
Mr. Best is right, 'it is time for us to take stock'
So where do we start Mike?
A 'disturbed' Waterhouse
It was noted: that Many bars operate this policy in the west end. Brixton is geographically SOUTH.
The population of the Brixton majority are ethnic minorities (mixed)
West end Gaybars allow Straight people in without prejudice.
It is only homophobia that creates this discrimination.
What is the ratio of the West end population black:white:gay?
Ask the same for Brixton. What are your results? The west end is home to tourism/visitors. An industry in itself. I have rarely experienced discrimination in the west end and I am interested to know where they are.
But in my own manor, well,.. this is what we are discussing at present.
I read an interesting article today in the Daily Mail where Mike Best, editor of The Voice is quoted as saying :'Truly the black community faces a national crisis. We have to accept that a number of our young people are very,very, violent and it is time for us to take stock'
Is this because he does not think that discriminatory door policies are newsworthy,( I can provide the original message recieved from the Voice as a reply to the letter which has started this thread) and the young people in Brixton being discriminated against on a daily basis by these establishments are at fault because of their frustration.
Taking stock means being fair. If you beat a dog every day, one day he'll bite you! This is the same Mike Best whose paper called for the return of stop and search in March.
Does Mr. Best live in Brixton?
It also means starting at home. How can I explain to my children about my experiences of Racism and Discrimination and tell them to stay away from 'places' because they are discriminatory.
Or not to go out because you may be harrased by police.
How do you think they will react at 15 or 16yrs old. I am writing in the future tense, as this is the future spread out in front of us if we don't challenge discrimination now. We will all be tired and old by then, and these claims about our youth will be too true. We want to pre-empt this situation by moving as a community and represent our up and coming youth so the the future will be less drug-fuelled and violent. Boredom leads to drugs, Provocation leads to violence. Do you really think the youth of today have the same tolerance as we do?, and what do you suppose will be the outcome if 'trivialities' regarding door policies are left unchallenged?
Mr. Best is right, 'it is time for us to take stock'
So where do we start Mike?
A 'disturbed' Waterhouse
What do legal brains make of this?
just repeating my earlier post:
http://www.eoc.org.uk/EOCeng/dynpages/Pubs_Clubs.asp
"The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) makes it unlawful for pubs and nightclubs which are open to the public to discriminate on the ground of sex when providing goods, facilities and services ... it applies equally to discrimination against men"
"QUESTION- Can a nightclub refuse to admit large parties of one sex?
ANSWER - To operate a policy that automatically bars all-male but not all-female parties (or vice versa) is likely to be unlawful. Of course, the equality legislation would not override policies that are in place to protect the public on safety grounds."
just repeating my earlier post:
http://www.eoc.org.uk/EOCeng/dynpages/Pubs_Clubs.asp
"The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA) makes it unlawful for pubs and nightclubs which are open to the public to discriminate on the ground of sex when providing goods, facilities and services ... it applies equally to discrimination against men"
"QUESTION- Can a nightclub refuse to admit large parties of one sex?
ANSWER - To operate a policy that automatically bars all-male but not all-female parties (or vice versa) is likely to be unlawful. Of course, the equality legislation would not override policies that are in place to protect the public on safety grounds."
John Wisehammer
lifestyle trendy vicar
Yes, sorry, I meant Dr Maboozer, not Mrs M. Apologies.
WATERHOUSE
New Member
Whatever the exact legal position (and let's stop splitting hairs on this), discrimination, especially on the grounds of race is 100% unnacceptable. And a venue operating in Brixton that has upset and angered so many people (on grounds of racism and more) is clearly a scandal. The many with first hand experience of this know, others who consider themselves fair-minded and non-racist should listen and support them.
WATERHOUSE
New Member
FOCUS
Racial discrimination against young black men at this premises is occuring. You cannot justify it.
Potentially, it can spark into a very nasty situation, where we will only be able to watch and say 'told you so'
The blame for this will not lie with LIVING.
It will be directed toward the youth in the community.
Development and local trade will be damaged.
Everyone will plead ignorance to the cause of this.
It does matter what happens in other areas of London. (How other businesses behave.)
Making a start by exposing these people could change the law or reinforce existing laws on discrimination.
This IS happening on Coldharbour Lane. Brixton.
My community, where I live.
Nostalgia has its place in our local history. Fond memories of amicable pubs are a reminder this kind of policy should not be tolerated.
Times are changing and the present looks crap at the moment.
I think we have the ability to shape our future.
Local petitions, Public awareness, Boycotting all can be used to apply pressure and show them to door out of Brixton.
Local councillors and MP's hold surgeries where this issue can be repeatedly voiced.
Whatever their reason for excluding people on the basis of race or sexuality cannot be supported by law.
The issue of discriminating on the basis of sex is a tricky one, nonetheless the clientele would have to be extremely disruptive and a threat to the safety of the clients inside.
This is why Door Supervisors are now licensed.
They are trained to anticipate these very scenarios.
Bar owners rely on this training to keep their premises/clients safe.
Bar owners/Licensees are not highly qualified in the art of bouncing. (Although Pat from the Albert was.)
It should not be necessary for owners to enforce such policies if they rely so heavily on trained security members within their organisation. I have never witnessed a drunken, violent, abusive black man inside LIVING Bar. I'm sure on Fri & Sat nights where their policy to exclude single black men, has many incidences of ejecting drunken punters, violence included.
Food fror thought
Racial discrimination against young black men at this premises is occuring. You cannot justify it.
Potentially, it can spark into a very nasty situation, where we will only be able to watch and say 'told you so'
The blame for this will not lie with LIVING.
It will be directed toward the youth in the community.
Development and local trade will be damaged.
Everyone will plead ignorance to the cause of this.
It does matter what happens in other areas of London. (How other businesses behave.)
Making a start by exposing these people could change the law or reinforce existing laws on discrimination.
This IS happening on Coldharbour Lane. Brixton.
My community, where I live.
Nostalgia has its place in our local history. Fond memories of amicable pubs are a reminder this kind of policy should not be tolerated.
Times are changing and the present looks crap at the moment.
I think we have the ability to shape our future.
Local petitions, Public awareness, Boycotting all can be used to apply pressure and show them to door out of Brixton.
Local councillors and MP's hold surgeries where this issue can be repeatedly voiced.
Whatever their reason for excluding people on the basis of race or sexuality cannot be supported by law.
The issue of discriminating on the basis of sex is a tricky one, nonetheless the clientele would have to be extremely disruptive and a threat to the safety of the clients inside.
This is why Door Supervisors are now licensed.
They are trained to anticipate these very scenarios.
Bar owners rely on this training to keep their premises/clients safe.
Bar owners/Licensees are not highly qualified in the art of bouncing. (Although Pat from the Albert was.)
It should not be necessary for owners to enforce such policies if they rely so heavily on trained security members within their organisation. I have never witnessed a drunken, violent, abusive black man inside LIVING Bar. I'm sure on Fri & Sat nights where their policy to exclude single black men, has many incidences of ejecting drunken punters, violence included.
Food fror thought
John Wisehammer
lifestyle trendy vicar
BTW, I notice that Brixton Cycles's old shop is being used as a mixed office / barrel storage space. Is this in accordance with its zoning (prolly, actually).
WATERHOUSE
New Member
Gettin' hot, but not in the kitchen !!
My sources tell me, beads of sweat are forming.
'Watch the ride' as we like to say on the Lane.
My sources tell me, beads of sweat are forming.
'Watch the ride' as we like to say on the Lane.
One or two posts have said that a pub can refuse entry to anyone it wants.
That's only true in the sense that we're all free to break the law.
There's no doubt whatever that it is illegal to run a pub door policy which discriminates on grounds of race, gender or disability.
The UK, almost alone in Europe, has no similar laws covering discrimination on grounds of sexuality: it is legal in Britain to run a pub door policy which discriminates on grounds of sexuality.
However, a Lambeth licensee gets his/her license within the framework of Lambeth Council's equal opportunities rules. Should a pub licensee run a door policy which discriminates on grounds of race, gender, disability or sexuality there's a good case for suspending that license.
So Gays and Lesbians (plus persons of other sexuality and possibly no sexuality) who suffer a discriminatory pub door policy have some redress, but not a legal one.
People discriminated against on grounds of race, gender or disability have clear legal remidies.
That's only true in the sense that we're all free to break the law.
There's no doubt whatever that it is illegal to run a pub door policy which discriminates on grounds of race, gender or disability.
The UK, almost alone in Europe, has no similar laws covering discrimination on grounds of sexuality: it is legal in Britain to run a pub door policy which discriminates on grounds of sexuality.
However, a Lambeth licensee gets his/her license within the framework of Lambeth Council's equal opportunities rules. Should a pub licensee run a door policy which discriminates on grounds of race, gender, disability or sexuality there's a good case for suspending that license.
So Gays and Lesbians (plus persons of other sexuality and possibly no sexuality) who suffer a discriminatory pub door policy have some redress, but not a legal one.
People discriminated against on grounds of race, gender or disability have clear legal remidies.
editor
hiraethified
That's true but it's a bugger to actually enforce unless you happen to have a video camera and a host of independent witnesses recording the incident at the time and can be arsed to pursue the thing through the legal process.
The pub/bar/restaurant can make up any excuse they like in the absence of hard evidence ("they looked drunk to me", "unsuitably dressed" etc - I should know, I've heard them aimed at me enough times!).
If someone is sure that a pub is indulging in such practices, my advice would be to accumulate some hard evidence through whatever means necessary and progress from a strong position of these documented cases of racism/homophobia etc...
Without such damning evidence, there is a chance that the accusers could find themselves victim to a counter claim of defammation, so I would advise caution.
What if a gay pub refuses entry to couples of mixed gender or to people who look too heterosexual?
Similar threads
