Tony, I’m not sure if you’re right there. I’m not able to check the details from where I am at the moment, but remember that B&B owner who refused to allow a gay couple to stay… I’m sure they were convicted in court. I’m sure if you’re running a business, you can’t refuse a customer because of their race, religion etc*

I dont have the facts in front of me, but I’m sure it was something like that.

*including the British army!

Not the same thing. A bar owner, I’ll say that again, a bar owner, may refuse entry to anyone, or any group of people if it is felt they will cause trouble or if they are too drunk.

Soldiers aren’t a race. My views are perfectly objective. Bar owners would I’m sure welcome the custom of soldiers, but clearly having that custom is evidently driving other customers away. They want to retain their licence, and that means refusing entry to those who may cause trouble. If you don’t like it then maybe you’d be better off directing your energies at getting soldiers to behave themselves in bars.

@inkworm

There could be a problem if the govt cannot afford it.

@Creaking Door

Indeed. Then there is all the non-sense about having a “plan for growth” which they seem to think is like some alternative to a plan for cuts. Sure, we could have a plan for growth [in the public sector] which avoids cuts, but then we’ll next much larger cuts in the future. If we want growth [in the private sector] then we need to cut the burden on the private sector, and that means cutting costs, either through cutting regulation (inc. leaving the EU regulations), and/or cutting the size of the tax bill through cutting what we spend through cutting the size of the public sector. Anything else is just smoke and mirrors and fancy accounting as far as I’m concerned.

Well, I think you are tarring all with the same brush. And extremely unfairly so.

In Wednesday I was in Worcester for my son’s homecoming parade from Afghanistan; Queens Royal Hussars, Royal Mercian and 1st Bn Grenadier Guards.

An amazing day and fantastic parade and an incredible turnout by the local folk. It was PACKED. So, too, were the pubs afterwards with any number of soldiers, all well behaved, and all VERY welcome in the pubs.

Your generalisation that all soldiers are mindless thugs who go out, get tanked up and cause trouble as hooligans and smash up pubs and bars is way off mark. Yes, some probably do. But so do other groups of youngsters. However, one could equally say that all football supporters are mindless drunken hooligan thugs. Clearly, they are not.

I take exception and issue with you, PPP, over your unfair generalisation.

You take exception and issue with me because I explained the other side of the story, providing an objective view on a story which clearly has two sides, rather than jumping straight on the bandwagon, blindfold firmly in place? In that case I guess the issue really is with you, not me.

I’m not the one “generalising”, as I’ve said I don’t own a pub, and I don’t set door entry policies. Those who do set those policies may well be generalising, but I’m not, it’s impossible for me to be.

As for your example, the soliders may well behave themselves on many occasions, but they clearly are causing a lot of trouble in bars or they wouldn’t be barred from so many, would they?

Naturally Liberals from the Guardian whined and complained! The problem with Liberal policies is they only work if the other guy is a Liberal, or is willing to listen to Liberal whinings. If he is someone such a Hitler, the chance are he’ll just shoot them and continue doing what he was doing before.

WRT to the quote below…

Moral complexity? Regret? Nooo if I was them I’d have bombed them back too. Actually I’d have bombed them back sooner, and ten times as hard. If you’re in a war against the Nazis, it’s definitely not a time to limit your offence. Fortunately the designers didn’t go all PC on us and made the memorial just as it should be.

As for Bomber Harris, he deserves his memorial, a true legend!

“There is some question as to whether it should have been built at all, given that there are already eloquent air force memorials at Runnymede and on the Victoria Embankment. There is also a statue of Bomber Command’s leader, Bomber Harris, erected after much debate in the Strand. If it had to be built, you might hope for some nuance, some recognition of moral complexity, some regret, some invitation to reflection. Unfortunately the memorial, which the Queen will open on Thursday, offers none of those things.

Its tone is defiant and triumphant, using quotations from Churchill and Pericles to justify the bombings. Its location in central London is explained on the debatable grounds that attacking German cities was the best way of sparing London from further bombing. It is big; bigger than, for example, the memorial to the Battle of Britain on the banks of the Thames.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/jun/24/bomber-command-memorial-london-review

@VX927

Soldiers would be allowed in if they behaved in a reasonable manner. Their reputation for beating each other up as well as innocent people around them, and trashing the place, means they aren’t welcome. I’m sure people are turned away based on race, they just use a different excuse e.g “not tonight mate”, “members only”, “couples only” or whatever…

I don’t own a bar.

Soldiers being refused entry to bars is very common. They can’t cause trouble and then complain when they aren’t welcome there anymore.