Children and the Melton Mowbray
Jan. 5th, 2007 12:37 pmI've now phoned Trading Standards at the City of London, and they can find no record of a condition on the license for the Melton Mowbray that would prohibit children. This would seem to contradict the duty manager's assertion that no children were allowed as a condition of their license. They also seemed interested that the Melton Mowbray were unable to show me the license copy or summary that they're required to have prominently displayed.
The next step will be to phone Fuller's head office and ask them to explain themselves.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 12:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 12:48 pm (UTC)=/
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 12:50 pm (UTC)As far as I am concerned you are rightly peeved to be lied to like this, did you repair to the Penderals Oak?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 12:58 pm (UTC)Mind you, there aren't that many pubs in the area large enough to accommodate more than about 20! My favorite, the Seven Stars, can comfortably fit ...oooh 25?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 01:04 pm (UTC)As to the other thing, if you aren't going out in a large group then you are right in saying there are some much better pubs to go in. I mentioned it as it probably has the best access round there if they and these days JDW are child friendly.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 01:00 pm (UTC)If they'd had a sign which read "No Children. No Dogs. No Irish." by the door, I'd feel slightly better disposed to them. To the best of my knowledge, the publican reserves the right of admission, so if they want to add extra conditions I can't really argue. However, don't lie by dressing it up as a legal imperative.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 01:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 01:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 02:02 pm (UTC)The downside is that they also seem to have introduced TVs showing football to much of the estate at the same time.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 02:08 pm (UTC)I still occasionally go in, when other people have picked the meeting pub or for cheap and fast food.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 01:45 pm (UTC)What you said. They can make up their own barmy rules (IIRC several Wetherspoon's have a "no hats" rule, presumably for the good of their CCTV), but they shouldn't pretend it's a legal thing if it isn't. And not having the licence to hand is definitely a Thing.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 03:51 pm (UTC)... then they'd almost certainly be guilty of racial discrimination and be risking prosecution under the Race Relations Act as variously amended.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 01:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 01:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 02:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 03:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 03:46 pm (UTC)I suspect it's a hangover from before the 2003 Licensing Act, which abolished the previously confusing morass of legislation and licensing conditions about whether and where under-16s were allowed anywhere in a pub, or a room where there's no bar, whether they can walk past the bar to the loo, who they have to be with when, etc etc.
Being charitable, they might have got confused if the place doesn't serve food (apart from crisps, say) since the Act says children under 16 aren't allowed in pubs that are "primarily or exclusively for the sale and consumption of alcohol" ... without an accompanying adult. They might have missed that last bit.
Does sound like a good time for the application of the paper cluebat of righteousneses!
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 04:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 03:46 pm (UTC)The irony is that he did what actually is illegal, in deceiving you about the terms of the site's licence.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 04:16 pm (UTC)