Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Children and the Melton Mowbray

I'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.

  • 1
You're a great dad and I think you'd be a great person to have on side in an argument generally!

I have often found bar staff use "it is against the terms of our license" or "it is illegal" where what they mean is "we don't want to" or "the manager doesn't like it so wont let us." The subject of this in my case is usually the serving of snakebite. The silly thing is if they had said that in the first place I would have gone "fair enough, your gaff, your rules."

As far as I am concerned you are rightly peeved to be lied to like this, did you repair to the Penderals Oak?

(Deleted comment)
It used to be great, I think it is now suffering from the "weatherspoons has got to large" issue which means that it is far more a matter of luck these days as to whether the current staff know what real beer is about.
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.

The point of going to the MM was not to drink per se, but to meet up with the London SF crowd and possibly have a swift half before heading back to Waterloo. As it was, we managed to say hello in passing to most of the usual suspects before being thrown out. I'll remember the Penderal's Oak for future.

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.

As discussed above, the Penderels Oak is not the best pub in the area but it will be garklet friendly.

(Deleted comment)
I'm fairly certain that when they decided to switch to a child friendly policy and introduce a children's menu they did the whole estate.

That's my recollection too.

The downside is that they also seem to have introduced TVs showing football to much of the estate at the same time.

Luckily I live in a city with no end of good pubs catering for all tastes, from stupid numbers of well kept ale to those supporting my tastes in music so I rarely need to venture in to a JDW/LN1 house.
I still occasionally go in, when other people have picked the meeting pub or for cheap and fast food.

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.
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.

And that'll be the gist of my complaint to them.

If they'd had a sign which read "No Children. No Dogs. No Irish." by the door ...

... then they'd almost certainly be guilty of racial discrimination and be risking prosecution under the Race Relations Act as variously amended.

As poor timing would have it, clanwilliam turned up about 5 minutes after you'd left.

And flick promptly yelled "you just missed them!" and told me the whole story.

The buggers!

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!

The downstairs bar (where we were) serves food, but admission of children is still at the discretion of the licensee.

I'm of the same opinion of several other commenters: it's not the turning away customers, it's the turning away customers, and then lying about why. That's just cowardly, and the duty manager deserves a rocket from both Fullers head office and Trading Standards about it.

The irony is that he did what actually is illegal, in deceiving you about the terms of the site's licence.

Having now spoken to the licensee and to the relevant person in Fuller's head office (see this post), they're pretty unrepentant about their policy, but did apologise that we were given incorrect information about why we were turned away.

  • 1