Would Mr Yaxley-Lennon have any recourse in civil law ?
I am presuming this has no criminal implications ?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tommy-robinson-kicked-out- hawksmoor-london-b1231594.html
This is the moment far-right activist Tommy Robinson was apparently asked
to leave a high-end London steakhouse because staff "felt uncomfortable serving him".
Footage posted online shows Robinson—real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon— dining with a group at the Hawksmoor restaurant on Air Street, near
Regent Street, before staff intervened halfway through their meal.
Former prominent EDL member Guramit Singh Kalirai, who was with Robinson, claimed they were thrown out "for no reason".
He tweeted: "Just been kicked out of Hawksmoor steak house for no reason. Literally just had our starters."
A video accompanying his post showed Robinson’s group in conversation
with a restaurant manager who explained: "Members of staff feel
uncomfortable serving you."
Mr Kalirai replied: "Is it because of the colour of my skin?"
The supervisor responded: "No, no, no. We have a duty of care to our
members of staff. We like to look after our people, as I'm sure you can understand."
The manager then handed Robinson the business card of Hawksmoor’s CEO, advising him to make contact by email "if he has any questions," and told
the group "don’t worry about the drinks," indicating the restaurant would cover the cost.
He concluded: "I'm very sorry. I hope it hasn't inconvenienced you."
The 47-second clip then cut to Mr Kalirai ranting: "Have you seen that?
We've just been kicked out of the steak house. Been sat here for a f***ing hour. We are sat here with the celebrities."
The footage ended with Robinson looking at the business card and typing
on his mobile phone.
The Standard has contacted Hawksmoor for comment.
The incident came just hours after Robinson pleaded not guilty to
harassing two journalists.
The 42-year-old appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday surrounded by supporters, where he denied two counts of harassment
causing fear of violence between August 5 and 7, 2024.
Prosecutors allege Robinson harassed the two reporters, causing them to
"fear violence would be used against them". He is accused of sharing
multiple posts about the men on social media platform X, formerly
Twitter, and making phone calls about them.
On 6 Jun 2025 at 16:53:01 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Would Mr Yaxley-Lennon have any recourse in civil law ?
I am presuming this has no criminal implications ?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tommy-robinson-kicked-out-
hawksmoor-london-b1231594.html
This is the moment far-right activist Tommy Robinson was apparently asked
to leave a high-end London steakhouse because staff "felt uncomfortable
serving him".
Footage posted online shows Robinson—real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—
dining with a group at the Hawksmoor restaurant on Air Street, near
Regent Street, before staff intervened halfway through their meal.
Former prominent EDL member Guramit Singh Kalirai, who was with Robinson,
claimed they were thrown out "for no reason".
He tweeted: "Just been kicked out of Hawksmoor steak house for no reason.
Literally just had our starters."
A video accompanying his post showed Robinson’s group in conversation
with a restaurant manager who explained: "Members of staff feel
uncomfortable serving you."
Mr Kalirai replied: "Is it because of the colour of my skin?"
The supervisor responded: "No, no, no. We have a duty of care to our
members of staff. We like to look after our people, as I'm sure you can
understand."
The manager then handed Robinson the business card of Hawksmoor’s CEO,
advising him to make contact by email "if he has any questions," and told
the group "don’t worry about the drinks," indicating the restaurant would >> cover the cost.
He concluded: "I'm very sorry. I hope it hasn't inconvenienced you."
The 47-second clip then cut to Mr Kalirai ranting: "Have you seen that?
We've just been kicked out of the steak house. Been sat here for a f***ing >> hour. We are sat here with the celebrities."
The footage ended with Robinson looking at the business card and typing
on his mobile phone.
The Standard has contacted Hawksmoor for comment.
The incident came just hours after Robinson pleaded not guilty to
harassing two journalists.
The 42-year-old appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday
surrounded by supporters, where he denied two counts of harassment
causing fear of violence between August 5 and 7, 2024.
Prosecutors allege Robinson harassed the two reporters, causing them to
"fear violence would be used against them". He is accused of sharing
multiple posts about the men on social media platform X, formerly
Twitter, and making phone calls about them.
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to anyone, provided they do not do so because of a characteristic protected under the Equality Act. Being a notoriously unpleasant person is not a characteristic protected under the Equality Act. If he felt he had been rejected because of his political beliefs he would have to prove this at a court, and also prove that his expressed beliefs were worthy of respect in a democratic society. But as he is a convicted violent criminal the restaurant might well claim that
it was those convictions rather than his political beliefs that led to their refusal to serve him. Or they might refuse to give a reason and leave it to "Robinson" to make his case.
Would Mr Yaxley-Lennon have any recourse in civil law ?
I am presuming this has no criminal implications ?
On 2025-06-06, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Would Mr Yaxley-Lennon have any recourse in civil law ?
I am presuming this has no criminal implications ?
I don't immediately see how as it has any civil or criminal
implications. It sounds like he wasn't asked to pay anyway,
and it would be hard to show that it was discrimination
regarding a protected characteristic.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Would Mr Yaxley-Lennon have any recourse in civil law ?
I am presuming this has no criminal implications ?
I don't immediately see how as it has any civil or criminal
implications. It sounds like he wasn't asked to pay anyway,
and it would be hard to show that it was discrimination
regarding a protected characteristic.
Using that logic, “feeling uncomfortable” could be used to refuse to serve
anyone - even if the real reason was legally ( and morally) unacceptable.
On 2025-06-06, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Would Mr Yaxley-Lennon have any recourse in civil law ?
I am presuming this has no criminal implications ?
I don't immediately see how as it has any civil or criminal
implications. It sounds like he wasn't asked to pay anyway,
and it would be hard to show that it was discrimination
regarding a protected characteristic.
On 06/06/2025 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to anyone,
provided they do not do so because of a characteristic protected under the >> Equality Act. Being a notoriously unpleasant person is not a characteristic >> protected under the Equality Act.
The manager has been video'd, saying "No, no, no. We have a duty of care
to our members of staff. We like to look after our people, as I'm sure
you can understand."
If it came to a trial, he would be cross-examined about what he meant.
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to anyone, provided they do not do so because of a characteristic protected under the Equality Act. Being a notoriously unpleasant person is not a characteristic protected under the Equality Act.
On 6 Jun 2025 at 17:19:19 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 6 Jun 2025 at 16:53:01 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote: >>
Would Mr Yaxley-Lennon have any recourse in civil law ?
I am presuming this has no criminal implications ?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tommy-robinson-kicked-out-
hawksmoor-london-b1231594.html
This is the moment far-right activist Tommy Robinson was apparently asked >>> to leave a high-end London steakhouse because staff "felt uncomfortable
serving him".
Footage posted online shows Robinson—real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon— >>> dining with a group at the Hawksmoor restaurant on Air Street, near
Regent Street, before staff intervened halfway through their meal.
Former prominent EDL member Guramit Singh Kalirai, who was with Robinson, >>> claimed they were thrown out "for no reason".
He tweeted: "Just been kicked out of Hawksmoor steak house for no reason. >>> Literally just had our starters."
A video accompanying his post showed Robinson’s group in conversation
with a restaurant manager who explained: "Members of staff feel
uncomfortable serving you."
Mr Kalirai replied: "Is it because of the colour of my skin?"
The supervisor responded: "No, no, no. We have a duty of care to our
members of staff. We like to look after our people, as I'm sure you can
understand."
The manager then handed Robinson the business card of Hawksmoor’s CEO, >>> advising him to make contact by email "if he has any questions," and told >>> the group "don’t worry about the drinks," indicating the restaurant would >>> cover the cost.
He concluded: "I'm very sorry. I hope it hasn't inconvenienced you."
The 47-second clip then cut to Mr Kalirai ranting: "Have you seen that?
We've just been kicked out of the steak house. Been sat here for a f***ing >>> hour. We are sat here with the celebrities."
The footage ended with Robinson looking at the business card and typing
on his mobile phone.
The Standard has contacted Hawksmoor for comment.
The incident came just hours after Robinson pleaded not guilty to
harassing two journalists.
The 42-year-old appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday
surrounded by supporters, where he denied two counts of harassment
causing fear of violence between August 5 and 7, 2024.
Prosecutors allege Robinson harassed the two reporters, causing them to
"fear violence would be used against them". He is accused of sharing
multiple posts about the men on social media platform X, formerly
Twitter, and making phone calls about them.
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to anyone,
provided they do not do so because of a characteristic protected under the >> Equality Act. Being a notoriously unpleasant person is not a characteristic >> protected under the Equality Act. If he felt he had been rejected because of >> his political beliefs he would have to prove this at a court, and also prove >> that his expressed beliefs were worthy of respect in a democratic society. >> But as he is a convicted violent criminal the restaurant might well claim that
it was those convictions rather than his political beliefs that led to their >> refusal to serve him. Or they might refuse to give a reason and leave it to >> "Robinson" to make his case.
And I forgot to mention that they might well be able to claim that they threw the party out because of their conduct, such as being loud, disruptive or rude. That would tend to make a discrimination claim unlikely to succeed.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Would Mr Yaxley-Lennon have any recourse in civil law ?
I am presuming this has no criminal implications ?
I don't immediately see how as it has any civil or criminal
implications. It sounds like he wasn't asked to pay anyway,
and it would be hard to show that it was discrimination
regarding a protected characteristic.
Using that logic, “feeling uncomfortable” could be used to refuse
to serve anyone - even if the real reason was legally ( and morally) unacceptable.
On 6 Jun 2025 at 23:25:09 BST, "Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Would Mr Yaxley-Lennon have any recourse in civil law ?
I am presuming this has no criminal implications ?
I don't immediately see how as it has any civil or criminal
implications. It sounds like he wasn't asked to pay anyway,
and it would be hard to show that it was discrimination
regarding a protected characteristic.
Using that logic, “feeling uncomfortable” could be used to refuse
to serve
anyone - even if the real reason was legally ( and morally) unacceptable.
Indeed. But they simply do not need a reason to refuse to serve anyone, >provided it is not done because of a characteristic of the customer protected >under the equality act. The same applies to pubs, and no one is going to win >an action against them if they cannot demonstrate unlawful discrimination.
On 06/06/2025 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to anyone,
provided they do not do so because of a characteristic protected under the >> Equality Act. Being a notoriously unpleasant person is not a characteristic >> protected under the Equality Act.
The manager has been video'd, saying "No, no, no. We have a duty of care to our members
of staff. We like to look after our people, as I'm sure you can understand."
If it came to a trial, he would be cross-examined about what he meant.
In message <5108587430.85eb9ff9@uninhabited.net>, at 23:04:46 on Fri,
6 Jun 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 6 Jun 2025 at 23:25:09 BST, "Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Would Mr Yaxley-Lennon have any recourse in civil law ?
I am presuming this has no criminal implications ?
I don't immediately see how as it has any civil or criminal
implications. It sounds like he wasn't asked to pay anyway, and it
would be hard to show that it was discrimination regarding a
protected characteristic.
Using that logic, "feeling uncomfortable" could be used to refuse
to serve anyone - even if the real reason was legally ( and
morally) unacceptable.
Indeed. But they simply do not need a reason to refuse to serve
anyone, provided it is not done because of a characteristic of the
customer protected under the equality act. The same applies to pubs,
and no one is going to win an action against them if they cannot >>demonstrate unlawful discrimination.
See also "no shirt, no service". Being a naturist is not a protected characteristic.
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to anyone, provided they do not do so because of a characteristic protected under the Equality Act
Op 06/06/2025 om 17:19 schreef Roger Hayter:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to anyone,
provided they do not do so because of a characteristic protected under
the Equality Act
Maybe he should start identifying herself as a woman?
On 06:52 7 Jun 2025, Roland Perry said:
In message <5108587430.85eb9ff9@uninhabited.net>, at 23:04:46 on Fri,
6 Jun 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 6 Jun 2025 at 23:25:09 BST, "Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Would Mr Yaxley-Lennon have any recourse in civil law ?
I am presuming this has no criminal implications ?
I don't immediately see how as it has any civil or criminal
implications. It sounds like he wasn't asked to pay anyway, and it
would be hard to show that it was discrimination regarding a
protected characteristic.
Using that logic, "feeling uncomfortable" could be used to refuse
to serve anyone - even if the real reason was legally ( and
morally) unacceptable.
Indeed. But they simply do not need a reason to refuse to serve
anyone, provided it is not done because of a characteristic of the
customer protected under the equality act. The same applies to pubs,
and no one is going to win an action against them if they cannot
demonstrate unlawful discrimination.
See also "no shirt, no service". Being a naturist is not a protected
characteristic.
Maybe one day having a criminal record will become a protected characteristic.
After all, they have served their time and hopefully are rehabilitated.
Op 06/06/2025 om 17:19 schreef Roger Hayter:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to anyone,
provided they do not do so because of a characteristic protected under the >> Equality Act
Maybe he should start identifying herself as a woman?
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:101v6ag$2cif4$1@dont-email.me...
On 06/06/2025 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to anyone, >>> provided they do not do so because of a characteristic protected under the >>> Equality Act. Being a notoriously unpleasant person is not a characteristic >>> protected under the Equality Act.
The manager has been video'd, saying "No, no, no. We have a duty of care to our members
of staff. We like to look after our people, as I'm sure you can understand." >>
If it came to a trial, he would be cross-examined about what he meant.
What trial ?
What law are you suggesting the manager had broken ?
And were there be a civil trial, I very much doubt Mr Yaxley's
Lennon's counsel would wish to give any defence witnesses the
opportunity to cite their client's numerous well publicised criminal convictions for Assault, Threatening Behaviour, Stalking, etc. etc,
in order to illustrate precisely what they meant.
On 07/06/2025 09:02, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:101v6ag$2cif4$1@dont-email.me...
On 06/06/2025 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to
anyone, provided they do not do so because of a characteristic
protected under the Equality Act. Being a notoriously unpleasant
person is not a characteristic protected under the Equality Act.
The manager has been video'd, saying "No, no, no. We have a duty of
care to our members of staff. We like to look after our people, as I'm
sure you can understand."
If it came to a trial, he would be cross-examined about what he meant.
What trial ?
What law are you suggesting the manager had broken ?
And were there be a civil trial, I very much doubt Mr Yaxley's Lennon's
counsel would wish to give any defence witnesses the opportunity to
cite their client's numerous well publicised criminal convictions for
Assault, Threatening Behaviour, Stalking, etc. etc, in order to
illustrate precisely what they meant.
A number of possible reasons for the ejection were given. My point was
simply that it might not be too difficult for skilled counsel to pierce
any smokescreen.
For examples, one of the reasons proposed on this NG was that the party
were rowdy. In that case, it seems unlikely that the manager would have apologised in the way he did.
From what I read, the management went beyond what was required.
On 07/06/2025 09:02, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:101v6ag$2cif4$1@dont-email.me...
On 06/06/2025 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to
anyone, provided they do not do so because of a characteristic
protected under the Equality Act. Being a notoriously unpleasant
person is not a characteristic protected under the Equality Act.
The manager has been video'd, saying "No, no, no. We have a duty of
care to our members of staff. We like to look after our people, as
I'm sure you can understand."
If it came to a trial, he would be cross-examined about what he meant.
What trial ?
What law are you suggesting the manager had broken ?
And were there be a civil trial, I very much doubt Mr Yaxley's
Lennon's counsel would wish to give any defence witnesses the
opportunity to cite their client's numerous well publicised criminal
convictions for Assault, Threatening Behaviour, Stalking, etc. etc,
in order to illustrate precisely what they meant.
A number of possible reasons for the ejection were given. My point was
simply that it might not be too difficult for skilled counsel to pierce
any smokescreen.
For examples, one of the reasons proposed on this NG was that the party
were rowdy. In that case, it seems unlikely that the manager would have apologised in the way he did.
On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:52:56 +0100, GB wrote:
AIUI there is no obligation to state a reason for refusal to serve.
If that is the case (ICBW) then the best advice to all any any
proprietors (or agents thereof) in a similar position would be to simply refuse to give a reason. Although if the person(s) refused were to take
it to court (and get it heard) would they be able to just repeat they
aren't required to give reason.
I'm reminded of a colleague who on occasion would trim the people he was considering for a position by dropping half the CVs in the shredder. It
would have been impossible to divine any conscious discrimination in such
an action. Although I would like to see it attempted.
On 2025-06-07, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 07/06/2025 09:02, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:101v6ag$2cif4$1@dont-email.me...
On 06/06/2025 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to
anyone, provided they do not do so because of a characteristic
protected under the Equality Act. Being a notoriously unpleasant
person is not a characteristic protected under the Equality Act.
The manager has been video'd, saying "No, no, no. We have a duty of
care to our members of staff. We like to look after our people, as
I'm sure you can understand."
If it came to a trial, he would be cross-examined about what he
meant.
What trial ?
What law are you suggesting the manager had broken ?
And were there be a civil trial, I very much doubt Mr Yaxley's
Lennon's counsel would wish to give any defence witnesses the
opportunity to cite their client's numerous well publicised criminal
convictions for Assault, Threatening Behaviour, Stalking, etc. etc, in
order to illustrate precisely what they meant.
A number of possible reasons for the ejection were given. My point was
simply that it might not be too difficult for skilled counsel to pierce
any smokescreen.
For examples, one of the reasons proposed on this NG was that the party
were rowdy. In that case, it seems unlikely that the manager would have
apologised in the way he did.
"Smokescreen"? What are you on about?
It seems pretty obvious why they wouldn't want him there (would *you*
want him in your place of business?), and it isn't a reason related to a protected characteristic, so why do you keep suggesting there's a secret hidden reason that would have legal consequences if exposed?
On 2025-06-07, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 06/06/2025 om 17:19 schreef Roger Hayter:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to anyone, >>> provided they do not do so because of a characteristic protected under the >>> Equality Act
Maybe he should start identifying herself as a woman?
Does the restaurant refuse admission to women?
For examples, one of the reasons proposed on this NG was that the party
were rowdy. In that case, it seems unlikely that the manager would have
apologised in the way he did.
"Smokescreen"? What are you on about?
It seems pretty obvious why they wouldn't want him there (would *you*
want him in your place of business?), and it isn't a reason related to
a protected characteristic, so why do you keep suggesting there's a
secret hidden reason that would have legal consequences if exposed?
On 2025-06-07, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 07/06/2025 09:02, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:101v6ag$2cif4$1@dont-email.me...
On 06/06/2025 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to
anyone, provided they do not do so because of a characteristic
protected under the Equality Act. Being a notoriously unpleasant
person is not a characteristic protected under the Equality Act.
The manager has been video'd, saying "No, no, no. We have a duty of
care to our members of staff. We like to look after our people, as
I'm sure you can understand."
If it came to a trial, he would be cross-examined about what he meant.
What trial ?
What law are you suggesting the manager had broken ?
And were there be a civil trial, I very much doubt Mr Yaxley's
Lennon's counsel would wish to give any defence witnesses the
opportunity to cite their client's numerous well publicised criminal
convictions for Assault, Threatening Behaviour, Stalking, etc. etc,
in order to illustrate precisely what they meant.
A number of possible reasons for the ejection were given. My point was
simply that it might not be too difficult for skilled counsel to pierce
any smokescreen.
For examples, one of the reasons proposed on this NG was that the party
were rowdy. In that case, it seems unlikely that the manager would have
apologised in the way he did.
"Smokescreen"? What are you on about?
It seems pretty obvious why they wouldn't want him there (would *you*
want him in your place of business?),
and it isn't a reason related to
a protected characteristic, so why do you keep suggesting there's a
secret hidden reason that would have legal consequences if exposed?
On 07/06/2025 09:02, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:101v6ag$2cif4$1@dont-email.me...
On 06/06/2025 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to anyone, >>>> provided they do not do so because of a characteristic protected under the >>>> Equality Act. Being a notoriously unpleasant person is not a characteristic
protected under the Equality Act.
The manager has been video'd, saying "No, no, no. We have a duty of care to our
members
of staff. We like to look after our people, as I'm sure you can understand."
If it came to a trial, he would be cross-examined about what he meant.
What trial ?
What law are you suggesting the manager had broken ?
And were there be a civil trial, I very much doubt Mr Yaxley's
Lennon's counsel would wish to give any defence witnesses the
opportunity to cite their client's numerous well publicised criminal
convictions for Assault, Threatening Behaviour, Stalking, etc. etc,
in order to illustrate precisely what they meant.
A number of possible reasons for the ejection were given. My point was simply that it
might not be too difficult for skilled counsel to pierce any smokescreen.
For examples, one of the reasons proposed on this NG was that the party were rowdy. In
that case, it seems unlikely that the manager would have apologised in the way he did.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message news:1021n8o$3554o$2@dont-email.me...
On 07/06/2025 09:02, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:101v6ag$2cif4$1@dont-email.me...
On 06/06/2025 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to anyone, >>>>> provided they do not do so because of a characteristic protected under the
Equality Act. Being a notoriously unpleasant person is not a characteristic
protected under the Equality Act.
The manager has been video'd, saying "No, no, no. We have a duty of care to our
members
of staff. We like to look after our people, as I'm sure you can understand."
If it came to a trial, he would be cross-examined about what he meant.
What trial ?
What law are you suggesting the manager had broken ?
And were there be a civil trial, I very much doubt Mr Yaxley's
Lennon's counsel would wish to give any defence witnesses the
opportunity to cite their client's numerous well publicised criminal
convictions for Assault, Threatening Behaviour, Stalking, etc. etc,
in order to illustrate precisely what they meant.
A number of possible reasons for the ejection were given. My point was simply that it
might not be too difficult for skilled counsel to pierce any smokescreen.
What "smokescreen" ? Are you claiming that the manager was only "pretending" to feel uncomfortable at the prospects of a having a publicity-seeking Islamaphopobic troublemaker with multiple criminal convictions, dining
in his restaurant and interacting with his staff ? To say nothing of
the potential impact on their other customers. Assuming that they still
had any left.
That "smokescreen" ?
For examples, one of the reasons proposed on this NG was that the party were rowdy. In
that case, it seems unlikely that the manager would have apologised in the way he did.
"Apologised" ?
An "explanation" does not amount to an "apology".
An "apology" is an admission of having done wrong.
Whereas an "explanation" may be needed, for anyone who is not immediately able to work it out for themselves.
That managers of up-market West End Restaurants do not normally welcome
the custom of publicity seeking Islamophobic troublemakers with multiple criminal convictions.
bb
* While comparisons with the "old days", and "The Twins" are misplaced; for numerous reasons.
On 06:52 7 Jun 2025, Roland Perry said:
In message <5108587430.85eb9ff9@uninhabited.net>, at 23:04:46 on Fri,
6 Jun 2025, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 6 Jun 2025 at 23:25:09 BST, "Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-06, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Would Mr Yaxley-Lennon have any recourse in civil law ?
I am presuming this has no criminal implications ?
I don't immediately see how as it has any civil or criminal
implications. It sounds like he wasn't asked to pay anyway, and it
would be hard to show that it was discrimination regarding a
protected characteristic.
Using that logic, "feeling uncomfortable" could be used to refuse
to serve anyone - even if the real reason was legally ( and
morally) unacceptable.
Indeed. But they simply do not need a reason to refuse to serve
anyone, provided it is not done because of a characteristic of the
customer protected under the equality act. The same applies to pubs,
and no one is going to win an action against them if they cannot
demonstrate unlawful discrimination.
See also "no shirt, no service". Being a naturist is not a protected
characteristic.
Maybe one day having a criminal record will become a protected characteristic.
After all, they have served their time and hopefully are rehabilitated.
On 07/06/2025 04:55 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-07, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 06/06/2025 om 17:19 schreef Roger Hayter:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to
anyone,
provided they do not do so because of a characteristic protected
under the
Equality Act
Maybe he should start identifying herself as a woman?
Does the restaurant refuse admission to women?
If it did, the operators would be in trouble.
On 07/06/2025 19:03, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:1021n8o$3554o$2@dont-email.me...
On 07/06/2025 09:02, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote in message
news:101v6ag$2cif4$1@dont-email.me...
On 06/06/2025 17:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
The restaurant has a right to refuse service and/or admission to
anyone, provided they do not do so because of a characteristic
protected under the Equality Act. Being a notoriously unpleasant
person is not a characteristic protected under the Equality Act.
The manager has been video'd, saying "No, no, no. We have a duty of
care to our members of staff. We like to look after our people, as
I'm sure you can understand."
If it came to a trial, he would be cross-examined about what he
meant.
What trial ?
What law are you suggesting the manager had broken ?
And were there be a civil trial, I very much doubt Mr Yaxley's
Lennon's counsel would wish to give any defence witnesses the
opportunity to cite their client's numerous well publicised criminal
convictions for Assault, Threatening Behaviour, Stalking, etc. etc,
in order to illustrate precisely what they meant.
A number of possible reasons for the ejection were given. My point was
simply that it might not be too difficult for skilled counsel to
pierce any smokescreen.
What "smokescreen" ? Are you claiming that the manager was only
"pretending"
to feel uncomfortable at the prospects of a having a publicity-seeking
Islamaphopobic troublemaker with multiple criminal convictions, dining
in his restaurant and interacting with his staff ? To say nothing of
the potential impact on their other customers. Assuming that they still
had any left.
That "smokescreen" ?
I don't think the manager said anything about feeling uncomfortable
himself.
I speculate, but possibly the manager was worried that staff would put
more bodily fluids than usual into the food being prepared for that particular party.
On 07/06/2025 21:02, JNugent wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It could simply make itself into a private club.
There are many instances of women only clubs, and men only golf clubs
etc.
I wonder if in the glory days of the Troubles, catholic employees in an establishment could have objected to serving Ian Paisley, or protestant employees serving Gerry Adams ?
On 2025-06-08, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I wonder if in the glory days of the Troubles, catholic employees in an
establishment could have objected to serving Ian Paisley, or protestant
employees serving Gerry Adams ?
What? Never mind Ian Paisley or Gerry Adams, there were roads in Belfast which any Catholic couldn't go into any establishments on one side of,
and any Protestant couldn't go into any on the other side of.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 35:01:38 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,205 |