nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Got thrown out of a pub for not drinking!

[Deleted User]

Just seeing if anyone has had any similar experiences? I've never been removed from a premises in my life before, but on Saturday night, myself, the girlfriend and a couple of friends went to see some live music in a pub in town.

I was designated driver for the night, and the lads were ripping through the pints in the place. My girlfriend doesn't drink, so that was nothing new.

Anyway, after about 20 minutes in the place a barman comes out to me and asks would I like a drink. I said I'm alright thanks, and his reply, kind of sharp was "are ya not old enough to be drinking then?". I responded that I was, and showed him my ID aswell.

Literally 5 minutes later, same guy (think he may have been the manager of the pub actually) comes over, "Do you want a drink?", again, "no I'm alright thanks, I'm driving tonight". He wasn't a happy camper and wandered off.

Another 10/15 minutes later he just storms over to us, and told myself and the girlfriend to get out. "I could fill the place with people like you's if I wanted" "Pair of yee are a waste of space" etc...

I actually found it quite funny to be honest, but in another situation I would've been incredibly pissed off.

Anyone got any similar stories? Or thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

getting drunk

Quick Links

Comments

L31mr0d

why don't people who aren't drinking just order a lime water or something, they are usually free, and just leave it sitting in front of them.

[Deleted User]

laughin'joe wrote: »

you should have atleast bought a soft drink and at the end of the day he was right to throw you out after all he has a business to run..even if they are robbing people it's still a business. You should have just ordered even a water for fu*k sake.......I say you still ahve your communion money

very witty...

I work in a mininum wage job, and am in full time education.

I don't have much of a disposable income.

Ordering a water would have made this guy far far more angry. And I don't "do" soft drinks, years of braces teach you to take car of what you've got.

As said previously, I usually order blackcurrant if I'm not drinking. But I got the distinct impression that if I ordered a blackcurrant, It was as good as throwing it in his face. He meant "order a 'real' drink"

Moojuice

Im with the OP. **** the barmen and bar owners. They rake in enough money. If your friends were drinking then the bar man was being a complete ****. I dont drink but I will buy one or two soft drinks and spend ages drinking them or the Alcohol free Krombacher is nice (and a lot better for you than soft drinks). I like the Krombacher but I mainly order drinks to have something to sip on for a while. They charge a fortune for soft drinks too and make a lot of money from it. If you had been on your own and had not been drinking anything then I can see the barmans point (but dont necessarily agree with him) but he could have been decent about it.

Zzippy

I got barred from the Kings Head once for using their jacks

This thread reminds me of going into a pub and not being able to get a seat cos there's a bunch of French or Spanish students sitting around nursing one half pint of beer between 7 of them.

Bloody foreigners, coming over here and taking all our barstools!

humbert

With the exception of a particularly large group not buying anything I can't get over the number of people who think it's completely acceptable to kick someone out for drinking water. It's a bloody pub, public house, and drinking soft drinks for a whole night is fecking horrible and I'd imagine very unhealthy.

You have to love the Irish. Cafés not allowed to sell alcohol, publicans complaining that strict drink driving measures are affecting their businesses, kicking people out for not buying "real" drinks. Jesus wept.

DrLecter

I think that barman, manager or not, was an ignorant fu*k!

Typical, with all the pi*sing and moaning publicans do over the drink driving ban, smoking ban, supermarket off-licences undercutting them etc.
you'd think they would have the good sense not to force customers out of the door!

Maybe you should have told him that whenever it was your Girlfriend's round YOU were paying, see how he liked them apples!:)

DrLecter

laughin'joe wrote: »

you should have atleast bought a soft drink and at the end of the day he was right to throw you out after all he has a business to run..even if they are robbing people it's still a business. You should have just ordered even a water for fu*k sake.......I say you still ahve your communion money

And why should he buy a soft drink off these robbers?!

Charging more for a pint of Rock Shandy than they do for a pint of lager.

At least Dick Turpin wore a mask!!!

subway

what pub was this?

edanto

Yeah seriously, it'd be good to know which pub it happened in. I can't see a compelling reason not to name and shame.

It's common enough for people to praise places on here, don't be shy to do the opposite.

Ya-Boy-Ya

Shame ?? Haha

You cant expect to walk into a pub and sit down with nothing... end of story.

squibs

Last time I checked, choking on sweets in the cinema wasn't an epidemic...

Stop making bad comparisons, this is "the real world".

If someone is with a group of 9 other people and not drinking, he shouldn't be thrown out... end of story. Sure the barman was within his rights, but I think 99% of barmen in the country wouldn't throw someone like that out.

People choke on food - it happens more than you might think. A portion of the 350-400 road deaths a year in Ireland are caused by alcohol. That's not an epedemic either (it's far too high, it's awful, but it's not an epedemic) if you want to get pedantic about it.

Why should the medic not get a freebie in the cinema if the DD gets free access to the pub facilities? If there is an unwritten rule, then it should be consistent.

The barman was right, the drinkers should have bought a softie for the DD. What did you say again? Oh yeah - "end of story".

seanabc

You cant expect to walk into a pub and sit down with nothing... end of story.

Exactly.

I'm wondering as well did the barman actually say anything about buying a "real" drink? If they make more money on soft drinks I don't see why he'd really care.

edanto

Look, it's not like he walked into a pub and sat at the bar by himself for hours. Taking up valuable space. And upsetting people around him with his fruity odour.

He was there with friends, and he just happenned not to be drinking that night. His friends were drinking, but they probably left soon after, as it's always a bad buzz when one of your mates gets kicked out.

It's ridiculous to suggest that the barman had a queue of 100 people outside the door just waiting on a free barstool - and that he was able to let one of them in when he kicked emmet02 out. Those days are long gone for publicans.

I consider it pure fucking rude, what the barman did, and given the choice, I'll avoid the pub where it happened. I have the choice, and I don't think that someone so scabby deserves my business.

Imagine how the barman would have reacted if our OP had said to him, no thanks, I don't want a drink, but here's two euro. He would have kicked him out anyways.
This isn't about drinking or not drinking, or making money.

It's about a rude barman, and I'd rather know where to avoid.

joe_chicken

squibs wrote: »

People choke on food - it happens more than you might think. A portion of the 350-400 road deaths a year in Ireland are caused by alcohol. That's not an epedemic either (it's far too high, it's awful, but it's not an epedemic) if you want to get pedantic about it.

Really? You're really trying to equate the drink driving EPIDEMIC (because it is one, see national TV and newspapers for more info) with choking on a sweet, specifically in a cinema?

I'm gonna stop arguing with you after that line of reasoning, because you have to be taking the piss.

ian_m

humbert wrote: »

With the exception of a particularly large group not buying anything I can't get over the number of people who think it's completely acceptable to kick someone out for drinking water.

He wasn't drinking anything, not even a glass of water. Nothing was purchased.

Quality

Maybe OP is a bit dodgy looking or something, you know the type and the barman just wanted him out.

Op probably gave a bit of lip and that was it.

[Deleted User]

Quality wrote: »

Maybe OP is a bit dodgy looking or something, you know the type and the barman just wanted him out.

Op probably gave a bit of lip and that was it.

not able to read?

I've explained exactly what happened, even quoted what was said.

There's no "probably" about it.

I don't do "lip".

Quality

dodgy looking so!!

thefinalstage

Deleted User wrote: »

not able to read?

I've explained exactly what happened, even quoted what was said.

There's no "probably" about it.

I don't do "lip".

You just did muchacho.

Quality

thelastangryman wrote: »

You just did muchacho.

:D:D

oleras

thelastangryman wrote: »

muchacho.

really underused term...........

OP, technically you should have purchased something, even though you were in the company of paying customers, thems the breaks.

As for the guy who asked you to leave, that was bad form, but you did say the group was standing a few feet away from you, its not as if ye were all at the one table, how was the manager to know if you were actually with 11 drinkers lashing down pints ?

And i think you should also name the Pub, give them a right to reply.

squibs

Really? You're really trying to equate the drink driving EPIDEMIC (because it is one, see national TV and newspapers for more info) with choking on a sweet, specifically in a cinema?
I'm gonna stop arguing with you after that line of reasoning, because you have to be taking the piss.

The cinema/sweet analogy was an extreme example intended to test the logic of an assertion made here. It uses the same logic as you apply to the non drinker in the pub.

From Wikipedia - Epidemic:
"a classification of a disease that appears as new cases in a given human population, during a given period, at a rate that substantially exceeds what is "expected,""

Read a little - you might learn a bit. I don't think you were arguing anyway - an argument generally involves the appplication of logic.

joe_chicken

squibs wrote: »

It uses the same logic as you apply to the non drinker in the pub.

I have told you numerous times that it doen't, giving reasons and showing my logic, i.e. People do drink and drive, people don't choke on sweets in the cinema.
(I know somw people may choke on sweets in the cinema, but from a statistical point of view, it is negligible compared to the amount that drink and drive. Remember also, the point is not to stop people dying while drink driving - the stat that you quoted earlier - the point is to stop them doing it in the first place)

squibs wrote:

From Wikipedia - Epidemic:
"a classification of a disease that appears as new cases in a given human population, during a given period, at a rate that substantially exceeds what is "expected,""

I think the amount of people who drink drive in this country does substantially exceed what is "expected".

Unlike your argument (making something bold doesn't prove your point) I'm going to clarify a few of my terms:

1) What is expected = 0
2) What actually goes on = substantially more.

squibs wrote:

Read a little - you might learn a bit. I don't think you were arguing anyway - an argument generally involves the appplication of logic.

Wow - you can be condescending on the internets - you must be great at parties.

source

squibs wrote: »

The cinema/sweet analogy was an extreme example intended to test the logic of an assertion made here. It uses the same logic as you apply to the non drinker in the pub.

From Wikipedia - Epidemic:
"a classification of a disease that appears as new cases in a given human population, during a given period, at a rate that substantially exceeds what is "expected,""

Read a little - you might learn a bit. I don't think you were arguing anyway - an argument generally involves the appplication of logic.

And now a definition from a reliable source: encarta

ep·i·dem·ic

noun (plural ep·i·dem·ics)
Definition:

1. fast-spreading disease: an outbreak of a disease that spreads more quickly and more extensively among a group of people than would normally be expected

2. rapid development: a rapid and extensive development or growth, usually of something unpleasant
an epidemic of civil unrest and rioting

adjective
Definition:

spreading unusually quickly and extensively: spreading more quickly and more extensively than would usually be expected
Credit card crime is reaching epidemic proportions.

[Early 17th century. < French épidémique< épidémie "an epidemic" < Greek epidēmia "disease prevalent among the people" < dēmos "people"]

ep·i·dem·i·cal·ly adverb
ep·i·de·mic·i·ty noun

i would say that drink driving, going off this definition (the part highlighted in red) could be considered an epidemic. Look bottom line is that drink driving is not something that anyone in this country enjoy seeing, (except of course for the few ar$eholes who engage in it on a regular basis) therefore i believe that everyone in the country has a social responsibility to stop this from happening. Almost every country in the world that have a drink driving problem have a designated driver policy, why should ireland be so different????

A few links:

Edinburgh
Australia
India
and if you google it yourself you'll get quite a number more.

squibs

My point regarding the epedemic statement (which is completely incidental to the main discussion by the way) is that lots of people drink and drive and don't die. Drink driving might be an epedemic, drink driving deaths are not because the vast majority of the muppets get away with it.

The cinema/sweets analogy takes the pub/freeloading principle to an extreme, testing the assertion that the proprietor of a business should allow certain patrons a free ride if they are providing a safety service. I believe the DD should get free drinks, but the expense should be borne by the beneficiaries of his service, not the publican.

seanabc

Good news! Coca cola are doing the three free cokes promotion for designated drivers again. If you don't want to drink you can just get one of these for free and leave it in front of you all night.

edanto

squibs wrote: »

The cinema/sweets analogy takes the pub/freeloading principle to an extreme, testing the assertion that the proprietor of a business should allow certain patrons a free ride if they are providing a safety service. I believe the DD should get free drinks, but the expense should be borne by the beneficiaries of his service, not the publican.

Dressing weak points up with word like 'testing the assertion that the proprietor' doesn't really make them any stronger. You seem to be fixated on your perception that someone on this thread said that "the proprietor of a business should allow certain patrons a free ride if they are providing a safety service". No-one except you has suggested this.

In the specific case of a pub, where patrons are putting people at risk if they choose to drive having had a few drinks, the case could obviously be made that there is at least a moral reason for allowing someone to sit there and choose not to drink.

In Australia, the publican has a share of the responsibility of the actions of people that leave the pub, and has a duty to NOT serve them if they're drunk. I'd like to see those laws here.

squibs

In Australia, the publican has a share of the responsibility of the actions of people that leave the pub, and has a duty to NOT serve them if they're drunk. I'd like to see those laws here.

That is the law here.

Dressing weak points up with word like 'testing the assertion that the proprietor' doesn't really make them any stronger.

I think the point is fine, and I always like to write with precise English -wud u rthr i usd txt spk 0r 1337 sp34k?

You seem to be fixated on your perception that someone on this thread said that "the proprietor of a business should allow certain patrons a free ride if they are providing a safety service". No-one except you has suggested this.

People are saying that the DD should be able to frequent a pub without buying anything, or having anything bought for him. Just by virtue of occupying a seat, there is an implied cost to the publican. Again stretching it to extremes, if everybody brought their own DD, the pub could only be filled to half capacity with drinkers. A publican friend recently told me that he had to stop letting people use his loo for free - his water is metered on the way in and the way out and he figures that the freeloaders were adding significantly to his water rates and also adding to his cleaning costs.

Susannahmia

It's a bit antisocial to not drink anything in a pub imo, if I didn't want to drink I'd buy a soft drink, its only fair.

starn

Saw title of this thread and instantly thought of this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEJaVJHpKmE