For the purpose of this question I will identify Limited Authority as the type a policeman is credited requiring they be on duty before having their powers of authority. I will name Licensed Authority as the type a security officer holds requiring very specific elements before they may exercise any authority.

My question arises when a hotel bouncer has not been given cause to exercise authority and seeks to identify their obligations to customers of the contracting hotel till such time as they have been given cause to exercise authority.

a) In the case a bouncer assesses a patron as being intoxicated they have the authority to refuse entry. This is lawful but should be identified as significantly limited because the bouncers assessment is;

i) arbitrary and does not define the actual state of the patron

ii) does not define any cause within the patrons actions to assume they are unreasonable and should receive assistance when requested

b) a member of the public has no obligation to inform others of medical conditions or requirements of such

With this in mind, is the bouncer not still obliged to provide customer service as might be appropriate to maintaining due care of a customer of their contractor such that if a customer has been refused re-entry to an establishment they should still be able to request the retrieval of their friends before following the lawful direction they have been given?

Postpocelipse said:

For the purpose of this question I will identify Limited Authority as the type a policeman is credited requiring they be on duty before having their powers of authority. I will name Licensed Authority as the type a security officer holds requiring very specific elements before they may exercise any authority.

My question arises when a hotel bouncer has not been given cause to exercise authority and seeks to identify their obligations to customers of the contracting hotel till such time as they have been given cause to exercise authority.

a) In the case a bouncer assesses a patron as being intoxicated they have the authority to refuse entry. This is lawful but should be identified as significantly limited because the bouncers assessment is;

i) arbitrary and does not define the actual state of the patron

ii) does not define any cause within the patrons actions to assume they are unreasonable and should receive assistance when requested

b) a member of the public has no obligation to inform others of medical conditions or requirements of such

With this in mind, is the bouncer not still obliged to provide customer service as might be appropriate to maintaining due care of a customer of their contractor such that if a customer has been refused re-entry to an establishment they should still be able to request the retrieval of their friends before following the lawful direction they have been given?

On the surface that sounds like a reasonable request but I suppose once you are in the hotel removing you if you then refuse to leave become more difficult.

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

For the purpose of this question I will identify Limited Authority as the type a policeman is credited requiring they be on duty before having their powers of authority. I will name Licensed Authority as the type a security officer holds requiring very specific elements before they may exercise any authority.

My question arises when a hotel bouncer has not been given cause to exercise authority and seeks to identify their obligations to customers of the contracting hotel till such time as they have been given cause to exercise authority.

a) In the case a bouncer assesses a patron as being intoxicated they have the authority to refuse entry. This is lawful but should be identified as significantly limited because the bouncers assessment is;

i) arbitrary and does not define the actual state of the patron

ii) does not define any cause within the patrons actions to assume they are unreasonable and should receive assistance when requested

b) a member of the public has no obligation to inform others of medical conditions or requirements of such

With this in mind, is the bouncer not still obliged to provide customer service as might be appropriate to maintaining due care of a customer of their contractor such that if a customer has been refused re-entry to an establishment they should still be able to request the retrieval of their friends before following the lawful direction they have been given?

On the surface that sounds like a reasonable request but I suppose once you are in the hotel removing you if you then refuse to leave become more difficult.

That is assuming guilt. If there has been no indication of not playing by the rules how can it be assumed?

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

For the purpose of this question I will identify Limited Authority as the type a policeman is credited requiring they be on duty before having their powers of authority. I will name Licensed Authority as the type a security officer holds requiring very specific elements before they may exercise any authority.

My question arises when a hotel bouncer has not been given cause to exercise authority and seeks to identify their obligations to customers of the contracting hotel till such time as they have been given cause to exercise authority.

a) In the case a bouncer assesses a patron as being intoxicated they have the authority to refuse entry. This is lawful but should be identified as significantly limited because the bouncers assessment is;

i) arbitrary and does not define the actual state of the patron

ii) does not define any cause within the patrons actions to assume they are unreasonable and should receive assistance when requested

b) a member of the public has no obligation to inform others of medical conditions or requirements of such

With this in mind, is the bouncer not still obliged to provide customer service as might be appropriate to maintaining due care of a customer of their contractor such that if a customer has been refused re-entry to an establishment they should still be able to request the retrieval of their friends before following the lawful direction they have been given?

On the surface that sounds like a reasonable request but I suppose once you are in the hotel removing you if you then refuse to leave become more difficult.

That is assuming guilt. If there has been no indication of not playing by the rules how can it be assumed?

It shouldn’t be, but bouncers aren’t often reasonable.

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

On the surface that sounds like a reasonable request but I suppose once you are in the hotel removing you if you then refuse to leave become more difficult.

That is assuming guilt. If there has been no indication of not playing by the rules how can it be assumed?

It shouldn’t be, but bouncers aren’t often reasonable.

And that is my point. They only have bouncer authority in a circumstance that demands it. Before that they are only representatives of the management and owe basic courtesies.

I will also be seeking to dispute the legitamacy of providing bouncers arbitrary breathalyser functions. I have been turned away on the basis I was intoxicated when I was the designated driver on the night and had nothing in my system. If they are to be given this requirement they should have to provide a legitimate breathalyser test.

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

That is assuming guilt. If there has been no indication of not playing by the rules how can it be assumed?

It shouldn’t be, but bouncers aren’t often reasonable.

And that is my point. They only have bouncer authority in a circumstance that demands it. Before that they are only representatives of the management and owe basic courtesies.

why?

Management always ha the right to refuse entry.
They employ bouncers to enforce that

even off duty, bouncers have the authority to act

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

It shouldn’t be, but bouncers aren’t often reasonable.

And that is my point. They only have bouncer authority in a circumstance that demands it. Before that they are only representatives of the management and owe basic courtesies.

why?

Management always ha the right to refuse entry.
They employ bouncers to enforce that

even off duty, bouncers have the authority to act

It is not different once they have already allowed you entry and you have spent substantial coin in their establishment? Bullshit.

I think if you don’t like their policy, you should just go to another club, or better, just do something else with your time. Clubs are dreadful places.

dv said:

I think if you don’t like their policy, you should just go to another club, or better, just do something else with your time. Clubs are dreadful places.

It isn’t one club. This is their legislation.

I imagine if a establishment needs to employ bouncers its popular enough they can refuse entry to just about anyone they want.

dv said:

I think if you don’t like their policy, you should just go to another club, or better, just do something else with your time. Clubs are dreadful places.

Yeah most suck big time, back in the early 90’s Perth had a few decent alternative music night clubs that were great, no hassles from anyone including bouncers.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

And that is my point. They only have bouncer authority in a circumstance that demands it. Before that they are only representatives of the management and owe basic courtesies.

why?

Management always ha the right to refuse entry.
They employ bouncers to enforce that

even off duty, bouncers have the authority to act

It is not different once they have already allowed you entry and you have spent substantial coin in their establishment? Bullshit.

no, it isn’t

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

why?

Management always ha the right to refuse entry.
They employ bouncers to enforce that

even off duty, bouncers have the authority to act

It is not different once they have already allowed you entry and you have spent substantial coin in their establishment? Bullshit.

no, it isn’t

That is crap. If you have given them nil cause they owe you as much courtesy as anyone else, including being allowed to retrieve those you brought to their establishment.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

It is not different once they have already allowed you entry and you have spent substantial coin in their establishment? Bullshit.

no, it isn’t

That is crap. If you have given them nil cause they owe you as much courtesy as anyone else, including being allowed to retrieve those you brought to their establishment.

That’s probably true but you are in a no-win situation as they have all the power plus can be unreasonable, you complain and are most likely going to make the situation worse

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

no, it isn’t

That is crap. If you have given them nil cause they owe you as much courtesy as anyone else, including being allowed to retrieve those you brought to their establishment.

That’s probably true but you are in a no-win situation as they have all the power plus can be unreasonable, you complain and are most likely going to make the situation worse

They only have all the power because the legislation has only addressed their rights and either not disclosed or not addressed the rights of the public.

In this day and age I imagine they will just say ring your mates if you ask them to let you in to retrieve them.

Cymek said:

In this day and age I imagine they will just say ring your mates if you ask them to let you in to retrieve them.

That is only reasonable provided your friends have phones.

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

In this day and age I imagine they will just say ring your mates if you ask them to let you in to retrieve them.

That is only reasonable provided your friends have phones.

Everyone who goes to clubs have phones.

You could do a martial arts training montage and go back and challenge them to a fight and include a badly dubbed “You wanna a fight, fight me damn you” voice effect

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

In this day and age I imagine they will just say ring your mates if you ask them to let you in to retrieve them.

That is only reasonable provided your friends have phones.

Everyone who goes to clubs have phones.

If you choose to assume that you can also assume most venues have the music up too loud to hear a phone.

Cymek said:

You could do a martial arts training montage and go back and challenge them to a fight and include a badly dubbed “You wanna a fight, fight me damn you” voice effect

I’m going the Perry Mason sue the shit out of them in court option. Don’t assume the suing is for anything mentioned here.

Postpocelipse said:

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

That is only reasonable provided your friends have phones.

Everyone who goes to clubs have phones.

If you choose to assume that you can also assume most venues have the music up too loud to hear a phone.

Most club goers believe the music is never too loud.

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

That is crap. If you have given them nil cause they owe you as much courtesy as anyone else, including being allowed to retrieve those you brought to their establishment.

That’s probably true but you are in a no-win situation as they have all the power plus can be unreasonable, you complain and are most likely going to make the situation worse

They only have all the power because the legislation has only addressed their rights and either not disclosed or not addressed the rights of the public.

now you’re breaking into CN territory…

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

That’s probably true but you are in a no-win situation as they have all the power plus can be unreasonable, you complain and are most likely going to make the situation worse

They only have all the power because the legislation has only addressed their rights and either not disclosed or not addressed the rights of the public.

now you’re breaking into CN territory…

Well after tomorrow I am free to file against them so make whatever observation that pleases you.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

They only have all the power because the legislation has only addressed their rights and either not disclosed or not addressed the rights of the public.

now you’re breaking into CN territory…

Well after tomorrow I am free to file against them so make whatever observation that pleases you.

Keep us informed

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

now you’re breaking into CN territory…

Well after tomorrow I am free to file against them so make whatever observation that pleases you.

Keep us informed

Will do.

their hotel, their rules. basically you have no case. bouncers have the same powers as any other member of the public.

srsly, if a bouncer kicks you out, they probably save you fifty bucks.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Well after tomorrow I am free to file against them so make whatever observation that pleases you.

Keep us informed

Will do.

what outcome would you be looking for?

damages?

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Keep us informed

Will do.

what outcome would you be looking for?

damages?

The money he would have wasted in da club will now be spent in da courthouse.

poikilotherm said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Will do.

what outcome would you be looking for?

damages?

The money he would have wasted in da club will now be spent in da courthouse.

>If you have given them nil cause

That’s up to them. They have to observe normal consumer protection laws, anti-discrimination laws etc, but beyond that they can tell you to leave for any reason they like.

They can’t kick you out because they don’t like the colour of your skin, but they can kick you out because they don’t like the colour of your shoes.

Bubblecar said:

>If you have given them nil cause

That’s up to them. They have to observe normal consumer protection laws, anti-discrimination laws etc, but beyond that they can tell you to leave for any reason they like.

They can kick you out because they don’t like the colour of your skin, as long as they they say it’s because they don’t like the colour of your shoes.

*fixed

stumpy_seahorse said:

Bubblecar said:

>If you have given them nil cause

That’s up to them. They have to observe normal consumer protection laws, anti-discrimination laws etc, but beyond that they can tell you to leave for any reason they like.

They can kick you out because they don’t like the colour of your skin, as long as they they say it’s because they don’t like the colour of your shoes.

*fixed

Yes, that too.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Bubblecar said:

>If you have given them nil cause

That’s up to them. They have to observe normal consumer protection laws, anti-discrimination laws etc, but beyond that they can tell you to leave for any reason they like.

They can kick you out because they don’t like the colour of your skin, as long as they they say it’s because they don’t like the colour of your shoes.

*fixed

zing

Someone might have complained that you were staring at their girlfriend’s drink.

You seem to have illustrated that they are allowed to put you in a possible medical situation because they don’t you or something about you. That sounds just like a license to antagonise.

Postpocelipse said:

You seem to have illustrated that they are allowed to put you in a possible medical situation because they don’t like you or something about you. That sounds just like a license to antagonise.

fixed*…….

Postpocelipse said:

You seem to have illustrated that they are allowed to put you in a possible medical situation because they don’t you or something about you. That sounds just like a license to antagonise.

?

Srsly. I wish I’d never gone to a club in my life.

dv said:

Srsly. I wish I’d never gone to a club in my life.

Me either. My last trip has cost me 18 months of anguish and lost employment opportunities. It would appear that the tables are about to be turned however.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

You seem to have illustrated that they are allowed to put you in a possible medical situation because they don’t you or something about you. That sounds just like a license to antagonise.

?

Are you seeking specifics of an unresolved matter or generic references? The latter would be difficult because I can’t predict the various small peculiarities another person might retain that would contribute to a similar circumstance.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

You seem to have illustrated that they are allowed to put you in a possible medical situation because they don’t you or something about you. That sounds just like a license to antagonise.

?

Are you seeking specifics of an unresolved matter or generic references? The latter would be difficult because I can’t predict the various small peculiarities another person might retain that would contribute to a similar circumstance.

just wondering how getting bounced could induce a “possible medical situation”

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

?

Are you seeking specifics of an unresolved matter or generic references? The latter would be difficult because I can’t predict the various small peculiarities another person might retain that would contribute to a similar circumstance.

just wondering how getting bounced could induce a “possible medical situation”

There are reasons you aren’t obligated to divulge medical conditions unless directly effecting another person. This type of area is why the presumption that bouncers are qualified to make assumptions just makes an ass out of everyone.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

?

Are you seeking specifics of an unresolved matter or generic references? The latter would be difficult because I can’t predict the various small peculiarities another person might retain that would contribute to a similar circumstance.

just wondering how getting bounced could induce a “possible medical situation”

There was no suggestion the bouncing induced a medical condition. Being denied having those available familiar with dealing with your condition is not a call the public should allow a bouncer to make.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Are you seeking specifics of an unresolved matter or generic references? The latter would be difficult because I can’t predict the various small peculiarities another person might retain that would contribute to a similar circumstance.

just wondering how getting bounced could induce a “possible medical situation”

There are reasons you aren’t obligated to divulge medical conditions unless directly effecting another person. This type of area is why the presumption that bouncers are qualified to make assumptions just makes an ass out of everyone.

I don’t see how this relates to your earlier statements.

being removed from your friends my a bouncer could cause a medical situation?

As stated earlier by a few people, a bouncer is only qualified to decide if a patron is suitable clientele for the premises.
Bringing in medical conditions makes no difference

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Are you seeking specifics of an unresolved matter or generic references? The latter would be difficult because I can’t predict the various small peculiarities another person might retain that would contribute to a similar circumstance.

just wondering how getting bounced could induce a “possible medical situation”

There was no suggestion the bouncing induced a medical condition. Being denied having those available familiar with dealing with your condition is not a call the public should allow a bouncer to make.

“You seem to have illustrated that they are allowed to put you in a possible medical situation”

you need to clarify when is a patron a patron, when is a customer a customer, because when they’re out of the building or out of the areas used by the hotel or whatever they’re not. Certainly when they’re kept out they’re not, which is the idea. Things on the property are the responsibility of those responsible for what happens or doesn’t happen, and in a significant way what might happen on the premises. And after whoever leaves more so these days, like getting into a vehicle intoxicated and driving.

as for mental state and competencies of patrons, like the wife’s ###### way back had encephalitis and is banned from most pubs in her area, not because she gets pissed so much, but because she solicits (tries to get drinks and smokes from people) and was a general nuisance. Daughter worked in a pub and the fucken carers were dropping her off down there.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

just wondering how getting bounced could induce a “possible medical situation”

There are reasons you aren’t obligated to divulge medical conditions unless directly effecting another person. This type of area is why the presumption that bouncers are qualified to make assumptions just makes an ass out of everyone.

I don’t see how this relates to your earlier statements.

being removed from your friends my a bouncer could cause a medical situation?

As stated earlier by a few people, a bouncer is only qualified to decide if a patron is suitable clientele for the premises.
Bringing in medical conditions makes no difference

Try to be less obtuse. Most drinking groups might have a designated driver. If you have a medical condition with difficult characteristics it might be normal to mainly rely on ones friends and their familiarity your needs to manage any particular incident that might occur. A person with trauma management concerns might strongly rely on the presence of their friends to avoid incident.

transition said:

you need to clarify when is a patron a patron, when is a customer a customer, because when they’re out of the building or out of the areas used by the hotel or whatever they’re not. Certainly when they’re kept out they’re not, which is the idea. Things on the property are the responsibility of those responsible for what happens or doesn’t happen, and in a significant way what might happen on the premises. And after whoever leaves more so these days, like getting into a vehicle intoxicated and driving.

as for mental state and competencies of patrons, like the wife’s ###### way back had encephalitis and is banned from most pubs in her area, not because she gets pissed so much, but because she solicits (tries to get drinks and smokes from people) and was a general nuisance. Daughter worked in a pub and the fucken carers were dropping her off down there.

ok. this might be an area to clarify upon.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

There are reasons you aren’t obligated to divulge medical conditions unless directly effecting another person. This type of area is why the presumption that bouncers are qualified to make assumptions just makes an ass out of everyone.

I don’t see how this relates to your earlier statements.

being removed from your friends my a bouncer could cause a medical situation?

As stated earlier by a few people, a bouncer is only qualified to decide if a patron is suitable clientele for the premises.
Bringing in medical conditions makes no difference

Try to be less obtuse. Most drinking groups might have a designated driver. If you have a medical condition with difficult characteristics it might be normal to mainly rely on ones friends and their familiarity your needs to manage any particular incident that might occur. A person with trauma management concerns might strongly rely on the presence of their friends to avoid incident.

wouldn’t the so called friends stand by the DD then? if he was removed from the premises, would they sit around inside and continue drinking?

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

Postpocelipse said:

For the purpose of this question I will identify Limited Authority as the type a policeman is credited requiring they be on duty before having their powers of authority. I will name Licensed Authority as the type a security officer holds requiring very specific elements before they may exercise any authority.

My question arises when a hotel bouncer has not been given cause to exercise authority and seeks to identify their obligations to customers of the contracting hotel till such time as they have been given cause to exercise authority.

a) In the case a bouncer assesses a patron as being intoxicated they have the authority to refuse entry. This is lawful but should be identified as significantly limited because the bouncers assessment is;

i) arbitrary and does not define the actual state of the patron

ii) does not define any cause within the patrons actions to assume they are unreasonable and should receive assistance when requested

b) a member of the public has no obligation to inform others of medical conditions or requirements of such

With this in mind, is the bouncer not still obliged to provide customer service as might be appropriate to maintaining due care of a customer of their contractor such that if a customer has been refused re-entry to an establishment they should still be able to request the retrieval of their friends before following the lawful direction they have been given?

On the surface that sounds like a reasonable request but I suppose once you are in the hotel removing you if you then refuse to leave become more difficult.

That is assuming guilt. If there has been no indication of not playing by the rules how can it be assumed?

From the POV of someone who has had to perform bouncer-like functions (staffing traffic control points) at many public events, it is extremely common for people to tell bald-faced lies about their intentions if they believe they are unlikely to get caught out. Ridiculously common. So common the assumption of guilt referred to above is not only reasonable but necessary if control over access is required.

>Try to be less obtuse.

stumpy, mate, you’re fucken obtuse

:-)

If they actually restrained you or denied your request to contact your friends when you stated I have a medical condition I need help they perhaps they may have something to answer for however even they may say something along the lines of people say all sorts of things to get in

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

I don’t see how this relates to your earlier statements.

being removed from your friends my a bouncer could cause a medical situation?

As stated earlier by a few people, a bouncer is only qualified to decide if a patron is suitable clientele for the premises.
Bringing in medical conditions makes no difference

Try to be less obtuse. Most drinking groups might have a designated driver. If you have a medical condition with difficult characteristics it might be normal to mainly rely on ones friends and their familiarity your needs to manage any particular incident that might occur. A person with trauma management concerns might strongly rely on the presence of their friends to avoid incident.

wouldn’t the so called friends stand by the DD then? if he was removed from the premises, would they sit around inside and continue drinking?

Not if they are unaware of the incident and simply require a notification.

transition said:

>Try to be less obtuse.

stumpy, mate, you’re fucken obtuse

:-)

aww, i was trying to be acute…

Rule 303 said:

Postpocelipse said:

Cymek said:

On the surface that sounds like a reasonable request but I suppose once you are in the hotel removing you if you then refuse to leave become more difficult.

That is assuming guilt. If there has been no indication of not playing by the rules how can it be assumed?

From the POV of someone who has had to perform bouncer-like functions (staffing traffic control points) at many public events, it is extremely common for people to tell bald-faced lies about their intentions if they believe they are unlikely to get caught out. Ridiculously common. So common the assumption of guilt referred to above is not only reasonable but necessary if control over access is required.

So people gather in the middle of a bouncers work place to enjoy their time off so the bouncer has first priority of OHS and DOC? pffft!

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Try to be less obtuse. Most drinking groups might have a designated driver. If you have a medical condition with difficult characteristics it might be normal to mainly rely on ones friends and their familiarity your needs to manage any particular incident that might occur. A person with trauma management concerns might strongly rely on the presence of their friends to avoid incident.

wouldn’t the so called friends stand by the DD then? if he was removed from the premises, would they sit around inside and continue drinking?

Not if they are unaware of the incident and simply require a notification.

so the friends were separate when the incident occurred?

transition said:

>Try to be less obtuse.

stumpy, mate, you’re fucken obtuse

:-)

I did not say that. I suggested he may have been at least vaguely obtuse……

Cymek said:

If they actually restrained you or denied your request to contact your friends when you stated I have a medical condition I need help they perhaps they may have something to answer for however even they may say something along the lines of people say all sorts of things to get in

Point taken and this is where the argument is. How can they be allowed to apply a universal ambiguity to a possibly specific criticality?

stumpy_seahorse said:

transition said:

>Try to be less obtuse.

stumpy, mate, you’re fucken obtuse

:-)

aww, i was trying to be acute…

No one could take that away from you.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

wouldn’t the so called friends stand by the DD then? if he was removed from the premises, would they sit around inside and continue drinking?

Not if they are unaware of the incident and simply require a notification.

so the friends were separate when the incident occurred?

Yes.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Not if they are unaware of the incident and simply require a notification.

so the friends were separate when the incident occurred?

Yes.

your post
“ A person with trauma management concerns might strongly rely on the presence of their friends to avoid incident.”

but thhey were separate to start with

How can they be allowed to apply a universal ambiguity to a possibly specific criticality?

because they aren’t trained psychologists. they’re bouncers. though good bouncers are amateur psychologists.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

so the friends were separate when the incident occurred?

Yes.

your post
“ A person with trauma management concerns might strongly rely on the presence of their friends to avoid incident.”

but thhey were separate to start with

Permission to treat the witness as hostile………

ChrispenEvan said:

How can they be allowed to apply a universal ambiguity to a possibly specific criticality?

because they aren’t trained psychologists. they’re bouncers. though good bouncers are amateur psychologists.

So being a bouncer comes with the arbitrary privilege of being able to put a person in a compromising circumstance without liability?

I suspect you’re going to be accused of wasting the court’s time.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Yes.

your post
“ A person with trauma management concerns might strongly rely on the presence of their friends to avoid incident.”

but thhey were separate to start with

Permission to treat the witness as hostile………

Group gathers for meal and drinks. Group member goes outside for quick fag and get’s refused re-entry.

Bubblecar said:

I suspect you’re going to be accused of wasting the court’s time.

Then you should recuse yourself from the jury, or do I have to do it for you?

Bubblecar said:

I suspect you’re going to be accused of wasting the court’s time.

Or the forum’s.

So being a bouncer comes with the arbitrary privilege of being able to put a person in a compromising circumstance without liability?

they have liability and they can kick you out for no reason if they feel like it. though they do have to justify their behaviour to management.

Bubblecar said:

I suspect you’re going to be accused of wasting the court’s time.

BTW, this subject matter is the minor mitigation I am seeking. I haven’t mentioned the primary one because that is as good as wrapped up.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

I suspect you’re going to be accused of wasting the court’s time.

Or the forum’s.

I’ve got good feedback so how has time been wasted?

Group gathers for meal and drinks. Group member goes outside for quick fag and get’s refused re-entry.

basically, tough.

ChrispenEvan said:

So being a bouncer comes with the arbitrary privilege of being able to put a person in a compromising circumstance without liability?

they have liability and they can kick you out for no reason if they feel like it. though they do have to justify their behaviour to management.

And what is their liability by legislation?

Bouncer: I had to refuse him entry your Honour, his hair was on fire.

Judge: I do think it rather sensible to refuse admission to patrons who are physically in flames.

ChrispenEvan said:

Group gathers for meal and drinks. Group member goes outside for quick fag and get’s refused re-entry.

basically, tough.

You could say something nasty on Yelp

ChrispenEvan said:

Group gathers for meal and drinks. Group member goes outside for quick fag and get’s refused re-entry.

basically, tough.

As things stand. Course it is all fun and games till someone drops dead on the sidewalk…….

Bubblecar said:

I suspect you’re going to be accused of wasting the court’s time.

Depends on what the value of pi is in use in the courts jurisdiction although most courts now use an arbitrary constant.

And what is their liability by legislation?

same as any citizen. they do not have any special powers.

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Group gathers for meal and drinks. Group member goes outside for quick fag and get’s refused re-entry.

basically, tough.

You could say something nasty on Yelp

Do they sort out compensation do they?

ChrispenEvan said:

Group gathers for meal and drinks. Group member goes outside for quick fag and get’s refused re-entry.

basically, tough.

If you’d eaten and not paid for your meal its somewhat of a win

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Group gathers for meal and drinks. Group member goes outside for quick fag and get’s refused re-entry.

basically, tough.

As things stand. Course it is all fun and games till someone drops dead on the sidewalk…….

still don’t see the reasons why that would be a bossibility..

TBH, it is reasonably akin to a teacher preventing a child from going on the playground because recess is over..

Course it is all fun and games till someone drops dead on the sidewalk…….

and they are not responsible for that if all they have done is refused entry.

ChrispenEvan said:

Group gathers for meal and drinks. Group member goes outside for quick fag and get’s refused re-entry.

basically, tough.

Yeah, hmmm… I saw this happen at a work Christmas do a couple of years ago. The ejected bloke rang his colleagues inside and they simply moved on to another venue – Clearing the first place right out.

Oops…

ChrispenEvan said:

And what is their liability by legislation?

same as any citizen. they do not have any special powers.

au-contrare. Apparently they have the power to say you are intoxicated when you aren’t and you have to accept it, among other ridiculous entitlements.

Postpocelipse said:

Rule 303 said:

From the POV of someone who has had to perform bouncer-like functions (staffing traffic control points) at many public events, it is extremely common for people to tell bald-faced lies about their intentions if they believe they are unlikely to get caught out. Ridiculously common. So common the assumption of guilt referred to above is not only reasonable but necessary if control over access is required.

So people gather in the middle of a bouncers work place to enjoy their time off so the bouncer has first priority of OHS and DOC? pffft!

What?

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Group gathers for meal and drinks. Group member goes outside for quick fag and get’s refused re-entry.

basically, tough.

As things stand. Course it is all fun and games till someone drops dead on the sidewalk…….

still don’t see the reasons why that would be a bossibility..

TBH, it is reasonably akin to a teacher preventing a child from going on the playground because recess is over..

Well if I took the time to describe blow for blow what happened we would be here a while and I might compromise my case also. The point I am making is people are not automatically generic and broad assumptions do not always provide the appropriate outcome.

ChrispenEvan said:

Course it is all fun and games till someone drops dead on the sidewalk…….

and they are not responsible for that if all they have done is refused entry.

They might be if it were a hospital.

Just sayin’

;)

au-contrare.

no, you asked about liability and legislation. the rest of that post is nothing to do with either.

ChrispenEvan said:

Course it is all fun and games till someone drops dead on the sidewalk…….

and they are not responsible for that if all they have done is refused entry.

Yeah well your stabbing in the dark and I’m not divulging greater detail, sorry……..

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

And what is their liability by legislation?

same as any citizen. they do not have any special powers.

au-contrare. Apparently they have the power to say you are intoxicated when you aren’t and you have to accept it, among other ridiculous entitlements.

I think you will find that you were reported as “appears intoxicated”
Which is perfectly good reasoning.
At uni, we weren’t able to say that someone was intoxicated as we had no proof, it was recorded as appeared for legal documentation

Rule 303 said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Group gathers for meal and drinks. Group member goes outside for quick fag and get’s refused re-entry.

basically, tough.

Yeah, hmmm… I saw this happen at a work Christmas do a couple of years ago. The ejected bloke rang his colleagues inside and they simply moved on to another venue – Clearing the first place right out.

Oops…

I almost had that opportunity before the phone was knocked from my hand and ended in 3 pieces on the ground.

Yeah well your stabbing in the dark and I’m not divulging greater detail, sorry……..

well, go fuck yourself then. maybe stick to science then we’ll know for sure you’re talking crap.

Seriously, what’s the point of this thread? You obviously think you have all the answers, aren’t interested in anyone’s opinion. Why ask, then?

Rule 303 said:

Postpocelipse said:

Rule 303 said:

From the POV of someone who has had to perform bouncer-like functions (staffing traffic control points) at many public events, it is extremely common for people to tell bald-faced lies about their intentions if they believe they are unlikely to get caught out. Ridiculously common. So common the assumption of guilt referred to above is not only reasonable but necessary if control over access is required.

So people gather in the middle of a bouncers work place to enjoy their time off so the bouncer has first priority of OHS and DOC? pffft!

What?

Seemed like what was being suggested. Apparently my going out is insinuating myself into another person’s workplace in a manner in which they get to eject you if you smell funny.

ChrispenEvan said:

au-contrare.

no, you asked about liability and legislation. the rest of that post is nothing to do with either.

And I requested citing of legislation and you gave me a non-educated assumption.

Postpocelipse said:

Seemed like what was being suggested. Apparently my going out is insinuating myself into another person’s workplace in a manner in which they get to eject you if you smell funny.

You can hardly blame them for ejecting you if you smell funny. They have other patrons to think of.

what DV said.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

And what is their liability by legislation?

same as any citizen. they do not have any special powers.

au-contrare. Apparently they have the power to say you are intoxicated when you aren’t and you have to accept it, among other ridiculous entitlements.

I think you will find that you were reported as “appears intoxicated”
Which is perfectly good reasoning.
At uni, we weren’t able to say that someone was intoxicated as we had no proof, it was recorded as appeared for legal documentation

And apparently all you need to say to back that up is “his eyes were glazed” and even if there is photographic evidence they weren’t it doesn’t matter,, or something.

Postpocelipse said:

Rule 303 said:

Postpocelipse said:

So people gather in the middle of a bouncers work place to enjoy their time off so the bouncer has first priority of OHS and DOC? pffft!

What?

Seemed like what was being suggested. Apparently my going out is insinuating myself into another person’s workplace in a manner in which they get to eject you if you smell funny.

I’d think that any workplace would be well within their right to eject you if you smell funny.

Postpocelipse said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Postpocelipse said:

au-contrare. Apparently they have the power to say you are intoxicated when you aren’t and you have to accept it, among other ridiculous entitlements.

I think you will find that you were reported as “appears intoxicated”
Which is perfectly good reasoning.
At uni, we weren’t able to say that someone was intoxicated as we had no proof, it was recorded as appeared for legal documentation

And apparently all you need to say to back that up is “his eyes were glazed” and even if there is photographic evidence they weren’t it doesn’t matter,, or something.

yep

ChrispenEvan said:

Yeah well your stabbing in the dark and I’m not divulging greater detail, sorry……..

well, go fuck yourself then. maybe stick to science then we’ll know for sure you’re talking crap.

nyaww. Boris doesn’t like it when his contempt is reflected back at him? I’m mortally wounded……… err, no I’m ok I think.

dv said:

Seriously, what’s the point of this thread? You obviously think you have all the answers, aren’t interested in anyone’s opinion. Why ask, then?

The only answer I have received is that they should have things as they are without detailed explanation or explanation that isn’t based on assumptions.

Your original query was:

>such that if a customer has been refused re-entry to an establishment they should still be able to request the retrieval of their friends before following the lawful direction they have been given

…and I’m sure the answer would be that yes, they can make such a request, but the bouncer has no obligation to pay any attention to them. Which may seem rude, but there’s probably nothing any court can do about it.

Bubblecar said:

Your original query was:

>such that if a customer has been refused re-entry to an establishment they should still be able to request the retrieval of their friends before following the lawful direction they have been given

…and I’m sure the answer would be that yes, they can make such a request, but the bouncer has no obligation to pay any attention to them. Which may seem rude, but there’s probably nothing any court can do about it.

Thank you for the refocus. If I can illustrate a scenario that makes the point more obvious I will.

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

Your original query was:

>such that if a customer has been refused re-entry to an establishment they should still be able to request the retrieval of their friends before following the lawful direction they have been given

…and I’m sure the answer would be that yes, they can make such a request, but the bouncer has no obligation to pay any attention to them. Which may seem rude, but there’s probably nothing any court can do about it.

Thank you for the refocus. If I can illustrate a scenario that makes the point more obvious I will.

If I return to the question I will attempt to phrase it from the standpoint of “what constitutes legal liability when refusing a reasonable request”……….

A license for walking.