Indefinite bans

So they're non-binding then.

 

Nothing 'prevents' you from saying that but i do think i would have reasonable grounds to take this matter further, as a perfectly respectable law-abiding citizen.

 

What is the relevant law?

 

In case you gave someone the impression that they are toothless, I was merely pointing out that more often than not clubs take notice. People on here may need to use them in future and shouldn't be put off.

 

Surely this is sexist then?

 

There is no relevant law- or precedent for that matter, I’m pretty sure of that.

 

The pub will argue that historically there have been lots of problems with large groups of males in pub's in that area and indeed in their pub. It is therefore justifiable.

 

This thread, whilst arguing the legal rights/wrongs of refusing admittance to a place of business has ignored another issue re this particular case. The refusal to re-imburse the two ST holders for missing matches which they have obviously paid to see. Surely this is illegal given there are insufficient grounds to refuse admission. Refusing admission to a pub or supermarket may be inconvenient but no significant financial loss is incurred. Surely the club has a legal obligation to refund a proportion of the ST cost.

 

So groups are being judged on a prejudice of past experience? Has every large group of males been a problem?

 

I would say yes (past experience) It's a well known 'party' city and they will no doubt have evidence of past unruly or violent incidents, backed up by police evidence.