What's a 'licensee ban'?

[David Bean]

I remember we used to talk of these every now and again as being the strictest kind of ban that can be imposed upon a patron of the Union, with a claim that it is in some way legally enforceable. I was trying to establish whether these could be imposed by on-licensed premises only, or whether they (or something similar) could be also be imposed by off-licensed premises. However, a simple Google search for the expression "licensee ban" reveals only nine results, two of which were from old threads here, with the only other relevant one coming from the Imperial College Union, and having no additional detail. This leads me to believe either that the term is incorrect, or that such a ban doesn't really exist. Can anyone clarify this and, if so, could they mention whether there are any substantial differences between Scots and English law on the matter?

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Gealle]

Right... I've been sat trying to wrangle this one out from a couple of books on public house banking rules - and there's a bit on legality in there too...

This link is the closest I can find that refers to any 'licensee ban' and seems to require the direct co-operation of the police.

http://www.saferscotland.org/alcohol/pubwatchmoray.htm

The strict legal rule is that any private organisation may ban - at its discretion - persons whom they deem unfit or unsuitable to provide their services to. In the case of the union, it may be a little tricky given that all students are members of the association unless they choose not to be... But that's not what you specifically wanted to know.

The simple answer is that an off-licence is a business venture, and that the proprietor has the right to refuse service or entry to any and all persons whom they choose at their discretion. Legally, the request of a proprietor for someone to leave, and that person not doing so, would constitute trespass - at which point the police are under an obligation to intervene to the satisfaction of the proprietor (how do you prove trespass in an off-licence? Pretty easy with the fact every one I've ever been in has CCTV). It may come down to a Sheriff making a judgement in their discretion if it's one set of claims versus another; but if a proprietor has asked someone not to come onto their premises, it's probably with a pretty bloody good reason.

The real question is, with the undesirables in this country nowadays... How do you enforce such a ban on individuals at a national level!?

Quoting David Bean from 16:47, 6th Dec 2007
I remember we used to talk of these every now and again as being the strictest kind of ban that can be imposed upon a patron of the Union, with a claim that it is in some way legally enforceable. I was trying to establish whether these could be imposed by on-licensed premises only, or whether they (or something similar) could be also be imposed by off-licensed premises. However, a simple Google search for the expression "licensee ban" reveals only nine results, two of which were from old threads here, with the only other relevant one coming from the Imperial College Union, and having no additional detail. This leads me to believe either that the term is incorrect, or that such a ban doesn't really exist. Can anyone clarify this and, if so, could they mention whether there are any substantial differences between Scots and English law on the matter?

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[hr]

Funky flunky munky...

[munchingfoo]

My guess is this is just terminology used by the union because it is one of the few places where someone other than the licensee can issue a ban (not on behalf of the licensee) and it just seemed necessary to make a distinction between the two.

I have no idea how it works in England, but in Scotland the licensee is responsible for banning people from their public bar, although any member of staff can act for the licensee if they have permission to do so. So I guess this would be a licensee ban, but since there is no other kind its just a ban.

P.S. You can also be banned from being a licensee, but this is most probably something completely different.

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[David Bean]

That's great so far - thanks to Gealle in particular - but if you go back to what was being talked about in the earlier thread I found - http://www.thesinner.net/messageboard-v ... 313&page=2 (Director of Services' post, so presumably that would have been Bonnie) actually looks less interesting than the other one referenced on Google, except that thread appears to have been deleted - it still leaves unanswered questions.

I've been racking my brains to recall what I used to hear about them: it was somehing to do with the patron behaving in such a way as to threaten the license, and had the effect of making any attempt to enter the place again a criminal offence which, I'm pretty sure, didn't rely on the laws of trespass (and in any case aren't those considerably more lax in Scotland?). But if nobody can recall a reference to it that pre-dates Ben Spiers, it was probably made up.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[David Bean]

That's great so far - thanks to Gealle in particular - but if you go back to what was being talked about in the earlier thread I found - http://www.thesinner.net/messageboard-v ... 313&page=2 (Director of Services' post, so presumably that would have been Bonnie) actually looks less interesting than the other one referenced on Google, except that thread appears to have been deleted - it still leaves unanswered questions.

I've been racking my brains to recall what I used to hear about them: it was somehing to do with the patron behaving in such a way as to threaten the license, and had the effect of making any attempt to enter the place again a criminal offence which, I'm pretty sure, didn't rely on the laws of trespass (and in any case aren't those considerably more lax in Scotland?). But if nobody can recall a reference to it that pre-dates Ben Spiers, it was probably made up.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Gealle]

David,

To all intents and purposes, unless your name is Madonna and someone is within 200yds of your property because it's registered as strictly private domain, you're as well as ignoring any idea of trespass in Scotland.

As for behaviour threatening the license... I'm not sure this would even have to come into consideration; the initial behaviour would likely result in the proprietor issuing a ban, so it would be a de facto criminal offence to try and get back on the property.

A private citizen needs an order of restraint... a business just needs a pissed off owner.



And can't find any useful refs on Sinner or google linking to anything specific on here.

[hr]

Funky flunky munky...

[Al]

I had never heard of a "licensee ban" - as far as the Union is concerned - before they were mentioned on here. The handing down of bans were the responsibility of the UMC and not the staff. And the one time I can remember the police being involved in enforcing a life ban was because a court order was taken out to prevent the banned person from coming within a certain distance of the Union.

[orudge]

Quoting David Bean from 20:08, 6th Dec 2007
That's great so far - thanks to Gealle in particular - but if you go back to what was being talked about in the earlier thread I found - http://www.thesinner.net/messageboard-v ... 313&page=2 (Director of Services' post, so presumably that would have been Bonnie) actually looks less interesting than the other one referenced on Google, except that thread appears to have been deleted - it still leaves unanswered questions.

The other message states (you can view it from the Google cache):

Please do not attempt to buy or consume alcohol if you are underage.
I don't want to sound like a real nag, but quite frankly it is illegal and a disciplinary offense (meaning you risk losing your membership to the Students' Association and can be banned from the building [forever!] for doing it). If you try it in other pubs, they may also impose a licensee ban, again meaning it is a criminal offense to ever enter the premises again. Harsh.....but completely true. Most larger licensed premises will check ID before you even enter the building, nevermind get near the bar.

Not sure if that helps your definition much or not.

[hr]

http://www.owenrudge.net/
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37103734

[ARTooD2]

I supposedly have one though it didn't say anything about it being such on the letter they sent me

[hr]

King Sinner

[Bonnie]

Yeah, that was me at the time.

The term is most probably a Bruce term. It means a ban straight from Campbell Boyle as the legal licensee. All other bans were from the facilities of the Union (as opposed to the facilities of the SRC) as handled by the members of the Union.

"We don't want you to use our treehouse anymore" vs "My name is on the permit to build the tree house and I say you can't use it."

[exnihilo]

That was certainly always my understanding of the term; and it considerably predates Ben Speirs, David.

[Bonnie]

Bean seems to have gone off on a tangent lately of trying to undermine Ben Spiers, even though most of the things have nothing to do with Ben. I don't believe this is the first time Bean has posted regarding something supposedly to have been Ben's idea.

[David Bean]

'Lately' I've been at work and have had little interest in St Andrean student politics, and certainly none whatsoever in anyone operating before my time as a sabb. Any comments I've made about personalities before then were made purely in context, and based on my own memories of those periods; if anyone thinks I've been at all mistaken I'd be happy to listen to alternative views, but to say that I've been 'going off on a tangent' about anyone at all in particular would seem to be pretty stupid, and I think I (like everyone else) probably have the right to post about whatever the hell I like, regardless of whose idea it was. I do recall a lot of rather novel ideas - such as that the SSC 'cannot comment on staffing matters' and that societies 'cannot hold meetings in alternative venues unless the Association cannot accommodate them' - which were both false and originated from a particular source, so I could be forgiven for assuming that something else that originated from the time in question and appears to have been made up might have come from the same source.

Unless, of course, anyone can answer my question definitively and point to a genuine legal basis for this kind of ban, in which case the point is moot.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[exnihilo]

It did not, however, originate from the time in question. That's the point.

There's no "legal basis" for it either, as a term it was used simply to differentiate from other ways of banning people.

[Well David...]

Quoting David Bean from 04:07, 9th Dec 2007
'Lately' I've been at work and have had little interest in St Andrean student politics, and certainly none whatsoever in anyone operating before my time as a sabb. Any comments I've made about personalities before then were made purely in context, and based on my own memories of those periods; if anyone thinks I've been at all mistaken I'd be happy to listen to alternative views, but to say that I've been 'going off on a tangent' about anyone at all in particular would seem to be pretty stupid, and I think I (like everyone else) probably have the right to post about whatever the hell I like, regardless of whose idea it was. I do recall a lot of rather novel ideas - such as that the SSC 'cannot comment on staffing matters' and that societies 'cannot hold meetings in alternative venues unless the Association cannot accommodate them' - which were both false and originated from a particular source, so I could be forgiven for assuming that something else that originated from the time in question and appears to have been made up might have come from the same source.

Unless, of course, anyone can answer my question definitively and point to a genuine legal basis for this kind of ban, in which case the point is moot.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

Regarding your post near the bottom of the thread on this one (I'm sure there are others).

http://www.thesinner.net/messageboard-v ... 544&page=4

I believe that this shows that Bonnie is incorrect only sofar as she used the term "Recently"

[Curious]

Quoting David Bean from 04:07, 9th Dec 2007
Unless, of course, anyone can answer my question definitively and point to a genuine legal basis for this kind of ban, in which case the point is moot.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

Well if you want a 'legal' basis for these bans you would have to look at the legal basis for any ban. As any licensed premises bans people from entering and will call the police to assist in removing any one who will not accept this ban.

Your comment seems to suggest that this type of ban is illegal in some way. I would suggest that if you believe that the Union is doing some thing illegal then you should perhaps actually say so rather than hint at it.

If you want to test what particular law would be used to enforce such a ban in Scotland I would suggest you go to a pub in Edinburgh do something so offensive so you are banned then continue to attempt to re-enter until the police are called. I would suggest this is would inform you of the legal basis of the relevant ban.

You would of course have to do all of this sober so that you could not be arrested for a drinking related offence.

[David Bean]

On the contrary, I've suggested no such thing. The post on the thread that has been deleted appeared, from what I could read of the Google summary, to suggest that this 'licensee ban' was a special kind of ban that made it illegal even to attempt to enter the premises again. If that were true it would clearly require some specific legal basis, and I was trying to establish whether such a thing existed, or at least could be identified with some similar mechanism existing in law under a different name. Considering that the word 'licensee' has a specific legal meaning in the context of licensed premises, would this not imply that the expression is a legal one? My reason for wanting to know about this is work-related, and has nothing to do with the Association as such - it's just that it's only in relation to the Association that I'd heard the expression used.

I'm still confused, though. If there's no distinction in law between a 'licensee ban' and any other kind, then what is the difference between them?

[hr]

Psalm 91:7