My predicament

[cisono]

My mate got banned "for life" about 17 times from the students union at Leicester uni.

17 lifetime bans? Wow!

[Vardinhio]

I've decided due to the fact I think the bouncers were out of hand. There was at least 5 of them, and the fact that the sprain in my leg is still aggrevating me, plus the notion that generally these bouncers are not going to be easy to reason with..that I will not go back and appologise.

Next time I try and go back in, if they remember me and ban me or whatever then I will appologise, I think unfortunately taking the appologetic approach off my own back may do me more harm than good.

Bearing in mind aswell that I did not once attempt to hit any of the bouncers and that it was closing time and only myself and a mate were left inside the building I don't really see why they couldn't have just thrown me outside, there was certainly enough of them.

Thanks for all your advice.

[Thracian]

I do hate it when people try to be clever when they clearly haven't got a clue....

Yes I have heard of a citizen's arrest. It comes with a number of caveats. You cannot detain someone for mouthing off whilst drunk. It has to be for an indictable offence. You also have to tell the person that you are arresting them. Unlike the police, there's no script, but you still have to tell them.

As for using reasonable force, if you think taping someone's arms and injuring someone is reasonable, I sincerely hope that it happens to you one day. And I sincerely hope that there is no "rookie solicitor" there to help you. I'm sure you will 'take what's coming' on the chin, eh.

No-one's condoning what this lad has done, but bouncers should be accountable for their actions. They are not there to dish out justice as they see fit, and they should not be allowed to stick the knee in and detain people in this way. Society would be a lot less anti-social if the correct authorities did their job, and not any old bloke on the street, even if he's a paid 'thug'.

The real truth is that society would be a lot less anti-social if people drank what they were capable of drinking without ruining the evening for everyone else.

And it certainly sounds to me as if you're effectively condoning what happened by the very fact that you sound happy to shift the blame for the consequences of a guys behaviour after getting out of his mind through drink.

It's fine saying the authorities should sort the situation but that's not very practical in reality.

As for your comments of "injuring" someone and "sticking the knee in" they just sound like lawyer speak for a strategy that says "we'll shift the blame and responsibility somehow if we make enough noise and read enough paragraphs of this law book."

It's a piss take really.

Simply an intellectual battle of wits. Whichever side you represent, if you look hard enough you'll find a way to point the finger of blame at someone else.

Bottom line is the lad got smashed, behaved like an arsehole, thrashed out in his agitation when someone tried to stop him and then found himself feeling the worse for wear as a result, which is hardly surprising.

He should apologise to all concerned.

[Thracian]

Basically out on a night out at the students union last night. I got absolutely wasted and when bouncers tried to throw me out I struggled. They then all forced me to the floor, obviously this made me very angry and somewhat abbusive .

Then they duck taped my hands behind my back and rang the police. When the police came they basically gave me a telling off for getting out of hand and let me go home. Today I'm limping around due to a bouncers tactically placed kick on my leg and feeling quite ashamed .

Obviously I don't want to be banned from the union, should I go back tommorow and appologise or just leave it and hope they forget. Obviously a bit more than a normal thorwing out.

Advice appreciated!

For God's sake apologise - otherwise I'll be arguing with Lisa for ever.

[Rincewind]

The injuries were not certain to have all been caused by the 'bouncers' You said you were wacked and pissed out of your skull or words to that effect so you may have falleb over. In your alcolol induced state your mind would not register any injuries when falling over. If you were thrashing out with arms and legs there would be the possibility of causing more injury. Think about what the poor 'bouncers' thought. They had a quiet night and the last of the revelers were leaving then they come up against this maniac (no offence) refusing to go and obviously overdone the alcolol intake for that night. They are subjected to abuse and threats and the refusal to leave the premises. They would not be very happy. They may have a GF or wife waiting for them stripped down to their negigee. They now have to wait for the police and write an incident report out. Now their evenings really fecked up and whose fault is it? Whose going to pay? Answers on a postcard to The Brain Of Britain.

Seriously I wasn't there so I cannot say how m,uch force was used or how necessary it was. Some people when drunk find that extra strength frome somewhere and are capable of causing injury to themselvrs. Without the use of arms it is difficult to fling them about so that is the obvious place to go for. However punching is out of order if there is evidence of this.

[Vardinhio]

The real truth is that society would be a lot less anti-social if people drank what they were capable of drinking without ruining the evening for everyone else.

And it certainly sounds to me as if you're effectively condoning what happened by the very fact that you sound happy to shift the blame for the consequences of a guys behaviour after getting out of his mind through drink.

It's fine saying the authorities should sort the situation but that's not very practical in reality.

As for your comments of "injuring" someone and "sticking the knee in" they just sound like lawyer speak for a strategy that says "we'll shift the blame and responsibility somehow if we make enough noise and read enough paragraphs of this law book."

It's a piss take really.

Simply an intellectual battle of wits. Whichever side you represent, if you look hard enough you'll find a way to point the finger of blame at someone else.

Bottom line is the lad got smashed, behaved like an arsehole, thrashed out in his agitation when someone tried to stop him and then found himself feeling the worse for wear as a result, which is hardly surprising.

He should apologise to all concerned.

I don't condone the fact that I was out of order and may have been a nuisance, but these things can happen. Most students and young people grow up in a heavy environment of drinking, sometimes wrongly excessively.

No one is trying to shift the blame here either, it was my own fault but on the basis that I feel the bouncers acted inappropriately I have chosen not to appologise off my own back as a result, to a degree I know this is not the right thing to do but somewhat selficously I feel it may have an adverse effect on my future chances of entry.

But that is life, I'm not going to appologise to people that instead of throwing me out, which I'm sure 5 of them could have, decided to hold me down and then for comedy value kick me. But hey, call me an idiot.

[Guest]

The real truth is that society would be a lot less anti-social if people drank what they were capable of drinking without ruining the evening for everyone else.

Of course it would. It's a cultural problem with our society.

And it certainly sounds to me as if you're effectively condoning what happened by the very fact that you sound happy to shift the blame for the consequences of a guys behaviour after getting out of his mind through drink.

I've not said anywhere that archerm is blameless. However, I do think that the bouncers were out of order. It's one thing dealing with a drunk, but from what was written, the measures that these bouncers took were disproprtionate.

It's fine saying the authorities should sort the situation but that's not very practical in reality.

As for your comments of "injuring" someone and "sticking the knee in" they just sound like lawyer speak for a strategy that says "we'll shift the blame and responsibility somehow if we make enough noise and read enough paragraphs of this law book."

It's not about shifting blame, it's making people responsible for their own actions. Just because person A acts like a drunken lout, it doesn't give persons B, C, and D the right to do what they want. Even the police are limited as to what they can and cannot do. It's not lawyer speak, it's common sense and courtesy..

Bottom line is the lad got smashed, behaved like an arsehole, thrashed out in his agitation when someone tried to stop him and then found himself feeling the worse for wear as a result, which is hardly surprising.

He should apologise to all concerned.

If it was me, I wouldn't. Those bouncers crossed the line. They would be feeling my wrath.

[Thracian]

Of course it would. It's a cultural problem with our society.

I've not said anywhere that archerm is blameless. However, I do think that the bouncers were out of order. It's one thing dealing with a drunk, but from what was written, the measures that these bouncers took were disproprtionate.

It's not about shifting blame, it's making people responsible for their own actions. Just because person A acts like a drunken lout, it doesn't give persons B, C, and D the right to do what they want. Even the police are limited as to what they can and cannot do. It's not lawyer speak, it's common sense and courtesy..

If it was me, I wouldn't. Those bouncers crossed the line. They would be feeling my wrath.

a) Two things we've agreed on recently. No wonder the sun's out.

b) Not quite just a drunk by his own comments but a struggling drunk with his arms flailing and quite likely to whack anyone. My impression was the lad was struggling pretty hard and aggressively. The counter-measures might well have been the only relatively safe option.

c) I doubt the bouncers did what they wanted. They simply prevented the lad from continuing to be aggressive. I imagine they "wanted" to knock seven bells out of him for behaving abominably and then becoming aggressive when they tried to deal with it.

d) But it wouldn't be you, would it. Not in a lifetime could I imagine you behaving with such a lack of civility. And that of course is the point. If people didn't behave like that in the first place they wouldn't be likely to experience such consequences, whatever the detail.

However, one thing certainly emerges from the debate ....

You'll make a good advocate.

[The People's Hero]

Or, you can go back and call the bouncers a twat, try and hit one, and fall down the stairs. Then avoid the union for the next 3 months.

Oh wait. That's what my mate did.

Was that the one and only Keith?

[Lord Nibblington]

Was that the one and only Keith?

Believe it or not, no!

It was the Ginge! Do you not remember? When he got battered on his birthday and decided to start on the bouncers?

Good old the Ginge.

[The People's Hero]

Believe it or not, no!

It was the Ginge! Do you not remember? When he got battered on his birthday and decided to start on the bouncers?

Good old the Ginge.

How did I forget that?

That was brilliant.

[Lord Nibblington]

How did I forget that?

That was brilliant.

Especially when he crapped himself after Ady told us that the bouncers were looking for him the following week.

[Steven]

Of course it would. It's a cultural problem with our society.

I've not said anywhere that archerm is blameless. However, I do think that the bouncers were out of order. It's one thing dealing with a drunk, but from what was written, the measures that these bouncers took were disproprtionate.

It's not about shifting blame, it's making people responsible for their own actions. Just because person A acts like a drunken lout, it doesn't give persons B, C, and D the right to do what they want. Even the police are limited as to what they can and cannot do. It's not lawyer speak, it's common sense and courtesy..

If it was me, I wouldn't. Those bouncers crossed the line. They would be feeling my wrath.

When you are qualified I want you to be my Brief.

[Guest]

However, one thing certainly emerges from the debate ....

You'll make a good advocate.

When you are qualified I want you to be my Brief.

Berlimey!!

To be fair, civil liberties is something I'm interested in, and I am hoping it's one of the options for next year. Purely from a footballing point of view. I'm sure that the police cannot hold crowds in after games, and I will find it out....

[breadandcheese]

It sounds like reasonable force from the bouncers to be honest. Let's face it, if the bouncers wanted to cause some harm, they would have taken you round the back to a lockable room, away from prying eyes and you would probably be a lot worse for wear.

[Rincewind]

If the bouncers were wrong this time are security staff wrong when the hold and detain a drunk in a A and E ward?

Anyone seen Panarama the other night. Quick retell. Couple living above a shop having long time trouble with youths. Shop keeper suffered racial abuse. One night husband and shopkeeper followed youths. Got one who volunteraly got in van. Apologised to eldly neighbour and let go promising to be good. Next day police round blokes flat. Arrested, charged with kidnapping and imprisonment. Sent to prison. Boy 14 years old. Police admitted they could do nothing and would like to deal with matters themselves when face to face with them but have to act within the law.

[Rincewind]

Just been looking for the guidelines for door supervisors. This is the closest thing I've found.

Code of practice for Door Supervisors

and

Inside Out Report

[Geo V]

So many doorman that I know are on tenterhooks as they have already been up for charges of ABH or GBH in the past and one more and there in some serious trouble. The problem is far too many people dont say or do anything after one of these muppets has slung them about unneccasarily. Some of them love any excuse to punch a drunk when they should be focusing oncalming the situation down and getting the rowdy ones out without fuss.

[Rincewind]

That is the reason why they need a lisence and have to pay £150-£200 for it. If at anytime they are investigated into for inappropiate action they will have theier lisence removed and not allowed to work until the matter is settled one way or another. They now have to do a 3-4 training course. Of course there will still be the odd few who act like bullies but overall I would guess the situation is improving. If any of you see a doorman not wearing a badge with his/her photo on they they and the establishment are acting illegally and are liable to prosecution. If an unlisenced doorman mishandles you then that is assault as it would be if a normal person in the street gid it.