Last Ten Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 As such an upstanding member of this forum, you must stop partaking in such a place of alleged ill repute! First time I've been in there for years, despite it being the closest pub to my house. Can't say I was keen on a return Yeah whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
germann Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 The Rosemount's alright. It's just a shame that the same dropout clientele were kept after it was renovated a couple of years back. Was a great place when Pauline & Mike were in charge. Happy days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtogold Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 You will find that within the next few months the rosemount will be a pub worth drinking in again. With a new landlord will come a clean sweep of the rubbish that has chose to make the rosemount their resting place. The pub itself is a nice period victorian building and once we have removed all the w@#*ers and it has had a lick of paint it will be a good place to go again and believe me when i say WE WILL REMOVE THEM. The staff there do there very best with the situation they are put in but as one of the door staff i can assure you, THINGS ARE ABOUT TO CHANGE!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Yeah whatever I'm really not getting why you're making an issue out of this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 You can`t polish a turd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather of Manx House Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Really ? ...GOMH*... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 You can't squeeze a pub out of your arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 You will find that within the next few months the rosemount will be a pub worth drinking in again. With a new landlord will come a clean sweep of the rubbish that has chose to make the rosemount their resting place. The pub itself is a nice period victorian building and once we have removed all the w@#*ers and it has had a lick of paint it will be a good place to go again and believe me when i say WE WILL REMOVE THEM. The staff there do there very best with the situation they are put in but as one of the door staff i can assure you, THINGS ARE ABOUT TO CHANGE!! Sort of begs the question...if you are a doorman...why do you let known 'w@#*ers' in? More importantly, if these people are causing problems, those problems are simply going to end up somewhere else - instead of the brewery, police and staff taking effective action and placing the 'w@#*ers' on the pub banned/watch list - a list which is there for all of the reasons you describe above. Staff are now just as responsible for the customers they serve as the landlord, and have every right (and a legal responsibility) to refuse to serve such people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Really ? ...GOMH*... Ha Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gonzo Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 instead of the brewery, police and staff taking effective action and placing the 'w@#*ers' on the pub banned/watch list - a list which is there for all of the reasons you describe above. Staff are now just as responsible for the customers they serve as the landlord, and have every right (and a legal responsibility) to refuse to serve such people. Nail, head. It's worth asking any landlord on the Island how many people are on the PubWatch banned list. "Er... none" is pretty much the reply you'll hear. Let's face it, I'm sure anybody could come up with a list of a dozen names of people who should be prevented from entering licensed premises, and yet there's nobody currently banned under the scheme (in the Douglas area, certainly). The last time I spoke to anyone at the LVA, I was told they were scared of a legal case if they banned someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overdose Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Really? Funny thing is I was only looking through a folder last week and there's certainly quite a few people banned on that list, infact the list is actually quite long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Really? Funny thing is I was only looking through a folder last week and there's certainly quite a few people banned on that list, infact the list is actually quite long. Yeah, when I used to work in pubs we had a wall of banned people behind the bar with photos, and it was always updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather of Manx House Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I just asked a Publican...he said a minimum of thirty at a guess. Kinda blows your theory outta the water, I'd say, Dr Gonzo, no ?... ...GOMH*... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtogold Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I have to say we dont let the known wa@@@rs in the roosemount only has security on 3 nights a week and without the support of the landlord we were unable to keep them out for instance we would ban sombody on the wednsday and then when we were not there on the thursday they would be let back inagain. Now with the change of managment that will no longer be the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gonzo Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 That's the list of people banned by the courts, not PubWatch. Different thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.