Pubwatch under pressure

In the past I have expressed concerns about the potential problems of "cartels" where groups get together to set minimum standards, or minimum prices. The risk always run by such groups as Pubwatch, particularly where there is official involvement such as the police or local authority, is that some manipulation can occur of well-meaning licensees.

The idea of Pubwatch is great - and co-operation to ensure a good and well-run trade is also a praiseworthy objective. But there is a real possibility of the police in particular using Pubwatch to get across other parts of their agenda, under the guise of "assisting" the trade.

Before I receive outraged messages from the many police readers of this paper, may I point out that this is by no means universal. Relationships with the police in some areas have been and remain extremely cordial, mainly thanks to some excellent licensing officers who know the trade well and have every intention of working positively with licensees.

But I have been at one or two meetings where a different approach has been taken. Recently, the use of plastic glasses, for example, has been heavily, if not forcibly, promoted. It must not be forgotten that however much community work the police do, their job is also enforcement, and it does not take much in the way of innuendo to suggest that your pub will be placed on the potential hit list if you do not comply with their suggestions.

But the latest report that the human rights group Liberty may be looking at Pubwatch should not come as a surprise. People hate to be banned, and one of the great strengths of the licensed trade has been its reaction to troublemakers and its perfectly lawful reliance on the landlord's common law right to choose whom he will serve.

This right remains intact to this day. If I go into a pub and the licensee does not like the look of me, he can refuse to serve me. He does not have to accommodate me if he does not want to. I have no right to insist on a drink.

Clearly there are discrimination laws, which apply to all businesses. That is not the point: the more general right of refusal still applies, and in the case of someone who may have assaulted a colleague, that is a perfectly legitimate position to take. Yes, his human rights are affected, but then he should have thought of that before he lashed out.