Report
on Vintners Federation & Tadg Bar
comfort/decor - 4
Atmosphere - 3
Owner/manager hospitality - 0
The following correspondence was initiated as I wished to draw the
attention of the VFI to certain discriminatory practise that I had
directly experinced
From The
Vintners Federation of Ireland (reprinted unedited with the exception
of my added italics)
18 January
2001
Dear Mr
Harris,
I confirm
receipt of your e-mail of the 29th of December 2000 regarding a number
of Limerick City publicans who you believe operate policies of discriminatory
and prejudicial practices.
On reading
your e-mail I must say I was very alarmed to think that this might be
the case and as per your request to examine this issue, we have since
contacted the proprietors of the premises mentioned in order to clarify
the position. May I take this opportunity to confirm to you that each
of the publicans we contacted were contacted separately, with no mention
made at any time that there were other publicans involved. To be quite
frank, it is clear that there is a problem, but I don’t believe
it is that of the publicans we spoke to. While a small number of those
mentioned on your list confirmed that they had no recollection of you
whatsoever, it is quite clear that a significant a number of publicans
we spoke to have given very similar recollections of their encounters
with you.
Unfortunately
there is a general feeling that you have a drink problem and
that you consistently cause trouble [my italics]. I can confirm
for you that none of the publicans we spoke to are prepared to accept
you back on their premises at any stage.
I note
your comments about being refused service and not being supplied with
a qualifying legally valid reason and I must at this point clarify some
points for you. (Really? How nice of you to do so) Legally speaking,
a publican who experiences the behaviour as described, is obliged by
law to refuse service in the first instance. Under the Intoxicating
Liquor Acts a publican is duty bound to run an "orderly house"
and is required to refuse service to anyone who is quite obviously drunk
or making a nuisance of themselves. This requirement to refuse service
has absolutely nothing to do with whether a particular person is English
or Irish, or indeed a qualified reporter or whatever. I must also point
out that a publican is not legally obliged to give you any reason for
refusal of service. Experience shows that very often this leads to aggressive
behaviour by the person being refused.
You seem
to have been continuously ejected from many different premises, perhaps
you should ask yourself why?
I agree
with you that good customer relations is central to the core success
and standing of any business venture. However this ethos only works
when the customers behaviour is acceptable to the proprietor of that
business. Clearly none of the publicans we spoke to regard you as one
of those customers.
I trust
this clarifies the matter for you.
Yours sincerely,
Tadg O'Sullivan
Chief Executive
- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hardly,
Mr O'Sullivan
To that
the following reply was sent:
Sir,
As a publishing
editor with many years of service to the community I am appalled at
you readiness to judge and condemn when you do not even know me.
I do not have a drink problem. I was not writing to you in connection
with a drink problem, nor even indeed because I may have a 'drink problem'.
I was forwarding to you a formal complaint of certain treatment.
In the
light of your response I feel I must now take this matter ahead further,
including your response to my complaint.
You wrote
"You seem to have been continuously ejected from many different
premises, perhaps you should ask yourself why?"
In 1994
I was in central Bosnia delivering £250,000 of aid I personally
helped raise to hold Christmas parties for war-orphaned children. It
is you sir who should ask yourself a question here.
Your sincerely,
Keith Harris
editor
----- Original
Message -----
To: "Mairead" <mairead@vintners.ie>
From: <newsmedia >
Sent: 18 January 2001 17:35
Subject: Response from Vintners' Federation of Ireland re
Sir,
I must respond in greater detail to your letter before taking the matter
any further, as I had already mentioned in my previous message to you,
you do not know me.
I would be all too happy to provide you with a list of the many hundreds
-probably thousands - of restaurants and bars I have visited without
ever encountering any difficulty.
The following section taken from your letter I regard as an unwarranted
and unfounded defamatory attack on my good character and I wish you
to be aware of that. (paras 2 to 3 of Mr O'Sullivan's letter highlighted)
I must correct you in that there is in fact a legal requirement of a
valid and legally justifiable reason for refusal of service in any premises
open to the public as customers.
I must also notify you that if you are not prepared to heed my complaint
and only remain content to turn my complaint into your redirected blame
of myself then I will take this matter further.
Such a response on your part is akin to blaming a woman who is raped
for being raped because she is a woman.
Keith Harris
--------------------------------------------
REPLY
From: Mairead <mairead@vintners.ie>
To: Keith Harris <newsmedia >
Subject: RE: you letter of
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:08:17 -0000
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
Return-Receipt-To: Mairead <mairead@vintners.ie>
Thank you
for your second effort.
We will now pay you the compliment of ignoring you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above
mails to me are from someone invested with the authority of chairing
the VFI. Is there any wonder that the industry is corrupt?
I have
never been refused service until coming to Limerick, despite having
purchased and consumed alcohol in pubs since the age of 14. And Mr O'Sullivan
— the fact remains that you launched an unnecessary, unprovoked,
vitriolic and malicious attack against my character. As a man of principle,
I consider these the actions of a coward. This is a matter that requires
resolvement. That requires honesty, and I deserve a sincerely meant
apology. There is no other way to resolve this matter. If you choose
to do otherwise, this matter will remain unresolved. And the fact is
that if you had not acted in such a bigotted and biased manner, none
of this would be necessary.
To wrap
this up, I publish here a replica of the VFI goals, with particular
mind to items 2 in both lists. Hmm...
Seed
Newsvine