Pregnant Woman Told To Leave Pub

[stinkymonkey]

the nanny state continues

I can understand where the landlord is coming from, though I don't agree with what she did.

I agree to some extent, I am against 'informal policing of pregnant women's choices', but I do also think there are social responsibility rules put in place for licensees (who are selling a drug lets remember, not a piece of cheese) for a reason, and I don't think it is 'policing' a pregnant woman if you, as a license holder, in your own premises, do not feel comfortable serving her.

I don't think it is intolerant of women's choices, I think women are completely free to make their own choices. And, as I would not want to enforce a law that states women can't drink, I also don't want to enforce a law that says I have to serve them in my premises, because I would then not feel comfortable.

The landlord tho is within his rights to serve or not serve as he chooses, his reasoning behind his choices are irrelevant so long as they do not go against the racial discrimination act.We may not all agree with his "moral" reasoning here, as that is what it is but its nothing to do with us really, he is within his rights so thats that-does it go against the human rights act? hmm well im now legal buff so couldnt comment but on the whole I am not fussed in the slightest by this mans decision, I can see why he did it and cant understand why its being made such a fuss of really.
But then that is really what all this commotion is about-differences of opinion and no amount of arguing will sway one school of thought over to the other on such emotive issues as this.
That is why laws are in place i spose to help with issues relating to race etc perhaps one day there will be laws relating to this very topic.......

DaisyMoo.

I agree with the law as it stands, that a publican is within their rights not to have to serve someone they do not feel comfortable serving.

I would never suggest that pregnant people don't drink! I have already stated before that I am happy for people to make whatever decisions they want to for their unborn child. However, I should not have to be forced into being party to it, by making it illegal for me to refuse to give them alcohol.

I don't think that is undemocratic.

DSM - I think your example of predicting when to stop serving the lairy Leith folks is absolutely fair enough, it was presumably done in the interests of your business, the other customers and most probably the drunks themselves.

But I don't think that that is the same as making a medical judgement about how much is 'too much' for a pregnant woman unless she is causing a problem in the same way as a lairy drunk.

I really don't know about the legalities of the discrimination issue, but allowing 2 units but not 3 may be SEEN as being a bit like, say, allowing a Scottish person into your pub for one drink but then deciding that actually you'd rather not serve them another because everyone knows about the Scots' reputation for excessive drinking, so best to only serve them soft drinks after their first pint.

"I do also think there are social responsibility rules put in place for licensees (who are selling a drug lets remember, not a piece of cheese) for a reason"

Those rules, as far as I can gather, are to do with protecting a) children, who of course do have legal rights in law whereas fetuses do not and b) to protect other members of the public from harm through drunken behaviour. If 'social responsibility rules' were there to protect individuals themselves from harming themselves with alcohol then surely the law would dictate that people should be served no more than 3 units?

You know actually, I'm not so much fussed by the legal arguments as to whether this was or wasn't discrimination. What does concern me very greatly is the view expressed by some posters on here and on the comments section that it is fair play for a pregnant woman's behaviour to be dictated by another person. As I said earlier IMHO it is a hop, skip and a jump away from giving fetuses legal rights which overrule the rights and desires of the mother.

Daisymoo - the social responsibility rules are a lot more complex than that.

They cover promoting responsible drinking and implementing the ?Sensible Drinking Message?.

Avoiding any actions that encourage or condone illegal, irresponsible or immoderate drinking such as drunkenness, drink driving or drinking in inappropriate circumstances.

(which I think you would agree, would probably be where the incidence of pregnancy would fall)

Then there is of course, underage drinking, marketing to inappropriate groups (ie, underage), avoiding dangerous, illegal or anti-social associations, making sure it is clear what is alcoholic, making sure there are non-alcoholic drinks at a reasonable price, not promomoting the effects of alcohol, ensuring staff are fully trained in the effects of alcohol and can apply their knowledge applicably.. there are more, but you can see where I am going.

Its not just about protecting children and drunks. It is a very wide spectrum, and has led in part to a complete rewrite of the licensing act, which comes into play in September.

I disagree Daisy. Of course in a situation where the decisions are to be made by a clear thinking woman, then of course every choice is up to her.

But, I do not feel that I am doing wrong by protecting the unborn baby in a circumstance where the mothers own decision making capabilities have become inhibited, for whatever reason, and this includes being under the influence of alcohol.

so wrong. who died and made the landlady the legal guardian of the woman's unborn child?

FFS, she wasn't breaking any laws, she just wanted to see her friends and have one drink. So now pregnant women have to stay at home sipping cranberry juice, alone for the whole 9 months?

DSM, you don't actually know whether you are protecting the unborn baby or not. There isn't any evidence it is doing any harm. What you are actually doing in such circumstances is bowing to your own uninformed and unsubstantiated prejudice. Therein lies the problem.

A counter-argument ... I happen to eat very well, and I think people who choose not to are idiots who end up costing the rest of us a lot of money via the NHS and so on. But if I worked in a cafe would I refuse to serve them unhealthy food? No, because on a personal level it's none of my business, and they are adults who are entitled to eat what they like.

Boffin - there is plenty of evidence to suggest that drinking alcohol in pregnancy is harmful. I am not even going to begin quoting or linking, because I presume you are aware of it.

If I choose to heed such advice, such is my prerogative.

And if I see someone choosing not to, that is not my business. However, I am also free to choose not to encourage such behaviour.

just read whole thread...agree with DSM

she's nailed it...

DSM - fine, don't encourage people to do things of which you disapprove.

That is not the same as a publican refusing to serve someone a drink because the customer is pregnant and the publican is self-righteous and taking it upon themselves to pronounce on the health of the foetus - declaring I landlady know better than you, the inferior customer, what is good for your body.

Unless the publican has a medical degree, post-graduate training and full access to the customer's medical records, they should mind their own business.

Seriously Edam?

So you think it would be totally acceptable for me to serve a pregnant lady, allow her to get drunk, and I shouldn't care about the morality of that?

She's very determined to play god here, Edam. I think we are on a hiding to nothing here.

I got so stressed about this thread I actually went out for a curry and a beer this evening (due date is tomorrow). I can't decide what's worse - all the opiates my consultant has prescribed for me, or a pint of Kingfisher.

Perhaps DSM ought to be running our ante-natal unit here, as she seems to have access to research data denied to my consultant and indeed most of the medical profession.

Boffin

I am not trying to play god, for goodness sake.

I would be very concerned however, if you hadn't seen any research data on the harmful effects of alcohol in pregnancy.

What on earth would make you say that 'she seems to have access to research data denied to my consultant and indeed most of the medical profession.'? FFS, its basic common sense.

this women may have been having just a couple of units ( on average a pint of med strong larger is equal to at least 3 units} while she was pregnant.. and yes every landlord has the right to serve you, even if they dont like the look of you..which is sometimes unfair however women smoking while pregnent or around new borns..this infuriates me more.. maybe newsagents should refuse pregnant women or new mums ciggerettes?

trulyscrumptious.. that has already been discussed on this thread, if you read it you will see that.

Obviously off-sales (alcohol or cigarettes) are not anybody's business, for what you do in your own home is your business.

ah, that would be the meaning of basic common sense that reads 'my prejudices', then.

You are entitled to your own beliefs in terms of morality or anything else. You are not entitled to impose them on other people.

So to reiterate the question edam, do you think it would be totally acceptable for me to serve a pregnant lady, allow her to get drunk, and I shouldn't care about the morality of that?

I am saying that there is no evidence that moderate drinking harms foetuses. There is some conjecture, but no actual evidence. That's a very big difference.

If we're talking about common sense here, on the other hand, half of the UK ought to be walking around with flattened noses and learning difficulties if 3 units did as much damage as is being represented here. The fact they are not probably says something.

and there is no definitive evidence alcohol isnt harmful,hence the quandary and recommended abstinence.no clinician will ever unequivocally say alcohol is safe

many studies are inconclusive and contradictory

agree with hands under bump stance

pint a bit much - not landladys place though

Same with many foodstuffs (eg meat)! There's no evidence they're not harmful. This is emphatically not the same as assuming they're actually harmful.

Did you lot not do science at school????