I was unfairly banned from many pubs/bars

People do go to bars to meet new people. But it depends immensely on the type of the bar the type of person. In my experience young people go to noisy clubbish bars to meet other young people.

also the approach is very important. If you overhear a conversation and perhaps you lean over and say ‘I couldn’t help but overhear you saying X and I thought you might like to know Y.’ And then if they respond as if they are interested maybe you can start a conversation and if they don’t you just have to excuse yourself and move on. 

there is a big difference between that and just sitting down at somebody’s table and saying let me introduce myself. But at the end of the day you were not expected to know these things will be an expert on how to approach people because you are autistic and it is a handicap for you. If the bar has not made allowances for you I think they are probably discriminating against you (in a moral if not legal sense).

Peter said:

probably discriminating against you (

Seriously? A pub is there to make money, not to provide assistance. Pubs have no obligations to cater for people with social difficulties. They are not a public service.

if those social difficulties are the consequence of a disability then yes they do. In exactly the same way that they have an obligation to cater to people with mobility difficulties by putting in ramps / lifts.

You misunderstood or misread my post. I wished everyone an epiphany that makes them happy.

whether it was on a whim or not is really not the point. The fact that it's many bars only reenforces my point that it can have a big effect on a persons social life, or in this case atempts to get a social life.

I was once banned from a pub, along with others, for 'drinking too slowly'. Possibly connected with being penniless students at the time. Not really a substantive reason.

I don’t think anyone was banned on a whim Peter, and certainly not from “many pubs/bars” as per the original post.

being banned from things can be a lot more than hurt feelings though. Imagine you live in a small vilage with one pub and no vilage hall. Being banned from that pub is almost the same thing as being banned from vilage life.

Imagine you've been in one club for 10 years and all your friends are there? Being banned from that club is almost the same as being banned from that friendship group.

Autistic peoples social stuctures can be really narrow and deep. All eggs in one basket. So one ban can destroy someones social life.

Imagine if everyone with hurt feelings sued…

I'm not starting any claim. I'm not the party with standing. Nor am I advising Roswell to bring a claim. That's a dissision for him based on the facts. I'm merely pointing out that such cases have been sucessful before.

Bowerman v B & Q PLC [2005] (westlaw WL 7863629) comes to mind. Or J Clarke v Marks and Spencer plc: 3313186/2022.

Start the claim.

You will be laughed out of court and possibly charged with wasting the court's time.

Please keep me posted. 

Yes it can be unlimited but it’s very unlikely to be. Awards for injury to feelings are rarely  over £10,000 (which is generally the limit for anything on the small claims track)

I imagine the typical recovery for a lawsuit against a pub might be a few thousand pounds. That might not sound like a lot. But if you’re unemployed & have no savings and are doing all of your own paperwork there’s a good chance you won’t have to pay any money to file the case at court provided you fill out the right forms to have your fees waived.

if it does end up on the small claims track and you don’t use a lawyer your expenses are probably measured in printer ink and bus fare to and from the courthouse.

How is a 'public house' not public? To quote, "Operators of pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels need to be aware of the obligations of the Equality Act, which requires equality of access to their services for disabled people." This includes mental as well as physical disabilities. The managers and owners of 'hospitality venues' can be taken to court if they infringe a disabled person's right of access to their facilities and the amount of damages that may be awarded is unlimited.

Then you’re looking at the wrong thing. The poor compliance with the equality act has far more to do with how difficult it is to bring a case in the first place than the merits of the case when it actually gets into court.

what you should really be looking at is how many cases have been successful versus how many cases have failed.

cases have been brought successfully against pubs for not having wheelchair access. I can actually give you a list of some of some of the key cases brought against people for failing to make reasonable adjustments for autism although it does tend to be more in employment. This is because bringing a case to court in employment law is just a lot easier with the way the system is set up not because the cases are somehow more likely to succeed in employment as opposed to services.

Amerantin (former member) said:

I thought one of the purposes of this forum was for we aliens to share our learnings about the humans and their rules.

why you reply to my posts after wishing that everyone in the forum had the epiphany of not speaking with me again? Please shut up

Again, you cannot tell your fantasy world from the real world. In theory, it should be like that. In practice, it's not. If you do not believe  me, try to ask Pathfinder in this thread. He is more attuned to the real world than you.

As a homework, do a census of your local pubs and see how many of them have effective wheelchair access. You will be surprised. 

You know who else probably hasn't worked in a bar? a county court judge deciding a discrimination lawsuit. The law does not give a free pass to bussnesses just because equality law is inconvenient or they don't understand it or thats not the way things are usually done. The civil law is a rod for beating those who don't care about the law into complience. As the pholosopher said good men don't need rules. These laws were writen with the understanding that they would have to be used to make busnesses do things that hurt their busness interests.

Judge Dredd said:

speaking with you is like speaking with an alien with a vague idea of how Earth society works.

TBH I feel like this about everyone. I thought one of the purposes of this forum was for we aliens to share our learnings about the humans and their rules.

LOL Peter, you remind me of myself when I was still young an naive. I used to live in my little own world too, until my "less supportive" environment forced me to adapt. ASD people live in their own little world, just like the Little Prince!

BTW, you never worked in a pub or a drinking establishment. Those places work in a completely different way. As usual, speaking with you is like speaking with an alien with a vague idea of how Earth society works. A rather intelligent alien, but an alien.

Well the equality act says that businesses must make reasonable adjustments to their policies, criteria and practices. So if it is the practice of a bar to throw somebody out who has been going around annoying people who just want to keep to themselves, and it turns out this is autism related, A reasonable adjustment might be giving them a warning first before banning them.

A reasonable adjustment might be taking extra time to hear both sides of the story and giving the autistic person the benefit of the doubt.

No private businesses are still forced to make reasonable adjustments for disabilities, both mobility and autism related disabilities. That’s the law.

Exactly.  If they put on a night for people with social difficulties, all the namby pampbys would say they were discriminating against someone else.  They can't win, so why bother.  I don't blame them either.  Common sense and decency left the building a long time ago and people seem to take offence at everything nowadays.

How exactly would a pub go about catering for such social difficulties?

How exactly would a pub go about catering for such social difficulties?

Reminder of Rule 5:

Be nice to one another and enjoy chatting with others. We encourage conversation and respectful debate; please be aware that individuals may give opinions which are not shared by other members. Insulting posts or comments making personal jibes will not be tolerated.   

You misunderstood or misread my post. I wished everyone an epiphany that makes them happy.

Then you’re looking at the wrong thing. The poor compliance with the equality act has far more to do with how difficult it is to bring a case in the first place than the merits of the case when it actually gets into court.

what you should really be looking at is how many cases have been successful versus how many cases have failed.

cases have been brought successfully against pubs for not having wheelchair access. I can actually give you a list of some of some of the key cases brought against people for failing to make reasonable adjustments for autism although it does tend to be more in employment. This is because bringing a case to court in employment law is just a lot easier with the way the system is set up not because the cases are somehow more likely to succeed in employment as opposed to services.

Amerantin (former member) said:

I thought one of the purposes of this forum was for we aliens to share our learnings about the humans and their rules.

why you reply to my posts after wishing that everyone in the forum had the epiphany of not speaking with me again? Please shut up

Again, you cannot tell your fantasy world from the real world. In theory, it should be like that. In practice, it's not. If you do not believe  me, try to ask Pathfinder in this thread. He is more attuned to the real world than you.

As a homework, do a census of your local pubs and see how many of them have effective wheelchair access. You will be surprised. 

You know who else probably hasn't worked in a bar? a county court judge deciding a discrimination lawsuit. The law does not give a free pass to bussnesses just because equality law is inconvenient or they don't understand it or thats not the way things are usually done. The civil law is a rod for beating those who don't care about the law into complience. As the pholosopher said good men don't need rules. These laws were writen with the understanding that they would have to be used to make busnesses do things that hurt their busness interests.

Judge Dredd said:

speaking with you is like speaking with an alien with a vague idea of how Earth society works.

TBH I feel like this about everyone. I thought one of the purposes of this forum was for we aliens to share our learnings about the humans and their rules.

LOL Peter, you remind me of myself when I was still young an naive. I used to live in my little own world too, until my "less supportive" environment forced me to adapt. ASD people live in their own little world, just like the Little Prince!

BTW, you never worked in a pub or a drinking establishment. Those places work in a completely different way. As usual, speaking with you is like speaking with an alien with a vague idea of how Earth society works. A rather intelligent alien, but an alien.

Well the equality act says that businesses must make reasonable adjustments to their policies, criteria and practices. So if it is the practice of a bar to throw somebody out who has been going around annoying people who just want to keep to themselves, and it turns out this is autism related, A reasonable adjustment might be giving them a warning first before banning them.

A reasonable adjustment might be taking extra time to hear both sides of the story and giving the autistic person the benefit of the doubt.

Exactly.  If they put on a night for people with social difficulties, all the namby pampbys would say they were discriminating against someone else.  They can't win, so why bother.  I don't blame them either.  Common sense and decency left the building a long time ago and people seem to take offence at everything nowadays.