JDW forced to apologise to travellers for the second time in a month

By M and C Report

- Last updated on GMT

The first case of discrimination involved north London's the Coronet
The first case of discrimination involved north London's the Coronet

Related tags: North london pub, Discrimination

JD Wetherspoon has been forced to apologise, for the second time in a month, to a group of travellers refused entry to its pubs.

The latest incident saw three people refused entry to the Tivoli in Cambridge in February following a nearby funeral.

It follows a case earlier this month where Wetherspoon’s was found guilty if discriminating against eight travellers at a north London pub back in 2011.

Following the latest verdict, JDW chairman Tim Martin said: “We apologise to the three claimants for the embarrassment and distress caused to them and have offered to pay damages to each of them as well as legal costs.

“There was no intention by the company to discriminate against these individuals.

“This is the second legal case involving Wetherspoon and the travelling community in the past month in which discrimination has been established. The first case, concerning the Coronet in north London, related to an incident in 2011 and the Tivoli incident occurred this February.

“There are the only two cases brought against the company by the travelling community for discrimination since Wetherspoon was founded in 1979.”

“We reiterate that there was no malice intended by the company in either case and Wetherspoon did not have a discriminatory motive.

“Our pubs serve more than two million customers each week and unfortunately errors by out staff do occur on occasion, notwithstanding our commitment to equal training of all customers and staff.

“We will be redoubling our efforts to ensure that we, as a company and our staff learn from these mistakes.”

The PMA’s legal specialist Poppleston Allen reminded operators that the age-old right of a licensee to refuse entry to whomever he or she wishes remains, but the reasons must not be unlawful.

Equality legislation makes it unlawful to refuse entry on the grounds of religion, race, sex, sexual orientation or disability. .

Related topics: JD Wetherspoon

Related news

Show more


Show more

And PLOP!!! here we are!

Posted by ken nason,

In the black hole after spinning around David's self made vortex.

Have fun

Report abuse


Posted by david,

It's difficult to know where to start with your nonsense.

I asked you where (as you allege)I had accused you of "subscribing to find a way around". I note you cannot identify where.

There is no "protected species" as you label it. Anti-discrimination laws provide protection only to specific groups (defined as those having 'protected characteristics'). You droan on about the publican's right to refuse - whilst refusing to accept that refusal cannot be on grounds which are unlawful.

Jesus, is it so difficult for you to understand that any reason is lawful if the person refused is not one with protected characteristics? And refusal to someone with protected characteristics on the grounds of unacceptable behaviour (or any other lawful reason)is fine. As for appearance - which aspect of their appearance? Dreadlocks, turban, Hijab, Jewish skullcap? Careful how you go with that Kenneth - or are you sticking to your universal "No service, no reason, leave now" line?

I'm so sorry if the word "preferred" has corrupted your phrase "much better to . ."

Frankly I'm agog at the utter stupidity of your statement: "The customer has the right to complain regarding discrimination but no right to service or entry". That must be of enormous comfort to JDW as Tim writes out the compensation cheques! I wonder whether your phrase will be adopted by JDW as the text of its training material as it "redoubles our efforts to ensure that we as a company and our staff learn from these mistakes".

Report abuse


Posted by david,

I’ve already explained that complainants of unlawful discrimination have access to remedy via the Civil Courts. To win their case requires only that their version of events is judged by the court as more probable than that offered by the other party.

The complaint is that service was refused on grounds that are unlawful. The defendant really only has 2 possible defences (1) to deny that service was refused, or (2) to agree that service was refused but that the reason was lawful.

Are you capable of understanding that the second option would require the defendant to explain exactly why service was refused, and for such reason to be lawful and applied to all?

I really couldn’t care less whether you or Nason understand the meaning of the law. You are not the ones who risk having to pay a heavy price for the ignorance and misinformation your comments distribute here amongst the licensee community.

Report abuse