Dekers Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 Good thread this, always was going to be a cracker, and once again assumption and righteousness reign supreme. Be thankful you tarts have so much protection, I grew up with baseball bats behind the counter, often used, unconscious punters heads being used as footballs and competitions to see how many noses could be broken with a back elbow! You have never had it so good! A few more pages yet I'd guess before this gets closed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaquire Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 I thought doormen were there to chat up scantily clad lasses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old rooster Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 Don't you think it would have gone a lot more smoothly had both bouncers simply restrained the guy - rather than the end result? Granted, no one could have seen that coming, but we all make mistakes or get a little gobby when we've had one too many. Sorry, can't agree with that one, most of us can have a good time and several sherberts without having to take on the world. No excuse for loutish behaviour IMVHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 Sorry, can't agree with that one, most of us can have a good time and several sherberts without having to take on the world. No excuse for loutish behaviour IMVHO. I wish u were right, but sadly far too many can't. Must admit i never minded dealing with the normal drunk every weekend knob's at least u knew who they were and know most are just full off **** and hot air. If u ignore them they would go away and didnae really have the bottle to do owt It's the normal respectable people that only drink once or twice a year say weddings and christmas nites out, were a nightmare. had no idea how to handle there drink and u had no idea how to handle them. Some would just snap and turn voilent with no warning. And these are normally respectablly middle aged folk with families, complete nightmare. Give me a drink and drugged up ned any nite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 Sorry, can't agree with that one, most of us can have a good time and several sherberts without having to take on the world. No excuse for loutish behaviour IMVHO. In my 30 odd years of drinking (stopped now) I have never gone out, got hammered and then went looking for bother, Yet I have at least 1 friend who is respectable when sober but changed when drunk, not to this lads level but could still be a liability Some people just like to go out and fight.....sad state of affairs really As I said earlier, the doorman was still out of order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 (edited) Good thread this, always was going to be a cracker, and once again assumption and righteousness reign supreme. Be thankful you tarts have so much protection, I grew up with baseball bats behind the counter, often used, unconscious punters heads being used as footballs and competitions to see how many noses could be broken with a back elbow! You have never had it so good! A few more pages yet I'd guess before this gets closed! [/quote Wow, you must be proper 'ard! Does that make it right? We had some fairly rough times on the doors also but I cant ever remember anyone resorting to the level of thug, except when the thugs were employed as doormen. I thought times had moved on; seemingly not. Fair week could also be something spectacular to behold,especially when the machetes came out! The police now insist all pubs must employ registered doormen during Fair week;they regulate the premises, the police regulate everything else but pubs are still encouraged to contact the police in times of trouble. The numpty could very easily have been killed by slam dunking him upside down onto a pavement. The doorman could have simply avoided the situation by staying inside. Edited October 12, 2013 by Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodo123 Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 What a complete load of rubbish! There was no need for the doorman to even be involved, never mind defend himself! The incident took place outside the premises, the doorman didn't need to be there, so possibly wanted to be? Professional my ****! Sorry I didn't realize you where their, maybe you could tell us all what happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remmy1100 Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 we are talking one doorman here but the one who approached and one who had videocam are surely just as negligent. as all doormen and there employers have a duty of care towards the public and are certainly not beyond reproach.i would want all staff on that door replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 (edited) Good thread this, always was going to be a cracker, and once again assumption and righteousness reign supreme. Be thankful you tarts have so much protection, I grew up with baseball bats behind the counter, often used, unconscious punters heads being used as footballs and competitions to see how many noses could be broken with a back elbow! You have never had it so good! A few more pages yet I'd guess before this gets closed! Sounds like a psychopaths party. I hope several prosecutions resulted, with lengthy prison terms. Edited October 12, 2013 by guest1957 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 Sorry I didn't realize you where their, maybe you could tell us all what happened No apology necessary,I'll try and make it as simple as possible for you.I can only base my explanation on what was shown as I'm sure you'll understand,as that is what we're all basing our opinions on. The numpty is first shown prancing around in front of the doorman and both are outside the premises on the pavement (it's the dark looking thing everyone is standing on but I can see how you could easily confuse it with an interior) clearly encouraging confrontation and it sounds like he says to the doorman 'come on then' but it isn't clear,to which the doorman responds by making his move on the numpty. What happens next is clear,but the entire situation outside the premises could have been avoided by the doorman staying inside the premises once the numpty had been ejected,with his mates,and simply locking the numpty and his mates out and calling the Police. It doesn't matter if the numpty has belted the doorman inside the club and the doorman has defended himself,until he has been restrained by his fellow doormen;I have no problem with this.But once the numpty has been ejected outside the premises then what possible reason could the doorman have for following him? I have absolutely no problem with massive reactions in self defence,but the doorman was not acting in self defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 Good thread this, always was going to be a cracker, and once again assumption and righteousness reign supreme. Be thankful you tarts have so much protection, I grew up with baseball bats behind the counter, often used, unconscious punters heads being used as footballs and competitions to see how many noses could be broken with a back elbow! You have never had it so good! A few more pages yet I'd guess before this gets closed! [/quote Wow, you must be proper 'ard! Does that make it right? We had some fairly rough times on the doors also but I cant ever remember anyone resorting to the level of thug, except when the thugs were employed as doormen. I thought times had moved on; seemingly not. Fair week could also be something spectacular to behold,especially when the machetes came out! The police now insist all pubs must employ registered doormen during Fair week;they regulate the premises, the police regulate everything else but pubs are still encouraged to contact the police in times of trouble. The numpty could very easily have been killed by slam dunking him upside down onto a pavement. The doorman could have simply avoided the situation by staying inside. Other than the original kick/s I think you will find the doorman was using restraining tactics, I cannot see him swinging a punch at the punter, and eventually dunked him sideways onto the path, he was not upside down. In addition, what happened before and after is a mystery to everyone here but as I have said.... once again assumption and righteousness reign supreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flynny Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 (edited) Don't get me wrong the young lad is a tit, but fair play to him he had the bouncer on his toes, I wonder what the outcome would have been with a lad the same size as the bouncer or knew how to fight !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The knuckle dragging bouncer would have had his ***** kicked, plain and simple, Actually he would have stayed inside the club in the first place the poo bag, I know a few doormen and they do put up with some poo , he should do a spell inside for that , No need at all, Atb Flynny Edited October 12, 2013 by flynny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 No apology necessary,I'll try and make it as simple as possible for you.I can only base my explanation on what was shown as I'm sure you'll understand,as that is what we're all basing our opinions on. The numpty is first shown prancing around in front of the doorman and both are outside the premises on the pavement (it's the dark looking thing everyone is standing on but I can see how you could easily confuse it with an interior) clearly encouraging confrontation and it sounds like he says to the doorman 'come on then' but it isn't clear,to which the doorman responds by making his move on the numpty. What happens next is clear,but the entire situation outside the premises could have been avoided by the doorman staying inside the premises once the numpty had been ejected,with his mates,and simply locking the numpty and his mates out and calling the Police. It doesn't matter if the numpty has belted the doorman inside the club and the doorman has defended himself,until he has been restrained by his fellow doormen;I have no problem with this.But once the numpty has been ejected outside the premises then what possible reason could the doorman have for following him? I have absolutely no problem with massive reactions in self defence,but the doorman was not acting in self defence. How do you know why he acted the way he did, the punter may have been kicking **** out of the front window a second before and the bouncer went out to stop him for the general protection of everyone..........once again assumption and righteousness reign supreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 If he had stayed inside the premises he wouldn't have needed to either attempt to kick nor try to restrain.I'm not assuming nor being righteous;simply pointing out a method which would have avoided the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 How do you know why he acted the way he did, the punter may have been kicking **** out of the front window a second before and the bouncer went out to stop him for the general protection of everyone..........once again assumption and righteousness reign supreme. If he was kicking **** out of the window then the Police should have been called.But he chose to go outside to confront the numpty while his mate filmed it? There was no footage of anyone kicking windows but footage of a doorman trying to kick a numpty.I can only assume you're making assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustJon Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 As someone paid to do a job he went too far. He held the drunks head and attempted to knee him in it. He picked the lad up and slammed him down knocking him unconcious - that leads me to an assumption of head. Best case, slamming someone in that regard is hard to control. Those 2 moves belong in one place - a licensed MMA ring with the checks and protection involved. No assumption or self righteous attitude - he went too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 The doorman appears to me to be showing off and when it started getting a bit messy, he slammed the lad onto the pavement. All the garbage about he put him down sideways is just that - garbage. He slammed him down, with no thought about breaking his neck or fracturing his skull. When he had done it - did he check to see how the lad was? No. Bit of a bully and a dangerous one at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 If he was kicking **** out of the window then the Police should have been called.But he chose to go outside to confront the numpty while his mate filmed it? So perhaps he decided the situation warranted immediate outside intervention for everyone safety There was no footage of anyone kicking windows but footage of a doorman trying to kick a numpty.I can only assume you're making assumptions. No chap, you are the one making assumptions, I am putting forward a possible scenario, and giving him a possible reason for being outside, you have just assumed he has no reason to be there and it is all his fault. That is the big difference, you assumed and I have refused to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 The doorman appears to me to be showing off and when it started getting a bit messy, he slammed the lad onto the pavement. All the garbage about he put him down sideways is just that - garbage. He slammed him down, with no thought about breaking his neck or fracturing his skull. When he had done it - did he check to see how the lad was? No. Bit of a bully and a dangerous one at that. The bloke was moving his arm as the filming stopped, how the heck do you know what happened in the next second, for all you know people were just out of shot rushing to his assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 Guys, I am not supporting or condemning anyone here, I simple refuse to be drawn into all the assumption and righteousness. So many of you have made assumptions on a piece of film that is simply a snapshot in time. It has also been made clear the bloke was eventually tracked down, and the doorman voluntarily discussed the situation with the police and no charges have been bought, does that not suggest this film clip may not be the whole story! Back in the old days this bloke would have had 7 bells of **** kicked out of him, and the other doorman would probably have used him for a bit of practice later as well, even that clip shows restraining tactics rather than fighting tactics on the part of the doorman. As I have said earlier, times have changed and you are all a bunch of tarts, "poor drunk idiot, its not really his fault, he doesn't know what he is doing, he comes from a broken home and didn't mean anything" "What a nasty bouncer!" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pestcontrol1 Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 The bloke was moving his arm as the filming stopped, how the heck do you know what happened in the next second, for all you know people were just out of shot rushing to his assistance. I dont think he was moving anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet1747 Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 The bird says it all " no need for that mate " like I said earlier hope he gets sent down , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 I dont think he was moving anything I think you may be correct, I may have mistaken a shadow as movement, but that doesn't change the rest................how the heck do you know what happened in the next second, for all you know people were just out of shot rushing to his assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 (edited) You're now creating scenarios in an attempt to justify his actions in an attempt to save face for your own ramblings.Common sense says the situation could have been avoided if he'd simply stayed inside. None of us have any idea why he went outside.The fact of the matter is that he did, and confronted the numpty,no number of smilie emoticons will change that. Edited October 12, 2013 by Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet1747 Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 I think you may be correct, I may have mistaken a shadow as movement, but that doesn't change the rest................how the heck do you know what happened in the next second, for all you know people were just out of shot rushing to his assistance. Could of been a doctor rushing to him , doesn't excuse wot the thug did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts