Well, I'm Buggered if I Know.

Once again I am amazed by my fellow human beings and their capacity to be incomprehensibly stupid.

See, it's all about double standards. It's all about those who wish to be seen to be doing the right thing because they feel it paints them in a positive light. In my local boozer we have one of those care in the community types who collects glasses and makes a nuisance of himself for 37p an hour. He's rude and obnoxious, coughs over people and in their drinks, and has generally has a piss poor attitude to everything and everyone. You know the type - thinks he's King Kong when in actual fact he's King Mong.

The other week, King Mong as he will now be known, had some lager poured over his head because his incessant coughing, snivelling, and overall bad demeanour had pissed off one of the regulars so much that this was the only course of action left available to make the useless little twat bugger off. Now, I happen to think that pouring a beer over someones head is fairly tame. However, the person in charge at the time BARRED the well known regular for 'assaulting a member of staff'.

Now this would be fine if everyone who behaved moderately badly were treated the same way. However, it would appear that snorting drugs in the toilets or dealing the same in the car park and then walking in as bold as brass is acceptable behaviour. It would also appear that being drunk to the point of not being able to stand is funny, and that throwing furniture and glasses around is okay if you happen to have some tenuous tie to the manager and his or her family.

How easy is it to pick on some old bloke who had essentially had enough of a bloody irritant that he felt it necessary to chuck his beer over him? And why is it so difficult to keep a tighter rein on people who are plainly breaking the law in the same establishment? The power trip, isn't it? Pick on an easy target because you think it gives the impression that you are in control. I've invited David Blunkett down for a pint, because I'm sure that even he could see what an absolute mockery my local has become in terms of how those in the silent majority are treated.

How obvious does it have to be before you remove certain people from an establishment? The excuse often given is that they have to be caught in the act. I take this to mean 'I haven't got the balls to do the right thing because I know that it is likely to create a scene that I'd really rather avoid'. It has always been my understanding that the Landlord of a Public House can refuse to have anyone of his choosing in his establishment, and doesn't necessarily have to provide a reason should he do so.

That's the crux of it really. It's almost Nazi, isn't it? Pick on the vulnerable easy targets while your comrades enjoy themselves because you allow them to do whatever they like without exercising any control. A double standard of Biblical proportions in my book. 

Still, as long as it makes you look good, anything goes, right? 

More on that later.