MY BIOGRAPHY. |
CHAPTER 35. Within and Without. |
1. Landlords, in the Pub Trade, came and went, as they always will, and more so these days, and with them came the good and the bad, with more bad than good as time went on. During our 'run' one such Landlord took over a particular pub and because of his previous record and bad character was unable to obtain the license so it was applied for and held in his wife's name. A point worth remembering when the name, over the door, appears to be different to that of the person claiming to be Landlord. Anyhow back to our man. The law meant little to him and court appearances and fines for short measures, late night drinking and porn movies on the in-house TV were the norm. One day this character, along with several of his cronies, which included an elected Town Councillor went on 'walkabout,' down the sea front area, and worse the ware for drink and 'you can't touch me, I'm a brain dead landlord' attitude, caused no end of trouble and where, from one establishment, the doorman and several other customers were dragged out and thrown into the harbour. This behaviour could not be condoned and several of the sea front Licensees called for a meeting of the LVA, (the local branch of the Licensed Victualler's Association) to make a complaint and resolve this problem. The meeting duly convened and to start with the offending 'Landlord' turned up, when he was not entitled to, as he was not a member, his wife was the Licensee and member. He brought along, with him, his father in law, who was also a Licensee and member, his mother in law, not a member, and several other local Pub Managers who were associate members, allowed to attend meetings but with no voting rights, as they had their own independent organisation that dealt specifically with issues concerning Managers. To start with it was declared to have all been a bit of harmless fun and that fact could be backed up by people who were not even there at the time. It was also claimed that they were not the ones causing the trouble but had assisted in sorting it out when it had flared up shortly after they arrived. A point denied by the offended Landlord who stated that he could bring dozens of staff and witnesses who would all claim differently. As for the Town Councillor, he had not been part of the group and although he may have been down on the sea front that day had not been seen by anyone. A further fact denied by the offended Landlord who again claimed differently. As for those who ended up in the water, they had gone across a main road, voluntarily and for some unknown reasons had ended up in the dirty harbour water. When someone challenged and demanded to know why they were very clear on some points but not on others, the father in law jumped in and called them all sorts of spineless 'gets' and accused everyone of just trying to cause trouble for his son in law, who was worth, according to him, at least a dozen of any present and they were all a 'shower of shit' and none of them fit to run a decent pub where a bit of banter was all part and parcel of the set up. As for any breakage and damage, which apparently had been extensive and witnessed by those summonsed to give assistance, and the threats and obscene language and anything else, well all that was attributed to anyone who wanted to take the blame for it, and although some may have occurred, while preventing the trouble from escalating, they had only done what any other Licensee would have done in the circumstances, while assisting, and were sorry the Landlady had been assaulted when she, wrongfully and stupidly, tried to intervene. The meeting became heated with no one in control and with accusations and cross accusations, many of them with nothing to do with the business in hand and dragging up old differences, on completely different issues, and after some considerable time of bad language and people saying silly things and walking out, it was finally resolved that the committee would interview both sides, independently, and present their findings later. 2. The 'accused' refused to be interviewed, as he had done nothing and simply stood falsely accused. His father in law, using some very choice language, knew all about it, despite not being there and he would sort it out with all the others, so they had better watch out. The mother in law claimed it was a good, honest and lovely boy just being pilloried by jealous Licensees. The father in law then proceeded to go round badgering and brow beating everyone else into believing his son in law was being picked on. 3. The press got hold of it and suggested there had been a riot at the meeting and a split in the membership following some wrongful and doubtful accusations from people who had no direct involvement and it was blatently obvious who had provided that basic, inaccurate, information. From that there followed several press interviews and statements that offered loyal support, from the 'whole' trade, to one of their members, who don't forget was not a member. The Managers issued a joint statement saying that it had all been blown out of proportion, would not have happened in their organisation, and that it was a sad day when one of their colleagues could not go out for a quiet drink, yet failed to state that he was a twenty-two stone, brain dead idiot and not a colleague as he was not even a Manager. 4. The top and bottom of it being that a large proportion of them were in fear of retribution from this idiot, who, despite his size, always went round with at least two 'equally brain dead' minders and had the reputation for causing trouble at anytime. The then Chairman, of the LVA, who also said, openly, that his pub was one of the closest and he didn't want any repercussions, decided to call a meeting and propose an open vote where neither side would be allowed representation or to make statements or present any kind of evidence. It was, he said, a serious and pressing issue and the sooner it was voted on and all over, the better. 5. The vote, when it was put before the meeting, a few days later, as a decision and recommendation from the committee, was for a blanket ban from all Members Pubs, as he could not be expelled from the LVA, as he was not a member. Also the Managers would then all be free to make their own decisions. It was one of the biggest turnouts, to a meeting, I have ever witnessed and there were people there who knew nothing about it but had heard, and wanted to find out all they could and then, based on no detailed knowledge, proceeded to vote whether entitled to or not. They, along with all the Managers, who were not supposed to have voting rights, a fact ignored by the Chairman as they gave him the solution he wanted, voted by a very narrow margin that no action should be taken. 6. The Chairman expressed his thanks and relief, and stated that he had allowed the Managers to vote so that it was fair and unbiased. The 'accused,' again who should not have been there and had voted for himself, left shouting 'wankers' and the Managers cheered and also left while the father in law tried to draw up a list of those who had voted in favour of a ban. Of those who remained, well over fifty percent immediately resigned and that was effectively the end of the Scarborough Licensed Victualler's Association, as we all knew it. I and one or two others stuck it out and attended meetings and helped form another committee, as the majority of the other one had gone, and in an attempt to rebuild the image and salvage what we could, decided to elect, for the first time in the history of the organisation, a Lady Chairman. She did her best but eventually resigned as she felt it was an impossible task and I think it probably still is. The social side died and major sponsors lost interest when they realised they were supporting so few in the trade and where some of the best, who should have been active members, just did not want to know from there on in. 7. A fellow licensee and others, who shall all remain anonymous, approached me and assured me that I couldn't turn down an easy deal that made good money for very little effort. All I had to do was select and take anyone, or more if I wanted, of the photographs and copy receipts, that accompanied them, and then if the Police came round and asked questions I was to say, yes, the silverware had been mine, given to me by my old granny or what have you, and yes I had sold it to 'so and so' for the amount shown and I had the receipt, and for that I would be paid fifty pounds per item. From there I am going to be intentionally vague, as I still don't know what the true situation regarding this affair is currently at. Sufficient to say that youngsters, doing some gardening for an old lady, dug up a million and a half's worth of valuable silverware. All the old lady knew was that her son, or son in law had been digging in the garden with some workmen, doing repairs. Let it be sufficient to say that they claimed it was there for safe keeping and that it had all been bought legitimately and would eventually have been brought out for sale, through antique dealers, and what's more they could prove it. Whether they did or not, I am not quite sure but several Landlords were heavily fined or went to jail for varying lengths of time as did dealers, handlers and a lot of who, I thought, on the surface, were good, innocent people. 8. You would credit large organisations and especially Breweries, with being very careful when offering deals? Or would you? 9. A regular and annual event, in the area, was a large Trade Show, where most went to sample the wares and have a damned good day out. Walking round I bumped into a fellow Licensee who loudly declared that I would make one in, on this very lucrative deal, that was on offer, through one of the nationally known bottlers of beer. The deal was that there was a three for two, providing the minimum order was for one hundred cases, and this guy was prepared to order and take delivery of one hundred and fifty cases providing he could get sufficient others interested in splitting it with him. I said I would buy ten from him if he went ahead and to let me know. The following day he rang to confirm that I had promised to buy ten and get fifteen and that they had all been ordered and he would ring again later, when delivery had been made, and let me know when the invoice was due for settlement. I thought nothing more about it and a couple of weeks went by, when he rang me and said would I go and collect my five cases. That didn't ring true as I thought it should have been fifteen with ten to pay for. So jumping in my car I went to collect and find out. On arrival I was told that my share was five cases and that they were free, but also that we would have to wait a short while to see if there was any backlash from the deal. The explanation was that he had ordered, to be invoiced, one hundred cases and delivery would be one hundred and fifty, one free with every two purchased and that is how I had originally understood it. When this very large container had arrived and the offloading commenced, he told the driver that there must have been some mistake and that he had only ordered fifty and had no room for anymore, so they could take the one hundred back. The driver readily agreed, having also thought and saying so, that some mistake had possibly been made, as so many cases to one small outlet was very unusual. So having issued a Return Note, away he went. Two days later an invoice arrived for one hundred cases, showing also a return and refund on one hundred cases and therefore an outstanding invoice value of Nil. I took my five free cases, on my share of ten, which had been returned with the others, and to this day have heard nothing further. The Invoice Department had obviously not been informed of the special offer whereas Despatch had and for months after that we expected something to happen but nothing ever did. So much for some of the 'big boys.' |
MY BIOGRAPHY. |
