By Gabriel Princewill-

An official complaint has been presented to Phoenix Security- the security agency that hires the doorman complained about.

David, whose surname was not released to the eye of media.com, works as a doorman for The Merchant security group in Leeds.It is interesting that doormen decline to give their full names, despite being in a job where allegations against them would not be rare. Any security industry will cite the need to protect the identity of their staff, it is part and parcel of the security industry.

David is accused of acting in excess of his powers just before the Christmas period. He has reportedly targeted the man(whose identity we will not give) over a 4-5 year period, constantly refusing him entry to any bar where he worked.

The doorman had a minor dispute with the gentleman some five years ago but has constantly used his position as a doorman to exert bullish control over the man, preventing and ejecting him from bars at will.

After over two years of not seeing the gentleman at, David was back to his old ways of arbitrarily throwing his weight around when the gentleman attended the bar where he was working as a security staff.

The doorman has always hidden behind the commonly used mantra in security circles that they do not have to give a reason to refuse entry or withdraw permission to admit entry.

Clubs, doormen, and owners of private licenses generally don’t have to give a  reason to refuse entry into their premises. However, this right does not preclude the obligation to adhere to the rules afforded to those in protected classes. Today, there are laws against discrimination based on race, gender, sexual and gender orientation.

This shows that none of those protected classes can constitute a reason for barring entry. Neither, it can be assumed, can any type of bar be justified by a doorman except it meets acceptable standards required to protect the premises where the event is taking place.

When balanced, the rights of private licensees and doormen implicitly assumes the exercise of good discretion in the course of executing their professional duties.

 Doormen truly don’t have to give a reason for expelling truants from their bars or clubs.  They can also sometimes refuse entry based on dressing, particularly where they have an expected and known dress code compatible with the event on the night. Apart from these, they are there to ensure the safety and smooth enjoyment of those there.

 The illusion that the right of refusal is a free-standing right, needs clarity.  It is discretionary, based on the reasonable trust that their powers will be executed responsibly.  If it were free standing, it would be open to abuse of epic proportions.

Doormen are however not ethically allowed to refuse entry on the grounds of personal grievance, race or gender. Their job is to maintain and the security of the environment they were hired to safeguard. They may exercise discretion in preventing individuals who are known trouble makers from a venue they are working, or eject from the venue, those who are breaching the peace.

However, doormen would be unquestionably wrong to bar people from attending a venue based on not just liking the person, or a past dispute. That will be discriminatory and contrary to the essence for which the right not to have to give a reason was instituted. Abuse of power is a transgression that questions the legitimacy of the person assuming the power.

Doormen are also prohibited from discriminating based on gender. This is an established obligation they have,  in order to ensure individuals are not targeted because of their gender.

However, The eye of media.com has heard that in some clubs in Leeds, Newcastle and Manchester, where nightlife is vibrant for party goers, gender can be a factor.

Steve, a doorman from Newcastle, told the eye of media.com ” sometimes you have to refuse a group of boys when you know there are already too many boys in a club or bar, and taking more in will lead to more of the boys either overcrowding the women or getting into fights.

He admitted that rejecting a male or female because they are on their own will be gender discrimination. ”

 The doorman in question here once prevented the complainant from shopping at JD sports in Leeds, causing the complainant to file a complaint to management there at the time.

Dan  Brooker, area manager of Phoenix Security told the eye of media.com that the complaint has been passed on to HR. Brooker, who presides over four branches covering Leeds, Hull, Sheffield and Bradford, said the company will need some time to look into the complaint.

The eye of media.com has suggested that the doorman complained against, David, does not seem to have the right professional temperament for the job. He should either be relieved of his duties or at least given a higher level of training for the job; one that involves the appropriate use of discretion and proportionate responses to various circumstances.