Two gay men kicked out of a pub for kissing in public

[winginson]

Maybe its just because be from a rural area of England, but there are pubs and then there are pubs.

One pub you will be kicked out for anything more than a quick peck on the cheek or coming in wearing skimpy clothing. Why? Because its a family pub, where people go for meals with kids.

Another won't bother you unless you are making out constantly, because they just sell booze.

 

[RelexCryo]

1) Lacking a political structure would prevent them from creating a stable system that did not descend into chaos. Based on your earlier assertions that a revolting peasant class could easily win battles, that would not have stopped them from killing the nobles who oppressed them. It would simply have prevented them from maintaining an orderly system after they killed the nobles. And yet they often failed to kill the Nobles who oppressed them, rather than successfully killing them, and then failing to create or maintain a new system of government.

2) Fundamental to modern Democracy yes, but fundamental to Democracy, period? Socrates was forced to drink Hemlock largely because he disagreed with the majority in Athens. Arguing that protection of political minorities is inherent to Democracy, not modern Democracy but Democracy itself, is rather foolish considering that.

I'm not even touching 1 because I've said all I had to say and I'm not getting lured into spelling out high school history for you again. Just look it up.

On 2... oh, man, now you're contradicting yourself and I don't even...

Look, it wouldn't matter if what you say is right, because your argument was related to two guys being discriminated against in a London bar in 2011, so there's that. On the other hand, you only know about that platitude regarding Socrates and the hemlock because it's been used as an argument for the necessity to protect dissenting ideas in democratic regimes since then. And, like I said, there were checks and balances (by other names, of course) guaranteeing a similar structure to allow dissent and limit power in Rome five hundred years before Christ. Which is historical fact.

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore, and I think neither do you. At this point you're just arguing against whatever I say, I guess, because that's the way of the Internet. It is also the way of the Internet to latch on to a misunderstanding to pretend that we were not arguing different things when you were claiming I was outright wrong either.

I don't think I like that.

You were wrong on both the facts and the underlying reasoning. You were arguing from an ignorant point of view to justify discrimination, of all things.

It is, of course, completely irrelevant, but I don't think I want to let you off the hook so quickly. You and a bunch of other people in this thread were wrong, making ignorant assumptions about the way freedom and democracy works to justify bigoted and discriminatory points of view. I'm not rushing to meet you guys in the middle on that one.

So I won't.

I said I support gay marriage and treating homosexuals equally. Your perception that I think democracy justifies bigotry is wrong.

You stated that a system where the majority can violate the rights of minorities is not democracy. The infamous case of Socrates demonstrates this is not true: Athens was the first democracy, and they did exactly that. Protection of the rights of political minorities might be inherent to Modern Democracy, but you attempted to claim that it was inherent to Democracy, period. That is simply wrong.

What I am arguing is that your attempt to say that protection of political minorities is inherent to Democracy, not Modern Democracy, but Democracy itself, is wrong. The execution of Socrates shows this.

Lastly, with regards to Number 1: If it was really true that the majority could win any battle, and that organized militaries had little power in comparison to their raw numbers, invading another country would be essentially impossible: Because the military is a small percentage of society, this means any invading army would be horribly outnumbered by the people they are trying to invade, and easily defeated. Imperialism inherently depends on the ability to oppress large numbers of people who don't support the oppressing government.

An example off the top of my head: When Germany invaded France in WW2, the German soldiers were heavily outnumbered by the French. The French did not support the Germans or German Occupation. Germany controlled France anyways, simply because they had machine guns and were very organized.

Another example would be Roman Occupation in general. Despite the technology they brought with them, People were rarely happy to be oppressed by the Romans, largely because they were rapist jerks. Yet the Romans were able to occupy other countries and oppress people regardless, simply because they were heavily armed and organized.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

It depends on the type of kiss, if it was just a simple peck, then I think that'd be unfair.
If a couple, no matter if it's homosexual or heterosexual, were basically trying to eat eachother's faces though, then it's understandable why people might be offended by that. Two men, or a man and a woman, that's just kinda distracting either way.

I'm gonna assume this incident was the latter.

Offended? why? Because people dont like other people being happily in love or well just having fun? because they are all so sexually frustrated that they HAVE to watch it all the time and cant focus on their own conversation?
Sorry but thats really...i dont know if wrong or stupid is the right word.
Its a bar. People go there to socialise, get drunk and meet guys/girls. This isnt about people making out its about the people that did ,clearly. Or maybe in your funny countries bars work completely different from here, you never know.

 

[bue519]

It's the same thing, you wouldn't kick a guy out of a bar for kissing his girlfriend would you?

That and this is in SOHO, an area known for its Gay bars and such. On topic though, your right this shouldn't have been a big deal at all.

 

[Gralian]

it's okay to be grossed out by same sex kissing or displays of intimacy.

yeah, it is. it's not ok to flip your shit just because you find it off putting, there is a difference. And as I live in the US, what's the difference between a pub and a bar?

I don't think anybody 'flipped their shit'. The point was more directed to comments saying, 'if it was a guy and girl kissing nobody would be (as) upset', when yes that is true and needs to be taken into consideration because of the aforementioned point of it being relatively normal to have that sort of reaction. Of course people can and will tolerate it, but that doesn't mean they'll find it any less repulsive. However as has been said before it's not that they were kissing and it's not because they were gay. It's (likely) because they were asked to stop, but continued, and after that you get chucked out. End of discussion. Nobody cares about a quick kiss, but if you make a big deal of it, you'll get asked to give it a rest. We don't have a full picture of what happened, we don't even know what exactly the bartender said as we have no statements from him or other witnesses. If he threw them out without asking them to stop first, then he'd absolutely be in the wrong. However i've been in plenty of pubs and you're generally asked to stop doing something before you get thrown out leading me to believe this article is incredibly biased and not painting the pub owner in the most honest light.

I said earlier that a pub is more of a public social environment, rather than an intimate one. Hence the full name, "public house". A bar is a place you go to if you're cruising for sex, or if you want to get frisky with your partner in the corner. The rules for pubs are generally much stricter than bars and PDA is universally frowned upon.

Edit: Since i replied to someone earlier and mentioned this, i'd also like to say that pubs can be a place many people go to for restaurant-type food, or even 'bar food' which can consist of things like a grilled sandwich. I don't know about the pub in question in the article, so i don't know if they had a restaurant service, but you absolutely wouldn't think any form of PDA is acceptable in a restaurant, where lots of people are eating, and if that restaurant is right next door (and by that i mean a part of the same building, but to the right of the bar area in a seperate room) - or even a part of the establishment itself - it's highly understandable why such behaviour would be so heavily frowned upon.

 

[FarleShadow]

I'm thinking that the media have overhyped the story.

Either they did kiss and the owner is a homophobe OR, and this seems more likely, they were doing alot more than kissing and the owner threw them out because getting hot and Heavy in a pub isn't appropriate. for any couple.

 

[Seneschal]

Once again for the hard of thinking in this thread - The law in the UK is quite specific. If you decide to throw people out for kissing, you had better apply the same standard to everyone. If you DON'T, if you only throw out the gay couples but not the straight ones, you have broken the law and you WILL get your fucking face legally stamped on.

If you don't want to serve gays or asian people or Hindus then CLOSE your business and piss right off. When the owner/operator of a business decides to start selling goods and services then they have to obey ALL of the laws, not just the ones that they agree with. So you do have the right to be a racist prick, but you don't have the right to open and business and run it as a racist prick. Personal choice. You can't ignore the health and safety laws, you can't ignore the licensing laws and you cannot ignore the laws that stop discrimination.

Once upon a time, in the UK (to our shame) people would put up signs in B & Bs and pubs that said "no blacks, no Irish". That is not allowed. And they are not allowed to say "no gays".

If the pub in question ends up in court, they might have to prove that they would treat all couples the same. A notion that makes me laugh as I very much doubt that the imaginary straight couples they have kicked out would not come running to help them.

The only thing that matters is that the standard is the same for everyone. A sign saying you have a right to refuse service to whoever you want is fucking worthless if the whoevers are always people of different skin colours, religions or sexual orientations. So take your silly fucking sign and shove it where the sun does not shine.

This thread is full of self-righteous fascists like yourself. My goodness, I'd be in good company except most of the fascists here seem to have an atypical moral compass.

Oswald Mosley is probably laughing in his grave at the moment. One look at today's Britain with all it's hate speech and "equality" laws and it's not all that far off from what he would have wanted.

It's not fascism to demand that businesses follow certain laws. By your logic, public health inspections have no business inspecting someone's bar, because "it's his property, he can chuck them all out"! Hell, if he can violate other's rights like that, why not let him beat up people in there? Or kill? "His property, his laws," is that what you're supporting?

 

[RatRace123]

Offended? why? Because people dont like other people being happily in love or well just having fun? because they are all so sexually frustrated that they HAVE to watch it all the time and cant focus on their own conversation?
Sorry but thats really...i dont know if wrong or stupid is the right word.
Its a bar. People go there to socialise, get drunk and meet guys/girls. This isnt about people making out its about the people that did ,clearly. Or maybe in your funny countries bars work completely different from here, you never know.

Well, in our funny countries bars are more often used for ritual sacrifice, and no we don't like people being in love or having fun, it actually causes us physical pain to see other people show even the slightest amount of happiness.
Seriously though, you're right. There's no reason there should be a stigma attached to open displays of affection; but it was in a pub and I don't really know what a pub is classified as, so for some reason I was picturing more of a restaurant than a bar. I don't know if that would make the situation different. From what I read, I think a pub is more of a bar, so the going there to get drunk and meet someone thing is more accurate.

 

[Gralian]

Offended? why? Because people dont like other people being happily in love or well just having fun? because they are all so sexually frustrated that they HAVE to watch it all the time and cant focus on their own conversation?
Sorry but thats really...i dont know if wrong or stupid is the right word.
Its a bar. People go there to socialise, get drunk and meet guys/girls. This isnt about people making out its about the people that did ,clearly. Or maybe in your funny countries bars work completely different from here, you never know.

Well, in our funny countries bars are more often used for ritual sacrifice, and no we don't like people being in love or having fun, it actually causes us physical pain to see other people show even the slightest amount of happiness.
Seriously though, you're right. There's no reason there should be a stigma attached to open displays of affection; but it was in a pub and I don't really know what a pub is classified as, so for some reason I was picturing more of a restaurant than a bar. I don't know if that would make the situation different. From what I read, I think a pub is more of a bar, so the going there to get drunk and meet someone thing is more accurate.

Not always. People often go to pubs either for bar food, which can be a lunch or light dinner, or they can have a full-blown restaurant as part of the pub. To be honest, i've seen more people go to pubs for food than i have to "get drunk" though it really depends on the type of pub. One local pub where i live for example is more a place to drink booze and socialise than it is to eat food, (though they do do a full menu if you want a meal) and while i'm sure other bars do some sort of food, i doubt it's the £10-18 kind of 'chef food', and by that i mean the cost of a main course is between the £10-18 mark and they even do starters and desserts, something which i doubt you get in most bars and nightclubs.

 

[holy_secret]

I don't like public display of affection.
Although I have to admit that I've made out with people in bars and such places. Both with females and males. No one has ever complained.

But wtf. Is this really happening? Nowadays? I didn't know it was still a big deal to be gay.

 

[RelexCryo]

I said I support gay marriage and treating homosexuals equally. Your perception that I think democracy justifies bigotry is wrong.

You stated that a system where the majority can violate the rights of minorities is not democracy. The infamous case of Socrates demonstrates this is not true: Athens was the first democracy, and they did exactly that. Protection of the rights of minorities might be inherent to Modern Democracy, but you attempted to claim that it was inherent to Democracy, period. That is simply wrong.

What I am arguing is that your attempt to say that protection of minorities is inherent to Democracy, not Modern Democracy, but Democracy itself, is wrong. The execution of Socrates shows this.

First, no I did not claim that. In fact somebody pointed out what you are pointing out three pages ago and I immediately clarified that I was referring to modern democracy but protection of dissent has been built into democratic systems for millennia.

Second, it IS inherent to democracy. Athens was a rudimentary, embryonic form of direct democracy that has been overrepresented because people in it actually discussed this sort of thing. Socrates was killed after a public trial in which he had the opportunity to defend himself and he was ruled guilty of crimes that were only enforced due to political reasons. The account of his defense as recorded by Plato is the only reason why you have this warped, distorted view on it, because Plato thought the whole thing was unfair and ended up arguing against democracy as a form of government because it would not select the best ideas because majority is not always right and can be swayed through populism.

The whole reason you are arguing this weird variation on historical fact is that the argument that there needs to be a way to protect the best ideas even if they are not supported by the majority has been a point of contention in democracies since the very beginning. The solution to it that we accept, that minorities need to be guaranteed the freedom to be different and majorities need to be kept in check by the system, is only a few centuries old, but the problem and the theoretical construct of democracy has been there forever.

And again, it doesn't matter, because you were making an argument for majority rule even if you thought that people shouldn't be discriminated against out of the goodness of our collective hearts. I pointed out that this was very stupid and that the system needs to be rigged to guarantee protection. And that, in fact, guaranteeing protection to minority groups, political, racial or otherwise enables democracy, instead of limiting it, even when it restricts what a pub owner can and cannot do in his pub.

I am not arguing that people "shouldn't be discriminated against out of the good of our collective hearts,"* I am arguing that they inherently aren't discriminated against out of the goodness of our collective hearts, regardless of what is preferrable. If the majority decide to elect a government that abolishes protection for gays, they are screwed. Protection inherently comes from the goodness of the majority, regardless of whether or not it is preferrable. Ironically, your claim that the majority can beat up the government whenever they want simply supports that conclusion.

*Though I do feel discrimination is wrong, and I support minority rights, and treating homosexuals equally

Lastly, with regards to Number 1: If it was really true that the majority could win any battle, and that organized militaries had little power in comparison to their raw numbers, invading another country would be essentially impossible: Because the military is a small percentage of society, this means any invading army would be horribly outnumbered by the people they are trying to invade, and easily defeated. Imperialism inherently depends on the ability to oppress large numbers of people who don't support the oppressing government.

An example off the top of my head: When Germany invaded France in WW2, the German soldiers were heavily outnumbered by the French. The French did not support the Germans or German Occupation. Germany controlled France anyways, simply because they had machine guns and were very organized.

Another example would be Roman Occupation in general. Despite the technology they brought with them, People were rarely happy to be oppressed by the Romans, largely because they were rapist jerks. Yet the Romans were able to occupy other countries and oppress people regardless...simply because they were heavily armed and organized.

You do realize that there is no logical thread whatsoever going through your examples, right? You're plucking high level, mostly distorted examples from history and just throwing them out there in a bunch and claiming that they support some vague point. I don't even know the point you're making here, either. I'm guessing it's some stupid US-only point of view in which having handguns is supposed to prevent tyranny, because the terms you are using make no sense at all outside of that context, but who knows.

You are assuming this is an attempt to justify gun ownership. Owning fully automatic weapons has been illegal in the United States since the 1960's*. Handguns are primarily useful for self defense against wild animals and criminals.

* Though technically, you can get special permission, by getting permission from both your local police chief and BAFTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Registration.2C_purchases.2C_taxes_and_transfers

For the record, Spain kicked out Napoleon by throwing at them furniture and household items, after which a mob rushed to the places in wihch the French stored their weapons, broke in and took them for themselves, starting a country-wide revolt. India won independence nonviolently. Recently, Egypt overturned dictatorship nonviolently, too. France had a sizable group of Nazi supporters. Most of those examples are not applicable, anyway, because the "organized army" in medieval times was still a mob with swords only marginally sharper than the pitchforks used by the other side while the Nazis had fucking tanks. While we're at it, both Napoleon and Hitler failed to conquer much poorer and disorganized Russia due to differences in numbers and inability to deal with the weather and terrain despite superior weapon and organization.

You have proven an invading army can be defeated. You have not proven that it is impossible for a government to control a country where the majority are opposed to the government, which was your earlier assertion. You asserted that Monarchies pretty much always have support of the Majority, and without this they collapse. The fact that imperialism has succeeded many times in the past- sometimes for centuries- shows this is not true.

Oh, and many regions and towns actually requested to join the Roman Empire or accepted deals in which they retained independence but paid taxes to Rome. And when they were conquered they immediately blended Roman laws with their owns while retaining a lot of their previous government structure. I'm not sure where this idea of violent rape-y Roman occupation despite attempts at revolution and independence comes from. Movies, perhaps?

Actually, it comes from the fact that the Romans had a heavily sex saturated culture, and violently conquered other countries by force a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome#Art.2C_music_and_literature

I mean, sure, nobody could beat the Romans in battle, but a lot of people didn't even try most of the time, being incorporated as part or larger deals or just slowly seeping into Rome's influence. When somebody did push back with guerrilla-like warfare, like England or Northern Spain, they either managed to push them out or to delay them significantly. Rome conquered 80% of Spain's territory in two years but then was unable to fight in the northern mountains and needed 200 years to slowly take the north west.

Again....you are showing that it is physically possible to defeat an invading army, but not that it is physically impossible for an invading army to be successful. If anything, the fact that Rome did conquer the Northern Mountains of Spain's territory eventually shows exactly the opposite: It shows they could oppress people who did not want them or like them.

 

[darksakul]

I dont claim to know how the bars are in the UK, but I know in the US, bars are identified as "private clubs" to which the club management is entitled to their right to pick and choose their clientele. So, if there are similar classifications and laws protecting such, it was the managements call to make.

I agree whole heartedly. Does not matter if this was a dick move for the bar or not, its their bar they can enforce what their clientele does. It does not even mater if the other clientele is bothered by it or not, just the owner/manger/operator of the bar.

I got kicked out of bars for less before. Including but not limited to poor darts playing (one dart got stuck in the ceiling and yes I did offer to pay for damages) slipping and falling on someone Else's trash and hitting on a bar owners Daughter (who at the time I had no idea who she was).

More so, unless one of us can say we where their at the bar in question, is the kissing was obscene or not or go against some policy the bar has. And in most places, the bar does not need to post their rules/policy where people can read them.

 

[Ris]

"a pub in Soho, central London's gay heartland."

Given the pub's location and likely clientele, I really don't believe that the Landlord's actions were homophobic. It sounds much more likely that what the couple perceived to be "just innocent kissing" did not match the perceptions of everyone around them.

Frankly, any landlord in England would be well aware of the potential backlash that these actions could cause - and this guy is in Soho, he'd fair much worse than most - so to go through with it and throw the couple out makes me think that they must have been getting pretty hot and heavy.

I notice that the article doesn't quote any witnesses from the pub to back the couple up.

Oh yeah, and a quote from another BBC article on the same story:

"Mr Williams said: "We had been kissing but my hands and James's hands were above the table so I don't think it's really a problem."

Jumping from "We were kicked out after a peck on the lips" to "We weren't touching each other, honest!" makes me very suspicious.

 

[SageSays]

*snip* Considering I support gay marriage and teating homosexuals equally, this is all rather amusing.

Teating homosexuals? I had to snort.

I don't "claim" crap, and this has gone way past amusing into plain sadness, really.

I have to agree with you there, it is a sorry state indeed.

Look, you want the actual argument, fine. I'll give it another shot and try to stop being so dismissive (but it's *really* hard, so bear with me).

Heya, thanks! I also appreciate the links you provided previously. They were very interesting.

Modern representative democracy is based on the assumption that large nation-states are too large and powerful to run under old regime premises. Old monarchies relied on de facto support from nobility with financial and human resources to raise in rebellion periodically, which created an unspoken political connective tissue to the system. Still with me there?

Obviously not.

"Old Regime Premises?" If you mean aristocracy and monarchy, then we discontinued those because it was believed that they constitute an inherent violation of human rights. If you mean Athenian direct democracy, electing people to political office instead of drawing lots simply seemed more logical.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! You make it sound like we convened a committee, discussed the pros and cons, and pleasantly resolved our differences; with the previous regime saying "Nice while it lasted..." rather than, say, running for their lives.
Athenian democracy failed because random position placement doesn't actually stop the bastards that want to rig the system from getting into power. Elections are not more 'logical', nor do they seem to be. They simply allow demagoguery, or tyranny if you prefer to compare definitions of the same subject, to have greater influence over the population. We have them still because we prefer to keep the evil bastards where we can see them.

As an aside the fact that you cannot determine the congruence of demagoguery and tyranny might explain why your society is up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Just sayin'.

When after illustration and the French and American revolutions states become separated from this system and a new way to rule them is necessary some thinkers warn these new entities that they hold too much power around a single, monolithic government structure. This has a strong potential to degenerate into really abusive neo-absolutism (they were clever folk, too, this actually happened through nationalism and imperialism and led to two world wars).


The political engineers of the time engaged in some of the most fascinating and fruitful political discussion ever seen in the planet to come up with systems to prevent this. Representation was carried over from the old regime, but they quickly realized that it needed to be contained in a self-balancing system. They were using gamification three hundred years ahead of time in order to come up with a political "game" that would ensure that, no matter how corrupt, evil or self-centered a politician was, he would lack the power to become a tyrant.

Early on in these democracies, voting was not even that big of a deal. Anywhere between 2 to 20% of the population could vote. Women couldn't, sometimes people who weren't land owners couldn't. Over time the voting segments were increased and universal suffrage became a tentpole of the modern democratic system, but people often forget that checks and balances to guarantee the protection of minorities (which originally couldn't vote) predate it by a long time and is actually closer to the core of the modern democracy than 100% voter coverage is.

Keep in mind, at the time, Blacks were slaves in roughly half the country, and Native Americans were being mass murdered on the frontier. So protections of minorities wasn't really that widespread either.

Keep in mind that a political system for a society is usually unable to handle entities that are not considered part of the society. It speaks volumes to the robustness of a political system that can extend to include new members to its society, especially minorities. I hear there was a lot of heated discussion about the inclusion of blacks and reds, maybe even a civil war over the issue. Wasn't really paying attention, it's just ay-merry-car, y'know?

The objective was never for voting to be universal or to be applied directly to every issue. It was to design a set of rules that would guarantee that majorities could choose a leader for the country without oppressing minorities.

In that case they failed horribly, non-whites were oppressed pretty thoroughly.

Out of the mouths of babes and idiots. Still are fool. But we're trying, okay?!?

Majorities already ruled before democracy. Kings were added and removed through violent and nonviolent conflict based on the availability of majoritarian support.

It would be more accurate to say that it was based on the support of the people who had weapons and were well organized. When revolts erupted, they were generally put down by well organized armies with weapons. The majority needs to organize and arm itself before it can effectively revolt, a well armed and organized army dedicated to supporting the King can prevent that. Oda Nobunaga famously created the Sword Hunt in Japan to do exactly that.

He likes samurai! If he's not smart, at least he's cool! Really not smart though. Take your argument and go pick a fight with 100+ unarmed twelve-year-olds. You can take your hockey gear if you like. If you send me the video, I'll pay your hospital bills.

Hmmm, remember that he's not smart. The previous statement is obviously a thought experiment. I would like to make it clear that I would immediately forward any such tape to the authorities, because you would clearly be a homicidal stark-raving-loony.

When that was lost revolts erupted overnight. Rulers were replaced. It was the protection of minority that allowed the system to turn into a merely formal struggle in which opinions were tallied and leaders were given complete but temporary power.

The inherent flaw in this argument is that America had an election in which power was transfered nonviolently while oppressing everyone who wasn't a white male.

Your inherent flaw is believing you can argue about facts and fairly well established interpretations of historical evidence. That, and seriously having no idea what you are talking about. But you sound good, honest! Really authoritative, keep using the big words...

Voting is fundamental, but the whole notion of "more votes equals being right and that's what laws need to convey" is absolutely off base. It's never been the case. Besides, no electoral system is focused on representing the vote layout directly. They all include tweaks to a) overrepresent the majority so that they can vote without needing ad hoc agreements with every minority group and b) give minorities stopping power so that the majority group can't do crazy things like change the constitution unilaterally.

...

...ooooh, man, being so nice hurts.

Don't it though? Cheers, wish I could join you on that moral pedestal. Just wasn't in me.

Better, though? I explained. Can you stop calling me out on nonsensical crap now? Please?

Only in your wildest dreams. Nonsensical crap is all this guy has, take it away and there's just an empty shell....

That's what SageSays

Edit
So caught up in the troll I forgot about the OT!

Two guys got tossed from a pub for going for a sneaky snog after they had been warned that their first-time fumbling might get them ejected. They kicked up a fuss and staged a protest, which gathered media attention and closed a pub in Soho on a Friday night.

Who says gays don't have power?

I'm going to admit to being prettyist. I took one look and went "thank the gods they're gay. At least they won't breed." One of the pair is even quoted as saying something like 'I saw a platform. I just had to stand on it.' I hope he wasn't talking about his new friend.

It's nice to be heard. It's even nicer to be heard to the value of a Friday night take for a pub in Soho. However many thousand pounds that is.

 

[Jonabob87]

If someone is making out in a bar next to me, no matter what gender, I'd be uncomfortable and ask them to stop.

Have you ever been to a bar?..

Hahahahahaha!
That is all.

It wasn't a bar it was a pub.

Furthermore it was a pub in Soho, one of the gayest parts of London. Given that fact they probably have a lot of gay clientele whom they don't kick out, making it more likely that these guys were being obscene.