Hey, there! Log in / Register
Loudmouth, lout and a glass of wine get Newbury Street restaurant hauled before licensing board
By adamg on Tue, 01/13/2015 - 12:06pm
A woman swearing like a sailor, the man who insulted her and the glass of wine she threw in response earned Papa Razzi, 157 Newbury St., a formal hearing before the Boston Licensing Board today.
According to both police and the restaurant manager who tried to quell the commotion around 9:10 p.m. on Dec. 3, a woman was loudly swearing about something around 9 p.m.
Another diner rose from his table and asked her to keep quiet. When she denied being loud, he called her "an ignorant bitch," at which point the manager came over to separate the two. The manager told the board she managed to get them apart and asked both if they'd like to move elsewhere in the dining room. The man apologized for his choice of words, replied he was just going to leave and, as he walked past the woman's table, "she threw a glass of red wine at him," a police report states. The manager said the glass was "full." The man was not injured, but left with his clothes soaked in red wine.
The board decides tomorrow whether the restaurant should be sanctioned for the incident and, if so, how.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Why is "sanctioning the restaurant"....
.. even under consideration?
Because once police issue a citation ...
The board has to decide what to do about it.
Why would the police cite the restaurant...
... for garden variety bad behavior of patrons -- despite reasonable efforts of the staff to prevent problems. Why not simply cite the woman who committed the offense?
Because Money.
The restaurant/bar can get hit with a citation. A possible suspension of license which the restaurant will probably pay a fine in lieu of.
Paying a fine in lieu of a
Paying a fine in lieu of a suspension is not an option.
Assault maybe
Assault maybe
If the problem was due to her
If the problem was due to her being excessively intoxicated and she was served alcohol after becoming very intoxicated, that is the restaurant's fault. That being said, money is probably the real reason.
Externalize the locus of control?
God knows, it couldn't possibly be her fault, so it must be the restaurant's.
(I'm mocking the doctrine that holds the restaurant liable, not you for quoting it.)
Sigh
I can't decide which is more useless, the BRA or the Licensing Board. What a waste of time and money.
Huh?
How was any of this within the restaurant's control? Seems like the manager did all that he could as soon as he could.
John Henry must get called in
John Henry must get called in front of the licensing board at least 81 times a year if this warrants a hearing.
I doubt he does
I also doubt members of the Board have to go through Stubhub when they want tickets.
Actually, the Sox do
Nowhere near 81 times a year, but, yeah, they're regular visitors to the licensing board (along with the Garden), typically for minors in possession or drunken behavior. Henry himself, though, never appears, although his VPs for operations and security typically do.
How many times has Fenway
How many times has Fenway park been forced to shut for serving minors or other infractions the way restaurants/bars in the city have had to.
Restaurant and bar owners are
Restaurant and bar owners are not police or courts. It is not right that they are treated as though they have that kind of power for the benefit of the tort bar and bureaucrats.
If they want to keep their
If they want to keep their license and their employees and patrons happy, they have to be accountable for alcohol awareness matters.
True, but...
I read you: if you want to keep your license, you have to maintain order in your establishment. What I don't see (and I think this is what anon above me was getting at as well) is how the restaurant could have prevented this from escalating. The manager literally did everything in his power to separate the two patrons. Even if he had called the cops, they wouldn't have arrived before the assault happened. The only action that could have prevented the wine-throwing would have been the application of force by the manager--which is illegal, and would definitely have gotten the restaurant's license suspended.
Oxford comma would be helpful
here: "A woman swearing like a sailor, the man who insulted her and the glass of wine she threw in response". At first glance, I thought you meant that the dude also insulted her wine.
Maybe he did? "White
Maybe he did? "White Zinfandel? You call that wine??"
what happened to muscatel ?
what happened to muscatel ? that was the rage once.
That stuff is like drinking a
That stuff is like drinking a melted popsicle.
"Ahhhh, screw you, and the
Yellow Tail you rode in on."
See I thought
See, I thought it meant that the wine and the man are notorious for their use of filthy language, and that the woman swore as much as they did (like a sailor), and that this earned Papa Razzi a hearing. I was intrigued that there was a restaurant so nearby that had foul-mouthed bottles of wine, and hoped these anthromorphic bottles had swarthy Italian accents.
I give adamg a big fat "F" for grammar and for getting my hopes up about a magical restaurant where inanimate objects spoke and possibly danced and sang, like those in Disney's Beauty and the Beast.
Nah, I actually realized what he meant immediately and I'm amazed at ability to comprehend writing that isn't perfectly Strunked & Whited.
Try less.
Try less.
upvoted for username/post
upvoted for username/post content synergy
Greetings, stranger
I can tell by your accent you're an Imgurian. (hat tipping intensifies)
Actually, I'm not an Oxford comma fetishist,
and have worked for many employers whose style guides shun it. Where I am in favor of it is in any sentence where the reader could miss the meaning on the first reading (as I did here) and the inclusion of the comma would make the writer's intended sense perfectly clear on the first pass.
That's not hyper-correctness: it's simply a choice a careful writer makes when necessary. In a series of three nouns, it's rarely needed, but when you string a few more complex clauses together, it often serves a simple aid to clarity that takes almost no effort (one keystroke), so damn your effing style guide.
I was being jocular in this case, the joke being that reading it the way I first did results in an obvious absurdity -- plus it would be silly to tsk-tsk in seriousness on a news blog like this -- but I'll defend that "Oxford comma, absolutely, some of the time" to the death. I have lots of practice at it. Eventually, my editors weary of the argument and let me have my damned comma.
It's all cool
Nah, I got your original tongue-in-cheek tone :). I strive for proper grammar and punctuation myself, and consider it a virtue right up there with good hygiene, but I know when I'm corrected that a fun way to enrage the corrector is to claim that whatever rule I've broken "no longer applies in modern English". I once saw a guy actually start sweating when I said that. Sweat of rage.
PS:You can also end a sentence with a preposition now! It's just the posturing of cranky old grammar elitists which that rule is based on!
My rule on ending sentences with prepositions is to
play it both ways at once, just to be safe, a la Wings-era McCartney: "But if this ever-changing world in which we live in..."
Actually, that's a mondegreen, but my brother and I cackled at what an idiot Sir Paul was for years before someone pointed out it's actually, "In which we're living".
Learn something new every day!
Thank you! All these years I've thought Sir Paul was just desperate for a syllable, and willing to risk the wrath of grammarians.
Why do so many comments here
Why do so many comments here assume the manager was male, even though it's stated otherwise?