Little John in cocaine scandal

Popular gay-friendly bar and student hot spot Little John has had its bar license revoked following recent allegations against landlord and manager Chris Ransome.

Action was taken by councillors following several offences. Mr Ransome had been caught with cocaine in his flat above the bar on Castlegate, in York city centre, on two separate occasions. He was given a caution for the first offence and fined £200 for the second. In addition, Ransome received a warning for the harrassment of neighbouring business, Jacks Coffee, after complaints of antisocial behaviour and malpractice by staff at Little John.

Ransome became known to University of York students after he was accused of violently assaulting three first-year students in a Vision exclusive earlier this year. The students described how the manager allegedly threw punches and even dragged the female student out of the bar by her hair, following an argument with another customer. The three students decided not to involve the police.

The closure of such a prominent establishment on York’s gay-friendly scene will have a noticeable impact on the social routines of the University’s LGBT community. YUSU LGBT Officer, Emma Brownbill told Vision that “given the size of York’s LGBT scene, it’s obviously disappointing to lose any venue. While it’s not the city’s only LGBT-friendly pub, many York students and alumni will be sad to see it close.”

Brownbill went on to add: “However, I’ve no doubt that the local LGBT community, students and non-students alike, will continue to support our remaining LGBT-friendly venues and any establishment that comes forward to fill the gap left by Little John’s closure.” Little John is commonly described in online reviews as York’s “only gay-friendly bar”.

Third-year music student Tom Marlow told Vision: “Sometimes it’s hard to feel socially accepted as being gay in York due to the fact that it’s such a small place with little to no gay scene.”

He continued: “The LGBT team at the University do really well with events for all students, such as the LGBT Icebreaker during Freshers, but the committee will have to continue to work extremely hard to provide decent and regular social activities for LGBT students to meet each other in safe environments.”

Accusations that homophobic attitudes could have played some part in the revocation of the bar’s licence have since been made. Both Mr Ransome and employees at Little John spoke out against the claims made against them, saying that prejudiced attitudes were to blame for the closure. Ransome claims that he is being victimised by the council due to his sexuality. Lauchlin McCloy, a marshall at Little John, stated: “We are being victimised because we are gay.”

Emma Brownbill commented on the accusations: “I’ve seen no concrete evidence to support, or dismiss out of hand, the claims of prejudice on the part of either the complainant or the council. York is by no means entirely free of homophobia, biphobia or transphobia, and it would be wholly unacceptable for any party to use prejudice as leverage either in support or opposition to a licensing decision.

“However, the council has a clear duty under law to assess the case objectively and avoid any action which would unjustly affect a given community. I hope that they have acted accordingly, and that the situation is swiftly addressed if not.”

YUSU Welfare Officer Bob Hughes remarked: “Although I understand why it has shut, I think it is unfortunate that there aren’t any other specifically LGBT bars in York, but we’ll be working with the local community and local businesses to see if there are other venues and events our students can go to, and we’ll be supporting YUSU LGBT in finding locations for their events in town.”

Ransome said he intended to appeal to magistrates against the revocation of his license. He can continue operating out of Little John, but without a license.

7 thoughts on “Little John in cocaine scandal

  1. Well, I for one am glad we are winning the war against drugs. How dare people be allowed to choose what to put in their own bodies! [/sarcasm]

  2. This has been a long time coming. It is, sadly, perhaps better to have no gay scene than the embarrassment that was LJ’s. Some comments:

    1. The drug dealing was BLATANT. It is one of the reasons why I, my partner, and several friends decided to go elsewhere on Friday nights. I don’t care what someone does in their own home, but the landlord of a pub really should be exercising more caution.

    2. It is NOT homophobia: it is tedious to see someone scream ‘homophobia’ to divert the blame away from themselves. Apart from the drug dealing, the bar seemed to think it was a nightclub after midnight, showing little consideration for neighbouring residents/businesses.

    3. The bar itself was a bit of a shambles. Pity some of the profits from drug dealing could not have been spent on employing a cleaner. Tables covered in an inch of dust, wires poking out of the wall in the ladies, non-working loo cubicles, substances (I dare think not what) on the floor – you needed a hazmat suit if your immune system was to survive the evening.

    Please don’t follow the ‘it must be homophobia’ comments – that’s lazy thinking which avoids looking at the real reasons for its closure.

  3. Ok, I accept if people are giving my previous comment ‘red arrows’ for mostly missing the point of this article. But if you’re giving me ‘red arrows’ because you disagree with my sarcastic comment, and think the state genuinely *should* interfere with what we’re allowed to put in our bodies, and *should* continue a pointlessly brutal ‘war on drugs’, then please at least have the courage to try to argue your (incorrect) point.

  4. Speaking as a gay man, it would be an incredible shame if the actions of the few were to spoil the enjoyment of the many!

  5. Matt Sharp is entirely correct. Who on earth gave men the right to rule over other men?

    How dare some “politician” (read: parasite) tell me what I can and can’t put into my own body?

    Some people think it’s good to have the government force us to do certain things for our own good — whatever that means. The government is (or was, at least) encouraging us to not use butter but to switch to margarine.. for our own good? Oh hell no — for the good of the companies that make margarine. They can tax (read: steal) more of our money that way, instead of us giving money to the farmer to sell us butter.

    The evil of the state is unbounded.

  6. I’m actually straight. But I agree with the assertions of my namesake.

Comments are closed.