Confessions of a Doorman

Although this book carries on from just before where my first book Doing the Doors ended – prior to me moving to Moscow and getting married – unlike Doing the Doors, Confessions of a Doorman isn’t meant to be purely autobiographical. Instead it chronicles a few more of my interesting experiences working the doors in England and in France (before moving to Russia) as well as recounting a few wonderfully fascinating and unique stories from my colleagues and friends I have both worked and trained with over the years.

For posterity I have also wanted to record my strong – and probably fairly controversial – views on the industry and the new laws affecting it, as well as detail my thoughts and feelings regarding the Security Industry Authority (SIA). I am sure that by doing so I will never get issued another license to work on the front-line as a doorman again, but I consider it worth the risk. As I no longer make my living from working the doors I am one of a very few who are actually prepared to be outspoken and critical of the Industry and the Authority. Unlike those that rely on the industry for a living I am able to tell it as it is and speak my mind.

Due to popular demand, I have also included a few more tales from my ‘other’ life as a bodyguard in Russia and the former Soviet Union. I always smile when an e-mail appears in my ‘inbox’ from readers of my first book, and my smile broadens when they mention Moscow and Russia. I have always had an unpredictable, temperamental love/hate relationship with the country and its people but I adore talking about it and it thrills me when I hear from those who are equally fascinated by this strange and hostile place.

As I hope I did with Doing the Doors, I still want to give those interested in the industry and this genre of literature a glimpse of what our world on the doors is really like. Contrary to popular belief, we are not all twenty stone, muscular, tattooed, shaven-headed thugs, whose sole purpose is to ‘bounce’ punters out of a nightclub. Mostly we are professionals that enjoy the work we do, the environment in which we work and take pride in protecting our customers against the large number of knobheads and arseholes whose only purpose in life is to cause hardship, aggravation and trouble to the innocent. Looking back over my life as a doorman, ninety percent of the time I have thoroughly enjoyed the work I have done and have almost always looked forward to the evening ahead. Of course, like any job, there are times when work becomes tedious and boring, or that you crave for a change – just for a while – but generally my life on the door has been a relatively good life and a life like no other. Working the doors may not be particularly mentally challenging and the job still doesn’t command much status or respect with the general public, but there are few jobs where a typical evening could have you dealing with gangsters and gangs, drunks and drug dealers, female ‘cat-fights’ and male jealousy rages, medical emergencies, fire evacuations, thieves, dishonest bar staff and customer complaints. Although you really did have a bum deal if they all took place in one evening.

A few months ago I was asked by an old-timer, who had spent years on the doors and was as tough and as hard as anyone in the industry, whether I was ‘old school’ or ‘new school’. Although I understood exactly what he was getting at, I pretended I didn’t and asked him what he meant precisely.

‘Old school,’ he said, was to teach troublemakers a good, hard lesson and to throw them out as quickly as possible using whatever violence was necessary, whenever it was necessary and as much as was necessary. ‘New school,’ he said, was to use little violence, be patient and rely on ‘conflict management skills’, diplomacy, violence evasive techniques ‘and all that bollocks’ to quote his eloquent turn of phrase.

He was almost fifty years old and had seen and been involved in more violence on the streets and on the doors than most of us would ever experience in our lifetime. He wasn’t particularly articulate or academic, he had never read a book in his life and kept himself to himself, but he was sharp witted and quick fisted and the chances of him adapting to more modern, ‘fashionable’ door control techniques were about as remote as me turning up on my next nightclub door dressed as a ballerina. He was definitely ‘old school’.

As a kid he had been taught to counter violence with violence, not to be bullied or tormented and to stand up for himself and for what he honestly considered to be right. His father instilled in him a sense of pride, of doing the right thing and of not being taken advantage of. The only way he was taught to counter violent behavior and an aggressive attitude was to be even more violent in return. He knew no other way and, if there was indeed another way, it was far too late for him to change – if you were pissing around in his club and saw him approaching you had two choices; stop pissing around or suffer the consequences. And the consequences of his powerful fists slamming into your jaw were terrible; eighteen stone and a lifetime of boxing would quickly send you into oblivion.

Up until the new SIA laws were implemented he had been working at the same nightclub for the past eight years and almost never had any trouble. Difficulties came from new customers and ‘out of towners’ – all the regulars knew of his of his reputation and of his methods and if you were ever unlucky enough to have been on the receiving end of his wrath, you quickly learnt a lesson. But he was never a bully and never held a grudge – as long as your behavior wasn’t excessive and that you didn’t hurt anyone else, he would always let you back in as he knew, with almost one hundred percent certainty, that you would never cause trouble again. He was proud of the fact that his club was one of the nicest and safest in the area. But, since the new laws and licenses were implemented he has sadly left the doors.

‘Old school versus new school?’

I have been asked this question many times and it has always been a question I can never seem to answer – no matter how much I think about it and listen to the arguments for and against both schools of thought.

I can honestly say that personally I really don’t like violence. Unlike a few people I know in the industry, I certainly don’t get a kick out of being violent, it doesn’t ‘turn me on’ and I would prefer to live a quiet, peaceful, solitary life with very little contact with anyone, let alone getting involved in any sort of trouble. I believe I am fundamentally passive and when violence is forced upon me and I am required to counter it in an aggressive, brutal way, I feel disheartened and saddened and angered at having responded in that manner. It is therefore inconsistent and a contradiction that I actually passionately believe in both schools of thought.

Contrary to popular belief and contrary to the reputation I seemed to develop over the years on the streets and on the doors, I believe I am the very last person to start a fight and will never ever pick on anyone innocent, timid or weak. However, if someone decides to pick a fight with me I will always be the first to end it, and as aggressively as necessary in order to end it as quickly as possible. I definitely do not believe in rolling around the muddy, grubby floor getting my clothes dirty, trying to fight ‘fair’. If, after an initial warning to back off, someone still has the intention of picking a fight, I will, without hesitation or a second’s doubt, break his arms or legs within the first few seconds and blissfully leave him (or her) writhing in agony on the floor. If they are dim-witted and reckless enough to start trouble – even though they have received a warning to ‘back off’ – then they must be prepared to suffer all the consequences. And if the attacker happens to be a woman? Too bad. I will punch her lights out in an instant. I have seen men scarred and disfigured for life because of the rage of a woman. A friend on the door had his ear bitten off by a drunken female and had to undergo hours of plastic surgery sewing it back on – all because he refused her entry and he was too afraid to strike back. Most men, and rightly so, are morally compelled not to hit or hurt women, but if a woman is charging at me in a frenzy – intending to do me serious harm – she is going down hard, regardless of whether most people think it is morally wrong. Over the years in an industry surrounded by violence, I have come to the conclusion that most people actually prefer to extend and prolong a fight rather than do whatever is in their power to quickly end it. I have never understood this attitude as normally it is relatively easy to disarm and disable almost any opponent within the first few seconds of almost any conflict. There are exceptions, of course, but ninety percent of all street and door conflicts can be terminated within the first few seconds. Whether you are a sixteen year old or a sixty year old, it is possible and relatively easy for almost anyone to take out an aggressive opponent’s knees, break fingers, a hand or an arm, or bite off a nose or gouge out eyes. Sadly there are only very few people that would consider going to such extremes which is why most people end up beaten or raped, or even killed. The majority of people, especially doormen, use their fists in a so-called fair fight and by doing so leave themselves open to hurt and pain. Unless you’re really good and really quick - with a power behind a punch to disable almost instantly - then you will struggle to win, and struggling to win quite possibly means losing. And losing cannot only hurt you physically but destroy you mentally. Losing a fight takes away all your self-respect and self-esteem. It can literally be life-changing. Over the years I have known many good doormen; fearless, hard men literally change overnight after one good beating. Paul, a good friend of mine and head doorman of a top club in Manchester city center in charge of twenty-five other doorstaff, never returned to the doors after a beating one night after work. He refused entry to someone who wasn’t dressed appropriately. He heard the same-old boring lines: ‘You don’t know who I am; I am going to come back and ‘do’ you.’ We hear this stupid, meaningless, pathetic phrase so many times we almost always shrug our shoulders with boredom and weariness, smile sarcastically and walk away, hoping they will scuttle off to a dark corner somewhere and sober up. It happens so often, if we genuinely believed everyone that threatened us we wouldn’t last a week in the job. But on this occasion this person actually did fulfill his promise to return. He waited nearby until the end of the night and must have silently followed Paul as he left the front of the building and made his way to his car parked in an alley nearby. The following morning a street cleaner found Paul unconscious next to his car with severe facial injuries, three broken ribs and a broken arm. He had also lost a lot of blood. It appears that he was beaten up with nothing other than fists. Paul was in hospital for almost two weeks and he never went back to working the doors again. Apparently he is currently driving an HGV.

‘Old school versus new school?’

On my travels working on numerous doors around the UK as well as working as a bodyguard in some hell-holes around the world – places such as the Congo, Bosnia during the conflict, Israel and Russia – I have met some incredibly hard, tough and occasionally really nasty men – mercenaries in The Congo and Bosnia, a bare knuckle freestyle fighting champion of Russia, principal self-defence instructors to the Israeli Secret Service and SAS veterans. According to my experience and understanding not one of them has ever once gone out of their way to cause trouble - just for the sake of causing trouble. They, of course, lead incredibly violent and tough lives but they never ever bring this tough life into the public domain. Gangster ‘Heads’ (those at the very top) almost always stay within their own peer group and keep their violent and troubled world confined amongst themselves. Rarely, unless provoked, have I ever seen a ‘head’ cause trouble in public places, pubs or clubs. Most would prefer to walk away rather than get involved – but pick a fight with them and you’re limping and drooling for the rest of your life. Real hard men never need to pick on the timid or weak or defenseless. The fact is that real hard men never have to prove themselves. The only people I have ever seen cause trouble are egotistical upstarts, mindless young arseholes who believe they are ‘someone’ they are not, or that they are ‘special’ when they are not. Gangster ‘heads’, mercenaries, bare knuckle champions, self defence instructors, all generally have a high regard and level of respect for those around them; knobheads and arseholes do not – they care for no-one and nothing.

If provoked admittedly I can be extremely hard and ruthless and I have little compunction in doing whatever I have to, to completely destroy my opponent. But I don’t like violence. I generally do believe there can usually be much better ways of resolving most difficult situations and when the crunch comes to the crunch I actually believe most people don’t actually want to fight. There is always the uncertainty of a possible good beating and even the hardest men are wary of an unknown opponent. I have seen the hardest men fall beneath the unlikeliest adversary. In most cases and for most people the idea of violence overshadows the reality of actually being violent. Most people believe violence is admirable and exciting and fun until a huge tattooed fist comes crashing into their skull – and then they think maybe it isn’t such a good thing after all.

I have always been confused and bewildered with the conflicting and contradictory attitudes and beliefs I have had towards the use of violence, and throughout this book there are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in my viewpoints. In my opinion I really do believe violent behavior should only be used as the very last resort and when there are absolutely no other options available. However, because violence is sadly the first choice for a great many people, I must also truthfully admit that occasionally I just want to kick the shit out of someone whose only intention is to cause trouble to innocent people, pick on the weak and bully the timid. I want to do to them what they seem so eager and keen to do to others. I detest those that have no respect and who care little for anything apart from their own selfishness and greed, and I hate arsehole so-called gangsters whose world spills over to the general public. If these gangsters kept themselves to themselves then, in my opinion, they can do more-or-less whatever they want, but when they affect other innocent people’s lives I feel like chopping them into tiny pieces and flushing them down my toilet.

‘Old school versus new school?’

It is a sad and depressing fact that the United Kingdom is becoming more and more violent. According to the British Crime Survey in 2003/4 the total number of violent offences in England and Wales was almost three million. These include almost half a million incidents of domestic violence, almost a million incidents where the offender was an acquaintance, almost a million incidents where the offender was a stranger, and four hundred thousand incidents of mugging. Violent crime has soared, there are almost three quarters of a million more violent crimes during 2003/4 than in 1983 – the year I first started working the doors. It is a fact that in most major cities ordinary people fear walking the streets late at night. Murders, muggings, rapes and robberies are a daily occurrence and alcohol and ‘binge’ drinking at appallingly uncontrollable levels. What kind of depraved and sick society are we living in when we are even scared in our own homes? How many times do we read of people being attacked protecting their property and possessions and those they love? At times I have been desperately poor and absolutely destitute but I have never once considered stealing from the defenseless and vulnerable around me. Not once. It is not poverty that drives people to violence and into crime but a complete disregard and total lack of respect for themselves and their surroundings. It is not poverty that litters the streets with graffiti and garbage and turns good neighborhoods into dilapidated slums, but disrespect. These people that disrespect are not human beings but animals and animals should be treated totally differently. As a nation and a so-called ‘modern’, ‘civilized’ society we all believe we have basic human rights and therefore should be treated accordingly. But, in my opinion, scumbag arsehole criminals and knob-head drunks that are violent and disrespectful and cruel are not human and therefore should not be treated as human.

However, instead of being really tough on violent criminals and clamping down hard on their appalling behavior, the establishment treats them all with kid gloves and makes pathetic excuses – afraid of complaints, media outrage and a lawyers writ. Instead of the media praising a ‘copper’ who gives a mugger or rapist a good beating, cries of human rights abuse are hurled from every corner. I find it utterly appalling when I watch these so-called real-life police shows on British television, where the drug-dealer has just been arrested and is then offered a nice cup of tea before being locked away. A cup of tea! He should be punched in the fucking mouth.

To my horror I recently learnt that there were thirty one thousand complaints against the police in 2001. The Independent Police Complaints Commission even has a website accurately explaining the process of making a complaint against them. I am sure that the majority of those complaints were not from innocent individuals going about their normal daily lives but from those that had broken the law and were complaining about the behavior of the police while being investigated, arrested or charged. In my opinion if you do something wrong and get nicked, shut the fuck up and suffer the consequences.

Let’s face it, I think we all generally recognize that the police in the UK have pretty pathetic powers against this increasingly violent world and by their own admission they are unable to control violent crime. The police have a fundamental lack of respect and are held in very low esteem in society. Long gone are the days of being cautious and a little frightened of a patrolling police officer. We live in a violent world where alcohol and drugs provide people with ‘Dutch’ courage and takes them into places and into situations they would never normally go. I have personally witnessed police standing by timidly and doing nothing while being spat at, verbally abused, mocked and laughed at and once even vomited over. I personally know a number of good, decent, hard-working police officers; people with vision and ideals and principles, yet each and every one of them – without a single exception – is disillusioned and disheartened with the Force, policing policy and the rising levels of violence and crime in society.

‘Old school versus new school?’

When I was a very immature and immensely stupid eighteen year old I remember going out one evening to the Samson and Hercules nightclub in Tombland in Norwich. The Samson eventually turned into the Ritzy which was where I first started my long career as a doorman. Although long since closed and boarded up, at that time The Samson was one of the only nightclubs in the city and a real pick-up joint. It was 1980, three years earlier John Travolta’s Saturday Night Fever had started to make dancing relatively acceptable for men however, at the Samson, in the middle of sleepy rural Norfolk and a good few years behind the rest of the country, the dance-floor was full of small groups of giggling women dancing together round their white handbags, while the men paraded (like the sheep they probably shagged), round and round the dance floor hoping to ‘pull’.

I was very young, incredibly immature and extremely dense. That night, for some bizarre reason, I must have had one too many Shandys and thought myself a real ‘tough guy’. Stupidly I tried to pick a fight with another guy because I thought he was eyeing up my girlfriend who was dancing with a few friends. She had a brain the size of a small walnut, but was buxom, blond and pretty and I liked her anyway. I noticed him standing by the side of the dance-floor smiling at her, or I thought it was her. I went over and called him a ‘cunt’, for looking at my girlfriend. He looked me up and down, laughed, called me ‘wanker’, and told me to ‘fuck off’. I shoved him in the chest, he shoved me back but before it went any further the bouncers came storming over. I remember gulping heavily and murmuring, ‘Ooops,’ as my ten stone skinny frame was hurled out the back exit and given a bloody good beating. I was left bleeding and vomiting in the gutter amongst the mouldy garbage and stinking piss. However that night I was taught a bloody good lesson and knew that if I was ever stupid enough to behave in that way again I would probably get another good hiding, which I really didn’t want. I had a black eye, cut lip, cracked ribs and ached for almost two weeks but I never caused trouble in a night-club again.

I was no gangster and I was definitely no threat to anyone, but I got a real good hiding for causing trouble. It taught me a lesson and to this very day I passionately believe that doormen should still be able to do the same; to teach trouble-makers a good hard lesson by giving them a bloody good beating. The only reason society is degenerating and violent crime widespread is because the police, security guards and doormen have no power and are no longer allowed to teach trouble making scumbags a lesson in good behavior, humility and respect. Back in the 80s and early 90s doormen metered out punishments as and when required and society was much safer and a lot less violent – not just for clubbers but for everyone.

‘Hold on,’ I hear some of you puritan human-right campaigners cry. ‘If you give doorstaff carte blanch to punish and discipline trouble-makers with a fist and a boot, what’s to say that firstly they won’t go too far and secondly that they won’t pick on and bully the innocent?’

As a fundamental humanitarian I understand the argument and can certainly recognize the worries and concerns that occasionally using old school methods of punishment and control might have. There will always be thugs and bullies working the doors and therefore there will always be the need to have some form of responsibility and accountability. However there were thugs and bullies working the doors twenty years ago and there are thugs and bullies working the doors now, even with all the new licenses and registration doorstaff now need to do the job. Back in the late 80s and early 90s the deterrent was losing our jobs or getting arrested and so doormen didn’t spend night after night, week after week battering the blameless and attacking the innocent. But when aggression was needed and when it was justified we performed. And because we went in hard we developed a reputation, and because we had a reputation we got into less and less trouble. It was quickly understood that our venue was not the place to cause trouble. Therefore isn’t that a perfect outcome?

When I first started working the doors as a novice, to prove myself to my peers and colleagues admittedly from time to time I did go too far and maybe I might have occasionally evicted the innocent, but it wasn’t often and I quickly matured. I realized there was no need to prove who I was or what I was capable of. I knew my abilities and capabilities, I understood what I could and couldn’t do and how far I could and couldn’t go and certainly back then there was infinitely more respect and a lot less alcohol related crime than there is today.

New school hasn’t made things better or more civilized; it hasn’t reduced crime or controlled drunkenness and violence. Time and time again statistics and public opinion show that violence in society is getting a lot worse and more and more people are becoming affected by it. We have tried to implement ethics and standards to the door industry and regulate the business but, when it comes to its influence on violent crime, drunken behavior and social disorder, it simply is not working. There is more violence on the streets than there ever has been.

So, should we then forsake the few to benefit the many? Isn’t it possible to understand and recognize that there might occasionally be ‘wrongdoing’ – an infrequent uncalled for beating, an innocent unfairly targeted – in order to effectively reduce the overall colossal amount of drunkenness and violent crime? Should doorstaff be allowed to teach scumbags a hard lesson and give them back some of what they so easily give others? Should the scumbags and arseholes that flourish in the clubs, pubs and streets of the UK be made to suffer the consequences of their violent behavior? I believe they should.
I would think that if you asked the general public whether the police should be more aggressive towards violent criminals, almost everyone, without exception would definitely shout a loud ‘yes’. If you asked the general public if doormen should be allowed to be more aggressive I would think almost all would scream ‘no’. I wonder why?

‘Old school versus new school?’

Admittedly it is very easy to lose patience with advocates of the new school as they patiently try to coerce drunken arseholes out of a club, or try to diplomatically work out the reasons behind a rowdy argument or pending bar brawl. My attitude is, and will always be, that if you are misbehaving in a club I am in charge of, you are going to get thrown out in a most undignified and humiliating manner, regardless of the reason or circumstance. I am not going to sit politely and discuss pros and cons, what happened or what didn’t happen, who started it and why. If you are in my club and you cause trouble then you are no longer in my club. Simple. The step you have taken from not being able to sort out your problems between yourselves, to causing a disturbance to others around you, really pisses me off and it will not be tolerated. Like I said, do what you want as long as you don’t upset or harm anyone else, but once you do expect the worst and accept the consequences.

But this blatantly contradicts my fundamental philosophy of only using violence as the last resort and trying to look for alternatives.

So, am I ‘old school’ or ‘new school’? In a totally unreasonable and honestly irrational way I am both. If you are a scumbag arsehole and piss around, I am old school. If you cause grief and aggravation to innocent others in my club or on the street, I am old school. If you affect other innocent people’s lives with your violent attitude or behavior I am really, really old school.

But, I understand that we all have problems and genuine disagreements and occasionally find ourselves in quite difficult and uncompromising situations but as long as you can work things out without affecting or disturbing others around you, I am as new school as can be.

Oh, forgot to say, at the time of writing this I have been enrolled on a Conflict Management course by my friends at the Security Training Academy in Norwich. Now that should be interesting!