hello, do u even understand the meaning of the word permitted? it does not equal mandated. so WRONG it IS an option. also fyi restaurants are private establishments, which means they reserve the right to refuse customers - no excuse required.
The law (Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations, Chapter 95, Section 113, Regulation 29(3), (4), (13)) states: "the licensee of a food establishment or private market may permit any Guide Dog accompanying a blind or visually impaired person to be brought into the dining or refreshment area or any toilet of the licensed premises".
It does not say "shall" or "must" and there is no ambiguity here. You can therefore shut the fuck up and stop acting like an expert because you are the only idiot who is more confused than any lay person.
OMFG yes open your bloody eyes and LEARN HOW TO READ you blooming moron, it is NOT "if the conditions...have not been met" - it is MAY PERMIT (the guide dog) if the conditions ARE MET!! Here, I shall paste AGAIN and also give you a free English comprehension lesson just out of pity for your retarded parents who had no brains for you to inherit:
==================
Extract of the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations, Chapter 95, Section 113, Regulation 29(3), (4), (13)
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the licensee of a food establishment or private market may permit any Guide Dog accompanying a blind or visually impaired person to be brought into the dining or refreshment area or any toilet of the licensed premises if the Guide Dog is:
- Kept under proper control.
- Restrained from straying or causing annoyance or nuisance to any person or animal, or damage to any property.
- Held in a leash.
(4) Where the licensee of a food establishment or private market permits guide dogs accompanying blind or visually impaired persons to be brought into his licensed premises under paragraph (3), the notice referred to in paragraph (2) shall specify that guide dogs are permitted within the licensed premises.
[translation for morons like you: IF the f&b establishment PERMITS/ ALLOWS guide dogs, THEN their notice SHALL/ MUST say so.]
(13) In this regulation “Guide Dog” means a Dog that is specially trained to aid a particular blind or visually impaired person.
==================
Get it? Or still confused?? Indeed (and again), "permit" means "allow", so "may permit" means "may allow". And as already mentioned, you are the idiot, not me. So the only bigger idiot would be your mother for giving birth to a piece of shit like you. You can make a fool of yourself by asking the authorities and MUIS instead and show me. I will even make the question easier for you, go ask them "MUST F&B establishments allow guide dogs? Are they REQUIRED to do so?" and come back with their answer.
For the umpteenth time, yes you moron, learn how to read and indeed I mean including the context! Again, look at the following:
(4) Where the licensee of a food establishment or private market permits guide dogs accompanying blind or visually impaired persons to be brought into his licensed premises under paragraph (3), the notice referred to in paragraph (2) shall specify that guide dogs are permitted within the licensed premises.
AS ALREADY MENTIONED EARLIER, this means that IF the f&b establishment PERMITS/ ALLOWS guide dogs, THEN their notice SHALL/ MUST say so. Firstly, this is precisely why there is even a "where" which means "if" or "in the event that". Secondly, otherwise this whole green part would be omitted as unnecessary, while the earlier section (3) would have also used the same "shall" instead of "may". Before pretending to understand any legal dictionary, you need to possess adequate common sense first which you clearly do not.
To prove my point further, if F&B establishments are REQUIRED TO (meaning they MUST) allow guide dogs as you insist, then obviously this would be reflected in the news(paper) IN LAYMAN TERMS FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW. But NOWHERE does it ever say so and in fact, it keeps saying "are allowed". You are the only idiot making this retarded claim which is not evidenced anywhere.
No need to ask me to argue in court or with MUIS cos Straits Times already reported that guide dog users here face rejection about 50 to 70 per cent of the time when patronising a new place - if your retarded claim is true then there would be at least one F&B establishment having to explain themselves in court already. Like I said, YOU go ask the authorities/ MUIS and come back with their answer.
You poor bastard you, remember what you yourself said? CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT!
(2) Subject to paragraphs (4) and (6), where any premises are licensed as a food establishment or private market, the licensee shall, if so directed by the Director-General or any authorised officer, cause to be displayed in a conspicuous place at the licensed premises a sufficient number of suitable notices to the effect that live animals are prohibited within the licensed premises.
(4) Where the licensee of a food establishment or private market permits guide dogs accompanying blind or visually impaired persons to be brought into his licensed premises under paragraph (3), the notice referred to in paragraph (2) shall specify that guide dogs are permitted within the licensed premises.
Translation for morons like you: IF authority directs F&B establishments to display notice that live animals are prohibited, then they SHALL/ MUST display (meaning if not directed then don't even need to display). This is subject to IF the f&b establishment PERMITS/ ALLOWS guide dogs, THEN in this case this notice (which says that live animals are prohibited) SHALL/ MUST however also say that but guide dogs CAN.
Now I am really curious as to whether you are indeed the only one here who is so retarded as to think that F&B establishments are REQUIRED TO (meaning they MUST) allow guide dogs, so I will actually start a new thread on this about you.
