ALTHOUGH I have only worked at Joe Bananas for a few months, it appears that every time I pick up the South China Morning Post, and read Keeping Posted there is criticism, in some form or other, towards Joe Bananas or one of the Mad Dogs pubs. What grudge does the author of this column have against these places? It's patently obvious that she dislikes them, since no other establishment provokes such intense criticism from her column.
For the record, I would like to clarify a few details: Military personnel are allowed into a couple of the pubs, in fact Mad Dogs Kowloon opened up specially on Boxing Day, for the American sailors in port. If the other places choose not to allow them in, that is their choice. Bearing in mind the amount of damage that has been done on previous occasions, who can truly blame them? Would you want them destroying your establishment? Secondly, if Mad Dogs Kowloon chooses to ban a record, surely that is its prerogative. Did anyone make such a fuss when Radio One banned Relax by Frankie Goes to Hollywood? I think not, in fact it made the record a bigger hit! Moving on, Keeping Posted trivialised the effort of 15 managers from the various pubs, when they participated in a sponsored parachute jump to raise money for ''Friends of the Earth'', bringing in the Miss Wet T-shirt event.
Not only are the two events totally unrelated, but Miss Wet T-shirt is held by Joe Bananas, and the other pubs have no involvement in this event. Joe Bananas holds the Miss Wet T-shirt competition, because it is a popular yearly event, the clientele enjoy it, and there are girls willing to freely enter it.
They are hoping to hold a Mr Boxer Short Contest, but how many men will be heard saying that this is sexist? Finally, who the management chooses to let into Joe Bananas is their business. Mistakes do happen, such as with Glenn Frey, but I do not believe it is the only establishment to make these mistakes. So why should it be the only one criticised and continually singled out? CHERYL PEARCE Central