ON THE 29 August we published an article entitled ‘Elvis Has Left the Building’ about the sudden departure of the landlord of the Beach Tavern, Stephan Ritchie, from his tenancy of the Public House. In the article we gave an account of what we understood to have happened.
Incoming business is very important to the Bay because without visitors it cannot survive. As well as being a home to some 2,000 residents, it is a holiday home and home from home to people who make a point of putting the place on their weekend maps and mid-week bike rides.
That is why every business is important, particularly the service based pubs and restaurants. It is through the quality of the visitor experience that we are judged.
The sudden closure of the Beach Tavern sent a shockwave through the business community. It is not just a public house, it is, as Stephan has described it, a hub of some description. Location, location, location. It faces you as you do the walk of life down the Eastbourne Road. It is the first place that you pass as you come from the beach. First impressions count. Inevitably it has a significance to everyone in the Bay akin to our two front teeth.
The dramatic way in which the Beach Tavern closed affected people. In that kind of closure is a message that spreads like wildfire. Word gets passed around not just between businesses, but between residents and visitors. It is clearly not a good advert for all the attractions that we have to offer.
When people shut up shop, the neighbours start to get nervous. When businesses just disappear, particularly if they are public houses, then everyone starts to get nervous. As well as cards and bingo, there is a domino effect, which we have seen in High Streets in every town across the country.
In small coastal locations, ‘the cluster effect’ in which tiny businesses huddle together to shelter from the economic storm is magnified.
The reason that we chose to run the article about the closure in the way that we did was because we felt that Stephan Ritchie had made a big mistake by providing no information of any description to anyone about the circumstances that he faced.
To not have considered the consequences for the Bay could be regarded as a selfish decision.
One of the reasons that we chose to focus so heavily on the role that Stephan had played in the drama was because in some ways it felt to us that he had written his own headline.
We recorded the facts as we understood them and we left people in no doubt whatsoever that we had a view of the matter.
It was not tittle tattle that formed the basis of the article. Stakeholders with a vested interest in what happens in the Bay came forward. They expressed astonishment and disdain.
At the end of the day, we are all in the same award winning information boat when it comes to business profiling and the promotion of services. There was anger that the potential consequences to the Bay had not been considered.
This may explain something about the strength of opinion that we expressed. We chose to express that opinion in a particular way.
Did we get it right? No we got it wrong, and we are saying so publicly in offering this apology to Stephan.
The loyalty amongst his customers is fearsome. Stephan built a sustainable brand in the Bay, and that is no mean feat in this most difficult of economic climates.
His energy and creativity cut across Class, Gender, Age and probably if a boatload of exiled Somalis had turned up one wet Wednesday, Race as well, as he introduced them to the subtleties of line dancing.
His loyal customers have written publicly about how much he has done for the Bay, and they are right.
It is not just about bums on seats. It is about the spirit and endeavour and sheer guts with which he turned around a failing public house with a uniquely dark and dismal reputation into a place that made the Beach Belles sing and dance.
In spite of the circumstances in which he left, a great deal of loyalty, respect and warmth has come his way.
Stephan and Sonia should be immensely proud of what they achieved over three years and the waves of warmth and best wishes that are coming in daily like two tides should enable them to wiggle their toes in the water again.
His family have faced acute economic stresses over the last few months. He has now spoken honestly and openly in public about the kinds of stresses that both he and his family were under. We regret that we have added to that stress. For that ill-judgment, we also apologise publicly.
Stephan has asked us to point out that the public house was not gutted and left in a much better state than when he arrived. We apologise publicly for what was said.
Stephan has asked us to point out that all staff have been paid and any suggestion otherwise is wrong. For making such a suggestion, we also apologise publicly.
A significant number of people point to the fact that Stephan and Sonia have made a tremendous contribution to business in the Bay over the last three years . This contribution should be properly acknowledged.
In publishing this article we hope that in some small way we have now (if belatedly) added our own acknowledgment, giving full weight and proper measure to their worth.
The books have already been balanced and there should be credit given where it is due. Between them, Stephan and Sonia Ritchie have brought a wealth of positive benefit to the Bay.
As promised, we publish Stephan’s full statement below.
Simon Montgomery
editor, Bay Life
….statement available shortly….
hi all
I think it is a bit rash to report on the closing of the beach tavern without getting the facts from the landlord or even , as you put , his loyal customers. Stephan and Sonia ran the best pub in the bay, in my opinion, and it is a real shame that things turned out as they did. The apology you printed was definitely the right thing to do, well done.
Good luck and best wishes to Stephan and Sonia with future endeavours!
Adam
I am very please that you have offered this apology I read your original article last Wednesday and must admit to being extremely angry about what you had written, your article appeared more interested in kicking someone when they were down rather than producing a fair article. Everyone who I showed the article to agreed with me.
You have gone some way to redressing the damage you did with your earlier article and I hope in future your articles will at least be a fair and reasonable reflection of fact and not of hearsay.
Hi, do you know when we will be able to read that statement from the Ritchie’s?
The statement by Stephan, seeking a retraction of some of the points made in the original article appeared via the pevensey-bay.com Facebook page a few days ago.
In spite of searching to find the statement again, so that we can publish his full response, we have been unable to locate it. We are making the assumption that the statement has been removed, although we are not clear why this would have been the case.
The points made in the statement (from memory), were answered, and a full retraction given over all the specific points that he made.
If the statement is put back up again, we will, as promised, give Stephan an opportunity to have his full unedited say, and we will carry his statement verbatim.
We are waiting to see if this happens. Because of the sensitivity of the situation, and his own situation, we are simply waiting until he makes known what he wants said and how he wants to say it.
He will be given the opportunity to make the statement in any way that he chooses and it will be published in full.
If the statement does not become available, we will then make our own approach to Stephan to give him the opportunity to say whatever he wants to say.
We will provide him with the space to make that full statement, and again, anything that he wants to say, will be published in full.
Simon
editor, Bay Life.