My local, down the road from where I live, is a privately-run "public house". And indeed, the public are welcome to enter and order drink or food and enjoy them on the premises as long as they abide by the rules. These rules, you understand, were set by the publican, not by committee; things like "no mobile phones", or "smoking allowed throughout". There are some who do not like the rules and choose not to enter, or having entered they leave as soon as they can. Others are happy to behave by those rules and stay.

Occasionally someone breaks those rules once too often, or they create a disturbance, or simply annoy the regulars with their behaviour, and the publican bans them from the premises. The "ban" is verbal of course, I don't think they get a written letter. Having been banned, such people no longer enter the public house - of course they could physically enter, but they accept the ban and no longer visit. No "heavies" at the door to throw them out, no police are called, they know they have been banned and that is all there is. The fact that they can physically enter does not invalidate the ban in any way; and they have enough common sense to obey it.

In seven years that I live there, nobody who was ever banned has shown their face on the premises again. Nobody was bloodyminded or intrasnigent enough to do that. Nobody was as disrespectful of the publican's wishes.

In what sense would the Mudcat Cafe be different from my local pub?
(This question is asked of the regulars of the Cafe, and is not inviting answers from anyone who has been asked to leave, i.e. banned).