Print Page | Close Window

'24-Hour Licencing Has Failed'

Printed From: Just Flight Forum
Category: Just Chat
Forum Name: Just Chat - General Discussion
Forum Description: Forum for shootin' the breeze about subjects not relating to Flight Simulation or aviation
URL: http://forum.justflight.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1749
Printed Date: 21 Sep 2019 at 7:56pm


Topic: '24-Hour Licencing Has Failed'
Posted By: MartinW
Subject: '24-Hour Licencing Has Failed'
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2008 at 4:04pm
Quote The introduction of 24-hour licensing laws has failed to reduce alcohol-induced violence while costing taxpayers £100 million, a report claimed today.
 

A survey by the Local Government Association found that around seven in 10 police authorities, primary care trusts and councils had seen either no change or an increase in alcohol-related disorder.

24-hour drinking has also stretched council monetary resources - 86% of health authorities and 94% of councils reported increased budgetary pressures.

Around a third of primary care trusts said they had experienced a rise in alcohol related incidents.

Meanwhile half of police authorities reported that the 2003 Licensing Act had simply led to alcohol-related disorder occurring later at night than prior to the new rules.

Sir Simon Milton, chairman of the LGA, said: "The new drinks laws have made no impact whatsoever on reducing the alcohol-related violence that blights town centres and turns them into no-go areas on a Friday and Saturday night.

"The Government was always going to fall short on its promises to curb excessive drinking because new licensing laws alone were never going to be enough to change this endemic culture of alcohol and violence.

"It seems that we have a deep-rooted social and cultural problem in this country in the way that we view alcohol that cannot be addressed by one simple piece of legislation. It will take years, possibly decades of concerted action across the board."

:: The findings were based on responses from 51 local authorities, 49 primary care trusts and 20 police forces.

 
What shocks me is that they thought it was going to work in the first place.
 
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/24-Hour-Licencing-Fails-To-Reduce-Drunken-Violence-Report-Claims/Article/200807115018688?lpos=Politics_8&lid=ARTICLE_15018688_24-Hour%2BLicencing%2BFails%2BTo%2BReduce%2BDrunken%2BViolence%2BReport%2BClaims - http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/24-Hour-Licencing-Fails-To-Reduce-Drunken-Violence-Report-Claims/Article/200807115018688?lpos=Politics_8&lid=ARTICLE_15018688_24-Hour%2BLicencing%2BFails%2BTo%2BReduce%2BDrunken%2BViolence%2BReport%2BClaims
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Replies:
Posted By: mutley
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2008 at 4:12pm
I agree U.M, 24 hr availability could only lead to more violence, more pressure on the police and more pressure on the NHS.  One of the main problems is how cheap it is.

Cheers (sorry regards)



-------------
http://forum.mutleyshangar.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Rich
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2008 at 4:14pm
I don't think its a bad thing as it helps offset the loses that a lot of pubs have endured due to the smoking ban.
Anything that helps curb the epidemic of pub closures is OK in my book


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2008 at 4:31pm
Seems the result has been increased violence though, unless it was on the increase anyway


Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2008 at 5:46pm
1-0 to the guy with common sense.

Ban alcohol! Let's see what that does. Ouch

Best regards,
Vulcan.


Posted By: Rich
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2008 at 6:44pm
Drug dealers taking over the supply of alcohol and adding to their already huge illegal income?
"Moonshine" becoming readily available and poisoning more people than are already injured by alcohol?
 
I have a thing for French red wine and if that is going to be taken away for the sake of the minority then we may as well ban our cars as well and force everyone to hand in their kitchen knives!


Posted By: mutley
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2008 at 7:24pm
Originally posted by RAS RAS wrote:

I have a thing for French red wine and if that is going to be taken away for the sake of the minority then we may as well ban our cars as well and force everyone to hand in their kitchen knives!

Don't worry Rich, I can always pop across the channel on the ferry and pick up a couple of boxes of Bordeaux or Merlot @ 80p a boytle for you, good stuff too .

Cheers


-------------
http://forum.mutleyshangar.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2008 at 9:12pm
Can you get me a boYtle too Uncle mutley?


Posted By: Rich
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2008 at 9:19pm
 
Quote I can always pop across the channel on the ferry and pick up a couple of boxes of Bordeaux or Merlot
 
Good point! I bet P&O and the Channel Tunnel operators would be right behind a ban Thumbs%20Up


Posted By: allardjd
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 3:15am
"Ban alcohol! Let's see what that does."
 
They tried it here once - didn't work.  Remember Al Capone?


Posted By: Rich
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 9:01am
Everything that is banned just ends up in the hands of unscrupulous characters for them to rake in the profit. 


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 10:23am

When I am the leader of the entire globe, and Mutley is my trusty side kick, we will raise the legal drinking age to 21, and strictly enforce it. We will order our peaceforcers to hang around in pub car parks and bludgeon anyone who approaches a vehicle.

 

Our genetically modified peaceforcers, clad in their nanotech body armor, will patrol the streets. They will have the authority to vaporize anyone they like. Red hot balls of plasma will streak from the muzzles of their plasma pistols like miniature supernovas. Their victim’s heads will explode like over inflated balloons.

 

If you'd like to vote for me, I would appreciate your support.



Posted By: Rich
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 10:30am
Judge Martin Dredd


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 10:36am
'I am the law!'


Posted By: Rich
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 10:41am
I was once apprehended in Spain for walking past an armed Policeman and shouting "I am the law" at him in jest (I was the organiser of the holiday and the oldest of all the lads so it was my catchphrase at the time). As you might guess I had consumed a few drinks at that point and was nowhere near 21 years old... so maybe there is a case for banning it Wink
Luckily they just stuck me in a van for 10 minutes for a lecture and then sent me on my way.


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 10:48am
When I take over, that sort of behaviour will be punished with cold custard pie bombardment. 


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 1:27pm
Smoking age: 21, I'd also ban smoking in the street due to people smoking in queues in front of or behind me and due to all the disgarded buts that litter the floor everywhere.
 
Drinking age:21, ban consumption on the streets. Any under age breaking the law, fine their parents £1000. Adults drinking or caught drunk in the street, fine £1000. Anyone knowingly selling to minors, lock them up.
 
Driving age:21, anyone breaking the law has the car crushed, is banned for an additional year and gets three points.


Posted By: Martyn
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 1:41pm
1984 here we come

Quote or caught drunk in the street, fine £1000.


I think this one in particular would lead to a national uprising against the authorities...


-------------
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 1:50pm
It's a criminal offence as it is, what's the issue?


Posted By: Rich
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 1:52pm
Ever dropped litter (even by accident)? I reckon their should be a £2000 fine and 200 hours community service for every piece. What's the problem with that, it's a criminal offence after all and it would stop people dropping it!

Well actually, I think there is a big problem with that. Its draconian!

Quote Adults drinking or caught drunk in the street, fine £1000.

So if I had a bottle of wine and a few digestifs at a dinner party and decided to walk home I would be liable for a £1000 fine? That is total lunacy Wacko
Quote Driving age:21, anyone breaking the law has the car crushed, is banned for an additional year and gets three points.

Somebody accidentally creeps to 65 in a 60 zone and they get their car taken away from them, potentially loses their job and all the follow on that can come from that? Somebody get me a ticket to Iran, I need to live somewhere more liberal!


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 2:54pm

The question, is whether Magic's reply is in the same spirit as my carbonised human remains, plasma bolt, nanotech spirit, or if he's deadly serious???

 

Either way, he has my wholehearted support.

 
If it were down to you wimpy pufter boys there would be anarchy.


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 8:07pm
Originally posted by RAS RAS wrote:

Quote Adults drinking or caught drunk in the street, fine £1000.

So if I had a bottle of wine and a few digestifs at a dinner party and decided to walk home I would be liable for a £1000 fine? That is total lunacy Wacko
 
If you are drunk and disorderly then no, it's not lunacy, it's the law. You think it's okay? What about those high on drugs doing the same thing? Same thing, just a different drug.
 
Many of the problems associated with teenage violent crime are down to the almost friendly way being drunk is portrayed. "Oh! I was out of my skull last night, great laugh, ha, ha."
 
It's become too socially acceptable to stagger down the street shouting and swearing due to drink because the attitude is always jovial. Take the same number of people staggering out of some place high out of their heads on drugs and would that be seen in the same manner? No. But it's the same thing it's just the social attitude towards it. Which is sad and wrong and shows what society has become.
 
Quote
Quote Driving age:21, anyone breaking the law has the car crushed, is banned for an additional year and gets three points.

Somebody accidentally creeps to 65 in a 60 zone and they get their car taken away from them, potentially loses their job and all the follow on that can come from that? Somebody get me a ticket to Iran, I need to live somewhere more liberal!
 
I didn't say anything about speeding, I was referring to the legal age to drive. 65 in a 60 zone, yep, just about forgiveable. A couple of mph more though and no, not acceptable in my book and should be punished with a heavy fine. 


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2008 at 8:09pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

 if he's deadly serious???

 
Deadly.Approve


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2008 at 9:30am

Magic Man, you have my support. I like your style.

 

Mutley is sacked; you are officially my right hand man.

 

Welcome to the team.

 

Agree with everything you say, sadly no one else will on the forum, quite frankly because they are addicted to the fire water, like the politicians.



Posted By: Rich
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2008 at 9:37am
Quote If you are drunk and disorderly then no, it's not lunacy, it's the law.


But you said anyone caught drunk on the streets, not disorderly. Two different things surely?
Being caught drunk seems to imply that anyone having a few drinks and stepping foot outside of their house is going to be liable for a fine. If that is the case then why not just impose a curfew and arrest anyone who goes out at night in case they intend to commit any crimes. That should make a real impact on crime rates. Being disorderly is fair enough but that is different to just being drunk.

Thankfully I don't think I have to worry about this sort of thing too much as most people wouldn't stand for such a loss of liberties and personal freedom.


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2008 at 12:41pm
But you said anyone caught drunk on the streets, not disorderly. Two different things surely?
 
I'm sure he meant drunk and disorderly!
 

Personally, I see no reason whatsoever for anesthetizing the brain. It’s the most complex arrangement of matter we know of, an evolutionary marvel, it really doesn’t require limiting in this way.

 

A world where alcohol wasn’t consumed at all would be rather nice, less damage to property, less violent crime, less accidents on the road, less of a burden on the health service, sounds good to me.

 

However… society has grown used to consuming alcohol, with the majority of the population addicted in some way. When I say addicted, I mean in varying degrees, a person may not be diagnosed as an alcoholic, but might still shudder at the thought of abstaining. Trouble is, most politicians would fall into that category, and they are the ones that make the laws.

 

As the vast majority in society have grown used to consuming this intoxicating substance, the chances of a law being passed and obeyed, curtailing or severely limiting its consumption is zero. As John mentioned, it was attempted in the states and failed miserably. It’s plainly obvious however, that we desperately need a better way to control its use. When you have children as young as 12 admitted to hospital on a regular basis close to death, and youths rampaging through the streets destroying property, injuring others, and making the job of the police a nightmare it’s obvious something needs to be done. What kind of a society do we live in where children, youths, and adults are allowed to wander the streets with the intelligent, responsible parts of the brain shut down, causing leaving mayhem in their wake?

 

Like Magic man, I agree that to exert pressure on the parents to better control their off spring is the key. If the parents can be shown to be negligent in their attempt to control their children and have not upheld their duty as parents to do everything in their power to prevent their children from breaking the law, then they should be penalised. Conversely, if they have demonstrated that they have done all they can, all that can be reasonable expected, then they should be free from prosecution.   



Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2008 at 12:42pm
"Two different things surely" - one tends to lead to the other.
 
Drunk in this context is defined as (according to a quick Google search) "intoxicated with alcoholic liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties." or "intoxicated with alcohol to the extent of losing control over normal functions "
 
If you can be in that state but remain orderly then congratulations, you get away with it. The fact that you would want to be able to get to that state in public as some sort of civil liberty or expression of personal freedom is, quite frankly, sad.


Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2008 at 12:46pm
Agree, anyone in that state, by definition has  limited self control and that's a danger in itself to society.


Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2008 at 12:56pm
Exactly, apart from the obvious of drink driving or drink aggrevated violence, how many drunks have been hit or killed by perfectly sober people driving home at night.
 
No sympathy to those drunk but what about the possible danger to life of the driver or, at least, the effect it has on the rest of his life.
 
How much money is wasted by the NHS every Friday and Saturday night with ER departments full of drunks? Same for the police who have to divert money and resources.
 
Fine them, make them pay for the costs everyone of us ends up paying in taxes.


Posted By: Rich
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2008 at 1:10pm
A danger to society? Blimey, I think you lot have been watching a little too much Police, Camera, Action or whatever the program is that likes to seek out the worst cases and make entertainment out of them.
Have a look around Cambridge sometime where I often like to go to lose control of my normal functions and be a danger to society. What you will actually find in 99.99% percent of cases are normal, intelligent people getting together with friends and enjoying each others company. Not being able/willing to gather together with people in this social environment is, in my opinion is far sadder for society. Of course people could have friends round for a BBQ or dinner party etc instead of going out on the streets but those people will still need to leave the confines of the house in order to get a taxi or walk home so that would also out of the window unless they were willing to risk a £1000 fine and a night in the cells.
I really hate the attitude of ruining something for the masses because of the minority. Be as harsh as you like to those people getting in fights, drink driving or whatever but to suggest fining somebody for walking home after a perfectly respectable evening out is so extreme and unnecessary it's almost laughable.

I just saw a statistic that said that only 20% of car accidents involve alcohol. That would seem to suggest that cars are doing far more damage than alcohol is and I'd wager that more police time is spent dealing with car related incidents than alcohol related ones. Shall we ban them to? We would certainly be safer and we could all get buses instead.



Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2008 at 2:49pm

A danger to society? Blimey, I think you lot have been watching a little too much Police, Camera, Action or whatever the program is that likes to seek out the worst cases and make entertainment out of them.

 

Even just been drunk is indeed a danger, they don't have to be running around kicking peoples brains in. Take the case of my son's friend. She's a nice friendly girl, ordinarily sensible. One night at a club, feeling somewhat inebriated, she took it upon herself to go on the roof, not content with the view, she decided to walk across a skylight. She fell straight through the glass, plummeting 15 feet, and was only saved a potentially fatal injury because the windscreen of a van parked below, broke her fall. That van could have easily been a person.

 

I had a friend when I was at work, who decided to leapfrog concrete bollards; he ended up in hospital all night with a broken leg.

 

My son was at a nightclub and some drunk decided to throw a bottle in the air, it landed on Daniels head.

 

At a different nightclub someone smashed a bottle on the floor deliberately and the shards severed Daniels friend’s leg, she spent a good few hours in casualty.

 

I can see magic’s point, simply being under the influence brings with it danger, to the individual and others.

 

Not being able/willing to gather together with people in this social environment is, in my opinion is far sadder for society.

 

I socialize just fine, without touching alcohol.

 

I really hate the attitude of ruining something for the masses because of the minority. Be as harsh as you like to those people getting in fights, drink driving or whatever but to suggest fining somebody for walking home after a perfectly respectable evening out is so extreme and unnecessary it's almost laughable.

 

I'm not sure if Magic is suggesting that, you would have to define how much is too much to be swaggering around the streets, a danger to yourself if not others. We breathalyz drivers, perhaps there should be a higher level allowed for pedestrians. Must admit, it's a bit draconian though, even for me, but if they are seen to be in such a state that they are in danger of doing something potentially dangerous then test them.

 

I just saw a statistic that said that only 20% of car accidents involve alcohol. That would seem to suggest that cars are doing far more damage than alcohol is and I'd wager that more police time is spent dealing with car related incidents than alcohol related ones. Shall we ban them to? We would certainly be safer and we could all get

buses instead.

 

Drinking and driving is illegal, cars aren't. Cars don't cause accidents, drivers do, and if they are culpable the law deals with them. And 20% seems a lot to me.




Print Page | Close Window