Donate SIGN UP

Would This Work.

Avatar Image
teacake44 | 11:51 Sun 21st Apr 2019 | ChatterBank
18 Answers
After watching many police programs such as the force Essex, and I'm sure many of you have seen such, it appears that most of police time is taken up by dragging drunks in off the street in the early hours, and most of the problems are all fuelled by booze. Is it now time to review the licensing laws, and revert back to a 10.30pm shutdown of pubs, and a 12.00/1.00am of clubs, or is this just to sensible. I can't really see any other options open, because it's getting very much out of hand.
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 18 of 18rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by teacake44. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't think so, people that want to get bladdered will do it regardless of the licensing laws.
When the old licensing laws were in effect we used to have a pair of constables patrolling city centre streets where pubs were located and by 11pm we managed to have cleared the streets of any likely troublemakers.
The 24 hour boozing was meant to stop the problems associated with a blanket 11pm cutoff. In effect it just moves the problem along to later in the night.
I think bar staff should enforce the law against serving alcohol to people who are clearly drunk.

I say this as a drinker myself, but I’ve never caused harm or (much) annoyance to anyone else.
In order to make a worthwhile contribution to this thread, i've just spent about 30 mins trying to find any material that would suggest D&D or drink related violent crime has risen since the licensing laws changed. My search was in vain which leads me to conclude that the licensing laws are ok as they are. These police documentaries are informative but they do give the impression that drunks are being locked up 24/7 and in their hundreds. We all know that isn't the case. They don't show the drunks who see sense and go home when the police tell them to. That wouldn't make for good viewing.
Question Author
Government do tend to hide anything that will harm tax revenue, maybe that's why you can't find anything Ken. And as long as they don't have to deal with the problem directly, like the police have to, their happy to let it continue. If folk are allowed to drink in town centre,s until 3.00am its *** law there's going to be more problems than if it was nipped in the bud at 12.00am
//Government do tend to hide anything that will harm tax revenue,//
If that was the case we wouldn’t hear how harmful smoking is!
I think that the law regarding serving alcohol to drunks should be enforced and licensees prosecuted.
They're probably easier to handle at 3am, teacake. Depending on what else they've taken.
Question Author
They've just carried on increasing the price 3/4 per year to make up any loses, they no longer wait for the budget. That's why they are around £8 per packet, plus they also banned a 10 packet, you can only buy 20 cigs. so no loss there. not that I smoke.
Rockrose......the association between lung cancer and smoking was a piece of medical epidemiology from 1954 , indisputable and difficult for the government not to support.
Over £10 a packet where I live, in the West Mids.
I think its a whole social change thing...when I was a teenager and dinosaurs walked the earth, mostly we didn't drink to get drunk because the thing was to be able to hold your drink and not reel around, throw up or generally lose control. I am not saying it didn't happen but that was not the plan.

Most of the offenders are male and the removal of the testes in other species has been found to curb unwanted behaviour and/or aggression the solution, to me anyway, is pretty obvious.

I know that some of the females are scary but I have no idea what the solution is to that.

This is Chatterbank ... ☺
Question Author
You've also have the ambulance staff run off their feet to take into consideration, and the growing number of violence on them. Plus filling hospital beds for drunks to sleep it off, so when someone turns up for an operation they've been waiting for, for sometime, get turned away.
-- answer removed --
//three pints when they rang the bell for last orders and having to down them before throw out time//
Shouldn't that be throw-up time.
Question Author
XB I remember blokes ordering 3 pints on last bell, but most of these blokes were good hardworking folk, and could hold there beer, and just go home and sleep it off. ( with no drugs)
On a recent trip to Toronto I heard that a bar-owner can face a hefty fine and perhaps even a temporary closure of the premises if members of the staff indicate in any manner that the bar will soon be closing for the night.

1 to 18 of 18rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Would This Work.

Answer Question >>