to think that the cure for binge drinking is staring us in the face?

[TalkinPeace2]

Licensing Act 2003 clause 141
It is an offence to sell or attempt to sell alcohol to a person who is or appears to be drunk.
BUT the penalty is a maximum of £1000 per instance. (Criminal Justice Act 1982 clause 37)

If that penalty was amended to:
First offence close the doors for 24 hours 8am to 8am
Second offence 48 hours
Third offence 72 hours
Fourth offence - lose licence

then the police could close the pubs that cause the problem

then again the Government would never allow it because the booze industry pays so much in lobbying and sponsorship of all the political parties.
Shame

Why isn't alcohol just made more expensive? Cigarettes cost a fortune - why not booze? The increased cost could pay for the police and medical presences that are needed.

Cost would certainly stop the bingeing.

A police visit is certainly a deterrent. I know publicans who will do everything in their power if trouble kicks off to avoid calling the police so that they don't attract official attention. If the police were more visible and if they followed the law on serving drunks through I maintain my argument that this would make the difference that the OP suggests it would.

I feel I must add a disclaimer here and explain that I don't have a host of dodgy publican friends but I do know a few who own pubs in various UK towns and of course being in a small environment they and thus I have got to know what other publicans do. Unfortunately and be fair I also know that a couple of the publicans and bar managers that I know personally would act in this way too although they are very much in a minority amongst my publican friends.

Its too hard to tell reliably if a person is drunk, its quite easy for a fairly drunk person to act sober enough to fool a bartender in the few seconds it takes to judge. You can't really tell, in a busy pub, if someone is buying alcohol for their drunk mate or if a person buying OJ is topping it up with vodka from their bag.

What I've never understood is why, when the police have turned up to situations where drunks have caused trouble (not that often, I have never chosen to drink in or work in dodgy pubs but nonetheless it's happened), and the poor goddamned police have sorted the problem and taken a load of abuse from the drunk but still not taken action against the publican who put themselves in the position in the first place by serving the offender.

Because even though they are at that venue when they are causing trouble it doesn't mean that it was that place that served them the alcohol. They may sneak vodka in and just be ordering a mixer. They have got drunk at home or another pub and just acted sober enough to order one round at that place. Or it may be that because they were refused service from the bar that they decided to kick off.

The only time i have ever really seen any trouble in any of the places that I have worked is when service has been refused.

And quite often the publican has taken as much, if not more abuse than the police do.

There are some medical problems that mimic being drunk.

After my mum had a stroke she went out and she ordered her 1st drink and because she was slurring her words she was refused sale.
Also vertigo people can lose balance and start stumbling around, which also mimic being drunk.

but is she out in a city centre at 10pm on a Friday?

THAT is where the problem is that Cameroon wants to waste money on ANOTHER task force
rather than having a try at getting the police to start appearing in pubs from 9pm through to when they shut at 4 in the morning (whoever said the evening session was 3 hours needs to get out more)

My memories of Sweden, in the days when bars were few and far between and incredibly expensive, lead me to conclude that any attempt to get rid of binge drinking by cutting down on the serving of drinks is unlikely to prove effective.

You have to make drink more difficult to get at, not drink served on certain premises.

I do see your POV wherearemysocks (and where are mine too, btw!). I sure agree with you that the publican can often get as much, if not more, abuse as the police, but ime and imho it's often of the pub's own making. Not necessarily the publican, he/she may not even be behind the jump, but I would argue that in the average pub - i.e. the normal local rather than the city flavor of the month that is packed to the gills, it isn't hard for a staff member to spot someone who's pissed or who is buying for a drunk. Nor is it hard to spot the "brown paper baggers" or handbag vodka hiders. You might not spot them the first time round but generally ime you catch them out after a short while (again, in a normal pub, I accept that it's nigh on impossible in a club or busy city trend-spot).

Further to what I said above, maybe better training about the law and more heavy emphasis upon it by publicans to staff is a good start?

McHappy, fair point but your example is surely about only a very small minority of customers? In all my years of being a frequent pub-goer and/or member of bar staff I've only seen that once. I was in a London pub and I (very wary, if not afraid of strange drunks) got cannoned into by a guy who was all over the place and slurring. His pals rushed out to the nearby shop to buy him a Mars Bar and Lucozade and later apologised to me and my friend for scaring us. The poor guy was diabetic and was suffering the effects of it. That was the one and only time I've ever experienced a person in a pub acting drunk who wasn't, in many, many years.

Sorry OP - hugely silly and unenforceable idea. Responsible licensees already do this and have for many many years. It's a culture change that's needed and that ain't going to happen any time soon - and certainly not because Government tells people too!
Most of the drunks the current thinking is aimed at will simply go get their drink elsewhere - as mentioned before, from a corner shop or similar. I don't even begin to pretend to know what the answer is, but one is needed and sharpish!

Couldn't read all this thread because the OP has annoyed me so much.

then the police could close the pubs that cause the problem

I'm assuming the OP has never run a pub because she would know that most publicans are very careful about who they serve as they know that the roof over their heads depends on keeping their licence. You can't say the same for the supermarkets and off-licences which are the main culprits when it comes to supplying binge drinkers. People buy large amounts of cheap alcohol but because it's not drunk on the premises the shops don't take responsibility for the results. The police aren't going to close down a supermarket because their customers are causing trouble like they sometimes do with pubs.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17036826
please read the editors picks

Pixel
I do the accounts for pubs and restaurants.
So if NONE of the binge drinking or bad behaviour is happening in city centre mega pubs, what exactly are those people doing there?

and yes, the police SHOULD be barring supermarkets from selling alcohol for 24 / 48 / 72 hours.

Bocca
How is it unenforcable?
they open the doors on a barred day, they lose their licence. Simple.

If i was a publican and this came into force then i would want the person drug tested before i was held in any way acountable.

I know people that can drink loads while they are on cocaine and then as it wears off the alcohol hits them.

In an area that was having major problems where i liveallof the pubs sined a "pub watch" agreement and it did cut downn trouble.

If the prices went upthen people would drinkmore at home,i know i would.

It is a shame that so many pubs are closing. I agree that it is about instilling personal responsibility into drinkers.

I think it is stupid on a Sunday before a bank holiday that pubs have to stick to their usual Sunday trading hours. Some of us can go out, have a good booze up but not cause problems and should not be punished for the behaviour of others.

I disagree Pixel. Not every publican, IME, is very careful about who they serve. Some will serve drunks without question, ime again, often those who they "know" as customers, as they are aware that they are very unlikely to have the police making an impromptu visit. In business terms, why not serve the guy who's pissed but who is the centre of a large group of drinkers if you are 99% sure that the police won't walk in? He brings in big bucks, especially if he is a local and regular. If he or his over-watered friends cause problems elsewhere in town later on, the landlord doesn't suffer the consequences as a rule.

Ah well I apologise for taking offence if you are talking about city centre megapubs as I was taking it more that you meant smaller independent pubs. IME most smaller pubs can't afford to risk trouble. We often had a local network and we would get phone calls to warn us if another pub nearby had had to refuse to serve someone and they were heading in our direction, and we would do the same for them. It was taken very seriously.

I agree the big chains are completely different, they are run by managers who are under constant pressure from head-office to increase sales at all costs, and they can buy and therefore sell the drinks much cheaper. (The Wetherspoons round the corner from us could sell beer cheaper than we could buy it as we were under tie).

There are plenty of people who get hammered and don't cause trouble. Tbh Graham you are describing a group that i used to drink in and if was quite right that we were served even though we were drunk.

Some people don't have to be drunk to cause bother, it is an excuse.

You need to diferentiate between the age groups. I don't see why i (and my friends) in our 40's and 50's should suffer because a group of 20 somethings cannot handle themselves correctly.

I know of younger people who have their night planned including smashing a place up or fighting before a drop has touched their lips, it is that culture that needs to be broken.

It is the only good that has come out of CRB's a lot of younger people have cut down on their behaviour because they know that they will not work again.

I think that changing the licensing hours would help and stopping the 24 hour availability of alcohol from supermarkets. I used to think my mum was talking crap when she said later opening hours was a bad thing, but living in a university town, where 90% of my neighbours are students, I have noticed a different pattern of behaviour and drinking since I was a student 20 years ago. When I was a student, pubs closed/stopped serving at 11 and supermarkets didn't stay open 24 hours, so there was simply less time to go and get drunk and less opportunity/availability. You'd go to the pub, then go on to someone's house when the pubs closed, so there wasn't the same amount of drunk people on the streets. Today, they drink at home all evening, go out around 11.30 (making lots of noise) to a pub/club and they are already drunk. They carry on and come home in the early hours (making lots of noise) and are even more drunk. We've regularly have people shouting, fighting, peeing, puking in our street, all because of binge drinking. I must be an old fart, but I just don't get the pleasure in that...

Make supermarkets and Superpubs charge a minimum price. At the very least its more tax to go towards dealing with drunkenness.

This is completely unenforceable.

As pointed out Some people can be sober and then it just hit them suddenly.
If people drink too fast by the time they actually feel drunk it's already too late.
Besides, how is a police officer prove that alcohol was sold to a drunk?

What needs to change is the culture.

Even here, some parents often think it's not a problem to get hammered once in a while and in a recent thread it was considered ok to serve alcohol to teenagers at a party at home and for adults to be drunk at home.
I do drink, but would never be drunk around my children, or even with a hangover, or encourage them to drink other than at meals.

It's not about the price. I live in a country where the price of alcohol is ridiculous compared to the UK and binge drinking is not so much of a problem.

If people are too pissed to get served in a pub they go to a club.

If this was enforced and they couldn't drink in pubs/clubs and/or they were all shut then people would use off licences and drink outside.

It would be like it was when everything shut at 11. People used to grab drink from late night illegal off licences and get on the tube/bus to somewhere (anywhere) that was open and serving.

I think effectively you would close down a lot of perfectly decent businesses and end up with a massive underground/black market type problem.

Doing this will not stop british people wanting to get off their faces.

Sorry.

What about private booze ambulances and booze police - they could be private companies or a sub sector of police/nhs which self funds. If you want to get pissed-up till you're sick/angry drunk be my guest but you will be heavily charged for the privilege. A&E and some town centres at weekends are the 7th level of hell.

The Swedish model works.