To think that drunk tanks are a good idea?

[TheBadCat]

The idea is that police could hand over drunks to private companies, where they would be held in rooms and supervised, then charged the next day for the cost of their care.

Link to bbc article

The article mainly focuses on how this might free up police resources, but my sister works in a&e and so much of her job is babysitting people who have nothing wrong with them other than having drunk too much. This mostly involves cleaning up vomit and piss, no real nursing skills required.

I suspect that if people were vomitting the police would still have to take them to a&e, but aibu to think that most members of the public would be behind the introduction of this type of scheme?

That sounds really sensible, MrsTerryPratchett.

IMO they shouldn't be putting anyone in a drunk tank that the police wouldn't want to put in a cell.

When their behaviour becomes a public nuisience, they become violent, aggressive, intimidating, vomiting and peeing in the street. Asically when they are well and truly bladdered. They dp become aggressive because of the effects if the alcohol not ecessarily the police or frontline staff.

squinney just now, as I understand it, police cannot leave someone if they come to their attention and are not capable of standing upright unassisted. In that way, they have a duty of care to that person. As I understand it from the article, it would still be police picking up the drunks, they would just take them to the drunk tank instead of the police station or a&e. Seens fair enough to me.

I am uncomfortable with the potential for abuse of power. But I guess if your capable of walking away from the police officer, or are capable of ringing someone to get you, then you will not have to go to the drunk tank. I don't think it would turn into a problem where hoardes of "not that drunk" people were being rounded up - the police have better things to do.

It does sound a bit Victorian, but I wonder what is asuitable alternative?

X post with MrsTerryPratchett.

What a good idea that sounds. I wonder why that is being suggested here? The only thing that irks me a bit is that I assume the welfare state is still footing the bill? I live in a wealthy city, and many of the people my sister sees in a&e are teenagers, university students and professionals of all ages who took it too far on a night out. I would question whether most if these people actually need help from addiction services, rather than a wake up call?

okay, call me cynical, call me skeptical! I just can't see a company whose main purpose is to make a profit, and a bigger profit the year after that, having these people's best interests in mind.

Excellent mrsterrypratchett

The state still picks up the bill but the bill is massively reduced. Also, people REALLY don't want to spend more than one night in there so it's normally a bit of a wake-up call. It is mostly people who have some serious challenges so a drunk student might get a nasty view of what could happen if they don't smarten up.

It they are drinking until they can't stand and are vomiting, IMO they do need help from addiction services. That help might be a telling off and a "don't let me see you in here again" but it still might have an effect.

I'd bill them for the night in A and E. I once ran someone over (she had a bruised thigh so I didn't actually run her over although I thought that I had). She was taken to hospital for observation although she didn't stay in overnight. About a month later I got a bill for the ambulance which I was happy to pay. I wasn't prosecuted but the accident was my fault and I felt that it was fair. I think it was around seventy pounds about twenty years ago so it may have been subsidised.

How much does it cost to stay in a and e for a night? If it was well publicised it might make people think twice before they go out and cause trouble. Also it may carry a stigma. I think that hitting them in the wallet will make them think twice. They could pay in instalments if they are on a low income.

Sounds like a good common sense solution to me.
A deterrent for those who have made a mistake. Access to services for those who need help. Reduction in expenditure fir the state and not open to abuse in the same way as a privately run one.

It might be fine as long as no police officers are found to be taking back handers from the thugs paid to lock these drunks up.

Anyone else had the Fairy Tale of New York as an earworm all day after hearing this news??

How much would it cost for a night in A and E?

Horrendous idea, private companies are going to be allowed to hold people against their will in cells and then bill them for this priveledge.

I think it's a great idea.

First I thought this was about army vehicles making wobbly wobbly progress along the road, then I thought maybe it was a new fashion term meaning a tank top worn a bit skewiff.

I thought on balance that that the army should keep their vehicles sober but was prepared to be open minded about the tank tops.

Drunk tanks are a stupid idea.

We should be dealing with the problem - not the aftermath.

We already have sufficient laws in this country to stop this behaviour. It's a shame we chose to ignore them.

It's an offence to serve someone who is drunk - so why is this law not enforced?

It's unlawful to be drunk in a public place - enforce that rigidly.

It's unlawful to urinate in the street - enforce that one too.

The Police must know which establishments are breaking the law by continuing to serve customers who are drunk so they should apply for cessation of the licenced premises right to trade - that would make landlords think twice.

I worked in a bar 40 years ago - in a city centre at weekends, that was very popular with the young crowd.

We had no trouble at all. The worst I ever witnessed was someone falling against the jukebox in the crush and breaking its glass.

There were no drunks in the streets and when I walked home alone after washing up - about 30 mins after closing time, the streets were virtually empty and there was no trouble.

So why have things changed so radically?

I can only assume it's because the Police are unwilling to enforce the existing laws.

I agree clarezzz. Just bill them fr being in A&e hopefully it might make them think twice about getting so drunk they leave go of all their faculties

I worked in A & E in an inner city hospital some years ago. There was a "drunk room" with mattresses on the floor and a nurse was assigned to it to make sure no one choked on their own vomit. They weren't all down and outs, many would be wearing smart clothes, suits etc. and some were regulars. It would make sense for the NHS to charge them.

How do you decide who to charge? Or do you charge everyone - not just people picked up drunk in the street but everyone? Maybe we should. But it's not going to be the NHS any more.

"The Drunk Tank" sounds like somewhere you'd go for a fabulous spa treatment, place with a flotation sensory chamber, headphones and I.V gin...

I'll all for removing drunks from A&E, but private companies - no.

yy that people who have diabetes and are about to go into a coma behave and smell like people who have consumed an excessive amount of alcohol. Worrying that someone with no medical training might deny them treatment.

No limited those picked up from te street drunk should be charged how else are people going to Rae responsibility!

I vote the mrsterrypratchett suggestion

But pigletmania lots of people on this site like to have a glass of wine while cooking dinner. If their fingers slip chopping the onions and they need stitches then they should be charged too, shouldn't they?

Others do risky things that I don't, like play rugby, or drive. Shouldn't they take responsibility if they have an accident?

If you're going to charge some people, it's only fair to charge everyone.

and mumsnetters are slagging off Dubai tonight?

I don't really understand, what if people don't want to be taken there? Does it not become being falsely imprisoned?