A clampdown on Dublin's nightclubs

arcadegame2004

...seriously though, who are you saying should pay? Joe Soap who goes out for a few and then gets jumped on the way back? Maybe your right - how dare he expect to be able to enjoy himself in peace. MAKE HIM PAY. If you cause trouble the gardai should handle you not the bloody hospitals.

Boggle you obviously haven't read my previous posts in this thread thoroughly if your actually think that is what I am saying. Kindly check your facts before accusing me of something.

I am talking about those who are clogging up the A+E wards every weekend as a result of them getting themselves drunk of their own volition. I am NOT talking about someone getting jumped.

The people I am criticising know who they are. They also know of the great pressure the hospitals are under, and that their irresponsible and voluntary behaviour is diverting resources from those who really need them. They should get some cop-on and put the interests of the community as a whole first.

These selfish persons should pay.

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Kindly check your facts before accusing me of something.

<giggle>

I am talking about those who are clogging up the A+E wards every weekend as a result of them getting themselves drunk of their own volition. I am NOT talking about someone getting jumped.

Have you any statistics on how "clogging up" the A+E wards this stuff is?

Do those statistics distinguish between the "I got drunk and fell down" and the "I got drunk and knocked down" people?

The only reason I'm asking is cause you mentioned getting facts straight up above, and the last time you went on about things putting undue pressure on our medical services, the reality turned out that the flood was more like a tiny trickle when taken in context.

The people I am criticising know who they are. They also know of the great pressure the hospitals are under, and that their irresponsible and voluntary behaviour is diverting resources from those who really need them. They should get some cop-on and put the interests of the community as a whole first.

These selfish persons should pay.

I will re-iterate an excellent question asked by someone else earlier. Do you believe the same logic should apply to sports injuries? If not, why not - it is people willingly and deliberately putting themselves in a situation where they may pick up serious injuries, and they do so without considering the cost that those injuries will have on the community as they also divert resources from those who really need them...

So - care to answer that one?

jc

verdidnt

---

Irsih Times
No Garda objections to city-centre late licences
Carl O'Brien

Nightclub owners yesterday claimed that gardaí appeared to have
abandoned plans to object to the granting of late licences for
premises in Dublin city centre.

A number of late licences and dance licences for pubs and nightclubs
were yesterday granted by Dublin District Court; applications for
city-centre nightclubs are due to be heard before the court today and
tomorrow.

The Garda yesterday declined to comment on whether it would lodge any
objections to the licences, while one source said matters were still
under consideration.

Senior members of the force in Dublin met last week to consider
public-order issues arising from late-night drinking and reportedly
decided to lodge objections when the cases came up this week. If
successful, the move would force some nightclubs to close at 1.30 a.m.

Mr Robbie Fox, a spokesman for the Irish Nightclub Industry
Association, said objections later this week were not expected.

"It's great news, it means our industry is saved," Mr Fox
said. "There was a huge public outcry to these plans. We'll continue
doing what we have been doing. If anything, we're looking to extend
the licensing hours, not restrict them."

A spokeswoman for the Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, declined to
comment except to say it was a matter for the Garda to object to
licence applications.

However, in a move which some industry sources saw as significant,
the Minister said in a radio interview yesterday that licensing
legislation did not provide for blanket objections and each case
would have to be considered on its own merits.

Nightclubs operate under normal licensing laws for pubs, but have to
regularly seek special exemption orders to allow them to stay open
later. Dance licences are also reviewed annually and a number of
nightclubs are due to have their applications heard before the court
this week.

The Irish Nightclub Industry Association had argued that the Garda
plans had little to do with tackling public-order offences, and had
more to do with lack of Garda resources.

Mr Fox said forcing nightclubs to close at 1.30 a.m. would have
resulted in 30,000 drinkers being let out on to Dublin's streets at
the same time, creating the potential for even bigger public order
problems.

Reports of the Garda's plans sparked an internet-based campaign. The
website, www.giveusthenight.com, had received more than 10,000
signatures yesterday.

ionapaul

Good point bonkey.

Should people who go out and 'engage in battle' on the football/rugby field, willingly risking their health, be given the same amount of health subsidisation by the State as someone hit by a bus or who has developed cancer of the lymph nodes? These sorts of questions are very hard to answer - should someone who has developed cancer of the lungs following a life-time of smoking, laughing in their youth at the many health warnings emblazoned on the packets, be allowed to freely divert heathcare resources from someone ill through no fault of their own? No need for replies as this is off-topic, but an interesting thing to think about.

Boggle

Boggle you obviously haven't read my previous posts in this thread thoroughly if your actually think that is what I am saying. Kindly check your facts before accusing me of something.

I am talking about those who are clogging up the A+E wards every weekend as a result of them getting themselves drunk of their own volition. I am NOT talking about someone getting jumped.

As I said in my post I hadn't read the thread entirely but I read enough of your posts to know exactly what you were sayingWhat do you propose? Incident sheets for every patient? Witness statements? Expert opinion? Gardai prosecution? Tell me how would this work? Who gets to decide if the incident was due solely to the patients drunken state? Or are you telling me that if a man has drinks in him then he's automatically at fault? Please do me a favour and tell me exactly how you would like to seee the system operate. (in detail, not just with sweeping comments)


And does somebody want to answer the question in relation to sports injuries?
(Or is one form of enjoyment socially superior to another?)

Jivin Turkey

And while we are at it, people who get in car accidents? Sure dont they get into their car at their own accord?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

if someone is admitted to the a+e for alcahol poisoning.. then they def. should be made pay, as they got themselves into that state. Now maybe they had drink forced into them or their drink was spiked, but that will just teach them to be more careful next time.

Is stomach pumping a right?

Villain

Mordeth wrote:

if someone is admitted to the a+e for alcahol poisoning.. then they def. should be made pay, as they got themselves into that state. Now maybe they had drink forced into them or their drink was spiked, but that will just teach them to be more careful next time.

Is stomach pumping a right?

Yes but that person is probably be a tax payer and if so he/she is already paying for it.

I can understand why people think they should pay but maybe only if the person does again and again.

ionapaul

Jivin Turkey wrote:

And while we are at it, people who get in car accidents? Sure dont they get into their car at their own accord?

Sometimes the car they get into IS their own accord....! Get it?!

Ha! Cracking myself up here...no really, I'm a funny funny guy.

arcadegame2004

I will re-iterate an excellent question asked by someone else earlier. Do you believe the same logic should apply to sports injuries? If not, why not - it is people willingly and deliberately putting themselves in a situation where they may pick up serious injuries, and they do so without considering the cost that those injuries will have on the community as they also divert resources from those who really need them...

There is clearly a difference. deliberately getting yourself drunk and getting sports-injuries. Hardly anyone plays sports with the AIM of getting an injury, whereas many drink to get drunk. Come on now! :rolleyes:

LightofDarkness

Hmm, I don't believe that medical personnel would be so inclined to leave drunk people suffering like that. They are very non-judegmental and will take the worst cases first, not the more "acceptable" cases first. But I do believe that the extra charge (as is in place in taxi services - EUR25 on the spot pay-up for puking or acting stupidly in the taxi) would help calm the issue more than closing at 1:30am. In America, bars wait open however long they want, it's just that because this has been in effect for so long people aren't so crazy with their drinking, most end up gong home at 12 only merry. And they've had a better night out because they weren't feeling rushed or pressured.

MadsL

There is clearly a difference. deliberately getting yourself drunk and getting sports-injuries. Hardly anyone plays sports with the AIM of getting an injury, whereas many drink to get drunk. Come on now!

And how many drink with the AIM of getting treated at A+E - Come on yourself!


There is a principle in American law of "coming to the nuisance" - basically 'don't come running to me if you break your leg' - we don't apply that to accidents here. Nor to alcohol. As I have already pointed out you have some very grey areas in this respect.

arcadegame2004

MadsL wrote:

And how many drink with the AIM of getting treated at A+E - Come on yourself!


There is a principle in American law of "coming to the nuisance" - basically 'don't come running to me if you break your leg' - we don't apply that to accidents here. Nor to alcohol. As I have already pointed out you have some very grey areas in this respect.

Sorry MadsL but rights come with responsibilities and with all the pressure facing the hospitals I feel that we all have a responsibility not to deliberately and repeatedly act in a manner that will inevitably increase that pressure. People injured during sports games are not deliberately putting themselves in the position of getting injured. Most drunks who glog up the A+E every weekend ARE. Let them pay!

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Sorry MadsL but rights come with responsibilities

Drinkers don't go out with the intention of getting injured to the extent of needinug urgent medical care, no more than sports-people do. Both are voluntarily participating in an activity which - if one is not sufficiently careful - can lead to serious injury. Both involve the body making use of substances which inhibit the ability to be careful (alcohol in one case, adrenalin in the other).

You have the right to play sports, and the right to drink. More correctly - both are legal, and as legal activities, you ahve the right to partake in them.

You can window-dress it with all the "arrah shur its not the same thing at all", but the fact remains that there is no realistic difference. In both cases, you are putting yourself deliberately in a situation where you have a castly increased chance of being injured, and you're doing it for fun.

and with all the pressure facing the hospitals I feel that we all have a responsibility not to deliberately and repeatedly act in a manner that will inevitably increase that pressure.

Sports injuries inevitably increase that pressure.....and until you start supplying hard figures to show that the drink-related problem is an actual problem, you have no basis on which to make a distinction here either.

People injured during sports games are not deliberately putting themselves in the position of getting injured.

Excuse me? They may not be setting out to get injured, but they most certainly are putting themselves in harms way.

Most drunks who glog up the A+E every weekend ARE.

Are what? Putting themselves in harms way, or deliberately setting out to get hurt? If its the former, they are again no different to sports-people. If its the latter, then I'd ask you - as per usual - to supply some sort of evidence to back up this ludicrous allegation.

jc

arcadegame2004

Are what? Putting themselves in harms way, or deliberately setting out to get hurt? If its the former, they are again no different to sports-people. If its the latter, then I'd ask you - as per usual - to supply some sort of evidence to back up this ludicrous allegation.

We all know that young people are subjected to peer-pressure to drink to get drunk. Come on now!

Jivin Turkey

I would say that there is probably more chance of you ending up in A+E by playing a decent game of soccer, GAA, or rugby than there is if you go out on the jar.

MadsL

Sorry MadsL but rights come with responsibilities and with all the pressure facing the hospitals I feel that we all have a responsibility not to deliberately and repeatedly act in a manner that will inevitably increase that pressure.

Best we stay out of the home then where we are most statistically likely to have a accident requiring hospitalisation. No more DIY.

People injured during sports games are not deliberately putting themselves in the position of getting injured.

Errr..how exactly do you figure that. Running around on a field with other blokes chasing you with big sticks? And not wearing one of those 'sissy' helmets?

Most drunks who glog up the A+E every weekend ARE. Let them pay!

Again, based on what - so much a milligram?

ionapaul

The heart of Arcadegame2004's argument is this (I think ) -

Those who drink too much and as a result of the drinking have a disproportionate amount of state resources lavished on them for whatever reasons (time spent in A&E, etc...) should be held accountable for their decisions and pay up / accept some responsibility for their actions.

If this is the heart of the argument, I have to say I agree 100% with him. Maybe it comes down to the fact I believe the Irish have an irresponsible attitude to alcohol, and would like to see more being done to highlight / combat this. Others (likely the vast majority of thread readers) will disagree with me here and probably believe the Irish have no more a cultural problem or national propensity to alcohol addiction than any other nation, and any problems we have are caused by the restrictive (by international standards) licensing laws.

Boggle

Arcadegame... you still haven't told me how you reckon this system should work. Have you actually thought it out?

I want to know how we decide who pays what and how we determine root cause of injury...

MadsL

He hasn't thought it out - just a typical reactionary comment. I doubt that he has any clue what people actually do in A+E.

Don't get me wrong, I support zero tolerence of abuse and violence, but this is not the way to solve it.

MadsL

ionapaul wrote:

The heart of Arcadegame2004's argument is this (I think ) -

Those who drink too much and as a result of the drinking have a disproportionate amount of state resources lavished on them for whatever reasons (time spent in A&E, etc...) should be held accountable for their decisions and pay up / accept some responsibility for their actions.

Really - so define disproportionate.

bonkey

ionapaul wrote:

The heart of Arcadegame2004's argument is this (I think ) -

Those who drink too much and as a result of the drinking have a disproportionate amount of state resources lavished on them for whatever reasons (time spent in A&E, etc...) should be held accountable for their decisions and pay up / accept some responsibility for their actions.

If this is the heart of the argument, I have to say I agree 100% with him.

Then perhaps you'd be more willing than Arcade has shown himself/herself to be and provide some sort of figures to show that this claim of "disproportionate amount of resources" is in any way true.

Maybe it comes down to the fact I believe the Irish have an irresponsible attitude to alcohol, and would like to see more being done to highlight / combat this.

I agree fully that we have such an attitude. However, I don't think that charging those who've just put themselves on death's door through stupidity is actually gonna make any difference.

Maybe I'm wrong....but if I nearly died through stupidity, I wouldn't be cursing the state for how much it had cost me financially....I'd be cursing myself for how close I came to dying through my own stupidity.

This is another case where I think people are looking at trying to cure a symptom, rather than the underlying problem.....it is not the drunks who are causing a problem to our health-service. Our health-service has a problem from every single patient because its basically so sh1t. Trying to blame one group (asylum-seeking, passport-shopping nigerian women) or another (pissheads in a pub of a weekend) is just pointless. They are not the problem - they are simply highlighting that we have a sh1t health-service which needs to be fixed.

and any problems we have are caused by the restrictive (by international standards) licensing laws.

I'm not sure what is causing the problem....but if the ridiculous price of a pint isn't putting people off drinking enough to put themselves in hospital, then charging them double (or more) after the fact isn't gonna have much of a difference either.

Ask yourself this....when is the last time you thought to yourself (as you ordered another pint)..."jesus...this pint could change me from being langered to almost-dead...and that will cost". Now ask yourself if you even know how much it would cost today. Now ask yourself just how many of you and your mates have gone to A+E for just this reason...

I'm willing to bet that being told that the price of such A+E treatment had just gone up 100-fold wouldn't matter a sh1te to in excess of 99% of the people who drink. Its not a concern until after you've had so much to drink that its not gonna be a concern anyway.

Campaigning against drunk-driving works....because it relies on the mildly-tipsy people having a bit of cop-on. The out-of-his-skull-drunk tit who used to drunk-drive in that condition probably still does. And charging the horrendously-drunk for A+E might give some people a nice feeling of warmth that their taxes aren't funding someone else's stupidity, but it ain't gonna fix anything.

And like I've already asked....if we're gonna punish drunks for being stupid...why draw the line? Why not sports injuries? Or - as MadSL just mentioned - careless DIY gobsheens??? Hell, why not just charge anyone who had a preventable accident???

jc

arcadegame2004

Bonkey, in response to your counter-argument to my proposals, I would say that just because there are many other factors contributing to the mess in the Health-Service does not mean that we should ignore this one. I recall in the Citizenship referendum the no side argued that the problem was not merely the ctizenship-law as it stood but rather failure to enforce immigration legislation, so your argument here seems reminiscent i.e. there are other problems responsible for the situation therefore deal with them.

The fact that the Health-Service's problems are due to a multiplicity of factors should not mean we should ignore this aspect. There are enough problems without the beds in a hospital being clogged with undeserving cases who get themselves drunk out their brains every weekend. It is not the aim of someone playing in a football/hurling/basketball game to get injured, whereas many young people, especially though not exclusively males, boast that they are drinking to get drunk, and seem, for some reason, to regard getting drunk as some badge of masculinity. I know people who started getting drunk when they were only 10 or 12, and I really think that we need to try to change this culture whereby young males are made to feel that they have to get drunk or they are not "real men". It is such a stupid outlook and while I am opposed to the State interfering in nightclub opening hours, I am also adamantly opposed to the precious resources of our Health-Service being thrown at a group of selfish people who are choosing to place themselves in the position of needlessly becoming bed-blockers.

Originally posted by Boggle
Arcadegame... you still haven't told me how you reckon this system should work. Have you actually thought it out?

Well leaving the situation as it is is not a viable option. Exorbitant wastage of money is at the heart of the lack of return on investment in terms of health-spending and this seems a good place to start. I say charge drunks that habitually turn up at the hospital drunk out of their brains. And charge them more each time they do it. I suspect they will be somewhat less likely to turn up then!

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Bonkey, in response to your counter-argument to my proposals, I would say that just because there are many other factors contributing to the mess in the Health-Service does not mean that we should ignore this one.

And yet again you blandly and blithely appear to assume that just because you've said this is a significant factor, that it is one.

I've asked multiple times, and I've yet to see a link nor a mention of just how significant a contributing factor this really is.

I'd also like to know your response to the assertion I made in my last post that your "solution" won't make a blind bit of difference in terms of numbers.

I recall in the Citizenship referendum the no side argued that the problem was not merely the ctizenship-law as it stood but rather failure to enforce immigration legislation, so your argument here seems reminiscent i.e. there are other problems responsible for the situation therefore deal with them.

My argument there was that we had a system which wasn't being enforced.

My argument here is that you are cherry-picking a particular class of accident, and holding it up for victimisation as some sort of cure (or contributing factor) to two seperate problems - those of alcohol abuse and of the incapability of our health-service to provide either of the words its name its formed from in any reasonable capacity. Well, not only have you neglected thus far to show how "big" a stress on our A+E capability this really is, other then engaging in some engaging anecdotes, but you've also neglected to address how you think additional charging of the tiny minority of excessive-drinkers who end up in an A+E will do anything to address the second issue any more than a near-death experience would do, which these poor souls will have received in the first place.

The fact that the Health-Service's problems are due to a multiplicity of factors should not mean we should ignore this aspect.

Again....maybe you should show it is an aspect worthy of attention firstly?

There are enough problems without the beds in a hospital being clogged with undeserving cases who get themselves drunk out their brains every weekend.

I say the same about sports injuries.

It is not the aim of someone playing in a football/hurling/basketball game to get injured, whereas many young people, especially though not exclusively males, boast that they are drinking to get drunk,

Yes, drinking to get drunk. Not drinking to get nearly killed. Not drinking to get in a serious accident. Drinking to get drunk. And if you want to re-interpret what "getting drunk" means, I'll ask you to limit your reasoning to your own experience, because I can guarantee you that its not an accurate generalisation.

and I really think that we need to try to change this culture whereby young males are made to feel that they have to get drunk or they are not "real men".

And charging them a chunk of cash after saving their life will have a much more sobering effect on them, their friends, and society at large than the fact that the person could have died.

Jeez....I'm beginning to think that you're hinting at a notion that money is all that matters.

It is such a stupid outlook and while I am opposed to the State interfering in nightclub opening hours, I am also adamantly opposed to the precious resources of our Health-Service being thrown at a group of selfish people who are choosing to place themselves in the position of needlessly becoming bed-blockers.

So oppose sports. Oppose DIY. Oppose any one of the more significant contributors to A+E. Or at the very least, could you show that this chosen cause is deserving, and actually a major contributor? It would give some credibility to your argument...

jc

ionapaul

bonkey wrote:

Then perhaps you'd be more willing than Arcade has shown himself/herself to be and provide some sort of figures to show that this claim of "disproportionate amount of resources" is in any way true.

...

And like I've already asked....if we're gonna punish drunks for being stupid...why draw the line? Why not sports injuries? Or - as MadSL just mentioned - careless DIY gobsheens??? Hell, why not just charge anyone who had a preventable accident???

jc

Nope, I am not willing to provide figures that disproportionate amounts of resources are spent on the entirely preventable (in many cases) injuries resulting from over consumption of alcohol in this country If such figures exist on the interweb I am too tired, too lazy, and too confident in my opinionated beliefs to bother looking them up! If you disagree that 'too much'* (my definition, I hold my hand up in that regard) of Ireland's health resources are spent on our drunks, then I accept your view of the matter.

I will also hold my hand up and say I am not an A&E regular, do not have a family member working in a hospital or anything like that, have only been to the A&E occasionally, and as such my beliefs are very much my own to stand behind!

I do see your point about sports injuries - I have never really thought about it like that, but have often wondered at the State resources (in the shape of Garda presence, etc) used at this events. Do the sporting organisations (who may be making a large profit) recompense the State for any of the cost of providing this?

Anyhow, it's late and I'm off to bed soon. Hope those of you drinking tonight will watch after yourselves and avoid the A&E

*should that be too many?

gazzer

Did the new closing times come into effect on Saturday??? i wasnt out so havnt heard how it went.

STaN

Spirit, the Ambassador, Isoldes Towers and a number of other venues have had 25% of their opening times slashed. Many of these were staying open until 3-4.30 on theatre licences. In spirits case, it has a show and that is how it got one.

Everything will now close at 2.30. These venues are now taking legal action.

Personally i would like to see our licencing fall in line with that on the continent. I'm sure a lot of people would like the idea of a Club you could go to at 2am and leave at 6 or 7am at the weekends.

I think this whole spectacle will serve to highlight the severe lack in garda resources and the backward thinking of our political leaders. There should be total revamp of the laws.

[OT]Oh, and the Guards should have guns. If people are afraid to comit crime, they won't comit it. If a drunk is thrown into a cell for the night, he'll think twice about doing it again. Same goes for our legal system, we need to get tougher on offenders of all sorts of anti-social crime.[/OT]