Anti-social behavior at closing time

the beer revolu

mathepac wrote: »

So you contend that if all those people were in bars and nightclubs drinking water, tea, coffee or orange juice all night, the same behaviours would follow as if they were released blind drunk onto the streets? All the puking, pissing, fighting, assaults, hospital admissions, arrests, etc would happen. I'd like to see a modicum, a smidgen, even an iota of evidence in support of your view.

I contend that what you suggest will never happen, so what's the point in arguing about it!
What I said was that society had a situation to manage - people to manage and that that situation is very poorly managed at the moment.
Most here contend that changing licencing hours might help. You rudely disagree. What do you suggest should be done - in the real world with current resources?

mathepac

the beer revolu wrote: »

... You rudely disagree. What do you suggest should be done - in the real world with current resources?

mathepac wrote: »

... The solution? There are many, including enforcing existing laws.

There you go. I posted this a while ago. The laws concerned have to do with age-checking by servers, public drunkenness, and serving alcohol to patrons who are already drunk.

The HSEs have poured billions into alcohol education programmes, consisting mainly of glossy brochures, TV ads and posters and the problems associated with public drunkenness and violence are now worse in certain areas than before they started the programmes. Stop spending money stupidly, use it on enforcement and start fining people or locking them up.

the beer revolu

mathepac wrote: »

There you go. I posted this a while ago. The laws concerned have to do with age-checking by servers, public drunkenness, and serving alcohol to patrons who are already drunk.

The HSEs have poured billions into alcohol education programmes, consisting mainly of glossy brochures, TV ads and posters and the problems associated with public drunkenness and violence are now worse in certain areas than before they started the programmes. Stop spending money stupidly, use it on enforcement and start fining people or locking them up.

OK so you've moved on from your incredibly vague

The solution? There are many, including enforcing existing laws.

.
While a problem which should not exist, I don't believe that underage drinking is a major contributory factor to the closing time mayhem we see in many towns and cities and I think age checking is pretty widely enforced in bars and clubs and I've spotted undercover "stings" in operation and premises do get done for underage serving.

Public drunkenness: what do you suggest - double the police force and the court system. No problem, lets do it tomorrow!

I do agree with you regarding serving drunk people but it's not a black or white thing and can be difficult to enforce in a busy bar or club with people drinking in groups. But the trade could do better on this issue, alright.

The fact is, whether you like it or not, in our society as it is, people will get drunk. Some people are arseholes all the time, some people are arseholes when drunk. Some people don't know their limits but I believe people are responsible for what they drink and for what they do when they are drunk.

We manage potentially dangerous situations regarding large numbers of people all the time. Football matches would be a prime example , or concerts. We don't just expect everybody to behave reasonably - we put measures in place to minimise the risk of public disorder/crime/injury/violence. It's called crowd control.
What our society does regarding pub and club closing times makes no sense. If you pour all the socialising people onto the streets at exactly the same time, you create flash points. It's pretty obvious, really.

Yes, people should drink in moderation.

Yes people should be able to behave in a socially acceptable manner while drinking.

Yes, people should be charged and are charged for serving underage people.

Yes, people should be taken to account for anti social behaviour - some are but the resources are not there to effectively tackle the problem.

Yes, servers should be more proactive in not serving drunks and should be held more accountable but not at the cost of removing the responsibility people have for consuming what they consume.

Yes, we need a cultural mind shift in our attitude to drinking. Education is part of this - maybe they haven't gotten it right but I don't believe that awareness programmes should be abandoned.

And, yes, I firmly believe that our archaic licencing laws are a major contributory factor to anti social behaviour on our streets but, obviously, not the only one. No one has suggested that changing the licencing laws will miraculously fix the problem so please law of with your dismissive tone and rudeness.

gimmick

I personally think many pubs are quite proactive in not serving visibly drunk people.

Some people hide it better than other. I, for example, apparently never look or sound drunk unless I am completely and utterly shítfaced which rarely happens. How can barstaff stop me from being served in that regard?

And don't doorstaff in any half decent venue stop people if they feel they are too well on?

Yes, booze is a big contributory factor, but it is also a fact that by giving people a bed time and by turfing them all out onto the streets, into the same queues all round the City is obviously going to create issues. If this cannot be seen as common sense, there is no point in continuing the discussion.

wallycharlo

gimmick wrote: »

...Yes, booze is a big contributory factor, but it is also a fact that by giving people a bed time and by turfing them all out onto the streets, into the same queues all round the City is obviously going to create issues...

The staggered exit is clearly a good idea, but how practically could it be implemented?

i.e. if the law is changed to allow bars etc to stay open later, surely all of the larger establishments are going to apply for such a licence, which will just result in the same problem?

You could imagine doing it in such a way that only certain pubs etc get the extended licence, but how is this going to work practically, e.g. within competition laws etc?

gimmick

No, if for example the license was extended to 4am - most of us are conditioned to leave at 2pmish. So, 30% leave at 2am, another 20% are gone by 3am and so on. By 4am all of these people are gone home and those who leave at closing time will be a percentage of what hit the streets at 2am.

Its basically let us decide when our bedtime is, not have it forced upon us.

wallycharlo

In my opinion the vast majority of those who are causing the problem are those who are being evicted because of an enforced closing time; e.g. knocking back shots etc close to last call and ending up absolutely wasted, etc.

Certainly the idea that a 04:00 close would make it more pleasant for those leaving at 02:00 etc, but following the same logic you could also just say that one can anyway head off at 20 mins before close at the moment.

ofcork

Why should a bar have the same closing time as a nightclub,even an hour between them would make a world of difference.I remember about 10 years ago in cork the clubs were given another half hour and it only lasted a few weeks,was in coppers a while back and it was still going at 3.30.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Later pub/club times are definitely a good idea. Why not let some clubs open their doors at 12 and stay open until 4 and have others that open at 10/11 and close before 3 or something. The current situation is at 1:50 AM every Friday and Saturday night you have taxi drivers queued up sitting in their car doing nothing and you have the staff in burger and kebab places twiddling their thumbs doing very little, whereas, an hour later at 2:50 AM you have to wait for a taxi after queuing for a bite to eat for ages . Whatever changes this reality will be an improvement.

I think off licenses closing at 10 is a bit ridiculous. Maybe allowing late bars sell cans might encourage some people to just grab a few tins at say 1 o'clock instead of waiting until closing time and filling up on as much booze as they can get into themselves.
I gonna sound like a total alki but I'm quite guilty of getting as much drink into me as possible in the last hour before closing time because (:eek:) 2 o'clock will be end of drinking time. We now always keep a stash of drink back in the house . Older, wiser yet thicker.

Our licensing hours are fairly in line with the old 9-5 working mindset that still dominates this country, banks don't open on Saturdays, don't get sick on a Sunday as a doctor will be hard to find. I'm saying this because so many people don't work 'normal' hours. Many nights I'm happy to have a few cans after 10 and head out at 12 but some nights why can't I start drinking at midnight and head out at 1 and go to the pub until 3 or 4. Let people go out at times that suit them, what a crazy idea eh.

I would be strongly in favour of drunk tanks, it frees up precious Garda time and keeps petty things out of court and people away from convictions over things like falling asleep in a door way and relatively inconsequential things like this.
A hefty 500 euro fine will be a bigger deterrent to out of order public intoxication more than anything else I can think of.

Thoie

gimmick wrote: »

No, if for example the license was extended to 4am - most of us are conditioned to leave at 2pmish. So, 30% leave at 2am, another 20% are gone by 3am and so on. By 4am all of these people are gone home and those who leave at closing time will be a percentage of what hit the streets at 2am.

Its basically let us decide when our bedtime is, not have it forced upon us.

While that works in some other countries, I'm not sure how well it would work here at the weekends. There is an attitude on a "night out" that you stay until they ask you to leave. While there are always some people who leave earlier (as they do at the moment), I'd guess that the majority would cling on till the last possible moment, just moving the current 2am problem to 4am instead.

A counter argument is that some pubs/clubs could close earlier, but as long as there's money coming in, none will do it voluntarily. Do you currently see pubs calling last orders at 9:30pm because their own closing time is 10pm?

mathepac

the beer revolu wrote: »

OK so you've moved on from your incredibly vague ...

Not in the least bit vague. For most of these situations, there is no need for new measures, just enforce existing laws. It's the same consistent message I've posted multiple times since I joined boards.ie, "Enforce the laws". Anyone who believes they are being enforced is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I notice the auld "proactive" posters are out in force tonight, proving yet again they just don't know the meaning of the word.

the beer revolu

mathepac wrote: »

The solution? There are many, including enforcing existing laws.

If you seriously don't consider that a vague statement, I doubt your comprehension of the word vague. You don't say what laws or how to go about enforcing them. Where will the extra police come from, the extra court time and the extra prison place come from?
You'll just pluck them from the air like your vague statements, will you?

mathepac wrote: »

Not in the least bit vague. For most of these situations, there is no need for new measures, just enforce existing laws. It's the same consistent message I've posted multiple times since I joined boards.ie, "Enforce the laws". Anyone who believes they are being enforced is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I notice the auld "proactive" posters are out in force tonight, proving yet again they just don't know the meaning of the word.

If a server refuses to serve somebody because they fear the consequences of serving them (ie. what might happen AFTER they have been served), they are being proactive.

Nobody here said they believed all laws are properly enforced.

sensormatic

the beer revolu wrote: »

If you seriously don't consider that a vague statement, I doubt your comprehension of the word vague. You don't say what laws or how to go about enforcing them. Where will the extra police come from, the extra court time and the extra prison place come from?
You'll just pluck them from the air like your vague statements, will you?



If a server refuses to serve somebody because they fear the consequences of serving them (ie. what might happen AFTER they have been served), they are being proactive.

Nobody here said they believed all laws are properly enforced.

thats what you say when you know f all about the laws in place,,,,f all

the beer revolu

sensormatic wrote: »

thats what you say when you know f all about the laws in place,,,,f all

Would you care to explain that post?
It makes no sense to me.
Maybe I'm missing something and you could explain it to me.

Edit: Now I see you went on a troll like spree last night, getting two moderator warnings in the process.
What exactly is your motivation for posts like these?

mathepac

the beer revolu wrote: »

If you seriously don't consider that a vague statement, I doubt your comprehension of the word vague. You don't say what laws or how to go about enforcing them. ...

In a thread about "Anti-social behavior [sic] at closing time" I kinda figured that people would know I was referring to liquor licensing laws, public behaviour and public drunkenness laws, assault laws etc and not the Noxiuos Weeds Act 1930. If I have to explain to law enforcement officers how to enforce the laws then we either have unenforceable laws of stupid law enforcers.

the beer revolu wrote: »

... Where will the extra police come from, the extra court time and the extra prison place come from?...

I haven't advocated for anything extra other than enforcement of existing laws.

With regard to liquor licensing laws, all licensees must make application at a special court held annually to renew their licences. Anyone, including the Gardai can lodge an objection to the renewal of a licence. No extra courts or court-time needed.

It's up to Garda management to ensure they have adequate resources in place to police these "Anti-social behavior [sic] at closing time" situations, or as I prefer to call them drunken, un-policed sprees by violent thugs.

Personally I'd prefer big on the spot fines to prison-time, but hey, no-one asked.

the beer revolu wrote: »

... If a server refuses to serve somebody because they fear the consequences of serving them (ie. what might happen AFTER they have been served), they are being proactive...

No, but thanks for making my point for me. If the patron is already intoxicated the server is being reactive, as in reacting to an existing situation, not preventing it by proacting.

the beer revolu wrote: »

... Nobody here said they believed all laws are properly enforced.

Great, so we all agree that law enforcement of existing laws is the solution.

the beer revolu

mathepac wrote: »

In a thread about "Anti-social behavior [sic] at closing time" I kinda figured that people would know I was referring to liquor licensing laws, public behaviour and public drunkenness laws, assault laws etc and not the Noxiuos Weeds Act 1930. If I have to explain to law enforcement officers how to enforce the laws then we either have unenforceable laws of stupid law enforcers.
I haven't advocated for anything extra other than enforcement of existing laws.

With regard to liquor licensing laws, all licensees must make application at a special court held annually to renew their licences. Anyone, including the Gardai can lodge an objection to the renewal of a licence. No extra courts or court-time needed.

It's up to Garda management to ensure they have adequate resources in place to police these "Anti-social behavior [sic] at closing time" situations, or as I prefer to call them drunken, un-policed sprees by violent thugs.

Personally I'd prefer big on the spot fines to prison-time, but hey, no-one asked.
No, but thanks for making my point for me. If the patron is already intoxicated the server is being reactive, as in reacting to an existing situation, not preventing it by proacting.
Great, so we all agree that law enforcement of existing laws is the solution.

Are you seriously suggesting that if the police and courts did their job properly, with current resources, then we would have no drink related antisocial behaviour on our city and town streets at closing time?
Seriously?

If the answer is yes:
Are you sixteen years of age?