Off licences and draconian closing times

thattequilagirl

Azalea wrote: »

syklops wrote: »

Another pathetic poorly informed argument possibly put together for thanks and nothing else. The record and the sofa you can't buy at 3am. All the others you can.

Speak for yourself! I think I should be able to buy a six-pack of couches at 10pm on a Saturday night when a night out is cancelled and a friend is calling over! :mad:

(It's a bit dismaying when intelligent people resort to utter shyte in order to argue back instead of just admitting the counter-argument makes a fair point).

The bulk of your argument is "I want it this way because it's convenient for me."

You only jumped on the protectionism bandwagon after several other people made it.

Your own argument is lame at best.

Azalea

syklops wrote: »

Tesco has a number of shops which are open 24 hours a day. They sell clothes, tools, groceries. They don't sell sofas or goldfish. I don't know why, I suggest you contact them and take your gripe up with them. In a tesco 24 hour supermarket, I can buy jeans or a spanner or even a lawnmower in some of their shops, but at 10pm they have to cordon off the alcohol and forbid its sale.



I absolutely agree with you but I think your dismay whether it is real or not, of about being unable to buy a sofa at 10pm on a Saturday is utter shyte and in no way makes a fair point.

Ah here, I was being ironic. I was agreeing with you - pointing out the nonsense post by endacl, as if a couch and a few cans of beer on a Friday/Saturday night are comparable.
My sentence about people posting shyte was directed at Enda and TBM - they keep resorting to nonsense to "support" their argument.

Azalea

thattequilagirl wrote: »

The bulk of your argument is "I want it this way because it's convenient for me."

You only jumped on the protectionism bandwagon after several other people made it.

Your own argument is lame at best.

Bluh?

One More Toy

Jesus all this hassle because I missed out on a few tins

syklops

Azalea wrote: »

Ah here, I was being ironic. I was agreeing with you - pointing out the nonsense post by endacl, as if a couch and a few cans of beer on a Friday/Saturday night are comparable.
My sentence about people posting shyte was directed at Enda and TBM - they keep resorting to nonsense to "support" their argument.

OK sorry. Your post which I now know was ironic was actually of the level of shyte Ive been reading so I thought you were on their side.

andekwarhola

I firmly disagree with 10pm closing on principle but the amount of times it actually genuinely inconveniences you are pretty rare, if you're being honest.

That said, spare me the sanctimonious finger wagging crap where somebody that is annoyed because they fancy a spontaneous drink and gets caught out by the opening hours, is some sort of raving alcoholic.

Kiwi in IE

thattequilagirl wrote: »

The bulk of your argument is "I want it this way because it's convenient for me."

Yes but if the law is inconvenient for business owners and inconvenient for customers, what other argument is needed? Can you point to anyone who benefits from the law or finds it convenient?

thattequilagirl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

The bulk of your argument is "I want it this way because it's convenient for me."

Yes but if the law is inconvenient for business owners and inconvenient for customers, what other argument is needed? Can you point to anyone who benefits from the law or finds it convenient?

A&E nurses/Ambulance service
Garda
Publicans & bar staff
Off-license workers
People's livers (I find it hard to believe that a lot of the people who desperately want off licenses open all hours are drinking sensibly)

Azalea

andekwarhola wrote: »

I firmly disagree with 10pm closing on principle but the amount of times it actually genuinely inconveniences you are pretty rare, if you're being honest.

That said, spare me the sanctimonious finger wagging crap where somebody that is annoyed because they fancy a spontaneous drink and gets caught out by the opening hours, is some sort of raving alcoholic.

Exactly. Having the option, bit of flexibility, is all that a lot of people want. This is being mixed up with "I want everything my way and I demand it" when that accolade actually goes towards the politically involved pub-owners.

Azalea

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Publicans & bar staff

Off-license workers

Oh right so bar staff working until 3am are at an advantage but off-licence workers working until 10.30 are at an advantage. Pick one!

People's livers (I find it hard to believe that a lot of the people who desperately want off licenses open all hours are drinking sensibly)

Find it hard to believe all you want. I find people being in the pub from 9pm to 2am lashing back oceans of drinks to the point of being unable to walk, to be far less likely to be drinking sensibly. Most people just buy four or six cans in the off-licence or one bottle of wine. Not that I think there is a need for 24-hour off-licences either though.

The Backwards Man

Azalea wrote: »

Ah here, I was being ironic. I was agreeing with you - pointing out the nonsense post by endacl, as if a couch and a few cans of beer on a Friday/Saturday night are comparable.
My sentence about people posting shyte was directed at Enda and TBM - they keep resorting to nonsense to "support" their argument.

OK, OK, OK. I'm holding my hands up. On reflection, I realise that the kids in Biafra would be appalled at my blasé responses to such a salient issue. I humbly apologise for my 'nonsense' posts and will refrain from partaking in this discussion any further.

Peace out:pac:

Azalea

The Backwards Man wrote: »

OK, OK, OK. I'm holding my hands up. On reflection, I realise that the kids in Biafra would be appalled at my blasé responses to such a salient issue. I humbly apologise for my 'nonsense' posts and will refrain from partaking in this discussion any further.

Peace out:pac:

"I cannot take on board a counter-argument so I'll post disingenuous rubbish about people going out for a run, and then bring in something about kids in Africa for no reason" - yay. We're not talking about kids in Biafra by the way, we are talking about off-licences in Ireland.

thattequilagirl

Azalea wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Publicans & bar staff

Off-license workers

Oh right so bar staff working until 3am are at an advantage but off-licence workers working until 10.30 are at an advantage. Pick one!

People's livers (I find it hard to believe that a lot of the people who desperately want off licenses open all hours are drinking sensibly)

Find it hard to believe all you want. I find people being in the pub from 9pm to 2am lashing back oceans of drinks to the point of being unable to walk, to be far less likely to be drinking sensibly. Most people just buy four or six cans in the off-licence or one bottle of wine. Not that I think there is a need for 24-hour off-licences either though.

Both are true you silly sausage.

Off license workers benefit by getting to finish work and go home on time.

Bar workers benefit because the portion of us who go to bars as an alternative keep them in jobs.

Why be so black and white in a world of color?

The Backwards Man

Azalea wrote: »

"I cannot take on board a counter-argument so I'll post disingenuous rubbish about people going out for a run, and then bring in something about kids in Africa for no reason" - yay. We're not talking about kids in Biafra by the way, we are talking about off-licences in Ireland.

Yep. You win. Fair play.

thattequilagirl

Check this information from the CSO out. In 2008, the year this law was introduced, there were more than 61,000 public order offences. In 2014, there were 32,000. The number has almost halved since these laws were introduced (the off license timing was one of a bunch of laws introduced at the same time to tackle public order offences)

http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c18.asp&TableName=Public+order+and+other+social+code+offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

So I'd say your minor inconvenience has been well worth it.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Check this information from the CSO out. In 2008, the year this law was introduced, there were more than 61,000 public order offences. In 2014, there were 32,000. The number has almost halved since these laws were introduced (the off license timing was one of a bunch of laws introduced at the same time to tackle public order offences)

http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c18.asp&TableName=Public+order+and+other+social+code+offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

So I'd say your minor inconvenience has been well worth it.

And some of us can binge drink and never be in trouble or be arrested for public order. To be honest, I respect where you're coming from, and I'm not that bothered about the off licence either way, but your past, and the way you describe your relationship with alcohol is on you. That's not anyone else's issue. It's yours. I'd hope anyone drinking are adult enough to make their own choices in regards to their bodies. If people are being arrested for public order then it's up to them to make the decision that drinking doesn't suit them.

Kiwi in IE

thattequilagirl wrote: »

A&E nurses/Ambulance service
Garda

Emergency services benefit because the off licence shuts at 2200 while the pub is still open? Actually it would probably be better for emergency services if the law was the other way around. People are less likely to get hurt/into fights/causes public nusience drinking in their own homes than they are in pubs.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Publicans & bar staff

Yeah admittedly they do benefit from being allowed to be open later than off licences, but in the post I quoted you were complaining that people were mentioning protectionism. Publicans benefit because of the protectionism no? So it makes sense that those who are against protectionism are opposed to this law?

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Off-license workers

How do they benefit? They are legally obliged to close their business/stop serving alcohol whether they want to or not. If they law was absent, they could still close/stop serving if they chose. I fail to see how they benefit.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

People's livers (I find it hard to believe that a lot of the people who desperately want off licenses open all hours are drinking sensibly)

Ever heard of personal responsibility? Peoples livers are also damaged by sugar. Should it be illegal to buy sugar, sweets, cakes and desserts between 2200 and 1030 as well? And not until 1230 on Sunday.

That's what it seems to come down to for the supporters of this ridiculous law; Nanny statism and a good dose of "I want to enforce my choices onto everyone".

thattequilagirl

LexieOnRale wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Check this information from the CSO out. In 2008, the year this law was introduced, there were more than 61,000 public order offences. In 2014, there were 32,000. The number has almost halved since these laws were introduced (the off license timing was one of a bunch of laws introduced at the same time to tackle public order offences)

http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c18.asp&TableName=Public+order+and+other+social+code+offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

So I'd say your minor inconvenience has been well worth it.

And some of us can binge drink and never be in trouble or be arrested for public order. To be honest, I respect where you're coming from, and I'm not that bothered about the off licence either way, but your past, and the way you describe your relationship with alcohol is on you. That's not anyone else's issue. It's yours. I'd hope anyone drinking are adult enough to make their own choices in regards to their bodies. If people are being arrested for public order then it's up to them to make the decision that drinking doesn't suit them.

This isn't about me.

I've presented totally impartial evidence that this law effectively reduced public order offences by almost 50%.

Are you telling me you don't think that's a good thing?

The Backwards Man

Mr.S wrote: »

Why is it a benefit they get to "go home on time"? It's a job, they work contracted hours. There is no going home early. You go home after your shift.

Longer opening = more shifts = more jobs / more hourly wage for the employees

When I worked shifts (many moons ago) I always preferred 2pm-10pm over 6pm-2am.

Longer opening hours won't increase the volume of sales, so it will be a case longer opening hours = increased costs = job cuts.

thattequilagirl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

A&E nurses/Ambulance service
Garda

Emergency services benefit because the off licence shuts at 2200 while the pub is still open? Actually it would probably be better for emergency services if the law was the other way around. People are less likely to get hurt/into fights/causes public nusience drinking in their own homes than they are in pubs.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Publicans & bar staff

Yeah admittedly they do benefit from being allowed to be open later than off licences, but in the post I quoted you were complaining that people were mentioning protectionism. Publicans benefit because of the protectionism no? So it makes sense that those who are against protectionism are opposed to this law?

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Off-license workers

How do they benefit? They are legally obliged to close their business/stop serving alcohol whether they want to or not. If they law was absent, they could still close/stop serving if they chose. I fail to see how they benefit.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

People's livers (I find it hard to believe that a lot of the people who desperately want off licenses open all hours are drinking sensibly)

Ever heard of personal responsibility? Peoples livers are also damaged by sugar. Should it be illegal to buy sugar, sweets, cakes and desserts between 2200 and 1030 as well? And not until 1230 on Sunday.

That's what it seems to come down to for the supporters of this ridiculous law; Nanny statism and a good dose of "I want to enforce my choices onto everyone".

Okay then, what about 29,000 fewer crimes? Is that a good enough reason for you?

ED E

thattequilagirl wrote: »

This isn't about me.

I've presented totally impartial evidence that this law effectively reduced public order offences by almost 50%.

Are you telling me you don't think that's a good thing?

Huh?

From your own post, a package of laws correlates to the change. Not just this one. No causation shown.

Who's to say it wasnt Gardai introducing segways that did it? Nobody.

Ted_YNWA

The Backwards Man wrote:

Longer opening hours won't increase the volume of sales, so it will be a case longer opening hours = increased costs = job cuts.

Isn't that up to each shop to decide, like all non offies do.

It won't pay for us to open from X to Y and trade accordingly.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

thattequilagirl wrote: »

This isn't about me.

I've presented totally impartial evidence that this law effectively reduced public order offences by almost 50%.

Are you telling me you don't think that's a good thing?

Look, I think people don't need to be babied. In fact I'd go as far as saying closing off licences early promotes binge drinking. If people knew on Saturday night at 10:30 if they decide to stay in they can pop down and get a bottle of wine, they'd be less likely to stock pile and I know myself if I know there's wine here, I'll drink it. You have to get to the off licence before 10, so you'll probably start drinking earlier.

And I mean if you really want a drink you can just throw on your nice clothes and go out and drink til 2:30 anyway so it's not as if it's putting a stop to people drinking after 10

thattequilagirl

LexieOnRale wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

This isn't about me.

I've presented totally impartial evidence that this law effectively reduced public order offences by almost 50%.

Are you telling me you don't think that's a good thing?

Look, I think people don't need to be babied. In fact I'd go as far as saying closing off licences early promotes binge drinking. If people knew on Saturday night at 10:30 if they decide to stay in they can pop down and get a bottle of wine, they'd be less likely to stock pile and I know myself if I know there's wine here, I'll drink it. You have to get to the off licence before 10, so you'll probably start drinking earlier.

And I mean if you really want a drink you can just throw on your nice clothes and go out and drink til 2:30 anyway so it's not as if it's putting a stop to people drinking after 10

Except that it obviously is putting a stop to a good portion of it based on the CSO figures you're choosing to ignore

thattequilagirl

ED E wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

This isn't about me.

I've presented totally impartial evidence that this law effectively reduced public order offences by almost 50%.

Are you telling me you don't think that's a good thing?

Huh?

From your own post, a package of laws correlates to the change. Not just this one. No causation shown.

Who's to say it wasnt Gardai introducing segways that did it? Nobody.

Okay, say only 20% are to do with this specific law (a conservative estimate given that this was the most dramatic of the laws introduced) That's still 6,000 fewer crimes. Worth it in my book.

Kiwi in IE

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Okay then, what about 29,000 fewer crimes? Is that a good enough reason for you?

See below;

ED E wrote: »

Huh?

From your own post, a package of laws correlates to the change. Not just this one. No causation shown.

Who's to say it wasnt Gardai introducing segways that did it? Nobody.

The Backwards Man

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Isn't that up to each shop to decide, like all non offies do.

It won't pay for us to open from X to Y and trade accordingly.

In theory it would, yeah. Reality is a whole other ballgame though. The only ones that would survive would be the ones able to withstand opening longer for the same return, which would be the big supermarkets and, to the consternantion of the rabble pub rabble brigade, those attached to licensed premises.

The economics of selling drink is actually a very fascinating subject. Something most publicans and drinkers haven't the first clue about either, in my opinion.

thattequilagirl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Okay then, what about 29,000 fewer crimes? Is that a good enough reason for you?

See below;

ED E wrote: »

Huh?

From your own post, a package of laws correlates to the change. Not just this one. No causation shown.

Who's to say it wasnt Gardai introducing segways that did it? Nobody.

Answered above.

I must be really naive about Boards, I genuinely thought showing hard evidence that the aims of this measure was achieved with a dramatic reduction in crime would change a few minds.

hynesie08

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Except that it obviously is putting a stop to a good portion of it based on the CSO figures you're choosing to ignore

It looks like the statistics are at their highest from 2005-2008, so while you could make the argument that knocking an hour off off license hours was the cause, I'd say it's more likely to do with the arse falling out of the economy and people not drinking out as much. so by that logic keeping off licenses open longer = even less people out drinking = even lower figures.

buried

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Check this information from the CSO out. In 2008, the year this law was introduced, there were more than 61,000 public order offences. In 2014, there were 32,000. The number has almost halved since these laws were introduced (the off license timing was one of a bunch of laws introduced at the same time to tackle public order offences)

http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c18.asp&TableName=Public+order+and+other+social+code+offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

So I'd say your minor inconvenience has been well worth it.

There could be a whole host of reasons those public order offences were reduced by half. How many tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people emigrated from the years 2008 to 2014? How many people stopped going out to the pubs and nightclubs due to the expense during those years of a deep recession? You have to take those factors into account too

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Except that it obviously is putting a stop to a good portion of it based on the CSO figures you're choosing to ignore

Look the next Saturday night I'll be having a houseparty, I'll go to the off licence that day. I stock pile crates from tesco, I'll buy wine and vodka, and mixers.
I'll have enough there to see me through the evening, through the night and some left over if we bring people back after the nightclub.
We used to have houseparties every weekend. No arrests. No charge sheets. No summonses. No ambulance. No medical attention needed. It's never curbed our fun, unless it was an impromptu house party, and even at that, if you know someone who's working in a bar, they'll prob sort you out with take out cans.

I mean I can't really see how it would really affect crime rates, unless you're talking about chungfellits in the park drinking their Buckfast, and if anything they'd be buying that before 10pm anyway cause anything later would be passed their bed times

thattequilagirl

There's none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Kiwi in IE

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Answered above.

I must be really naive about Boards, I genuinely thought showing hard evidence that the aims of this measure was achieved with a dramatic reduction in crime would change a few minds.

Hard evidence? Any link with actual research that shows the statistics which you posted are directly related to the alcohol sales laws being changed by one hour? Somehow I think not!

Posting statistics is not evidence of anything other than the fact there were less offences. Statistics don't tell us why. As someone else said its more likely to be caused by a change in habit related to economic circumstance.

ED E

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Okay, say only 20% are to do with this specific law (a conservative estimate given that this was the most dramatic of the laws introduced) That's still 6,000 fewer crimes. Worth it in my book.

The people of Ireland don't live in a vaccum. You cant pull figures out of your proverbial like that.

Even if it was the most effective law of that package, we can't just attribute changes to that package. Enforcement, commercial entities, dozens of other laws, social attitudes etc etc.


Go have a read about the scientific method and how to make actual deductions.

Paramite Pie

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I've presented totally impartial evidence that this law effectively reduced public order offences by almost 50%.

You clearly mentioned it was part of a bunch of laws, therefore the contributory factor of this law alone cannot be gauged as soley reducing public order offences by 50%.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Check this information from the CSO out. In 2008, the year this law was introduced, there were more than 61,000 public order offences. In 2014, there were 32,000. The number has almost halved since these laws were introduced (the off license timing was one of a bunch of laws introduced at the same time to tackle public order offences)

http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c18.asp&TableName=Public+order+and+other+social+code+offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

So I'd say your minor inconvenience has been well worth it.

If one could buy alcohol after 10pm for many years prior to 2008, then why are 2004's public order offenses lower than 2008? You'd imagine they'd be consistent pre-2008.

Something caused a spike from 47778 offenses to 61280 a mere 4 years later. Was there an increase in the sales hours permitted for alcohol in that time period? I don't recall any such changes...

There's a lot more than just licensing laws going on here.

c montgomery

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Look, I think people don't need to be babied. In fact I'd go as far as saying closing off licences early promotes binge drinking. If people knew on Saturday night at 10:30 if they decide to stay in they can pop down and get a bottle of wine, they'd be less likely to stock pile and I know myself if I know there's wine here, I'll drink it. You have to get to the off licence before 10, so you'll probably start drinking earlier.

And I mean if you really want a drink you can just throw on your nice clothes and go out and drink til 2:30 anyway so it's not as if it's putting a stop to people drinking after 10

Your incapable of having alcohol in the house and not drinking it?
Sounds like you have a bit of a problem, adults should have self control.
Off licences closing at 10 are a blessing for you

thattequilagirl

So, in 2008 there were 61,000 public order offences. These laws were introduced specifically to tackle public order offences. Then public order offences dropped by almost 50%.

But there's no connection?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

c montgomery wrote: »

Your incapable of having alcohol in the house and not drinking it?
Sounds like you have a bit of a problem, adults should have self control.
Off licences closing at 10 are a blessing for you

Holy Sh it, you're right!!
Don't worry though, I plan ahead, top alcoholic that I am.

c montgomery

thattequilagirl wrote: »

So, in 2008 there were 61,000 public order offences. These laws were introduced specifically to tackle public order offences. Then public order offences dropped by almost 50%.

But there's no connection?

People choose not to see the connection as it doesn't fit their narrative.

Kiwi in IE

c montgomery wrote: »

Your incapable of having alcohol in the house and not drinking it?
Sounds like you have a bit of a problem, adults should have self control.
Off licences closing at 10 are a blessing for you

Perhaps there should be a law governing high horses. Sitting on one that high is surely a greater risk to ones health and safety than alcohol.

thattequilagirl

c montgomery wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

So, in 2008 there were 61,000 public order offences. These laws were introduced specifically to tackle public order offences. Then public order offences dropped by almost 50%.

But there's no connection?

People choose not to see the connection as it doesn't fit their narrative.

That's becoming abundantly clear.

c montgomery

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Perhaps there should be a law governing high horses. Sitting on one that high is surely a greater risk to ones health and safety than alcohol.

Once there's a law that restricts the times allowed to daylight hours, high horses can be dangerous in the dark.

Kiwi in IE

c montgomery wrote: »

Once there's a law that restricts the times allowed to daylight hours, high horses can be dangerous in the dark.

That actually made me laugh out loud

Paramite Pie

thattequilagirl wrote: »

So, in 2008 there were 61,000 public order offences. These laws were introduced specifically to tackle public order offences. Then public order offences dropped by almost 50%.

But there's no connection?

Because your reasoning doesn't take into account the increase from 2004 - 2008. If there had been 60,000 public order consistently offenses each year then we'd have a clear pattern relating to sale hours.

The rise of disposable income and the collapse of same matches the statistics in a more consistent manner. And, as you said -- there were other laws brought in too.

syklops

thattequilagirl wrote: »

There's none so blind as those who refuse to see.

That works both ways.

Giblet

I don't care about 10pm, but fecking 12:30pm on a Sunday is absolute stupidity!
I go shopping in the morning, and sometimes I might think "Hrmm, some wine might be nice" or "Oh the match is on at 1pm, a tin or two would be nice"

Nope!

Really, f*cking, stupid.

thattequilagirl

LexieOnRale wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Except that it obviously is putting a stop to a good portion of it based on the CSO figures you're choosing to ignore

Look the next Saturday night I'll be having a houseparty, I'll go to the off licence that day. I stock pile crates from tesco, I'll buy wine and vodka, and mixers.
I'll have enough there to see me through the evening, through the night and some left over if we bring people back after the nightclub.
We used to have houseparties every weekend. No arrests. No charge sheets. No summonses. No ambulance. No medical attention needed. It's never curbed our fun, unless it was an impromptu house party, and even at that, if you know someone who's working in a bar, they'll prob sort you out with take out cans.

I mean I can't really see how it would really affect crime rates, unless you're talking about chungfellits in the park drinking their Buckfast, and if anything they'd be buying that before 10pm anyway cause anything later would be passed their bed times

So because it has never happened to you personally, it can't be true. Talk to ANY A&E nurse about what the most difficult part of the night shift is... There's only one answer they always give.

thattequilagirl

Giblet wrote: »

I don't care about 10pm, but fecking 12:30pm on a Sunday is absolute stupidity!
I go shopping in the morning, and sometimes I might think "Hrmm, some wine might be nice" or "Oh the match is on at 1pm, a tin or two would be nice"

Nope!

Really, f*cking, stupid.

I'd imagine that's a relic of Catholic Ireland and could definitely be done away with.

syklops

Check this information from the CSO out. In 2008, the year this law was introduced, there were more than 61,000 public order offences. In 2014, there were 32,000. The number has almost halved since these laws were introduced (the off license timing was one of a bunch of laws introduced at the same time to tackle public order offences)

http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQui...lProduct=DB_CJ

So I'd say your minor inconvenience has been well worth it.

In 2009 alone, over 61,000 people emigrated. In 2012 it was 87,000 and in 2013 it was 89,000

Could that maybe have something to do with other numbers dropping?

Lux23

It should be changed to 12 on Friday and Saturday and then leave it at ten during the week.