Proposed new Garda drink legislation: too draconian?

Scruff

From todays Irish Independent:

THE Government last night declared war on drunkenness and late-night street violence.

A wide ranging series of measures to tackle the growing abuse of alcohol and clamp down on rogue publicans was approved by the Cabinet.

And later the two ministers given the job of tackling alcohol related problems - now costing about €2.4bn-a-year - outlined their radical plans.

New legislation is being introduced to help curb spiralling alcohol consumption, which has increased by 49pc in the past decade. Tougher measures will allow gardai to use hand-held videos in their fight to curb excessive drinking in pubs and clubs.

The aim is to have the legislation introducing the new measures enacted within weeks - before the Dail summer recess.

Justice Minister Michael McDowell said he had held talks with Garda Commissioner Pat Byrne about the use of video evidence in court to substantiate claims that customers were drunk when leaving licensed premises.

The legislation proposed yesterday will be preceded by the Public Order Bill which has now passed through all stages in the Dail and Seanad and will shortly be signed by President Mary McAleese.

The new laws will provide significant new powers to the gardai to tackle drunkenness, increase the penalties on rogue publicans and curb alcohol promotions and advertisements aimed at the young.

Mr McDowell said he was strongly in favour of the gardai using hand-held videos outside licensed premises. "At the moment a 15-year-old girl can be carried out legless from a pub and claim afterwards she was sober but not feeling well.

"The videos could be used as corroborative evidence and the courts deserve the best evidence available when determining a case," the minister added.

Publicans found to have served alcohol to drunk customers face closure of their premises for a week as the Government extends the powers currently restricted to breaches of under-age drinking legislation.

Gardai will also be able to operate covertly in plainclothes inside pubs to establish if alcohol is being served to under age or drunk customers.

The minister said the existing law was difficult to enforce as gardai had to be in uniform when they visited the pub and it was almost impossible to determine on the spot if a young person had been drinking alcopops or minerals.

Other new measures include:

* Closing time on Thursday nights is to be brought back to 11.30 pm from 12.30am, partly because of high rates of absenteeism in schools and workplaces.

* A drunk who refuses to leave a licensed premises at the request of the owner or the gardai faces fines of up to €500.

* Anybody who tries to prevent a garda carrying out a spot check on a licensed premises faces fines of up to €2,000.

* Children under 15 years will be banned from bars after 8pm.

* Pub customers under 21 years must carry evidence of age documents - ID card, passport or driving licence.

* Drinkers who use forged or false documents will be guilty of a criminal offence.

Bans are also being slapped on promotions advocating "drink all you can for a fixed price" and the provision of entertainment during drinking-up time.

Local authorities will have the right after full consultation to adopt resolutions on special exemption areas and their views must be taken into account by the district judge but will not be binding.

Cases of alleged discrimination in licensed premises are also being transferred from the Equality Tribunal to the district court.

But Fine Gael justice spokesman John Deasy claimed the proposals were a series of half measures that would not go far enough.

However, the recommendations have been welcomed by the Vintners' Federation of Ireland, particularly the ID card system which, it says, will help curb underage drinking,

Tom Brady Security Editor

I don't have a problem with most of the proposals but the one that seems a bit ott to me is :

Justice Minister Michael McDowell said he had held talks with Garda Commissioner Pat Byrne about the use of video evidence in court to substantiate claims that customers were drunk when leaving licensed premises.

Publicans found to have served alcohol to drunk customers face closure of their premises for a week as the Government extends the powers currently restricted to breaches of under-age drinking legislation.

This seems a bit too heavy handed to me, should it not be if customers are drunk AND disorderly. The way is being proposed at the moment, all pubs will end up being closed!

Peace

It's a good plan in theory. There is way too much drink related street crime especially at the weekends and its time the problem was addressed. So we'll just have to wait and see if garda visibility outside the pubs and on he street late at night will make an impact. Perhaps less people will get their face smashed in by a drunken mob on friday and saturday nights.

As for the 23's age limit i think its a bit silly. How are you meant to distinguish between a person who is 24 and one who is 22? One is required to carry ID and the other isn't under the new regulations. I'm in favour of forcing everyone who wants to buy alcohol to have to carry valid id...be it drivers license or some type of national id card. In america this is the norm and it works really well. I'm not saying that they don't have under age drinking in america just that its a hell of a lot harder to get the drink then it is here. And for anyone who is stupid enough to leave their id at home, then the deserve to have to go back and get it.

Anyway, at least its a step in the right direction.

Later
P

The Saint

I think its great. I cant stand walking around the streets of Dublin on a saturday night watching people being absolutely ****faced, fighting, puking, mugging, ect. It also doesnt give a good impression to tourists visiting the city. I think publicans should be held accountable for serving underage drinkers, serving people who it is clear has had enough to drink already, ect. and the only way they will enforce the rules is if the threat of them losing a weeks income is very real. I heard that they are also proposing charging drunk people in Accident and Emergency rooms for their treatment. I think this also is a good idea. Why should the public pay for people who cant handle their drink or dont know their limit. I hope all of these measures are brought in and even more. The streets of Irish cities on a saturday night are a disgrace and an embarassment to the country.

bonkey

Originally posted by Scruff
F
This seems a bit too heavy handed to me, should it not be if customers are drunk AND disorderly.

I dunno....I think that its more a case of the article being very poorly worded.

For example, "drunk driving" is a term often applied to anyone over the legal limit who is driving. Are we to say that "drunk" here means the same thing - that your local publican wont serve you a second pint? Not likely.

Besides...I would imagine that the point of the law is to prevent people becoming disorderly...so waiting until they become so is kinda self-defeating. At that point, they have broken the existant laws anyway, so there's no need for legal reform.

My guess is that this is a "tackle the problem, not the symptom" attempt. People who are normally very well behaved when sober often become prone to aggravation when drunk. While we can talk about stiffer penalties, etc. the simple fact is that the problem is not that someone is aggravating these people...its they are getting drunk to a point where they are no longer in control of their emotions to an acceptable degree.

Ergo, the problem is getting drunk...not getting aggravated while drunk. Add to this the fact that alcohol promotes aggression, and its easy to see where the govt. are coming from.

Sure....you might lament not being able to get completely blotto on a night of your choosing, but the simple fact is that there is a series of national problems, all of which are related to too many people drinking too much. From violence to Friday-absenteeism, there is - ultimately - one major root cause, and that is drink.

I dont think the laws are too draconian as that article presents them, but I reserve full judgement until I see a proper detailed breakdown of the laws, rather than a somewhat vague set of descriptions. It would be like having a newspaper article about new laws where you will be arrested for driving "too fast", or after "too much to drink"....doesnt really say much.

jc

The Saint

....and as a side note, I would put the price of alco-pops up by €2-3 and ban the advertising of them. I blame these drinks for the pathetic state some women get into and behave more like men.

SCULLY

Seems fair enough to me. I like that the onus is also put on the publican to ensure that the drinkers are the legal age. The term 'Drunk' is , as was earlier stated, very subjective and need's clarification.

bonkey

Originally posted by The Saint
....and as a side note, I would put the price of alco-pops up by €2-3 and ban the advertising of them. I blame these drinks for the pathetic state some women get into and behave more like men.

They did that over here in Switzerland....basically any alcoholic drink with a sugar-content above some level has a nice whopping big "per-bottle" surcharge added to it.

Has had a noticeable effect on sales, afaik. Seems to have worked to a reasonable degree.

jc

MrNuked

Should stop publicans from stuffing so many people into a pub/club that everybody's squashed up against eachother. That's a major source of aggravation. And playing music so loud that you have drunk people shouting/spitting in your ear. That's aggravating too.

Gorgeous George

The legislation is a whitewash designed to give the government the appearance of doing something.

Where are all the Gardai with video cameras going to come from? At present there are about 400 Gardai on duty in the whole country at any one time. That should cover Temple Bar anyway. Mind you most of them are probably blind and deaf. I refer you to the by now famous Irish Indo photograph of the heroin addicts shooting up in front of the GS. Pathetic or what.

As for advertising. Does anyone seriously suppose that kids find out about drink from ads on telly. Cigarette ads were banned years ago. Result, more young people smoke than ever before.

What this legislation does is remove responsibility from the individual for his actions and place it in the lap of the publican. No drunk is ever going to be fined for refusing to leave a pub and no spotty 16 year old will ever be charged for producing his/her big brother or sister's ID at a pub door. Similarly the parents who couldn't be arsed what their children get up to at night won't be held accountable.

seamus

Ummm...yeah :rolleyes:

A couple of good things in there, but mostly a crock of ****.

Good things:

.......curb alcohol promotions and advertisements aimed at the young.

Gardai will also be able to operate covertly in plainclothes inside pubs to establish if alcohol is being served to under age or drunk customers.

I don't know if advertisement works, but frankly, the less advertising of anything the better, IMO.
The only problem with plainclothes is that they could waste a few hours or even a whole night in a few pubs who never serve underage or overly locked people, when they could be out on the streets protecting people.

The rest of the proposals are unneccessary or unworkable.

Pub customers under 21 years must carry evidence of age documents - ID card, passport or driving licence.

As someone said before, how do you distinguish between a 22 and a 20 year old. For I.D'ing to work, it has to be mandatory. I.D. everybody, or I.D. nobody.
This kind of thing puts publicans under pressure. A publican may get a reputation for being a hardass about I.D. and will lose the young adult crowd, or similarly may get a rep. as being easy about I.D. and will lose the older crowd cos his bar is packed with young drinkers (not underagers).
And it also puts them on a tightrope as regards the drunken serving. A guy could be hammered, but if his mates swear blind that he's "only had one pint" or "only just arrived in", the publican has to make a choice between protecting his pub from Government fines, and protecting himself from being sued for embarrassment and other made-up lawsuits.

At the end of the day, it's all tokens. Nothing will change. Just like you can throw money at the health service and fare no better, you can legislate all you like, and still not improve the crime rate.

Two words;
Enforcement and Numbers. The Gardai haven't the numbers to enforce new legislation, unless it's simply a tougher stance on an alreayd existant law. Without the numbers, lesser crimes are allowed slip through the net to prevent bigger crimes being missed. Just like the Indo report about junkies in Temple Bar not being arrested - it's a waste of their time. They're spread thin enough as it is, to tie them up carting junkies back and forth to Dame St just allows more violent offenders more room to move.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by seamus

The rest of the proposals are unneccessary or unworkable.
As someone said before, how do you distinguish between a 22 and a 20 year old. For I.D'ing to work, it has to be mandatory. I.D. everybody, or I.D. nobody.
This kind of thing puts publicans under pressure. A publican may get a reputation for being a hardass about I.D. and will lose the young adult crowd, or similarly may get a rep. as being easy about I.D. and will lose the older crowd cos his bar is packed with young drinkers (not underagers).

Its been welcomed by the Vinters association. I think it's a reasonable if only partial solution. The publican currently gets into trouble is they serve under 18s drink, yet no one is obliged to carry age cards and it is down to the publican to decide if someone is over 18. The requirement to carry age cards at 21 or under will remove some of this pressure since there are fewer 17 year olds who look over 21 than there are 17 year olds who look over 18.

I think it would have been better to raise the age to raise it to 24 since that would remove even more uncertainty.

I don't agree that everyone should carry the card if the purpose is to prevent underage drinking, just that the gap needs to be sufficient to allow judgement on the part of publicans. For example, requiring cards up to the age of 35 would be rediculous since no one over 35 looks 17.

rubadub

it may sound draconian but they just wont bother enforcing the law as usual. look at underage smokers "strict" laws were brought in and immediately ignored

are there any legal definitions of "entertainment" and "drunk" surely theyll have to have breathalyzers, i wonder how many units is "drunk". i know a woman who drinks 3 bottles of beer to get as drunk as another friend who would have to down 9 pints. if drunkeness is "up to the garda" then no landlord will risk serving anybody remotely tipsy, why should they? especially if the landlord has refused to make an annual donation to the "garda benelovent fund". also if somebody got thrown out of a pub, they could go home get hammered come back and hang around outside hoping to get the pub closed down! or act totally pissed some other night when the gardai come in to inspect. what about people smuggling in drink too. seems to me the publican will have lots of excuses to give the gardai.

MrNuked had a very good point about crammed pubs. pints spill- fight ensues.

everybody should be asked for ID like many pubs in the US, even pensioners, 2 male friends of mine are 27 and get asked for 18's ID regularly. the day after 9/11 i went on a plane and everybody was searched, including grannies, babies and a young man with downs syndrome. one woman came up and objected but was fine about it when she was told EVERYBODY was being searched. sort of like a "drinking licence". it will cause hassle in a packed bar where you are shouting over people flashing ID, but as said before it shouldnt be that packed. i think bars should also have a certain amount of barstaff in relation to their capacity for drinkers as this also causes aggressive behaviour (waiting 20mins to get served)

AFAIK it already is an offence to be drunk in a pub but as usual they dont bother enforcing laws here. it will be interesting to see how many risks the publicans will take, obviously the more risks they take the more money they make, up to a point. but we will see even more corruption in the gardai in realtion to pubs though...

growler

I spent the weekend out on the sunny west coast of Clare where all weekend the social scene of many involved drinking, more drinking, a few more pints and then a puke / burger depending on your constitution. At 2am all the discos kicked their customers out who proceeded to urinate, vomit, fight up and down the main street for about an hour (got a bit cold then). I was amazed to see kids , some under 4 , in the pubs after midnight. Never mind the law if we are prepared to raise our children in pubs its not much of a surprise that we have a few generations of boooze abusers.
I would favour the abolition of opening hours, allow people to be in charge of their own drinking habits, get rid of this daft closing time / binge drinking that we excel at. Of course some people would be unable to handle unrestricted opening times and lose their jobs , livers etc. to alcoholism as a result but if you want to drink all day yuo can do that already in your own home so what difference would a change made to those pre-disposed to alcoholism? We need to educate not legislate.

Finally the Joe Duffy show had a phone in yesterday on this topic, one of my favourite suggestions was "why do young people need to go to the pub and a disco , why not open the disco earlier and they can go straight there" lol , another rang in to say that other offences such as Drunk and disorderly should be punished with points on your driving license. The country is mad i tell you.

seamus

Originally posted by growler
another rang in to say that other offences such as Drunk and disorderly should be punished with points on your driving license. The country is mad i tell you.

Beleive it or not, this is a very effective deterrent in parts of America. Kids caught drinking underage can have their driving licence/car confiscated for a certain amount of time.

Of course, the difference here is that almost everyone over 16 in America has a driving licence, and many of them also have cars. Here in Ireland, very few people under 23 have their own car, and few people under 21 have a full driver's licence - so there's only deterrent for a minority of drinkers.

bobbyjoe

I think the guards could try enforcing the laws we have already before bringing in more rules.

Its a load of bollox anyway just keep the FF voters quiet for a while.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by rubadub
everybody should be asked for ID like many pubs in the US, even pensioners, 2 male friends of mine are 27 and get asked for 18's ID regularly. the day after 9/11 i went on a plane and everybody was searched, including grannies, babies and a

For some bizarre reason there appear to be a few people here suggesting that everyone should have to carry a card to prove they are not under age.

Wheras I can understand the possibility of pensioners being terrorists, what is the chance that they are underage drinkers?

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
For some bizarre reason there appear to be a few people here suggesting that everyone should have to carry a card to prove they are not under age.

Wheras I can understand the possibility of pensioners being terrorists, what is the chance that they are underage drinkers?

Which is missing the point entirely.

The only objection which anyone seems to raise about ID cards for the under-<pick your age> is that its discriminatory.

You hear "I am over 18, why do I need an ID, and the guy 1 year older than me doesnt".

You hear "What about people who look older/younger than they are"

You hear every single bloody damned possible excuse about why having any reasonable cutoff is discriminatory and wrong.

So you beat them at their own game. You make it a requirement for everyone. Strangely enough, people who wouldnt have required a card under the new system generally have absolutely no problem having to carry one if its required.

No discrimination == no grounds for anyone making excuses, and the people who you'd be inconvenienced by removing the discrimination generally dont care about it.

You know...its like the aprocyphal story about when they were shooting the shower scene in Starship Troopers. Some of the young Hollywood wannabes were complaining that this was embarrassing and unfair - that they felt awkward being naked in front of everyone else.
So the fat, old German director and his camera crew allegedly stripped off, told them to shut up and get on with it.

Asking a 60-year-old for ID has nothing to do with his age. Its to do with shutting up the 18 year old who thinks that discrimination is a reasonable ground for complaint in this case. The 18-year-old is refusing to accept that his age may be in doubt where the 60-year old's isnt.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
Which is missing the point entirely.

The only objection which anyone seems to raise about ID cards for the under-<pick your age> is that its discriminatory.

You hear "I am over 18, why do I need an ID, and the guy 1 year older than me doesnt".

You hear "What about people who look older/younger than they are"

You hear every single bloody damned possible excuse about why having any reasonable cutoff is discriminatory and wrong.

Any government that brought in mandatory ID cards for everyone including grannies for the purpose of preventing under age drinking would be ridiculed.

The main issue raised has been the practical issue of how it might be enforced.

"As for the 23's age limit i think its a bit silly. How are you meant to distinguish between a person who is 24 and one who is 22? One is required to carry ID and the other isn't under the new regulations. I'm in favour of forcing everyone who wants to buy alcohol to have to carry valid id...be it drivers license or some type of national id card."

and

"As someone said before, how do you distinguish between a 22 and a 20 year old. For I.D'ing to work, it has to be mandatory. I.D. everybody, or I.D. nobody."

How it is going to work is the issue here. The point is that when the Guards call around, they will be interested in the IDs of anyone under 18 not whatever the cut-off age for the cards themselves is. Therefore it is only necessary to set the cut off to a certain age.

I would argue that 21 is too young for this purpose and it should be raised to 24 or so. Go beyond that or make it mandatory for all and it would be laughable.

The issue of it being discriminatory and therefore wrong has not really been raised until now.

sceptre

Originally posted by MrNuked
Should stop publicans from stuffing so many people into a pub/club that everybody's squashed up against eachother. That's a major source of aggravation.

That's something I'd like to see happen. Those little signs posted on the way in about the maximum amount of people allowed in? Enforce that. If we have to prosecute club owners for being in breach of fire and safety regulations I'm still happy. It's a big source of aggravation both inside and outside the premises. There's no control over the granting of new licences on the presumption that the maximum amount of people filing out of Club Smelly at 2am is 500 when they've managed to cram 1100 people into the place.

growler

originally posted by skepticOne

How it is going to work is the issue here. The point is that when the Guards call around, they will be interested in the IDs of anyone under 18 not whatever the cut-off age for the cards themselves is. Therefore it is only necessary to set the cut off to a certain age.

no the point is that how old a person "looks" is a subjective opinion , and so a cop / publican / granny may all have a different view on what age a person was, thus creating a situation where a young 24 year old could be refused a refreshing pint of carling because of their appearance ie discriminated against , in their view. Only solution would be for everyone to carry them, and yes of course once everyone actually had one then the government could add other data to the cards for alternative purposes. I guess the cards would probably go the route of the old USIT cards that everyone in Cork had form the age of 15, unless they were really hi-tech and therefore expensive.

rubadub

Originally posted by SkepticOne
For some bizarre reason there appear to be a few people here suggesting that everyone should have to carry a card to prove they are not under age.

Wheras I can understand the possibility of pensioners being terrorists, what is the chance that they are underage drinkers?

my point (like bonkey's) is that if EVERYBODY has to show id then NOBODY feels discriminated against. i agree it is ridiculous to ask pensioners but my friends father was asked in the US and hes well in his 60's. thats why i compare it to a driving licence, if you drive you must have it on you, if you drink you must carry ID. in some parts of the states it is the barman who gets fined personally, thats why they make damn sure to ask for ID. if i was a barman i wouldnt ask people i was absolutely sure about, but anybody under 40 i probably would, most people would be flattered!

rubadub

Originally posted by SkepticOne


I would argue that 21 is too young for this purpose and it should be raised to 24 or so. Go beyond that or make it mandatory for all and it would be laughable.

as i said before 2 male friends of mine are 27 and get asked for 18's ID regularly, with women it is even harder to tell age. one friend of mine always refused to bring ID out since he had a bullheaded attitude "i'm over 18 and dont need ID" he was "beardy" and looked 25 when he was 17. we all got asked for id and only he was refused from pubs even though he was the eldest! cutting off his nose to spite his face.
there should be no limit, if people think they are likely to be asked for id then they get the id, if not they dont. simple as that, then they only have themselves to blame for being asked for being refused service.

Molloy's off licence were fined for not serving an 18 year old with a passport. the discrimination is that they say anybody under 21 is likely to be giving the spirits to a groups of kids around the corner. i agree with Molloys view, but it is not right, it is blatant discrimination on age. the law and common sense differ greatly and you must obey the law not common sense.

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Any government that brought in mandatory ID cards for everyone including grannies for the purpose of preventing under age drinking would be ridiculed.

Could you point me at all the ridicule which has been levelled at the various US states which have effectively these policies in place then, or are you just making assumptions?

Who is going to ridicule them?

The same people that I already asserted wouldnt have a problem showing ID? I dont think so. Again - witness where this is already in effect. Adults just live with it. You know...by and large they're used to having a wallet full of plastic.

Or would the ridicule be from the same group of "just-of-age" who are whinging and moaning about being discriminated against because an age-limit was proposed?

My money is on the latter.....

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by rubadub
as i said before 2 male friends of mine are 27 and get asked for 18's ID regularly, with women it is even harder to tell age. one friend of mine always refused to bring ID out since he had a bullheaded attitude "i'm over 18 and dont need ID" he was "beardy" and looked 25 when he was 17. we all got asked for id and only he was refused from pubs even though he was the eldest! cutting off his nose to spite his face.

What you have given is the example of someone who is 17 and looks 25. Yes, there will be some getting through the net but the idea is to cut down on underage drinking. I still maintain that the proposed law will do so since these will be in the minority.

A agree with those who say it is discriminatory. Indeed it is.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by rubadub
Molloy's off licence were fined for not serving an 18 year old with a passport. the discrimination is that they say anybody under 21 is likely to be giving the spirits to a groups of kids around the corner. i agree with Molloys view, but it is not right, it is blatant discrimination on age. the law and common sense differ greatly and you must obey the law not common sense.

Someone with ID getting refused is a different issue to what is being discussed. No one is suggesting that those with ID should get refused.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
Or would the ridicule be from the same group of "just-of-age" who are whinging and moaning about being discriminated against because an age-limit was proposed?

There will be a certian amount of whinging from this group, I agree.

rubadub

Originally posted by SkepticOne
What you have given is the example of someone who is 17 and looks 25. Yes, there will be some getting through the net but the idea is to cut down on underage drinking. I still maintain that the proposed law will do so since these will be in the minority.

A agree with those who say it is discriminatory. Indeed it is.

my point wasnt that people will "slip through the net" with a set age limit (but it is a good point!). my point is that nobody should be offended if asked for id, and that people cant complain if they are not served if they have no id. i have seen arguments on buses where elderly men forgot their free bus pass and were made pay, if it happens once they'll never let it happen again. ive seen the same in supermarkets with "pensioner days", women obviously in their 80's refused discount since they had no id.

rubadub

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Someone with ID getting refused is a different issue to what is being discussed. No one is suggesting that those with ID should get refused.

i agree, i was going off point. my point was that setting age limits on top of existing age limits is discrimination. imagine if you had to pay more on a plane if you weighed over 20 stone. now imagine if somebody had a scales at the check-in desk and they only asked people that they thought were 16 stone+ to stand on the scale, it would cause offence but if every single person was weighed discretely there would be less complaints.

bringitdown

Originally posted by rubadub
my point wasnt that people will "slip through the net" with a set age limit (but it is a good point!). my point is that nobody should be offended if asked for id, and that people cant complain if they are not served if they have no id. i have seen arguments on buses where elderly men forgot their free bus pass and were made pay, if it happens once they'll never let it happen again. ive seen the same in supermarkets with "pensioner days", women obviously in their 80's refused discount since they had no id.

Aye, I remember being in 'Bubbas Off License' in a certain town in a certain country and a lady pushing a zimmer frame was asked for ID. Was she offended? No, Did she have ID? No. Did she get ales? No. Was I asked for ID? Yes. Was I offended? No. Did I get ales? Yes.... WOOO HOOO!

Seriously this happened. So your point is a valid one, we need to loose the stigma associated with being asked for ID. A possible problem to note tho' is that in the country in question a national ID is available/required. Here... well you know the score some places won't take driving licenses etc. etc.

Bard

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Someone with ID getting refused is a different issue to what is being discussed. No one is suggesting that those with ID should get refused.

Unless, of course, the publican has sufficient reason to believe that the ID presented is a forgery.

growler

Originally posted by SkepticOne
imagine if you had to pay more on a plane if you weighed over 20 stone.

errr i think you actually do have to pay for two seats on some airlines these days if you are likely to "flow" onto the seat(s) beside you , they don't weigh you though !