www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... leave.html Good thing or not?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... leave.html Good thing or not?

IMO there are too many questions the article doesn't answer:
What happens when the 'drunk' has actually been spiked, or has a mental issue? Does the private company have access to people's medical records as the NHS do, in case they are allergic to something, need to take something etc? How do you force someone to pay £400? What if they don't have that much money? Should we trust private companies to detain people? What happens when someone realises they're going to be fined £400 and gets aggressive? Will these private companies make a big profit off this and be able to attract the best doctors and nurses to work for them instead of working for the NHS?

And if people refuse to pay do they have to stay there indefinitely?

It begs the question how they will deal with the alcoholics that are living rough in many town centres. They could be locked up every night, which they might welcome, but would never be able to pay the £400.

Also, will they subsidise places that don't have big problems with drunks? Or will they just have the current fines? Will these places run 24/7?

And if people refuse to pay do they have to stay there indefinitely?

From the article linked to above...

One way would be for pubs and bars to stop selling alcohol in their establishments when that person is clearaly drunk. Or do they not know that it it illegal to serve alcohol to someone who is drunk ?

It's also illegal to buy (or attempt to buy) alcohol if you are intoxicated, how many prosecutions have you seen for that offense?

Half of the problem is that "intoxicated" is all relative to the individual anyway, anyone ever heard of the phrase "functioning alcoholic", people who lead perfectly normal lives, holding down responsible work positions, while all the time hiding the fact that they are loaded up on alcohol 24/7 to levels that would see the rest of us under the table ?

It would take about a week for someone to die. How will these private contractors be protected against claims arising from those circumstances (not that they should be)?

What about claims for false imprisonment of people with medical conditions, such as epilepsy, where the idiots acting for the private firms assume they're drunk and lock them up?

Looks to me a stupid idea that will give the legal profession another boost and cause much harm.

All true ... but ... a bit of thinking on the part of the local constabulary could place a couple of young coppers in a hot-spot pub/bar and spot a few punters who are very obviously "intoxicated" but who nonetheless get served ... and then serve a summons on the proprietors.
More than x amount of summons in a year and the license is revoked.

Granted, a few functioning alcoholics who still behave well will drop through the net and not get arrested but that's a separate issue, we're targeting behaviour here.

Agreed. Bigger punishments are needed for the establishments and more blame should be attached to councils who allow so many bars/clubs etc in often small areas.
Restrict the amount of people allowed in the pubs/bars/clubs at any one time so that they're not so packed full. Then bar staff might actually have a chance to assess whether someone has had too many or not, rather than simply working like mad to simply keep the queue at the bar to a half hour wait.

Just speaking from personal experience but there is far less trouble at my local pub, where the landlord knows a decent proportion of his customers, can tell when someone's had enough and knows who might be a problem and who is ok, than the clubs in the town centre where it's just a matter of serving them as quickly as possible.

Many seem to be missing key points:

1. From clubs' perspective, many are run on the model of attracting and admitting as many as possible and serving as many shots and cheap drinks as quickly as possible to as many of them as possible as often as possible.

2. It's all very well talking about well-controlled pubs etc. but this risibly ignores the point that the masses who end up paralytic in the street every weekend early hours DO NOT WANT that type of environment, the clubs are providing them with what they want, which is a route to a long session into the early hours including getting totally off your face.

There is a good point about it being illegal to serve a drunk. If a customer comes out of X club off his or her face, then apart from anything else, it would be hard to defend a charge. But for some reason, I can't remember ever reading about a club being so charged. The police occasionally whinge about the state of people on the streets in the early hours, but whilst they are unlikely to modify the behaviour of the thousands whose lifestyle this is, why don't the clubs who have got people off their face ever get their collars felt?

I would imagine that one night of surveillance inside and outside one of those establishments would be enough to produce evidence of dozens if not hundreds of offences and this would be an effective solution as being summonsed for serving 100 drunks on one weekend would not endear you to the council alcohol licensing committee.

So my conclusion is that the police do not WANT to actually stop the paralytics being plied with drink until they are in that state.