Don't they just.


No, it hasn't.


Most?
If that's the case, shouldn't we should be testing those scraped off the floor for cocaine?


What does this mean?
That you are immune to the effects of alcohol or that you know when enough is enough?

I don't see the point of drunk tanks, it's not tackling the problem at the right point.
Serving people whose behaviour/demeanour/speech/swaying/whatever suggests they've already had enough or too much is, to me, where the problem should be nipped.

When did I last see someone drunk and incapable in a town centre?
I wasn't in a city centre last weekend, so two weeks ago.

I like a pint as much as anyone, I drink to enjoy what I'm drinking and relax.
Getting drunk is only a consequence in the increasingly rare event that I misjudge it at a celebration or suchlike... it is absolutely never the idea I go out with as a target.

Good point, think how you would feel having misjudged yourself and ended up a little drunk and then thrown in a drunk tank and fined £400. Its a load of cobblers, the police would initially be in control of putting people in and because they were dragging officers from their duty and costing the tax payer too much it would all be sent to G4S and we would have a privatised police force patrolling city/town centres nicking people to meet their quotas. Then Joe public would find other ways to entertain themselves and stay away from the centres etc etc etc and so on.

Its not unusual for Chief Constables to make political statements seemingly "on behalf" of the police, its also not unusual for Chief Constables to take up political positions when they leave their posts and therefore its not unusual for incumbent governments to agree with them.

It shouldn't therefore be a surprise that in this particular case its a Chief Constable who is suggesting that another agency should take care of drunken behavior or that profit could be made from this venture, he's lining himself up for a nice little advisory role in the next government or a directorship in "Drunks-R-Us Corp" on the assumption that its a blue government.

Correct, are we heading towards a totalitarian state?

Not yet.
But lobbing people into a drunk tank just on the dubious judgement of some quota-driven employee of a privatised company whose only incentive is profit rather than a sense of civic responsibility would be possibly one step on the road you suggest.

To be constitutionally compliant, arrest would have to be done by the police so, basically, what is being suggested is that the police contract-out the transport and containment.

Quite how that is an improvement over the current situation, I don't see.

Would they have to be arrested though ?

To be detained yes, but there are already initiatives (as seen occasionally on TV) where specialist NHS-provided units are set up in temporary units in town centres so that the dangerously intoxicated (dangerous to their well being/life) are cared for and taken off the streets until sober.

Currently I'm assuming that those NHS units are funded by the NHS Trust concerned and they see a benefit in keeping their Casualty Depts free of drunkards and their ambulance staff are able to spend less time ferrying drunks around.

But if you could only find a way to simply ferry those drunks to a medical facility like that "in the interest of their own own safety and well being", and then charge them for it without the need for arrest then that would be a nice little earner for a private health provider wouldn't it ?

Probably led by a former chief constable of course.

Well, if they agree to accompany a non-policeman to the tank, then no they wouldn't.
But, if they took exception at being invited into a vehicle by some jobsworth-heavy and were bundled-in anyway, I'd call that kidnapping.
Constitutional slippery-slope, that.

Nah,

If there is money in it somewhere then there will be a qualification invented for "duty of care providers for drunk people" or similar, a fancy badge and a hi-viz vest and bobs your uncle.

If I'd told you twenty years ago that a pub could have a badged heavy on the door who would be allowed to prevent, by force if necessary, your entry to the premises then you'd have laughed.

Pubs had such people on the doors alot more than 20 years ago - albeit without a badge. So, I'm not sure of your point.

Well you must have lived in a dodgy area, pubs oop north didn't (clubs did, not pubs).

Along with not drinking in pubs with flat roofs, they have to pass the "doorman or not" test for me, a pub that needs a knucklehead on the door to arbitrate on its clients is not for me thank you.