"Make pubs and clubs pay for policing" (From Bournemouth Echo)

hmm... a councillor without a clue... there's a refreshing change.
The police don't set the fines, the courts do! Also, why should the pubs /clubs pay to police the chavy little teenagers buying their cider from corner shops then going into town to cause havoc in the lower Gardens / the beach.
Something needs to be done about binge drinking, but the councillors can't bleat on about the cost of binge drinking in one breath, and marvel about the income brought about by the night-time economy, in the other.

If drunk & disorderley was applied to the strict letter of the law, then every major town in Britain would be rid of this disease in no time.
The councillor does not seem to wish to see an end to this type of behaviour, just that society as a whole shouldn't pick up the bill!
The clubs in the centre of town thrive on getting these lemmings drunk week in week out.
Take away their livelyhood by making drunks pay hefty fines.
The first idiot that talks about civil liberty's should be fined as well!

Hike the prices in the supermarkets,what a great idea,so that meens the many people who enjoy a few drinks responsibly,have to pay for the morons that dont,heres an idea,anyone arrested for causing trouble due to drinking to much are got up at 6am in the morning,and made to clean up ther mess left in the streets,then given a heavy fine,stop punishing the majority of responsible drinkers and hit the morons hard,typical council idea,they have no idea.

Odd how this decisive yet common sense approach comes to the fore when the council is seen at its lowest. The gravy train left ages ago, councillors were screamed at in the Echoes forums to do something about the 'Night Time' economy and only now has a councillor come out fighting....Too Late sir if only you acted sooner.

Just another Councillor who appears to be taken over from where the **** Stuffed Laptop Councillor has departed.

How about a radical approach and we direct this at the minority that litter, and cause issues within the town. Rather than a blanket approach that encompasses many law abiding citizens.

No, make the drunks pay. Through heavier fines rather than price of alcohol. Then the innocent among us who like to enjoy a drink without overdoing it won't end up subsidising their unacceptable behaviour.

You know who pays to police the drunks at the moment ?

They do.
They are tax payers, who contribute vast amounts of revenue in the extra tax they pay on alcohol. They're probably all (at other times) motorists.
Stop with this petulant notion that people should only pay for the services they use - we ALL pay for a right to ALL the services. Whether we're a retired major having an accident off a cliff or a tax paying teenager who needs reigning into line of a Saturday night. We all have the freedom and the right to the services that we use and to start cherry picking the payers into these services is the thin end of the wedge to excluding others. You don't like what other people do with the services you've helped pay for ?
Tough. I bet they don't like things about you either, but we all live in the same place so deal with it.

Mike Pickering wrote:
You know who pays to police the drunks at the moment ?

They do.
They are tax payers, who contribute vast amounts of revenue in the extra tax they pay on alcohol. They're probably all (at other times) motorists.
Stop with this petulant notion that people should only pay for the services they use - we ALL pay for a right to ALL the services. Whether we're a retired major having an accident off a cliff or a tax paying teenager who needs reigning into line of a Saturday night. We all have the freedom and the right to the services that we use and to start cherry picking the payers into these services is the thin end of the wedge to excluding others. You don't like what other people do with the services you've helped pay for ?
Tough. I bet they don't like things about you either, but we all live in the same place so deal with it.

Well its not that clean cut is it? When you think of the victims of drink related violence, the service personnel who are assaulted in the line of duty and of course the vandalism not to mention human excreta and urine...but its ok they pay their taxes.

A few did you knows....
1. Football clubs MUST pay towards policing and MUST have a police presence. One rate for officers inside the ground (which is why it is now almost all stewards) and a lower rate for police outside the ground.
2. If the 'night-time economy' requires policing costs and it is suggested that the relevant businesses that benefit from it pay the bill... then so does lots of other events. Think about this;
BIC events, eg. Political Party Conferences, Teachers union, Social workers union, Police Federation, etc. all require some degree of extra policing- so they should cover all the cost?
.
ALSO, have you ever wondered about the most police intensive events in the UK? The London Marathon, and the biggest policing event of all, the Notting Hill Carnaval- 8000 police. Yes. Thats right. 8000 police over the 2 day event. On a bank holiday. On double time. 16 hour shifts. Work it out for yourself. £Millions. If you charge the organisors of policing intensive events the full cost of the policing commitment then nothing would ever happen!!
.
I dont know what the answer is. Im just saying- its hard to apportion the true costs between one business and another. Probably best just to leave it as it is!

@Mike Pickering: You are having a laugh, aren't you? I'd wager that most of the money the IDIOTS spend on alcohol is benefits money, which is MY tax money, not theirs!

Might as well get the shopkeepers to pay as well as the Police have to deal with shoplifters.

Mediclogan5 wrote:

Mike Pickering wrote: You know who pays to police the drunks at the moment ? They do. They are tax payers, who contribute vast amounts of revenue in the extra tax they pay on alcohol. They're probably all (at other times) motorists. Stop with this petulant notion that people should only pay for the services they use - we ALL pay for a right to ALL the services. Whether we're a retired major having an accident off a cliff or a tax paying teenager who needs reigning into line of a Saturday night. We all have the freedom and the right to the services that we use and to start cherry picking the payers into these services is the thin end of the wedge to excluding others. You don't like what other people do with the services you've helped pay for ? Tough. I bet they don't like things about you either, but we all live in the same place so deal with it.

Well its not that clean cut is it? When you think of the victims of drink related violence, the service personnel who are assaulted in the line of duty and of course the vandalism not to mention human excreta and urine...but its ok they pay their taxes.

thats why people behave as they do, the mentality of i pay taxes so i can so what i want! i would like to know if mike has ever worked on a door, or behind a bar and been threatened with violence for refusing to serve someone? but its ok they pay taxes! had to clear sick up because someone got drunk at home and threw up in the doorway of your house in town, but its ok they pay taxes. been threatened with violence because some drunk person walks into you, but its ok they pay taxes. and what happens to the ones who dont pay taxes, should we tag them? do they not hve the right to use the services? students who dont pay taxes maybe we should ban them from the town? or if they have a fight and get injured just leave them on the side of the road they have not paid taxes for the right to have an ambulance let alone have a nurse or doctor look after them! No taxes are there to pay for services if you put an extra strain on that service you should be fined heavily. if i had a car accident and had an ambualnce and then hospital staff to look after me, and then had to go to court and it was deemed my fault, i would be fined! so if you go out get soo drunk you cant stand up or decide to beat someone just for the hell of it... it should be a massive fine £600 sounds good to me, you would soon learn to behave or you would not be able to afford to go out, then maybe the sensible majority could enjoy their night more! but hey i talk as a tax payer so maybe i am wrong!!!

As we already ban motorists who get caught drink driving why not ban any body caught drunk in a public place, especially if in the process of causing trouble or damage, from drinking at all for a set period, just like a driving ban, rather than punishing the sensible drinker.
Why should everyone suffer because of a few mindless morons.
If clubs and pubs had to pay for policiing the cost would be passed on to the public.
its a bit rich of the council to moan about the cost of cleaning up when they are part of the problem, the council issue the licences for these places they complain about the mess, they could easily withdraw the licences for trouble spots.
The council must make a fortune out of these clubs in revenue, they cant have it both ways.

tricky1007 wrote:

Mediclogan5 wrote:

Mike Pickering wrote: You know who pays to police the drunks at the moment ? They do. They are tax payers, who contribute vast amounts of revenue in the extra tax they pay on alcohol. They're probably all (at other times) motorists. Stop with this petulant notion that people should only pay for the services they use - we ALL pay for a right to ALL the services. Whether we're a retired major having an accident off a cliff or a tax paying teenager who needs reigning into line of a Saturday night. We all have the freedom and the right to the services that we use and to start cherry picking the payers into these services is the thin end of the wedge to excluding others. You don't like what other people do with the services you've helped pay for ? Tough. I bet they don't like things about you either, but we all live in the same place so deal with it.

Well its not that clean cut is it? When you think of the victims of drink related violence, the service personnel who are assaulted in the line of duty and of course the vandalism not to mention human excreta and urine...but its ok they pay their taxes.

thats why people behave as they do, the mentality of i pay taxes so i can so what i want! i would like to know if mike has ever worked on a door, or behind a bar and been threatened with violence for refusing to serve someone? but its ok they pay taxes! had to clear sick up because someone got drunk at home and threw up in the doorway of your house in town, but its ok they pay taxes. been threatened with violence because some drunk person walks into you, but its ok they pay taxes. and what happens to the ones who dont pay taxes, should we tag them? do they not hve the right to use the services? students who dont pay taxes maybe we should ban them from the town? or if they have a fight and get injured just leave them on the side of the road they have not paid taxes for the right to have an ambulance let alone have a nurse or doctor look after them! No taxes are there to pay for services if you put an extra strain on that service you should be fined heavily. if i had a car accident and had an ambualnce and then hospital staff to look after me, and then had to go to court and it was deemed my fault, i would be fined! so if you go out get soo drunk you cant stand up or decide to beat someone just for the hell of it... it should be a massive fine £600 sounds good to me, you would soon learn to behave or you would not be able to afford to go out, then maybe the sensible majority could enjoy their night more! but hey i talk as a tax payer so maybe i am wrong!!!

I currently run a very successfull nightclub in Bournemouth and I would like to mention a few things on this subject about Clubs paying for Policing.
We pay thousands and thousands of pounds every year on business rates to our beloved council and the reason why we pay this is for the services that we recieve from Government.
Unfortunatly there are to many pubs and clubs who employ bar staff and they dont seem to abide by the rules. It is the bar staffs job to refuse to serve anyone who is drunk or severely intoxicated. If they had the support of management and doorstaff behind them like my nightclub does then you dont have any problems because you have dealt with something arising before it actually does happen. Prevention is always the best cure.
The problem that we are finding is that people who are asked to leave are then going on to other establishments and getting served and getting severely wasted and causing trouble that needs policing. I will also state that the worst place for serving drunks is the Walkabout. This is one place that should have lost there licence on so many occasions because of the way it is run by the management team. It is a disgrace and desperatly needs to be sorted out.
Please dont tar every licenced premises with the same brush folks.

The Seasider wrote:
A few did you knows.... 1. Football clubs MUST pay towards policing and MUST have a police presence. One rate for officers inside the ground (which is why it is now almost all stewards) and a lower rate for police outside the ground. 2. If the 'night-time economy' requires policing costs and it is suggested that the relevant businesses that benefit from it pay the bill... then so does lots of other events. Think about this; BIC events, eg. Political Party Conferences, Teachers union, Social workers union, Police Federation, etc. all require some degree of extra policing- so they should cover all the cost? . ALSO, have you ever wondered about the most police intensive events in the UK? The London Marathon, and the biggest policing event of all, the Notting Hill Carnaval- 8000 police. Yes. Thats right. 8000 police over the 2 day event. On a bank holiday. On double time. 16 hour shifts. Work it out for yourself. £Millions. If you charge the organisors of policing intensive events the full cost of the policing commitment then nothing would ever happen!! . I dont know what the answer is. Im just saying- its hard to apportion the true costs between one business and another. Probably best just to leave it as it is!

A good point. I often wonder why football clubs like AFCB are forced to pay for policing inside and outside the ground, and yet clubs & bars at night and political party conferences etc which need extra policing, dont have to. This law should either do one or the other.

Yes, @Tricky I have worked on a door, behind a bar, and been threatened by a drunk whom I refused to serve.
The trouble one encounters when trying to decide what is a fair use of services, such as being Policed whilst drunk, or being protected by Police from drunks etc is that it is entirely a subjective analysis. Your analogy of being fined if found to be on the wrong side of law following a motoring accident is false: You would not be fined in order that you recompense the emergency or medical services - you would be fined in accordance with legislation relating to motoring safety, and your failing to follow the laws of safe operation of a motor vehicle.
I do believe however, as I am sure do you, that people are still responsible for their actions whilst drunk; and indeed they are policed this way - it makes no odds to a judge if one is being tried for a violent crime (see today's story about the man in Bere Regis) that was committed whilst drunk. And so we are clear about who pays for what - it has been calculated that unless one earns nearly £100,000 per year, the amount of tax you pay does not cover the services you can expect to receive, due to the enormous amount of tax paid by the small number of wealthy people.
Not to politicise the issue, but in all honesty, us prols should be grateful that we've got the Police and ambulance people there when we need them and not sit around pointing our fingers at the obvious idiots and tutting about 'our money' that's being wasted, because frankly, it's not.

McVICAR wrote:
As we already ban motorists who get caught drink driving why not ban any body caught drunk in a public place, especially if in the process of causing trouble or damage, from drinking at all for a set period, just like a driving ban, rather than punishing the sensible drinker. Why should everyone suffer because of a few mindless morons. If clubs and pubs had to pay for policiing the cost would be passed on to the public. its a bit rich of the council to moan about the cost of cleaning up when they are part of the problem, the council issue the licences for these places they complain about the mess, they could easily withdraw the licences for trouble spots. The council must make a fortune out of these clubs in revenue, they cant have it both ways.

Well said that person !!

If Magistrates ordered all drunks who came before them to attend a work detail to clean the town centers of vomit and urine before the shops open those who don't attend should be given a prison sentence for every day fail to appear.
All inebriated persons attending A&E & cause trouble to staff should have to pay for treatment motorists who have an accident have to pay so why not drunks they have money for alcohol so can afford the consequence's.