Big Gordon to ban 24 hour drink seeling in offies!

[Blackened Sky]

We've just got these new laws saying that alcohol can be served for 24 hours a day, and now as quickly as we got them, they're being outlawed. Due to the amount of binge drinking, and availability of alcohol to kids apparantly.....I'm sure there's not many under 18's trying to get a beer at 4 in the morning.

It's not fair, the amount times I stumble out of a club at the weekend and want a few more cans to take home and relax with is insurmountable.

And I was just getting used to it.

The Gord giveth and the Gord taketh away.

What's everybody else's point of view on this.

[Rook]

Foolishness. They won't do it, since someone is bound to remember that when 24hr drinking was first implemented, they knew the country wouldn't/couldn't instantaneously switch to being sensible drinkers.

I mean, the initial idea was that people wouldn't rush down several pints before closing, then be drunk on the streets. Removing 24hr pubs now would only make things worse, so I doubt they'll really do it.

[Turkey Sandwich]

If this is indeed the case, then I am highly annoyed.

Gordon Brown has spent half his time so far changing everything Tony Blair's government did right back to how it was before. Which isn't really fair, since he hasn't even been directly elected to the post of Prime Minister by the public, whereas Blair was. Brown seems strangely conservative, and I don't like the way it's going.

Blair: Let's bring in some new casinos, it'll be good for the economy.
Brown: Actually I think we'll cancel that, even though it's already been decided.
Blair: Let's bring in 24 hour drinking to make it safer.
Brown: Now let's restrict it again, for no apparent reason. [Albeit restricted in a different way]

Basically, I don't appreciate what looks to me like arbitrary moralising; it's not like any of this will actually help people - it smacks quite strongly of generic and outdated 'old-fashioned values'.

[Smartie]

To Rook - the OP is talking about 'kids' buying alcohol from off licences, and isn't talking about preventing binge drinking in adults, or removing licenses from pubs.

Turkey Sandwich - Every idea, Law and procedure has to be regularly reviewed in all aspects of life. It's quite fair that people can, with evidence, determine that something hasn't quite gone according to plan or can be improved, and thus needs some modification. This is why we're not all still driving around in the Model T Ford.

It will no doubt be ok to still buy alchohol in supermarkets around the clock, where restrictions are more stringently reinforced.

Anything which may go towards stopping the culture of of teenagers being able to get hold of several cans of beer easily is a positive move. Some kids think it's cool to get wasted on weekends and cause strain on public services and cause nuisances, from as young as like 12. Off Licences are the reason for the majority of underage people getting access to alcohol through lack of age and ID checking. (You can never account for those taking it from their parents.)

Lets take personal views out of this, and critically look at the potentials of such a ruling - fundamentally, rather than just how it affects you because you can't get an extra couple of cans on the way home. Besides, if you're lashed coming out of the club, you ought not to be served anyway, as that's an offense it itself.

[Hydralisk]

Off Licences are the reason for the majority of underage people getting access to alcohol through lack of age and ID checking. (You can never account for those taking it from their parents.)
QFFT.

I've always been against the idea that you can get your booze on the cheap at a corner shop. Supermarkets I can understand, but why does there have to be about four or five off-licenses in a three-block radius that sells booze, and (usually from what I have heard) doesn't even bother to ask for ID.

[El Fisho]

Which isn't really fair, since he hasn't even been directly elected to the post of Prime Minister by the public, whereas Blair was.

I feel bound to correct this. It is not the case that any PM is directly elected by the electorate, you vote for an MP and party. The party itself decides who is leader and therefore PM. Its one of the many drawbacks of fusing the executive and legislative areas of government into one.

Off Licences are the reason for the majority of underage people getting access to alcohol through lack of age and ID checking. (You can never account for those taking it from their parents.)

Spot on. Changing the drinking hours will have little effect on underage drinking, which operates outside the law anyway.

[Midget]

i work in an off license and we ID everybody who looks under 21

surprisingly (lol not) all the underage people trying to be served come in around 7pm-9pm, so this won't make any difference at all

[Turkey Sandwich]

i work in an off license and we ID everybody who looks under 21

surprisingly (lol not) all the underage people trying to be served come in around 7pm-9pm, so this won't make any difference at all

That's what I was thinking. Since when do more underage people go out to off licenses in the dead of night than they do in the evening?

Every idea, Law and procedure has to be regularly reviewed in all aspects of life. It's quite fair that people can, with evidence, determine that something hasn't quite gone according to plan or can be improved, and thus needs some modification. This is why we're not all still driving around in the Model T Ford.

Yes, but there's a difference between changing something after a while and changing it straight away. How can you tell if something's been successful or not if it hasn't even started? Going back to casinos briefly: the plans had been put in place, jobs created, money put into the project etc - but before they could even build them, let alone gather evidence on how it's working, Brown decided to scrap the whole thing. And as for 24-hour drinking, if it ain't broke, don't fix it; we were doing fine as we were, with off licenses open as long as they were, and there's no evidence to my knowledge that it will help anyone to start restricting their opening hours. If anything, it will make things worse again, because people won't be able to carry on drinking as long as they like after coming out of the clubs, at home.

I feel bound to correct this. It is not the case that any PM is directly elected by the electorate, you vote for an MP and party. The party itself decides who is leader and therefore PM. Its one of the many drawbacks of fusing the executive and legislative areas of government into one.

I thought someone might mention that, which is why I said he hadn't been directly elected to the post of Prime Minister, as opposed to being elected as an MP and becoming PM afterwards (which is what actually happened). I know that you're only Prime Minister because you're the chosen member of the party in power, but everyone knew who that was when they elected Blair, and regardless of whether they should be voting for the party not the leader, a hell of a lot of people will have voted Labour largely because of Blair. What I meant was that as far as the public is concerned, Brown was made leader of the country by his party; at least if they didn't want Blair as Prime Minister, they could have not voted Labour in the hopes that they wouldn't get in. So while it's all perfectly legal and above-board, it's not really in the spirit of democracy for Brown to have decided not to hold elections this month, considering the fact that it's perfectly obvious to everyone that his being leader will make a difference to the way people will vote.

[Twatybollocks]

Introducing 24 hour licences was supposed to be the end of civilization as we know it, according to the media.

It hasn't happened but with the current concerns about young people drinking too much the government must be seen to do something. Part reversing the law is the quickest and cheapest method. I don't think it will help much but this is why the government would do it, to look like they are doing something. Ejits!

I can't help but feel a little guilty though. Now I'm all for stopping underage kids getting booze from off licences but I did that when I was a kid. It's a bit like me saying 'Don't watch porn' when I'm downloading Top heavy Tarts 28...or something. Not saying that I do that mind...just an example...

[Smartie]

i work in an off license and we ID everybody who looks under 21

surprisingly (lol not) all the underage people trying to be served come in around 7pm-9pm, so this won't make any difference at all

More reputable ones do ID properly (normally 'chain' offies such as bargain booze etc).
However independents are much less officious in their monitoring, as it's all about the money. And so many kids now are out after 9 anyway (because they're either out of control or have parents who don't see fit to regulate the hours their children are out), and so that point often doesn't factor.

Regular busts show something like 4 out of 10 places sold alcohol without checking ID (I can't find the source at this time), and they're almost always corner-shop type offies.

Just for laughs, ANOTHER idot supermarket (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2598107.html?menu=)ID checking someone clearly old enough...

[Smokey]

Although I haven't read anything on this it seems to not be a ban on pubs/clubs etc. Although only 1% of pubs actually extended their drinking hours after the legislation was passed.

Until I see a news report I won't know details but restricting the hours an offy can sell alcohol won't have a large effect on underage drinking which does need to be tackled. I'd suggest much stricter enforcement of the age restrictions and harsher punishments.

Back on topic, lets say offys and supermarkets couldn't sell alcohol from past 9PM. The only benefit i can see is it would stop people buying booze after getting chucked out of every pub. However, people who are already very drunk shouldn't be sold alcohol anyway.

Interetsingly the offy near me asked me if I was 18, I said yes and without ID was sold 8 cans of lager. However, the same place refused to serve a man who was already drunk. Weird.

[Pilk Man]

In a funny way, I see this as falling in with the "OMG VIDEO GAMES MAKE CHILDREN INTO MURDERERS!!!?!?!" crowd.

Like most things the media whinges about, if the retailer is responsible and well regulated it's not a problem.

[happy-go-lucky]

I heard something about alowing 16 and 17 year olds drink in bars and restaurants to learn "responsible drinking" before they're let loose on the night clubs. Anybody else heard anything about this?

[basstard]

I heard something about alowing 16 and 17 year olds drink in bars and restaurants to learn "responsible drinking" before they're let loose on the night clubs. Anybody else heard anything about this?

16 and 17 year olds are already allowed to legally order alcohol as long as it comes with a meal. However, some pubs will, just on a principle, not serve you with your meal at that age.

[Turkey Sandwich]

16 and 17 year olds are already allowed to legally order alcohol as long as it comes with a meal. However, some pubs will, just on a principle, not serve you with your meal at that age.

I believe you're also allowed to buy a single beer at the age of 17, and have one bought for you at 16, in a pub, all without a meal. I think.

[Tyris]

Like most things the media whinges about, if the retailer is responsible and well regulated it's not a problem.Now if only the media itself was responsible and well regulated there wouldn't be any mass hysteria...
Of course that kind of stamps all over Freedom of the Press, but... eh, pros and cons.