If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
But yea the government are trying to an extent to try and stop people sitting there drinking all day long and getting too drunk..what a way to do it..fine the bar staff..
I work in a club, were I do see people being taking out by our bouncers. But these are people that are soo drunk, they can't even sit on a chair properly. If everyone is refused drink by the time they get tipsy/drunk, the pub/club will be empty as they will be at home with a carry out. So it's not really going to make much difference by hoping it will stop people from binge drinking.
You'd rather the fascists Howard is command of?
eTA: I'm slightly drunk, don't flame me omg.
There are two extremes to this. Either the staff will be put on so much pressure deciding whether or not someone is drunk, they will refuse sales much more often, and will eventually pubs and clubs will empty, or staff will be too lenient, they will be fined for crimes they didn't even realise they'd committed, and more and more staff will leave the industry.
As far as i'm concerned, it's about morals. It's not about whether someone is over a legally defined concentration of alcohol in their system. It's about how happy the salesperson feels about selling alcohol to this customer at this point in time. It's all relative.
In my store, the management team and I have a policy on alcohol sales that basically gives the operators and us supervisors the ultimate decision as to whether or not the sale is made, stopping them from interfering in the name of sales. Most people who have valid ID, we don't really care what they do. However, when we get young people who smell of drink, normally they're on their own, and are trying to top up their drunkeness, we refuse the sale, even if they have valid ID. Personally, I believe it's not about deciding whether a person is drunk, it's about deciding whether you feel happy about the idea of knowing you've given this person alcohol and whether or not you feel comfortable with that.
There is a concern that binge drinking is "ruining" some areas at the weekend (by providing the bulk of the cash or something) and some people want to see action on this issue. (5 or 6 busybodies worried that the odd smashed sign or fight is the end of western civilisation)
Labour wants to maintain the lovely tax income and has many many debts to pay off. The obvious solution is to bring in some sort of fine that hopefully won't actually scare off the revenue or change anything too much but will bring in extra pennies.
On the other hand this might bring the price of drink back up and they get more tax revenue that way. It's win win for the government even if it fails because they are being seen to do something just before the election. The only losers are (as usual) eveyone else concerne - the staff, the pubs, the drinkers and the police.
I was serious about someone using that argument in court. In effect they are saying that there is a "duty of care" on pub landlords and staff to regulate people drinking. Ridiculous I know, but someone will do it and probably win. "Where theres blame theres a claim".
I also have an idea how the legal system works and it will almost certainly be used as mitigating circumstances by some chancer. "I would never have dun it if I wasn't so drunk and they shouldn't have served me your honour." It's a pretty easy case to make too if the barstaff have already been fined.
As it will result in yet more work for the legal profession it'll probably happen.
I always remember that these are the people who argue 500k payouts for wankers who fall through a factory roof while larking about and win.
yeh but if you hadnt started drinking in the first place
no more than 1 and half pints of weak bitter, or 1 pint of continenal lager on a nigh tout then, which really does sod all
"If you weren't on the roof in the first place" just reduces the liability and the amount that gets paid out. You can go to work in a factory and if you put your fingers in a socket and blow your own arm off you will still get compensation if there is a fault with the plug.
It's utterly ludicrous I know but that's they way they work.
I said I didn't understand how anyone could vote for the shower of shit masquerading as Labour.
Though to answer your question, I don't think Howard would be any worse. At least he victimises communities that ARE a problem.