I mean, god knows,
Dick,
Leg-Iron and
Bucko have all seen it coming. The
Devil has warned people. What more do you need?
All of York looks set to be made an alcohol exclusion zone under new plans to tackle drink-fuelled disorder in the city.
And why? Well, simples!
The Safer York Partnership said the implementation of 20 alcohol exclusion zones in various areas of the city had moved the problem to other neighbourhoods, so it now wanted to create one all-inclusive city-wide zone.
I think that’s what they’d call a ‘Gotcha!’…
Jane Mowatt, director of Safer York, said: “As we move towards lighter evenings, usually we notice increases in alcohol related antisocial behaviour. It’s a good time to look at it before we get to the stage again when we get peaks in problems.
“I think it will make things easier. With 20 orders, it’s difficult to have boundaries. What we started to see last summer was that where we have orders in place in the city centre there was a clear movement of individuals just over the boundary. We want to stop nuisance for residents in these areas. My feeling is people are not going to cross the ring road to consume alcohol. It makes it easier for agencies to address problems.”
So we’ll base this on your ‘feeling’ and when they do indeed cross the ring road, what next? All of the county?
She said people drinking responsibly would not be affected by the order….
Oh, perish the thought! Mission creep? What’s that?
...but that it would enable police to deal with those acting in a way that could alarm or distress others.
Which covers a multitude of sins…
12 comments:
Why don't we save the police all the time and effort by repealing the smoking ban.
Then they drinkers will do what they did for years before that; sup in places the landlord is happy to deal with nicotine stains.
We could call them 'pubs' and landlords could make their own minds up what business they want to pitch for.
As it is, the police will have to decide whether to damage the tourist trade by arresting visitors or not.
The real danger with these measures is the sheeple who are probably thinking right now that it's OK it only involves public places.
We of course know about the mission creep of the bansturbators.
It's one of the next logical steps to complete prohibition ,which is what these people and I use the P word loosely see as the final goal posts.
"She said people drinking responsibly would not be affected by the order but that it would enable police to deal with those acting in a way that could alarm or distress others."
How can they tell such whopping great lies?
There's already more than enough laws to deal with drunks (or anyone else) causing trouble.
This has been put in place deliberately and specifically to target the quiet, well-behaved majority.
Someone in York needs to arrange some sort of nationally advertised public drinking event...
A perfectly reasonable response to a growing problem and it only involves public places.
"She said people drinking responsibly would not be affected by the order…."
Well, yes they will. If there is an alcohol exclusion zone, that means "responsible drinkers" won't be able to drink.
Don't these people think before opening their mouths. Oh wait a minute, forget that last bit.
I trust there will be dawn raids to remove the communion wine stocks from the Cathedral?
All those people sipping booze on a Sunday morning! Shocking!
Or could it be... one rule for some?
(WV - jisky. Oh, so close!)
It is depressing, but not surprising, to read the number of comments under the article supporting this piece of idiocy.
"As it is, the police will have to decide whether to damage the tourist trade by arresting visitors or not."
Which will no doubt be driven by those targets that were supposed to have been abolished, but weren't...
"The real danger with these measures is the sheeple who are probably thinking right now that it's OK it only involves public places."
That's how these things get in.
"A perfectly reasonable response to a growing problem and it only involves public places."
See?
"(WV - jisky. Oh, so close!)"
:D
"It is depressing, but not surprising, to read the number of comments under the article supporting this piece of idiocy."
Oh, indeed.. :(
I have just read the comments. It seems to me that the vast majority are against the idea. Those that do agree make the usual mistake of conflating 'drinking alcohol' and 'anti-social behaviour'. Again we see the Tobacco Control template - create a fear, exaggerate it, then punish all for the sins of the few.
At least more and more people are beginning to see what is going on.
The catchpa is 'celpaggi'. For some reason or other, the words 'padded cell' sprang to mind..
What's to stop people drinking in a pub then going outside totally rat arsed and making themselves socially irresponsible? So it won't do anything at all to the behaviour of people in public places.
"I have just read the comments. It seems to me that the vast majority are against the idea. "
Good! Here's hoping the pro-commenters that Clarissa spotted were just the usual vanguard, and getting this a wider audience has resulted in a bit more balance.
"What's to stop people drinking in a pub then going outside totally rat arsed and making themselves socially irresponsible? "
Nothing at all, as any late-night-shift police officer will tell you...
"Responsible drinkers will not be affected"
Who is to define "responsible"?
I suspect "responsible" will also mean less than 5 units a week and no more than 2 a night. How to track? Oh yes, these scumbags will want some kind of bullshit is system to record purchases.
Do not think this is not in their plan.
These people need to deal with the actual perps, not hobble the lives of reasonable people.
Create havoc? Ok, next 48hours in solitary. No mobile. No tv. No iPod/pad. Bread and cheese. Literally. How many will want more of THAT?
Post a Comment