Listing 37 reasons why it should close, Sussex Police claims JJ Whispers failed to prevent crime and disorder as it served alcohol to crowds of up to 700 people.Yes, it’s the police war on nightclubs, pubs (and any other places where people have been known to misbehave) again. And when you look at the incidents mentioned in the report, they do seem to be expecting rather more from the club staff than seems reasonable:
Among the incidents reported include staff failing to call police after a woman was bitten by her ex and threatened with a brick.OK, so just what incentive is there for them to do so, if it’d count against them at a license review like this one? And if she wanted it reported, why couldn’t she just do so herself?
On another occasion, officers claim a reveller at the club had to be stretchered out after vomiting because she had drunk so much.Yes, there’s an onus on the staff not to serve someone who is intoxicated, but if someone else is buying rounds/has a low tolerance for alcohol/has ‘preloaded’ before arrival, how are they to know before they keel over?
On another occasion a man who had been drinking in the club was nearly knocked over by a vehicle as he left.And…that’s the club’s fault how..? Are people to have no personal responsibility whatsoever?
Officers also criticised the club for advertising drinks promotions and on one occasion allegedly showing punters swinging from 28% proof bottles of alcohol on a Facebook video.Well, how very dare a club advertise drinks promotions! And obviously selling 28% proof alcohol is illegal.
So…what are the police going to do when they've closed down every pub and nightclub and yet they still find that crime and disorder happens?
In the vanguard of the 'not fit for purpose' brigade, Sussex Police are not best known for thinking things through, Julia.
Yet I leap to its defence. In the field of staggering hypocrisy for seeking absolute perfection in others, the reputation of this 'service' is peerless.
XX showing punters swinging from 28% proof bottles of alcohol XX
% or Proof?
Two different things.
and whichever 28!!??
This is the problem. During the last Temperance Era, they brought in this law that pubs are supposed to stop people getting drunk. This time around, they're actually expecting it to be followed. The problem being that the whole reason people drink is to get drunk. At least, that was why I did it. If I don't want to get drunk, I don't take alcohol.
The Junior Common Room third-rank wallflowers now running our society really seem to have taken to heart that people drink beer "for the taste". They're the kind of people who actually go for a pint and actually do have "a" pint. We're in the hands of one of the most terrifying movements in western society, the "I don't need to get drunk to enjoy myself" mob.
God help us.
It is everybody's job to prevent crime and disorder. We mustn't let the Police forget that.
We can arrest too, where any indictable offence has been committed (and for shoplifting and making off on belief alone), we can use force to prevent any crime in a private or public place, and we can use force to eject people from private property.
We have police to protect those who cannot protect themselves: Those who can are still entitled to do so, and ought to.
The police "being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen".
"Are people to have no personal responsibility whatsoever? "
Dear <Inserty diety/non-religious expression of choice here> Julia! Surely you couldn't be so heartless and cruel as to expect people to take responsibility for their actions?
Sadly, I'm one of the "I don't need to get drunk to enjoy myself" brigade myself these days. I have absolutely no issue with any given person drinking however much they choose. I may object to carrying them to the hospital to have their stomach pumped - but it's been known to happen.
The reason for this is simple: Back in Dec 2001 I realised that if I didn't stop drinking I was going to soon be eligible for the 'best-pickled cadaver of the year award' etc. etc.. I managed four years without an alcoholic drink. The first month was... unpleasant. Things didn't really improve much for the first year.
Funnily enough, once I regained enough sense of self to realise that most of the people I associated with were at best 'drinking buddies' I a) began to have fun again. b) realised that I didn't need drink to have fun. c) I did some reaaaaaly stupid things while drunk. Funny, but stupid.
These days, I can drink socially and enjoy myself - so long as I set a limit before I begin. X pints of beer. Y bottles of wine. Z gallons of single malt. Z isn't very common.
Sorry if that sounded sermonish - but there are quite a few people who avoid getting drunk [to enjoy themselves] without being complete prats who attempt to force their moral choices on other people.
"It is everybody's job to prevent crime and disorder"
Very True. You could almost say it's a duty.
"We can arrest too" <snip>
Yes, being very careful of the exact definition of 'indictable offence'. Being very careful that theres a good chance you'll be expected to justify your reasoning in court. Theres also that nasty bugbear of 'reasonable and proportionate' - which is sometimes evaluated with the perfect vision of hindsight.
"The police" <snip> "... citizen"
who shall do everything they can to protect their employment by coming down as hard as possible on anyone who even thinks about encroaching on their job.
To quote pTerry:
'Ah, well, you shouldn't take the law into your own hands––'
'It's our job––'
'But you're not doing it!'
"We're in the hands of one of the most terrifying movements in western society, the "I don't need to get drunk to enjoy myself" mob."
"We have police to protect those who cannot protect themselves: Those who can are still entitled to do so, and ought to."
But no-one told the justice system:
"'It's our job––'
'But you're not doing it!'"
Post a Comment