Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
license hours
Options
-
31-03-2009 2:42am#1If mods feel this is inappropriate here feel free to delete.
This got a few people in the politics forum excited thought some of ye might like to have a possibly constructive way to extend licences(if thats something you'd agree with)
anyways I just presented the following at the labour party conference and it was passed (and endorsed by Pat Rabbite):
Conference notes the efforts of the legislature to reduce the abuse of alcohol by reducing access to alcohol by further limiting opening hours of pubs, night clubs and off-licences.
Conference also notes that in today’s society many people are working later hours and through out the week and weekend including Sundays.
Conference further notes that capping the opening hours of pubs, night clubs and off-licences is an unjustifiable and unnecessary hindrance for those working late hours any day of the week.
Conference believes that forcing these establishments to close at the same time creates an environment where the transport and food services as well as the Guardai are stretched resulting in an increase in violence, vandalism and public order offences.
Conference believes that alcohol is to be enjoyed responsibly and that the current legislation restricts the rights of people to consume alcohol and that the current system does not help protect society from the effects of alcohol abuse.
Conference also believes that allowing pubs, clubs and nightclubs to extend their opening hours will alleviate the sudden rush created on the streets caused by the current system and will allow for those who work late or early hours on nay day of the week to enjoy alcohol.
Conference calls for:
• The licensing system to allow pubs, night clubs and off-licenses to extend their licenses as late or as early as the owners of the licences like subject to the courts satisfaction with the licence holders compliance and respect for other relevant laws.
• Licensing laws to no longer force pubs, nightclubs and off-licences to close earlier on weekdays or Sundays.
• Alcohol regulation to switch from restricting the rights of people and businesses to the protection of people from those who are drunk and disorderedly and to increase support for those abusing alcohol.
So vote labour or else tell your local politicians about this to pressure them (hopefully) into taking a stance and we may increase our chances of being allowed to buy drink, or be served drink when we want it.3
Comments
-
I wholeheartedly agree with what's being called for, but
Does Conference have any evidence for its belief here?Conference believes that forcing these establishments to close at the same time creates an environment where the transport and food services as well as the Guardai are stretched resulting in an increase in violence, vandalism and public order offences.0 -
I don't believe it. Someone who can actually see that this sort of nonsense has been tried for generations and is doing no good at all.
More of this sort of thing!
I might actually start voting Labour if they keep making sense like this.0 -
I wholeheartedly agree with what's being called for, but
Does Conference have any evidence for its belief here?
If you mean academic evidence or research, no.
But its an issue that is easy to witness and ones own logic will generally lead you to the conclusion that if everyone decides to buy a kebab at the same time there could be trouble and more so if every one is drunk.
But Id imagine when or if it comes to actual legislation research would have to be done.0 -
It was also an easy issue to witness before the law changed.But its an issue that is easy to witness
Two ifs, a could, and no evidence. I think you need to be very wary of statements like this when putting across your otherwise totally sound argument. Arguing on a libertarian principle, and on one of theoretical social benefits is much better than claiming the current situation has made things worse unless you can prove things are actually worse.and ones own logic will generally lead you to the conclusion that if everyone decides to buy a kebab at the same time there could be trouble and more so if every one is drunk.
But it shouldn't have to be. All that will compare is how things were to how things are. You're making the case for a new departure, a totally different approach to licensing law based on personal responsibility. I don't think comparing the incidence of public order offenses committed prior and subsequent to the enactment of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 is going to help that cause: it'll just show that either the crappy old way or the crappy new way is better.But Id imagine when or if it comes to actual legislation research would have to be done.0 -
I agree with BeerNut here. The legislation before the 2008 act was actually very similar in fact and practically identical in concept to the current legislation. They are both based on the premise that legally enforced closing times restrict the availability of alcohol, thus reducing consumption, thus reducing public order offences.
Questioning the validity of this assumption is the way forward. It's been done for generations, in one form or another, when can we expect to see some results?0 -
Advertisement
-
It was also an easy issue to witness before the law changed.
Two ifs, a could, and no evidence. I think you need to be very wary of statements like this when putting across your otherwise totally sound argument. Arguing on a libertarian principle, and on one of theoretical social benefits is much better than claiming the current situation has made things worse unless you can prove things are actually worse.
But it shouldn't have to be. All that will compare is how things were to how things are. You're making the case for a new departure, a totally different approach to licensing law based on personal responsibility. I don't think comparing the incidence of public order offenses committed prior and subsequent to the enactment of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 is going to help that cause: it'll just show that either the crappy old way or the crappy new way is better.
Im sad to say for most people the point would be lost as soon as the term libertarian arises, its often better to explain to people in real terms the problem in a more relatable manner. Im not saying discard the sociological argument as I feel its implied in the following line "Alcohol regulation to switch from restricting the rights of people and businesses to the protection of people from those who are drunk and disorderedly and to increase support for those abusing alcohol.". You also have to account for peoples personal preferences to alcohol, socialising, law and order, conservatism etc, there are a lot of personal factors that would make people say no straight up no this motion so that is why I choose to make my argument this way as it gives benefits that them selves and others would experience rather than asks them to engage in a ideological debate.
On the point on how things shouldn’t have to be, yes I would prefer if every one had the same logic and approach to this issue as us. But Im aiming here to load the motion so its more likely to get accepted, that can be taken as a compromise if you like. A lot of people do think alcohol should be regulated in some form and we have to respect their opinion even if it lacks sense we’re going to have to get them on board, Ive attempted to do this by claiming that the current regulation is not effective maybe detrimental.
I believe that people dont always form there opinions on cited evidence, and more so when it comes to persuading people of things like this. People can see this motion understand the issues it brings up, relate to them and decide which scenario they'd prefer.
(sorry if the above is a bit all over the place)
What aspect don’t you agree with about the motion?0 -
guildofevil wrote: »I agree with BeerNut here. The legislation before the 2008 act was actually very similar in fact and practically identical in concept to the current legislation. They are both based on the premise that legally enforced closing times restrict the availability of alcohol, thus reducing consumption, thus reducing public order offences.
Questioning the validity of this assumption is the way forward. It's been done for generations, in one form or another, when can we expect to see some results?
Considering the conservatism, apathy and clientelism in Irish society we're going to have to manage in baby steps.0 -
But your terms aren't real. They're made up, and that's counter productive. By all means relate to people, put it in a way they'll understand, but mislead them and you play straight into the hands of your many powerful opponents.its often better to explain to people in real terms the problem in a more relatable manner.
Absolutely. It's the right approach. The ideological principles are only worthwhile because they have the power to make real life better. But you can't go saying real life has got worse if you can't back it up.that is why I choose to make my argument this way as it gives benefits that them selves and others would experience rather than asks them to engage in a ideological debate.
I know exactly where you're coming from. But putting in the woolly hypotheses just makes it easier to argue against. By all means deal with tangible benefits and real life scenarios. Just make sure they are actually real life scenarios rather a picture of real life you've drawn yourself.I believe that people dont always form there opinions on cited evidence, and more so when it comes to persuading people of things like this. People can see this motion understand the issues it brings up, relate to them and decide which scenario they'd prefer.
The belief clause I quoted in my first response. If I were arguing against this motion, this is where'd I'd jam the knife of discreditation in and start wiggling it.What aspect don’t you agree with about the motion?0 -
At the moment you don't have any evidence to prove that things are worse since the 2008 act. Is that because the evidence does not exist or is it because no one has checked?
Has anyone looked for stats for public order offences and alcohol related hospital admissions, and compared them to previous years?
If you make a claim that the current act is counter-productive, your opponents will challenge you to prove what you say. It would be a shame if you end up without evidence just because no one looked for it.0 -
But your terms aren't real. They're made up, and that's counter productive. By all means relate to people, put it in a way they'll understand, but mislead them and you play straight into the hands of your many powerful opponents.
Absolutely. It's the right approach. The ideological principles are only worthwhile because they have the power to make real life better. But you can't go saying real life has got worse if you can't back it up.
I know exactly where you're coming from. But putting in the woolly hypotheses just makes it easier to argue against. By all means deal with tangible benefits and real life scenarios. Just make sure they are actually real life scenarios rather a picture of real life you've drawn yourself.
The belief clause I quoted in my first response. If I were arguing against this motion, this is where'd I'd jam the knife of discreditation in and start wiggling it.
ok you do not disagree with the idea,
alto of people like yourself agree with the motion for their own reasons based on their own experiences, this is what matters as it is a matter of changing laws they dont have to be logical to be enacted. we agree its logical from our perspective. But in these circumstances as in voting circumstances the conference, people voting for labour, the dail voting for legislation that is what matters. People who do not believe due their own observations are not going to vote for this any ways, those who do follow our line of logic will vote for it regardless of an academic citation. Yes a few might change their minds if some research was provided but right now this isnt necessary. If someone disagrees with our logic let them say why, if they have research let them show it but it comes down to a matter of how many people want this change not their reasons for wanting it.
Yes research will help, but I am not in a position to do such research and there is little need to do that research now.
Most people have their opinions formed, this is not a thesis this is Irish politics. So for the arena this all takes place my terms are adequate.0 -
Advertisement
-
guildofevil wrote: »At the moment you don't have any evidence to prove that things are worse since the 2008 act. Is that because the evidence does not exist or is it because no one has checked?
Has anyone looked for stats for public order offences and alcohol related hospital admissions, and compared them to previous years?
If you make a claim that the current act is counter-productive, your opponents will challenge you to prove what you say. It would be a shame if you end up without evidence just because no one looked for it.
I haven't checked so I can not tell you if it exists, I dont think it would be particularly worse than it was before In my area pubs and clubs closed at the same time and this caused problems, but the Government has offered the latest bill as a development on licensing laws when all it really does is change the margins in relation to off-licences and unified them in relation to pubs and clubs in my opinion compounding the problem and restricting our rights with out any real benefit. Things were bad then and are bad now, we need data on staggering closing time which I suspect would be available from the UK but I dont have time to go looking for that right now so I digress back to our observation based logic for now.0 -
I dont have time to go looking for that right now so I digress back to our observation based logic for now.
sure why bother bout facts when we can use observation based logic.like alcohol consumpation going up or anything people popularly believe which arent true.
i don't think the new laws have had any effect really but if you're party is planning on getting to government im not sure i'd vote for anyone that doesnt have time to look up facts0 -
I haven't checked so I can not tell you if it exists, I dont think it would be particularly worse than it was before In my area pubs and clubs closed at the same time and this caused problems, but the Government has offered the latest bill as a development on licensing laws when all it really does is change the margins in relation to off-licences and unified them in relation to pubs and clubs in my opinion compounding the problem and restricting our rights with out any real benefit. Things were bad then and are bad now, we need data on staggering closing time which I suspect would be available from the UK but I dont have time to go looking for that right now so I digress back to our observation based logic for now.
So you want to propose new legislation, without taking a couple of mins to check whether your assumptions have any basis in fact..
Here you go.. it took two seconds.. Based on the UK change in law in 2005 to extend opening hours.. Plenty more reports and studies are available.
http://emj.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/8/532
Emergency Medical Journal
"Results: In March 2005 there were 2736 overnight attendances to the ED, of which 79 (2.9%) were classified as alcohol related. In comparison, in March 2006 there were a total of 3135 overnight attendances, of which 250 (8%) were alcohol related, representing a significant increase (p<0.001). There were also significant increases in percentage of alcohol related attendances as a consequence of injury (p<0.001) and assault (p = 0.002); and in admission rates for alcohol related attendances (p<0.001) between the two study periods.
Conclusions: Overnight alcohol related emergency attendances to St Thomas’ hospital increased after the introduction of new alcohol licensing legislation. If reproduced over longer time periods and across the UK as a whole, the additional burden on emergency care could be substantial
"
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/UK-Licensing-Law-Changes-Have-Trebled-Overnight-Alcohol-Related-Visits-to-Emergency-Care-23117-1/
Bio-Medicine
"The legislation was introduced in a bid to curb the amount of binge drinking and associated crime and disorder, and boost public safety."
"The number of visits as a result of assault, associated with excess drinking, doubled, and the number of associated hospital admissions almost trebled between the two time frames.
The authors suggest that the figures indicate that the legislation has had the opposite effect to that intended. "0 -
marceldesailly wrote: »sure why bother bout facts when we can use observation based logic.like alcohol consumpation going up or anything people popularly believe which arent true.
i don't think the new laws have had any effect really but if you're party is planning on getting to government im not sure i'd vote for anyone that doesnt have time to look up facts
Honestly I think you looking at this as bigger than it is at this point, I am a party member who put a motion forward that I believe in, I put it up here to show people that this is an issue for that they have a way of helping this get changed.
Its probably not going to be enacted for a while as Id imagine most TD's are working on economic issues. Im not going to look up facts because I have other things to do, and there isnt a whole lot of use I could do with those facts except quiet ye, if this is an issue you also care about it could be good to look up some facts we're all on the same side here, Im done something developmental that alot of ye feel was positive its fair to provide holes in the argument but sense we want the same thing some of you could provide more constructive criticism.
Ive instigated something and it is out of my hands, and for now Im happy to leave it at that.
This does not mean the party isnt going to look for facts, but it is not my responsibility to do so to provide facts for them, their is an onus on me to provide facts to back up my argument but I really dont have time for that so you can help provide solutions to your hypothetical criticisms our wait till I finish my exams and have the time to look into myself.0 -
So you want to propose new legislation, without taking a couple of mins to check whether your assumptions have any basis in fact..
Here you go.. it took two seconds.. Based on the UK change in law in 2005 to extend opening hours.. Plenty more reports and studies are available.
http://emj.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/8/532
Emergency Medical Journal
"Results: In March 2005 there were 2736 overnight attendances to the ED, of which 79 (2.9%) were classified as alcohol related. In comparison, in March 2006 there were a total of 3135 overnight attendances, of which 250 (8%) were alcohol related, representing a significant increase (p<0.001). There were also significant increases in percentage of alcohol related attendances as a consequence of injury (p<0.001) and assault (p = 0.002); and in admission rates for alcohol related attendances (p<0.001) between the two study periods.
Conclusions: Overnight alcohol related emergency attendances to St Thomas’ hospital increased after the introduction of new alcohol licensing legislation. If reproduced over longer time periods and across the UK as a whole, the additional burden on emergency care could be substantial
"
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/UK-Licensing-Law-Changes-Have-Trebled-Overnight-Alcohol-Related-Visits-to-Emergency-Care-23117-1/
Bio-Medicine
"The legislation was introduced in a bid to curb the amount of binge drinking and associated crime and disorder, and boost public safety."
"The number of visits as a result of assault, associated with excess drinking, doubled, and the number of associated hospital admissions almost trebled between the two time frames.
The authors suggest that the figures indicate that the legislation has had the opposite effect to that intended. "
I refer you to the need for greater protection of society from those who are dunk and disorderly• Alcohol regulation to switch from restricting the rights of people and businesses to the protection of people from those who are drunk and disorderedly and to increase support for those abusing alcohol.
Were not talking necessarily about 24hour pubs or even general extensions its a case by case basis, which can allow licences to be staggered.• The licensing system to allow pubs, night clubs and off-licenses to extend their licenses as late or as early as the owners of the licences like subject to the courts satisfaction with the licence holders compliance and respect for other relevant laws.
the motives of this motion are not all about the safety of the people, people have a right to enjoy services and that should not be infringed on with out good reason, the fact that the Guard and emergency services cannot cope is testament to our services, and the fact that our society has a large number of irresponsible drinkers is testament to the irresponsibility of some of its citizens and this is something that will have to be addressed through education and for alot of people learning the hard way ie getting arrested.will allow for those who work late or early hours on nay day of the week to enjoy alcohol
There are already to many places serving those who are over the limit this needs to be stopped to and the motion accounts for that.as late or as early as the owners of the licences like subject to the courts satisfaction with the licence holders compliance and respect for other relevant laws.
and the major point that last move by the Government hasn't seemed to change anything, except the limits on our rights due to our governments inability to address the practices of our drinking culture and the practices of bars and clubs in judging who has consumed to much alcohol.0 -
"There are already to many places serving those who are over the limit this needs to be stopped to and the motion accounts for that"
Not to be offensive, but your motion doesnt account for anything.....
Your motion makes general statements without any supporting plans or specifics, and its based on assumptions which have been proven to be incorrect.
I lived in the UK before and after the 2005 legislation change..
- The facts prove an increase in violence and alcohol related injuries.
- The vast majority of people drinking later were not people enjoying a pint after working late (in fact i never saw 1 person do that).. they were piss-heads and alcoholics who by that time of the night had far more to drink that was reasonable or healthy.
- Most pubs didnt take up the offer of extended licensing, because of the antisocial nature of the crowd at that time, the cost for extra staff etc.
- Most locals now had to put up with noisy for drunks all through the night (depending on closing time)
- Kebab shops etc.. didnt stay open to match the pub hours, because for late licenses.. it didnt make sense to stay open for the small few drunks who might want a kebab. So if people were hungry, they still went to the kebab at normal closing time, then went back to the pub.. end result you still had the same amount of drunks in food establishments.
I could go on and on, but you don't seem to even want to look at any of the data i did or could provide.. so what's the point?.. If thats how your party runs it's business, then you have lost an almost certain vote in the next general election..0 -
"There are already to many places serving those who are over the limit this needs to be stopped to and the motion accounts for that"
Not to be offensive, but your motion doesnt account for anything.....
Your motion makes general statements without any supporting plans or specifics, and its based on assumptions which have been proven to be incorrect.
I lived in the UK before and after the 2005 legislation change..
- The facts prove an increase in violence and alcohol related injuries.
- The vast majority of people drinking later were not people enjoying a pint after working late (in fact i never saw 1 person do that).. they were piss-heads and alcoholics who by that time of the night had far more to drink that was reasonable or healthy.
- Most pubs didnt take up the offer of extended licensing, because of the antisocial nature of the crowd at that time, the cost for extra staff etc.
- Most locals now had to put up with noisy for drunks all through the night (depending on closing time)
- Kebab shops etc.. didnt stay open to match the pub hours, because for late licenses.. it didnt make sense to stay open for the small few drunks who might want a kebab. So if people were hungry, they still went to the kebab at normal closing time, then went back to the pub.. end result you still had the same amount of drunks in food establishments.
I could go on and on, but you don't seem to even want to look at any of the data i did or could provide.. so what's the point?.. If thats how your party runs it's business, then you have lost an almost certain vote in the next general election..
step back form all this my party talk, they accepted my motion thats it,
they haven't implemented anything.
and all you outlined above are problems that need to be dealt with, limiting opening hours in no way addresses this, people have no right to be a drunken nuisance, but people do have a right to buy and consume alcohol as much as any other service, my point is the governments failure to address the troublesome ones is no excuse for limiting the rights of those who are not troublesome.
Being drunk and disorderly was bad before the last bit of legislation is bad now and will be bad if the motion is implemented, the point being that the legislation does not deal with this but it does curtail our rights.
Trying to limit amount of time people can get drunk and cause trouble is in no way dealing with the problem at hand, this motion addresses the curtailing of rights and the need to focus on the problem of drunks not the times they get drunk.
Tell me does that report make you think that liberalising licenseing laws is a bad thing and why?0 -
Absolutely not.ok you do not disagree with the idea
While that's true, pandering to the emotive and the anecdotal offers weaponry to your enemy who can be just as emotive and anecdotal as you. And there's more of them.alto of people like yourself agree with the motion for their own reasons based on their own experiences, this is what matters as it is a matter of changing laws they dont have to be logical to be enacted.
From my involvement in the fight for sensible licensing laws I've come to see it as a struggle of logic and reason against bullshít and vested interests masquerading as public concern. If we start playing their game, we'll lose. We need to show that they have no clothes, and we can't do that by stripping naked ourselves.
Which renders the argument pointless. All it does is provide an opportunity for someone to discredit the whole piece.People who do not believe due their own observations are not going to vote for this any ways, those who do follow our line of logic will vote for it regardless of an academic citation.
I find that a bit scary, to be honest. You seem to regard facts as things which can be bent and fitted to suit a political cause. However noble the cause may be, it's stuff like that which makes so many people cynical about politics in general.Most people have their opinions formed, this is not a thesis this is Irish politics. So for the arena this all takes place my terms are adequate.
Incidentally, if it's of any use to you, the submission written by several of the contributors to this thread to the Government Alcohol Advisory Board (on whose recommendations the 2008 Act was written) can be downloaded here.0 -
While that's true, pandering to the emotive and the anecdotal offers weaponry to your enemy who can be just as emotive and anecdotal as you. And there's more of them.
From my involvement in the fight for sensible licensing laws I've come to see it as a struggle of logic and reason against bullshít and vested interests masquerading as public concern. If we start playing their game, we'll lose. We need to show that they have no clothes, and we can't do that by stripping naked ourselves.
I have not said we dont need facts Ive stated I dont have facts as I have not seen it as necessary given the circumstances, I was not making a statement to those who bull**** and have vested interests with this motion it was a proposal to change policy and it was carried on its own merits with out the need to quote research.
I wasnt suggesting we work on emotive and anecdotal evidence what I was saying is most people think this is wrong and in there circumstances thats what matters, people have weighed up the pros and cons and come to this conclusion. Whether their assumptions live up to reality we cant determine until we try as we cannot assume what they value.Which renders the argument pointless. All it does is provide an opportunity for someone to discredit the whole piece.
Im not saying we shouldn't have research Im saying we dont need it yet and when we do need it as in in the Dail or when someone disagrees with the idea its only going to be of token value,I find that a bit scary, to be honest. You seem to regard facts as things which can be bent and fitted to suit a political cause. However noble the cause may be, it's stuff like that which makes so many people cynical about politics in general.
Incidentally, if it's of any use to you, the submission written by several of the contributors to this thread to the Government Alcohol Advisory Board (on whose recommendations the 2008 Act was written) can be downloaded here.
No Im saying it comes down to how people value those facts, as in some value the money they can make now more than the damage it will do in the future etc,
Thank you for the link its good to know an effort was made.
Did you get any response?0 -
Yes, but you went one further from your lack of facts and defended your use of an assertion for which you have no evidence. You're saying it doesn't matter; I'm saying it does, because it damages the coherency of your whole argument.I have not said we dont need facts Ive stated I dont have facts as I have not seen it as necessary given the circumstances,
Yet you put a clause in your motion about the 2008 change to licensing laws causing greater public order problems. You seem to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong here) that it doesn't matter that you just made it up; what matters is that people will support the motion because they believe it. It reads as if any old lie will do if it gets the motion passed.most people think this is wrong and in there circumstances thats what matters, people have weighed up the pros and cons and come to this conclusion. Whether their assumptions live up to reality we cant determine until we try as we cannot assume what they value.
In which case you should not have put in unresearched assertions in the motion.Im not saying we shouldn't have research Im saying we dont need it yet
We did :rolleyes:Did you get any response?0 -
Advertisement
-
but people do have a right to buy and consume alcohol as much as any other service, my point is the governments failure to address the troublesome ones is no excuse for limiting the rights of those who are not troublesome.
Actually.. wrong..they don't have a right to buy and consume alcohol as much as any other service. Current legislation prevents this.. your rights are defined as per the current legislation, not what you would like your right to be.. Should the same "rights" be applied to drug use, gun ownership etc?
And all the available data shows that increasing the availability of alcohol creates further issues of crime and other social ills. Spending time and money the country doesn't have, to deal with a increased problem we have voluntarily created seems a pretty dumb way to approach the problem.
Here's another fact for ya..
"Serious violence and murder near pubs and clubs in the early hours rose by almost 130 per cent in the year after licensing laws were relaxed."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482772/Home-Office-tried-hide-surge-drunken-attacks.html
Even the UK government tried to hide this fact when the published data.
I have still not seen you post one positive aspect of extending the current legislation. Care to offer one?0 -
Some day you will be looking for a bottle of wine at 10.15pm. Then you will see it.I have still not seen you post one positive aspect of extending the current legislation. Care to offer one?0 -
it was a proposal to change policy and it was carried on its own merits with out the need to quote research.
Maybe it's me.. but this is a shocking admission to me..
Are you saying, the Labour party routinely makes policy changes, based on unvalidated assumptions when overwhelming contradictory data is available with a simple google search?
And will ignore all available data when it doesn't back up their position?
In the words of Gordon Ramsey.. "f**k me......."0 -
I work Shift hours Welease, should I not be allowed a drink upon leaving work?0
-
Yes, but you went one further from your lack of facts and defended your use of an assertion for which you have no evidence. You're saying it doesn't matter; I'm saying it does, because it damages the coherency of your whole argument.
The evidence was my own conclusion I never claimed anything else, it damages the legitimacy but my point is that in this case most people would agree that having various different closing times based on the premise compliance with their responsibility to serve customers responsibly would alleviate the rush, at the conference no one challenged this, and it was passed that is when these things were relevant, if some one had called me on that I would revert to the argument that the change has not changed anything and that this discredits the restriction of our rights.
If people disagree with this more reason than you have no research and neither do we but we cant criticise your reasoning or valuing than lets hear it.Yet you put a clause in your motion about the 2008 change to licensing laws causing greater public order problems. You seem to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong here) that it doesn't matter that you just made it up; what matters is that people will support the motion because they believe it. It reads as if any old lie will do if it gets the motion passed.
In which case you should not have put in unresearched assertions in the motion.
I believed it does and the conference agreed, and we would be proved one way or the other upon the perusal of evidence.
the motion read conference believes, it doesnt claim fact one way or the other, upon realisation of fact if our belief was proved false the motion would fall. People agreed with this belief base upon their own knowledge of the situation. No one was mislead, people voted for this as they shared these beliefs.
No evidence to the contrary was provided at the time so I dont see how you can criticise the decision taken.0 -
mayordenis wrote: »I work Shift hours Welease, should I not be allowed a drink upon leaving work?
You can have a drink, at home if you purchased it in advance
A glib comment I know, let me explain my position...:)
In a utopian society, you should be able to drink whenever/whatever you want. I have no issue with that. However, we don't live there, we live in Ireland which is generally a good mirror of UK society and there extension of drinking laws has been far less than a resounding success.. In fact, all the reasons that were given for extending the hours have proven to be incorrect. It has led to increased violence, drunkeness, alcohol issues. The data shows that.
The change in policy being requested is based on no research, incorrect assumptions, and undefined caveats like more education, increased arrests. That is in no way or shape a sensible way to modify legislation, and the fact it was passed as policy to me is incredible.
Yes, you should be able to drink, but no you can't at the moment because the negative impacts and costs outweigh the benefits. There is nothing in this proposal that addresses any of the well documented negative impacts, and imho it is pure folly to implement.
Edit - For clarity, I would support changing legislation, if the foundations for that change were correct, the impacts were understood, and the resourcing, policy, funding etc. were all in place to support the change and deliver benefits. This proposal falls short on pretty much every requirement for sensible legislation change, and therefore I in all honesty could not nor would not support it (not that that matters
). 0 -
Actually.. wrong..they don't have a right to buy and consume alcohol as much as any other service. Current legislation prevents this.. your rights are defined as per the current legislation, not what you would like your right to be.. Should the same "rights" be applied to drug use, gun ownership etc?
We have popular sovereignty and at this particular conference popular sovereignty dictated that we do, and the idea is that this exercise will be undertaken again in the Dail. The law is there to serve us not the other way around.And all the available data shows that increasing the availability of alcohol creates further issues of crime and other social ills. Spending time and money the country doesn't have, to deal with a increased problem we have voluntarily created seems a pretty dumb way to approach the problem.
No the availability of alcohol does not do this the irresponsible consumption does, and some one irresponsibly drinking should not adversely affect me.
A lack of resources is no excuse for the deprivation and limiting of others rights,Here's another fact for ya..
"Serious violence and murder near pubs and clubs in the early hours rose by almost 130 per cent in the year after licensing laws were relaxed."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482772/Home-Office-tried-hide-surge-drunken-attacks.html
Even the UK government tried to hide this fact when the published data.
as above, I do not believe that some one getting drunk makes their crime any more justifiable or acceptable do you?I have still not seen you post one positive aspect of extending the current legislation. Care to offer one?
It will make people happier and more free to conduct their consumption and sale of alcohol as they ought to be allowed to do in the privacy of their own homes, local pubs or night clubs.0 -
Maybe it's me.. but this is a shocking admission to me..
Are you saying, the Labour party routinely makes policy changes, based on unvalidated assumptions when overwhelming contradictory data is available with a simple google search?
And will ignore all available data when it doesn't back up their position?
In the words of Gordon Ramsey.. "f**k me......."
Every one knew the motion was coming up, people had chance to bring up this research.
They probably didn't because they probably believed that the issue was not the availability of alcohol but the consumption of it.
They probably voted because they agree with my analysis of the trade off between rights and the benefits of restrictions.
They probably were able make their own decision on their own experiences of the change in laws which Im sure any of them could have easily experienced.0 -
Actually.
Here's another fact for ya..
"Serious violence and murder near pubs and clubs in the early hours rose by almost 130 per cent in the year after licensing laws were relaxed."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482772/Home-Office-tried-hide-surge-drunken-attacks.html
Even the UK government tried to hide this fact when the published data.
I have still not seen you post one positive aspect of extending the current legislation. Care to offer one?
Oh and the Daily mail and you talk about facts!
Although it does rationalise your assumption of a SHOCKING ADMISSION at hearing that people make decisions not only on the facts but on how much they value the facts.0 -
Advertisement
-
I would like to see the introduction of a drinking licence.
Basically everyone over 18 gets one.
Every pub/offo has to check it when selling alcohol.
If your arrested for being a drunken arséhole, it is taken off you for a few months (depending on what you did)
Obviously you could get a mate to buy you a few cans, but if your caught drunk in a public place and you have lost your licence, it is a more serious offence (€1000 fine)
This would confine drunken idiots to their house when they are drunk and leave the rest of us to enjoy a drink.
Feel free to point out flaws in my idea.0
Advertisement