license hours

lmtduffy

If 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.

BeerNut

I wholeheartedly agree with what's being called for, but

lmtduffy wrote: »

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.

Does Conference have any evidence for its belief here?

guildofevil

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.

lmtduffy

BeerNut wrote: »

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.

BeerNut

lmtduffy wrote: »

But its an issue that is easy to witness

It was also an easy issue to witness before the law changed.

lmtduffy wrote: »

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.

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.

lmtduffy wrote: »

But Id imagine when or if it comes to actual legislation research would have to be done.

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.

guildofevil

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?

lmtduffy

BeerNut wrote: »

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?

lmtduffy

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.

BeerNut

lmtduffy wrote: »

its often better to explain to people in real terms the problem in a more relatable manner.

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.

lmtduffy wrote: »

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.

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.

lmtduffy wrote: »

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.

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.

lmtduffy wrote: »

What aspect don’t you agree with about the motion?

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.

guildofevil

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.

lmtduffy

BeerNut wrote: »

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.

lmtduffy

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.

marceldesailly

lmtduffy wrote: »

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 facts

Welease

lmtduffy wrote: »

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. "

lmtduffy

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.

lmtduffy

Welease wrote: »

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

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.

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.

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.

Welease

"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..

lmtduffy

Welease wrote: »

"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?

BeerNut

lmtduffy wrote: »

ok you do not disagree with the idea

Absolutely not.

lmtduffy wrote: »

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.

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.

lmtduffy wrote: »

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.

Which renders the argument pointless. All it does is provide an opportunity for someone to discredit the whole piece.

lmtduffy wrote: »

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.

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.

lmtduffy

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?

BeerNut

lmtduffy wrote: »

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,

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.

lmtduffy wrote: »

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.

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.

lmtduffy wrote: »

Im not saying we shouldn't have research Im saying we dont need it yet

In which case you should not have put in unresearched assertions in the motion.

lmtduffy wrote: »

Did you get any response?

We did :rolleyes:

Welease

lmtduffy wrote: »

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?

BeerNut

Welease wrote: »

I have still not seen you post one positive aspect of extending the current legislation. Care to offer one?

Some day you will be looking for a bottle of wine at 10.15pm. Then you will see it.

Welease

lmtduffy wrote: »

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......."

mayordenis

I work Shift hours Welease, should I not be allowed a drink upon leaving work?

lmtduffy

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.

Welease

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 ).

lmtduffy

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.

lmtduffy

Welease wrote: »

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.

lmtduffy

Welease wrote: »

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.

arse..biscuits

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.

mayordenis

arse..biscuits wrote: »

Feel free to point out flaws in my idea.

it's one big flaw. :pac:

Welease

lmtduffy wrote: »

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.

It was a link to a Daily Mail report on facts which are freely available. I can quote numerous other sources if you would prefer the same data served up by another source.. Sources which are freely and widely available had you our your colleagues bothered to do any research.

I notice, you still don't refute any of the facts presented, and still present none of your own.. Is this the way we should change legislation now?

lmtduffy

Welease wrote: »

It was a link to a Daily Mail report on facts which are freely available. I can quote numerous other sources if you would prefer the same data served up by another source.. Sources which are freely and widely available had you our your colleagues bothered to do any research.

I notice, you still don't refute any of the facts presented, and still present none of your own.. Is this the way we should change legislation now?

Dont worry about the daily mail thing it was a joke,

Hey people their voted against the motion just not enough of them Im sure they had their reasons.

And your either not reading or wont engage with what Ive been saying:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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,

as above, I do not believe that some one getting drunk makes their crime any more justifiable or acceptable do you?

No I dont refute your facts I accept them as you can see Id just prefer to deal with them rather than make them facts that happen an hour or so earlier than before, would you care to engage with my above arguments.

lmtduffy

arse..biscuits wrote: »

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.

Your point brings up the problem that age does not represent maturity which can lead us to the whole should the legal age for consuming alcohol be changed which is a whole other question.

But your idea isn't that far fetched, you need a license to drive a car as misuse might endanger others, if you drink you might endanger others.

Welease

lmtduffy wrote: »

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.



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,



as above, I do not believe that some one getting drunk makes their crime any more justifiable or acceptable do you?



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.

lmtduffy wrote: »

Dont worry about the daily mail thing it was a joke,

Hey people their voted against the motion just not enough of them Im sure they had their reasons.

And your either not reading or wont engage with what Ive been saying:















No I dont refute your facts I accept them as you can see Id just prefer to deal with them rather than make them facts that happen an hour or so earlier than before, would you care to engage with my above arguments.

I'm not sure why multi quote won't work for me at the moment.. Maybe I'm not doing it right.. When i work it out, I will respond in detail to each point

Until then.. Essentially I fundamentally disagree because..

1) Your main arguement is based on your belief you have a "right" to purchase alcohol a X time. Your arguement for that seems to be based on "Popular Sovereignty" based on the opinions of a couple of hundred (?) people at a Labour convention.
a) It doesnt give you "rights", any more than me getting a couple of hundred people to agree I should be able to fire off an AK-47 on O' Connell street on a Sat. afternoon, gives me any "rights" to do said act.
b) granting of "rights" should be based (in my opinion) on something that benefits society, there has been no proven benefit to the changes in the UK, and none of the benefits you claim are in fact true, and you have not provided any evidence to back them up.

Based on that.. you have a "wish" to change legislation to something which you believe is more appropriate.. I have no arguement with that.
If laws are going to be changed, they should have a positive impact, otherwise why bother?

The loosening of alcohol trading laws, has sadly been proven in the UK to increase violence, antisocial behaviour and alcohol related problem.
All of these require extra resources to police, educate etc etc etc. just to bring us back to the status-quo of today.. Why spend the extra money this country doesn't have, to try and do something we have had 0 success in doing before (educate/stop antisocial drink issues), just to grant a "wish" based on incorrect assumptions..

And that is why I disagree..
I enjoy beer, I drink, I am a homebrewer.. but I see no value in the extra expense, proven negative results in extending licensing laws.

If you were to make a factual based case on the value of granting these "rights", how they should be implemented and how they would be funded and resource, I would be happy to be persuaded, but until then I honesly don't see how you can expect people to back legislation change with no detail that at face value has already proven to do the exact opposite of the goals it was supposed to achieve ("rights" or not).

I as a citizen have the right not to have my government implement a law which has been proven to increase the chances or me being assaulted/murdered etc.

I hope that makes sense?

Welease

lmtduffy wrote: »

No I dont refute your facts I accept them as you can see Id just prefer to deal with them rather than make them facts that happen an hour or so earlier than before, would you care to engage with my above arguments.

Well thats the point you seem to be missing
a) They don't happen an hour before, increasing the availability of alcohol didnt move the time of the incidents, it increased them (by 130%).. i.e. more serious assaults/murders etc happened as a direct result, it wasnt the same amount happening an hour later
b) You don't deal with them.. You make no provision in your policy for how you would actually deal with the problems that have been proven to occur. In fact, you yourself stated "A lack of resources is no excuse for the deprivation and limiting of others rights, ".

If you had a plan to extend the licensing laws with no negative impact to the general "man on the street" and you had the funding/support/will in place to make this happen, I would sign up now.. Sadly the simple fact is... you don't and until you open your eyes (and i dont mean that in an agressive nasty arguementative way) you won't take a single step towards making inroads into that problem, and therefore your proposed legislation change is pointless (and I mean that with the greatest of respect btw.) and in fact more likely detrimental to an already bad situation in this country.

lmtduffy

Well thats the point you seem to be missing
a) They don't happen an hour before, increasing the availability of alcohol didnt move the time of the incidents, it increased them (by 130%).. i.e. more serious assaults/murders etc happened as a direct result, it wasnt the same amount happening an hour later

and these actions aren't acceptable these trends need to be met not with rescheduling but with policy that directly challenges such practices there should be a "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."

b) You don't deal with them.. You make no provision in your policy for how you would actually deal with the problems that have been proven to occur. In fact, you yourself stated "A lack of resources is no excuse for the deprivation and limiting of others rights, ".

I think they'd be dealt with like any other crime, without passiveness from Guarda because the person in question is drunk.

If you had a plan to extend the licensing laws with no
negative impact to the general "man on the street" and you had the funding/support/will in place to make this happen, I would sign up now.. Sadly the simple fact is... you don't and until you open your eyes (and i dont mean that in an agressive nasty arguementative way) you won't take a single step towards making inroads into that problem, and therefore your proposed legislation change is pointless (and I mean that with the greatest of respect btw.) and in fact more likely detrimental to an already bad situation in this country

I have not seen any legitimate claim that I dont have support , infact most people here support this idea as did those at the conference,

as for funding, what would I do with funding that would convince you, do you need something glossy or just need to know that there is simply money behind such a proposal?

I dont claim to solve anything thing I claim that in the alternative we face the same problems, possibly less if you account for the staggering of closing times(not general extension as the uk research accounts for) but my version gives us all more rights. and the motion asks that the efforts that are given to enforce closing such premises earlier are used to protect society from those who abuse alcohol, as opposed to limiting how the rest of us enjoy alcohol just in case.

lmtduffy

1) Your main arguement is based on your belief you have a "right" to purchase alcohol a X time. Your arguement for that seems to be based on "Popular Sovereignty" based on the opinions of a couple of hundred (?) people at a Labour convention.

I outlined that I expect the results to extend to the dail, Ive dealt with this already. And also the people here, if you have contradictory evidence that any one would prefer things differently it would help you.

and know its deeper than the popular sovereignty argument(why do you put it in quotations?), as a person we have all our rights available to us, and give them up only because we expect to benefit from doing so, would you like to prove that we do we do benefit from restricted hours?

a) It doesnt give you "rights", any more than me getting a couple of hundred people to agree I should be able to fire off an AK-47 on O' Connell street on a Sat. afternoon, gives me any "rights" to do said act.

Okay big difference between you intending to harm some one and you having a few drinks, my point is that having a few drinks in no way excuses you for committing a crime, whether you agree you have not yet clarified even though Ive asked twice.

b) granting of "rights" should be based (in my opinion) on something that benefits society, there has been no proven benefit to the changes in the UK, and none of the benefits you claim are in fact true, and you have not provided any evidence to back them up.

What benefits are human rights except to yourself, what benefits is your bodily integrity except to yourself, Rights are exercised by people in the interest of those people, and not because society benefits from it, rights are denied because they have been used in a way that have been a detriment to society! Your view of rights is impossible to hold.

And you have not backed up or responded to any of the points raised in post 34 nor have you challenged my logic, you have not disproven my points you have only highlighted that regardless of the hour people are abusing alcohol and this tome is not acceptable regardless of the hour and should be dealt with,this is possibly the 4th time Ive raised this point.

lmtduffy

I outlined that I expect the results to extend to the dail, Ive dealt with this already. And also the people here, if you have contradictory evidence that any one would prefer things differently it would help you.

and no its deeper than the popular sovereignty argument(why do you put it in quotations?), as a person we have all our rights available to us, and give them up only because we expect to benefit from doing so, would you like to prove that we do we do benefit from restricted hours?



Okay big difference between you intending to harm some one and you having a few drinks, my point is that having a few drinks in no way excuses you for committing a crime, whether you agree or not you have not yet clarified even though Ive asked twice.




What benefits are human rights except to yourself, what benefits is your bodily integrity except to yourself, Rights are exercised by people in the interest of those people, and not because society benefits from it, rights are denied because they have been used in a way that have been a detriment to society! Your view of rights is impossible to hold.

And you have not backed up or responded to any of the points raised in post 34 nor have you challenged my logic, you have not disproven my points you have only highlighted that regardless of the hour people are abusing alcohol that people abuse alcohol,this is not acceptable regardless of the hour and should be dealt with,this is possibly the 4th time Ive raised this point.

Welease

lmtduffy wrote: »

I outlined that I expect the results to extend to the dail, Ive dealt with this already. And also the people here, if you have contradictory evidence that any one would prefer things differently it would help you.

and know its deeper than the popular sovereignty argument(why do you put it in quotations?), as a person we have all our rights available to us, and give them up only because we expect to benefit from doing so, would you like to prove that we do we do benefit from restricted hours?.

Proof? Proof like the data that i linked which shows increasing hours leads to more violence, antisocial behaaviour, murders and alcoholism.. That kind of proof? There's my proof that keeping restricted hours benefits society.

You on the other hand have provided no proof that extending the hours gives us any benefit.. You have based all your logic on flawed assumptions, which i have proven to be wrong (since my first posts). You have continued to avoid dealing with it.

I have provided the proof you demanded.. how about you do the same (and no, the flawed opinions you have posted previously do not constitute proof in any shape of form, provide the data which refutes mine and which you have already admitted you don't have)?

lmtduffy wrote: »

Okay big difference between you intending to harm some one and you having a few drinks, my point is that having a few drinks in no way excuses you for committing a crime, whether you agree you have not yet clarified even though Ive asked twice.

I made it quiet clear in my response to mayordennis (sp?) that I support people being able to have a drink whenever and wherever they wish IF the legislation change is viable legislation which takes into account and deals with the proven downsides to such an extension. So far you have evaded answering how you would actually do this, because we both know you really don't have a plan to would make us succeed where all previous attempts have failed and where the UK failed.
So again, I agree with your position (as previously stated), but how does your proposed legislation manage the problems it will introduce. And stating we will police it, doesn't mean squat. You need to explain in detail how exactly you will achieve this..

lmtduffy wrote: »

What benefits are human rights except to yourself, what benefits is your bodily integrity except to yourself, Rights are exercised by people in the interest of those people, and not because society benefits from it, rights are denied because they have been used in a way that have been a detriment to society! Your view of rights is impossible to hold.

You have a very strange view on rights. Let get into details.. So would your party follow that logic and agree I have the right to unload an AK-47 in town this Sat?
Again, you avoid answering this..

lmtduffy wrote: »

And you have not backed up or responded to any of the points raised in post 34 nor have you challenged my logic, you have not disproven my points you have only highlighted that regardless of the hour people are abusing alcohol and this tome is not acceptable regardless of the hour and should be dealt with,this is possibly the 4th time Ive raised this point.

I'm sorry but that is frankly rediculous.. I have challenged and responded to every point you have made, you have not provided any detail or factual points to youre flawed logic. I have provided the facts and logic, and you state you agree with them. Yet you then ignore them, and go back to your original position based on admitted flawed logic and facts.


Let me state once and for all.. No it's not acceptable.. You are proposing legislation change which willmake the problem worse, do you deem that acceptable?

You keep saying it should be dealt with.. you are the one proposing to change the law.. and I have asked again and again how are you proposing to deal with it.. Provide some level of detail and I will respond to every detailed point you make. Yet you continue to evade the question and/or providing any details..

If you want me to respond to post #34 line by line I will..but then you need to start responding in detail to the same questions I have been asking from the start.. where is your proof that this change has any benefits.. (proof not opinion) and how do you remedy the proven downsides to an extension (in detail, not glib statements)?

Welease

lmtduffy wrote: »

and these actions aren't acceptable these trends need to be met not with rescheduling but with policy that directly challenges such practices there should be a "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."

lmtduffy wrote: »

I think they'd be dealt with like any other crime, without passiveness from Guarda because the person in question is drunk.

So what's the policy (in detail) to handle this.?. Your legislation change is proven to increase the problem, and we have never been successful in tackling the problem.. How exactly are you going to tackle the problem you just made worse, and what resources are you going to pull from elsewhere to bolster the policeing that this will require?

lmtduffy wrote: »

I have not seen any legitimate claim that I dont have support , infact most people here support this idea as did those at the conference,

as for funding, what would I do with funding that would convince you, do you need something glossy or just need to know that there is simply money behind such a proposal?

I don't see most people here supporting the claim.. Care to elaborate on who gives full support to your ideas.. Here's a bad example for ya.. Biffo can announce 50% tax cuts tomorrow, and he will get support. However that will soon evaporate when he has to provide details on how he would fund this.. Your are at stage 1 here for some people.. I want details on stage 2.. You won't admit it.. but its blindingly obvious you don't know how stage 2 works, so you keep chanting a mantra about "rights". How about working on the details for stage 2, so the legislation actually improves the situation?

I need details on what exactly you would fund.. And where those funds would be taken from... We don't have a surplus of cash as you are well aware, so in order to fund anything something else will need to be cut.. What exactly should we cut to fund the resource to tackle the increased violence and antisocial behaviour your legislation would bring. In an ideal world, i would like to see a cost benefit analysis on what you cut vs. the extension of your drinking rights.. because someone has to lose out to fund your proposal, so lets talk about exactly who gets the shaft.

lmtduffy wrote: »

I dont claim to solve anything thing I claim that in the alternative we face the same problems, possibly less if you account for the staggering of closing times(not general extension as the uk research accounts for) but my version gives us all more rights. and the motion asks that the efforts that are given to enforce closing such premises earlier are used to protect society from those who abuse alcohol, as opposed to limiting how the rest of us enjoy alcohol just in case.

See, once again two minutes of research would have shown you made a wrong assumption.. How can you propose to change law when you have made 0 effort to look at any of the available data.

In the UK, pubs/clubs can apply for licenses covering a 24 hour period, not that they now stay open for 24 hours. The end result of what you get is actually staggering of closing times which is exactly what you propose.
My old haunt for example has 5 pubs within 100 yards, 2 closed at 11, 1 closed at 1, 1 at 2am and the final once at 4-5am.
You then state we face less problems.. Data shows we face more problems.. People don't get kicked out onto the street once like on the old system, they get kicked out 3-4 times onto the street, and all start going to the next pub to continue drinking.. This has led to a 130% increase in serious assaults/murders. Nothing you have stated does anything except make the problem worse, the police can't handle the current situation, but you want to increase the problem as assume they will suddenly solve the issues?
So again, were is your proof or data that you proposal does anythign except make the situation work.. I have provided mine.

lmtduffy wrote: »

my version gives us all more rights.

No it doesn't. It provides the right to buy drink later.. What about people's rights not to have laws made that have been proven to increase violence on their streets.. What about their rights not to get woken up at all hours of the night by drunks coming home? What about the rights of the garda/nurses/doctors not to have to have laws made that increases the chances of serious assaults made against them? What about the rights of citizens not to have scant resources wasted on folly projects which have proven to have no positive benefit? What about all those rights? I can keep listing rights that you trample on by your proposed legislation..

Welease

Felt the need to post this..

My responses to you are not intended to be agressive or arguementative, and I hope you are not taking them in this manner.
I personally would love to see 24 hour sensible opening available, and for there to be a decrease in the madness we currently see.

However, your and all other proposals and law changes that I have seen, focus on the proposed benefits and willfully ignore dealing with the known downsides of such legislation changes.

I fully believe there are proper solutions available, but while people jump for a quick fix change and ignore the proven data we will do nothing but make the situation worse.

If you are (and you sound) passionate about the extension, then I urge you to look at all the available data, understand the issues that bar staff, garda, communities and hospitals have with the current problem, then propose legislation that encompasses a holistic solution. If you can do that, then fair play to you, you have made the situation better.. failure to do that just diverts precious resources from other worthy causes and is exactly the reason we have retarded drinking laws that flip flop without ever achieving their stated goals.

guildofevil

If you look beyond the sources which compete for the most shocking headline you might find that the situation with the UK's 24 hour drinking laws is not as cut and dried as they would have you believe, with some places showing a rise in violence and some showing a drop:

From metro.co.uk

The picture varied in different areas, with Guildford in Surrey reporting a 12% rise in violence. Birmingham and Nottingham - saw rises but these were not considered statistically significant.
Croydon and Blackpool saw falls in violence of 13% and 10% respectively.
The report by experts from King's College London said: "One of the rationales for liberalising the licensing laws was that the spike of incidents immediately after closing time would be flattened out.
"This happened in Blackpool and Birmingham, but there was no change in Croydon and Nottingham.
"In Guildford - the only site to record a statistically significant increase in recorded violence - the peak moved forward in time into the small hours."

Interestingly the sky news article unambiguously titled 24-Hour Drinking Is Causing More Crime produces some shocking statistics for the areas of 12 Police forces and a slight rise in a further 16, but then goes on to admit that “22 forces that provided data - reported a sharp fall in the numbers of alcohol-related assaults, harassment and criminal damage crimes in the two years since the law change.”

They also quote the home office as saying:

A report produced by professional statisticians based on data from 30 forces published in July 2007 showed that serious violent crime over whole night fell by 5% after the Licensing Act came into force with a fall in less serious wounding offences as well.

www.sciencecentric.com says that 24-hour drinking linked to shift in hospital attendance patterns and concludes that there has been no change in the numbers of alcohol related admissions because a drop in evening admissions has been balanced by a rise in 3am to 6am admissions.


As I said, it's not cut and dried and frankly I think they went a bit far by just throwing open the flood gates like that, but I do think that extending opening hours, if done gradually must form part of any strategy to improve the way alcohol is consumed here.

The problem is that closing time and price inflation with alcohol duty form part of the alcohol culture of countries like Ireland, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Scandinavia, where they are assumed to be limiting factors, despite the complete lack of evidence for that. These tactics have been tried for generations in these countries and have quite simply failed to improve peoples attitude to alcohol or reduce the problems associated with it.

People are strange and do not always behave in the way you might expect. If you inflate prices, people do not buy less alcohol, they simply seek out lower cost alternatives to their favourite tipple and clump their drinking into binges. However, if you have a society which already has inflated alcohol prices and you suddenly drop the price, the likely result would be an increase in consumption, at least in the short term.

Similarly, in a society where people are sent home early from the pub, they tend to drink faster and the statistics from such countries suggest that they drink more, per capita too. A “race for the finish line” mentality develops and this becomes the normal drinking pattern.

If you then move to a 24 hour drinking model, some people will retain the drinking pattern they developed under the restrictive laws and will become more intoxicated. This is what is happening in some areas of the UK.

The problem isn't actually with 24 Hour drinking, but with 24 Hour drinking in a country that isn't used to it and therefore is not culturally equipped to deal with it. The culture will change, as successive generations grow up without thinking of the 24 hour availability of alcohol as a novel opportunity to get even more drunk than usual, but it will take time.

The problem is that people expect instant results and you cannot have an instant solution to a cultural problem. Cultural changes take time.

The alternative to relaxing ineffective and arguably counter productive restrictive alcohol laws, like closing time, is to leave them as they are, thus perpetuating the culture of swilling till closing time and passing it on to successive generations.

Welease

guildofevil wrote: »

If you look beyond the sources which compete for the most shocking headline you might find that the situation with the UK's 24 hour drinking laws is not as cut and dried as they would have you believe, with some places showing a rise in violence and some showing a drop:

From metro.co.uk


Interestingly the sky news article unambiguously titled 24-Hour Drinking Is Causing More Crime produces some shocking statistics for the areas of 12 Police forces and a slight rise in a further 16, but then goes on to admit that “22 forces that provided data - reported a sharp fall in the numbers of alcohol-related assaults, harassment and criminal damage crimes in the two years since the law change.”

They also quote the home office as saying:


www.sciencecentric.com says that 24-hour drinking linked to shift in hospital attendance patterns and concludes that there has been no change in the numbers of alcohol related admissions because a drop in evening admissions has been balanced by a rise in 3am to 6am admissions.


As I said, it's not cut and dried and frankly I think they went a bit far by just throwing open the flood gates like that, but I do think that extending opening hours, if done gradually must form part of any strategy to improve the way alcohol is consumed here.

The problem is that closing time and price inflation with alcohol duty form part of the alcohol culture of countries like Ireland, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Scandinavia, where they are assumed to be limiting factors, despite the complete lack of evidence for that. These tactics have been tried for generations in these countries and have quite simply failed to improve peoples attitude to alcohol or reduce the problems associated with it.

People are strange and do not always behave in the way you might expect. If you inflate prices, people do not buy less alcohol, they simply seek out lower cost alternatives to their favourite tipple and clump their drinking into binges. However, if you have a society which already has inflated alcohol prices and you suddenly drop the price, the likely result would be an increase in consumption, at least in the short term.

Similarly, in a society where people are sent home early from the pub, they tend to drink faster and the statistics from such countries suggest that they drink more, per capita too. A “race for the finish line” mentality develops and this becomes the normal drinking pattern.

If you then move to a 24 hour drinking model, some people will retain the drinking pattern they developed under the restrictive laws and will become more intoxicated. This is what is happening in some areas of the UK.

The problem isn't actually with 24 Hour drinking, but with 24 Hour drinking in a country that isn't used to it and therefore is not culturally equipped to deal with it. The culture will change, as successive generations grow up without thinking of the 24 hour availability of alcohol as a novel opportunity to get even more drunk than usual, but it will take time.

The problem is that people expect instant results and you cannot have an instant solution to a cultural problem. Cultural changes take time.

The alternative to relaxing ineffective and arguably counter productive restrictive alcohol laws, like closing time, is to leave them as they are, thus perpetuating the culture of swilling till closing time and passing it on to successive generations.

Couple of claritifcations (although in essence i completely agree with your post)...

Birmingham was 6% and Nottingham was 3% which is not statistically insignificant if one of the purposes of the change was to lower violence via the often quoted belief that chucking people out onto the street at the same time causes an escalation in violence. But it is, as you say depending on who is reporting the data and what their specific prejudice is (either for or against, the UK Lab gov. felt a 130% increase in serious assaults/murder in the locality of extended pubs was also statistically insignificant).. All I am asking is they we don't blindly change legislation or pass policy motions based on being too busy to look up details that are readily available. (and I know it's not you that counted that data as statistically insignificant )

There is also a misconception that pubs in the UK open 24 hours.. The governments own figures to Nov 2007, show only 500 24 hour licences were granted, with the "vast majority" (ministers words) going to hotels who will only serve guests. So their system really does in reality mirror what the OP is asking to be implemented (i.e. staggered closing hours), and it has not delivered the benefits first touted.

"As I said, it's not cut and dried and frankly I think they went a bit far by just throwing open the flood gates like that, but I do think that extending opening hours, if done gradually must form part of any strategy to improve the way alcohol is consumed here. "

This hits the nail on the head for me, and is what i have been trying to get across.. Just changing the law and paying scant attention to a strategy to deal with the issues is a disasterous way to implement new legislation. Effects on police, community, alcholism, hospitals must all be addressed in a coherent implementable policy. The OP seems content to change policy based on statement like "I think they'd be dealt with like any other crime, without passiveness from Guarda because the person in question is drunk".. that is not a strategy unless it comes with details on if and how we need to fund extra policing, which laws need to be modified, how we deliver the lower crime rates that are being touted etc.

guildofevil wrote: »

The alternative to relaxing ineffective and arguably counter productive restrictive alcohol laws, like closing time, is to leave them as they are, thus perpetuating the culture of swilling till closing time and passing it on to successive generations.

This bit, is the only bit I disagree with To me, if you are going to spend the time and resource to do something, then fix the root problem first which will then allow you to modify the applicable laws as you need. i.e. If the problem is a boozing culture, then spend the time and money on that (education, laws.. whatever is needed), fixing that will allow you to extend the laws without negative impact, and actually does some good.
Just extending (or not extending) the laws without an attempt to tackle the route cause of the issue seems counterproducive and a waste of time to me..

guildofevil

Welease wrote: »

To me, if you are going to spend the time and resource to do something, then fix the root problem first which will then allow you to modify the applicable laws as you need. i.e. If the problem is a boozing culture, then spend the time and money on that (education, laws.. whatever is needed), fixing that will allow you to extend the laws without negative impact, and actually does some good.
Just extending (or not extending) the laws without an attempt to tackle the route cause of the issue seems counterproducive and a waste of time to me..

I do agree that you have to look at any solution from all angles and would say that the only strategy with any kind of chance of success would have to be multi-pronged and long term. This is because we would have to engineer a cultural change.

However, I put it to you that the restrictive laws applying to alcohol in Ireland are in actual fact root causes of our unhealthy attitude to the stuff.

Have a look at this graph from the World Health Organization showing alcohol statistics from across Europe since 1970.

In 1970, Ireland, the UK, Sweden, Norway and Finland can be found towards the bottom of the graph, all consuming well below 10 litres of pure alcohol per capita. These countries pursued restrictive alcohol policies, of various kinds for the following decades and without exception have higher per capita alcohol consumption today, even when only examining recorded alcohol sales (not all alcohol consumed in those countries appears in the statistics, due to practices like home brew, home distilling, alcohol smuggled from countries with lower alcohol duty etc.).

Looking at the top of the graph, with consumption rates in the 1970s above 20 litres of pure alcohol per capita, you will find France, Italy and Portugal. These countries did not pursue such policies and today have far lower alcohol consumption rates.

These laws cause the very problems they are supposed to solve. They distort our cultural attitudes to alcohol, resulting in problem drinking and the only solutions people propose is more restrictive laws. You do have to be careful when addressing this situation, but have no doubt, you cannot solve this problem without dismantling these laws in some way.

Welease

guildofevil wrote: »

I do agree that you have to look at any solution from all angles and would say that the only strategy with any kind of chance of success would have to be multi-pronged and long term. This is because we would have to engineer a cultural change.

However, I put it to you that the restrictive laws applying to alcohol in Ireland are in actual fact root causes of our unhealthy attitude to the stuff.

Have a look at this graph from the World Health Organization showing alcohol statistics from across Europe since 1970.

In 1970, Ireland, the UK, Sweden, Norway and Finland can be found towards the bottom of the graph, all consuming well below 10 litres of pure alcohol per capita. These countries pursued restrictive alcohol policies, of various kinds for the following decades and without exception have higher per capita alcohol consumption today, even when only examining recorded alcohol sales (not all alcohol consumed in those countries appears in the statistics, due to practices like home brew, home distilling, alcohol smuggled from countries with lower alcohol duty etc.).

Looking at the top of the graph, with consumption rates in the 1970s above 20 litres of pure alcohol per capita, you will find France, Italy and Portugal. These countries did not pursue such policies and today have far lower alcohol consumption rates.

These laws cause the very problems they are supposed to solve. They distort our cultural attitudes to alcohol, resulting in problem drinking and the only solutions people propose is more restrictive laws. You do have to be careful when addressing this situation, but have no doubt, you cannot solve this problem without dismantling these laws in some way.

To be honest, I am not in a position to agree or disagree on the root cause of the cultural issue that northern European countries have with alcohol, I don't have any data nor have I done any research back through the decades, but I suspect you are correct (but assume there may also be other contributing factors). They do however exist, and this is the root of the problem, and that cannot be ignored (it might however modify the solutions available though).

It seems we (as I would assume most sensible people would) are in agreement that any change of legislation needs to look at the wider impact and picture (and utilise all relevant data that is available), and that is why I have such a problem with the policy change within the Labour conference. It is based on falsehoods which have been proven to be incorrect and makes no meaningful attempt to understand how a strategy needs to be implemented in order to allow a successful change in culture.

As a follow-on, I would be interested if the Galway Labour branch who's member posted this here for discussion would be committed to presenting the available data to Labour and Pat Rabbitte, and asking if they still fully support the change of policy based on the initial incorrect assumptions, and would they concur that the policy needs to encompass a manner which brings about the required cultural/behavioural change either before or in conjunction with the possible extension of licensing laws, and how specifically they plan to do that if they are proposing legislation change.

BeerNut

Welease wrote: »

Labour and Pat Rabbitte

Why Pat Rabbitte?

guildofevil

Unfortunately I think this is how legislation is normally enacted. Someone decides what should be done, gets some support and then sets about finding some evidence to back up their position.

Ironically it's the same kind of thinking that resulted in our current laws, just heading in the other direction.

Someone decides that people are drinking too much, so we should raise the price. This sounds reasonable to some others so they support him. Everyone agrees that if you raise the price of something people buy less and no one wants to hear what a ludicrous simplification of real world economics that actually is. See Price Elasticity.

The government likes the idea because it means more tax revenue so, if someone actually presses them enough to come up with some figures, they commission a report. The purpose of such a report is not to find the truth, rather it is supposed to back up the governments position, so they can do what they have already decided to do, without being accused of not doing their homework.

In my research into alcohol consumption I have encountered some truly spectacular examples of reports distorting data to justify the conclusion it is politically desirable for them to come to.

If you can find 2 data points out of twenty that agree with your position, you can ignore 3 data points that disagree with it, along with the 15 other data points that are neither here nor there. As long as you pad it out a bit, only refer to the data that proves your point and stick the rest in an appendix at the back, you are golden and can make the recommendation you are supposed to make.

Better yet, you could take a bunch of other reports from other countries or decades ago, pick out the bit's and pieces that you like and use them the "prove" what you want. If a report doesn't say what you want, ignore it and use another report. If a report has a bit that you like but other bits you don't, only refer to the bits you like. You don't have to print the rest of the data, just the good bits and a list of sources. That way, if someone wants to check your figures they have to find and read dozens of reports from all over the place and who is going to do that? After all, it is obviously a very well researched and written report by a highly respected individual and commissioned by the government.

Welease

BeerNut wrote: »

Why Pat Rabbitte?

Pat Rabbitte is the Labour spokeman for Justice etc. and was the Labour TD who endorsed the proposed policy change according to the OP.

Welease

guildofevil wrote: »

Unfortunately I think this is how legislation is normally enacted. Someone decides what should be done, gets some support and then sets about finding some evidence to back up their position.

Ironically it's the same kind of thinking that resulted in our current laws, just heading in the other direction.

Someone decides that people are drinking too much, so we should raise the price. This sounds reasonable to some others so they support him. Everyone agrees that if you raise the price of something people buy less and no one wants to hear what a ludicrous simplification of real world economics that actually is. See Price Elasticity.

The government likes the idea because it means more tax revenue so, if someone actually presses them enough to come up with some figures, they commission a report. The purpose of such a report is not to find the truth, rather it is supposed to back up the governments position, so they can do what they have already decided to do, without being accused of not doing their homework.

In my research into alcohol consumption I have encountered some truly spectacular examples of reports distorting data to justify the conclusion it is politically desirable for them to come to.

If you can find 2 data points out of twenty that agree with your position, you can ignore 3 data points that disagree with it, along with the 15 other data points that are neither here nor there. As long as you pad it out a bit, only refer to the data that proves your point and stick the rest in an appendix at the back, you are golden and can make the recommendation you are supposed to make.

Better yet, you could take a bunch of other reports from other countries or decades ago, pick out the bit's and pieces that you like and use them the "prove" what you want. If a report doesn't say what you want, ignore it and use another report. If a report has a bit that you like but other bits you don't, only refer to the bits you like. You don't have to print the rest of the data, just the good bits and a list of sources. That way, if someone wants to check your figures they have to find and read dozens of reports from all over the place and who is going to do that? After all, it is obviously a very well researched and written report by a highly respected individual and commissioned by the government.

lol couldn't agree more.. Which is why I was interested in the follow-on as to whether the OP would be seeking to clarify the details he presented to the Labour conference and Pat Rabbitte, which I assume was the reason he presented the discussion here and asked us to vote Labour as per his initial post