license hours

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

lmtduffy

Im away for the weekend, i will get back to you after sunday sorry for my absence!

lmtduffy

Welease wrote: »

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.

Yeh Im sure there's also proof that banning alcohol altogether would also lead to less antisocial behaviour etc, but I asked you for benefits to us all that would come with restricting licensing hours, not a result of alcohol irresponsible consumption of alcohol. My point is that loosening them does have benefits to those of who enjoy alcohol responsibly, and it irresponsible and in no way constructive to alter laws so they restrict when every one enjoys alcohol because others irresponsibly consume alcohol.

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)?

and I and many others disagree that the restricting of licensing hours is not worth does not tackle the issue and that those who do abuse alcohol continue to do so despite the fact that the rest of us can no longer consume alcohol unless it is within certain times that are for many inconvenient and feel that well managed staggering of closing times would help resolve the current rush which is obviously a problem.

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..

The mistake you make is that this is motion is not legislation, it is policy, as in what the party agrees with, it is a directive to be used when developing legislation or dealing with others proposed legislation.
And no I dont have any particular strategies for policing this or for how to ensure kebab shops can rearrange their rotas to deal with it or how street cleaners may have to start work a little later as they are different issues, yes they are linked but this motion deals with licencing hours thats it, I could have attached a detailed policing strategy but I didnt because that is not the issue the motion deals with. It was intended to state that the labour party disagrees with the restrictions on licensing hours, that it is an unhelpful development and that further changes should be approached with this in mind and that is what this motion does.

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..

Thats an obvious no and Im sorry I thought I answered that.
Can you explain where I indicated that that is okay?

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.

I dont ignore them I disagree with the approach thats taken on them.

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?

No its a policy that will guide legislation change.

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..

Ive covered this above re its policy not legislation.

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)?

your points here aren't relevant I posted this originally to show people that there is a party that disagrees with the restricting of licensing hours and feels the problem of irresponsible consumption should not be dealt with this way, it leaves the alternative methods open because that is not what this motion deals with. A clear and irrefutable benefit is that we have more options for when we drink. The problems that the report you quote are the same problems we have now and aren't being sufficiently dealt with now, and wont be after but the difference is one scenario we have a draconian law the other we dont.

lmtduffy

Welease wrote: »

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?

So with that logic we should just ban alcohol?

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?

Yes most people here do support this motion. How many posts in support v against?

This policy is not legislation it is stage 1, the intricacies of stage 2 are not mine to dictate. Those who do work stage 2 will do so with the aim of deregulating licensing hours. Yes I talk about rights because that is what this is about, a conflict of rights. We have our rights to enjoy services, and we have rights to be protected by the law, the conflict arises when the enjoyment of a service threatens our safety.
You feel that that our right to enjoy such a service should be curtailed due to other irresponsibility, I think those who act irresponsibly should be the ones to bear the repercussions that's it and what ever the cost to ensure this happens that is what should be spent, the government is obliged to uphold all our rights all the time I think its a cop out to curtail them because its hard to deal with the real issues.

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.

First of all that cost benefit analysis would be open to alot of criticism as are any that attempt to place a value on utility.
This motion once again deals with licensing hours and the reform of them not with finance.
So you think justice is okay when you can afford it?
Avoiding the problem due to costs does not cut it.
It would also be cheaper to ban sugar as obesity and diabetes cost the state lots of money.

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.

The problem still isn't dealt with by restricting licensing times, it is a flawed approach that has little respect for those who enjoy drink responsibly.

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..

Shouldn't violence on the streets be dealt with by laws that deal with violence on the streets not laws that change licensing hours.
And problems of loud people be dealt with by laws with regards to loud people,
The protection of Guardai and nurses are like above another issue.
And in all these case it is the responsibility of the sate to protect the people in question the sate has decried that subverting the issue is adequate I disagree as Ive said numerous times. Thats what this is about.

Saruman

I can only speak from experience. When pubs used to all close at 11:30, if I found myself at a pub at that time you would hear a shout or a bell for last orders and then a rush of people up ordering two or three (or more) drinks each. Probably even more than they would have drank had the place not had to close at all or not until early morning. They might have only had another drink and then gone home.

It seems that in Irish culture, we see the need to get as much alcohol as we can in before the place closes where as in most European countries where bars are open much later and in plenty of cases 24 hours that people are more relaxed about alcohol.

I am not one to go out with the intention of getting pissed, I do most of my drinking at home (only because my little town has no pubs that sell good premium beer) and it is usually either premium beer I buy or beer I brew myself. If I do get drunk going out to a pub it is because I am trying to taste as many different speciality beers as I can. I do not destroy myself and when I feel I am drunk I stop drinking and sober up an hour later on the way home as I did recently on a trip to Dublin. When I got home I was grand, I drank some water and had a curry and watched TV until my wife came home. I had no ill effects the next day.

I do not like being drunk, I do not mind a nice buzz but being drunk is no fun.

I think if pubs were allowed to open as long as they liked that the at first perhaps your average lager lout would drink until they could drink no more but when they realise there is no goal any more, that there is no closing time that they will not try and drink as much as they can before it is time to go and might even pace themselves more so they can enjoy themselves for longer.

That is just how I see things, but it has no scientific basis behind it nor research I can point to to back me up.

Welease

lmtduffy wrote: »

Thats what this is about.

No, what this is all about is your (can we read Labour party?) policy of proposing legislation changes
- with no research,
- willfully avoiding facts which are presented that show your initial conclusions to be at best flawed and at worst 100% wrong,
- and your insistance on plowing forward devoid of any details on how to manage the known problems your legislation creates (it's someone else's problems to fix the new problems you create right?).

So, if we want this form of government/policy making we should vote Labour correct? (after all that was the crux of your initial post wasn't it...)

BeerNut

Welease wrote: »

No, what this is all about is your (can we read Labour party?) policy of proposing legislation changes

Seriously, Welease, your inability to distinguish an opposition party policy from proposed legislation is starting to look like trolling. Wait until Labour's Intoxicating Liquor Bill is introduced in private members' time, then complain about poorly-researched proposed legislative changes, if that's what it turns out to be.

Welease

BeerNut wrote: »

Seriously, Welease, your inability to distinguish an opposition party policy from proposed legislation is starting to look like trolling. Wait until Labour's Intoxicating Liquor Bill is introduced in private members' time, then complain about poorly-researched proposed legislative changes, if that's what it turns out to be.

How is it trolling? or looking like trolling.. I have provided statements and some data to backup my position against the policy change that the OP apparently wanted to discuss.
The OP has avoided answering any direct questions that I believe most rational person with an interest in the Beer&Wine&Spirits in this country would ask...
If that offend's you then I apologise, but when someone comes into a forum with the intention of getting people to vote for a political party (as per the OP's request), then I don't see the problem in questioning them about how it could or should be implemented..
Maybe if more people followed that route we would'nt have had the half-assed implementation of previous legislation.
With that said, I will bow out now, as it appears discussion on this board remains at the level of whining about the price of cider in supervalu

lmtduffy

Welease wrote: »

No, what this is all about is your (can we read Labour party?) policy of proposing legislation changes
- with no research,
- willfully avoiding facts which are presented that show your initial conclusions to be at best flawed and at worst 100% wrong,
- and your insistance on plowing forward devoid of any details on how to manage the known problems your legislation creates (it's someone else's problems to fix the new problems you create right?).

So, if we want this form of government/policy making we should vote Labour correct? (after all that was the crux of your initial post wasn't it...)

This is Policy that guides legislation it is not legislation.

The fact you fail to account for is that many of us value things differently than you and hence have different preference for how this problem is approached, if their is an increase in violence etc, which another poster pointed out happened in some areas in that report you quoted while others had a decrease and others had no change that the benefits of having looser licensing hours would justify it. I have already addressed the facts you have presented.

Their is no talk of ploughing forward with anything, have you grasped that this is not bill of law, its is a motion that will guide the formulation of a bill of law.
The crux of the motion is the deregulation of licensing hours.
There are many other sources that can influence the formulation of a bill of law. As I have mentioned I am not an expert on policing so wont make recommendations on that aspect of things but no doubt if any bill which this motion might affect were ever to be drawn up that those who do so would seek the appropriate opinions.

You misunderstand what this is, where this is and the effect it has right now.

The misunderstood views workings of the labour party and political mechanics you have formed are just that, and I hope I can help clear these up as you have stated this is something you essentially are in favour of, and I am doing my best to put you at ease and clear the air to say that what you think this is, is not what it is.

lmtduffy

Welease wrote: »

How is it trolling? or looking like trolling.. I have provided statements and some data to backup my position against the policy change that the OP apparently wanted to discuss.
The OP has avoided answering any direct questions that I believe most rational person with an interest in the Beer&Wine&Spirits in this country would ask...
If that offend's you then I apologise, but when someone comes into a forum with the intention of getting people to vote for a political party (as per the OP's request), then I don't see the problem in questioning them about how it could or should be implemented..
Maybe if more people followed that route we would'nt have had the half-assed implementation of previous legislation.
With that said, I will bow out now, as it appears discussion on this board remains at the level of whining about the price of cider in supervalu

What questions havent I answered?(or if it is a case of not answering questions to your satisfaction which I will attempt to do again if you like)

oh and youve left more than a few of mine wanting aswell,

Welease

lmtduffy wrote: »

This is Policy that guides legislation it is not legislation.

The fact you fail to account for is that many of us value things differently than you and hence have different preference for how this problem is approached, if their is an increase in violence etc, which another poster pointed out happened in some areas in that report you quoted while others had a decrease and others had no change that the benefits of having looser licensing hours would justify it. I have already addressed the facts you have presented.

Their is no talk of ploughing forward with anything, have you grasped that this is not bill of law, its is a motion that will guide the formulation of a bill of law.
The crux of the motion is the deregulation of licensing hours.
There are many other sources that can influence the formulation of a bill of law. As I have mentioned I am not an expert on policing so wont make recommendations on that aspect of things but no doubt if any bill which this motion might affect were ever to be drawn up that those who do so would seek the appropriate opinions.

You misunderstand what this is, where this is and the effect it has right now.

The misunderstood views workings of the labour party and political mechanics you have formed are just that, and I hope I can help clear these up as you have stated this is something you essentially are in favour of, and I am doing my best to put you at ease and clear the air to say that what you think this is, is not what it is.

No I understand that, you have managed to educate me on that much

My issue is that as you say, the policy will "guide" the law change, but (for me) the policy is based on flawed data and minimal research. Would the policy remain the same, if conference has been given access to all the negative data that exists? and therefore would their be a proposed change to guide?