Off licences and draconian closing times

thattequilagirl

Azalea wrote: »

syklops wrote: »

Another pathetic poorly informed argument possibly put together for thanks and nothing else. The record and the sofa you can't buy at 3am. All the others you can.

Speak for yourself! I think I should be able to buy a six-pack of couches at 10pm on a Saturday night when a night out is cancelled and a friend is calling over! :mad:

(It's a bit dismaying when intelligent people resort to utter shyte in order to argue back instead of just admitting the counter-argument makes a fair point).

The bulk of your argument is "I want it this way because it's convenient for me."

You only jumped on the protectionism bandwagon after several other people made it.

Your own argument is lame at best.

Azalea

syklops wrote: »

Tesco has a number of shops which are open 24 hours a day. They sell clothes, tools, groceries. They don't sell sofas or goldfish. I don't know why, I suggest you contact them and take your gripe up with them. In a tesco 24 hour supermarket, I can buy jeans or a spanner or even a lawnmower in some of their shops, but at 10pm they have to cordon off the alcohol and forbid its sale.



I absolutely agree with you but I think your dismay whether it is real or not, of about being unable to buy a sofa at 10pm on a Saturday is utter shyte and in no way makes a fair point.

Ah here, I was being ironic. I was agreeing with you - pointing out the nonsense post by endacl, as if a couch and a few cans of beer on a Friday/Saturday night are comparable.
My sentence about people posting shyte was directed at Enda and TBM - they keep resorting to nonsense to "support" their argument.

Azalea

thattequilagirl wrote: »

The bulk of your argument is "I want it this way because it's convenient for me."

You only jumped on the protectionism bandwagon after several other people made it.

Your own argument is lame at best.

Bluh?

One More Toy

Jesus all this hassle because I missed out on a few tins

syklops

Azalea wrote: »

Ah here, I was being ironic. I was agreeing with you - pointing out the nonsense post by endacl, as if a couch and a few cans of beer on a Friday/Saturday night are comparable.
My sentence about people posting shyte was directed at Enda and TBM - they keep resorting to nonsense to "support" their argument.

OK sorry. Your post which I now know was ironic was actually of the level of shyte Ive been reading so I thought you were on their side.

andekwarhola

I firmly disagree with 10pm closing on principle but the amount of times it actually genuinely inconveniences you are pretty rare, if you're being honest.

That said, spare me the sanctimonious finger wagging crap where somebody that is annoyed because they fancy a spontaneous drink and gets caught out by the opening hours, is some sort of raving alcoholic.

Kiwi in IE

thattequilagirl wrote: »

The bulk of your argument is "I want it this way because it's convenient for me."

Yes but if the law is inconvenient for business owners and inconvenient for customers, what other argument is needed? Can you point to anyone who benefits from the law or finds it convenient?

thattequilagirl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

The bulk of your argument is "I want it this way because it's convenient for me."

Yes but if the law is inconvenient for business owners and inconvenient for customers, what other argument is needed? Can you point to anyone who benefits from the law or finds it convenient?

A&E nurses/Ambulance service
Garda
Publicans & bar staff
Off-license workers
People's livers (I find it hard to believe that a lot of the people who desperately want off licenses open all hours are drinking sensibly)

Azalea

andekwarhola wrote: »

I firmly disagree with 10pm closing on principle but the amount of times it actually genuinely inconveniences you are pretty rare, if you're being honest.

That said, spare me the sanctimonious finger wagging crap where somebody that is annoyed because they fancy a spontaneous drink and gets caught out by the opening hours, is some sort of raving alcoholic.

Exactly. Having the option, bit of flexibility, is all that a lot of people want. This is being mixed up with "I want everything my way and I demand it" when that accolade actually goes towards the politically involved pub-owners.

Azalea

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Publicans & bar staff

Off-license workers

Oh right so bar staff working until 3am are at an advantage but off-licence workers working until 10.30 are at an advantage. Pick one!

People's livers (I find it hard to believe that a lot of the people who desperately want off licenses open all hours are drinking sensibly)

Find it hard to believe all you want. I find people being in the pub from 9pm to 2am lashing back oceans of drinks to the point of being unable to walk, to be far less likely to be drinking sensibly. Most people just buy four or six cans in the off-licence or one bottle of wine. Not that I think there is a need for 24-hour off-licences either though.

The Backwards Man

Azalea wrote: »

Ah here, I was being ironic. I was agreeing with you - pointing out the nonsense post by endacl, as if a couch and a few cans of beer on a Friday/Saturday night are comparable.
My sentence about people posting shyte was directed at Enda and TBM - they keep resorting to nonsense to "support" their argument.

OK, OK, OK. I'm holding my hands up. On reflection, I realise that the kids in Biafra would be appalled at my blasé responses to such a salient issue. I humbly apologise for my 'nonsense' posts and will refrain from partaking in this discussion any further.

Peace out:pac:

Azalea

The Backwards Man wrote: »

OK, OK, OK. I'm holding my hands up. On reflection, I realise that the kids in Biafra would be appalled at my blasé responses to such a salient issue. I humbly apologise for my 'nonsense' posts and will refrain from partaking in this discussion any further.

Peace out:pac:

"I cannot take on board a counter-argument so I'll post disingenuous rubbish about people going out for a run, and then bring in something about kids in Africa for no reason" - yay. We're not talking about kids in Biafra by the way, we are talking about off-licences in Ireland.

thattequilagirl

Azalea wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Publicans & bar staff

Off-license workers

Oh right so bar staff working until 3am are at an advantage but off-licence workers working until 10.30 are at an advantage. Pick one!

People's livers (I find it hard to believe that a lot of the people who desperately want off licenses open all hours are drinking sensibly)

Find it hard to believe all you want. I find people being in the pub from 9pm to 2am lashing back oceans of drinks to the point of being unable to walk, to be far less likely to be drinking sensibly. Most people just buy four or six cans in the off-licence or one bottle of wine. Not that I think there is a need for 24-hour off-licences either though.

Both are true you silly sausage.

Off license workers benefit by getting to finish work and go home on time.

Bar workers benefit because the portion of us who go to bars as an alternative keep them in jobs.

Why be so black and white in a world of color?

The Backwards Man

Azalea wrote: »

"I cannot take on board a counter-argument so I'll post disingenuous rubbish about people going out for a run, and then bring in something about kids in Africa for no reason" - yay. We're not talking about kids in Biafra by the way, we are talking about off-licences in Ireland.

Yep. You win. Fair play.

thattequilagirl

Check this information from the CSO out. In 2008, the year this law was introduced, there were more than 61,000 public order offences. In 2014, there were 32,000. The number has almost halved since these laws were introduced (the off license timing was one of a bunch of laws introduced at the same time to tackle public order offences)

http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c18.asp&TableName=Public+order+and+other+social+code+offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

So I'd say your minor inconvenience has been well worth it.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Check this information from the CSO out. In 2008, the year this law was introduced, there were more than 61,000 public order offences. In 2014, there were 32,000. The number has almost halved since these laws were introduced (the off license timing was one of a bunch of laws introduced at the same time to tackle public order offences)

http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c18.asp&TableName=Public+order+and+other+social+code+offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

So I'd say your minor inconvenience has been well worth it.

And some of us can binge drink and never be in trouble or be arrested for public order. To be honest, I respect where you're coming from, and I'm not that bothered about the off licence either way, but your past, and the way you describe your relationship with alcohol is on you. That's not anyone else's issue. It's yours. I'd hope anyone drinking are adult enough to make their own choices in regards to their bodies. If people are being arrested for public order then it's up to them to make the decision that drinking doesn't suit them.

Kiwi in IE

thattequilagirl wrote: »

A&E nurses/Ambulance service
Garda

Emergency services benefit because the off licence shuts at 2200 while the pub is still open? Actually it would probably be better for emergency services if the law was the other way around. People are less likely to get hurt/into fights/causes public nusience drinking in their own homes than they are in pubs.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Publicans & bar staff

Yeah admittedly they do benefit from being allowed to be open later than off licences, but in the post I quoted you were complaining that people were mentioning protectionism. Publicans benefit because of the protectionism no? So it makes sense that those who are against protectionism are opposed to this law?

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Off-license workers

How do they benefit? They are legally obliged to close their business/stop serving alcohol whether they want to or not. If they law was absent, they could still close/stop serving if they chose. I fail to see how they benefit.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

People's livers (I find it hard to believe that a lot of the people who desperately want off licenses open all hours are drinking sensibly)

Ever heard of personal responsibility? Peoples livers are also damaged by sugar. Should it be illegal to buy sugar, sweets, cakes and desserts between 2200 and 1030 as well? And not until 1230 on Sunday.

That's what it seems to come down to for the supporters of this ridiculous law; Nanny statism and a good dose of "I want to enforce my choices onto everyone".

thattequilagirl

LexieOnRale wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Check this information from the CSO out. In 2008, the year this law was introduced, there were more than 61,000 public order offences. In 2014, there were 32,000. The number has almost halved since these laws were introduced (the off license timing was one of a bunch of laws introduced at the same time to tackle public order offences)

http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c18.asp&TableName=Public+order+and+other+social+code+offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

So I'd say your minor inconvenience has been well worth it.

And some of us can binge drink and never be in trouble or be arrested for public order. To be honest, I respect where you're coming from, and I'm not that bothered about the off licence either way, but your past, and the way you describe your relationship with alcohol is on you. That's not anyone else's issue. It's yours. I'd hope anyone drinking are adult enough to make their own choices in regards to their bodies. If people are being arrested for public order then it's up to them to make the decision that drinking doesn't suit them.

This isn't about me.

I've presented totally impartial evidence that this law effectively reduced public order offences by almost 50%.

Are you telling me you don't think that's a good thing?

The Backwards Man

Mr.S wrote: »

Why is it a benefit they get to "go home on time"? It's a job, they work contracted hours. There is no going home early. You go home after your shift.

Longer opening = more shifts = more jobs / more hourly wage for the employees

When I worked shifts (many moons ago) I always preferred 2pm-10pm over 6pm-2am.

Longer opening hours won't increase the volume of sales, so it will be a case longer opening hours = increased costs = job cuts.

thattequilagirl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

A&E nurses/Ambulance service
Garda

Emergency services benefit because the off licence shuts at 2200 while the pub is still open? Actually it would probably be better for emergency services if the law was the other way around. People are less likely to get hurt/into fights/causes public nusience drinking in their own homes than they are in pubs.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Publicans & bar staff

Yeah admittedly they do benefit from being allowed to be open later than off licences, but in the post I quoted you were complaining that people were mentioning protectionism. Publicans benefit because of the protectionism no? So it makes sense that those who are against protectionism are opposed to this law?

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Off-license workers

How do they benefit? They are legally obliged to close their business/stop serving alcohol whether they want to or not. If they law was absent, they could still close/stop serving if they chose. I fail to see how they benefit.

thattequilagirl wrote: »

People's livers (I find it hard to believe that a lot of the people who desperately want off licenses open all hours are drinking sensibly)

Ever heard of personal responsibility? Peoples livers are also damaged by sugar. Should it be illegal to buy sugar, sweets, cakes and desserts between 2200 and 1030 as well? And not until 1230 on Sunday.

That's what it seems to come down to for the supporters of this ridiculous law; Nanny statism and a good dose of "I want to enforce my choices onto everyone".

Okay then, what about 29,000 fewer crimes? Is that a good enough reason for you?

ED E

thattequilagirl wrote: »

This isn't about me.

I've presented totally impartial evidence that this law effectively reduced public order offences by almost 50%.

Are you telling me you don't think that's a good thing?

Huh?

From your own post, a package of laws correlates to the change. Not just this one. No causation shown.

Who's to say it wasnt Gardai introducing segways that did it? Nobody.

Ted_YNWA

The Backwards Man wrote:

Longer opening hours won't increase the volume of sales, so it will be a case longer opening hours = increased costs = job cuts.

Isn't that up to each shop to decide, like all non offies do.

It won't pay for us to open from X to Y and trade accordingly.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

thattequilagirl wrote: »

This isn't about me.

I've presented totally impartial evidence that this law effectively reduced public order offences by almost 50%.

Are you telling me you don't think that's a good thing?

Look, I think people don't need to be babied. In fact I'd go as far as saying closing off licences early promotes binge drinking. If people knew on Saturday night at 10:30 if they decide to stay in they can pop down and get a bottle of wine, they'd be less likely to stock pile and I know myself if I know there's wine here, I'll drink it. You have to get to the off licence before 10, so you'll probably start drinking earlier.

And I mean if you really want a drink you can just throw on your nice clothes and go out and drink til 2:30 anyway so it's not as if it's putting a stop to people drinking after 10

thattequilagirl

LexieOnRale wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

This isn't about me.

I've presented totally impartial evidence that this law effectively reduced public order offences by almost 50%.

Are you telling me you don't think that's a good thing?

Look, I think people don't need to be babied. In fact I'd go as far as saying closing off licences early promotes binge drinking. If people knew on Saturday night at 10:30 if they decide to stay in they can pop down and get a bottle of wine, they'd be less likely to stock pile and I know myself if I know there's wine here, I'll drink it. You have to get to the off licence before 10, so you'll probably start drinking earlier.

And I mean if you really want a drink you can just throw on your nice clothes and go out and drink til 2:30 anyway so it's not as if it's putting a stop to people drinking after 10

Except that it obviously is putting a stop to a good portion of it based on the CSO figures you're choosing to ignore

thattequilagirl

ED E wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

This isn't about me.

I've presented totally impartial evidence that this law effectively reduced public order offences by almost 50%.

Are you telling me you don't think that's a good thing?

Huh?

From your own post, a package of laws correlates to the change. Not just this one. No causation shown.

Who's to say it wasnt Gardai introducing segways that did it? Nobody.

Okay, say only 20% are to do with this specific law (a conservative estimate given that this was the most dramatic of the laws introduced) That's still 6,000 fewer crimes. Worth it in my book.

Kiwi in IE

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Okay then, what about 29,000 fewer crimes? Is that a good enough reason for you?

See below;

ED E wrote: »

Huh?

From your own post, a package of laws correlates to the change. Not just this one. No causation shown.

Who's to say it wasnt Gardai introducing segways that did it? Nobody.

The Backwards Man

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Isn't that up to each shop to decide, like all non offies do.

It won't pay for us to open from X to Y and trade accordingly.

In theory it would, yeah. Reality is a whole other ballgame though. The only ones that would survive would be the ones able to withstand opening longer for the same return, which would be the big supermarkets and, to the consternantion of the rabble pub rabble brigade, those attached to licensed premises.

The economics of selling drink is actually a very fascinating subject. Something most publicans and drinkers haven't the first clue about either, in my opinion.

thattequilagirl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Okay then, what about 29,000 fewer crimes? Is that a good enough reason for you?

See below;

ED E wrote: »

Huh?

From your own post, a package of laws correlates to the change. Not just this one. No causation shown.

Who's to say it wasnt Gardai introducing segways that did it? Nobody.

Answered above.

I must be really naive about Boards, I genuinely thought showing hard evidence that the aims of this measure was achieved with a dramatic reduction in crime would change a few minds.

hynesie08

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Except that it obviously is putting a stop to a good portion of it based on the CSO figures you're choosing to ignore

It looks like the statistics are at their highest from 2005-2008, so while you could make the argument that knocking an hour off off license hours was the cause, I'd say it's more likely to do with the arse falling out of the economy and people not drinking out as much. so by that logic keeping off licenses open longer = even less people out drinking = even lower figures.

buried

thattequilagirl wrote: »

Check this information from the CSO out. In 2008, the year this law was introduced, there were more than 61,000 public order offences. In 2014, there were 32,000. The number has almost halved since these laws were introduced (the off license timing was one of a bunch of laws introduced at the same time to tackle public order offences)

http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c18.asp&TableName=Public+order+and+other+social+code+offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

So I'd say your minor inconvenience has been well worth it.

There could be a whole host of reasons those public order offences were reduced by half. How many tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people emigrated from the years 2008 to 2014? How many people stopped going out to the pubs and nightclubs due to the expense during those years of a deep recession? You have to take those factors into account too