Wtf........total Joke!

[keyboarder]

There is, of course a much more sinister side to all this. Picture, if you will, the scene. Naive young lady, far from unattractive, taken down and thrust into the same quarters as top dog.(and when I say dog, picture Bea, Prisoner Cell Block H. ugh............lol...) Prison issue panties, pushed to one side? Top dog getting out the project from the craft workshop, fashioned together from crude and limited materials, strapped on with torn up bedsheets? Worse case scenario, twisted officer films it for herspace page. Not pretty is it, lol....... Anyone happy to have that on their conscience must be a sadist................

[WTF]

There is, of course a much more sinister side to all this. Picture, if you will, the scene. Naive young lady, far from unattractive, taken down and thrust into the same quarters as top dog.(and when I say dog, picture Bea, Prisoner Cell Block H. ugh............lol...) Prison issue panties, pushed to one side? Top dog getting out the project from the craft workshop, fashioned together from crude and limited materials, strapped on with torn up bedsheets? Worse case scenario, twisted officer films it for herspace page. Not pretty is it, lol....... Anyone happy to have that on their conscience must be a sadist................

 

 

sick fucker.

[Knoxville]

There is, of course a much more sinister side to all this. Picture, if you will, the scene. Naive young lady, far from unattractive, taken down and thrust into the same quarters as top dog.(and when I say dog, picture Bea, Prisoner Cell Block H. ugh............lol...) Prison issue panties, pushed to one side? Top dog getting out the project from the craft workshop, fashioned together from crude and limited materials, strapped on with torn up bedsheets? Worse case scenario, twisted officer films it for herspace page. Not pretty is it, lol....... Anyone happy to have that on their conscience must be a sadist................

 

You need help!!!!!

[zephyr]

Nice to see that the George hasn't lost it's good taste.

 

My ex GF's son got a hiding outside the place. Why? Cos he stood up for a girl who was getting a hard time in there. I also seem to remember the landlord getting a hiding.

[keyboarder]

sick fucker.

 

He used to bring me roses, I wish he could again..........

 

 

Lol,lol............. ; )

[bluemonday]

The headline would be a big start, better also to train landlords and staff to think carefully about how much they serve to people who are sometimes very much the worse for wear. Like it or not most of the chavs who kick of in pubs and clubs have been granted admission to and have been served in a licenced premise, thereby being assisted in their decline.

 

Time to stop piddling around.

 

Compulsory shut down of pub.

Throw book at brawlers.

Time after time you can read the same story ( or a slight variation ) every week. Drunk blah blah, argument blah blah, injuries blah blah.............

 

How much public money is wasted on police attendance, statements, evidence gathering , courts etc, hospital treatment etc? And still it happens. Pubs/Brewery are interested in profit so hit them in the pocket.

And recover the FULL costs from those responsible.

[Grianane]

Agree with the sentiment but no doubt some publicans would argue that they may not be responsible for persons who are drunk when they arrive from other premises. Will we end up with bouncers at every door.

[bluemonday]

some publicans would argue that they may not be responsible for persons who are drunk when they arrive from other premises.

 

In which case, is it not against the law to serve them? Profit creeping in again?

 

Regarding bouncers, maybe where there's a history of "incidents", then as a condition of any licence or renewal, they should be made to have them ( and pay for them which will hurt )

[Albert Tatlock]

some publicans would argue that they may not be responsible for persons who are drunk when they arrive from other premises.

 

In which case, is it not against the law to serve them? Profit creeping in again?

 

Regarding bouncers, maybe where there's a history of "incidents", then as a condition of a licence or remewal, they should be made to have them.

Publicans and staff are responsible for everyone on the premises. If someone arrives drunk the law says he/she should not be served. If someone gets drunk, or is on the way to it in the same pub - he should not continue to be served. Publicans and staff are obliged under the law to make this assessment on every transaction - including if someone is likely to be buying beer for someone in such a state in their group (even if that person in that state is not actually purchasing the alcohol).

 

The same rules apply if someone is noisy/offensive (alcohol-fuelled or not) - the landlord and staff have the right to ask that person to leave.

 

However, on a busy weekend night such monitoring is not always so easy (especially monitoring groups), and given the number of transient workers in pubs, training does become an issue IMO.

 

IMO police are far better employed continually touring certain pubs where there have been or are likely to be incidents - rather than waiting to be called following an incident, and if you look on a Friday/Saturday night I'm sure you'll see this is the case. There are always 'the usual culprits' that tend to drink at certain establishments, many of whom end up on the watch list. It is those people and the establishments they frequent that need greater coverage.

 

If landlords/staff happen to be victims of a bunch of troublemakers, then whilst legally responsible for the people and their behaviour in the pub, I can't see why staff shouldn't expect nothing but public and police support - whilst any troublemakers should always be targetted and taken to court. If a landlord fails in his duty, that is a matter for the police and his employer - who can both make recommendations as to his suitability to hold the licence for the premises - but a run of bad luck for the landlord/staff (e.g. a couple of weeks of trouble) shouldn't be penalised provided procedures have been followed.

[Lonan3]

Perhaps there would be fewer incidents if everyone treated drunkenness with same degree of opprobrium that they reserve for smoking.

[VinnieK]

The same rules apply if someone is noisy/offensive (alcohol-fuelled or not) - the landlord and staff have the right to ask that person to leave.

 

However, on a busy weekend night such monitoring is not always so easy (especially monitoring groups), and given the number of transient workers in pubs, training does become an issue IMO.

 

It's also a question of whether the landlord thinks it's worth the bother confronting someone who's clearly very drunk and asking them to leave, rather than continue serving them in the name of a quiet life and the hope they wont cause any problems. I went for a midweek pub lunch in Castletown a few weeks ago and, upon entering, found the bar being propped up by some old drunk murmuring away, antagonising anyone he didn't like the look of, and generally bothering everyone else (at one point loudly criticising David Beckham's sportsmanship whilst watching the the bigscreen, which was strange since the sport being broadcast was in fact Rugby). Despite being in such a state he continued to be served, presumably because he was a local and it wouldn't have been worth the abuse turfing him out would have caused.

 

All too often landlords and barstaff will simply indulge those who are clearly far too drunk, relying upon personal judgement which can all too often be influenced by familiarity with the person involved or the desire for a quiet life instead of following the letter of the law. Unfortunately their judgement is not flawless, and so one of the few preventative measures that can be taken to avoid violence in pubs goes unused.

[Gladys]

It's also a question of whether the landlord thinks it's worth the bother confronting someone who's clearly very drunk and asking them to leave, rather than continue serving them in the name of a quiet life and the hope they wont cause any problems.

 

I thought continuing to serve someone who was clearly incapable could lose a landlord his licence.

[Grianane]

is this thread reaching the conclusion that landlords are a load of money grabbing scroats who are more interested in the takings than the sobriety of their customers. I thought they were all on a salary and not profit share (brewery pubs) if so what benefit is there financially - perhaps their just bad landlords.

 

Whats needed is some heavy fining, withdrawel of licences and closing of premises.

[VinnieK]

It's also a question of whether the landlord thinks it's worth the bother confronting someone who's clearly very drunk and asking them to leave, rather than continue serving them in the name of a quiet life and the hope they wont cause any problems.

 

I thought continuing to serve someone who was clearly incapable could lose a landlord his licence.

 

It can, but nevertheless I've only seen a few occassions of people being knocked back at the bar because they're drunk.

[WTF]

how drunk is drunk for the purposes of not serving someone?? obviously that chap that died at the pizza place a few years ago was too drunk, but what would the limit be? too drunk to drive is not many drinks and not enough to become aggressive so thats too low. perhaps all pubs should have a breathalyser and if you look like your getting too happy you blow into the breathy and if it shows you over say 200 you can't have any more.