Villa Marina walkway

[Kopek]

I wouldn't support it being a Bar. As a Restaurant, people will be seated, as a Bar they could be standing in groups in the Public Right of Way. Not good and possibly, not allowed?

[jackwhite]

32 minutes ago, Passing Time said:

I would suggest it is about time the trade took a long hard look at whether or not these late hours are really needed. They can't be profitable as a lot of the customers have been drinking prior to coming out and not buying that much when they are in your pub/club

Again don't have an issue with it. 

Opened and run my fair share of places that were opened to this time in other jurisdictions. Would have no inclination whatsoever to go back to that. Been a long while since I've worked somewhere that operates that late and it will never happen again (I'm way too old for it for a start).

As I said a few weeks ago, I'm not convinced shortening opening hours is the answer despite thinking that it's not necessarily required. What the trade should definitely have a look at is the continuing practice of serving people who are clearly drunk. I've noticed a much higher proportion of places who are willing to turn a blind eye here having worked in other jurisdictions before. Taking this stance if they're drinking prior to coming out it should be easy enough to spot, albeit some will have a high tolerance before it becomes noticeable. 

[jackwhite]

1 minute ago, Kopek said:

I wouldn't support it being a Bar. As a Restaurant, people will be seated, as a Bar they could be standing in groups in the Public Right of Way. Not good and possibly, not allowed?

Pretty sure there's a bar area in the planning from memory away from the seated area so will be allowed. I think more Barbary Coast style than Jaks, simply because there is no physical floor separation. There may be seats there but you won't stop people standing when they're just having a drink, however much you'd like to. 

[AOR]

1 hour ago, jackwhite said:

However you just look like Abe Simpson shouting at clouds with statements like the one above. What complete nonsense. Do you have some kind of factual information to confirm this or is it just a wild theory?

How many people do you think I might know? I am a drinker and pub goer and have been for a few decades.

That said, I know of no one . . . no one . . .who was asking, wishing, wanting, but especially needing an even later license than the 1:30 that Jaks/1886 had.

I say again for you . . . no one.

It is taking advantage of the drinker/boozer/pub goer/reveller. Call it what you want. And it is taking advantage to cover up for falling pub sales.

It is despicable.

Is that any more Abe Simpson for you?

 

[Passing Time]

1 hour ago, jackwhite said:

Again don't have an issue with it. 

Opened and run my fair share of places that were opened to this time in other jurisdictions. Would have no inclination whatsoever to go back to that. Been a long while since I've worked somewhere that operates that late and it will never happen again (I'm way too old for it for a start).

As I said a few weeks ago, I'm not convinced shortening opening hours is the answer despite thinking that it's not necessarily required. What the trade should definitely have a look at is the continuing practice of serving people who are clearly drunk. I've noticed a much higher proportion of places who are willing to turn a blind eye here having worked in other jurisdictions before. Taking this stance if they're drinking prior to coming out it should be easy enough to spot, albeit some will have a high tolerance before it becomes noticeable. 

I have seen it many times where "security" pick and choose who they let in intoxicated. Pretty young girls - in you go. Lads - sorry no chance.

Since late night hours were introduced, people have no need to go out at a sensible time. They drink at home or a mates until 10-11pm then go out. If you stuck to the letter of the law, most people would not get access due to being drunk. 

[jackwhite]

3 hours ago, AOR said:

How many people do you think I might know? I am a drinker and pub goer and have been for a few decades.

That said, I know of no one . . . no one . . .who was asking, wishing, wanting, but especially needing an even later license than the 1:30 that Jaks/1886 had.

I say again for you . . . no one.

It is taking advantage of the drinker/boozer/pub goer/reveller. Call it what you want. And it is taking advantage to cover up for falling pub sales.

It is despicable.

Is that any more Abe Simpson for you?

 

Do you just get that angry you can't actually read what's being said? 

The part you're ranting about I'm saying I don't necessarily disagree with. 

It's the claims that anyone can get a late night license and, more prevalently, the nonsense that every drinker is an alcoholic that make you Abe Simpson.

You getting all uppity about it doesn't mask the fact you have no proof to back up the nonsense you speak of. Quite honestly you come across as some Ian Paisley(deceased)-esque teetotaller. 

2 hours ago, Passing Time said:

I have seen it many times where "security" pick and choose who they let in intoxicated. Pretty young girls - in you go. Lads - sorry no chance.

Since late night hours were introduced, people have no need to go out at a sensible time. They drink at home or a mates until 10-11pm then go out. If you stuck to the letter of the law, most people would not get access due to being drunk. 

I don't know how many ways I can put it mate. Having messaged you back and forward I totally agree with and respect your opinion.

My point is if this weren't happening then we wouldn't have the issues we've got. Then the issue is, security stop them the landlord loses money. So again it's all back to the landlord and their attitude to serving intoxicated people, in breach of the licensing law. 

[AOR]

1 minute ago, jackwhite said:

It's the claims that anyone can get a late night license and, more prevalently, the nonsense that every drinker is an alcoholic that make you Abe Simpson.

You getting all uppity about it doesn't mask the fact you have no proof to back up the nonsense you speak of. Quite honestly you come across as some Ian Paisley(deceased)-esque teetotaller. 

I have never claimed that anyone can get a late license. I am fully aware of the licensing laws.

My point about alcoholics, is that I said : (some would say all drinker are alcoholics, it's just to different extents). 
It is a fair definition. You take alcohol, you are an alcoholic. It doesn't mean that you necessarily wake up with the tremors in a pool of your own sick every morning after a night out and a wife beating. The point is de minimis in this context anyway. Try reading it as "consumers of alcohol".

You ever had a hangover? You ever said "never again"? You ever woke up and seen all the money you have spent? You ever in your life missed a day at work/college/uni due to alcohol? etc. etc.

Alcohol made you do that.

That happens every morning in Douglas Isle of Man, especially weekends. Again and again. Your customers.

 

It's a potentially very dangerous substance on so many levels. 

And the Isle of Man has made a fortune from 'consumers of alcohol' over the years. Now the tourist industry has gone, the licensing trade has turned on its own people.

I ask again - how many people do you know who were asking for a 3:30am licence.

Other than the trade, I'll answer for you.

Not one.

 

Please give an example of the "nonsense" I am speaking. I don't think can handle the truth can you.

Oh, and by the way, I have been going to pubs and clubs for coming up to half a century. Far from the tee-totaller your addled mind imagines.

 

 

[lethargy]

Oh dear.

[jackwhite]

2 minutes ago, AOR said:

I have never claimed that anyone can get a late license. I am fully aware of the licensing laws.

My point about alcoholics, is that I said : (some would say all drinker are alcoholics, it's just to different extents). 
It is a fair definition. You take alcohol, you are an alcoholic. It doesn't mean that you necessarily wake up with the tremors in a pool of your own sick every morning after a night out and a wife beating. The point is de minimis in this context anyway. Try reading it as "consumers of alcohol".

You ever had a hangover? You ever said "never again"? You ever woke up and seen all the money you have spent? You ever in your life missed a day at work/college/uni due to alcohol? etc. etc.

Alcohol made you do that.

That happens every morning in Douglas Isle of Man, especially weekends. Again and again. Your customers.

 

It's a potentially very dangerous substance on so many levels. 

And the Isle of Man has made a fortune from 'consumers of alcohol' over the years. Now the tourist industry has gone, the licensing trade has turned on its own people.

I ask again - how many people do you know who were asking for a 3:30am licence.

Other than the trade, I'll answer for you.

Not one.

 

Please give an example of the "nonsense" I am speaking. I don't think can handle the truth can you.

Oh, and by the way, I have been going to pubs and clubs for coming up to half a century. Far from the tee-totaller your addled mind imagines.

 

 

Someone who drinks alcohol on occasion is not an alcoholic. 

Yes it can be a dangerous substance to some. My whole point is that if it were readily policed by some with licenses on the island then we wouldn't have anywhere near as many issues. 

Lots of places have made 'a fortune' from alcohol. As well as cigarettes too. Both are harmful to your health and wellbeing if consumed in excessive quantities. 

I answer again, I don't agree that some places have to open until 3.30 am (think it might be 3 am but for the sake of a half hour) so you're arguing against a point that I actually agree with you on. 

I don't see what 'truth' I can't handle. I'm agreeing with you on the only reasonable point you're making but the rest is just complete nonsense. That is that those who consume alcohol are alcoholics. By that definition and what you've added then you're an extreme alcoholic if you've been consuming it for over half a century. Consumers of alcohol is a perfectly reasonable definition. 

My mind isn't addled. I don't drink that often despite being in the trade and less than you by the sound of it. 

[Numbnuts]

I always thought that the definition of a alcholic was someone who couldn't do without and nothing to do with quantity. Just saying... Clearly quantity makes it worse though.