Brown: 24-hour drinking law to be reviewed

More Nannies to the rescue. Won't somebody think of the children?

Do the critics work at Northcliffe House? Most of this kind of policy originates there.

They claim this will be evidence based. I expect the Daily Mail is already making it up.

Brown: 24-hour drinking law to be reviewed Philip Webster, Political Editor

Gordon Brown is to review Britain’s 24-hour licensing laws, which critics claim have led to an increase in binge drinking.

The Prime Minister, who has already blocked supercasinos and is considering a higher classification for cannabis, made plain yesterday that he was preparing to look at the impact of the relaxation in November

2005 of the licensing laws. He told his first monthly press conference at Downing Street that the change in the law had prompted very strong views and it was right to look at the evidence.

His remarks prompted speculation that another U-turn was on the cards. Aides said later that the licensing review was not in the same category as those relating to casinos and drugs classification, on which Mr Brown already had clear views, but they confirmed that he was ready to look at the 24-hour drinking issue with an open mind.

The Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are monitoring the impact of the changes across the country.

Aides said that Mr Brown would be looking at the results and carrying out a more formal consultation with local authorities and police in the areas reported to have been badly affected by the changes. One said: “He does not come at this with the view that something must be changed, but he thinks it is right for ministers to take a serious look at all the evidence when it comes in.”

Mr Brown’s spokesman added: “He wants to examine in an objective way all the evidence. People will form a view but it will be evidence-based.”

Reply to
Phil Stovell
Loading thread data ...

We live in interesting times. I wonder if we will yet see the unholy alliance of breweries and pro-cannabis pressure groups.

By announcing this review so close to last weeks cannabis classification review, Mr Brown (who strikes me as the worst kind of Scottish puritan BICBW) seems to be setting out a stall of restriction, prohibition, and intolerance. I believe it is now more likely that the health gestapo will get their way, and achieve the Holy Grail of evidence-based harm rankings. Which will, of course, put alcohol and tobacco *above* cannabis.

WTF will the government do then ?

We've already been exposed to the crass hypocrisy of our ruling elite. Could the government yet make the case for prohibition of cannabis untenable ? If so, would it be an own goal, or part of El Gordos cunning masterplan[1]

[1]I have no idea what that may be, but I suspect it involves tax - and lot's of it.
Reply to
Jethro

I'd like to see them ban alcohol and tobacco. Would be very interesting to see what prohibitionists do when their drug of choice is banned. I understand our resident expert would become tee-total. I imagine a lot of other people would become criminals.

Even if that didn't happen, it'd still have banned a dangerous drug and would save countless young lives. Think of the Children.

You could be right. Set up reviews of alcohol and cannabis. Get results (again) that say cannabis is less harmful than alcohol. Legalise cannabis and tax it. Increase tax on booze because it's, like, really bad mkay.

Reply to
Ollie Clark

When the new law was proposed I forecast a big increase in drunken disorder and a big increase in drink related admissions to A&E departments. I hate to say "I told you so" but that is exactly what has happened. Large scale drinking to excess with the consequent public disorder appears to be largely a UK problem (like so many other social problems) and it is right that the gov't should review the effects of this misguided legislative change.

Kev

Reply to
Uno-Hoo!

Do you actually have evidence of that?

I must say that expected the same, but have failed to see any reports of it, nor have I seen any bad behaviour in town centres after midnight, which was also predicted.

tim

Reply to
tim.....

I can't say I was such a big fan either ...

It says a lot for "Blairs legacy" that (Iraq excepted :-( ) that it's being dismantled at breakneck speed. In a years time, there'll be nothing left.

Reply to
Jethro

Empirically, from some media and hereabouts things have improved. Where are the sources of these stats? This sniffs of a panic (c) Daily Moral.

Reply to
Phil Stovell

Where? When? I have neither seen nor heard of any evidence to support your contention at all.

Reply to
Cynic

formatting link
70

Kev

Reply to
Uno-Hoo!

I've posted a link to a DM story elsewhere on the thread. Of course you'll dismiss it because it is the anti-drugs DM.

Kev

Reply to
Uno-Hoo!

See the link I've posted giving details of increase in numbers.

Kev

Reply to
Uno-Hoo!

Yes but where exactly?

Peter

Reply to
Peter Alexander

formatting link
70

I meant evidence that it is worse than before?

ISTM that the description that I have read was how it was with the 11:00 chuck out time, that 24 hour drinking was going to solve.

A 6% increase in offences is not statistically significant, especially as the police are likely to have less other things to do at 02:00 than at 23:00. Thus, they have time to make an arrest now that would have been let off before.

tim

Reply to
tim.....

No, I dismiss it because it contains no *factual evidence* to suggest that what you are saying is correct. What's more, the article itself even states that Gordon Brown himself is not convinced.

Just because an opinion is published in a newspaper does not make it correct. Where are the statistics for A&E admission figures before and after the 24 hour licencing during comparable weather & times of the year? Where are the police stats for the number of drunken brawls before & after, with similar caveats wrt season & weather?

And even then, unless there is a *huge* increase, no conclusion could be made until we have had quite a bit longer to compare the before & after situations.

Reply to
Cynic

You mean the "details" such as "Gordon Brown has received complaints ..."

Please post the objective numbers. A&E admissions. Arrest figures etc, for the past 12 months at least and also several 12 month periods prior to the change in licencing hours to see what sort of variations are normal.

Only then will either of us be able to make informed comments upon the change, if any, that has taken place.

Reply to
Cynic

I'm afraid the Daily Mail doesn't cut the mustard as a source. It is not credible.

If you get your knowledge of the world from the Daily Mail, then I'm afraid that you not only don't have any real idea about anything, but what you know is very likely to be plain untrue.

Svenne

Reply to
Svenne

The Daily mail is not dismissed because it is anti drug. The Daily Mail is dismissed because it tells lies. It actually prints stuff that is demonstrably untrue.

It is not a credible source.

Svenne

Reply to
Svenne

The Daily Mail is not a primary source. It does not give proven facts and figures. It gives biased opinion based on speculation and conjecture. And what is worse, it often reports as facts things it has made up itself and which are demonstrably untrue.

The Daily Mail is not credible. You need a better source if you are going to have any real idea of what is going on.

Svenne

Reply to
Svenne

Are you aware of *any* newspaper that is 100% accurate and does not embelish stories to support its particular political stance?

Kev

Reply to
Uno-Hoo!

Ahh.

Reply to
Phil Stovell

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.