UK: 1,900 fined in blitz on bingeing

1,900 fined in blitz on bingeing

Alan Travis, Friday August 6, 2004, The Guardian

Nearly 1,900 drunken troublemakers have been handed on-the-spot fines as a result of the first half of the government's two-month summer crackdown on binge drinking, the Home Office said yesterday.

Police have also carried out "sting" operations against 646 off licences, bars and clubs for selling alcohol to underage teenagers, and have confiscated alcohol from more than 4,000 adults and juveniles in "designated areas".

The home secretary, David Blunkett, said the figures showed that the coordinated police blitz was delivering results in tackling underage and binge drinking.

Home Office figures show police visited 14,150 licensed premises during the first four weeks of the campaign and 5% of them were found to have committed an offence, including selling alcohol to under-18s. The "sting" operations, which used teenagers of 13 and 14 to attempt to buy alcoholic drinks, found 51% of the pubs that were targeted and 29% of the off licenses were prepared to sell drink to children.

The 1,869 fixed penalty notices issued by police during the blitz included 794 for harassment, 786 for being drunk and disorderly, and 289 for other offences.

The British Beer and Pub Association's spokesman, Mark Hastings, said: "We fully support the Home Office enforcement campaign. However, the overwhelming evidence is that the vast majority of the 60,000 pubs in the UK are law-abiding businesses."

Reply to
Zenobia
Loading thread data ...
1,900 fined in blitz on bingeing

Alan Travis, Friday August 6, 2004, The Guardian

Reply to
Zenobia

I thought entrapment was illegal in the UK? Or do they simply use it as a warning?

Cheers Ric

Reply to
Ric

I think talking someone into committing a crime by offering inducements or by engaging them in a conspiracy is what is illegal. This is often called entrapment. Walking into a shop and buying booze is not entrapment, as such.

Reply to
Zenobia

Yes, it's not intrapment because the onus on determining age rests with the vendor in cases of products where legality is dependent upon age.

the 'decoys' are instructed to give their correct age if challenged.

Reply to
SMACK

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.