The Shetland Licensing Forum

[Colin]

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/16629-concern-over-number-of-off-licences-in-town

 

I'm not a "drinker" , but organistaions(?) like this tend to raise my hackles a bit.

 

Just who "elected/empowered" them and why does the Licensing Board feel that they need to consult(?) them as opposed to consulting(?) the wider population as a whole ? 

 

Are Licensing Rules to be decided on opinion pieces ?  I'm not advocating a licensing "free for all", but I do feel that certain semi-official bodies should not be given a hearing to spout "opinions" that the rest of us do not have.

 

We already have a "minimum unit price" on alcohol to punish discourage those who are addicted to the stuff and want to get off on cheap "rocket fuel" type drinks.  Now it seems that certain bodies also want to punish(?) those who like a casual(?) drink (or two) by attempting to limit the places they can obtain them.

 

Alcoholic drinks have been around for thousands of years, and for much of that time, were the only safe(?) way to absorb liquid without risk of infection.

 

From the article;

 

"the forum said the number of off-licence premises per head of population "gives rise to concern and could be construed as overprovision".

 

An OPINION with no supporting evidence.

 

"NHS Shetland had already expressed its view that there are too many off-licence premises in Lerwick,"

 

Another OPINION, and just WHAT has it got to do with NHS Shetland ?

 

"The forum features a range of representatives, from the industry to the NHS and the police."

 

I wonder why there are no members of the general public, and why don't we get a "say" in it ?

 

"the current level of off sales premises within Lerwick appear to have a negative impact to the health of the local population,"

 

Yet more OPINION without any supporting evidence.

 

"Should the board agree with the submitted evidence they may conclude that there is overprovision and include this in the licensing policy statement."

 

And now they are attempting to present OPINIONS as evidence.. 

 

"health board's report showed that alcohol is "too easily available in Shetland""

 

Tell that to Tesco and the Co-op who both have aisles full of the stuff.

 

"Figures showed that there are 46 off trades per 10,000 people in Shetland, with the national average 11.6."

 

Oh whoopie.  Now they are trying to compare a "rural" community  with much larger population centres.

 

"The NHS report said that there is on average four deaths per year in Shetland directly attributable to alcohol, while in 2016/17 there were 140 alcohol related hospital discharges."

 

A sad figure indeed but, I wonder how that relates to the "national average" quoted above ?

 

"In addition to the off sales and supermarkets, Lerwick's pool of licensed premises also includes two public halls, five hotels, five pubs, 11 restaurants and four nightclubs."

 

So, which of the above do they wish to shut down ?

 

"there is a strong link between the availability of alcohol and alcohol related harm,"

 

Must have gone to university to come up with that one but, please define "alcohol related harm".

 

"Those objectives are: preventing crime and disorder, securing public safety, preventing public nuisance, protecting and improving public health and protecting children from harm."

 

So, licencees are now expected to be policemen and social workers..  Hmmm. 

 

"national body Alcohol Focus Scotland expressed concern over the licensing hours for Lerwick Up Helly Aa."

 

Looks like they also want to take a pop at Up Helly Aa..  Will it never end ?

[paulb]

where do you think the drunks that the police wont detain end up. the number of drink related admissions are high. the number of drink related illnesses and deaths are extremely high thats why its an issue for the nhs

[George.]

In addition to the off sales and supermarkets, Lerwick's pool of licensed premises also includes two public halls, five hotels, five pubs, 11 restaurants and four nightclubs.

Lerwick's licensed premises appear to be very important here. Do the rest of the licensed premises, scattered across the islands, not matter?

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

Someone give them a history lesson:  prohibition doesn't work.  Nuff said.

[MuckleJoannie]

Someone in the health board has an anti drink agenda. I've known more than a few alcoholics in my time and if they need a drink they'll get a drink.

[Ghostrider]

"Those objectives are: preventing crime and disorder, securing public safety, preventing public nuisance, protecting and improving public health and protecting children from harm."

 

Haven't they noticed that alkis, junkies or whatever attempting to secure their poison of choice, but not succeeding tend to create the worst crime, disorder and nusiance. Lettting them get at it tends to keep them quiet at least.

 

'Improving public health' is very laudable, and by persuasion and education is fine, but this smacks of doing it by force, 'because we know best, and know what's best for you better than you do yourself'. Which is far from okay, but seems to have become quite prevalent within public bodies in recent years.

 

The 'nanny state' is fine and well for those who want a nanny state for whatever reason, but its highly objectionable to us who don't give a monkey's what the state thinks and just want to get on with life as we please bothering nobody, to be continiously assailed by browbeating and railroading to 'get with the program'.

[Colin]

Yes, and I wonder how the police/courts would react to any licencee who took the "mission statement" a little to literally ?

 

(( We already know the answer to that one due to the

 

"locked thread" https://www.shetlink.com/index.php?/topic/9578-barred-but-apparently-blameless/

 

incident at the Thule a little while back ))

 

It's laughable..  A "camel" (horse designed by a committee), and completely impractical to expect a businessman (licencee), or employees, to take on responsibilities for which, clearly, most are not properly trained and do not have the "official" backing.

[Guest PJS1979]

If I want to buy a six pack of beer ill buy it regardless of how many places are selling it , if I decide to go for a pint or two its nice to have a choice for something new and refreshing like recent openings on commercial street , why should the public be forced to use the same old places to suit the corrupt licensing board ?

[Colin]

If I want to buy a six pack of beer ill buy it regardless of how many places are selling it , if I decide to go for a pint or two its nice to have a choice for something new and refreshing like recent openings on commercial street , why should the public be forced to use the same old places to suit the corrupt licensing board ?

Trouble is that now they have got away with  intruducing "Minimum Alcohol Pricing", they will push to make a can of lager £10 (or something equally silly) just the way they have done with tobacco because "it's for your own good"....

[George.]

Trouble is that now they have got away with  intruducing "Minimum Alcohol Pricing", they will push to make a can of lager £10 (or something equally silly) just the way they have done with tobacco because "it's for your own good"....

Minimum alcohol pricing was brought in by Holyrood. Changes in tobacco laws were made by Westminster, were they not?

[shetlandtrader]

 

Trouble is that now they have got away with  intruducing "Minimum Alcohol Pricing", they will push to make a can of lager £10 (or something equally silly) just the way they have done with tobacco because "it's for your own good"....

Minimum alcohol pricing was brought in by Holyrood. Changes in tobacco laws were made by Westminster, were they not

 

pretty sure the tobacco rules are a devolved issue and although they would have been inspired by eu legislation the fine prine would have come from hollyrood but i think westminster would not have been involved in the scottish rules

[shetlandtrader]

If I want to buy a six pack of beer ill buy it regardless of how many places are selling it , if I decide to go for a pint or two its nice to have a choice for something new and refreshing like recent openings on commercial street , why should the public be forced to use the same old places to suit the corrupt licensing board ?

research and also common sence point towards the idea that the more licenced premises the more chance of getting served when you are intoxicated if you can try to look sober 4 times instead of 2 its no surprise you have more chance of being served and in turn more chance of dying from the alcohol do not forget in a pub, restaurant, nightclub you can get cut off in an off licence you can buy enough alcohol in one purchase to kill you.

[Colin]

 

Trouble is that now they have got away with  intruducing "Minimum Alcohol Pricing", they will push to make a can of lager £10 (or something equally silly) just the way they have done with tobacco because "it's for your own good"....

Minimum alcohol pricing was brought in by Holyrood. Changes in tobacco laws were made by Westminster, were they not?

 

Whoever brought in the "laws" is irrelevant.  My point was to illustrate the "method" used.

 

Tobacco prices rise at a silly rate every time there is a budget.  Look out for alcohol to do  the same.

[Ghostrider]

If I want to buy a six pack of beer ill buy it regardless of how many places are selling it , if I decide to go for a pint or two its nice to have a choice for something new and refreshing like recent openings on commercial street , why should the public be forced to use the same old places to suit the corrupt licensing board ?

research and also common sence point towards the idea that the more licenced premises the more chance of getting served when you are intoxicated if you can try to look sober 4 times instead of 2 its no surprise you have more chance of being served and in turn more chance of dying from the alcohol do not forget in a pub, restaurant, nightclub you can get cut off in an off licence you can buy enough alcohol in one purchase to kill you.

 

 

If someone doesn't have the ability within themselves to realise they're killing themselves with their alcohol (or any other substance) intake, maybe there's a very good argument to be made for letting the theories of Charles Darwin run their natural course.

 

No human, either as an individual or as part of a collective has the right to dictate to any other human what sort of lifestyle they lead, as long as their lifestyle decisons don't negatively impact upon another human.

 

We have statutes to prevent alcohol falling in to the hands on the immature who may not realise, appreciate or fully understand the negative effects of the substance, we have statutes to deal with those considered mature adults who behave unacceptably when under the influence of alcohol. That's all one human has any moral right to impose upon another human.

 

We impose a levy on all alcohol sales which goes to the government, that should pay for the policing and enforcing of the above statutes, and also the provision of support services to those who realise their alcohol consumption is or is potentially problematic and are struggling to handle it themselves.

 

If someone wants to follow a lifestyle that drinks themselves in to an early grave and are happy to do so in the full knowledge that is what they're doing, none of the rest of us has any right to judge their decision of attempt to 'force' them to follow another choice of lifestyle.

 

Alcohol is a naturally occuring substance, its supposed to be, and as humans are one of the species on this planet, its perfectly natural that the two meet up. Why try and fight/redesign nature? Bans don't work, prohibition proved that, if for no other reason than probably no fewer deaths occured from 'illegal' stills accidents and car wrecks/shootings caused by those enforcing the ban, than would have occured if folk been allowed to continue to drink themselves silly. Restrictions work up to a point as long as they're perceived by folk as being at least somewhat 'fair' and 'reasonable', but that's a fine line that is now probably being broken. Increased costs has minimal positive effect, as those who place a high importantance upon alcohol as part of their lifestyle will just pay it to get it, often at the expense of other things in their lives, which is as detrimental to themselves in the end.

 

Where price pushes it to where the amount they desire exceeds their disposable income, folk are being encouraged in to crime, whether that be theft and/or the black market. Or then to make their own, with all the safety issues that raises.

 

At the end of the day, your average human only learns and accepts as fact that which they witness happening in front of their own eyes. Bans just encourage initiative and inventiveness to circumnavigate them, so do restrictions, and 'education' that is preached as pure theory without actual physical evidence demonstrating it at the same time encourages more of the 'Yeah, yeah, who cares', 'They're exaggerating it all, I don't believe its that bad' and 'I'll prove them wrong' type reactions than anything else.

 

If you want to get across to folk how dangerous driving a vehicle can be, let them see a few mangled wrecks with at least the blood stains and other minor body parts still attached and fresh, if it can be the body parts of someone they knew, so much the better. If you want to get across to folk the dangers of alcohol the same applies, let them see a few people they know rapidly drink themselves in to the ground. If folk don't "get" it after that, they're never going to 'get' it. Anything else is a waste of time lip service exercise that makes the 'do gooders' feel better and self-righteous about themsleves, and only serve to inconvenience and harrass the vast majority who aren't the target group anyway.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Ghostrider

[Colin]

 

If I want to buy a six pack of beer ill buy it regardless of how many places are selling it , if I decide to go for a pint or two its nice to have a choice for something new and refreshing like recent openings on commercial street , why should the public be forced to use the same old places to suit the corrupt licensing board ?

research and also common sence point towards the idea that the more licenced premises the more chance of getting served when you are intoxicated if you can try to look sober 4 times instead of 2 its no surprise you have more chance of being served and in turn more chance of dying from the alcohol do not forget in a pub, restaurant, nightclub you can get cut off in an off licence you can buy enough alcohol in one purchase to kill you.

 

Rubbish.....  The licencing "laws"  and "rules" (?) apply to EVERYONE

 

Don't forget that the production of alcohol is simple(?) chemistry that can be done by anyone at home, and occurs naturally when conditions are anywhere near "right".

Using the above arguments, anyone so inclined could drink themselves into oblivion without interference.