I spoke the other day about the mainstream reforms in relation to purchasing alcohol: the extra taxes on late night drinking promised by the Conservatives; the ability for local councils to blanket ban 24 hour drinking (can’t they do that already?) and the national banning of alcohol promotions.
The reason behind all of that is the resulting antisocial behaviour. What of under age drinking, though?
The Burlington on Lytham Road was caught serving 15 and 16 year olds on two occasions out of five. So 40% of the time, you get served. Decent odds. Punch Taverns rep John Cohen preferred to look at it in the opposite light;
“There were five test purchases and two failures, which I think demonstrates the premises does more often than not get it right.”
Correct, but it would have only taken one more successful purchase to entirely reverse that statement, wouldn’t it John?
What I am wondering is where the draconian punishment was. We’re told that under age drinking is a cause of the scourge of antisocial behaviour, so surely should a pub serve people under age then they should suffer. Take their license off them permanently. Shut it down and turn it into shared ownership flats!
The only punishment the Burlington has received really is the bad publicity. It seems daft having highly trained and highly paid police officers pursuing this when they’re not going to apply any punishments.
We moan when petty criminals walk out of the magistrates’ court with their fine that they pay back using benefits at 10p a week and this example of the Burlington is no different. Pubs now know that if they get caught serving under age then nothing will happen.
Am I ranting and raving like a madman or given that alcohol-fuelled antisocial behaviour is the root of all evil should the Burlington have been made to suffer a bit more for this discrepancy?
Just speaking out of personal experience, the under-age drinkers who tend to go into pubs to attempt to get served are..well… the drinkers in the pubs.
The problem with anti-social behaviour stems more from the under-age drinkers who are roaming the streets in tracksuits and getting their cider from small off licenses. What tends to happen now is the groups of teenagers are all aged 14-18, that way its easy for them to get alcohol seeing as some of them are totally legally able to buy the alcohol.
Im not condoning under-age drinking here… or saying that they should be allowed to drink in pubs or whatever. Simply saying that its the shops that need 90% of the concentration.. a large group of youths drinking on a park at 10pm on a friday night did not get their alcohol from a pub did they. However the group of three 17 year olds who dont feel they want to hang around on the streets take their chances in the pub – for the kind of night many of us regularly have weekly, with no problems.
Yeah, but I think if the person serving suspects that they’re buying for under age people they can refuse to serve, whether they’re 18 or not.
You make a good point though, I agree it’s probably the shops that need looking at but it’s difficult to stop if the gang of younger kids are elsewhere and someone over 18 is buying alone. Proper enforcement of drinking on the street would be a good start, after all I often see chavs in the morning walking along with cans of lager.
Yeah so do i walking past my work all the time.
Lord knows what that shite must taste like at half 9 in the morning.
I would hate for it to go too far though – for example i remember an incident a few years ago when i was with a load of friends on ashton gardens (yes…i know..)
an officer and a cso came wandering towards us and deduced that because there was an empty can of larger 4 or 5 metres away from us that we were all drinking heavily and causing trouble. So they sat each of us down and took all of our details, somthing that took the best part of an hour. Now i know that we WERE loitering on ashton gardens in a large group. But really what was sitting us down and quizzing us all on who we are going to do?