I read with incredulity - or should that be with a resigned sigh - that Mr Plod in the shape of London's Commissioner of Police, Bernard Hogan-Howe is calling for fewer pubs in order to combat "alcohol fuelled disorder". Clearly is has escaped his notice that we have lost 13,000 pubs since 2000 and that alcohol consumption has fallen by 18% in a decade. As a matter of fact, the number of arrests in the Metropolitan Police area for offences such as Drunk and Disorderly has remained around the 6000 mark since 2008/09.
Now I don't know about you, but I can't remember when I last saw a fight
or other "alcohol fuelled disorder" - well not of the kind of any interest to the bizzies anyway - I don't think talking bollocks round the table counts - either inside or outside a pub. Where such behaviour occurs it is
usually in places where many mostly young people gather for late night drinking
and loud music.Clearly, to this observer at least, it is these places, not those that most people normal people would regard as "pubs" that are the issue. These are really bars or pseudo night clubs with late licences and are already well known to police and everyone else within a given local area as trouble spots. It is instructive too that Hogan-Howe reckons that councils should disregard development of local economies when handing out more licences. "It's the economy Stupid" clearly is of no concern to him. Nor are the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 - enacted in November 2005 - which restricts severely the reasons for refusing a premises license, but adds in the provision for restrictions to apply to a license and a complicated system of local licensing objectives. It also gives the police a role in objecting or restricting premises licences where a "negative cumulative impact on one or more of the licensing objectives." can be demonstrated. In other words, as usual, there are enough existing laws and provisions for problems arising from licensed premises and criminal acts outside them to be dealt with.Hogan-Howe should choose his terminology a lot more carefully. Pubs and local economies should not suffer because the police don't enforce the law. It is not licences to sell alcohol that cause problems. It is people.
One of my more serious posts. It really got on my nerves reading this. In fact I might have to go to the pub now.
.
He should really get elected, or shut up.
ReplyDeleteThis is the same Hogan-Howe who allowed himself to be forced to apologise over the three Muslim schoolgirls who cleared off to Syria to become the trophy wives of paedophile,misogynistic throat-cutters in ISIS.
ReplyDeleteThe parents blamed the rozzers rather than themselves for not knowing what was going on.
But you're right - boozers are an easy target for the lazy plod.
Now then Stanley, I'd have thought it was the very much the job of the coppers to protect children from dangerous lunatics. Regardless of religion.
ReplyDeleteWhat he's said has been misrepresented. I was horrified by the headline and even some of his direct quotes and he didn't show any sophistication in how he made his points. So far so bad. But actually I don't think he wants pubs as we recognise them to close. He's almost certainly talking about circuit bars etc on moody high streets in densely packed areas.
ReplyDeleteIf that's what he means he should have made it much clearer rather then giving the impression of making a generalised attack on all pubs.
ReplyDeleteAs Tandleman says, the "problem" is much exaggerated anyway and is confined to a limited number of bars in a limited number of locations.
All this begs the question, why did Mr Hogan-Howe see fit to open his mouth in the first place? The job of the police is surely to prevent crime and maintain law and order; not to dictate policy by interfering with the running of legitimate businesses and depriving hard working people of their livelihoods. Trying to manipulate the mix of local economies by some perverse kind of social engineering is definitely not within the remit of the police and never has been.
ReplyDeleteBTW. I haven’t heard the word “bizzies” applied to the boys in blue for many a year. Is it a scouse term?
Like Paul I haven't heard bizzies (if that's the spelling) used for a long time. We used it a lot when I was in my teens (so mid 1990s). I think it was recognised as an import from Scouse by us back then. We also said "scran" for food and "shan" for unfair, again knowing those words had come into our vocab from Brookside and the like. My mate Hardy used "shan" in anger a few years ago and we fell about laughing because it was such a blast from the past.
ReplyDeleteJeff. I made that point in my blog. You and I may be able to read between the lines. Most people won't. It is why I said he should choose his words more carefully.
ReplyDeleteOh and Jeff. You do know where the term "bizzy" comes from don't you?
ReplyDeletePaul. It is. Nearly ten years living there means I still use it a lot.
ReplyDeleteFar safer to sit at home with your s;ab of lout. The rozzer ain't wrong.
ReplyDelete