From: Bod on
On 20/03/2010 12:08, Adrian wrote:
> Bod<bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> So the only realistic chance of falling foul of the intoxication law
>> (as a pedestrian), is to either create a misdemeaner or a nuisance of
>> yourself.
>
> Yes, for the police to charge you with being drunk in public, you must be
> displaying symptoms of being drunk. Who'd have thought it, eh?
>
>> In other words, an offence must be seen to be committed, before this
>> law is invoked?
>
> Strangely, an offence must be committed before ANY law can be "invoked".
>
>

Yes, but if you are intoxicated and behaving yourself, then you ARE
commiting an offence already (albeit a virtually undetectable offence).
Then the intoxication offence, will only be applied once a further
offence is committed.

Bod
From: Adrian on
Dave Plowman <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> You seem to forget that it's already an offence to be intoxicated in
>> public

> Given such places make their money by selling alcohol they're unlikely
> to police that law very well themselves.

Then they are at risk of losing their licence, since it's also a breach
of their licensing conditions to serve drunk people.

> I'm talking about enjoyment of a meal out.

Sounds like you want your enjoyment at the expense of everybody else's.
From: Brimstone on


"Dave Plowman" <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50faf28db3dave(a)davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <80jopdFbckU2(a)mid.individual.net>,
> Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dave Plowman <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like
>> they were saying:
>
>> > That's fair enough. Now all we need is alcohol free restaurants so
>> > those who don't drink to excess can enjoy them without the drug
>> > induced 'merriment' from others who consider that normal behaviour.
>
>> You seem to forget that it's already an offence to be intoxicated in
>> public
>
> Given such places make their money by selling alcohol they're unlikely to
> police that law very well themselves. If it had the same punitive fines
> for smoking, they might.
>
Sensibly run places do and the punishment for failing to control drunkenness
are more severe than for allowing smoking, up to and including loss of a
licence to sell booze which means that the licencee of a conventional pub
loses both his income and his home (rather than in one of the more recent
corporately run drinking shops where they will simply put in another
manager).

You're also overlooking the availability of cheap booze in supermarkets etc.
That's where the real problem lies, not in pubs. But, as usual, it's easier
to blame the bigger more obvious target.


From: Brimstone on


"Dave Plowman" <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50faf23567dave(a)davenoise.co.uk...
> In article
> <ac21a5ea-6034-48c4-acda-849ba040ba81(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Indeed. The only real check on a fitness to drive would be some form of
>> > driving test - so totally impracticable.
>> >
>> > Of course those who think it's ok to drink and drive like Mr Nugent
>> > will invent any excuse to justify their breaking of the law.
>> >
>> > --
>> If the puritan, nanny state Nu Labour government get their way and
>> reduce the alcohol limit to 50mg/100ml of blood, there would be little
>> point in visiting a pub at all, even if you have no intention of
>> driving until the next day. You would only be able to drink about half
>> a pint of shandy if you want to be sure of staying legal. Many pubs,
>> effectively local meeting places, will be forced out of business.
>
> If it's a local meeting place, why do you need to drive there?
>
Because not everyone who might attend lives locally.


From: Mike Barnes on
Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk>:
>Even under the current laws, very small and slim young females have to
>be very much more careful about what they drink than overweight middle-
>aged males.

Under zero tolerance laws, they'd have to be careful about eating over-
ripe fruit as well.

"The alcohol content of over-ripe fruit attacked by yeast has been
tested at as high as 4.5 per cent, and there is a theory that humans
like alcohol in part because our early primate ancestors learned to
associate its smell with the presence of ripe, sugary fruit – a sort
of ancient alcopop."

http://zythophile.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/a-short-history-of-yeast/

--
Mike Barnes