Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


UK 'to follow Scotland's example' over alcohol prices

View Video
Download Video

Video

What the new alcohol pricing regulations could mean
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 16 March 2009
DEMANDS for minimum alcohol pricing across the UK have been made by the government's top medical adviser.
The call by Sir Liam Donaldson follows the lead on the issue made by the Scottish Government earlier this month.

Sir Liam has supported the argument that minimum pricing may deter people from drinking so much and has agreed with anti-alcohol campaigners that there should be a 50p per unit price. This is even higher than the 40p per unit that the Scottish Government has hinted it is considering.

It would mean most bottles of wine could not be sold for less than £4.50 and it could see some alcohol, particularly cheap spirits, double in price.

However, it has also revealed splits within the UK government ranks.

Last week Whitehall sources were warning that the Scottish Government proposal to introduce minimum pricing may be illegal because it could break EU competition laws.

Several organisations representing retailers and the alcohol industry have made it clear they are prepared to test the legislation in the courts.

On Friday the Scotch Whisky Association claimed it had found legal precedent dating back to 1978 showing that minimum pricing is illegal.

But yesterday Sir Liam, who is understood to have decided to make a stand as a result of the Scottish Government's previous announcement, is adamant in his report that the move was needed to reduce binge drinking in the UK and improve people's health.

A UK Department of Health spokeswoman made it clear that the policy is being considered.

"We have not ruled out taking action on very cheap alcohol – it's clearly linked to people drinking more and the subsequent harm to their health," she said.

A Scottish Government spokesman said that Sir Liam's stance showed how out of step the opposition parties were in Holyrood.

Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have grouped together to delay implementation of minimum pricing in Scotland by insisting that it is done through legislation rather than introduced through the Scottish Government's licensing powers.

And, despite UK Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg's support for minimum pricing, Scottish Lib Dem leaders were yesterday insisting at the party conference in Perth that they oppose the measure because of its impact on the whisky industry.

The spokesman for Scottish Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said: "Alcohol misuse is a major problem north and south of the Border, and we welcome reports that the UK government are taking the first steps in following key aspects of the Scottish Government's proposals.

"As in the ban on smoking in public places, it is clear Scotland is again ahead of the game."


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 March 2009 10:53 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Alcohol & binge drinking
 
1

redcliffe62,

16/03/2009 02:06:24
they taxed cheap alcohol in oz and people just swapped to another brand. it was seen invictager as a steallth tax, but the resukts were predictable to anyone with half a brain were predictable.
does a 16 year old kid with 10 quid buy half as much on a friday night as he did before, or does buy something else that still gets him p****d at a cost he can afford.
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 16/03/2009 02:13:36

Home Brew, and bootlegging, is where it WILL end up!

Take the times back to History past!

'Muppet-Show' reactions, when one has NO clue, in what to do!

My Child is throwing a tantrum!, lets 'Sp^nk their Bum'!

With this attitude the way it works now is, the minority 'rule-the-roost'!

Let us apply this then to Politics!

We must suffer for the Minority in Society, this is what is being implemented!!!

Soo from now on the Political Minority Party, that only win 1000 votes now take all power over the UK!

Vote for the, 'Raving-Loony-Party', because they will control the UK!!


Only 5 votes will ensure this!


The Tackling of Alcohol, shows the childish behaviour of the ones we elected, and expected more from!




3

Moonraker007,

16/03/2009 02:45:16
Just as well for Gordon and his followers like Rufus, they have proper example of leadership and people first thinking to follow.Even if they display groos amounts of double standards when applying and still saying "ONE BRITAIN!!!!!"

The hilarity of how they squirm.
4

,

16/03/2009 05:25:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Riverkidca,

Swan River 16/03/2009 05:39:29
Doesn't sound like they're going to be suckered in this time, and I quote from the Daily Telegraph:
'Government sources said ministers were aware of Prof Donaldson's views on alcohol prices, but one said "I cannot see any way that we will accept Liam's recommendation on this".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/4993299/Governments-top-doctor-recommends-price-hike-for-alcohol.html
6

For Scotlands Future,

Vote for the SNP 16/03/2009 06:20:58
Where Scotland lead - England follow.

I also see that England are also waking up to the disaster that PFI schemes are.

I think there is a secret Westminster committee that examines everything the Scottish Government does and then changes Westminster policy accordingly.
7

yockel,

16/03/2009 06:25:36
I was wondering why the Hootsmon had not reported this story, then by the time they do they don't bother to check and discover the idea has alrready been rejected.
8

walter,

16/03/2009 06:50:55
Strange I am sure that on the news last night it said the government did not intend to introduce minimum pricing even though this one individual advise has said they should.
If they do bring it in I am sure they will go through the full parliamentary process to do so and not try tag it on the end of a bill that was passed in parliament 4 years ago.
9

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 16/03/2009 08:28:29
Labour Policy of 24 hour access to booze is the real villain of the piece.This has contributed to more binge drinking by females and the younger members of society.Another "well thought through scheme" which will not address the problems at all. Nu-Labour strikes out again.
10

FTH22inarow,

16/03/2009 09:12:08
Joke of a law, an alky will get their drink from somewhere, just another thinly vailed tax on the working classes,as the rich have no need to buy cheap drinks do they?
11

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 16/03/2009 09:27:40
Err, no, UK will not be following Scotland on this. No doubt the Labour appartchiks in London have figured that their chav client state will get shirty about this and might bother to get off the couch and vote against them. This after all MATTERS!

If the benefits classes can't behave themselves they only have themselves to blame when tax rises are contemplated to control anti-social and criminal behaviour often associated with regular over-indulgence. If you don't believe it just pop down to a city centre near you towards the end of the week in the evening or the local Sheriff Court on a Monday.

This and curtailment of 24 hour opening is long overdue.
12

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 16/03/2009 09:50:54
There is one motivation behind this and one only---the generation of extra revenue from alcohol duty and VAT.

What went wrong with the UK in 1997? Why did we vote for stupid labour? After 12 years of this madness we have ended up with insane, puritanical governments both north and south of the border. What happened to the fight within the ordinary people? Why do we always just roll over and accept whatever the lunatics throw at us?

It is about time we rose up and fought this madness.
13

Destroy the Planet,

16/03/2009 10:05:23
ZanuLabour puppets
14

Tartan Viking,

16/03/2009 10:12:53
#18 Fuel Head. Civil unrest is sure to happen soon. It's not a wish but I can see it happening as a result of the policies of this mob in power. People are losing their jobs and their houses. The prospects are very bleak indeed and we have a tax bill to pass on to our children that will take 40 years to clear.

Meanwhile, people see the rich getting richer and obscene practices like the Royal Bank of Scotland stealing £800 million of the bale-out money to fund their own pension fund so that the rich and greedy bankers can retire in the rich and greedy style they are accustomed to.

It it surely only a matter of time that people will take to the streets and who could blame them.
15

Mikey,

16/03/2009 10:16:43
I remember saying that when the smoking ban came in, the next thing would be a drinking ban or something like it! Right again folks!

I should be standing for the SP!
16

,

16/03/2009 10:33:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

,

16/03/2009 11:22:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

Fred Leeson,

alicante 16/03/2009 11:32:02
MP's enjoy subsidised drinks at Westminster ( £4.3m this year ) yet are considering putting up alcohol prices. Seems unfair. They've tried this minimum price for alcohol in various countries ( Eire, Russia ) to no effect on liver disease and binge drinking in general. People make their own or get bootleg stuff from other countries. Or their children eat less well and other bills don't get paid.
19

Mike555,

Falkirk 16/03/2009 11:41:19
For once Gordon Brown does something right. This morning he spoke out against the chief medical officer and said "We do not want the responsible, sensible majority of moderate drinkers to have to pay more or suffer as a result of the excesses of a small minority. And that's the context in which we look at the problems that the chief medical officer has raised."

Now what do we do about the highly paid meddlers in the Scottish Government who want to introduce this in Scotland.

I can just see the vanloads of thirsty Scots driving over the border to buy their booze at English prices.

Wish these people in the SNP government would get real and tackle the real issues for once, like life saving special Cancer drugs for all Scots irrespective of post code. An absolute disgrace!!!
20

AJM,

16/03/2009 12:03:19
#24 Danielrober, as the SNP proposal was for a mim price, all the revenue goes to the supplier and drinks industry, it was never a tax.
21

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 16/03/2009 12:07:40
The dipsomaniacs and drinkers of rotgut will always find the money to feed their addiction even if it means denying their children and loved ones food and clothing and even a roof over their heads.
22

Fred Leeson,

alicante 16/03/2009 12:16:20
#28 AJM
Tax revenue from alcohol was £6Bn last year so this would rise to about £12Bn if the proposals were introduced.
23

AJM,

16/03/2009 12:34:36
#33 Fred, Please as I understand it this was never a tax proposal by the SNP, so any calculations are in error.

Something needs to be done, but pricing and tax are not the way forward.

How long ago was it the AS was jumping up and down as the latest tax alteration in the budget was going to adversely affect Whisky and put Scottish jobs at risk. So the SNP are proposing a price hike thats ok. So price rise by Westminster bad, price rise SNP government good. Westminster put jobs at risk, SNP do not.
24

Fred Leeson,

alicante 16/03/2009 12:46:00
#AJM It doesn't matter if this wasn't a tax proposal. The effect will be an increase in tax. It will raise an extra £6Bn. That calculation isn't an error. Unless you halve the VAT on alcohol which would kinda defeat the object of the proposal.
Both the SNP and Labourliars have been rightly slated and have backed off from this policy of doubling alcohol prices so I wouldn't worry about it.
There's no way that labourliars will alienate it's key voters ( unemployed underclass benefit scroungers ) by introducing this plan until after the election. Not that they will win after Broon's disastrous handling of the UK economy. But that's another story.
25

Scimitar1,

16/03/2009 13:30:31
Typical of the Left mindset ,first they cause the problem then they come up with 'creative sticky' plasters to mask it until the mask gets exposed ,and to accomplish this a need for arises to hire an army of social,outreach ,community,diversity and any other worker needed to sustain their client state and failed ideolgy. The pattern is there to see..

1)Dumb down the education sytem in name of inclusiveness and initiate H Ed targets -increased NEETS-initiated the failed new deal-created a skills shortage-imported labour to fill the gap they created

2)Mothers forced into workforce-child delinguency up-feral kids-teenage drunkiness and violence-social breakdown/'broken Britain' - schools to be open after hours- introduction of failed ASBO's

3) increased/early sex education- easier availability of contraceptives- abortions, STD's,teenage pregnancies increased - initiated sex ed for 5 yr olds,lunch time abortions for under 16's teenagers- promisquity increases.

4)Initiated Mass uncontrolled immigration -tensions rise,social cohesion plummets - created laws to muffle public opinion - Ramped up immigration to appease the 'victimized' ethnic minorities - introduced the surveillance society and human rights laws,hate laws- created civil liberties issues - record numbers of skilled Britons emigrate - new skills shortage-ramp up immigation - extremist parties take hold- Britain needs to import Poles to plum a sinks and stack shelves-free speech clampdown

WIP

5)24 hours drinking licences-increased drinking-increased long term health problems - increased street assaults and rapes- hike up alcohol prices

6)Overcrowded prisons - reduce the no of prison sentences.. ??

26

old copper,

dumfries 16/03/2009 14:00:27
I AGREE with increasing the price of alcohol,having long thought this should be done by substantial taxation with revenue gathered helping to ease the burden imposed on the NHS budget by the alarming increase in alcohol related illness/injuries it now has to deal with.
I also think a windfall tax on the distilling/brewing industry might also be considered with the revenue obtained also going to the NHS.
I do NOT believe, however, that increasing the price of alcohol would lead to a reduction in consumption or any of the health, crime or social ills frequently caused by alcohol.
Man has used drugs of various types, including alcohol, since time immemorial and I see no sign of this altering.
Alcohol is a VERY POTENT DRUG,with the same potential for addiction and creating other social and health problems,as cannabis,heroin etc.(some would say worse).
Despite witnessing, at first hand,all the problems alcohol creates we continue using it as a recreational drug.
Thousands are addicted to it, many more consume it to excess and it is often the social focal point of even moderate drinkers.
So you see, alcohol is ingrained on our culture and social fabric and has such a grip on us that price inceases will not alter the attitudes of we Brits. to alcohol consumption.
That does not mean to say alcohol should not be taxed to resimburse our medical services for the problems it causes them.

27

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 16/03/2009 14:14:20
This is not a tax! It is simply fixing a minimum price. As no-one could possibly know what the retailer would have sold the booze for if there was no mininmum price, it is absurd to suggest that the difference between the unknown price and the statutory minimum would somehow be collected by a government!

However the whole scheme is idealistic, fanciful and ill-considered. Would the minimum unit price be set annually? Or would it be index-linked?

We already have a mish-mash of duty on alcohol and this bears no little or relation to the number of units in a bottle or glass. For example, the duty on whisky is equal to about 22p per unit, on beer - 17ppu, on wine - 17p, on sherry - 15pppu and on cider it is about 4ppu. The unit value of every alcoholic drink sold in this country is either printed on the label or easily calculated from the information on the label so why not change the duty scale to one that is based on units of alcohol? The minimum price of alcohol would then be governed by the amount of duty paid - of course, it would be necessary to make it illegal to sell alcohol for less than the duty on it (as occurs on some supermarket promotions).

28

Destroy the Planet,

16/03/2009 15:08:54
We'll eventually have to combine alcohol with other drugs, keeps it cheap and fubar - makeway for the boots emergency home od kit
29

Destroy the Planet,

16/03/2009 15:09:55
The Snp are just a voice in the wind these days, bye now !
30

Kobi.,

16/03/2009 15:29:43
#1, #2, #3, #4 Very good.

Except that European Commission v Greece ECJ 2000 C216/98 is directly in point, dealing with minimum pricing of tobacco:

"It must be observed that Article 36 of the Treaty enables the Member States to apply national provisions that restrict intra-Community trade in order to protect the health and life of humans. However, measures based on Article 36 of the Treaty cannot be justified unless they are necessary in order to attain the objective pursued by that article and that objective is not capable of being attained by measures which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade.....In this case it must be observed that the objective of protecting public health may be adequately attained by increased taxation of manufactured tobacco products, which would safeguard the principle of free formation of prices.......

"The Court hereby declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force legislative provisions which require minimum retail selling prices for manufactured tobacco to be determined by ministerial decree, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco"

Which makes minimum pricing of alcohol illegal in the UK.
31

Fred Leeson,

alicante 16/03/2009 16:03:33
#38
Everyone is agreed the proposal isn't being introduced as an extra tax. That's just a beneficial gain from the proposal.
The problem of drunks on the streets causing mayhem could be sorted out quickly by arresting and jailing drunks. Keep them in jail until they pay a fine of £200 or whatever. It would never happen though as Britain no longer does punishment.
And it would never be possible to make drink too expensive for alcoholics. As the price rises then crime and deprivation would rise to cover the extra cost.
So we will all have to suffer for the drunken minority.
32

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 16/03/2009 16:55:04
Jacqueline Hyde:

"This is not a tax! It is simply fixing a minimum price."


Correct. At the moment, it is not a tax, however lets look at things in a bit more detail shall we?

A manufacturer can produce and sell a product in bulk to a retailer for £x per unit. This pricing fits into the manufacturer's overall business plan which generates a net profit.

The retailer can sell the same product to the general public for £y per unit, where y = x + profit.

Then along comes the government and decrees that the product must be sold for no less than £z, where z = Government Enforced Price and which is very much greater than y.

Now what do you see? There is now a whole load more money floating around the place. Several things could happen here. Either the retailer simply raises the selling price and takes the entire difference in profit or the manufacturer increases the wholesale price, forcing the retailer to increase the price to retain his profit margin---or several incredibly complex combinations of both.

Now. How long are a government---particularly a stupid labour government---going to allow businesses to make excessive profits as a result of one of their crazy new laws? I'm not a betting man, but even I would wager that the answer to that would be "not a particularly long time".

Therefore, logic dictates that even though this isn't instantly going to be a tax, give it time and they will find some way of causing the additional cash to end up in the government's coffers.
33

old copper,

dumfries 16/03/2009 17:39:33
#38 #43 #44
What is wrong with taxing alcohol? It is not one of life's essentials,unless you are alcoholic and thereby suffering from a self inflicted illness.
As I pointed out at #37, price increases in alcohol, whether from an incease in the tax of that drug or by the scheme currently being suggested,regarding minimum prices, will make little or no difference to our drinking habits. I enjoy the occasional drunk but realise the problems caused by alcohol go further than my own pocket and think it should be taxed heavily with the resultant revenue going to NHS to deal with the problems and increased work they inherit as a result of alcohol.
Of course,if drinkers do not wish to pay extra then they have the answer......stop buying alcohol. It's as easy as that, unless, of course, you are alcoholic.
34

Kobi.,

16/03/2009 17:51:05
What is wrong with taxing dogs? They are not one of life's essentials, unless you are another dog and thereby suffering from a self-delusional illness.

Price increases on the cost of dogs and dog-related product, whether from an increase in the tax or by the scheme currently being suggested, regarding minimum prices, will make little or no difference to our dog walking habits. I enjoy meeting the occasional dog but realise the problems caused by dogs go further than my own enjoyment and think they should be taxed heavily with the resultant revenue going to the police and the NHS to deal with the problems and increased work they inherit as a result of out of control dogs. Dogs murder babies, you know!

Of course, if people do not wish to pay extra then they have the answer......stop buying dogs. It's as easy as that.


Repeat ad nauseam for any commodity that someone doesn't approve of.
35

old copper,

dumfries 16/03/2009 18:07:56
#46 Kobi
I think,perhaps,you may have been at the bottle.
Why don't you take your dog for a walk down to the pub and buy him a pint before prices hit the WOOF?

Just for the record, I don't disapprove of alcohol OR dogs and I can remember when Customs and Excise DID tax the latter by means of dog licences.

Maybe we should re-introduce dog licences.Perhaps you could take the LEAD in the movement to bring them back.
36

Miss H,

16/03/2009 18:26:13
44 You have never grasped any of this proposal.

It is not about restricting profits. It will make hee haw difference to the manufacturer.

The purpose of minimum pricing is to end the practice of using drink as a loss leader. The clue is in the title - LOSS LEADER. It's to prevent retailers selling alcohol AT A LOSS in order to increase footfall.

If they want to use items as a loss leader let them use bread or milk or fruit. Not alcohol which is a drug not a simple grocery item.

37

Iain's,

Barcelona 16/03/2009 18:49:53
Funny, we have cheap drink prices over here and the drunks are noticable by their absence.

In the old days, if a pub had a reputation for causing drunkeness, it lost its licence. The laws are there but they are not enforced. (If it was not Britain, one would assume brown envelopes all round!)
38

Kobi.,

16/03/2009 18:52:35
#48

Doubt very much if a supermarket selling 24 cans for a tenner is in fact making a loss on that. May not be making much of a profit. Their choice though.

39

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 16/03/2009 18:59:22
The post war break down in society has to be in direct proportion to the gradual disenfranchisement of the father figure as the head of the family.

What we are witnessing at the moment is the manifestation of the result of feminine power.

Good family men have been driven to drink by discriminating laws which have seen them driven from their homes and children. They turn to drink.

Fatherless children turn to drink when they see childless fathers drinking.

Now there's an apolitical thought.
40

Fred Leeson,

alicante 16/03/2009 19:00:56
#45 old copper
I've travelled around Europe where beer is less than half the price it is in the UK and you don't see drunkeness.
The extra tax on alcohol penalises the rest of society who drink sensibly. Surely things are dire enough in the UK without more tax ? It will make no difference to binge drinkers or alcoholics. If the present laws were enforced properly then we wouldn't have a problem. At the moment drunken yobs are either driven home ( female ) or spend the night in the cells to sober up ( male ).
ie nothing happens to them to make them change their habits.
41

,

16/03/2009 22:54:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

old copper,

dumfries 16/03/2009 23:16:22
#52 Fred Leeson
I agree with what you say re less drunkeness in Europe,but our culture vis-a-vis.alcohol is different from mainland Europe and,indeed,any other country I have visited.
A significant number of Brits. simply drink to get very drunk and this seems acceptable and fashionable. I see no indication of this attitude altering.
The bottom line is,that if the NHS is to believed,and the amnount of time and money spent on alcohol generated illnesses is increasing at the rates alleged, considerable sums of money will be required d to deal with the crisis. An increased tax on alcohol, the drug at the centre of the problem, seems an obvious source for such funding.
Things might become even more `dire in the UK',as you put it,if money has to be diverted from other parts of the NHS to deal with increaing alcohol related conditions which, to a great extent are self inflicted.
Moderate or sensible drinkers need fear nothing. The increase in our drinks expenditure would not be great and if it did prove too much we have the choice of reducing the amount consumed or eschewing alcohol altogether.
The last 2 courses of action would probably be in our best interests, both from a health and a financial viewpoint. Nobody forces us to drink alcohol and as I said in a previous post it is not one of life's essentials and we don't really need it to enjoy ourselves unless, of course, we are sad alcoholics.





43

old copper,

dumfries 16/03/2009 23:32:56
#49 Iain's
I agree with what you say about poor enforcement
of the Liquor Licensing laws, particularly those dealing with publicans supplying alcohol to already drunk patrons and permitting drunkeness on licensed premises.
I spent over 30 years as a Police Officer on Clydeside where there was plenty of drunkeness. On several occasions I charged publicans with offences of this nature and they were all convicted.However, the courts either admonished them or merely imposed small fines.
When their liquor licenses came up for renewal at the licensing board they WERE taken from the offending publicans who were then allowed to transfer them to their wives, business associates, etc.
Not much there to encourage publicans to toe the line.
44

Kobi.,

17/03/2009 00:06:10
#55

Agree in principle, but how do you tell if someone is drunk? Falling over throwing up is fair enough, but where is the line drawn?
45

old copper,

dumfries 17/03/2009 00:39:20
#56 kobi
Each such case is decided on its own merits and the question of drunkeness is a question of fact for the court to rule upon, given due regard to the evidence.
I never really had any difficulty with this aspect as I grew up in the west of Scotland and was familiar with drunkeness from an early age.
I merely reported the symptoms I observed, i.e. breath smelling of alcohol,swaying,unsteady gait,eyes glazed, speech slurred etc.
These are the classic symptoms of intoxication and, having observed them, one would be entitled to conclude drunkeness. Publicans really should not supply those exhibiting these symptoms as they are obviously drunk and probably close to being drunk and inacapable.
Of course, the defence was entitled to submit evidence in rebuttal of the allegation of drunkeness and, no doubt,any evidence that the customer supplied was ill, as opposed to drunk, would be taken into consideration. This never occurred in any of the cases I was involved with.
46

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 17/03/2009 08:51:12
55 AND 57 OLD COPPER

Your informed comments are the most sane and pondered on this thread.

You have been there, done that and I thank you for sharing your past experiences of this tiresome problem.
47

Kobi.,

17/03/2009 08:53:56
#57

Yeah, and the publican or his/her staff is expected to be able to do all that in the second or so when someone is at the bar asking to be served. Also bear in mind that it can take the body a little while for the alcohol already consumed to impact.

Different standards have always been applied as to whether someone is drunk. Defence counsel for a rapist would consider that the victim having had one glass of wine was drunk. A sheriff would consider that three drinks would put you over, a copper would accept that perhaps five or six would be necessary, and your average 25 year old bloke would consider that only when he could not walk straight was he drunk. It is not as easy to judge as you seem to imply, and there is no objective standard in law as to what drunk is.

"breath smelling of alcohol,swaying,unsteady gait,eyes glazed, speech slurred etc." Those are also the symptoms of someone having had one drink and then having a diabetic hypo, cos their blood sugar is dangerously low.
48

old copper,

dumfries 17/03/2009 10:04:18
#57 Kobi
You are correct,publicans and their staff ARE expected to assess an individual's sobriety before serving him/her. That is part of their job and their duty under the Licensing Acts.
There is long standing judicial precedent for the fact that publicans and staff have a legal responsibility to ensure those they serve with alcohol are not drunk. The buck stops with them, and if they are unhappy with the law or feel unable to detect whether or not a customer is drunk, they should perhaps return their liquor licences and seek alternative employment.
Personally, I have been able to judge whether a person is drunk, with almost unfailing accuracy since I was a child.
I also agree differing standards can be applied to what being drunk actually is, but it has nothing to do with the amount one has had to drink. Everyone's metabolism is different and some people can consume larger amounts than others.
It has do do with the effect that the alcohol is having on the consumer.I knew someone who asserted people were not drunk unless they were lying flat out.
However, when it comes to court proceedings,as I said in a previous post,it is a matter for the court to decide upon in each individual case. That is what couirts are for.
In the cases of selling alcohol to drunk customers which I dealt with, the customer was always cited as a prosecution witness. In one instance he said he could not remember anything about the incident which was enough to convince the court of his drunken state and in the others they admitted they were slurring their speech,unsteady on their feet,etc.etc. In each of these cases the court concluded,as I had, that they were drunk at the relevant time.
If any of these persons had been diabetic,epileptic etc., and that was the cause of them exhibiting symptoms similar to those of intoxication, then the defence would have been entitled to present that fact in evidence and I have no doubt the accused publican or his employee would have been give
49

Kobi.,

17/03/2009 10:42:56
#60

I know perfectly well what the law is, thank you. The point I am making is that as the law has not set down an objective standard for defining what is drunk (as you set out helpfully), it is not exactly easy for servers in licensed premises to be sure of whether they can serve or not.

Part of the problem, as I am sure you will accept from your own experience, is that the fiscal will not proceed with marginal cases, where the evidence that someone was in fact drunk, may be thin, even though they were in fact drunk.

As for your description of what happens in a court, very true. However, much of the time, the case is not heard in a court but at a Licensing Board, where the rules of evidence do not apply, and statements from the Chief Constable to the effect that someone was drunk pass unchallenged and with no evidence presented to support the contention. Licensing Boards generally prefer the evidence of the police, and livelihoods are removed without the police having to back up their assertions.
50

old copper,

dumfries 17/03/2009 12:33:09
#61
True,there is no objective standard set which specifically defines drunkeness in law and it would be difficult to provide one. Do you have anything in mind?

The present method of courts concluding whether or not a person is drunk from the evidence of witnesses who have observed them has proved satisfactory in the vast majority of cases. There will always be mistakes, as in every aspect of life.

I think you are correct that most procurator fiscals would not proceed in cases where evidence of drunkeness (or indeed any part of the evidence) was lacking. I consider that to be fair and proper.

However, where the fiscal considers the evidence adequate, I believe the final decision should be left to the courts.

Perhaps matters of this nature will be resolved when Police are equpped with cameras in their caps and can present video evidence of incidents which should make things easier for the courts. I understand such a move is being investigated and wish I had access to such equipment when I was a serving officer.It would have made life easier.

So far as licensing boards are concerned,I can really only recollect the Chief Constable objecting to the renewal of a liquor licence,in cases of the type we have been discussing,where convictions had already been obtained in a criminal court with the usual laws of evidence applying.

However, you may be know differently.

I think the wisest course of action for a publican or his staff would be to apply the rule which many do in relation to suspected under age drinkers, i.e. if in doubt do not serve.


51

Kobi.,

17/03/2009 13:15:57
#62

Fair comments. But as we both know very little actually gets to the courts so the way the courts deal with the matter evidentially is largely irrelevant.

I have seen dozens of cases where the Chief Constable would object to the renewal of licence, without any criminal case having been proven. Frequently the Board would take no action until the matter was deal with by a court, but not always.

A particularly sneaky tactic which the police would adopt would be to object to the grant or renewal of regular extensions of permitted hours, in respect of conduct outwith the extended hours. As there was no appeal against a refusal
52

Beachcomber,

Edinburgh 17/03/2009 13:21:10
Off topic, but important...
2011 Scottish Census rehersal kicks off 29 March
in Edinburgh West.

SACC latest bulletin..

Storm brewing over Scottish Census rehearsal
Island and Edinburgh households set to become human rights battleground

With just 12 days to go until the official rehearsal for the next Scottish Census, the exercise looks certain to be engulfed in controversy. Human rights campaigners are asking people to refuse to take part in the rehearsal in protest at the involvement of a controversial defence company that supplied interrogators to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The next Scottish Census will be held in March 2011. But a massive dry run involving 50,000 households in the west of Edinburgh and in Lewis and Harris is scheduled for Sunday 29 March this year. For the first time in the UK, people taking part will have the option of filling in the census questionnaires online. And people in Lewis and Harris will for the first time be able to complete the questionnaires in Gaelic.

Key work for the census - including the all-important IT work - has been contracted to CACI Ltd, a wholly-owned UK subsidiary of a controversial US defence company that has been involved in human rights abuses in Iraq.

Campaigners have been delivering leaflets door-to-door in the west of Edinburgh. SACC says:

"People are outraged when they find out from us that a company involved in human rights abuses in Iraq will be running the census. But no one in the west of Edinburgh seems to realise that they will be part of the census rehearsal. Our leaflet is the first information they have received about it. The Register Office and their contractors seem to be running scared. I don't understand how they think they can conduct a meaningful rehearsal under a publicity blackout."

From August 2003 until the early autumn of 2005 CACI International was contracted to provide “interrogation services” for the US Army at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. While CACI staff wer
53

Beachcomber,

Edinburgh 17/03/2009 13:23:41
From August 2003 until the early autumn of 2005 CACI International was contracted to provide “interrogation services” for the US Army at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. While CACI staff were employed as interrogators at Abu Ghraib, prisoners were humiliated and tortured there by US military police. Photographs of the abuse shocked the world and led to the conviction of a number of low-ranking US soldiers by courts martial.

CACI denies any responsibility for the abuse that was photographed and denies some other allegations of abuse. But instead of answering the allegations in court, it is trying to block lawsuits brought against it by former Abu Ghraib prisoners by claiming "official immunity."

CACI staff interrogated people held without charge or trial at Abu Ghraib. Prisoners they questioned were deprived of human rights guaranteed in international norms. The "rules of engagement" at Abu Ghraib permitted sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and intimidation by dogs.

When the General Register Office of Scotland announced the award of the census contract to CACI last summer it provoked outrage. The Scottish Government says it "understands the views" of people who have written to it about the contract. It says it has set up a new "contract structure" to "distance" CACI from personal data collected by the census. But it has so far refused to cancel the contract.

Participation in the 2011 census is expected to be compulsory. But participation in this month's rehearsal is optional.

SACC believes that it is completely unacceptable that Scottish taxpayers are being asked to support a company that has been involved in shameful human rights abuses and is trying to use its status as a military contractor to duck accountability in US courts.

There is mounting evidence of British involvement in torture overseas - including the torture of British citizens. The British government appear to be have been complicit in the torture of Binyam Mohamed - a British r
54

Beachcomber,

Edinburgh 17/03/2009 13:26:14
including the torture of British citizens. The British government appear to be have been complicit in the torture of Binyam Mohamed - a British resident - en route for Guantanamo Bay. And it appears to have been - at the very least - aware of the torture of British citizens in Pakistan and Egypt.

SACC says:

"If governments and corporations can collude in torture without being held to account under the law, no one is safe. CACI International was involved in one of the landmark episodes in the descent of the US and its allies into barbarism. It has so far enjoyed almost complete immunity from facing the consequences of this. Allowing it to run the Scottish census is sending out a very dangerous message. If the Scottish Government won’t put a stop to this, then the people of Scotland must do so."
55

old copper,

dumfries 17/03/2009 14:34:02
#63 kobi
I cannot recollect a Police objection to renewal of a liquor licence being made in respect of a breach of the Licensing Acts without being backed by a conviction in a criminal court, but take your word such a thing has happened.

Looking at the Licensing (Scotland)Act I certainly see nothing to PREVENT an objection being made without such a conviction but would have thought such an occurrence rare as the hand of the objecting Chief Constable would be considerable strengthened by the existence of a criminal conviction.

As regards objections to grant/renewal of regular extensions of permitted hours, I know this occurs although I was never directly involved in such an instance and cannot comment credibly on the matter.

However, I am sure licensing boards and solicitors representing applicants would not permit obections to proceed unchallenged if they were not in terms prescribed in the Act. Perhaps you feel the Act itself, and the procedures it provides,are unfair.

However, you have not answered the question I posed in my previous post,``How do you provide an objective definition of drunkeness?'' I would be interested in your comments.

When I was in the Police an officer would be deemed ``unfit for duty through drink'' if the smell of alcohol was on his breath, but I am advised that in HM Forces you were only deemed unfit for duty through drink if unable to do your particular job. Different standards for different organisations and in different situations.

However, it would be ideal if we could have an objective standard and I look forward to what you have to say.







56

Daveunderwater,

25/03/2009 04:37:36
#66

,``How do you provide an objective definition of drunkeness?''

Being as drunk as a lord and setting fire to curtains and ending up in court would qualify
57

Kobi.,

27/03/2009 15:56:13
#66

"I cannot recollect a Police objection to renewal of a liquor licence being made in respect of a breach of the Licensing Acts without being backed by a conviction in a criminal court, but take your word such a thing has happened."

Saw it many times especially during the 1990s, although less so in recent years. On the one hand the Boards would want to know the background, on the other the fear of double jeopardy meant that they would note a charge and pending court case, but take no action about it, and wait for the police to report back afterwards. What I did see on several occasions cases where the police or the fiscal clearly did not feel there was enough evidence to go to court, so the police would go to the licensing board instead, where standards of proof were much lower.


"As regards objections to grant/renewal of regular extensions of permitted hours, I know this occurs although I was never directly involved in such an instance and cannot comment credibly on the matter.

"However, I am sure licensing boards and solicitors representing applicants would not permit obections to proceed unchallenged if they were not in terms prescribed in the Act. Perhaps you feel the Act itself, and the procedures it provides,are unfair."

After the police got a kicking in the Belle Angele case in Edinburgh at the turn of the century, it happens a lot less now, as the courts have said that the practice was unlawful. What now happens is that if there is a history of bad behaviour including outwith the extended hours, they tend to be aggregated by the police as "background" for the board, which is still sneaky enough.

The answer to your question is that there cannot be be no objective test for drunkenness as we are all built differently and react differently at different times to alcohol. Which makes an after the event of proving some-one was drunk extremely difficult, and the courts wrongly convict frequently, trying to apply objective standards. So how

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Do you support Scotland’s new licensing laws, which come into effect now?
Yes, if they help curb our binge-drinking culture
No, people will still find the money to go boozing
No, these laws treat people like children

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.