Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Drunk Town, in reply to Keir Leslie,
It might be better to start by saying: what ways can we improve public behaviour that don’t involve the use of the punitive parts of the state apparat?
Well, given that you're not at all keen on enforcing laws controlling the sale of liquor, and you're not keen on alcohol-fuelled disorder being subjected to punitive attention from authority, I'm at a bit of a loss to figure out what will meet with your approval. I assume you're also against proposals to restrict licensing hours and allow communities to object to liquor outlets opening in their areas?
-
Hard News: Drunk Town, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Meanwhile on Courtenay Place, a bar has its licence suspended for 3 weeks after a woman drunkenly passes out, possibly molested.
Ah, no. From the fine article:
The manager Ivy Yi-Wen Shen agreed to close the restaurant for 48 hours from 7am on July 21.
So the restaurant’s licence was suspended for 48 hours.She also agreed her general manager’s certificate should be suspended for three weeks from July 23.
And the manager at the time is having her General Manager’s Certificate suspended for three weeks.Licensed premises must have a person holding a General Manager’s Certificate on-site at all times that liquor is being sold. The suspension of a GMC does not stop the licensed premises from continuing to trade, provided that they can meet the requirement to have a GMC holder present at all times.
If the liquor licence is suspended, the presence of a GMC holder does not legitimise the sale of liquor as the premises are no longer licensed.ETA: Nice to see the 48 hours occurring across a weekend (starts on a Saturday morning) for a change. Historically these penalties have been allowed to be implemented over Mondays-Wednesdays, incurring the minimum possible financial impediment.
-
Hard News: Drunk Town, in reply to Matthew Poole,
closer to the desired offence
That would be desired effect.
-
Hard News: Moving from frustration to disgust, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Executive Principal, Pinehurst School
Am I the only one disturbed that such a job title even exists?
-
Hard News: Drunk Town, in reply to andin,
Not sure of your point, TBH. We have prisoners in shipping containers right now, and if we can do it for long-term inmate housing I don't see why we couldn't use the same principle to come up with low-cost holding cells for getting drunks off the streets. Police stations already have "drunk tanks", but not enough to be useful if we reinstated the offence of public drunkenness. The logistics of securely-but-safely housing those arrested for such offence would limit its application in the absence of a significant increase in the available facilities.
And for the record, I'm not especially opposed to the idea though I do have reservations about its application. An automatic night in the cells for fighting in public would probably have something closer to the desired offence, especially if coupled with a moderate Summary Offences Act fine.
-
Hard News: Drunk Town, in reply to Sacha,
Someone suggested (online somewhere recently, can’t recall) using the same approach as New Years Eve hotspots like Whangamata for downtown Auckland and Welli – build extra holding pens and without tying up street staff
I took the "tag and release" idea a bit further by suggesting utilisation of the "Alcatraz" pens used for Whangamata in New Years Eves past. The cells would have to be somewhat more substantial, as they would be used year-round rather than just during a Coromandel summer, but if we can house prisoners in shipping containers for long periods of time there's no reason that something less-substantial couldn't be used for creating overnight holding pens for drunks to sober up.
-
Hard News: Drunk Town, in reply to Sacha,
Good point. How is a fourth offence by a liquor outlet not comparable?
How is a first offence not comparable? A third DUI is mandatory suspension for a minimum of a year, and some combination of up to a $6k fine and/or two years in jail. You don’t even have to cause harm (that will net you a whole heap of other, more-serious, consequences), you just have to get caught. The default position for DUI is that you’re presenting a danger to society, and must be forbidden to continue to do so. We accept that alcohol is dangerous, but it’s clear that there’s not the same attitude towards removing offenders’ access to continue the harm when they supply alcohol in breach of their licence conditions.
ETA: Selling to minors is financially profiting from criminal activity. I could make a case that we should be seizing these outlets and selling them as proceeds of crime.
-
Hard News: Drunk Town, in reply to Kumara Republic,
And for situations like this, there’s no substitute at all for duty cops on the beat.
All the main cities have foot patrols on "party nights". Auckland has several pairs of cops walking the beat around Queen Street, as well as the various vehicle patrols. However, they can't be everywhere and it only takes one brawl to soak up most of the ready resources. When people are getting into fights while police officers are right across the road, it's clear that short of total saturation it's not the presence or absence of foot patrols that makes a difference.
-
Hard News: Drunk Town, in reply to Keir Leslie,
that is hard; it can destroy a lifetime’s worth of work in an afternoon.
So? If you're so thoroughly invested, just keep to the rules. Check ID religiously, keep an eye on your staff to make sure they also take it seriously, and make sure your employment contracts are written so that employees who fail to check ID can be swiftly dismissed. It's not hard to comply with the rules on selling booze, it's really not.
As for not being an easy way to get tough, the whole reason for liquor licensing existing at all is to control the sale of alcohol. The only way to get tough on supply is to get tough on those who are allowed to supply. You can get tough on the purchasers, sure, but they wouldn't be purchasing if there weren't suppliers who're also breaking the law.
Breaking the law must attract consequences, otherwise what's the point in having the law at all? We automatically suspend the driver's licences of people who are convicted of driving drunk, for a first offence, for six months. I would suggest that attacking a person's ready mobility is a much greater penalty than ordering someone to stop selling a toxic, controlled substance that is responsible for significant social harm, but we do it by default.
I would suggest that you have a read of this.
-
Hard News: Drunk Town, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
What’s the stats on that? How many complaints are upheld? How many are “Police acted appropriately?”
The stats aren't broken down in the way that you'd like, but their annual report for last year shows that of the 17 public reports they released the police got slapped in every one that wasn't looking at a pursuit-related death (and lightly slapped in one of those, too).
You're welcome to do an OIA request to find out if they meet your criteria for impartiality.