Plan to fine rowdy pubs watered down on the quiet

James Slack at Daily Mail - 02.04.2007

(ED: Tony at it again - Big headline then a row back after the media focus is elsewhere. Any trouble with 24-hour drinking in city centres were to have been dealt with Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZ). Unfortunately none of the smarties in the government thought about the Human Rights law, introduced by themselves of course. If you were of a more machavelian frame of mind you might think that ADZ's were always just window dressing to insure that increased working class drinking would keep the prole's focus on the beer and off government incompetence while providing more tax for the machine. Surely not?)

The Government has quietly given up its hardline stance on rowdy pubs thanks to human rights regulations

Labour's promise to make rowdy pubs and clubs pay for the disturbance they cause has been quietly shelved.

So-called Alcohol Disorder Zones (ADZ) will be used only as a "last resort" as they risk breaching human rights laws.

Ministers previously said that forcing licensed premises to pay up to £100 a week for extra policing was vital to curb the negative effects of 24-hour drinking.

But papers slipped out Monday during the Parliamentary recess place almost insurmountable bureaucratic obstacles in the way of any police force or council wishing to pursue a "polluter pays" policy.

Police would actually lose out financially from an idea that was supposed to spare them - and therefore the taxpayer - from picking up the bill for binge-drinking and drunken violence.
The Police Federation accused the Government of "deceit" as it had linked the relaxation of the licensing laws to new powers they are now unlikely to use.

Vice-chairman Alan Gordon said: "If it is this bureaucratic and burdensome, police will never use these zones or attempt to use them.

"The Government made great play of the additional powers they were going to give the police. To make them so bureaucratic they are nearly impossible to use is being deceitful in what was involved in 24/7 drinking in the first place."

Ministers promised the zones in January 2005.

But the Home Office now says it has to be careful that human rights laws are not breached. Zones must be declared only in extreme circumstances where all other options had failed, its says.

Monday's consultation documents said no less than 15 times that the zones should be a "last resort".

They warned that charging a pub, club or off-licence for disturbance amounts to an interference with property rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Critics say the process for setting up a zone is so complex it verges on the impossible.
Police must first give drinkers on-the-spot fines or ban louts from town centres. They must also make attempts to close down any problem pubs using the Licensing Act.

If this fails, they must amass evidence that a street or "zone" is blighted by binge-drinking.
Officers - who are already struggling with mountains of paperwork - would have to produce details of violent incidents, relevant A&E notes and a CCTV incident log.

Once this so-called "trigger stage" is complete, pubs and clubs must be given a 28-day consultation period when they can object to the plans.

While this is taking place, police and local councils must draw up an Action Plan of steps they want the premises to take to reduce the misery they are inflicting on local residents.
Pubs are then given eight weeks in which to introduce these changes.

It is only if police and councils can prove the Action Plan has been ignored that they can declare an Alcohol Disorder Zone and levy charges.