News Article Comments : Undercover police to monitor pub 'drunks'

RE: Undercover police to monitor pub 'drunks'

Thanks Robert for your comments, yes, indeed I am always asked the question, 'how do you know someone is drunk?'

I always answer that by saying there is no legal definition, but if common sense is used together with a combination of the universally recognised signs, as used by police, ie eyes glazed, breath smelling of alcohol, slurred speech and unsteady on feet. It is no use using one condition alone as that could be explainable due to certain medical conditions. On the training issue, it is worth commenting on the fact that the only compulsion to do training is for personal licence holders to do the NCPLH. Bar staff are not compulsory (as yet) therefore the take up of additional training be it NCPLH or ARAR is low. There is still a great deal of misunderstanding on the issue of being absent from the premises with many licence holders with grandfather rights believing a person left in temporary charge has to have a personal licence. Thank the South Yorks Police and Government Guidance for that. I believe the Government originally intended that all persons working behind a bar should have a personal licence, hence the reason for the mandatory condition on all licences which is new, but they seriously underestimated numbers, forgetting the multiple licensees on justices licences, so shyed away from making it compulsory. I understand though that the Scottish reform does include a provision that all bar staff must have a Level 1 qualification (not a licence) before working in alcohol sales. This will not doubt creep in in England and Wales through the police representations on new applications, variations and reviews where I know for a fact in one police area, they are requesting a condition requiring all members of staff selling alcohol to have a Level 1 qualification before starting work in the establishment. This being the ARAR. Logistically this is a nightmare for the operator, who once a member of staff leaves, they cannot replace the person until they have a)

This post replies to this thread

RE: Undercover police to monitor pub 'drunks'

The cost to single operators will yet again be punitive. If you employ 7 or 8 part time staff, it is very likely they will object to having to do a course especially if they are students who have enough to worry about. My staff come and go from Uni etc, the logistics will be a nightmare. Lets hope that we do not get too bogged down with worthless bits of paper like other professions. The NVQ system may well be a Government attempt at raising standards but it fails miserably. I have seen NVQ hospitality assessors filling in the answers or directing the student as to what the answer is. On sote training is far more valuable with a hands on job than sitting in a classroom.

This post replies to Geoffrey Sumner > RE: Undercover police to monitor pub 'drunks'

RE: Undercover police to monitor pub 'drunks'

SO who is going to monitor the undercover police to make sure they dont drink on duty ...... god forbid anyone remembers the scotch drinking sweeney!!!

This post replies to Alastair Elliott > RE: Undercover police to monitor pub 'drunks'

RE: Undercover police to monitor pub 'drunks'

The criteria for a police officer to be able to stand up in court and give evidence for a drunk and disorderly or drunk and incapable or just plain drunk was ' his/her eyes were glazed, breath smelt of intoxicating liquor and speech was slurred'. It was also at one time that ONLY a police officer was capable of stating that a drunk was drunk! From this definition of drunk maybe that helps, crikey that could mean we end up not serving anyone.......

This post replies to this thread

RE: Undercover police to monitor pub 'drunks'

And what's the FLVA's solution, more training. How can you train someone to identify something that is not defined as I said earlier.

This post replies to John Ellis > RE: Undercover police to monitor pub 'drunks'