Authorities' 'blitz' mentality

I was at the Anglo-Welsh Cup Final at Twickenham last Saturday, among many thousands of rugby fans, mainly from the West Country and Wales, to watch Gloucester be thoroughly outplayed by a rampant Cardiff side.

What impressed me, however, was not so much the rugby as the behaviour of the crowds. Here were supporters of two opposing teams mingling together — they were all wearing distinctive light blue or red shirts, but there was not a scintilla of animosity or violence at any stage.

All this in spite of copious amounts of beer being swilled down by everyone concerned. Tight-fisted as I am known to be, I was gobsmacked by the fact that they were prepared to pay an exorbitant amount of money for small plastic bottles of decidedly ordinary lager (although the Guinness was on top form), thus giving lie to the new idea from the Home Office that price is a key element to over-indulgence. It depends entirely on the circumstances and the venue.

Ordinary blokes will pay nearly an hour's pay for a beer if they have to, given the fact that all the outlets were charging more or less exactly the same.

So all the elements of conflict and aggression were there in abundance. All the things that the police and politicians say should trigger disorder and mayhem were present in south-west London.

Yet no riot police, plastic shields, police cordons or segregation seemed to be in evidence. The link between alcohol and violence was not to be found, either in or around this famous venue.

And this is also true of the majority of pubs and clubs up and down the country. Night after night, alcohol is consumed — sometimes a little too much — and there is no trouble. People do get drunk, but they get happy too. Ninety-nine per cent of them go home and sleep it off, if they can.

But current legislation is not making a distinction between social drinking and the minority who cause trouble. The vast scythe of the Home Office anti-alcohol machine is ensuring that even well-run pubs are at risk from new laws that will actually threaten the licence of someone whose staff inadvertently serve two teenagers within a quarter of a year.

Yes, it is not necessarily the thoroughly irresponsible outlet that is in the firing line, but a well-meaning licensee who allows a couple of mistakes, in a business where the young (but not necessarily underage) are constantly around the bar.

There was a much-lauded report on local government enforcement a few years' back, which said that it should be "targeted and proportionate". Fine words. I am not sure it has ever been taken on board by some authorities. They do not target — they blitz. And removing someone's livelihood and home is seen as quite acceptable if there is a suggestion that more than one clever youngster has crept under the radar.

The Oldham approach, which I mentioned recently, has shown that some authorities are quite happy to engage in a trawling exercise to net every single outlet and impose the same stringent rules on them, in order to achieve what they see as a "consistent" regime for licensed premises. Yet these are the same people who will themselves go out to a pub that they like and would be appalled to be asked to queue for their colleagues' drinks and only take two glasses back to the table.

It is hypocrisy, and it creates bad law. This is a more serious problem, especially in a Home Office that seems to have embarked on a concerted assault on the licensed trade, which may do irreparable damage, even in the short term.