Bar closing time

April 4th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The Press reports:

Christchurch bars should have a one-way door policy after 1am, with all bars closing by 3am, police say, a day after the city recorded a surge in street-related crime and disorder.

The Christchurch City Council is working on a draft local policy (LAP) for Christchurch – a provision of the Sale and Supply of Act 2012.

A preliminary policy was discussed by the planning committee yesterday, with deputations made by the police, medical officer of health, Health Promotion Agency, Hospitality New Zealand, District Licensing Agency, Foodstuffs New Zealand and Progressive Enterprises.

Through the LAP, the council can regulate certain aspects of liquor licensing such as opening hours for licensed premises, controlling the location of licensed premises and making re-entry restrictions to bars early in the morning.

Canterbury district commander, Superintendent Gary Knowles, told the council yesterday the central-city bars should have a one-way door policy after 1am and all bars should shut by 3am.

1 am is way way too early. Hell many people only head into town around midnight.

One way policies may also have unintended consequences. Rather than walk around town and sober up a bit, you’ll stay drinking at the bar you are already at.

Also if a group has split up, it means they can’t reunite.

Tags:

21 Responses to “Bar closing time”

  1. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    Time isn’t a factor it is people who drink to excess and bars who continue to serve intoxicated people that is the problem! We don’t need more laws and regulations we need the existing ones to be followed and enforced!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    It’s NZ Police or Moral Police? Bloody cops should butt out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. peteremcc (341 comments) says:

    This was predictable when the Alcohol law was being passed. The time to fight it was then, not now when every single individual little town is going to be passing stupid regulations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. southtop (262 comments) says:

    Agreed no need for more messing with laws – One simple statement:
    Consequences for Actions!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Dean Papa (775 comments) says:

    Sounds like a very good idea. I can’t see any good reason why anyone should want to be going into town after midnight. Or perhaps someone could enlighten me?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. David Farrar (1,869 comments) says:

    Dean Pap – the issue is not whether you think anyone should be in town after midnight. It is whether other people want to be in town after midnight, and why your views should be imposed on them.

    I don’t think there is any good reason for people to drink Lion Brown beer. But that doesn’t mean they should be stopped from doing so.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Than (439 comments) says:

    Dean, it’s somewhat circular – people go out after midnight because everybody else goes out after midnight. You can sit in an empty bar at 10pm, or a crowded, lively place at 12:30. There is also the fact that the ‘clubbing/dancing’ crowd don’t want to mix with the ‘out for a quiet evening meal’ crowd, the last of whom don’t go home til around 10-10:30.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. All_on_Red (1,466 comments) says:

    “I can’t see any good reason why anyone should want to be going into town after midnight. Or perhaps someone could enlighten me?”

    Because you’re having a great time with your friends and you all want to party on and not go to bed with a good book just cause its midnight.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. David Garrett (6,668 comments) says:

    If the laws we have now were strictly enforced, we would have no need for new ones…

    Although I have to say I have some sympathy with this initiative…but that may be because I am well past the age of carousing half the night. Logically however “because people dont hit the town now till midnight” seems to be a pretty weak argument. If this policy was universally introduced people would just go out and get blathered a couple of hours earlier…like we all used to. At the dawn of my glory days the pubs all shut at 10 ! Then it was all into the cars conveniently parked outside the booze barn, and drive to the nearest “pardy”… and we didnt even need texting to know where it was!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. redeye (631 comments) says:

    Maybe Dean Papa would prefer his tax monies being used more efficiently than paying hoards of coppers to round up the stinking drunks at 3 am.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. rouppe (932 comments) says:

    So, David what is your solution to the recorded surge in street-related crime and disorder?

    [DPF: Enforce the current laws]

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Mark (1,407 comments) says:

    I don’t think there is any good reason for people to drink Lion Brown beer. But that doesn’t mean they should be stopped from doing so.

    Fuck me, the good people of Christchurch should be forced to drink that toxic swill as punishment for one of their own beating up one of our poor defenceless Firebirds. All other forms of beer should be banned from Christchurch for 12 months at least.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. backster (2,109 comments) says:

    The consensus on this thread then is to do nothing, and have the same old same old.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (9,606 comments) says:

    Or the Govt could just put more Police on the streets on friday / saturday night, and arrest people who misbehave?

    Stop making alcohol an excuse for crap behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Tautaioleua (291 comments) says:

    The problem with Canturburians is that they can’t handle their drink. And so we have to treat them like children by enforcing time limits until that changes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nigel Kearney (904 comments) says:

    This is an easy one. Fine those who get drunk and cause trouble. Give the money to the police to cover their costs of cleaning up the mess. Leave the well behaved people alone. If the police were getting paid every time they dealt with drunks they would be as enthusiastic about it as they are about collecting speeding fine money.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Cactus Kate (549 comments) says:

    “1 am is way way too early. Hell many people only head into town around midnight”

    And they would be the ones causing the most trouble
    Tight arse pre-loaders who have got smashed for hours on cheap booze at home prior and have gone into town looking for trouble.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ed Snack (1,775 comments) says:

    What about a cover charge at midnight, proceeds towards police overtime for all the pissed f.wits who cause the trouble. But seriously, short of some serious police presence, this is an NZ wide problem, too many fools who think getting totally loaded and making a mess for others to clean up is a definition of a good night out. I have to admit to having had a few outings with considerable excess involved (but no property damage I can recall, except to my wallet), but I did grow out of it by 20 or so.

    I do remember just a few years ago, getting up extra early to park the car near Victoria Park in Auckland so I could walk to the ferry terminal in time for the first ferry over to the Auckland Marathon start. So one would walk along Fanshaw St at around 5:30 am (6 am ferry), past a couple of nightclubs. The clubs were just starting to close, and the revellers were spilling out onto the street, about 25% having trouble walking (or walking straight anyway), several face down in the gutter being noisily ill, couple of bouncers watching on. And those aware enough stare at you as you trot past, running shorts, bare legs, …what the… Completely different worlds

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. backster (2,109 comments) says:

    Public drunkenness used to be an offence with progressive penalties for repetition until academics convinced Parliament that it was an ‘illness’ not a crime. Detoxicification Centres were supposed to be set up by Social Agencies to care for drunks picked up by the Police but that never got off the ground,(who wants to supervise and care for drunks} Courts have decided that obscene language is also a non offence which limits the available pro-reactivity of the Police. The offenders also have so many rights, and the Police are under such intense scrutiny for excessive force, that I wonder how they can now operate effectively at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    I hate going into town these days because people are getting smashed before they even head into town and then the bars keeps serving them! I’m a bigger than average guy and for some reason drunk morons always think it’s a good plan to take me on; the last time I was walking with a group of friends including our wives and some idiot randomly without provocation punched me in the head! He looked pretty shocked that a) he didn’t knock me out and b) I turned and laughed at him! He then had another go so I decided to put my Aikido Black Belt to use :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. bc (1,344 comments) says:

    RRM @ 11.34am

    Talk about ambulance at the ‘bottom of the cliff’ stuff. Isn’t it better to be proactive rather than reactive?
    Arresting a whole lot of people doesn’t sound like an ideal situation to me. Better to put systems in place where a whole lot of people don’t need to be arrested.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.