Police want 3 am closing time for Wellington

January 8th, 2014 at 9:04 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Thirty five people were fined for breaching liquor laws and dozens of others warned on New Year’s Eve alone, but and Wellington City Council say the new rules are working well.

New liquor laws that came into effect on December 18 include a 4am closing time for bars, 11pm cutoff for supermarkets selling , and fines of between $250 and $2000 for breaches of the liquor ban.

The council has drafted a local alcohol policy which extends opening hours to 5am, but the policy has still to go through an approval process – and police are planning to appeal against it.

Inspector Terry van Dillen said the police view was that a 3am closing time for bars and a 9pm cutoff for off-licence liquor sales would be ideal.

“We believe 3am is a good figure – if people want to party, they can party from 9pm to 3am, they’ve just got to change their views from partying from midnight till 7am.”

I wish the Police would stick to their jobs and not try to become like the Mutaween. It is not their job to decide people must stop dancing in town by 3 am.

I’ve often been in town after 3 am. You may be at a function until around 11 pm, and then want to head out with a few friends to carry on talking and drinking. We’re not being rowdy, not drunk, not causing problems – just enjoying some drinks and conversation. On other occasions we may mix that in with some dancing, which you know is legal and okay to do after 3 am.

 

Tags: ,

73 Responses to “Police want 3 am closing time for Wellington”

  1. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    Ever had the misfortune to drive through K-Rd at 6am on a Sunday morning?? That’s enough to make 3am seem like an excellent idea!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. flipper (4,083 comments) says:

    I agree David.

    This is over-reach and should be stomped on, promptly.

    By statute, Police police the law. The Courts determine penalties, if any.

    Police have no role whatsoever in determining laws or rules.
    If they have personal views, they must convey them via the method open to all – via their elected representatives.

    They should be told, in no uncertain terms, to bugger off. BUT… the MSM relies on their media hand-outs to fill their columns and time.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. duggledog (1,559 comments) says:

    DPF – if only it were just dancing. You and your mates aren’t the ones causing all the headaches Police have to clean up after.

    Having worked at a licensed premises in my youth I can say with confidence:

    ‘Nothing good happens in a bar after 1 a.m.’!

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    It seems to me that we need a return of the old style ‘team policing’ units out around 3:00. Drunk and disorderly people get beaten up and locked up courtesy of the fuzz and the happy and jovial get to have a great time.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (13,837 comments) says:

    NZ Police should be told to fuck off.

    The political correctness of the cops is a worrying sign. Under a deadly Labour-Green government they will soon be pushing for a 10pm closing time.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. OTGO (557 comments) says:

    Ah the NZ Fun Police! Surely they would be better off learning better driving skills than having a moan about closing times in bars:

    “Police fleet management group manager Rob Morgan said the nearly $11m spent on vehicle repairs and replacements included repairs to third-party vehicles where police were deemed to be at fault.”

    11 million bucks on vehicle repairs! Have they recruited too many Asian and women cops these days?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Longknives (4,764 comments) says:

    I am certainly no fan of the Anti-Booze wowsers but I can see where the Coppers are coming from and I think we need a little balance-

    For example- A year or two ago I had to drive some visiting relatives to the Airport early on a Sunday morning. Rather naively I took the quickest route (through Karangahape Rd) to the motorway. It was sometime between 6-7am, so plenty of other lawful people like me going about their business…
    I immediately realised this was a big mistake and central locked the car doors- Team Policing Units everywhere and literally thousands of drunk, angry looking patrons spilling out of bars and onto the road. At the intersection of K and Queen a young male Polynesian tore his shirt off and walked aggressively towards my car. He then started kicking the drivers door and screaming insults at me. As he had about half a dozen mates cheering him on I got the fuck out of there, running a red light with terrified elderly relatives peeping out the windows as we left this drunken loser behind…
    What a fucking zoo- The only other place in the World I have been forced to run a red light to save my own arse was Johannesburg!

    I remember bars shut at 3am when I was at Varsity and that was plenty of time to get hammered and have a good night. I think there is plenty of merit in 3am closing. (and I am a drinker!)

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. tvb (4,430 comments) says:

    The Police would ideally like everyone tucked up in bed by 10pm reading the bible. However they are at the sharp end of intoxicated people and as a non drinker I find intoxicated people grossly antisocial. perhaps we can have de-tox rooms where antisocial drunks can be placed until they sober up. The Police often do this anyway. But perhaps a more halfway house approach is needed. Maybe drunks can be rounded up and taken home. Abuse of alcohol (and most do at some stage) is a damn pest.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    I don’t even drink but closing bottle stores at 9.00 pm is ridiculous

    We had 3.00 am closing for nightclubs 30 plus years ago

    Its the police’s job to enforce legislation. Stop fucking whingeing and do your job.

    Someone in the media might like to do some research

    In the early 80’s the Ak Central Watchouse on a Friday night have 100 – 200 prisoner movements – that’s persons arrested in and bailed. between 7.00 pm and 7.00am

    Interesting to see what numbers go through now, I would guarantee the numbers would be much lower.

    Public behaviour is much better than it was 30 years ago. This type of whining from the police just alienates support from the 99% who can go out and not cause problems

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Ever had the misfortune to drive through K-Rd at 6am on a Sunday morning?? That’s enough to make 3am seem like an excellent idea!
    LK

    I know what you mean , but the police should be there cleaning up, seeing the police acting on anti-social behaviour is a great modifier of peoples behaviour.

    If you are pissing in a shop doorway when you know some young girl on $13.00 an hour is going to have to clean it up, fuck ya, here’s a couple of hours in the cells to have a think about it. Used to make a lot of them wipe it up with their shirts and put them back on but you wouldn’t get away with that these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Yogibear (366 comments) says:

    What I find most concerning is the Police working in concert with local Medical Officers of Health. The amendments to the Sale of Liquor Act significantly increased their powers and they seem intent on testing the boundaries with a degree of urgency in some kind of wowser social engineering crusade.

    My problem with it is they’ve gone for the short term “win” by shutting stuff down (e.g. opposing licences for events), rather than taking the harder road of changing attitudes to alcohol that enable cities to be vibrant, fun places that are also safe.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    LK

    The time has nothing to do with it, even with 11.00pm closing the behaviour was still the same. Rising Sun on a Thursday night, much fun. The Schooner and Bridgeway could go off at 9.00am because they were early openers.

    Imagine the uproar today if a licence was granted like the Schooners was to open at 7.00 am so the Wharfies had a place to have a beer or the Bridgeway at 6.00am so the guys at the markets could have a beer after work.

    In my 34 yrs on and off in Ak you have always been able to drink 24 hrs if you wanted to, illegally between 3.00 am and 6.00am but there was always a room with a bar

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. wf (447 comments) says:

    If drinking establishments played THEIR parts properly, the cops wouldn’t have to deal with the after effects and they wouldn’t be looking at restricting trading hours.

    And the ambos wouldn’t be hosing the vomit and piss out of their ambulances –

    Drunks are disgusting, even if they aren’t violent.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Yogibear (366 comments) says:

    @Longknives – you’ve unwittingly actually described what half the problem actually is.

    It doesn’t matter whether its 3am or 4am – a whole bunch of people will be pissed and spoiling for a fight.

    Turfing people out at a given closing time is going to create that situation and changing closing times by 60 minutes won’t make any difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. flipper (4,083 comments) says:

    Manolo (11,911 comments) says:

    January 8th, 2014 at 9:37 am

    NZ Police should be told to fuck off.

    The political correctness of the cops is a worrying sign. Under a deadly Labour-Green government they will soon be pushing for a 10pm closing time.

    ************

    Wrong…..

    They would take us back to the “six o’clock:” swill….. and the orders of three extra jugs for the drink up time.

    I like the sound of PEB’s one time solution…. you make the mess; you clean it up.

    Good stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Ed Snack (1,883 comments) says:

    Most of the problem seems to me to be the far too typical attitude in NZ that going out and getting absolutely hammered so you have no real idea what and why you’re doing whatever it is that you are doing, is a great and socially acceptable idea. And little liberal pissheads who want to go out and carouse (oh so politely) all night are just part of the same culture.

    Until we develop a more sop[histicated approach, changing closing times is like pissing into the wind.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. simian (29 comments) says:

    DPF so your view is that the only people able to comment on something or make an opinion are the people that make the decision? Interesting considering you run a blog which is all opinion on subjects you don’t have authority to make the final decision on!
    I would have thought the Police who have to deal with the consequences of the decision would be well suited to airing their views. Other people can also air their views and hopefully the people making the decision will consider all and make a well informed decision.
    Really that’s democracy maybe you would be better suited to living in N Korea where one person makes the decisions and nobody else better say anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. 2boyz (262 comments) says:

    Look they need closing to be 3.00am (earlier would be better) it’s taking them off their primary target of ticketing any one going 4km an hour over the posted speed limit. The police have a tough job and I don’t envy them but they don’t help themselves at the best of time.

    Policing is policing it’s no policy making.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Nigel Kearney (1,019 comments) says:

    The police are perfectly entitled to express a view and should be listened to, and in this case politely ignored.

    It’s not difficult to come up with ways of addressing the problem without affecting people who enjoy themselves and respect the rights of others. For example, make drunkenness and time of day into aggravating factors so that otherwise minor crimes become more serious ones and people start getting criminal records and significant penalties.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. duggledog (1,559 comments) says:

    A good idea would be for A and E to be able to charge people who come in with injuries resulting from drunken behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Yogibear (366 comments) says:

    I’d like to see any evidence that supports a specific closing time with a probability of harm/trouble

    From personal experience in Wellington over a number of years, the vast majority of those that actually make it to 4-6 am aren’t actually the ones creating the problem. They either tend to be hospitality workers who are having a few quiets after their shift has finished, or those that are having a night that doesn’t involve endlessly downing alcohol.

    The one’s who’ve had a skinful are long gone.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    flipper (2,940 comments) says:
    January 8th, 2014 at 9:25 am

    Police have no role whatsoever in determining laws or rules.
    If they have personal views, they must convey them via the method open to all – via their elected representatives.

    I don’t support a 3am closing but I don’t agree that the police must remain silent and express no opinion or that such an opinion cannot be expressed by the organisation (as opposed to individuals contacting their MPs). In public discourse it is often helpful to have certain authorities speak on matters of public interest based on their special knowledge and experience. If we want an authoritative opinion on climate science for instance we do not simply question random people with no particular understanding or experience and treat their opinion as equally important as those of people recognized for their expertise on a particular subject. So too I think the police should speak on matters for which they have a special insight into. Doesn’t mean we have to agree.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    “‘Nothing good happens in a bar after 1 a.m.’”

    Bullshit!

    many a skank has been pulled after 1am!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    Longknives (3,649 comments) says:
    January 8th, 2014 at 9:42 am

    At the intersection of K and Queen a young male Polynesian tore his shirt off and walked aggressively towards my car. He then started kicking the drivers door and screaming insults at me.

    wf (270 comments) says:
    January 8th, 2014 at 10:02 am

    If drinking establishments played THEIR parts properly…

    …Drunks are disgusting, even if they aren’t violent.

    The thing is a tendency for violence is a bigger consideration weighing in favour of limiting certain freedoms than mere disgust at someone’s lack of self-respect. But I would never blame an establishment for the type of behaviour displayed in Longknives example. Alcohol does not make you violent. What it does is lower your inhibitions and for those people who are feral they are more likely to display themselves for what they really are. Moreover, the host responsibility is to not serve intoxicated people. But to refuse service implies that the person is intoxicated which means that if they are so inclined they may become violent anyway, perhaps more so if angry at being refused service.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Considering the lengths the police have gone to with ‘speeding kills’, now throwing away the buffer zone and catching everyone on a gentle decline, why can’t they throw the same fervour at drunks instead of whinging?

    Have the drunk and disorderly laws been taken off the books? How about the not serving intoxicated people? I’m sure there are plenty of laws that could be applied over-zealously to nip it all in the bud. Could you get fined for being drunk and disorderly? You can get a fine for parking with an expired registration for a couple of hundred dollars despite it being a non-skippable ACC subscription. How about drunk and disorderly -> get chucked in a detox van, collect a $200 fine upon sobriety or 20 hours community service cleaning up vomit and piss on the party streets you were picked up on.

    a 3am closing time for bars and a 9pm cutoff for off-licence liquor sales would be ideal.

    Much like a countrywide 30 km/hr speed limit would be ideal.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    The existing liquor laws are adequate. There are still shops that sell to underage purchases. Instant 20,000 fine. They will only do it once.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dishy (248 comments) says:

    Drunks should be locked up in a big prison called Alkytraz.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. MH (762 comments) says:

    under the new rules free water has to be provided by the various liquor establishments – How many glasses of watered down water consumed will be up to the discretion of the bartender, usually a disgruntled off duty fireman. If a patron appears to be in a state of drowning signified by raising an arm, qualified life guards will be allowed to intervene and remove them for their own safety.
    Unfortunately in an attempt to deliver a cheap supply of frozen ice (is that tautology -ok unfrozen ice then ?)from the Antartic under the guise of scientific research by Doughminion Blurries has run into chain supply difficullties. Apologising for the delay has upset many water abibing patrons who have spilled out onto the streets of Wellington awash with indignation. Special Police Puddling units are pooling their resources and demanding that the taps be turned off at 3am. Reports that the transport system has been inundated and unable to cope with wet bus tickets are proving correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. flipper (4,083 comments) says:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
    Weihana (4,194 comments) says:

    January 8th, 2014 at 11:40 am
    *****

    You are entitled to your view, but I believe it to be misconceived.

    Police have extraordinary powers (conferred by the Parliament) , which if properly exercised are good for everyone.

    If Police have a POLICY view it should go through their HQ to the Minister, to Parliament. Period.

    My policy view may be equally valid, and equally well informed.

    We never want to reach a point where our laws are being influenced/determined by those that implement them.

    I stand by the view that the Police should be told in no uncertain terms to bugger off and go to Parliament….. and NOT to appeal against some piddly arse local body committee decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Weihana (4,557 comments) says:

    flipper (2,942 comments) says:
    January 8th, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    We never want to reach a point where our laws are being influenced/determined by those that implement them.

    That was my initial feeling but after thinking about it for a while I’m not quite able to understand the nature of this particular slippery slope. Politicians are motivated by votes and the only way I see that this dynamic is influenced is by public opinion being influenced by the opinion of the police. This doesn’t seem like much of a slippery slope to me as the public retains control and if they democratically consent to a police state (which I assume is the fear) then surely that represents a much deeper cultural failing than merely tolerating the police expressing an opinion on some issue.

    Moreover, it is my position that the very purpose of allowing them to express a view is precisely for the purpose of influencing public opinion. It seems counter-intuitive to me that some notion of freedom is protected by limiting what can influence public opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Tautaioleua (309 comments) says:

    Wellington’s dying anyway. We should make it 2am.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    The police are perfectly entitled to express a view and should be listened to, and in this case politely ignored.

    His opinion should be kept to himself, he’s of middle management rank,the lowest officer rank, this type of statement should be made by the Wellington Area Controller minimum with authority of the District Commander.

    What he wants is of no importance actually his job is to enforce the licensing laws as they stand. If he wants them changed stand for council

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Reintroduce the law of “Drunk and Disorderly in a Public Place. This was removed by none other than pathetic Geoffrey Palmer, along with amendments to the liquor industry, ruining businesses of capable hoteliers, who stood no shit, and tipped shitheads out. Palmer opened the door to all sorts of substandard booze operators, because he thought publicans of the day were “rich pricks” and everyone who wished, should be able to sell booze. This imbecile failed socialist is responsible for most of our problems in the social arena within this country today.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    igm

    Drunk in a Public place was removed when the Police Offences Act 1928 was replaced by the Summary offences Act 1981.

    What was meant to happen was things called detox centres were meant to be introduced , where if you wre severally pissed you were taken there by the police straigntened out and sent home. What happened was that no detox centre were ever established instead police cells were designated detox centres so when someone came in that was severally pissed we took them to the hospital because there lives were at risk (we are talking the unconcious drunk here not the gobby shit head) putting more strain on the nurses.

    The old drunk legislation meant at least if you were brought before the court several times for drunkeness often the Salvation Army would step in and get the drunk some help. Since 1981 there has been nothing like this and its been a fuck up.

    These days nothings done as can we witnessed if you walk around Queen St on a Saturday morning about 9.00am you’ll see many Friday night victims sleeping it off.

    I don’t know who drew up the Summary Offences Act I’d be surprised if Palmer had much to do with it as he was a junior MP for Chch at the time, but you might be right as the Act is a fuck up so he might have had input

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Mobile Michael (452 comments) says:

    The police want to make it illegal to buy a bottle of wine at 9.01pm that you drink at midday the next day. And they want to close down bars at 3am to encourage private parties that don’t have the inherent controls that licensed premises have.

    The police should concentrate on establishments that do not comply and over serve, and on using their new powers to get potential troublemakers to go home (alone).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Harriet (4,975 comments) says:

    “….I wish the Police would stick to their jobs and not try to become like the Mutaween. It is not their job to decide people must stop dancing in town by 3 am….”

    Why do you just bring it up for that? They’ve been doing it all the way through the alcohol debate.

    It is old opinion that the police are not allowed to help decide the laws based upon their likes and dislikes of policing. To often you hear “we’ve got better things to do than deal with drunken crowds” but that is a police management matter as the police who are actually saying that are not Constables doing the job at hand but Senior Constables, Sargents and above.

    It is the role of Constables to police the public with the laws at hand. Period. They either can or they can’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. nasska (11,580 comments) says:

    Re Paul’s informative 4.26pm:

    The holding cells used to serve as drunk tanks….one night as a temporary guest of the Police put the brakes on drunken, antisocial behaviour for many a young pisshead in the 60’s & 70’s. Not many went back for a second night of standing in vomit & piss while another twenty drunks went through the process of sobering up. Those alkies who were “regulars” always made sure they had a ten bob note hidden in their socks to bail themselves out the next morning. The bail was set by the JP’s hearing the cases the next morning & in due course became the fine + court costs.

    Nowadays, as noted by Paul, the A & E depts of hospitals are expected to put up with the abuse & clean up the mess.

    Which makes this proposal mooted by British Police eminently sensible:

    Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10316456/Sober-up-in-drunk-tank-and-pay-400-to-leave.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Flyingkiwi9 (54 comments) says:

    @ Yogibear has it spot on.

    You can’t make it to 3am being that smashed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    The problem with drunk tanks is that they would throw diabetics in there every so often. Low on insulin often looks like drunk (apparently) but rather than being sober in the morning, they’re dead.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    scrubone

    Totally, I actually did that one night, locked up an old guy at the AK railway station, got him back to the cells he took his medication and he walked around the holding room on his hands ( his medication had kicked in) . Took him back to his train.

    he was cool, it was the second time it had happened, he’d had a beer but that was all

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Left Right and Centre (2,986 comments) says:

    NZ Police should be told to fuck off.

    Well said….. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nostalgia-NZ (5,220 comments) says:

    ‘Those alkies who were “regulars” always made sure they had a ten bob note hidden in their socks to bail themselves out the next morning. The bail was set by the JP’s hearing the cases the next morning & in due course became the fine + court costs.’

    Of course ‘ten bob’ notes weren’t round in the late sixties or seventies. I’ve also never heard of ‘cash’ bail being posted and I’d be surprised if an ‘alkie’ could hold on to one when pissed as a newt. In Auckland at least they were sent to an island eventually for sobering up but I guess you would know nasska.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Left Right and Centre (2,986 comments) says:

    The Police would ideally like everyone tucked up in bed by 10pm reading the bible.

    I’m loving some of these lines……

    The police are perfectly entitled to express a view and should be listened to, and in this case politely ignored.

    Yep. That’s about it, eh ?

    many a skank has been pulled after 1am! All of my skanks are 1am minimum. Well… one in the last year !!

    Drunks should be locked up in a big prison called Alkytraz.

    You should be put away in the punetentiary for that one :) (joke credit: Scrubs – episode comedian brother gives kidney to brother)

    Much like a countrywide 30 km/hr speed limit would be ideal.

    Snap !! We’re all on the same page. I use that logic too when thinking about the ‘ideal speed limit’ – it would be a slow race to the bottom. It’s journey time practicality vs ‘acceptable’ crash rates.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Auckland at least they were sent to an island

    Nosty

    and there a few enterpising clients found that Datura grew wild, fucked them up terribly. The island saved a lot of lives

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Left Right and Centre (2,986 comments) says:

    Of course ‘ten bob’ notes weren’t round in the late sixties or seventies.

    Nostalgia-NZ – they’re still using ten bob notes in Eketahuna. Or is it they’re queer as a three bob note ?

    Nasska is about as old as the sun and could be getting his epochs mixed up. That’s easy to do when you come from a place where time stands still and they use sundials and shadow lengths to tell time…

    haha…. there’s no Reddy any more to give nazzster any shit – someone’s gotta do it !! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Nostalgia-NZ (5,220 comments) says:

    It did save lives PEB because it was sensible reaction that could provide either a good long term outcome or a temporary one. I think the sallies ran it. I hadn’t heard about the Datura although I recognise the word, no doubt of course yeast and sugar would have also been valuable ‘black market’ currency for the enterprising.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Left Right and Centre (2,986 comments) says:

    “We believe 3am is a good figure – if people want to party, they can party from 9pm to 3am, they’ve just got to change their views from partying from midnight till 7am.”

    This is the quote that is going to rile a lot of people the most. You know why too – because it feels like you’re reading the ‘let them eat cake’ quote.

    And I still don’t know without further investigation what powers the cops have to tell the local authority what hours they can set in this appeal process.

    What is the real issue here ? People’s freedom to choose what to do with their time. Balanced with the cost of that freedom to the rest of society. If you’re well behaved you still have to accept that you’re part of a larger group of people, some of whom do not behave given the same freedom.

    Part of me is not too worried a 3am closing time. My experience is that the ratio of losers, weirdos and lowlives increases exponentially with every hour beyond about 2-3am (myself included – I might rather be at home with a girlfriend or be a respectable family man than a dropkick drop-out wasting lifespan at a club). There’s a lot of ugly, disgusting, foul-mouthed drunktarded idiots taking the piss literally on the main street – so out of it they don’t give a fuck about even finding a narrow alley.

    And part of my wants to part-tay. There’s lots of people who want to keep going beyond 3am and the wowsers want to kill their joy. Fuckwits. Fuck all of these pricks. What do the actual people of Wellington want ? Let’s have a vote – by everyone – not just these dicks that think they know best…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Nosty

    Yep it was the sallies, I still meet alot of old timers off the island around the church halls and they to a man say they’d all be dead years ago. Its wasn’t a garantee but if you wanted to life you followed the rules and stayed in the club when you left

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Nostalgia-NZ (5,220 comments) says:

    ‘they’re still using ten bob notes in Eketahuna. Or is it they’re queer as a three bob note ?’

    Off on the ‘fairy’ he goes LRC. For all I know he could be as silly as ‘two bob watch.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Dexter (303 comments) says:

    The government has given Police crime reduction targets, while not giving them additional staff or resources to do so, which means obviously they have to think outside the square and look at external factors. And preventing crime, as opposed to merely reacting, is at the very tenets of Policing, so I’d say that targeting the environmental factors that cause crime is very much the Polices job, and it’s also within the mandate they have been given by this government.

    And perhaps we should start taxing bars, clubs and the liquor industry at a level commiserate with the social and physical harm alcohol causes. It doesn’t seem fair that it’s the taxpayer paying for under-resourced and over-worked Police officers, ambulance staff and doctors to pick up the pieces every single Friday & Saturday night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    dexter

    Any idea what the excise on alcohol is already!! The belief that bars are money press’s is like saying politicians can be trusted.

    What the fuck is this – there is a problem SO WE WILL TAX SOMEONE -JESUS Its actually not the bars problem, sure they aren’t to serve drunks etc etc, but I can garantee you most of the major disorder is caused by wankers who have pre-loaded at home and then come to town. How can you put a socail blame on a bar for this ?

    I will also bet you that there is no where near the level of violence on Auckland Streets today compared with 30 years ago whn the central city had about 52 pubs emptying out at 11.00pm. Out south you had the Thoroughbred which seemed to have about 8000 drunks in it at 11.00pm on a Friday night and they all wanted to fight All pissed up and nowhere to go.

    The tenents are.
    Protect, Prevent & PROSECUTE – not enough of the latter being done these days- too many warnings

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Nostalgia-NZ (5,220 comments) says:

    I think for some of those ‘old timers’ PEB, and a good few of them would have been ex service men, labourers and even favoured sons of the ‘well to do’ gone off the rails, they probably liked the basic philosophy of ‘cleaning up,’ putting one foot after the other and considering others around them – sort of the essential basics of life. I don’t recall but there probably weren’t too many ‘blanket men’ about in those days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Nosty

    At the Wharf Station late 70’s early 80’s there would have been about 6 hard core street alkies who slept rough on the wharves and up around Mills Lane in the derelict buildings, they were all 60 plus and had been through all the help and didnt;t want it.

    There was only one who was violent an old bastard called McGregor-Smith, he carried a walking stick that was like a sheleighy and he’d try to take your head off if you weren’t looking.

    Auckland was interesting then- the bottom end of town was a parallel universe

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Nostalgia-NZ (5,220 comments) says:

    It was an interesting part of town PEB. I went to one of the old bookmaker’s wakes a couple of years ago – there were some good talkers among that lot and you would have needed ‘special’ skills to win at cards – five aces never helped.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Dexter (303 comments) says:

    Any idea what the excise on alcohol is already!!

    Yes, I’m guessing you didn’t or you wouldn’t have asked that question as you would know that it doesn’t come even remotely close to the 5.2 billion it costs us each year. And that’s not even taking into account the wider social cost from broken families, domestic violence and the inter-generational failures it creates.

    Why shouldn’t the users and makers of a harmful product be responsible for these outcomes?

    Protect, Prevent & PROSECUTE – not enough of the latter being done these days- too many warnings

    Prosecute for what exactly? there is no longer any offence for being a drunken dick, and a disorderly behavior charge necessitates an independent sober witness willing to provide a statement and come to court. The sheer cost and resource intensive nature of it dictates it’s a problem Police are never going to be able to arrest there way out of, and it will simply be more taxpayers money wasted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    a disorderly behavior charge necessitates an independent sober witness willing to provide a statement and come to court.

    What, you mean like the arresting officer?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    5.2 billion – please where did you get that, I’m genuinely interested

    There are still breach of the peace provisions to be used, alcohol ban breaches, dsiorderly/offensive behaviour LIKELY to cause violence is still an offence there are still offensive behaviour provisions(pissing in door ways), fighting is still an offence. there are cameras everywhere, you still cannot consent to an assault, a myriad of driving statutes. If none of these things are occurring then there is no problem and the bars can stay open 24 hours.

    There have always been broken families and domestic violence ,pubs used to shut at 6.00pm and women still got beaten,

    You have always been able to drink in Auckland 24 hours a day if you wanted to anyway, illegally and legally.

    So your answer is to make the bars shut earlier, OK. Once upon a time there was a thing called parties after the pubs shut, guess what?, after the parties people went home and beat up the missus, they drove drunk and killed themselve sand others they still got divorced. The only thing that has changed is our population has grown that is the only difference from 30 years ago, from 50 years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Nosty’

    there were some big games- crooks, lawyers,business men,cops – cars changed hands.

    Of course shutting the pubs at 6 or 11 stopped anything of an illegal nature ever occurring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    you still cannot consent to an assault

    Eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    “Eh”

    You don’t need a complainant if you witness an assault and gather sufficent evident to prove it, you don’t need the victim to stand up if they want to walk away later.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Dexter (303 comments) says:

    What, you mean like the arresting officer?

    Nope, by the same measure police can’t be offended and arrest someone for swearing solely within their hearing. Evidence needs to be given on the impact on public order and from members of the public who witnessed it. Hardly worth it given the likely penalty, and virtually impossible when all your witnesses are drunk and egging the guy on.

    dsiorderly/offensive behaviour LIKELY to cause violence is still an offence

    Again an offense with an even higher evidential threshold, that also requires witnesses. And now you want breach of the peace provisions to be used that carry no formal charge or penalty, despite formerly stating that there weren’t enough prosecutions.

    Arrests in the past haven’t solved it, and we simply don’t have enough Police to arrest all the troublemakers, nor do they have the means to do so, lawfully.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    You don’t need a complainant if you witness an assault and gather sufficent evident to prove it, you don’t need the victim to stand up if they want to walk away later.

    Yeah, I know all that.  I just wondered about your statement that you cannot consent to an assault. It just seems a bit broad as a general statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    by the same measure police can’t be offended and arrest someone for swearing solely within their hearing.

    Really?  I must have been hallucinating some of my cases, then.

    Evidence needs to be given on the impact on public order and from members of the public who witnessed it.

    Where are you getting your law on that?

    Hardly worth it given the likely penalty, and virtually impossible when all your witnesses are drunk and egging the guy on.

    You’d be surprised. Disorderly Behaviour and Offensive Behaviour charges are a large part of any lawyer appearing as duty lawyer on a Monday morning.

    Again an offense with an even higher evidential threshold, that also requires witnesses.

    Where are you getting this from?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    The point is to get people off the street who are causing problems,broken windows. its not the polices job to decide “whether its not worth it” or not they get paid.

    I meant too many warnoing given on the street, if you have 5 people playing up breaching the normal acceptable standards of behaviour in a public place, breach of the peace, a few hours in the cells solve sthat problem.

    Arrests in the past have solved it, ther are ample statues on the books to do so , its takes the will to do it and to get over the thinking that “if I don’t do anything I can’t get into trouble’ which I know is getting embedded

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    The point is to get people off the street who are causing problems,broken windows. its not the polices job to decide “whether its not worth it” or not they get paid.

    Absolutely. 

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Where are you getting this from?

    FES

    I’m struggling as well, Dexter may be in the police presently , if he is and spends his time making excuses why “not “to do things it is understandable why things are the way they are.

    Policing is easy, – enforce the laws fairly and legally and leave the rest to the Courts, that bits not my concern. There are ample laws to deal with any street offence occurring anywhere in New Zealand at anytime. The bottom line is is about protecting the people, who gives a fuck if you loose a Court case or two anyway

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

     PEB,

    enforce the laws fairly and legally and leave the rest to the Courts, that bits not my concern. There are ample laws to deal with any street offence occurring anywhere in New Zealand at anytime. The bottom line is is about protecting the people, who gives a fuck if you loose a Court case or two anyway

    An outstanding summation. Sometimes just getting them off the streets is all that needs to be done (hello, s36 Policing Act).

    Is Dexter in the Police?  That is a worry, given his misunderstanding of the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Oops, when I said

    are a large part of any lawyer

    in my 11.52 comment, I meant 

    are a large part of any lawyer’s work

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Dexter (303 comments) says:

    Really? I must have been hallucinating some of my cases, then.

    Either that or horrendously not up to date with recent case law if you think Police can successfully prosecute someone for swearing at them without members of the public around to ‘be offended’ Most first year law grads learn that one pretty fast.

    Your comments about the courts being full of drunk and disorderly charges on a Monday morning are also from another era. With pre-charge warnings and offenders being bailed out to 7 days that’s a thing long from the past.

    Familiarise yourself with some recent case-law on disorderly/offensive, and you will see why it has become a minefield for Police, prosecutions rarely meet the public interest test alone given the cost/outcome equation coupled with the prospect of a conviction/likely penalty.

    The bottom line is is about protecting the people, who gives a fuck if you loose a Court case or two anyway

    The same tax payers who are the ones who will be forking out under the new system for costs if Police proceed with such prosecutions. You should look up what the new case review system will do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. jakejakejake (134 comments) says:

    I don’t see how you can justify arresting people for swearing in public and even being belligerent when it is legal for men to lay down together and perform satanic wedding ceremonies.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    jakejakejake

    I don’t think it’s fine for men to lay down in bars at 3:00am performing satanic wedding ceremonies – what they do in the privacy of their own homes is their business. People don’t get arrested for swearing and being belligerent in their own homes either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Either that or horrendously not up to date with recent case law if you think Police can successfully prosecute someone for swearing at them without members of the public around to ‘be offended’

    Actually, that is not what you said earlier.  In your earlier comments you were saying that the Police needed to call a witness to give evidence of the offence. 

    Evidence needs to be given on the impact on public order and from members of the public who witnessed it.

    That is wrong, and it was that which I was pointing out.

    However, even with your amendment you are still wrong.  I am happy to report that the various legal commentaries agree with me, so if I am out of date then so are they.

    With pre-charge warnings and offenders being bailed out to 7 days that’s a thing long from the past.

    They still come in waves, which was more my point.

    Familiarise yourself with some recent case-law on disorderly/offensive, and you will see why it has become a minefield for Police, prosecutions rarely meet the public interest test alone given the cost/outcome equation coupled with the prospect of a conviction/likely penalty.

    I am, and I completely disagree with you.  I think your prosecutions unit must simply be overcautious.

    You should look up what the new case review system will do.

    This is my job, I do have a fair idea.  

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. flipper (4,083 comments) says:

    Dexter….

    Give it up. FES has you knackered.

    Your Police computer based case view history is a very good reason why prosecutions should be taken away from Police.

    Just do your job. Enforce (without fear or favour), the law as it is written, or found by the judiciary to be/mean, and forget about policy.

    Next you will be telling us that your fool “pressie”, the red wine living O.Connor, should be the arbiter on policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote