I think even the wingers in news:alt.food.wine will be glad to
hear this news. Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts
don't lie.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4692016.stm>

Violence down amid pub law change

Violent crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales fell
by 11% at the end of last year, despite longer pub opening hours
coming in, figures show.

The Home Office figures for the last three months of 2005
include a six-week period when the police were given £2.5m to
target alcohol-related crime.

The figures are the first since licensing laws were changed in
November to allow extended drinking hours.

Police have said it will take longer to assess the full impact
of the changes.

Half of all violent crime is linked to excessive drinking and
the government had been waiting to see how the figures would be
affected by longer opening hours for pubs and clubs.

To nip potential problems in the bud, the Home Office gave the
police and trading standards departments £2.5m to target binge
drinking between 12 November and Christmas.

With more officers on the streets at night, violent crime went
down by 11% overall, with an even sharper fall in more serious
types of offence, the figures show.

However, BBC crime correspondent Neil Bennett said it was not
possible to draw firm conclusions about the effects of extended
opening hours from these figures alone.

He said: "The extra money to tackle drink-related violence has
now run out and - as the figures for mugging showed recently -
when specially targeted operations stop, so crime tends to go up
again."

When the new licensing laws came in on 24 November, police
forces said the full implications would not be clear for at
least six months.

At the time, about 1,000 premises had 24-hour licences, with
thousands more licensed to extend opening times by only one or
two hours.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 +0000, Jasbird wrote:

> Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts don't lie.

This is similar to cannabis reclassification to class C - use went down.
It is also as I predicted before the pub hours change.

--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK

Save Gales Brewery
http://www.savegales.org.uk/

Phil Stovell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 +0000, Jasbird wrote:
>
> > Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts don't lie.
>
> This is similar to cannabis reclassification to class C - use went down.
> It is also as I predicted before the pub hours change.
>
> --
> Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
>
> Save Gales Brewery
> http://www.savegales.org.uk/

didn't you make a wager on the outcome?

b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com

Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org

"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:32:30 +0000, brian bennett wrote:

> Phil Stovell wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 +0000, Jasbird wrote:
>>
>> > Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts don't lie.
>>
>> This is similar to cannabis reclassification to class C - use went down.
>> It is also as I predicted before the pub hours change.
>>
>> --
>> Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
>>
>> Save Gales Brewery
>> http://www.savegales.org.uk/
>
> didn't you make a wager on the outcome?

Yes, £10. Trouble is, I can't recall whom my bet is with!

>
> b
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK

Save Gales Brewery
http://www.savegales.org.uk/

Phil Stovell wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:32:30 +0000, brian bennett wrote:
>
>> Phil Stovell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 +0000, Jasbird wrote:
>>>
>>> > Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts don't lie.
>>>
>>> This is similar to cannabis reclassification to class C - use went down.
>>> It is also as I predicted before the pub hours change.
>>
>> didn't you make a wager on the outcome?
>
> Yes, £10. Trouble is, I can't recall whom my bet is with!

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....3e1bbd3?hl=en&

Bloke called Francis Burton. "Kev" witnessed it. A year isn't up yet
though so you've got a little while to wait before collecting. I'll bet
you 10GBP that you do though.

--

http://www.ollieclark.com/acronyms.html

Phil Stovell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:32:30 +0000, brian bennett wrote:
>
> > Phil Stovell wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 +0000, Jasbird wrote:
> >>
> >> > Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts don't lie.
> >>
> >> This is similar to cannabis reclassification to class C - use went down.
> >> It is also as I predicted before the pub hours change.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
> >>
> >> Save Gales Brewery
> >> http://www.savegales.org.uk/
> >
> > didn't you make a wager on the outcome?
>
> Yes, £10. Trouble is, I can't recall whom my bet is with!
>
> >
> > b
> --
> Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
>
> Save Gales Brewery
> http://www.savegales.org.uk/

hmmmm, short term memory problems? ;^)

b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com

Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org

"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc

"Phil Stovell" > wrote in message
news
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 +0000, Jasbird wrote:
>
> > Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts don't lie.
>
> This is similar to cannabis reclassification to class C - use went down.
> It is also as I predicted before the pub hours change.

What is your prediction about what will happen to tobacco use rates if/when they ban
smoking in pubs?

What has the effect been of the *increasing* prohibition on smoking we've seen over
the last 20 years or so?

--
Andy

In article > "Andy Pandy" > writes:
>What is your prediction about what will happen to tobacco use rates if/when they ban
>smoking in pubs?
>
>What has the effect been of the *increasing* prohibition on smoking we've seen over
>the last 20 years or so?

Banning smoking in pubs isn't the same thing as prohibition.

If simply possessing tobacco landed you in jail, THAT would be prohibition.

-Pete Zakel
)

Nothing is faster than the speed of light...

To prove this to yourself, try opening the refrigerator door before
the light comes on.

"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message
...
> In article > "Andy Pandy"
> writes:
> >What is your prediction about what will happen to tobacco use rates if/when they
ban
> >smoking in pubs?
> >
> >What has the effect been of the *increasing* prohibition on smoking we've seen
over
> >the last 20 years or so?
>
> Banning smoking in pubs isn't the same thing as prohibition.

Er, yes it is. Have a look in the dictionary.

Prohibition of smoking in pubs, just like prohibition of smoking on trains, in the
workplace etc. *is* prohibition. .

Have you never seen "smoking prohibited" signs? It does *not* mean possession is
illegal.

> If simply possessing tobacco landed you in jail, THAT would be prohibition.

That would be total prohibition. There is currently prohibition of smoking in certain
places, like pubic transport etc, and which will probably be extended to pubs.

--
Andy

In article > "Andy Pandy" > writes:
>"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message
...
>> In article > "Andy Pandy"
> writes:
>> >What is your prediction about what will happen to tobacco use rates if/when they
>ban
>> >smoking in pubs?
>> >
>> >What has the effect been of the *increasing* prohibition on smoking we've seen
>over
>> >the last 20 years or so?
>>
>> Banning smoking in pubs isn't the same thing as prohibition.

>Er, yes it is. Have a look in the dictionary.
>
>Prohibition of smoking in pubs, just like prohibition of smoking on trains, in the
>workplace etc. *is* prohibition. .

Nit-picking.

In the context of drugs, normally "prohibition" means making the drug
contraband and illegal to possess.

Local prohibitions, such as in pubs, restaurants, public area, are simply
quite sensible alternatives to total prohibition.

Should I be able to bring in a burning stick of incense into a pub and set it
down next to me because I like the smell?

>Have you never seen "smoking prohibited" signs? It does *not* mean possession is
>illegal.

Right, that's a local prohibition, not the same thing as making it totally
contraband.

There's a BIG difference.

>> If simply possessing tobacco landed you in jail, THAT would be prohibition.

>That would be total prohibition. There is currently prohibition of smoking in certain
>places, like pubic transport etc, and which will probably be extended to pubs.

And that's as it should be. You should not force other people to enjoy your
habit.

-Pete Zakel
)

"The new Congressmen say they're going to turn the government around. I
hope I don't get run over again."

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:58:51 +0000, Andy Pandy wrote:

> What is your prediction about what will happen to tobacco use rates
> if/when they ban smoking in pubs?

It won't make much difference - smoking tobacco is still legal. The
tobacco smokers will just have to congregate outside, just like the
cannabis smokers do now.

> What has the effect been of the *increasing* prohibition on smoking we've
> seen over the last 20 years or so?

It's not so much a case of increasing prohibition - smoking is still
legal. It's increasing education and the removal of the "macho" status.
James Bond no longer orders his shaken but not stirred with a cigarette
dangling out of his mouth, like he did when I was young and impressionable.

If you look at the films from the 1950s and early 60s all the
sophisticates smoked.

--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK

Save Gales Brewery
http://www.savegales.org.uk/

Jasbird wrote:
> I think even the wingers in news:alt.food.wine will be glad to
> hear this news. Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts
> don't lie.
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4692016.stm>
>
> Violence down amid pub law change
>
> Violent crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales fell
> by 11% at the end of last year, despite longer pub opening hours
> coming in, figures show.
>
I don't see how these figures can saying anything about the effects of
longer pub opening hours and they came into effect in late November.

> The Home Office figures for the last three months of 2005
> include a six-week period when the police were given £2.5m to
> target alcohol-related crime.
>
> The figures are the first since licensing laws were changed in
> November to allow extended drinking hours.
>
> Police have said it will take longer to assess the full impact
> of the changes.
>
I would agree with the police.

> Half of all violent crime is linked to excessive drinking and
> the government had been waiting to see how the figures would be
> affected by longer opening hours for pubs and clubs.
>
> To nip potential problems in the bud, the Home Office gave the
> police and trading standards departments £2.5m to target binge
> drinking between 12 November and Christmas.
>
> With more officers on the streets at night, violent crime went
> down by 11% overall, with an even sharper fall in more serious
> types of offence, the figures show.
>
> However, BBC crime correspondent Neil Bennett said it was not
> possible to draw firm conclusions about the effects of extended
> opening hours from these figures alone.
>
> He said: "The extra money to tackle drink-related violence has
> now run out and - as the figures for mugging showed recently -
> when specially targeted operations stop, so crime tends to go up
> again."
>
> When the new licensing laws came in on 24 November, police
> forces said the full implications would not be clear for at
> least six months.
>
> At the time, about 1,000 premises had 24-hour licences, with
> thousands more licensed to extend opening times by only one or
> two hours.
>
I fully supported the deregulation of pub opening hours and I am sure that
over the long term it will reduce alcohol related violence but it is a bit
too soon to expect to see any changes from official statistics.

It reminds me a bit of the Gun Control Network (sic) who were crowing over
the reduction in armed crime in 1998, claiming it was due to the
confiscation of target shooters' pistols. It turned out the 98 figures were
atypical and we have seen serious year on year increases since then, which
the GCN has not been so keen to brag about.

Harry The Horse wrote:
>
> Jasbird wrote:
> > I think even the wingers in news:alt.food.wine will be glad to
> > hear this news. Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts
> > don't lie.
> >
> > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4692016.stm>
> >
> > Violence down amid pub law change
> >
> > Violent crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales fell
> > by 11% at the end of last year, despite longer pub opening hours
> > coming in, figures show.
> >
> I don't see how these figures can saying anything about the effects of
> longer pub opening hours and they came into effect in late November.
>
> > The Home Office figures for the last three months of 2005
> > include a six-week period when the police were given £2.5m to
> > target alcohol-related crime.
> >
> > The figures are the first since licensing laws were changed in
> > November to allow extended drinking hours.
> >
> > Police have said it will take longer to assess the full impact
> > of the changes.
> >
> I would agree with the police.
>
> > Half of all violent crime is linked to excessive drinking and
> > the government had been waiting to see how the figures would be
> > affected by longer opening hours for pubs and clubs.
> >
> > To nip potential problems in the bud, the Home Office gave the
> > police and trading standards departments £2.5m to target binge
> > drinking between 12 November and Christmas.
> >
> > With more officers on the streets at night, violent crime went
> > down by 11% overall, with an even sharper fall in more serious
> > types of offence, the figures show.
> >
> > However, BBC crime correspondent Neil Bennett said it was not
> > possible to draw firm conclusions about the effects of extended
> > opening hours from these figures alone.
> >
> > He said: "The extra money to tackle drink-related violence has
> > now run out and - as the figures for mugging showed recently -
> > when specially targeted operations stop, so crime tends to go up
> > again."
> >
> > When the new licensing laws came in on 24 November, police
> > forces said the full implications would not be clear for at
> > least six months.
> >
> > At the time, about 1,000 premises had 24-hour licences, with
> > thousands more licensed to extend opening times by only one or
> > two hours.
> >
> I fully supported the deregulation of pub opening hours and I am sure that
> over the long term it will reduce alcohol related violence but it is a bit
> too soon to expect to see any changes from official statistics.
>
> It reminds me a bit of the Gun Control Network (sic) who were crowing over
> the reduction in armed crime in 1998, claiming it was due to the
> confiscation of target shooters' pistols. It turned out the 98 figures were
> atypical and we have seen serious year on year increases since then, which
> the GCN has not been so keen to brag about.

the single best way to reduce alcohol-related mayhem is to allow open
sales and use of other intoxicants. all the young lads who cause most
of the problems would be much better off smoking cannabis rather than
alcohol.

having a *choice* will allow people to act more responsibly -- while
forcing them to drink booze only ensures a continuation of young people
drinking to the point of losing control.

b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com

Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org

"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc

brian
> the single best way to reduce alcohol-related mayhem is to allow open
> sales and use of other intoxicants. all the young lads who cause most
> of the problems would be much better off smoking cannabis rather than
> alcohol.

Of course, there will be more violence due to other drugs. What if the
lads' favourite turns out to be crack instead of dope?

wrote:
>
> brian
> > the single best way to reduce alcohol-related mayhem is to allow open
> > sales and use of other intoxicants. all the young lads who cause most
> > of the problems would be much better off smoking cannabis rather than
> > alcohol.
>
> Of course, there will be more violence due to other drugs. What if the
> lads' favourite turns out to be crack instead of dope?

not bloody likely -- drug users exhibit very strong tendencies in the
drugs they use, and some of them (like crack, heroin and pcp) are just
*extremely* unpopular:

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/big-pic/index.htm

b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner

Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
truth: the Anti-drugwar http://www.briancbennett.com

Nothing will ever change if we don't stand up for ourselves:
http://cannabisconsumers.org

"Cops say legalize drugs" ask them why:
http://www.leap.cc

In article .com> writes:
>brian
>> the single best way to reduce alcohol-related mayhem is to allow open
>> sales and use of other intoxicants. all the young lads who cause most
>> of the problems would be much better off smoking cannabis rather than
>> alcohol.

>Of course, there will be more violence due to other drugs. What if the
>lads' favourite turns out to be crack instead of dope?

To your first point: totally untrue. Most of the violence is related to the
black market drug trade, not the use of the drugs.

To your second point: won't happen. Crack "epidemics" always fail to continue
because it becomes very obvious to others what becomes of crack addicts and
they refuse even to try it.

-Pete Zakel
)

"God made the integers; all else is the work of Man."

-Kronecker

"Pete nospam Zakel" > wrote in message
...
> >> the single best way to reduce alcohol-related mayhem is to allow open
> >> sales and use of other intoxicants. all the young lads who cause most
> >> of the problems would be much better off smoking cannabis rather than
> >> alcohol.
>
> >Of course, there will be more violence due to other drugs. What if the
> >lads' favourite turns out to be crack instead of dope?
>
> To your first point: totally untrue. Most of the violence is related to the
> black market drug trade, not the use of the drugs.

Strange how a legal drug like alcohol seems to cause so much violence then.

--
Andy

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:36:14 -0000, "Harry The Horse"
> wrote:

>Jasbird wrote:
>> I think even the wingers in news:alt.food.wine will be glad to
>> hear this news. Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts
>> don't lie.
>>
>> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4692016.stm>
>>
>> Violence down amid pub law change
>>
>> Violent crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales fell
>> by 11% at the end of last year, despite longer pub opening hours
>> coming in, figures show.
>>
>I don't see how these figures can saying anything about the effects of
>longer pub opening hours and they came into effect in late November.
>
>> The Home Office figures for the last three months of 2005
>> include a six-week period when the police were given £2.5m to
>> target alcohol-related crime.
>>
>> The figures are the first since licensing laws were changed in
>> November to allow extended drinking hours.
>>
>> Police have said it will take longer to assess the full impact
>> of the changes.
>>
>I would agree with the police.

I would disagree with them (nearly always). The police were
wrong on this one. They predicted a rise in violence and mayhem
with the deregulation of opening hours. They are bound to say
that the DECLINE in violence has nothing to do with the
deregulation because they will NEVER admit that they are wrong.

"Jasbird" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>I would agree with the police.
>
> I would disagree with them (nearly always). The police were
> wrong on this one. They predicted a rise in violence and mayhem
> with the deregulation of opening hours.
>
And I thought that their prediction was a load of old baloney but one
month's worth of data doesn't prove anything - one way or the other.

> They are bound to say
> that the DECLINE in violence has nothing to do with the
> deregulation because they will NEVER admit that they are wrong.
>
But they haven't said that. They have said that it is too early to say,
which it is.

Beware!! this message was crossposted

Salut/Hi Jasbird,

le/on Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:34:52 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

>I think even the wingers in news:alt.food.wine will be glad to
>hear this news. Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts
>don't lie.

Ah, but will the half backs like it too?

Or are you illiterate as well as provocative.

Oops, I should take my own advice.

DFTT
http://i1.tinypic.com/mr4osm.jpg

--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website

In uk.legal Jasbird > wrote:
> I think even the wingers in news:alt.food.wine will be glad to
> hear this news. Deregulation leads to less crime - the facts
> don't lie.

> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4692016.stm>

> Violence down amid pub law change

> Violent crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales fell
> by 11% at the end of last year, despite longer pub opening hours
> coming in, figures show.


Nothing new... the extension of pub opening times in Scotland proved
this when pub opening limits of 10 pm were changed... in Edinburgh
in some pubs changed to 1am or 2am in some places
.... although I sometimes enjoyed drinking in the Subway in
the Cowgate until 6am and, then afternoon openings were permitted
long before they were in England...