Cardiff's binge drinking culture (audio)

[yorkie]

Listen here:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8619000/8619264.stm

Back in 2006 when there was Class 50 haulage on the Cardiff - Fishguard, and Class 37 haulage on the Rhymney line we stayed in Cardiff and experienced these scenes, it really is as bad as this programme demonstrates, believe me!

Sadly the future of this country is not great, as kids are brought up to believe they have the right to do anything they want and have no responsibilities whatsoever, and to have a hobby (other than getting drunk of course, that's cool) is considered "sad".

I'm sure there are many places like this in Britain.

 

[142094]

You'll probably find this in every small town and definately in every city. Most people go out for a good time and a few drinks, but there are still those who go out to get bladdered every weekend. These are the ones who generally cause all the trouble. Of course it is fuelled by cheap drinks, I've been in places where double spirits and mixers are half the price of a pint of lager.

No doubt the NHS will suffer even more in the next few years.

 

[Oswyntail]

I think the saddest thing is that it is not just the kids. In the past there was always a "layer" of youngsters who had just started drinking and were finding out their limits and often going beyond them. The people one sees so often these days are not those - they are older, perhaps up to about 45 who, in the words of everyone's parents, "Should know better". Cheap drink is a problem, sure, but we now have two generations of citizens who think it is acceptable to go too far. But, as the sergeant in the clip pointed out, you can't arrest and punish everyone because the whole system couldn't cope. We all know who is really to blame - the parents, and that includes parents up to about 60-70 years old who bought in to the irresponsible attitudes in the 60's 70's and 80's. Yes, just the same smug generation who are bemoaning what has happened. (I am 56!)

 

[ukrob]

Do you think an audio clip of drunk people in Cardiff is representative of the entire population under the age of 25?

Get a grip. There have been fights between drunk people since there was first alcohol.

Are you a Daily Mail reader yorkie?

 

[Oswyntail]

Do you think an audio clip of drunk people in Cardiff is representative of the entire population under the age of 25?

Get a grip. There have been fights between drunk people since there was first alcohol.

Are you a Daily Mail reader yorkie?

No DM reader I! But I do believe that street behaviour has worsened seriously over the last 20 years, and that there is much more drunkenness and violence, even in small towns. And, as I said, it is not only under-25s. And, while I agree it is only a small proportion, a small proportion of a large population is still a massive problem.

 

[ukrob]

Apologies Oswyntail, by post wasn't aimed at you

 

[Donny Dave]

Anyone else noted there's a thread slating the "drinking" culture, yet on the same page, there's a thread asking for pub recommendations .....

Oh the irony!

 

[devon_metro]

Of course it is fuelled by cheap drinks, I've been in places where double spirits and mixers are half the price of a pint of lager.

Most places seem to be 241 drinks before midnight.

 

[thegrich37423]

This has sadly become the case of many inner city areas, such as Cardiff. The inexpensive and very flexible nature of many public houses and bars has bred a new generation of alcohol-fuelled yobs and chavs determined to ruin life for the people who once considered such places safe. If you think that there are better cities, then you are living in a dreamworld.
If you take alcoholic drinks, we, as humans, are animals and underneath a layer of higher-reasoning and intellect, we have the same, basic primal emotions as any other mammal. Alcohol raises these primal emotions to a point where the consumer is nothing more than a basic mammal acting on his/her primal emotions. This is inheritenly not their fault. I, and everyone on this forum, have the same, mammalian instincts which are heightened by alcohol. If I have a small glass of wine, I am briefly intoxicated. If I binge drink, I become not just intoxicated, but destructively so, as the level of primal emotions that are raised are raised twice, thrice, if not four or fives times over. I end up like these raving yobs, smashing up everything and anything. Am I defending them because of their mammalian primal instincts? No, I am merely laying out the facts as to how alcohol drunk in excessive quantity can potentially turn a quiet, subdued individual into a destructive force.
There is also an element of addiction as well to consider. This very nature of an orgy of destruction is addictive. So long as these people in question have the necessary fuel in order to drive their basic, animal instincts out into the open, they will continue to do so and get a huge kick out of destroying a shop.
Whether people like it or not, the damage has been done. This new generation of alcohol dependant people is the sign of things to come, and the sign can only get worse.

 

[142094]

Anyone else noted there's a thread slating the "drinking" culture, yet on the same page, there's a thread asking for pub recommendations .....

In many cases you find a different type of person who frequents a pub, compared to bar of nightclub. Most pubs are still the traditional ones, you go for a few pints and back home after last orders. Most places these days do real ale as well, which in most cases is drunk by people who do not then go on to cause fights. The whole mindset is different, people who go to pubs tend to go for the beer and company, and not to get rat-arsed.

Now comparing this to bars and clubs, where the drinks are usually very low price, more focussed on spirits and generic lagers, and the clientelle has a different mindset, and this in many cases is to have fun by getting drunk. These tend to be the people who cause the fights and these are the ones that cause most of the problems.

However not all people who go to clubs cause fights, get drunk, etc, but a lot of them do. On the other hand some people in pubs do get drunk and cause fights. But in my experience it is usually the clubs with the late openings and lower drink prices that have the same problems every Friday, Saturday and Sunday night.

 

[the sniper]

Sadly the future of this country is not great, as kids are brought up to believe they have the right to do anything they want and have no responsibilities whatsoever, and to have a hobby (other than getting drunk of course, that's cool) is considered "sad".

That's one heck of a sweeping statement! Yorkie, I'm sure the Daily Mail would be glad of your services.

 

[royaloak]

Funnily enough I agree with Yorkie.

Maybe if the people that were "arrested" for drunk and disorderly, but then released without charge the next morning (effectively a free hotel), were fined say £200 (if they can afford to get THAT drunk they can afford it, and the money was spent on measures to combat the damage these idiots do maybe things would slowly start to get better. As long as it is acceptable, and has no repercussions, then it isn't going to fix itself!

But its easier to tax ALL drinkers than actually deal with the REAL issues isn't it!

 

[ukrob]

Funnily enough I agree with Yorkie.

Maybe if the people that were "arrested" for drunk and disorderly, but then released without charge the next morning (effectively a free hotel), were fined say £200 (if they can afford to get THAT drunk they can afford it, and the money was spent on measures to combat the damage these idiots do maybe things would slowly start to get better. As long as it is acceptable, and has no repercussions, then it isn't going to fix itself!

But its easier to tax ALL drinkers than actually deal with the REAL issues isn't it!

That is the thing though. They can't afford it - WE end up paying the fine for them. You don't need to be rich, or even have a job to take advantage of cheap drink offers.

 

[royaloak]

So you don't mind the price of YOUR pint going up because of these drunk idiots then!
My point is 95% of the population drink sensibly, but because of the 5% who don't EVERYONE has to pay more, is that fair?

 

[ukrob]

So you don't mind the price of YOUR pint going up because of these drunk idiots then!
My point is 95% of the population drink sensibly, but because of the 5% who don't EVERYONE has to pay more, is that fair?

I didn't say that, and you know it. I'm just pointing out that your idea is flawed.

And to be honest I couldn't give a stuff about 'my pint' going up as I don't drink

I didn't say it was fair either. Stop twisting words and putting words in my mouth.

 

[royaloak]

That is the thing though. They can't afford it - WE end up paying the fine for them. You don't need to be rich, or even have a job to take advantage of cheap drink offers.

Who is the "WE" that pays the fine?

If they have to pay the fine then they wont be able to drink next week, simples!
What do you suggest to tackle the problem?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I didn't say that, and you know it. I'm just pointing out that your idea is flawed.

And to be honest I couldn't give a stuff about 'my pint' going up as I don't drink

I didn't say it was fair either. Stop twisting words and putting words in my mouth.

I can only go on what you write, how do I know what you mean if it isnt clear, that isnt "twisting" things or putting words in your mouth!
I was asking a question, how do I know if you drink or not, I aint got crystal balls!

 

[ukrob]

Who is the "WE" that pays the fine?
What do you suggest, I can only go on what you write, how do I know what you mean if it isnt clear, that isnt "twisting" things or putting words in your mouth!

What do you suggest to tackle the problem?

If a criminal can't afford to pay a fine because they are unemployed/have a low wage etc, it is deducted from their benefits at source therefore tax payers pay the fine.

Apologies if I wasn't clear.

And I don't have a perfect solution. One idea would be rather than fining them if they can't afford to pay it, make them do community service instead.

Lets take your example of a £200 fine. Make them do £200 worth of community service at the minimum wage (obviously unpaid - I'm just using the minimum wage for a calculation). Lets say it is £5/hour. Therefore the £200 which they can't afford becomes 50 hours community service. That is just over 6 days at 8 hours a day.

Obviously this would only work for the unemployed.

You could introduce a scale that balances fine affordability against hours of community service. So then you have a choice of paying £200 or doing 50 hours CS. Or paying £100 (which they might be able to afford) and 25 hours CS. And so on.

 

[royaloak]

Seems reasonable, although we do pay the fine, we haven't given them the money so effectively they have "paid" the fine because they have less money than would have been the case, of course it could be argued that if they can afford, say, £30 a week on booze they can afford £30 a week to pay off the fine.

£200 at £5 an hour is 40 hours not 50, maybe it should be 10 hours extra as "interest" , but I like the idea, but would rather hit them in the pocket!

 

[ukrob]

Seems reasonable, although we do pay the fine, we haven't given them the money so effectively they have "paid" the fine because they have less money than would have been the case, of course it could be argued that if they can afford, say, £30 a week on booze they can afford £30 a week to pay off the fine.

£200 at £5 an hour is 40 hours not 50, maybe it should be 10 hours extra as "interest" , but I like the idea, but would rather hit them in the pocket!

I was wondering who would be the first to spot that....

Yes it would be better to hit them in the pocket - but we know that wouldn't be allowed, and even if it was, they could then apply for crisis loans to make up the difference etc etc etc.

The sliding scale could be used more for people who ARE employed I think and can get the right balance between the fine and the CS depending how many hours they already work etc.

 

[royaloak]

Yes it would be better to hit them in the pocket - but we know that wouldn't be allowed, and even if it was, they could then apply for crisis loans to make up the difference etc etc etc.

The sliding scale could be used more for people who ARE employed I think and can get the right balance between the fine and the CS depending how many hours they already work etc.

The judge would be enpowered to prevent this from happening, the sliding scale would also be at the judges discretion as well.

Yes I do think this country is a soft touch on crime and punishment!

 

[ukrob]

The judge would be enpowered to prevent this from happening, the sliding scale would also be at the judges discretion as well.

Yes I do think this country is a soft touch on crime and punishment!

The judge couldn't do that though as it would be against some form of European human rights ruling. We need to be realistic as well as firm.

Yes, the magistrates would be the ones to decide what end of the scale to use, based on the form filled in and handed to them (used today) listing income (and hours worked) and expenditure.

 

[the sniper]

Funnily enough I agree with Yorkie.

Maybe if the people that were "arrested" for drunk and disorderly, but then released without charge the next morning (effectively a free hotel), were fined say £200 (if they can afford to get THAT drunk they can afford it, and the money was spent on measures to combat the damage these idiots do maybe things would slowly start to get better.

As a non-drinker, I'd absolutely love them to do that. Unfortunately there's a reason why they don't do that; they don't have anywhere near enough cells or police officers to carry it out. Often there aren't enough cells to hold all the people who fight and commit other crimes on a Friday or Saturday night, let alone take in all the disorderly drunks. It's not uncommon for people to be kept in the back of police vans for as long as possible as there's nowhere else for them to be taken.

I'd love to see all these people tied together with plastic straps, left in a cold, wet, fenced car park on a Friday or Saturday night in towns and cities around Britain, but unfortunately, I'm sure groups like Liberty wouldn't be too impressed.

 

[royaloak]

The judge couldn't do that though as it would be against some form of European human rights ruling. We need to be realistic as well as firm.

Yes, the magistrates would be the ones to decide what end of the scale to use, based on the form filled in and handed to them (used today) listing income (and hours worked) and expenditure.

Dont get me started on this load of cr4p! A criminals best friend
It SHOULD apply fully if you comply with the law, but once you break the law (and are found guilty) then you relinquish all but the basic human rights!

 

[ukrob]

Dont get me started on this load of cr4p! A criminals best friend
It SHOULD apply fully if you comply with the law, but once you break the law (and are found guilty) then you relinquish all but the basic human rights!

But that isn't how it works, and like I said, we need to be realistic. And I'm not getting you started on it, you did it all by yourself . It is also a separate issues from this one.

 

[thefab444]

My point is 95% of the population drink sensibly, but because of the 5% who don't EVERYONE has to pay more, is that fair?

I don't agree with that, alcohol abuse and general overconsumption is rife in this country. I'd swap your statement around, probably only 5 - 10% of the population drink sensibly within government recommendations, or don't drink at all. The vast majority of people abuse alcohol at least some of the time, if not week-in-week-out.

Personally I don't touch the stuff, so I couldn't care less if it was taxed more, that would hopefully have the effect of encouraging people to drink less, and even if they do still drink the same, the Treasury gets a bit more cash in its coffers to pay for other things.

 

[Greenback]

No DM reader I! But I do believe that street behaviour has worsened seriously over the last 20 years, and that there is much more drunkenness and violence, even in small towns. And, as I said, it is not only under-25s. And, while I agree it is only a small proportion, a small proportion of a large population is still a massive problem.

Street behaviour has indeed worsened considerably since I started going out in the mid 1980's. I think this is due to a number of factors. Firstly, the degeneration of behavioural standards in society as a whole, but also the alcohol industry has changed, bars have becoem much bigger, so that managers and licensees have less control over the premises, depsite cctv and door staff. Trouble makers are also ejected on to the street where fights continue and escalate. Another factor is that youngsters used to learn how to dink in local pubs, often with older generations of their family. Put thses factors together and we cna begin to see why behaviour has plummetted!

In many cases you find a different type of person who frequents a pub, compared to bar of nightclub. Most pubs are still the traditional ones, you go for a few pints and back home after last orders. Most places these days do real ale as well, which in most cases is drunk by people who do not then go on to cause fights. The whole mindset is different, people who go to pubs tend to go for the beer and company, and not to get rat-arsed.

Now comparing this to bars and clubs, where the drinks are usually very low price, more focussed on spirits and generic lagers, and the clientelle has a different mindset, and this in many cases is to have fun by getting drunk. These tend to be the people who cause the fights and these are the ones that cause most of the problems.

However not all people who go to clubs cause fights, get drunk, etc, but a lot of them do. On the other hand some people in pubs do get drunk and cause fights. But in my experience it is usually the clubs with the late openings and lower drink prices that have the same problems every Friday, Saturday and Sunday night.

Exactly right. I also feel that the pouinding music in most bars and clubs these days must also contribute to violent behaviour!

I don't agree with that, alcohol abuse and general overconsumption is rife in this country. I'd swap your statement around, probably only 5 - 10% of the population drink sensibly within government recommendations, or don't drink at all. The vast majority of people abuse alcohol at least some of the time, if not week-in-week-out.

Personally I don't touch the stuff, so I couldn't care less if it was taxed more, that would hopefully have the effect of encouraging people to drink less, and even if they do still drink the same, the Treasury gets a bit more cash in its coffers to pay for other things.

Government recommendations are ludicrous! My father in law has three or four pints five nights of the week, and has done for about 60 years. According to the governement he would be an alcoholic! In fact, he's 82, has never had a major illness in his life and hasn't had a fight since he was 8, when someone tried to steal his gobstoppers!

The nanny state strikes again, and I find it sad that people don;t seem to question some of the things the government comes out with!

 

[thefab444]

According to the governement he would be an alcoholic!

Well, if he couldn't stop having those four pints a day, then he is an alcoholic. I strongly suspect he couldn't. I'm also less than sure about his whiter than white character, but having not actually met him, I'll try and believe it.

 

[142094]

Exactly right. I also feel that the pouinding music in most bars and clubs these days must also contribute to violent behaviour!

You never know but that may be true! Seems like some of the music gets people going so much that they cannot contain themselves.

 

[Greenback]

He doesn;t have three or four pints every day, just most days. That was what most men did in the past, they worked hard in the mine, steelworks or factory and then enjoyed relaxing for a couple of hours in the night. They didn't go out to get drunk, like today, yet now they would be said to be abusing alcohol? And why should some abritary figure devised by a panel of PC doctors be used to decide if someone is an alcoholic or not? Someone who lieks a drink, and drinks regularly, is not necessarily one.

I think that if we lived our lives the way we did fifty or sixty years ago, there would be a lot less of this appalling behaviour about. In this area there was a code of behaviour then which said you didn't use bad language in front of women, respected authority like police officers (and railway officials!), and, because people all lived in proper communities, word soon got round if anyone had transgressed. No one got stabbed, it was very rare for a knife to be carried, and no one got glassed. Of course, there were the odd bouts of fisticuffs on a Saturday night, but nowhere near the scenes on the streets today, and most people went to church or chapel on a Sunday morning.

 

[royaloak]

. I'd swap your statement around, probably only 5 - 10% of the population drink sensibly

So you are saying about 80%ish of the drivers at your depot are p155heads then? nice!

within government recommendations, or don't drink at all. The vast majority of people abuse alcohol at least some of the time, if not week-in-week-out.

And we all know how accurate those "recommendations" are :roll:

Personally I don't touch the stuff, so I couldn't care less if it was taxed more,

So basically 4q Jack I am alright!