‘Drinking will no longer be an excuse for crime’
 |
| SEVERING THE LINK: The WHO conference will look at how to break the ties between drink, drugs and violence. |
Criminals will no longer be able to blame alcohol for their offending under new laws being planned by ministers determined to tackle drunkenness and violence.
Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, will introduce legislation to state that being intoxicated cannot be used in mitigating pleas for the defence.
Speaking at a World Health Organisation (WHO) violence prevention conference, Mr MacAskill will emphasise the need to radically change attitudes in Scotland, where 44% of prisoners admit they were drunk when they committed their crimes and most use their state of inebriation as an excuse.
Mr MacAskill is determined to ensure this is no longer possible and speaking in advance of today's conference at the Scottish Police College at Tulliallan, he said: "We are sick and tired of alcohol being used as an excuse. Frankly, it is not acceptable.
"It is you and not the drink, and whether you choose to get behind the wheel, behave in an ignorant manner or batter your wife, alcohol is not an excuse.
"We will be seeking to legislate to make it clear we are sick and tired of flimsy excuses for what is, quite frankly, bad behaviour. We are seeking to trigger a cultural change. We want to make clear the Jekyll-and-Hyde excuse is unacceptable. It is not the drink: it is the person drinking it."
England and Wales have already made offending under the influence of alcohol or drugs an aggravating factor which could increase the length of sentence. However, the executive believes that could prove counter-productive north of the border, partly as so much crime is committed under the influence.
Changing the law will form just one part of a wider Scottish Executive campaign across health and education to try to transform Scotland's so-called booze-and-blade culture.
Mr MacAskill said: "Scots' attitude to alcohol has to change. We have to end the drinking-to-get-drunk culture, and the anti-social behaviour and serious crime which springs from such abuse.
"We have made it clear we have to tackle the off-sale trade as well. That is something we will be starting to do in terms of tackling the promotion of excessive drinking and cheap drink. It is a matter of addressing the licensing laws and rolling out the act and seeing it can also apply to the off-sale trade as the on-sale trade.
"We believe the on-sale trade is really smartening up its act, but we have to address the off-sale trade where the growing consumption is. It could be argued that we took our eye off the ball in relation to off-sales."
The work of Scotland's Violence Reduction Unit (VRU) in tackling the underlying causes of crime forms a key part of that task. Chief Superintendent John Carnochan, head of the VRU, which is partly behind the conference, welcomed the move.
He suggested the minister should go even further by making alcohol an aggravating factor worthy of a longer sentence. "Alcohol should never be an excuse and it would be great to see the courts treat alcohol as an aggravating factor in relation to violent crimes," he said.
"If, for example, someone commits an assault when drunk, they should get four months rather than, for example, the three months they might have been sentenced to. We have already changed attitudes in relation to the passive victims of secondary smoking. The victims of alcohol feel the secondary consequences even more acutely.
"It is not about telling people what to do, but changing the culture which currently seems to celebrate excessive drinking."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Jason4queen, Ayrshire on 12:12am Tue 17 Jul 07
I realise this is not related, but I want to apologise to Kinghob for yesterdays comments. I am posting on all stories listed at 12.00 Midnight so that he will see comment.
Mr Kinghob,
I want to apologise for any hurt I may have caused by my Freudian slip in calling you K N. I am sure as anyone who regularly reads or participates on these pages will agree I certainly do not partake in Churlish Name calling. For this I am sincerely sorry.
I realise this is not related, but I want to apologise to Kinghob for yesterdays comments. I am posting on all stories listed at 12.00 Midnight so that he will see comment.
Mr Kinghob,
I want to apologise for any hurt I may have caused by my Freudian slip in calling you K N. I am sure as anyone who regularly reads or participates on these pages will agree I certainly do not partake in Churlish Name calling. For this I am sincerely sorry.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on 1:11am Tue 17 Jul 07
Isn't it funny how attitudes change over time even in politics. Lets imagine that you lived a mere 20 years ago so strong was the publics belief that its freedom to drink and smoke was as good as written into law. How they laughed at the drug users ie the users of drugs not afforded the political leniency of other more socially acceptable drugs like nicotine and alcohol. Yet now they stand upon their very own slippery slope towards criminalisation. By my independant reckoning the uk population is made up of 85% of lawbreakers some of whom are cops that dont know the law. Others are totaly oblivious to the fact they are breaking the law. If you won 10,000 pound in a game of cards would you know how much to give the government in tax. Would you even know you owed capital gains tax if you had never paid it before. You might not be sentenced to time if you still had the money to pay a fine in the highly unlikely event of getting caught if it was just a one off. So if 85 out of 100 break or have broken the law if without realising it like they were a decimal point out in a breath test they never got. What is the point in the criminal justice system if 85 out of 100 of the general public if put under its stare are guilty. The question is why aren't more politicians put under its stare.
Isn't it funny how attitudes change over time even in politics. Lets imagine that you lived a mere 20 years ago so strong was the publics belief that its freedom to drink and smoke was as good as written into law. How they laughed at the drug users ie the users of drugs not afforded the political leniency of other more socially acceptable drugs like nicotine and alcohol. Yet now they stand upon their very own slippery slope towards criminalisation. By my independant reckoning the uk population is made up of 85% of lawbreakers some of whom are cops that dont know the law. Others are totaly oblivious to the fact they are breaking the law. If you won 10,000 pound in a game of cards would you know how much to give the government in tax. Would you even know you owed capital gains tax if you had never paid it before. You might not be sentenced to time if you still had the money to pay a fine in the highly unlikely event of getting caught if it was just a one off. So if 85 out of 100 break or have broken the law if without realising it like they were a decimal point out in a breath test they never got. What is the point in the criminal justice system if 85 out of 100 of the general public if put under its stare are guilty. The question is why aren't more politicians put under its stare.
Posted by: Cynica on 6:16am Tue 17 Jul 07
So, jonny bond, by your reasoning, if 85% thought it legal to set fire to cats' tails, that would be an acceptable defence in court?
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
So, jonny bond, by your reasoning, if 85% thought it legal to set fire to cats' tails, that would be an acceptable defence in court?
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Posted by: Guga, Rockall on 6:17am Tue 17 Jul 07
Jonny Bond. I agree with your comments about so many people being law breakers, including police, judges and lawyers. However, given that, for example, the totalitarian, control freak Bliar managed to bring in 30,000 new laws in his ten years of misrule, it's a wonder that anyone knows the law.
On the main point of the story, I totally agree. Being drunk or under the influence of drugs should not be allowed as an excuse for committing crimes. Nobody is forced to get drunk or to take drugs; they only have themselves to blame.
Jonny Bond. I agree with your comments about so many people being law breakers, including police, judges and lawyers. However, given that, for example, the totalitarian, control freak Bliar managed to bring in 30,000 new laws in his ten years of misrule, it's a wonder that anyone knows the law.
On the main point of the story, I totally agree. Being drunk or under the influence of drugs should not be allowed as an excuse for committing crimes. Nobody is forced to get drunk or to take drugs; they only have themselves to blame.
Posted by: Fraser, Lanarkshire on 8:14am Tue 17 Jul 07
Alcohol should never be an excuse, or mitigating factor, should bring in a seperate charge of "aggravation" if an offence is commited while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Alcohol should never be an excuse, or mitigating factor, should bring in a seperate charge of "aggravation" if an offence is commited while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Posted by: clayton-moore on 8:14am Tue 17 Jul 07
As far as I know being drunk has never been a defence in a court of law.
Never been accepted from me anyway.
As far as I know being drunk has never been a defence in a court of law.
Never been accepted from me anyway.
Posted by: Swilly Tisher, Loch Maree on 8:31am Tue 17 Jul 07
Blame the greedy distillers , brewers and publicans instead.
Blame the greedy distillers , brewers and publicans instead.
Posted by: Rab The Ranter, Ayrshur on 8:33am Tue 17 Jul 07
Politeeshins talkin' pish again. Whit's yon tube MacAskill oan aboot. We aw ken it's NEVER been and NEVER wis gaunnae be an excuse. Aw he is daein is tryin tae get heidlines in the papers tae pander tae his wee pathetic ego. He used tae be wan o the yins that went oan aboat "Sounbite Blair" and "spin". Weel that's whit he's daein noo. Av telt yeez aw a hunner times. Thurs no oany difference fae wan politeeshin tae anithur. Thur aw erseholes.
Politeeshins talkin' pish again. Whit's yon tube MacAskill oan aboot. We aw ken it's NEVER been and NEVER wis gaunnae be an excuse. Aw he is daein is tryin tae get heidlines in the papers tae pander tae his wee pathetic ego. He used tae be wan o the yins that went oan aboat "Sounbite Blair" and "spin". Weel that's whit he's daein noo. Av telt yeez aw a hunner times. Thurs no oany difference fae wan politeeshin tae anithur. Thur aw erseholes.
Posted by: The radical Apathist on 8:43am Tue 17 Jul 07
Johnny Bond-FYI gambling wins are exempt from all taxes-unless you are a bookie!
Agree with Clayton drink never has been an excuse for crime-problem is we are living in a moral cess-pit as the chemical generation produces the ASBO generation.
Solution: National Service for young men and make alcohol less accessible.
Johnny Bond-FYI gambling wins are exempt from all taxes-unless you are a bookie!
Agree with Clayton drink never has been an excuse for crime-problem is we are living in a moral cess-pit as the chemical generation produces the ASBO generation.
Solution: National Service for young men and make alcohol less accessible.
Posted by: Govanboy, Govan on 9:02am Tue 17 Jul 07
Who was the SNP elected member that had the wee stushie at wembley whilst a wee bit the worse for wear - can anyone remember his name ? I seem to remember it was a rather drunken to do with a london cop but was "spun" to be high spirits after having a few too many shandies . Alcohol was certainly an excuse for that person - what was his name again ? ( Oh and don't forget good old George Foulkes who banjoed the another London cop after a whisky awards dinner ) aye good old politicians see them nae excuses needed.
Who was the SNP elected member that had the wee stushie at wembley whilst a wee bit the worse for wear - can anyone remember his name ? I seem to remember it was a rather drunken to do with a london cop but was "spun" to be high spirits after having a few too many shandies . Alcohol was certainly an excuse for that person - what was his name again ? ( Oh and don't forget good old George Foulkes who banjoed the another London cop after a whisky awards dinner ) aye good old politicians see them nae excuses needed.
Posted by: Kewsee on 9:19am Tue 17 Jul 07
Is McCaskill - a lawyer - suggesting that drunkenness is presently either a defence or valid mitigation? Because it isn't.
Is McCaskill - a lawyer - suggesting that drunkenness is presently either a defence or valid mitigation? Because it isn't.
Posted by: Uddyboy, Uddingston on 9:29am Tue 17 Jul 07
Yep, in 2000 MacAskill was detained in London before the Euro 2000 second leg play-off match between Scotland and England on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly. But it was just a bit of banter!!
This has shades of Tony Blairs' idea of marching dunken yobs to the cash machine then his boy getting the jail a few days later for being pis*ed in the street!! But 'he's basically a good kid'.
Haha absolutely brilliant as usual it's one rule for politicians and another for the rest of us.
Yep, in 2000 MacAskill was detained in London before the Euro 2000 second leg play-off match between Scotland and England on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly. But it was just a bit of banter!!
This has shades of Tony Blairs' idea of marching dunken yobs to the cash machine then his boy getting the jail a few days later for being pis*ed in the street!! But 'he's basically a good kid'.
Haha absolutely brilliant as usual it's one rule for politicians and another for the rest of us.
Posted by: paul, england on 9:29am Tue 17 Jul 07
about time too.
i have in the past the misfortune to be in front of the courts and i found it breathtaking the number of people (or to be be fair to the defendants) or lawyers who try to excuse thier actions due to excess alcohol.
pathetic
about time too.
i have in the past the misfortune to be in front of the courts and i found it breathtaking the number of people (or to be be fair to the defendants) or lawyers who try to excuse thier actions due to excess alcohol.
pathetic
Posted by: Seumas, Tain on 9:29am Tue 17 Jul 07
#rab the ranter#
Sir, you do these posts proud with such a display of intellect .
#rab the ranter#
Sir, you do these posts proud with such a display of intellect .
Posted by: Hi ho silver on 9:31am Tue 17 Jul 07
Ironically enough this legislation will just bring Scots law into line with English law. Kenny MacAskill explained it very well on the radio this morning. Not only will people not be able to put forward the excuse that they were drunk at the time (and if people don't think that excuse is regularly heard in courts they are kidding themselves) but in some cases it will lead to an aggravated offence with stiffer penalties.
As for Kenny MacAskill's previous experience with getting lifted in London. He was not charged. If people do not understand the difference between being lifted by the police and not charged and being lifted by the police and charged it is the difference between being accused of commiting a crime and not being accused of committing a crime.
To draw comparisons between someone being lifted at a football match and someone committing an offence under the influence of drink is a stupid argument and trivialises the pain of all those who have been at the receiving end of drink fuelled violence. It does however demonstrate that this minister is a real person who understands what real life is actually like. Something long overdue in my opinion when for years people making justice policy appear to me to have been living in cloud cuckoo land.
Ironically enough this legislation will just bring Scots law into line with English law. Kenny MacAskill explained it very well on the radio this morning. Not only will people not be able to put forward the excuse that they were drunk at the time (and if people don't think that excuse is regularly heard in courts they are kidding themselves) but in some cases it will lead to an aggravated offence with stiffer penalties.
As for Kenny MacAskill's previous experience with getting lifted in London. He was not charged. If people do not understand the difference between being lifted by the police and not charged and being lifted by the police and charged it is the difference between being accused of commiting a crime and not being accused of committing a crime.
To draw comparisons between someone being lifted at a football match and someone committing an offence under the influence of drink is a stupid argument and trivialises the pain of all those who have been at the receiving end of drink fuelled violence. It does however demonstrate that this minister is a real person who understands what real life is actually like. Something long overdue in my opinion when for years people making justice policy appear to me to have been living in cloud cuckoo land.
Posted by: Govanboy, govanboy on 9:42am Tue 17 Jul 07
Hi Hi Ho,
Sorry old chap but you are either pished and being a pain to the polis or you are not. The semantics of not being charged is an english thing - I suspect that if you become involved with Her Majesty's finest this side of the border you will stay nicked ! - imagine how many fans there were that day at Wembley and how bad must MacAskill have been to even have been approached by the police.... I'm all for elected members having life experience - but not when they cannot behave having had drink and then ascending the high moral ground .
Hi Hi Ho,
Sorry old chap but you are either pished and being a pain to the polis or you are not. The semantics of not being charged is an english thing - I suspect that if you become involved with Her Majesty's finest this side of the border you will stay nicked ! - imagine how many fans there were that day at Wembley and how bad must MacAskill have been to even have been approached by the police.... I'm all for elected members having life experience - but not when they cannot behave having had drink and then ascending the high moral ground .
Posted by: Hoots, Shotts on 9:59am Tue 17 Jul 07
Right, 4 month stretch instead of 3 - that's really going to put the frighteners up our violent drunks.
Right, 4 month stretch instead of 3 - that's really going to put the frighteners up our violent drunks.
Posted by: JJ, Scotland on 9:59am Tue 17 Jul 07
As I remember it Kenny MacAskill was full of the joys of life causing no harm to anyone when a saddo Metropolitan policeman annoyed at having to be on duty with all these cheerful Jocks grabbed the nearest and gave him a hard time. His Inspector saw the scene and released Kenny with a cautionary word..no doubt to save being sued. It is good that our Justice Minister experiences what us common punters have seen for years.
As I remember it Kenny MacAskill was full of the joys of life causing no harm to anyone when a saddo Metropolitan policeman annoyed at having to be on duty with all these cheerful Jocks grabbed the nearest and gave him a hard time. His Inspector saw the scene and released Kenny with a cautionary word..no doubt to save being sued. It is good that our Justice Minister experiences what us common punters have seen for years.
Posted by: Shannon, Portland Oregon on 10:07am Tue 17 Jul 07
Maybe we should hold parent more responsible for young people who go out and commit crimes while binging on alcohol. If they live home under the age of 21 maybe parents should have a little more involvement in the children’s day to day activities. It seems that it is promoted to start getting the “drink” rather than teaching how to drink responsibly like having a cocktail or a class of wine at a meal and not just for a good time out. Children learn what they live so maybe we need to start looking at our own behavior as adults
Maybe we should hold parent more responsible for young people who go out and commit crimes while binging on alcohol. If they live home under the age of 21 maybe parents should have a little more involvement in the children’s day to day activities. It seems that it is promoted to start getting the “drink” rather than teaching how to drink responsibly like having a cocktail or a class of wine at a meal and not just for a good time out. Children learn what they live so maybe we need to start looking at our own behavior as adults
Posted by: Hughie G, cells, beneath wembley on 10:32am Tue 17 Jul 07
Old Kenny is coming across as quite the right-winger recently, isn't he? First hard labour for fine defaulters, now you cannot say 'I didn't mean to do it, I was drunk'.
Well, just to clear up a few points, saying you were drunk has never been a valid defence, but having worked in many courts, I can say it is almost always used in mitigation, albiet followed by the phrase 'but I know that is no excuse, m'lud.'
Now, what the Justice Minister is saying here is that you won't even be allowed to say that - you won't even have the chance to say that alcohol had affected your judgement.
There's a problem with this on a couple of counts, in that it doesn't recognise that there are people out there who genuinely do act differently when they have had a drink. In court this is usually spotted at sentencing and the person is sent to alcohol counselling services as the person clearly has a problem that's out of their control.
Will that happen when this legislation comes in? I don't know. But it doesn't sound like it.
Also, to me this seems to be a hardening of the approach to drink-related crime, which is hardly tackling the root causes of crime, IE why people get so drunk they act in a way they never would sober. Is this really the road we want to go down? Shouldn't Kenny be looking at working with the Health Minister to curb problem drinking among the sectors of society that are given to drink-fuelled crime?
However, just to clear up the Minister's own situation, he was never arrested or charged, but he [italic]was[/italic] lifted and spent the entire Scotland v England Euro qualifier in 2000 in a cell beneath Wembley.
Later, during a debate in Parliament he said:
'Alcohol misuse is something that transcends all ages and all classes and is not restricted to the young and those in marginalised areas. It is something that government needs to act upon, but each and every Scot needs to look at his ways.
'And I myself as somebody who has offended in the past, recognise the error of the ways and the requirement I have to address my own consumption.''
He was speaking in a debate on an SNP motion which called for a ban on ``irresponsible'' drink promotions in off-sales and deep-discounting by supermarkets.
Now, the phrase here is 'error of my ways' - so which is it, Minister? Can you commit an error while drunk or not? And shouldn't you be given the chance to realise that and address the issue?
Old Kenny is coming across as quite the right-winger recently, isn't he? First hard labour for fine defaulters, now you cannot say 'I didn't mean to do it, I was drunk'.
Well, just to clear up a few points, saying you were drunk has never been a valid defence, but having worked in many courts, I can say it is almost always used in mitigation, albiet followed by the phrase 'but I know that is no excuse, m'lud.'
Now, what the Justice Minister is saying here is that you won't even be allowed to say that - you won't even have the chance to say that alcohol had affected your judgement.
There's a problem with this on a couple of counts, in that it doesn't recognise that there are people out there who genuinely do act differently when they have had a drink. In court this is usually spotted at sentencing and the person is sent to alcohol counselling services as the person clearly has a problem that's out of their control.
Will that happen when this legislation comes in? I don't know. But it doesn't sound like it.
Also, to me this seems to be a hardening of the approach to drink-related crime, which is hardly tackling the root causes of crime, IE why people get so drunk they act in a way they never would sober. Is this really the road we want to go down? Shouldn't Kenny be looking at working with the Health Minister to curb problem drinking among the sectors of society that are given to drink-fuelled crime?
However, just to clear up the Minister's own situation, he was never arrested or charged, but he
was lifted and spent the entire Scotland v England Euro qualifier in 2000 in a cell beneath Wembley.
Later, during a debate in Parliament he said:
'Alcohol misuse is something that transcends all ages and all classes and is not restricted to the young and those in marginalised areas. It is something that government needs to act upon, but each and every Scot needs to look at his ways.
'And I myself as somebody who has offended in the past, recognise the error of the ways and the requirement I have to address my own consumption.''
He was speaking in a debate on an SNP motion which called for a ban on ``irresponsible'' drink promotions in off-sales and deep-discounting by supermarkets.
Now, the phrase here is 'error of my ways' - so which is it, Minister? Can you commit an error while drunk or not? And shouldn't you be given the chance to realise that and address the issue?
Posted by: C.Straine-Urquhart, Edinburgh on 1:03pm Tue 17 Jul 07
Call me a cynic but this little removal of alchol as a 'mitigating' circumstance will be right up the judiciary (who supposedly administer the law in a fair and unbiased manner) street when it comes to the case of rape. Now they can come right out and say rather than just think 'it was your own fault dear, you were drunk'
Call me a cynic but this little removal of alchol as a 'mitigating' circumstance will be right up the judiciary (who supposedly administer the law in a fair and unbiased manner) street when it comes to the case of rape. Now they can come right out and say rather than just think 'it was your own fault dear, you were drunk'
Posted by: Rab The Ranter, Ayrshur on 1:35pm Tue 17 Jul 07
[quote][bold]Govanboy[/bold] wrote:
Who was the SNP elected member that had the wee stushie at wembley whilst a wee bit the worse for wear - can anyone remember his name ? I seem to remember it was a rather drunken to do with a london cop but was "spun" to be high spirits after having a few too many shandies . Alcohol was certainly an excuse for that person - what was his name again ? ( Oh and don't forget good old George Foulkes who banjoed the another London cop after a whisky awards dinner ) aye good old politicians see them nae excuses needed.[/quote] Weel sayid GovanBoy. Thur aw erseholes.
Govanboy wrote:
Who was the SNP elected member that had the wee stushie at wembley whilst a wee bit the worse for wear - can anyone remember his name ? I seem to remember it was a rather drunken to do with a london cop but was "spun" to be high spirits after having a few too many shandies . Alcohol was certainly an excuse for that person - what was his name again ? ( Oh and don't forget good old George Foulkes who banjoed the another London cop after a whisky awards dinner ) aye good old politicians see them nae excuses needed.
Weel sayid GovanBoy. Thur aw erseholes.
Posted by: Rab The Ranter, Ayrshur on 1:40pm Tue 17 Jul 07
[quote][bold]Govanboy[/bold] wrote:
Hi Hi Ho, Sorry old chap but you are either pished and being a pain to the polis or you are not. The semantics of not being charged is an english thing - I suspect that if you become involved with Her Majesty\'s finest this side of the border you will stay nicked ! - imagine how many fans there were that day at Wembley and how bad must MacAskill have been to even have been approached by the police.... I\'m all for elected members having life experience - but not when they cannot behave having had drink and then ascending the high moral ground .[/quote] A agree again wae GovanBoy. At last we hae somewan oan here wae us much respect fur politeeshuns as me.
GovanBoy rules OK :o)
Govanboy wrote:
Hi Hi Ho, Sorry old chap but you are either pished and being a pain to the polis or you are not. The semantics of not being charged is an english thing - I suspect that if you become involved with Her Majesty\'s finest this side of the border you will stay nicked ! - imagine how many fans there were that day at Wembley and how bad must MacAskill have been to even have been approached by the police.... I\'m all for elected members having life experience - but not when they cannot behave having had drink and then ascending the high moral ground .
A agree again wae GovanBoy. At last we hae somewan oan here wae us much respect fur politeeshuns as me.
GovanBoy rules OK :o)
Posted by: Miss Priss on 2:24pm Tue 17 Jul 07
C.Straine-Urquhart
It is more likely to work the other way around.
It is the person who is accused who will not be able to blame alcohol.
C.Straine-Urquhart
It is more likely to work the other way around.
It is the person who is accused who will not be able to blame alcohol.
Posted by: Stewie on 2:56pm Tue 17 Jul 07
I fear that this is just an excuse to start the ball rolling to ban alcohol, the anti smoking campaign started in much the same way, until it gathered pace.
ARe there not more pressing issues to be getting on with?
I fear that this is just an excuse to start the ball rolling to ban alcohol, the anti smoking campaign started in much the same way, until it gathered pace.
ARe there not more pressing issues to be getting on with?
Posted by: Stewart, Glasgow on 3:34pm Tue 17 Jul 07
National Service will sort it all out. I'm all for more men in uniform...good suggestion Hugie G!!
National Service will sort it all out. I'm all for more men in uniform...good suggestion Hugie G!!
Posted by: Stewart, Glasgow on 3:35pm Tue 17 Jul 07
National Service will sort it all out. I'm all for more men in uniform...good suggestion Hugie G!!
National Service will sort it all out. I'm all for more men in uniform...good suggestion Hugie G!!
Posted by: Stewie, Libya on 4:02pm Tue 17 Jul 07
Stewart, Glasgow on 3:35pm today:
When you say you are all for men in uniform, can you elaborate there please?
As far as national service goes if you want a diluted army that would barely be able to tie their own shoe laces, and worst of all blame an inanimate substance (alcohol) for their recklessness, then yes you are right, bring them on down, put them in the army, and really put the willies up any would be enemy...ha ha ha
Stewart, Glasgow on 3:35pm today:
When you say you are all for men in uniform, can you elaborate there please?
As far as national service goes if you want a diluted army that would barely be able to tie their own shoe laces, and worst of all blame an inanimate substance (alcohol) for their recklessness, then yes you are right, bring them on down, put them in the army, and really put the willies up any would be enemy...ha ha ha
Posted by: Big John from 'up North', Glasgow on 4:43pm Tue 17 Jul 07
There was once a day when drink was considered by the bench to be an aggrevation of an offence and awarded the greater penalty. That said, one legal brief in the Glasgow courts used to begin his plea in mitigation of the accused,s finding of guilt by averring - Mi lud, my client is one of those unfortunate people who bring a bad name to drink. That brief may well have been right.
There was once a day when drink was considered by the bench to be an aggrevation of an offence and awarded the greater penalty. That said, one legal brief in the Glasgow courts used to begin his plea in mitigation of the accused,s finding of guilt by averring - Mi lud, my client is one of those unfortunate people who bring a bad name to drink. That brief may well have been right.
Posted by: Eve, Scotland on 5:22pm Tue 17 Jul 07
I don't no about anyone else but when I've been drinking , I've been in quite a good mood and when I'm really tips the only thing your really up for is taking a pretty glass or traffic cone home with you (I've never done any of these things BUT I know of people who have.)
[quote]44% of prisoners admit they were drunk when they committed their crimes[/quote] I'd like to know who many of them are Alcoholics. It's a well known fact that prison are full of people who have some sort of drug addiction.
I think there should be better support service within prison to help prisoner over come drug addiction and Alcohol dependency.
I don't no about anyone else but when I've been drinking , I've been in quite a good mood and when I'm really tips the only thing your really up for is taking a pretty glass or traffic cone home with you (I've never done any of these things BUT I know of people who have.)
44% of prisoners admit they were drunk when they committed their crimes
I'd like to know who many of them are Alcoholics. It's a well known fact that prison are full of people who have some sort of drug addiction.
I think there should be better support service within prison to help prisoner over come drug addiction and Alcohol dependency.
Posted by: 'Freedom for better choice' Tom, Coatbridge on 5:29pm Tue 17 Jul 07
In regarding to related to day issue [italic]'drinking should be a crime'[/italic] , What I do feel concern that fact so many people who have plenty of money be able to afford to go out drink 24hrs day and encourage their friends to have a drink, enjoy themselves.
Some people can be very bad influence when it comes to drinking, where a bar selling cheap beers with mixture of bad crowds. In some places can be merry drunk that's fine, not in a bad way that pressure could build up after a long night out or long day out. They don't know how to enjoy themselves, too busy dealing with drugs, roobies, crime team withing police state, not to mention spike in someone drinks get them involve in a bad state of situation making someone life in hell without being accused of nothing they had not done before. I don't think the law is going to change anything, It wont make any difference.
I'm not blaming anyone who should say drinking is a crime. What about people who mental health problems, or someone who have speech impairment when only arrive at bar to start of their evening.
People should meet other people without feeling lonely, another point what about civil severts, lawers, police force who themselves drink a lot due stressful lifestyle. They don’t care about other people they like to see more people lock up have a fantastic miserable life, ones who would like to pick on who should be towed away.
In regarding to related to day issue
'drinking should be a crime' , What I do feel concern that fact so many people who have plenty of money be able to afford to go out drink 24hrs day and encourage their friends to have a drink, enjoy themselves.
Some people can be very bad influence when it comes to drinking, where a bar selling cheap beers with mixture of bad crowds. In some places can be merry drunk that's fine, not in a bad way that pressure could build up after a long night out or long day out. They don't know how to enjoy themselves, too busy dealing with drugs, roobies, crime team withing police state, not to mention spike in someone drinks get them involve in a bad state of situation making someone life in hell without being accused of nothing they had not done before. I don't think the law is going to change anything, It wont make any difference.
I'm not blaming anyone who should say drinking is a crime. What about people who mental health problems, or someone who have speech impairment when only arrive at bar to start of their evening.
People should meet other people without feeling lonely, another point what about civil severts, lawers, police force who themselves drink a lot due stressful lifestyle. They don’t care about other people they like to see more people lock up have a fantastic miserable life, ones who would like to pick on who should be towed away.
Posted by: Home Rule for Pertyck, Glesca (an owerweenin toun near Pertyck Brig) on 5:44pm Tue 17 Jul 07
Sorry to see Kenny MacAskill going in for New Labour style grandstanding. His proposal is just a touch of window-dressing on the existing situation. This is another example of a make-work scheme for a parliament with too many members with too little to do. That is what the SNP should be trying to fix. Propose the cut in members originally envisaged in the Scotland Act and require Westminster to implement it. It is a rational development of the SNP's good start in slimming down the cabinet and executive-and it will keep the initiative where it belongs: with the Scottish Parliament.
Sorry to see Kenny MacAskill going in for New Labour style grandstanding. His proposal is just a touch of window-dressing on the existing situation. This is another example of a make-work scheme for a parliament with too many members with too little to do. That is what the SNP should be trying to fix. Propose the cut in members originally envisaged in the Scotland Act and require Westminster to implement it. It is a rational development of the SNP's good start in slimming down the cabinet and executive-and it will keep the initiative where it belongs: with the Scottish Parliament.
Posted by: Kewsee on 12:04am Wed 18 Jul 07
Joe Beltrami got it right today when he accused the minister of not understanding how the law works.
He told BBC Scotland: "He should consult people who know what they are doing, who know their way about the courts, for example myself, and we'd help to keep him right. But the statement he made this morning doesn't make sense - it has always been the case that it is not a mitigatory factor, it's an aggravating factor, no doubt."
Mr McCaskill is a solicitor. No, really.
Joe Beltrami got it right today when he accused the minister of not understanding how the law works.
He told BBC Scotland: "He should consult people who know what they are doing, who know their way about the courts, for example myself, and we'd help to keep him right. But the statement he made this morning doesn't make sense - it has always been the case that it is not a mitigatory factor, it's an aggravating factor, no doubt."
Mr McCaskill is a solicitor. No, really.
Posted by: Fuddy Duddy on 12:56am Wed 18 Jul 07
Cynica 6:16 am. Tues. said "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse."
SO ARE WE ALL SUPPOSED TO REMEMBER WHAT'S IN ALL THOSE BIG BOOKS THE LEGAL "PROFESSION" POSE FOR PHOTOS IN FRONT OF, LIKE A RIGHT BUNCH OF FUDS?.
Not that I condone drinking as an excuse.
Cynica 6:16 am. Tues. said "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse."
SO ARE WE ALL SUPPOSED TO REMEMBER WHAT'S IN ALL THOSE BIG BOOKS THE LEGAL "PROFESSION" POSE FOR PHOTOS IN FRONT OF, LIKE A RIGHT BUNCH OF FUDS?.
Not that I condone drinking as an excuse.
Posted by: elizabeth veldon, stitching together my ravished privity on 4:21pm Wed 18 Jul 07
C.Straine-Urquhart:
you are an idiot and I claim my £5
C.Straine-Urquhart:
you are an idiot and I claim my £5
Posted by: Stewie, Libya on 2:48pm Thu 19 Jul 07
I fear that this is just an excuse to start the ball rolling to ban alcohol, the anti smoking campaign started in much the same way, until it gathered pace.
In the Yahoo news pages this morning..
[bold]"Booze related A&E visits trebled since 24hr drinking laws"[/bold]
The alcohol issue will be sniped at with similar articles as above, until some would be saviour of the UK decides that alcohol sales and consumption must stop!!
How long has 24hr drinking been allowed, in this space of time what else has doubled, trebled, or even quadrupled, but has not been reported?
I fear that this is just an excuse to start the ball rolling to ban alcohol, the anti smoking campaign started in much the same way, until it gathered pace.
In the Yahoo news pages this morning..
"Booze related A&E visits trebled since 24hr drinking laws"
The alcohol issue will be sniped at with similar articles as above, until some would be saviour of the UK decides that alcohol sales and consumption must stop!!
How long has 24hr drinking been allowed, in this space of time what else has doubled, trebled, or even quadrupled, but has not been reported?
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (36)
