I’m very, very sorry to hear about this incident, and about the ongoing problems which you have experienced with your back and neck as a result.

It must have been a terrible ordeal, and I certainly hope that the ongoing recovery process is not too unbearable for you.

I can only imagine that finding out about how the guy assaulted another patron in a prior incident must have just added insult to injury.

I must say that I am very disappointed with the landlord’s response. Based on your description, it sounds as though he was a lot more focused upon the avoidance of trouble with the police than he was about your physical wellbeing or that of your friends. Shame on him.

Andrews last blog post..Four rants about AIG’s ‘poor performance’ bonus

There was nobody there to break it up – just too young girls behind the bar. I did tried to get the lout of my friend but to be honest I wasn’t much use. The lout pushed me over. And the landlord eventually arrived and persuaded me not to call the police, as the pub might get into trouble.

A few weeks later, I’m still having really bad back and neck pain and I’ve since discovered that the guy who did it has been convicted of GBH for assaulting someone else in the same pub a few years earlier.

I think these places should not only have to pay for their only police and security – but it should be compulsory to have someone there. I just won’t go anywhere if they don’t now – it really isn’t worth the risk.

Thanks for your comment and welcome to my blog.

I am inclined to agree with your comment about with respect to nightclubs being strictly responsible only for incidents that occur on their actual premises, as opposed to the immediate public area surrounding their premises.

The plan which I mentioned earlier in the discussion (put forth by Mr. Gerrison) mentions nightclubs being responsible for ‘buffer zone,’ including both the area of their premises and that immediately surrounding their premises, and charged a fee every time police assistance was required within this buffer zone.

But I agree with you – the area outside the venue concerned represents public space and I would not think that owners of drinking venues can be held responsible for what occurs within a public space.

Accordingly, if nightclubs are forced to pay for police assistance, they should only be forced to pay with respect to incidents which occur on their premises, and not those which occur in a public space.

Andrews last blog post..Should the illicit drugs industry be legalized?

I like what you said in comment #5, though, in that some types of clubs do happen to attract the worst elements, in which case maybe those areas just don’t need to have those types of establishments.

Mitchs last blog post..Visa Black Card

Thanks for your comment and welcome to my blog.

It does seem that some venues tend to attract trouble a great deal more than others, even when they are in similar locations and appear to attract patrons of similar socio-economic classes. This does tend to suggest that the venues themselves do have a considerable degree of influence over the behavior of patrons.

I went to an event that had several thousand people, I can’t remember how many, but an arena, 8-10K people and not one cop was need. why because the people there knew what was expected of them.

Night clubs are like parents, they have to lay down the law at the door. If you can’t follow the rules or even think about breaking them, well then you are not welcomed back. At the very least if not the cops, some kind of security. If your establishment attracts trouble, you have to ask yourself why.

Naturals last blog post..Pet Peeve Friday

A very thought provoking response. You seem to have a wonderful ability to think outside the square and look at things from a different angle with respect to some of the discussions on this blog in recent times.

I agree that the scope of the discussion should be limited only to properly licensed drinking venues.

I like your thinking with respect to the tax incentive, an idea which may certainly receive a more enthusiastic response due to its incentive based nature (as opposed to the punitive nature of Mr. Gerritsen’s proposal).

As you say, there are certainly some difficulties associated with the idea, particularly those associated with the apparent unfairness on businesses who would fall outside the scope of the reward system, not to mention the cost of such payments to taxpayers.

But no doubt there are ways to overcome these types of difficulties. One possibility – a credits, rebates and penalties system, whereby drinking establishments are allowed to receive police assistance on a certain number of occasions during a specified period without incurring any penalty. At the end of the period, drinking venues would either have to pay a penalty or be entitled to a rebate according to whether or not the amount of times which they required police assistance either exceeded their allowance or did not reach their allowance.

Provided that allowances for number of occasions of receiving police assistance were determined on a reasonable basis, such a scheme would punish those venues which prove to be a less safe drinking environment whilst providing those establishments which provide a relatively safe drinking environment with the entitlement to receive a financial reward.

Just a thought.

Andrews last blog post..Should nightclubs pay for cops?

On the other hand, nightclubs are economic activity. They contribute to the economy through taxes. And their patrons may spill over into surrounding businesses and help them out too.

The other issue is that there may be accusations of racism and harassment that accompany unwanted attention by a government trying to regulate a nightclub.

What to do?

I think it’s the age-old question of incentive. What is the incentive for the nightclub owners to clamp down on their patrons? Or clean up their act, but without resorting to Michael Bolton music all time?

I think that legitimate owners want a stable environment in which they can make money and grow their business. I know that Washington State has a Labor and Industries program in which businesses can get a portion of their L&I payments back if they are able to keep worker injuries below a certain threshold. Could there be a tax incentive tied in to number of police calls? Would it be better to structure an incentive system instead of a punitive system in which owners are punished for calling out the police by paying for them? But would it be fair to other businesses who are responsible citizens anyway, but wouldn’t get a reward because they are not a nightclub.

So many questions…

ladykats last blog post..HBO Documentary on Factory Farm Premiers March 16th

If the venue that Chris mentioned requires that level of police presence, then certainly license revocation should be given serious consideration.

You are right on with your comment about putting yourself in the hands of other patrons.

I recall one occasion about ten years ago when I was with two of my friends in a pool hall. We had not been drinking at all and were just enjoying a quiet game between ourselves, when a drunken idiot came from nowhere and simply threw a punch at one of my friends, from which my friend sustained a fractured skull.

My friend, who had been chatting to me and otherwise minding his own business, did absolutely nothing at all to provoke the attack.

The idea that it can always takes two to start trouble can be a myth – all it takes is one who has had too much to drink.

Thanks for your comment and welcome to my blog.

I hope you enjoy many of the discussions on this site.

Unfortunately, there seem to be some nightclubs that just attract trouble. I don’t know exactly what should be done about these kinds of places (apart from staying away from them myself) but it does seem that the police presence you describe, though no doubt necessary, could be minimized or avoided if the place was cleaned up in the first place.