This is welcome, as I could have provided the same conclusion without the need to carry out 7,828 assessments on 183 young adults over the course of a total of 1,441 evenings. In short, if you drink more, you’ll get more drunk.
It got me thinking, however, about how weighted the system is against responsible on-licensed operators. The main age group we are talking about, 18 to 25-year-olds, tends to drink at home before going out, for reasons of cost. Apart from ensuring that they are not selling to under-18s or to somebody already drunk, off-licences and supermarkets have few other legal responsibilities. Compare that to a typical late-night pub or bar.
Controlled environment
The problem starts with the tendency of authorities and licensing sub-committees to blame everything nasty that happens at a pub or bar on the operator. Police crime recording systems often note thefts against the premises when sometimes these are insurance claims for a lost phone. If a violent incident takes place immediately outside or near licensed premises it is usually recorded against that premises.
Sometimes, clearly, the premises is at fault — perhaps by serving alcohol irresponsibly. But it’s oh-so-easy to blame the bar. People who pre-load often arrive appearing sober as the alcohol works through their system — it’s not always easy for the door team or the designated premises supervisor to assess the level of their alcohol consumption beforehand.
Too often licensed premises are penalised for behaviour that could have happened anywhere — and quite possibly in a less controlled environment, perhaps where doorstaff were not present to intervene and limit injury or restrain the offender.
Costly bureaucracy
I am sure the on-trade would love these pre-loaders to drink at their premises instead of at home, not least because if you are going to get blamed for most of the adverse effects of that consumption you may as well obtain some income from it. But instead of supporting the on-trade to encourage people to their premises earlier, the Government continues to add further levels of costly bureaucracy, which in turn make your typical on-licensed premises even less able to compete on cost with the supermarkets.
Doorstaff, CCTV, good staff training — all these cost money, and I don’t think a minimum price per unit will make a great deal of difference to the imbalance that already exists.
There is an old saying in risk-assessment circles: “It’s difficult to count the fires you didn’t have.” Responsible on-licensed operators allow their customers to drink in a controlled environment manned by experienced staff, where irresponsible drinks promotions are banned and where many have onerous additional conditions attached to their licence to target any specific issues.
I’d like to see research undertaken on the ‘adverse outcomes’ prevented by licensees — the serious assaults that were avoided; the youngsters who have drunk too much elsewhere not being served but being booked a taxi home; the mobile phones recovered and so on.
That might be research worth paying for.