Author Topic: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours  (Read 3688 times)

Online Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
Those who used to view my old website in the last decade will know that I used to keep a meticulous record for years of all the different attempts by the nightclub owners to get further relaxation of Jersey's licensing law beyond the major liberalisation that took effect in 1993/94. In those days, the lobby normally organised a campaign at least every three years, usually coinciding with newly-elected States Members having just taken office (get them on your side early before they've had a chance to research the pros and cons properly!).

Today, Channel TV published an article detailing the latest campaign by the industry to get the laws changed. The link to the article is here:

'Calls for clubs to stay open until 4am' :

Quote
Jersey States is working to modernise the licensing law. But clubs closing later is not on the agenda.

http://www.channelonline.tv/channelonline_jerseynews/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=506707

What I can deduce from this report is that an attempt has already been made to directly lobby (presumably) one or more ministers for later drinking hours, but the attempt obviously did not receive the answer the lobbyists wanted, so they have now organised this new Facebook appeal for public support to pressure the minister(s). The Facebook page begins with the words "The States of Jersey have ONCE AGAIN DISMISSED The idea of extending Jersey drinking licence beyond...". Well, as far as I am aware, the 'States of Jersey' have not had a debate on this since the shameful 34 to 14 vote of July 1994, when half of St Helier's elected Deputies failed to vote against the changes, along with the Constable of St Helier (Le Brocq). I think what the campaigners mean here is that one or more ministers have been contacted and the response they received was a negative one. That is not the same thing as the 'States of Jersey', although I am sure some ministers think they have just as much power as the States as a whole- and they may well be right to think that.

I can already recognise familiar PR tactics in this report that were used during the original 1993 'trial' extended nightclub drinking hours scheme. Back in 1993, the trial involved later hours just for a few summer months on weekend nights only, to help calm residents' fears, but when the trial was later announced a success by the same people who had organised it, the law was then drafted and changed to allow later drinking hours 7 nights a week. In this latest campaign, an uncredited woman is interviewed (apparently local DJ Hannah Jacques according to the article). She calls for clubs to be given the option to stay open later "... every now and again, once a month..." - yeah, right!  ::) Unfortunately, if the States ever agree to extend drinking hours further, they will not be on the basis of as little as once a month, if the clubs happen to feel like it. The law would be drafted to permit extended drinking hours 7 nights a week, all year around.

It should also be recalled that during the lobby's successful 1993/94 campaign, the proposition that was originally laid before the States in July 1994 asked them to approve nightclub opening until 2am - not 2.30am- which they duly did. Then, five months later, just before the nightclubs were to receive the approval of Sir Peter Crill's Licensing Bench to open until 2am, Deputy Bob Hill (Tourism) announced that the committee had made a last-minute amendment to the regulations, as the changes approved by the States did not include an extra half hour for 'drinking up time'. This failure to include reference to drinking up time in the original States projet was referred to as an 'anomaly'::) Therefore, we should all be wary when these campaigners call for drinking to be extended until 4am, as this would actually mean 4.30am off the premises when drinking up time is later added on as a deliberate after thought by the minister! 

There are two very remarkable reactions to this campaign that cannot be ignored. The first thing is that the States Police now appear to be openly opposing later drinking hours for the first time in at least two decades. In the CTV report, Sergeant Paul Smith, says:

Quote
This will increase drinking, the more people who are in pubs for longer periods the studies from the UK have indicated they're going to drink more and the knock on effect of that can be public disorder.

This is an extraordinary reversal of policy, as all previous Jersey Police Chiefs have claimed later drinking hours would do the exact opposite to what Sergeant Smith is saying. I used to try in vain to counter the absurdly industry-biased views of the Police, but now it seems that after two decades they are finally agreeing with me!  :o

The second extraordinary thing to note is the complete absence from this report of any reference to the media's favourite 'rent-a-quote', "Lord" Lyndon Farnham, who, during his first period in the States, acted as an unofficial spokesman in the House for the nightclub lobby, along with Deputy Bob Hill. I recall, for example, how, in May 2003, Lord Lyndon confidently announced to the Press "a complete overhaul, not just changes" to the Licensing Law. Thankfully, those changes must have encountered some internal opposition later on because they never came to fruition. Fast forward a decade and Lord Lyndon now happens to be Assistant Minister of the Home Affairs Department, under Senator Ian Le Marquand. Home Affairs naturally has direct responsibility for matters affecting law and order, so the obvious question has to be why Lord Lyndon wasn't approached this time for his views on the subject, when he is approached on almost a weekly basis for his views on everything else under the sun, most of which have very little to do with Home Affairs.

Could it be that Minister Le Marquand does not agree with the Lord's liberalisation views and has ordered him to shut up??  :-\

The main reason that I've added this thread (apart from there being no similar thread in existence on this website) is because I have tried to submit my comments to add to the many others (22 at the last count) on the CTV web page above. Unfortunately, CTV has an unofficial life ban on me regarding comments submitted to them in my own name (perhaps I should try submitting in the name of Sam Mezec!). In the past I have managed to get around this ban by using an alias with a different e-mail address, but it now seems that they have somehow managed to suss out my alias too. Therefore I can't even get published under the name of a fictitious person! In situations like this, Planet Jersey becomes a very useful way of getting around this blatant attempt at silencing an individual whose views are just a bit too, well, 'individual' for the liking of the CTV newsroom elite...

[Late update at 2210, 14 August 2013: Only after I had gone to all the effort of creating this thread did I discover that the JEP have since published two separate articles on the subject (links below). Had I seen these earlier, I wouldn't have bothered creating this thread as I'm thankfully not banned from commenting on the JEP website and would have submitted comments on there, where a large number of people will actually get to read them]

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/08/14/no-plans-to-permit-clubs-to-stay-open-after-2-am-say-ministers/

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/08/14/2000-sign-up-to-online-nightclub-extension-plea-set-up-yesterday/
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 04:13:00 AM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3453
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2013, 05:02:55 AM »

First, Gerry thanks for bringing the topic up, also you say,

CTV has an unofficial life ban on me regarding comments submitted to them in my own name, don't worry to much, that blog as far as I am aware is way down any credible rational persons list, unless you are a troll. The problem, and it is a big problem is that Jersey unlike the purpose built Spanish resorts is very residential.

It follows that noisy people leaving nightclubs, will wake up the locals. The Weighbridge area has residents ( but not so many ) but the waterfront has all those flats. Being older now and into free choice fair enough if its your thing but, I question why anyone would want to be in a nightclub socialising when they could be doing more interesting things at three in the morning ;)

bb

Offline Calimachon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
  • Gender: Female
  • http://www.amnesty.org.uk/
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2013, 03:59:00 PM »
I would like to see a reversal of the 1993/94 decision to allow clubs to open as they do now.  There is plenty of time to enjoy oneself between the hours that the pubs open until say 12.00 midnight and possibly 1.00 a.m with special license.

I like anything that restores family values which probably makes me a bit of a killjoy.

Cali
TOMORROW (Noun) = A mystical land where 99% of all human productivity, motivation an achievement is stored

Online Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2013, 08:46:38 PM »
Well I've had my seven comments published by the JEP so I'm happy:

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/08/14/no-plans-to-permit-clubs-to-stay-open-after-2-am-say-ministers/#comment-337635

It was kind of fitting because I had a letter turned down for publication by the JEP 10 years ago on the same subject. They said it was too long and I admit it was very long because it contained loads of statistics proving how crime increased after the last liberalisation. Well last night I returned to that letter and copied and pasted some of those old crime statistics to use in my comments on This is Jersey. It's satisfying to know that my many painstaking hours of research from a decade ago didn't completely go to waste after all.

I hadn't read the report on This is Jersey when I created this thread. It is clear now, after reading Senator Ian Le Marquand's comments on that page, that my speculation was correct- Lord Lyndon has obviously been forced to keep his pro-licensing trade views to himself for a change... and hallelujah to that!  ;D

Why on earth has Maclean at Economic Development been put in charge of reviewing a law that should rightly fall under Home Affairs? Indeed, why is he even bothering to review the Licensing Law when everyone knows that the main reason for reviewing it would be to increase drinking hours- yet this can't be discussed as long as Senator Le Marquand remains at Home Affairs? I'm trying to think through what Maclean might be up to. Could he try the same trick he pulled off with the regulation of Gambling? He could effectively privatise the whole licensing system by creating a 'Licensing Commission', which would then be stuffed with the usual list of reliable appointees, most of whom would be existing or former hoteliers, publicans etc. It's just a thought. I'm not sure he'd be able to pull it off though, but if he did, he could effectively neutralise all political opposition to later drinking hours at a stroke. It has worked with Tourism- the ordinary member of the public no longer has any direct say in tourism policy- the only people that can be trusted with that are those with a direct financial interest in tourism, it would seem. Only this week, we learned that betting shops will be allowed to open on Sundays, which is politically contentious. I presume that is the doing of the Gambling Commission. They just need the approval of Crowcroft, which should be a formality.

As for the forthcoming consultation on the Licensing Law- that will be the usual sham, carefully contrived to make sure that the answers fit the questions, if you know what I mean.  ;) However, unlike most consultations, Maclean will be keen to invite the views of the public this time, because he knows the organisers of this 4am closing time campaign will absolutely flood the consultation process with identical template replies by e-mail, whereas you'll be lucky to get 3 or 4 responses from town residents complaining about the problems of rowdyism. This will allow Maclean to score some cheap political points over Senator Le Marquand behind the scenes. As always, I will not be legitimising any such sham consultation by making a submission.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 08:52:04 PM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline danrok

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
  • Gender: Male
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2013, 12:32:03 AM »
I have lived in town, and some people leaving places at night could be a right nuisance.

For example, drunk couples arguing loudly as they make there way up the street.  I could here every one of their words within a half-mile radius of my home.

The worst event was a corpse and a pool of blood in the road outside my bedroom window.  Fell off the curb and died from a head injury?

Offline Fritz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
  • Gender: Male
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2013, 01:25:24 AM »
I think pubs and clubs should be open 24/7.
There would be an initial couple of weeks where folk would go a wee bit silly.
It wouldn't last long, as folk would soon realise that they had to be up in the morning for work etc, and they simply dont have the money to stay out playing all night.
It would also give the bar staff etc, (Who currently work unsocial hours), a chance to have a ,"Wee night out", after they finish their shift at 2 am.
Let every pub and club stay open 24/7. The market will decide whether it is viable within a month.

Offline shortport

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2013, 03:01:20 AM »
With the price of drinks I can't see how anyone could afford to stay out drinking till 4am.

Offline man in the street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2013, 01:32:49 PM »
 i agree with fritz.
 let them open , the  manger can decide when  they will shut.
 if the club is to close early  say 1.30 am
 then a  clear and visible sign should be  displayed  and pointed out by the doorstaff.
 so every  clubber knows  what time the  place will  close.
  also shortport right , the price of a  drink  will set the market too.
 i am no longer in clubs or pubs.
  beer in frige and  vodka on the sideboard.

Online Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2016, 08:37:33 AM »
Licensed premises in the UK who are Pubwatch members could be breaching the Data Protection Act if they leave the mugshots of persons who are barred from licensed premises around the bar area or even on staff noticeboards according to this Telegraph article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12192622/Pictures-of-banned-boozers-are-barred-under-Data-Protection-Act-landlords-warned.html

Jersey has been operating its own exclusion from licensed premises scheme since the late 90's and it begs the obvious question as to whether local licensees are also potentially breaching data protection principles. Even if they are displaying mugshots of Jersey excluded persons in ways that would not be acceptable in the UK, it would be another thing altogether to see Emma Martins' office coming down on the side of an excluded person. In my experience, the political aims of the Jersey government effectively override the data protection principles in certain key policy areas. That said, I don't know of any excluded person actually making a complaint on data protection grounds and until somebody tries it we will never know for sure whether or not the politics is being given priority over the legal rights to privacy of the individual.

Has anyone ever noticed these mugshots lying around where they could be seen while they were customers on licensed premises? I have heard anecdotal accounts.
 
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 08:40:04 AM by Jerry Gosselin »

Offline shortport

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2016, 01:18:52 AM »
Yes,just two weeks ago I saw some of these mugshots lying around behind a bar.
So what?

Online Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2016, 01:51:00 AM »
Yes,just two weeks ago I saw some of these mugshots lying around behind a bar.
So what?

Then that establishment is breaching the Data Protection Law, that's what.

Obviously, as I have already speculated, the Channel Islands Data Protection Commissioner may or may not be enforcing the law for political reasons but she is supposed to enforce the law and therefore episodes like that should always be reported to her.

Offline man in the street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2016, 02:09:40 AM »
I have found that they are hidden from public gaze in one place I vist while working .
And. Also had sight of a shoplifting rouges gallery.
Also found that I knew some of them.
If you have staff. Working shifts , I would say. You would need the mug shots behind the bar where the member of staff could check easily.

Most of the mug shots I've seen. Alway appeared to be have nots.
And wonder where they keep the mug shots of the haves. Who have drink problems and kleptomaniac tendencies.

Offline shortport

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2016, 02:27:29 AM »
Channel Islands Data Protection Commissioner may or may not be enforcing the law for political reasons
Quite right.I thought it was just bought in to cripple stuart syvret .
Surely every local magazine/newspaper is breaking data protection everytime they print a photo of someone with their name attached.?

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3453
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2016, 03:08:21 AM »
Then that establishment is breaching the Data Protection Law, that's what.

Obviously, as I have already speculated, the Channel Islands Data Protection Commissioner may or may not be enforcing the law for political reasons but she is supposed to enforce the law and therefore episodes like that should always be reported to her.


In Guernsey some time back kids of around 14 years of age kept causing havoc in the CO-OP in Guernsey. The police could do nothing as they ran off all the time and besides they were juveniles, the police had more important criminal work.

The Co-Op posted four large photo's in their window, one of each kid - that did the trick - no one hurt,  just advertising the faces of kids that don't respect anyone else's space or business.

Pictures taken in a public place do not need the permission of the data protection police to be published or the permission of the person.

Well done Co-Op.

BB
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 03:10:14 AM by boatyboy »

Online Jerry Gosselin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
Re: Yet ANOTHER campaign to extend Jersey's nightclub opening hours
« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2016, 05:58:49 PM »
Another issue related to the proposed changes to the Licensing Law:

You have until tomorrow if you want to submit comments to the Channel Islands Co-operative Society on the proposal to disallow special offers, discounts or promotions on all alcoholic products. The Society says that your comments will be incorporated into their response to the proposed law changes. There is a link here:

https://cicoop.typeform.com/to/yyNBlp

Don't forget that you can also sign the accompanying petition in Co-op or Sandpiper stores - if you can actually find it.

I rarely find offers on wines and beers that are more than 25%. Sometimes you can find 33%. This is a discount off very inflated prices to begin with. The Jersey government never fails to slap on annual duty increases that are way above inflation. It is all part of an ongoing trend to tax the life out of consumers who buy any product that the health fascists deem to be bad for us. Of course the next tax we will definitely be getting is the tax on sugary soft drinks (yet bizarrely not on sugary food products). Perhaps we should have a competition here to guess what product they will tax after sugary drinks.

Here is my own suggestion:

Air (but only in inner city areas).

Reasons for the proposed new tax on air: It is well-known that pollution levels are way above safe limits in some city centre streets where a lot of vehicles circulate. Breathing in this air can cause all sorts of health problems. The government should therefore do all it can to discourage people from breathing in this air in order to improve their health and lower future costs to the Health Service.

Minister for No Infrastructure Lord Eddie Noel therefore proposes to introduce a series of escalating financial sanctions for reckless people caught breathing in poor air in certain pollution hotspots without wearing a protective face mask. It will start with a warning notice issued by a Centenier for failing to actively seek clean air and if there are any further breaches of that warning within 12 months of the initial failure then the offender's home, children, possessions and - finally - lungs will be confiscated for the benefit of the state. In the Minister's opinion, these proposals are fully compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. So there!

« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 06:05:40 PM by Jerry Gosselin »