Is Sydney Really This Bad? [Lockout Laws]

[anat0l]

You're repeating a few things you've said before. RSA is about he bar staff assessing the patron and refusing service if they think the patron is intoxicated. Looking at behaviour and actions, etc. That absolutely does not create a responsibility of anything that befalls the patron after they leave the venue. I really don't know why you're repeating this idea. If someone is a fool on the road and gets killed there is no fall back on the venue/s where they drank.

Responsible Service of Alcohol. As in being responsible in deciding to whom you sell booze. Not being responsible for the actions of some who buys booze from you.

The last line is what it should be. Now I may be naively swallowing up what the mass media reports, but there were quite a few reports of people getting hurt or so on after leaving a bar, then suing the bar because they (the bar) should have been more responsible and not given them more / that much drink. This is getting a bit off topic now. Since we don't itemise the drinks we buy at the bar (unless someone happened to keep all the receipts for all drinks purchased at the bar), or you reverse engineer security footage, there's not much in a way of the bar being able to defend itself against someone who accuses it of being irresponsible with serving them drinks (in fact, it doesn't even give much help to the accuser even if the bar is actually negligent in its RSA responsibilities).

RSA doesn't also viably cover cases where mates buy drinks for mates, even if some of them are intoxicated for the purposes of RSA. Bar staff might be able to latch on that mates are buying drinks for others and stop that, but that takes much more effort than just evaluating a given patron who is wanting to order something there and then.

Separating the mere action of selling alcohol from the consequences it may result in is almost impossible in practice.

As for stupid RSA. I think you've seen me walk. I have trouble at times because of a muscle condition. I've had bars refuse me service before I've even had a drink for the day (>18 hours) because they've seen me walking up the 3 stairs at the front of the venue. No explanation accepted. That's kinda stupid.

Again RSA a farce here for another reason. Why should they believe you? Just because you said so? Don't intoxicated people do the same thing? Sure, the latter are typically characterised by slurred speech, etc. etc. and other big tell tale signs that you probably weren't exhibiting, but it is still your word and conduct against their judgement. If they err on the side of presuming you are drunk and not serve you anything, they may have lost a customer and you might file a customer service complaint, but they cannot be pinned for any legal wrongdoing (except possibly for discrimination).

Then on another night I fully fell over crossing the road to get to a venue, I'd had a couple of drinks. Mates picked me up. They told the bouncers I have a disability. I told them the name of it in latin. They said if you can repeat that you're in, and I could. I assume repeating long latin words was good enough for them to assess that RSA didn't need to be applied to me. (Yet)

I don't know if bouncers have to follow RSA principles. They are told to look out for drunks (or any troublemakers for that matter, whether BAL 0 or 10), but they don't have much to do with whether they'd sell you a drink or not, because they can't / don't.


To round it back out, I fail to see how enforcing RSA to a further extent than it is right now (farcical as it may be) would be an alternative to lock outs in countering violence / alcohol-related incidents.

 

[JohnK]

The way I see it is that people have a choice to go out and enjoy themselves. Everyone knows the risks before going out and if that worries you (I've got some even more scary statistics on driving), have an early night/hang out with friends at home, no worries.

There shouldn't be any risks for people going out to enjoy themselves apart from the criminal element. I shouldn't have to worry about being glassed by someone who cannot hold their alcohol. I shouldn't have to worry about getting punched in the head by someone who thinks it is fun.

Perhaps spending more than 10 seconds evaluating drunks is a great start.

 

[Milefest]

There shouldn't be any risks for people going out to enjoy themselves apart from the criminal element. I shouldn't have to worry about being glassed by someone who cannot hold their alcohol. I shouldn't have to worry about getting punched in the head by someone who thinks it is fun.

Perhaps spending more than 10 seconds evaluating drunks is a great start.

As I said, if you're too scared to go out then don't, no one is forcing you. You've go to accept the fact there are criminals out there and going to a pub isn't the only place you're going to come across one.

But I agree with you, something needs to be done, blanket bans isn't the answer though.

I don't go out much any more, but I've found Melbourne's nightlife so much more lively lately.

There was an piece on the age about it this afternoon:
Dear Sydney, drop by for a drink some night. Love, Melbourne

 

[JohnK]

But I agree with you, something needs to be done, blanket bans isn't the answer though.

But it is a start until bars/clubs work out how they are going to deal with the situation. There is a law there that is clearly not being enforced.

Remove the lockout laws if you like but come down heavily on any establishments that continues to serve drunks.

 

[OATEK]

<SNIP>
Many people get smashed at home before they go into town, they go to town as they cant party in suburbia after 10pm.

In my experience many young people get smashed before they go out because the drinks are so much cheaper at home, so the are already loaded up when they arrived in the city. And because they are already smashed they lose their judgement and have even more to drink. This idea that you cannot have a good time out unless smashed is one of the worst aspects of this whole business.

 

[medhead]

There have been lock out laws in Noosa for 15 to 20 years. Nothing new for Queensland there.

The last line is what it should be. Now I may be naively swallowing up what the mass media reports, but there were quite a few reports of people getting hurt or so on after leaving a bar, then suing the bar because they (the bar) should have been more responsible and not given them more / that much drink. This is getting a bit off topic now. Since we don't itemise the drinks we buy at the bar (unless someone happened to keep all the receipts for all drinks purchased at the bar), or you reverse engineer security footage, there's not much in a way of the bar being able to defend itself against someone who accuses it of being irresponsible with serving them drinks (in fact, it doesn't even give much help to the accuser even if the bar is actually negligent in its RSA responsibilities).

RSA doesn't also viably cover cases where mates buy drinks for mates, even if some of them are intoxicated for the purposes of RSA. Bar staff might be able to latch on that mates are buying drinks for others and stop that, but that takes much more effort than just evaluating a given patron who is wanting to order something there and then.

Separating the mere action of selling alcohol from the consequences it may result in is almost impossible in practice.



Again RSA a farce here for another reason. Why should they believe you? Just because you said so? Don't intoxicated people do the same thing? Sure, the latter are typically characterised by slurred speech, etc. etc. and other big tell tale signs that you probably weren't exhibiting, but it is still your word and conduct against their judgement. If they err on the side of presuming you are drunk and not serve you anything, they may have lost a customer and you might file a customer service complaint, but they cannot be pinned for any legal wrongdoing (except possibly for discrimination).



I don't know if bouncers have to follow RSA principles. They are told to look out for drunks (or any troublemakers for that matter, whether BAL 0 or 10), but they don't have much to do with whether they'd sell you a drink or not, because they can't / don't.


To round it back out, I fail to see how enforcing RSA to a further extent than it is right now (farcical as it may be) would be an alternative to lock outs in countering violence / alcohol-related incidents.

My point is RSA isn't really an enforceable thing. It's like a philosophy or something. Make an assessment of the individual and then refuse or serve them. Unlike those reports that certain lounges were refusing to serve more than one standard drink per hour. Substituting a fixed number is a farce. Still it gets worse when venues look at you and decide you're not their target audience and hence use RSA to exclude someone.
I'm not sure about suing venues, I wonder if any have been successful.

 

[NFF]

Re: Is Sydney Really This Bad?

Australia has turned into a nanny state because personal responsibility is someone else's problem.

 

[anat0l]

Re: Is Sydney Really This Bad?

Australia has turned into a nanny state because personal responsibility is someone else's problem.

The things one has to ponder upon this are:

• Is the nanny state inherently a bad thing? If a nanny state experiences significantly less social problems / incidents than one that appears not to be, does that make it a better society?
• Are we, the people, responsible for transforming our society into a nanny state, by virtue of (a) we elected the people in power who have enacted laws to effect the "nanny state", and (b) we as a society seem to act in such a way that our leaders can't trust us to be anything but a nanny state (in fact, because we believe that "personal responsibility is someone else's problem").
• If the problem is indeed that we can't seem to own up as a society to taking personal responsibility, how do we solve that or what could our leaders do / enact to change that?

 

[Hvr]

Re: Is Sydney Really This Bad?

Australia has turned into a nanny state because personal responsibility is someone else's problem.

So what laws do you want to repeal? When people comment about a 'nanny state' they often have some law in mind that prevents them from doing something they want to do that adversely affects others.

 

[medhead]

Re: Is Sydney Really This Bad?

The thing that gets me is that people complaining about the nanny state often either a) fail to demonstrate the meaning of nanny state with their comments, or b) are selective in their nanny state complaints. An example of a) would be complaints about nanny states in relation to laws that are designed to protect innocent third parties. for example laws that mean other people don't have to pick up the pieces of self destructive behaviour, or that protect the poor person who might accidentally run over a drunk who steps out in front of their car.

An example of b) would be politicians who use nanny state to attack their opponents, but then wish to also engage in their own nanny state activities, unsurprisingly, to attack their opponents.

 

[NFF]

Re: Is Sydney Really This Bad?

So what laws do you want to repeal? When people comment about a 'nanny state' they often have some law in mind that prevents them from doing something they want to do that adversely affects others.

The list is too long.

 

[DaveB]

I'll take the nanny state bait.

Laws that just make it much harder to do the right thing as against those that continually thumbing their noses at the law.

Having to wear a helmet to ride a bicycle regardless of whether commuting along a main road or a short ride to the local shops.

Tree Preservation Orders that I doubt have ever prevented those with the will from having a particular tree removed. Severely impacts on every law abiding citizen and probably been the main cause no one plants large trees anymore.

Losing 1 point and a $545 fine for parking in a disabled parking spot, regardless of the location including in a residential street.

The ATO recently shut down a subcontractor without any warning - apparently no negotiating on third time debt in arrears. ATO kissed goodbye a $20K debt that he had been repaying, not though fast enough. He just started a new company the next week. Google Jim Byrnes, Eddie Obeid, most of our 'mining magnates' or for that matter any US based companies operating in Oz for how to beat the system. We unfortunatley never send the crooks to gaol, just bleed them dry in court if they decide to hang around.

 

[whatmeworry]

Melburnians are offering refuge to culture refugees to our kin in Sydney.

Dear Sydney,
We hear you've developed a bit of a drinking problem. It's so bad, in fact, that you can't even get a drink any more – or at least not at a civilised hour (say, 3.01am).
Nor, it seems, can you buy wine after 10pm, or perhaps even by the glass, if reports of police questioning a restaurateur over his "antisocial" wine list are to be believed. And there's that whole no-kebabs-after-midnight debacle. Civilisations have toppled over less.

Read more: Dear Sydney, drop by for a drink some night. Love, Melbourne
​

 

[medhead]

Having to wear a helmet to ride a bicycle regardless of whether commuting along a main road or a short ride to the local shops.

[snip]

Losing 1 point and a $545 fine for parking in a disabled parking spot, regardless of the location including in a residential street.

The helmet one is interesting. When we have numerous red neck DHs getting around who think it is perfectly acceptable to run over cyclists, a helmet law is probably fair enough. Not so much about protecting cyclists from themselves, but about protecting cyclists from DHs. Also protecting emergency workers from having to clean up the mess created by those idiots on the road. (i'm an former cyclist who complained greatly about helmet laws, until a helmet saved my head big time)

As for disabled spots, those a nanny state in themselves. A non-nanny state would have no disabled spots.

 

[penegal]

Marketing email from a Melbourne venue that came in today:

Hi penegal,

There has been a lot of debate and discussion around the "lock out" laws in Sydney & QLD of late and one thing that really shines through is that we (Melbournians), love...and are very proud of our late night culture! Melbourne, truly is a 24 hour City with a thriving hospitality and entertainment industry that provides employment, stimulates the economy and delivers wonderful experiences for everyone who seeks to find them! Now, we are not claiming to be perfect ...but we do work hard to improve and develop our business to constantly work to elevate the quality of our service, patron experience and safety of everyone that comes through our doors. We promise to do our part and we know that you will do yours, SO...enjoy the night time, behave responsibly, use the all night public transport and party like only a true Mebournians (and those smart enough to visit), know how!

Here is what we've put together for you to enjoy, this week...

THURSDAY:
xx_
FRIDAY:
xx_
SATURDAY:
xx_

MONDAY:
xx_


As you can see, there is bucket loads to do so make sure you get amongst it and enjoy your Melbourne late night scene...and as always be safe and party responsibly!

Read on or click here for all the good stuff, coming your way!

Now, this is far from my favourite venue. I think they have hired some of the w@nky Sydney bouncers who are now out of a job... (e.g. it can be difficult to get in if you aren't a supermodel or have one attached to your arm).

But once you get into this club, and to their credit - they practice responsible service of alcohol, have fantastic music, and plenty of attractive young people dancing the night away in a safe environment. I have never seen any fights or violence, just a few nasty credit card bills with their Champagne bottle service.

 

[Ausbt]

Re: Is Sydney Really This Bad?

The thing that gets me is that people complaining about the nanny state often either a) fail to demonstrate the meaning of nanny state with their comments, or b) are selective in their nanny state complaints.

Why do we need those yellow 'wet floor' signs? Sure, almost slipped over in the office foyer a few weeks back, but my soles are a bit worn
Why do we need clear, total pricing? After all I can add up ticket price + fuel surcharge + cc fee + trolley dolly moisturiser/pantyhose tax clawback charge and doing it in my head wards off Alzheimers
A safety risk assessment for my local street party? My bbq is clean - heats burns all the nasties away and a bucket is on-hand to manage fire risk
Hats and sunscreen for kids: pfffft, never in my day, sure got the odd sunspot so what?
Drinking stubbies at the public pool - I'm not clumsy and won't drop one so what's the big deal?
Stand Your Ground laws ...whoops, sorry got a little mixed up with New Hampshire. Live Free or Die! (your choice BTW but GTF off my lawn)
Priority Boarding at Qantas. Don't need a policy, don't want a policy. As a NB, I can be trusted to use it responsibly.

 

[whatmeworry]

Re: Is Sydney Really This Bad?

Sydney has launched black night in response to Melbourne's white night.

https://boredsheet.com/2016/02/19/s...-response-to-melbournes-white-night-festival/

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Re: Is Sydney Really This Bad?

Every night?

 

[Deleted member]

This kind of "Nanny state" Governance is not limited to entertainment. Every aspect of our lives is becoming someone else's responsibility.
Where once "Caveat Emptor" was the first thing you considered when buying products or services, today there is a swathe of regulation, compliance and auditing.
It won't be long before even the simple and mundane will require a detailed set of instructions, (in writing), warranties providing protection for the most idiotic of actions, all in the name of "Consumerism".
I could go on about the restrictions now on how we do everything from child rearing to buying life insurance, but I suspect you all know what I mean.

 

[drron]

This kind of "Nanny state" Governance is not limited to entertainment. Every aspect of our lives is becoming someone else's responsibility.
Where once "Caveat Emptor" was the first thing you considered when buying products or services, today there is a swathe of regulation, compliance and auditing.
It won't be long before even the simple and mundane will require a detailed set of instructions, (in writing), warranties providing protection for the most idiotic of actions, all in the name of "Consumerism".
I could go on about the restrictions now on how we do everything from child rearing to buying life insurance, but I suspect you all know what I mean.

Most of that though is evidence of the "Bureaucratic State" rather than the Nanny state.The bureaucracy must justify their existence by continually putting out mission statements,regulations,policies and such like no matter how that impacts on the efficient running of their fiefdom.Health is a good/bad example.