»

[daveofficer]

Originally Posted by Thomas Banacek

I see some councillor is suggesting clubs stop serving drink for the last hour to help folk sober up before they get turfed out.

Seemed like a sensible idea to me, but Mike Wilson, who owns Paramount etc, went radge in the P&J! Seemed a bit excessive.

I think the curfew is silly, but I like this "cool down" period idea, it could work much better.

yea it could work but i can't see it being popular with the punters. plus people will just order a ton of drinks right before cut off and continue drinking till close.

[Thomas Banacek]

Originally Posted by daveofficer

yea it could work but i can't see it being popular with the punters. plus people will just order a ton of drinks right before cut off and continue drinking till close.

A fair point, but at the same time I think there are more important issues at stake than keeping pissheads happy!

I think that there will probably be problems with any system, I suppose it's the principle behind it.

Most nights I'm out I'm too busy dancing my ass off anyway to drink, but it's horses for courses I suppose.

The curfew is still a really shit idea though, and it won't work.

[Tubthumper]

Nightclub owners hit out over curfew - Press & Journal

[Cloud]

The ridiculous thing about this is that a far more logical plan would be to stagger chucking out times. You could logically bring in a system where pubs and clubs with licences would be invited each year (or maybe every two years, to cut red tape?) to submit a bid for opening times in their part of the centre. You could do it so that pubs would have (at the weekends, drop times back an hour for other days) 11, 12 and 1, with clubs having 2:30, 3 and 3:30. With the latest closing times, clubs and pubs with a clear history of good conduct (no problems with underagers getting in, no problems with drugs/violence...etc) could then be granted an extra half hour, but only for those that are exceptional.

Any club/pub with a history of trouble would be automatically barred from anything but the earliest opening times (as to encourage good conduct - is a club owner really going to want to close at 2 at the weekend? Under a bidding system, pubs/clubs could be assessed on their history throughout the year - so those well run would benefit from being given later licencing times.

But such a system would prevent (as now) where you get three clubs on Windmill Brae all chucking out at the same time. Only one of those would get the latest licence, one would get the second latest, and the loser would get the earliest time. Fair? If it was openly and transparently assessed, then yes.

The crucial part of this would be to indeed have a restriction on entry into clubs - but who could really complain about not being allowed in somewhere when the latest closing time for a pub would be at least an hour before the curfew would kick in? Logically, the curfew would start when the first clubs close - so you have plenty of opportunity to go elsewhere if you really want to.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Cloud

The ridiculous thing about this is that a far more logical plan would be to stagger chucking out times. You could logically bring in a system where pubs and clubs with licences would be invited each year (or maybe every two years, to cut red tape?) to submit a bid for opening times in their part of the centre. You could do it so that pubs would have (at the weekends, drop times back an hour for other days) 11, 12 and 1, with clubs having 2:30, 3 and 3:30. With the latest closing times, clubs and pubs with a clear history of good conduct (no problems with underagers getting in, no problems with drugs/violence...etc) could then be granted an extra half hour, but only for those that are exceptional.

Any club/pub with a history of trouble would be automatically barred from anything but the earliest opening times (as to encourage good conduct - is a club owner really going to want to close at 2 at the weekend? Under a bidding system, pubs/clubs could be assessed on their history throughout the year - so those well run would benefit from being given later licencing times.

But such a system would prevent (as now) where you get three clubs on Windmill Brae all chucking out at the same time. Only one of those would get the latest licence, one would get the second latest, and the loser would get the earliest time. Fair? If it was openly and transparently assessed, then yes.

The crucial part of this would be to indeed have a restriction on entry into clubs - but who could really complain about not being allowed in somewhere when the latest closing time for a pub would be at least an hour before the curfew would kick in? Logically, the curfew would start when the first clubs close - so you have plenty of opportunity to go elsewhere if you really want to.

Can't see the licensed trade advocating a scheme that gave a distinct competitive advantage (longer opening times) to some and not others.

[u70jc]

I have got some of the documents via the freedom of info act.

This whole thing started from a recommendation by Aberdeen Taxi Group that there was as curfew that stopped admission between 45 - 60 minutes before a club closing. I have no idea how this suggestion has evolved into becoming a curfew that is far earlier. There is a mention of consultation with licensees, but I don't know if this actually happened.

[Bass Cadet]

I'm in Melbourne australia atm... Here they have stopped people moving on after 2AM... No admission to anywhere - even though they dont shut till 5! Even if you go out for a smoke, they dont let you back in... It's the crappest thing ever.. i hope Scotland will never follow suit

[pogofish]

Originally Posted by u70jc

I have got some of the documents via the freedom of info act.

This whole thing started from a recommendation by Aberdeen Taxi Group that there was as curfew that stopped admission between 45 - 60 minutes before a club closing. I have no idea how this suggestion has evolved into becoming a curfew that is far earlier. There is a mention of consultation with licensees, but I don't know if this actually happened.

Thanks - That is very, very interesting.

[craigt2000]

This whole affair is completely ridiculous, why anyone feels there are benefits to this idea is beyond me.

What is really annoying me though, is while trying to read up on it I find a few articles about the facts of the curfew, but none actually explain the reasons for imposing such a curfew. Why was this decision taken, or even considered? Is violent crime in Aberdeen really that bad? And if so who says, as I regularly go out in Aberdeen well after 12:30am, and rarely, if ever, see fighting, abuse, violence or crime - at most you might see a drunk getting a bit mouthy, but he'll soon wonder off.

So what the hell is the problem!! Can someone please tell me why this might get introduced at all? Do they not realise it will destroy Aberdeen's vibe - people will feel like there liberties are being taken, will probably end up with less respect for the police, and won't know what to do with themselves if they can't get in a club. And what kind of potential student would even consider moving to a city with a curfew???

Annoys people who live here, destroys trust between citizens and authorities, deters potential new citizens - seriosly, why???

[u70jc]

Are there any pub/club owners out there who can tell us if the council did consult you guys when they were researching the curfew?