Noisy fight over responsibility
Published 1 year, 2 months ago in Making News.A TRIBUNAL will decide whether pub owners and managers are responsible for brawling, vomiting and noisy drinkers after they have left their bar.
Yarra Council will this week file papers at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal against the Peel Hotel in Collingwood, saying its music is too loud and patrons are causing trouble outside.
Yarra city development director Bruce Phillips said it would be a test case on whether publicans were responsible for customers before and after they drank at their venue.
“Under the liquor licence, it says the licensee should not cause or permit damage to amenity,'’ Mr Phillips said.
The case could set a precedent for how far and how long that responsibility applies.
The council’s case includes several complaints from residents about people behaving badly out the front of the Peel Hotel and surrounding streets, and a music noise reading from Sunday, September 2, that was 5DB above what is allowed.
Mr Phillips would not reveal the number, origin or timeline of the complaints.
Peel Hotel manager Tom McFeely said straight residents were on a vendetta against the gay bar.
Complaints had increased since May, when the Peel won an exemption to equal opportunity laws to exclude groups of heterosexual people and lesbians.
“I’m beginning to question the motivation of residents,'’ he told the Leader. “They can smell blood and are going for the Peel.'’
Mr McFeely said he had security footage that proved two complaints about bad behaviour were false.
He said he spent $30,000 on sound-proofing.
He used to go outside to speak to former patrons in surrounding streets after resident complaints but stopped after police advice, he said.
Residents 3000 president Peter Matthews said he hoped the case would make all hotels serve drinks more responsibly.
“People leave places and want to fight one another, break windows, vomit and pee,'’ he said.
“(Traders) go into their shops first thing on Monday morning and find their doorway knee-deep in vomit and urine.'’
Collingwood Police Sen-Sgt Peter Seiz said a zone would be hard to enforce in entertainment precincts but that something would have to be done.
“We’ve seen an escalation of violence and public disorder around bars and nightclubs,'’ he said.
Sen-Sgt Seiz said police were interested in the hearing but would not present evidence.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is expected to hear the case in the next two months.
4 Responses to “Noisy fight over responsibility ”
Leave a Reply
Your reply will not appear on the site until it has been approved
And when the council has done its duty with the Peel, perhaps it could take a long hard look at some of the Bridge Road, Richmond, bars and pubs and the way their patrons pee, defecate and inflict other unsocial behaviour on nearby residents. It is no good using the argument that one should not live in these areas because - in most cases - the residents were here long before the bars arrived and the pubs extended their trading hours under the guise of being a “venue”.
When I was a sweet young thing, we liked nothing better than getting dressed up and having a good night out….We didn’t need to get drunk, so we didn’t vomit - people didn’t get bashed and stabbed as the normal course of events! What’s changed, why has society become so ugly? so self centred?…..Perhaps the drinking of alcohol should be rationed on a ticketing system where two is enough….let the venue make their money out of the food, or charge of fee for entrance and provide entertainment.
This outcome will be interesting because I have similar concerns with the SHARC, Self Help Alcohol Rehabilitation Centre in Grange Road, Glen Huntly. It is still being set up in a suburban environment but previously, addicts would run amuck down Glen Huntly Road seeking trouble even though the organisation is classified “rehabilitation”..The organisers do not accept responsibility for what happens outside their fence line, and I believe it is only a matter of time before there is a “major” incident involving a child, or differently able persons who frequent the very same area. Our local Labor Member Ms Ann Barker supported its placement in Grange Road in what was once St David’s Church.
The Victorian Alcohol Statistics Handbook 2006 shows there is one liquor licence for every person between 15 and 24. (Page 9 Melbourne Herald Sun 14 Sept) That is way too many! It is time to start closing down liquor outlets and more especially night clubs. There is absolutely no necessity for these all night booze and drug joints operating in the City and suburbs. The Canadians had it right until a “progressive” government opened up liquor licensing. In Toronto you had to have a permit to buy Alcohol, and could only buy it at a Government facility. They do still have one thing better than us, no alcohol sales to anyone under 19.
Ooohhh. It’s a bit of a hard one, I think.
Marywalsh illuminates the biggest question, it is one of a social nature, not a legal issue I would tend to think.
Why do people get so wasted? Is is because they seek relief from the daily grind? Is our society so consumed with ego, individualistion, personal power and identity that the result is conflict, substance abuse and violence? You cannot ignore these factors.
Is it simply alcohol itself? The way it can bring out the emotions, the over reactions, etc? I like to drink a couple of time a month perhaps, but I admit that most of the conflict I see happenning within my experiences and social networks tend to happen when alcohol is on the scene… you don’t often see stoned people picking fights, yet for what I assume is health reasons - that substance is illegal.
What happens in other nations, such as Holland where guidelines are very liberal around substances? Are measures of freedom abused there too? I wouldn’t know.
What are the issues here REALLY? Is is about alcohol, responsibility, paternalistic venues, accountability, social cohesion, prohibition,emotional outlets or all of the above?
As a worker in Health Promotion, I tend to think working towards harm minimisation and harm reduction methods (not prohibition) will bring the best results… people use alcohol, not the other way around.