Those Wacky Brits, Fingerprinting Every Lad in the Pub ...

I haven't seen a thread on this in here, so let me be the first to ask -- what the heck's wrong with you Brits? Security cameras everywhere, and now you're going to get fingerprinted for going to the pub? Maybe we should just surround your island with barbed wire and rubber safety bumpers ... Supposedly, if a pub owner refuses to comply with the new system, and fails to show 'considerable' reductions in alcohol-related crimes, they will lose their license. Nice one!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Beer fingerprints to go UK-wide

By Mark Ballard → More by this author
Published Friday 20th October 2006 17:45 GMT

The government is is funding the roll out of fingerprint security at the doors of pubs and clubs in major English cities.

Funding is being offered to councils that want to have their pubs keep a regional black list of known trouble makers. The fingerprint network installed in February by South Somerset District Council in Yeovil drinking holesy is being used as the show case.

"The Home Office have looked at our system and are looking at trials in other towns including Coventry, Hull & Sheffield," said Julia Bradburn, principal licensing manager at South Somerset District Council.

Gwent and Nottingham police have also shown an interest, while Taunton, a town neighbouring Yeovil, is discussing the installation of fingerprint systems in 10 pubs and clubs with the systems supplier CreativeCode.

Bradburn could not say if fingerprint security in Yeovil had displaced crime to neighbouring towns, but she noted that domestic violence had risen in Yeovil. She could not give more details until the publication of national crime statistics to coincide with the anniversary of lax pub licensing laws on 24 November.

She was, however, able to say that alcohol-related crime had reduced by 48 per cent Yeovil between February and September 2006.

The council had assumed it was its duty under the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) to reduce drunken disorder by fingerprinting drinkers in the town centre.

Some licensees were not happy to have their punters fingerprinted, but are all now apparently behind the idea. Not only does the council let them open later if they join the scheme, but the system costs them only £1.50 a day to run.

Oh, and they are also coerced into taking the fingerprint system. New licences stipulate that a landlord who doesn't install fingerprint security and fails to show a "considerable" reduction in alcohol-related violence, will be put on report by the police and have their licences revoked.

Offenders can be banned from one pub or all of them for a specified time - usually a period of months - by a committee of landlords and police called Pub Watch. Their offences are recorded against their names in the fingerprint system. Bradburn noted the system had a "psychological effect" on offenders.

She said there had been only been two "major" instances of alcohol-related crime reported in Yeovil pubs and clubs since February. One was a sexual assault in a club toilet.

The other occurred last Friday when an under-18 Disco at Dukes nightclub got out of hand after the youngsters had obtained some alcohol from elsewhere. A fight between two youngsters escalated into a brawl involving 435 12-16 year olds

A major incident is when 15 police attend the scene, said Bradburn. She was unable to say how many minor incidents there had been but acknowledged that fights were still occurring in the streets of Yeovil.

The Home Office paid for Yeovil's system in full, with £6,000 of Safer, Stronger Communities funding.

Bradburn said the Home Office had paid her scheme a visit and subsequently decided to fund similar systems in Coventry, Hull and Sheffield.

The Home Office distanced itself from the plans. It said it provided funding to Safer, Stronger Communities through the Department for Communities and Local Government's Local Area Agreements. How they spent the money was a local decision, said a HO spokeswoman.

Nooooo the sanctuary is lost :furious3: :furious3:

Unreal. What the hell is the definition of liberty over there, anyway?

:dizzy2:

Edit: Would this ever fly in France?

You do get carded in the states, and you have to be 21... It doesn't say anything about whether or not the fingerprints get put into some database where they check your every movement... I wouldn't really appreciate having black ink on my finger because of people that start fights, though. The problem w/ this sort of thing is not necessarily that it exists at all, but how it is used. If a government that declared it was going to fix the muslim problem once and for all enacted laws like this, I would start to worry more... Unless you are underage or have started violence after drinking, I don't think it is very restricting, except to the pub owner, which I do disagree with. As far as I can see from the articles I've read, that's the only liberty taken.

So...are there any rights left in Britain? Or is it just a set of priveleges that the gov't is slowly taking away?

Crazed Rabbit

It's great living in a nanny state. They even tuck you up in bed and and read you bed-time stories if you're well behaved enough. But if you're not, then it's to the naughty corner with you.

Good old Britain!

This shows that no current Labour MP actually goes into a pub. The barman and the landlord know who the trouble makers are anyway.

What do they do with potential customers who don't have finger prints ?

Quote:

---

What do they do with potential customers who don't have finger prints ?

---

More importantly, what do they do with potential customers who don't have fingers?

Welcome to Britain :wall: ...why on earth anyone ever wants to come here is beyond me...

The crap the Labour government comes up with is frankly mind-boggling...but you can bet your ass that the pub landlord will have to pay for this equipment and probably a yearly operators (or some other) fee...coz that is how we solve problems in the UK...we charge you for it...and if that doesnt work, we charge some more...

Nation of shopkeepers indeed...

I live for the day when Labour steps in to tackle some real problems...housing prices that are keeping people living with their parents till their thirties, a questionable health service, a questionable transport system (how long they keep needing more money for that is beyond me too!)

That said, after seeing the yankees at their airports recently...wow.

This was the council's doing, not Labour government in Parliament.

Quote:

---

The council had assumed it was its duty under the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) to reduce drunken disorder by fingerprinting drinkers in the town centre.

---

And they probably get lumped money as their funds for enforcing...

I don't see a use to this rule, minus keeping underage drinkers out of pubs. It's funny, one has to show an ID to drink, but somehow a localized system of fingerprinting is the end of the world. I'll agree, though, that it puts some financial stress on the owners, and that it's a generally an inefficient system. And watch out for those security cameras, run by voyeurs, that catch you w/ your hand in your front pocket outside the bank!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

It's funny, one has to show an ID to drink, but somehow a localized system of fingerprinting is the end of the world. I'll agree, though, that it puts some financial stress on the owners, and that it's a generally an inefficient system. And watch out for those security cameras, run by voyeurs, that catch you w/ your hand in your front pocket outside the bank!

---

When someone looks at your ID, they check the name, the birthdate and let you be on your way. If they're taking fingerprints, it's going to be something that they keep on file... For that matter, who does retain fingerprint records in this system? The pub, the local police, the national government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

It's funny, one has to show an ID to drink, but somehow a localized system of fingerprinting is the end of the world.

---

Aren't you fiercely against the Patriot Act? And this is blown out of proportion in your view?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So...are there any rights left in Britain? Or is it just a set of priveleges that the gov't is slowly taking away?

---

Bear in mind that the Brits have no written constitution, and they are subjects of the Crown, not citizens. They have no rights except those partially granted by the European Human Rights Act (which HM government can withdraw from) and those conferred on them by consent of Parliament.

Their Prime Minister also wields the Royal Prerogative, which in essence is the powers of a monarch derogated to the PM.

Given how easily the US administration is able to restrict liberties despite the robustness of their constitution, it's a piece of cake for a British Prime Minister with a big Parliamentary majority to do pretty much whatever he wants.

True up to a point. Royal perogative does not apply to everything. We have spent a long time reducing the power of the Monarchy from 1215 onwards, and Members of Parliament only sit with our consent. The Prime Minister is appointed by the Monarch on the basis that he controls a majority in Parliament, so his office is held by consent of Parliament which is appointed by the electorate, citizens or subjects. In short, we can lose our civil liberties provide only with our own consent. In effect, this is the same as America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

True up to a point. Royal perogative does not apply to everything. We have spent a long time reducing the power of the Monarchy from 1215 onwards, and Members of Parliament only sit with our consent. The Prime Minister is appointed by the Monarch on the basis that he controls a majority in Parliament, so his office is held by consent of Parliament which is appointed by the electorate, citizens or subjects. In short, we can lose our civil liberties provide only with our own consent. In effect, this is the same as America.

---

Also true up to a point. :grin:

What proportion of the electorate put Blair into his post this time round? His is a minority government, yet because of your first-past-the-post system he has a substantial parliamentary majority to remove civil liberties at will. In reality, you lose your 'rights' with the consent of just a few of your fellow subjects.

In fact, since 1215 (a great start) politicians have spent a long time grabbing the monarch's powers for themselves, not increasing the real power of the people.

In the US, the Constitution is the ultimate guarantee. It is protected by all three branches, and only when you get a lock-up of all three branches by one party do you get potential threats to the Constitution. Even then, IIRC major changes have to carry two-thirds of both houses (which even when held by one party are usually near to 50-50 splits).

Back to topic: Those who find the pub thing reprehensible, were you also aware that your DNA is now routinely harvested and databased if you so much as enter a police station - you don't have to be charged with anything, much less convicted?

The UK parliament is nothing like the US at all. Not even close.

With a majority,the ruling party can rubber stamp any bills they want. If members of their own party rebel,they have to deal with the Whip. The only checks on bills in reality is the House of lords who can delay a bill for 2 years ATM I think. The electorate voted in Labour many times now under differing manifestos. Has the government ever really lived up to what the electorate expects? Once the laws are in place they can only be ironed over with a different bill. There's no such concept of Unconstitutionality because there is no Constitution.

EDIT.
It is becoming more ironic that Britain, who trumpet Freedom and DEmocracy to the world, keeps its citizens(subjects) on a pretty tight leash.

That is one of the craziest things I've ever heard of!

I will not travel to the United States (even though I'd really like to visit what I'm sure would be a remarkable country) until I am no longer required to provide my fingerprints and/or other biometric information. I can see how some could see such a boycott as a bit extreme but the thought that people would be willing to give away such personal information just to have a drink at pub really boggles my mind!

I would hope that people would refuse such measures by simply not drinking at pubs that require the patrons to be fingerprinted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ezrider

The UK parliament is nothing like the US at all. Not even close.

---

Indeed not. That is not what I was saying. I was saying that we lose our liberties to the extent that we consent to losing them. This happens in America too. The Patriot Act is far more restrictive of liberty than requiring people to identify themselves by figureprint before entering premises that they do not have to visit in the first place, but I don't see the US constitution kicking in to protect these liberties. MP's are afraid of the Whips, but we are the ones who can kick them out and replace them if we choose too. If the electorate really cared about civil liberties then MP's would tell Whips to get lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

What proportion of the electorate put Blair into his post this time round? His is a minority government, yet because of your first-past-the-post system he has a substantial parliamentary majority to remove civil liberties at will. In reality, you lose your 'rights' with the consent of just a few of your fellow subjects.

---

Constitutionally, he is appointed by the Monarch because of support in Parliament. If the electorate cared enough about civil liberties even his own MP's would not support him. It would seem we don't care enough about civil liberties.

Quote:

---

In fact, since 1215 (a great start) politicians have spent a long time grabbing the monarch's powers for themselves, not increasing the real power of the people.

---

True again up to a point. It is strange to argue that extending the franchise and increasing the power of the elected house above the hereditory one has increased the real power of the people. This may have been done out of self interest to increase the power of certain politicians, but it has led to an increase in the power of the people.

Excellent idea, you have to feel that big brother is watching you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

The Patriot Act is far more restrictive of liberty than requiring people to identify themselves by figureprint before entering premises that they do not have to visit in the first place, but I don't see the US constitution kicking in to protect these liberties.

---

On this point I believe that the bill would have to be put forward in a case, presented before Court and then a decision would be made on wether the Act was Constitutional or not. Correct me if i'm wrong plz

If licensing laws were actually followed then this wouldn't even have been considered. The only reason for the violence is that people are having far too much too drink, this much is obvious. Now one of the terms of a license to sell alcohol is that the licensee must not sell alcohol to someone who is already drunk. Now how often do we see this happening? Hardly ever, mostly due to the need to make money. Why sell a person five drinks when you can break the rules by selling them ten? Especially when your business targets, usually in the case of highstreet chain pubs owned by a major industry player, can only be met by breaking the rules. I work in the licensed trade and view the industry has a whole as fundamentally irresponsible. After all it is the licensee who loses their job everytime. The pub companies themselves are relatively safe.

Interestingly the article describes the current licensing laws as "lax". They are anything but lax. Pubs and clubs can be shut down at the drop of a hat should the authorities chose to do so, although they may shy away from doing so for various reasons. It is also the current laws which allow councils to take draconian measures such as this in their attempts to meet the stated goals of that legislation.

For your information my local police regard a person to be drunk (for license enforcement purposes) if they are under the influence of alcohol and unable to walk in a straight line. There you go, science at work. So the wobbily student posing no harm to anyone is officially drunk, but the steady thug who has been on an all day pub crawl is not.

Edit:
Most towns run Pub Watch schemes with publicans working with the police to keep tabs on troublemakers. You get out of these schemes what you put in. The main difficulty is actually identifying the idiots. I may have banned John Smith, but what of the pubs which don't know him? He could walk in tomorrow and they wouldn't know. There are all kinds of petty reasons why photo ID is not more widely used by such schemes. Clearly in Yeovil they believe that fingerprinting gets around these problems (probably legal issues I'd imagine).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Indeed not. That is not what I was saying. I was saying that we lose our liberties to the extent that we consent to losing them. This happens in America too. The Patriot Act is far more restrictive of liberty than requiring people to identify themselves by figureprint before entering premises that they do not have to visit in the first place, but I don't see the US constitution kicking in to protect these liberties. MP's are afraid of the Whips, but we are the ones who can kick them out and replace them if we choose too. If the electorate really cared about civil liberties then MP's would tell Whips to get lost.

---

this i agree with entirely :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Aren't you fiercely against the Patriot Act? And this is blown out of proportion in your view?

---

It is not clear what the fingerprints can be used for, how they are stored and who has access to them. I am not 'fiercely against' the USA PATRIOT act. It has potential for abuse which ought to be fixed. It is not restricting anything and taking a fingerprint is not restricting anything. My point is that, unless people have information they're not sharing, it's a little too early to come to the conclusion that it is necessarily a terrible thing.