News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Licensees say Colchester Council is giving them a bad name


LICENSEES in Colchester have held an emergency meeting – faced with threats of a clampdown on the town’s night-time drinking culture.

Leading Colchester councillors are suggesting planned changes to the licensing laws could allow then to punish licensees who let customers get drunk and cause trouble in the town centre.

In response, about 30 publicans involved in the town's Pubwatch scheme met at the Bull public house, in Crouch Street.

They discussed the proposals, ways to improve the atmosphere in the town centre at night and concerns that councillors’ comments were giving licensees a bad name.

One councillor recently called for bars caught selling alcohol to underage customers to be temporarily shut down by the council, as a “short, sharp shock” punishment.

The suggestion has annoyed publicans, who say they are disappointed their Pubwatch group was not contacted about changes which would affect their livelihoods.

They feel the image of licensees is being tarnished by such proposals.

The group’s deputy chairman, Paul Ryan, said: “In the 15 months I have been running Liquid nightclub in the High Street, and as deputy chairman, I have personally witnessed the strong partnership between the Pubwatch members, the council’s licensing department and the police.

“Never has this partnership had a better result than the SOS bus.”

The bus – funded by the council, community groups and licensees – parks in the High Street at weekends, offering support, advice and help to late-night revellers. Pubwatch insists many of the measures suggested by councillors to improve the atmosphere in the town at night are already being brought in.

Pubwatch chairman Reeves Watson said he would invite the chairman of the council’s licensing committee, Barrie Cook, to the group’s next meeting to discuss the situation.

Mr Cook’s words about licensing and changes to the law at a meeting of the council’s policy review and development panel, on Wednesday were partly responsible for Pubwatch’s decision to call the meeting.

He said the council might soon have “the option to readdress licensing laws and bring to book operators who don’t play the game properly.”

Mr Cook added: “Local people are being given a better option to respond to problems, bringing to appeal at the licensing authority any misdemeanours which come about.”

Last week the council’s crime and disorder committee meeting also heard tough talk about clamping down on pubs, clubs and shops selling alcohol to under-age drinkers.

Councillor responsible for community safety, Tim Young, told the committee: “Licensing is an issue we have not got to grips with in Colchester.

“People are allowed to get drunk and then get drunker. Alcohol is the really big issue we have in this town.”

Comments(6)

crosby says...
1:49pm Sun 5 Sep 10

About time the people who sell the drink and cause the problem get to suffer the consequences.

ALMONDS says...
2:09pm Sun 5 Sep 10

I agree with Crosby, In America the bar owners are reponsible if someone gets drunk, it is called Liquor Law Liability, it is about time we had it in the United Kingdom.

romantic says...
8:54pm Sun 5 Sep 10

Does that apply to Tesco, Asda, Spar as well? The clampdowns always fall on the properly run pubs while the Town Centre swillin-stations get away with it. Like all jobsworths, they'll go for the easiest targets for an easy life to tick boxes, whereas the real problem is the booze drunk before kids head for town and the places where they keep serving because they don't know who you are.

Sidney Harbour-Bridge says...
8:30am Mon 6 Sep 10

So the people who tip vast quantities of alcohol down their throats and cause the trouble get away without having to face the consequences of their actions yet again.
The council has to take some of the blame for allowing so many licenced premises to stay open so late.

Checkout says...
3:49pm Mon 6 Sep 10

There are too many pubs and clubs in the town. Let's have some quality and not just quantity. Opening hours need to be curtailed too.
Whilst I agree that individuals must take more responsibility for their actions, people serving drinks also have a responsibility. Serving someone already off their face is criminal.
The issue of supermarkets selling booze to kids is simply a publican's smokescreen. Corner shops may perhaps require more scrutiny but I cannot recall ever seeing any teenager willingly shopping in Sainsburys.

romantic says...
5:17pm Mon 6 Sep 10

Checkout wrote:
There are too many pubs and clubs in the town. Let's have some quality and not just quantity. Opening hours need to be curtailed too. Whilst I agree that individuals must take more responsibility for their actions, people serving drinks also have a responsibility. Serving someone already off their face is criminal. The issue of supermarkets selling booze to kids is simply a publican's smokescreen. Corner shops may perhaps require more scrutiny but I cannot recall ever seeing any teenager willingly shopping in Sainsburys.
To clarify, I'm not a publican, but I am a regular pub-goer. The 2 or 3 pubs I mainly go to are all close to town but not town centre pubs. All are what would be defined as "local" pubs, in the sense that most of the people in them will be known to the landlords and staff. All get youngsters in, and in none of them is any trouble tolerated. They are actually pretty much self-policed by the customers as well as staff.

My concern is that any "get-tough" policy will go for the responsible places such as these, but not for places such as the Wig & Pen, Yates, Liquid, Route, Fashion Cafe etc. The difference in those places is that there is a high turnover of staff, most of the customers are not known so well to the staff and it is frankly cheaper to get drunk! The door-staff will throw out anybody who is totally smashed, but otherwise nobody is really keeping an eye on what's going on. It is also easy enough to send the most sober one to the bar to get the next 10 doubles.

What I fear, because I've seen it happen before, is that small, responsible pubs get targeted because they are an easier target for somebody with a clipboard than one of the big places in town.

The supposed smokescreen is not that at all. In fact, most of the kids who head to town, certainly to the clubs, get their drinking done early at somebody's house, because it costs too much otherwise.

Yes, there is a responsibility on the part of the pubs and clubs, and certainly the laws on serving drunk people do not get enforced in town, but let's not tar every establishment with the same brush. Hey, there's a responsibility on the part of the parents too! A lot of those vomiting down the street will be living at home, although perhaps their parents are also getting smashed. It's socially OK to get drunk behind closed doors, although of course it probably costs us all more in the long run 20 or 30 years down the line. Alcohol abuse is more than just drunks in the street!

I've gone on longer than planned here, but one other point I would make is that actually Colchester is not that bad at night! It's less violent than the 70s for example. Yes, Queen St is a mess at 3.00 in the morning, and there is drunken behaviour, but to be honest no worse than when I was 18! (Which is a scarily long time).


Pubwatch members at the Bull Pubwatch members at the Bull

Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses