Colluding In Their Own Destruction…

Police are teaming up with pubs in Hucknall town centre to refuse entry to anyone found to have traces of drugs on their hands.

So, better not handle any money, shake hands with any dodgy people, push open any shop doors…well, not if you want a drink, anyway!

The testing works by swabbing the palm of the hand with a piece of card which is placed into a machine and scanned for the drugs. It takes just seconds for the result to show.

Anyone showing traces of the drugs could be searched and denied entry to the venue.

Because you might argue that that’s how the traces of drugs got there, but, well, good luck with that! I suspect that ‘could’ is more of a ‘will’.

Sergeant Simon Scales, neighbourhood policing for Hucknall, said: “The testing will be carried out periodically throughout the summer and is part of ongoing preventative work being done in Hucknall.

“It is just another tool that we are using to reinforce the message that the use of drugs will not be tolerated in the town.”

And just why are the pubs and clubs co-operating with this?

“Pubs and bars have a responsibility to help reduce crime and promote public safety and the licensees in the town are taking this responsibility very seriously.

“The results from the recent tests support this and should send out a clear message that the buying and taking of illicit drugs will not be tolerated.”

Hmmm, well, that’s a line they’ve swallowed again and again in the past, as Dick Puddlecote has pointed out. And as Leg-Iron notes, their tactics of appeasement are not serving them well at all.

But maybe I’m being too cynical? Maybe Hucknall’s pubs and clubs have been severely blighted by drug problems and…

Oh. Then again, maybe not:

Pubs across Hucknall’s town centre have signed up to the initiative, including the Pilgrim Oak, in High Street.

Nicola Bowler, shift leader at the pub, said: “We don’t tolerate drugs in the building.”

She added that while drug-related problems had gone down over the last two years, the initiative was a welcome opportunity to make the pub “a drugs-free place”.

I’d view it as a welcome opportunity to set up a little antiseptic hand-wipe selling business myself. Would it get me on ‘Dragon’s Den’, do you suppose? Or would it just get me arrested for whatever the police could think of?

Do the pubs think that by announcing all their customers will be treated even more like unwelcome guests, admitted on sufferance only – yes, even you non-smokers! How’d you like them apples, eh? – that they will get even more customers?

Or will they lose even more than they are currently losing to home drinking and the modern ‘speakeasy’?

10 comments for “Colluding In Their Own Destruction…

  1. Jack Savage
    April 4, 2012 at 11:35 am

    It is fascinating to see what further hurdles people try and set up to prevent me from handing over £3.80 a time for a pint when I have a cellar full of budget French wine at home.

    Hilaire Belloc wrote… “When you have lost your inns drown your empty selves, for you will have lost the last of England!”

    We have not lost them yet, but they are in the process of losing me!

    • Mudplugger
      April 4, 2012 at 9:57 pm

      They lost me in July 2007 – not spent a penny in one since, never will again unless/until the smoking ban is repealed.

      The drinks industry colluded with the ban (in exchange for 24-hour opening), so they deserve no sympathy at all. They failed to understand who their customers were, a fatal error for any retail trade. Certainly fatal for any trade from me – went from at least three visits every week to none in 5 years. Game over.

      • April 5, 2012 at 8:05 am

        I don’t go as often as I used to – don’t smoke myself, but a lot of friends do.

        • Peter MacFarlane
          April 5, 2012 at 1:39 pm

          I didn’t go myself for a few years – our local was first run by an arsehole, and then closed for a long time.

          But now it’s refurbished and re-opened, and I am on the way to being a regular again.

          Thank goodness for the smoking ban, I can go out for a pint or three without having to change all my clothes and get straight in the shower as soon as I get home again.

  2. PJH
    April 4, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Or would it just get me arrested for whatever the police could think of?

    Well considering they’ve prosecuted people for warning drivers about speed traps, the charge looks to be “obstructing a police officer in the course of [their] duties.”

    • April 5, 2012 at 8:06 am

      I wouldn’t be a bit surprised!

    • DerekP
      April 7, 2012 at 10:00 pm

      I thought the intent behind having an organised police force was:
      first deter/prevent crime,
      second, detect and solve crimes,
      giving priority to those of a violent nature.

      It appears the police are happy redefining their jobs to join in with Government ‘targets’ to try and convince us reality is what Government says it is.

      For that the police need as many non-violent non-criminals to be prosecuted as they are easy targets for the numbers game, and percentage-wise they ‘reduce’ the number of violent crimes.

      You see part of this ‘game’ being played out in non-custodial sentences for violent crime, but ‘example’ custodial sentences for saying ‘the wrong thing’.

      We need to not only get rid of the current LibLabCon but also all the senior ‘Civil Servants’ who create policies intended to show the ‘power’ of the State (which has to be directed against ordinary people, split into selected target groups for each policy drive).

  3. mikebravo
    April 4, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    Dear Publican,
    We have noticed that your license is up for renewal soon and wondered if you would like to participate in our new scheme to piss off the public and treat them like the criminals that they all are.

    PC Flatfoot.

  4. David A. Evans
    April 4, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Perhaps I’m mistaken but…

    In the UK, isn’t one of the licences to grow Marijuana to supply the paper trade for the printing of notes?

    Just asking. 😉

    • April 5, 2012 at 8:07 am

      I think that’s one with a very, very low THC content. Would be interesting if these kits are just that bit too sensitive though.. 😀

Comments are closed.