British woman banned from every pub in England for two years
A 20-year-old woman named Lauren Hall has been formally banned from every liquor store and pub in Britian, the Daily Mail reports. She also can't carry an unsealed container or consuming alcohol in a public place.
Two things jumped out at me when I read this article ...
1) The British government can do that? I don't know if that would ever fly in America. I mean, it kinda sorta makes sense -- the government tells you when you're old enough to drink. In the U.S., drinking is seen as more as a right than a privilege.
Across the pond, it's becoming increasingly the other way around. Obviously, there's no way for them to keep you from drinking in your own home. But banning someone from every bar in the country? Sounds extreme and hard to enforce.
2) Hill is only 20, which makes her not even old enough to legally drink in America. I look at the drinking age the same way I look at the driving age -- to a certain extent, age does matter. Most people get more mature as they get older. But experience is just as -- if not more -- important. The more experience you have drinking or driving (but never at the same time), the more you're going to get the hang of it, and know your limits.
Anyway, what do you think of the country-wide ban? If she behaves, Hill could have it lifted in a year. To get banned, she comitted "a series of public order offences, and had flouted bans from pubs and clubs through local Pub-Watch schemes in her home town of Bromsgrove, Worcestershire."
Is banning someone from every pub better than sending that person to jail? And should the government have the right to do it?
Erik Maza is a features reporter at the Baltimore Sun. He writes for several sections of the Sun paper and contributes weekly columns on music and nightlife. He also writes and edits the Midnight Sun blog. He often covers entertainment, business, and the business of entertainment. Occasionally, he writes about Four Loko, The Block, the liquor board, and those who practice "
Comments
...and I thought Amy Winehouse would have beaten her to the honour?
Posted by: Sturmy | April 19, 2010 10:05 AM
Sam, you have to do a post on that hilarious Federal Hill video with the City Council President touring the area at bar closing. And see if you can find more footage!
Posted by: mikepcfl | April 19, 2010 10:13 AM
Mikepcfl -- My stone aged work computer can barely handle playing the video, but I watched it. Awesome! I'll blog about it in a minute.
Posted by: Sam Sessa | April 19, 2010 10:20 AM
Britain and Wales, but not North Ireland or Scotland.
DBO can be issued for a variety of amusing offenses.
Brit papers are a constant source of amusement for me. One couple had their kid taken away for not feeding him sweets, and one British woman has had 17 odd kids removed from her custody , yet has vowed to keep poppin' em out until she's allowed to keep one. And then there's my favorite story about a 12 year old father.
Posted by: Meekrat | April 19, 2010 10:28 AM
I nominate @siana506 as Baltimore's version of Lauren Hall.
Posted by: Nominations | April 19, 2010 10:47 AM
@Mikepcfl -- Here's a link to my post about the video: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/midnight_sun/blog/2010/04/city_council_president_tours_f.html
@Sturmy -- It's only Monday, but your combination of Amy Winehouse and the "u" in "honour" makes me want to award you comment of the week.
Posted by: Sam Sessa | April 19, 2010 10:53 AM
No ban on earth could ever stop me. #justsayin
By the way, I read the original article and it never actually said what she DID in order to be banned in a country where they drink and fight for sport. And it doesn't actually ban her from Scotland, which is only a 5 hour drive from her town.
Posted by: Siana | April 20, 2010 2:38 PM
You can't do it in Baltimore City, but there is a similar law in the State of Maryland:
(a) Generally.- A licensee under the provisions of this article, or any of his employees, may not knowingly sell, barter, furnish, or give any intoxicating beverages to a habitual drunkard, or to a mentally deficient person, or to any person whose parent or parents, guardian, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, or sister shall have given notice in writing, that such person is of intemperate habits, or of unsound mind, or on account of his or her physical condition and request the licensee in writing, not to sell, barter, furnish or give any intoxicating beverages to him or her; and the word "knowingly", as to habitual drunkards shall be construed to mean such knowledge as a reasonable man would have under ordinary circumstances, from the habits, appearances or personal reputation of such individual. A licensee violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not exceeding $50.00 for the first offense and for each succeeding offense shall be fined not exceeding $100.00 or imprisoned in the county jail for not more than 30 days, or be fined and imprisoned in the discretion of the court.
(b) Applicability.- This section shall apply only to Allegany, Carroll, Charles, Harford, Kent, Montgomery, Queen Anne's and Washington counties. Provided, that in Allegany County and Montgomery County the penalty for a violation shall be a fine not in excess of $1,000, or confinement in the county jail, or house of correction for a period not to exceed 2 years, or fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.
Posted by: Andrew B. Saller | April 20, 2010 3:36 PM