Friday, August 31, 2012

Kafka in Qld

It is after closing time. The customers are all off the premises, only staff remain.

At the exit from the premises, a few staff & some police chat idly, watching the the crowd disperse.

Twenty minutes elapse.

A woman approaches from out of view further along the street, reaches into her handbag and removes a bottle of liquor and takes a swig.

A police officer writes her a ticket for drinking in public. He seizes then destroys the alcohol.

The police officer then walks over to the nearest member of Wayside Tavern staff, and with the words "I'm sorry mate, but I have to do this" writes the staff member a ticket for $600 for "Allowing liquor to be removed from the premises after hours."

The staff member is struck dumb, he's spent the past 20 minutes chatting to the police officer. In that time they haven't seen this woman, she's just walked along the street from somewhere else.

All of this is supported by the Wayside Tavern CCTV.

The staff member has a choice:
1/. Pay the $600 personally, or
2/. Challenge the fine in court, at a cost of say $5,000. (If he wins he will be unable to claim any costs.)

This is not a typical example of what can happen to individuals under the provisions of the Queensland Liquor Act.

It is an actual example.

This type of thing happens several times every year.

8 comments:

Sackerson said...

Sue the cop?

RebeccaH said...

Good grief. Extortion.

You need a media blitz supported by your fellow publicans. Embarrass the hell out of 'em.

Steve at the Pub said...

Media are not on side with the liquor industry.

Actually we don't get much (any) understanding from anybody.

We are all greedy gold chain wearing shifty types, who fill the public up with liquor until their wallet is empty, then throw them out onto the street to vomit, fight, smash stuff, assault peaceful citizens, and for the police to fix "the pubs'" problems.

Laws allowing this story to happen would not be passed had there been any understanding by the govt. of the liquor industry.

marcellous said...

Shouldn't you be meeting your employee's costs?

Steve at the Pub said...

@Marcellous, for what reason?

marcellous said...

Because you don't think they have committed the offence and because they have only been exposed to the charge by reason of doing their job for you.

Steve at the Pub said...

@ Marcellous:

You are suggesting that I should meet which cost?

marcellous said...

I'm suggesting you should meet your employee's legal costs - as per the usage of the term in your post at point 2/. and ordinary legal parlance with which I am sure you are quite familiar.