Norman Baker's line on pubs opening late for the World Cup match against Italy is simply that it's a local matter to be decided by local magistrates.
An excellent example of decentralisation and letting local communities decide for themselves - the last thing we need is some Minister ordering pubs to open by politically-driven populist diktat.
Why clog up the magistrates with a whole load of applications when it can be done nationally? Local decisions are best left to local people when there are local circumstances but in this case it is a bit different.
Presumably the decision doesn't apply to Scotland, due to the different licensing laws there?
I would contend that licencing of pubs and bars to prevent disturbance to neighbours is one of the ultimate 'local' circumstances. A town centre pub where there are only shops around is a very different situation to an estate or village pub surrounded by residential property. Surely it should be for the local community to decide on any extensions.
A sensible approach might be to allow automatic 1am licences for the Italy game and leave it as it is for the rest of the tournament. As I keep saying, pubs already open past 11pm so the story is based on an absurd false premise.
You keep saying this but it is simply not true. Some pubs stay open past 11. Certainly town centre pubs do fairly regularly. Many country pubs and those in residential areas do not. There is not a pub within 5 miles of where I live that is open after 11pm on a week night and most not even at weekends.
Norman Baker's line on pubs opening late for the World Cup match against Italy is simply that it's a local matter to be decided by local magistrates.
An excellent example of decentralisation and letting local communities decide for themselves - the last thing we need is some Minister ordering pubs to open by politically-driven populist diktat.
Why clog up the magistrates with a whole load of applications when it can be done nationally? Local decisions are best left to local people when there are local circumstances but in this case it is a bit different.
Presumably the decision doesn't apply to Scotland, due to the different licensing laws there?
I would contend that licencing of pubs and bars to prevent disturbance to neighbours is one of the ultimate 'local' circumstances. A town centre pub where there are only shops around is a very different situation to an estate or village pub surrounded by residential property. Surely it should be for the local community to decide on any extensions.
A sensible approach might be to allow automatic 1am licences for the Italy game and leave it as it is for the rest of the tournament. As I keep saying, pubs already open past 11pm so the story is based on an absurd false premise.
You keep saying this but it is simply not true. Some pubs stay open past 11. Certainly town centre pubs do fairly regularly. Many country pubs and those in residential areas do not. There is not a pub within 5 miles of where I live that is open after 11pm on a week night and most not even at weekends.
That doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a licence to.
What we are talking about is or are pubs which don't currently have a licence to open beyond 11pm. Any that do will presumably be fine. The individual public house can decide whether it wishes to open and, if so, apply for an extension.
The local Licensing Authority is compelled to take into account any objections from local residents and the Police (if the pub has a history of anti-social behaviour for example) before taking any decision.
I would imagine a lot of pubs will be operating a ticket-only system in order to a) limit numbers and b) have some control (through local knowledge) as to who will be on the premises.
The publican or Manager is ultimately responsible for the behaviour of the customers so it's in their interest to make sure there's no trouble.
On a wider basis, we are talking about local people taking decisions on a local basis - I'd have thought most conservatives would be happy with this rather than some over-powering Government telling people what to do but apparently some of the conservatives on here are a) more interested in political points scoring and b) comfortable with Government on the basis of populist decree. If The Sun supports something, we should support it as well isn't really how Government should operate, is it ?
Norman Baker's line on pubs opening late for the World Cup match against Italy is simply that it's a local matter to be decided by local magistrates.
An excellent example of decentralisation and letting local communities decide for themselves - the last thing we need is some Minister ordering pubs to open by politically-driven populist diktat.
Why clog up the magistrates with a whole load of applications when it can be done nationally? Local decisions are best left to local people when there are local circumstances but in this case it is a bit different.
Presumably the decision doesn't apply to Scotland, due to the different licensing laws there?
I would contend that licencing of pubs and bars to prevent disturbance to neighbours is one of the ultimate 'local' circumstances. A town centre pub where there are only shops around is a very different situation to an estate or village pub surrounded by residential property. Surely it should be for the local community to decide on any extensions.
A sensible approach might be to allow automatic 1am licences for the Italy game and leave it as it is for the rest of the tournament. As I keep saying, pubs already open past 11pm so the story is based on an absurd false premise.
You keep saying this but it is simply not true. Some pubs stay open past 11. Certainly town centre pubs do fairly regularly. Many country pubs and those in residential areas do not. There is not a pub within 5 miles of where I live that is open after 11pm on a week night and most not even at weekends.
That doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a licence to.
I don't know that and neither do you. Local authorities certainly have the ability to impose restrictions on opening hours in residential areas and I presume it is this right that the publicans are trying to circumvent otherwise they would not be making this fuss.
Norman Baker's line on pubs opening late for the World Cup match against Italy is simply that it's a local matter to be decided by local magistrates.
An excellent example of decentralisation and letting local communities decide for themselves - the last thing we need is some Minister ordering pubs to open by politically-driven populist diktat.
Talk about a spin and a smokescreen, the pubs will still be able to shut if they want to. I'm with Dave on this one - amusing he's done Baker up like a kipper if you'll excuse the pun. Opening the pubs and having a pop at the Lib Dems - Decent work for once.
Do pubs near you close at 11pm? Many near me already open until 1am or later. The licensing laws were changed years ago.
David Cameron has called for a rethink on pub opening hours during the World Cup after ministers appeared to rule out extending them for England matches.
Publicans had asked for serving times to be extended on two weekends during the tournament in Brazil this summer.
Uche 2 or more at 6s is a great bet if you have 888 or Unibet
Norman Baker's line on pubs opening late for the World Cup match against Italy is simply that it's a local matter to be decided by local magistrates.
An excellent example of decentralisation and letting local communities decide for themselves - the last thing we need is some Minister ordering pubs to open by politically-driven populist diktat.
What we are talking about is or are pubs which don't currently have a licence to open beyond 11pm. Any that do will presumably be fine. The individual public house can decide whether it wishes to open and, if so, apply for an extension.
The local Licensing Authority is compelled to take into account any objections from local residents and the Police (if the pub has a history of anti-social behaviour for example) before taking any decision.
I would imagine a lot of pubs will be operating a ticket-only system in order to a) limit numbers and b) have some control (through local knowledge) as to who will be on the premises.
The publican or Manager is ultimately responsible for the behaviour of the customers so it's in their interest to make sure there's no trouble.
On a wider basis, we are talking about local people taking decisions on a local basis - I'd have thought most conservatives would be happy with this rather than some over-powering Government telling people what to do but apparently some of the conservatives on here are a) more interested in political points scoring and b) comfortable with Government on the basis of populist decree. If The Sun supports something, we should support it as well isn't really how Government should operate, is it ?
Proper Conservatives would be happy to get government - at whatever level - out of the way, providing that there's no undue adverse effect of doing so.
In this case, I think that the limited number of instances and the likely widespread applications means a national approach is probably best, particularly given that many individuals in private households will also be staying up, for precisely the same reason.
As an aside, I'm deeply sceptical that the principle of devolving decisions to local council actually results in the decisions being taken on a local basis. Most of the time, the council will be implementing central guidance, much of the rest it will implement a blanket policy which takes little account of genuine local circumstances. Real devolvement is to the individual, not just a different civil servant.
Norman Baker's line on pubs opening late for the World Cup match against Italy is simply that it's a local matter to be decided by local magistrates.
An excellent example of decentralisation and letting local communities decide for themselves - the last thing we need is some Minister ordering pubs to open by politically-driven populist diktat.
I will be watching the game from behind the sofa tonight, but I have got a bet on Demichelis to be shown a card at 5/2. He is not a natural midfielder and at some point will take one for the team with a cynical trip or shirt pull as Chelsea will be fast on the break.
I will be watching the game from behind the sofa tonight, but I have got a bet on Demichelis to be shown a card at 5/2. He is not a natural midfielder and at some point will take one for the team with a cynical trip or shirt pull as Chelsea will be fast on the break.
@Carnyx Clark debunks myth of gallant little Serbia, a regime of regicide nationalists intent on destabilising the status quo. His focus on the decline of the OE as a major factor in the outbreak of war is commendable. There is a danger in overlooking the significance of the Balkan Wars. The expected war was Britain and Russia, rather than Britain and her biggest trading partner - Germany.
Haven't yet read Iron Kingdom - I gather it is very good.
Actually, one of the few criticisms I have with The Sleepwalkers is that while he focusses very heavily on the Balkan peninsula, he almost entirely ignores the Ottoman Empire as a power centre in its own right; looking instead at its (enforced) retreat and the political vacuum left behind. Considering how much time and detail he devotes to the governments in Vienna, Belgrade, St Petersburg, Paris and elsewhere, a little more attention might have been paid to Constantinople too.
For those of a more populist frame of mind (as Clark is a long read), avoid the temptation of Max Hastings' latest offering "Catastrophe". Well written as ever, with plenty of interesting vignettes, but historically poor.
The German military had a big role in the final sprint to war, but he gives little explanation as to why. In a recent lecture I heard, he managed the whole hour without the word "Schlieffen" passing his lips, and then when pressed from the audience, just dismissed him as a "fantasist". Some of us think the decision by Moltke to abandon the alternative Eastern Strategy in 1913, had a big impact on the decision for war. No matter what the crisis, the Germans had only one plan - to attack France. Hence the 3rd Balkan War became something a lot bigger.
The politics of 1914 are more interesting than those of 2014, if truth be told.
Norman Baker's line on pubs opening late for the World Cup match against Italy is simply that it's a local matter to be decided by local magistrates.
An excellent example of decentralisation and letting local communities decide for themselves - the last thing we need is some Minister ordering pubs to open by politically-driven populist diktat.
Norman Baker's line on pubs opening late for the World Cup match against Italy is simply that it's a local matter to be decided by local magistrates.
An excellent example of decentralisation and letting local communities decide for themselves - the last thing we need is some Minister ordering pubs to open by politically-driven populist diktat.
Talk about a spin and a smokescreen, the pubs will still be able to shut if they want to. I'm with Dave on this one - amusing he's done Baker up like a kipper if you'll excuse the pun. Opening the pubs and having a pop at the Lib Dems - Decent work for once.
Do pubs near you close at 11pm? Many near me already open until 1am or later. The licensing laws were changed years ago.
David Cameron has called for a rethink on pub opening hours during the World Cup after ministers appeared to rule out extending them for England matches.
Publicans had asked for serving times to be extended on two weekends during the tournament in Brazil this summer.
Yes I have read it! But pubs don't have to close at 11pm anymore - those laws were binned years ago! I can grasp Cameron wanting to give all pubs an automatic 1am licence but the way that reads is that pubs have to close at 11pm already - that hasn't been true for years!
You're wrong, dependent upon where they are, some pubs still have restricted licenses. Constant repitition will not make you correct.
@Carnyx Clark debunks myth of gallant little Serbia, a regime of regicide nationalists intent on destabilising the status quo. His focus on the decline of the OE as a major factor in the outbreak of war is commendable. There is a danger in overlooking the significance of the Balkan Wars. The expected war was Britain and Russia, rather than Britain and her biggest trading partner - Germany.
Haven't yet read Iron Kingdom - I gather it is very good.
Actually, one of the few criticisms I have with The Sleepwalkers is that while he focusses very heavily on the Balkan peninsula, he almost entirely ignores the Ottoman Empire as a power centre in its own right; looking instead at its (enforced) retreat and the political vacuum left behind. Considering how much time and detail he devotes to the governments in Vienna, Belgrade, St Petersburg, Paris and elsewhere, a little more attention might have been paid to Constantinople too.
For those of a more populist frame of mind (as Clark is a long read), avoid the temptation of Max Hastings' latest offering "Catastrophe". Well written as ever, with plenty of interesting vignettes, but historically poor.
The German military had a big role in the final sprint to war, but he gives little explanation as to why. In a recent lecture I heard, he managed the whole hour without the word "Schlieffen" passing his lips, and then when pressed from the audience, just dismissed him as a "fantasist". Some of us think the decision by Moltke to abandon the alternative Eastern Strategy in 1913, had a big impact on the decision for war. No matter what the crisis, the Germans had only one plan - to attack France. Hence the 3rd Balkan War became something a lot bigger.
The politics of 1914 are more interesting than those of 2014, if truth be told.
For the centenary, I will be writing a piece explaining why WWI was a 21st century war. I do have to thank Clark's book quite a bit for it.
That said, in the world of 1914, the German plan of "attack France" made sense. With the alliance system as it had developed, any war involving two great powers would draw in the rest, which for Germany meant war on two fronts, which in turn meant the need for speed in the west (based on everyone's exaggerated belief in Russian power).
Norman Baker's line on pubs opening late for the World Cup match against Italy is simply that it's a local matter to be decided by local magistrates.
An excellent example of decentralisation and letting local communities decide for themselves - the last thing we need is some Minister ordering pubs to open by politically-driven populist diktat.
All over Scotland pizza shops and Italian restaurants will be opening late so we can show solidarity with our friends- the Italians
Naughty naughty ....
Titters ....
Hhmmmm .... try and view the match as English Conservatives V Italian Communists
Better ??
Jack would many members of the English team know how to spell Conservative? As the sports section of the media wing of the Labour party will find some way of connecting each member of England's starting 11 with the 1966 World Cup team, any goodwill Scots have to England's team will dissipate with every BBC reference to 1966.
I don't understand why you are all getting excited about the number of female MPs retiring on each side. Several more will announce their departure and as it stands it looks like those LibDem ladies who don't retire will lose their seats. There would be an irony if the party which bangs on about equality etc ends up with no female MPs and none from ethnic minorities.
Tim Montgomerie @TimMontgomerie · 4 mins “@BBCSporf: BREAKING: Jose Mourinho makes a tactical second half substitution. pic.twitter.com/XzTqI7cOtw” < LOVE IT
@Carnyx Clark debunks myth of gallant little Serbia, a regime of regicide nationalists intent on destabilising the status quo. His focus on the decline of the OE as a major factor in the outbreak of war is commendable. There is a danger in overlooking the significance of the Balkan Wars. The expected war was Britain and Russia, rather than Britain and her biggest trading partner - Germany.
Haven't yet read Iron Kingdom - I gather it is very good.
Actually, one of the few criticisms I have with The Sleepwalkers is that while he focusses very heavily on the Balkan peninsula, he almost entirely ignores the Ottoman Empire as a power centre in its own right; looking instead at its (enforced) retreat and the political vacuum left behind. Considering how much time and detail he devotes to the governments in Vienna, Belgrade, St Petersburg, Paris and elsewhere, a little more attention might have been paid to Constantinople too.
For those of a more populist frame of mind (as Clark is a long read), avoid the temptation of Max Hastings' latest offering "Catastrophe". Well written as ever, with plenty of interesting vignettes, but historically poor.
The German military had a big role in the final sprint to war, but he gives little explanation as to why. In a recent lecture I heard, he managed the whole hour without the word "Schlieffen" passing his lips, and then when pressed from the audience, just dismissed him as a "fantasist". Some of us think the decision by Moltke to abandon the alternative Eastern Strategy in 1913, had a big impact on the decision for war. No matter what the crisis, the Germans had only one plan - to attack France. Hence the 3rd Balkan War became something a lot bigger.
The politics of 1914 are more interesting than those of 2014, if truth be told.
For the centenary, I will be writing a piece explaining why WWI was a 21st century war. I do have to thank Clark's book quite a bit for it.
That said, in the world of 1914, the German plan of "attack France" made sense. With the alliance system as it had developed, any war involving two great powers would draw in the rest, which for Germany meant war on two fronts, which in turn meant the need for speed in the west (based on everyone's exaggerated belief in Russian power).
Philip Bobbitt would have it that it was the beginning of a "long war" that ended only with the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union.
It is a compelling and intuitively attractive interpretation of an epochal war that includes the WWI, Versailles of course, WWII as the continued clash of political ideals and finally the defeat of the last remaining competing political ideal to western liberalism, namely communism as practiced by the USSR.
Misha Glenny's book on the balkans is excellent in putting the Balkan wars into the overall context. Its chapters on the build up to war make more sense than the subject usually attracts:
And I do not think that Russias military strength should be ignored. They did well against the Ottomans, fielding an army occupying Eastern Anatolia until the collapse of 1917. Between the winter war of 14-15 and the Brusilov offensive of 1916 they destroyed Austro-Hungary as a military power. The Germans beat them of course, but then the Germans beat everyone, apart from the British Imperial Forces that soundly thrashed them in the battle of the 100 days in 1918. Russias army did not perform badly until the Germans arranged the internal collapse caused by the Bolsheviks.
@Carnyx Clark debunks myth of gallant little Serbia, a regime of regicide nationalists intent on destabilising the status quo. His focus on the decline of the OE as a major factor in the outbreak of war is commendable. There is a danger in overlooking the significance of the Balkan Wars. The expected war was Britain and Russia, rather than Britain and her biggest trading partner - Germany.
Haven't yet read Iron Kingdom - I gather it is very good.
.
For those of a more populist frame of mind (as Clark is a long read), avoid the temptation of Max Hastings' latest offering "Catastrophe". Well written as ever, with plenty of interesting vignettes, but historically poor.
The politics of 1914 are more interesting than those of 2014, if truth be told.
For the centenary, I will be writing a piece explaining why WWI was a 21st century war. I do have to thank Clark's book quite a bit for it.
That said, in the world of 1914, the German plan of "attack France" made sense. With the alliance system as it had developed, any war involving two great powers would draw in the rest, which for Germany meant war on two fronts, which in turn meant the need for speed in the west (based on everyone's exaggerated belief in Russian power).
Comments
The local Licensing Authority is compelled to take into account any objections from local residents and the Police (if the pub has a history of anti-social behaviour for example) before taking any decision.
I would imagine a lot of pubs will be operating a ticket-only system in order to a) limit numbers and b) have some control (through local knowledge) as to who will be on the premises.
The publican or Manager is ultimately responsible for the behaviour of the customers so it's in their interest to make sure there's no trouble.
On a wider basis, we are talking about local people taking decisions on a local basis - I'd have thought most conservatives would be happy with this rather than some over-powering Government telling people what to do but apparently some of the conservatives on here are a) more interested in political points scoring and b) comfortable with Government on the basis of populist decree. If The Sun supports something, we should support it as well isn't really how Government should operate, is it ?
:there-is-hope-for-the-rest-of-you-still:
1) I'm a very bad Muslim
2) Well gambling you know, is prohibited under Islam
Impoverished Scottish Nobles Rescue Fund (Harpenden Branch) - No cheques or small notes please.
In this case, I think that the limited number of instances and the likely widespread applications means a national approach is probably best, particularly given that many individuals in private households will also be staying up, for precisely the same reason.
As an aside, I'm deeply sceptical that the principle of devolving decisions to local council actually results in the decisions being taken on a local basis. Most of the time, the council will be implementing central guidance, much of the rest it will implement a blanket policy which takes little account of genuine local circumstances. Real devolvement is to the individual, not just a different civil servant.
The German military had a big role in the final sprint to war, but he gives little explanation as to why. In a recent lecture I heard, he managed the whole hour without the word "Schlieffen" passing his lips, and then when pressed from the audience, just dismissed him as a "fantasist". Some of us think the decision by Moltke to abandon the alternative Eastern Strategy in 1913, had a big impact on the decision for war. No matter what the crisis, the Germans had only one plan - to attack France. Hence the 3rd Balkan War became something a lot bigger.
The politics of 1914 are more interesting than those of 2014, if truth be told.
Titters ....
Hhmmmm .... try and view the match as English Conservatives V Italian Communists
Better ??
That said, in the world of 1914, the German plan of "attack France" made sense. With the alliance system as it had developed, any war involving two great powers would draw in the rest, which for Germany meant war on two fronts, which in turn meant the need for speed in the west (based on everyone's exaggerated belief in Russian power).
@GdnPolitics: Failed Falkirk candidate condemns Labour investigation http://t.co/xH3eva3ptl
“@BBCSporf: BREAKING: Jose Mourinho makes a tactical second half substitution. pic.twitter.com/XzTqI7cOtw” < LOVE IT
It is a compelling and intuitively attractive interpretation of an epochal war that includes the WWI, Versailles of course, WWII as the continued clash of political ideals and finally the defeat of the last remaining competing political ideal to western liberalism, namely communism as practiced by the USSR.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Balkans-Nationalism-Great-Powers/dp/184708771X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391460736&sr=8-1&keywords=misha+glenny
And I do not think that Russias military strength should be ignored. They did well against the Ottomans, fielding an army occupying Eastern Anatolia until the collapse of 1917. Between the winter war of 14-15 and the Brusilov offensive of 1916 they destroyed Austro-Hungary as a military power. The Germans beat them of course, but then the Germans beat everyone, apart from the British Imperial Forces that soundly thrashed them in the battle of the 100 days in 1918. Russias army did not perform badly until the Germans arranged the internal collapse caused by the Bolsheviks.