Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DF - really? That's your level of debate?


Oimissus - it's not illegal to drink (if over 18) in parks, so far as I'm aware. Only if there's a CPPO designated for that area. I know there is one for Coventry City Centre because of all their probs (it was all over the news at the time - because it was new). I am not certain, but would be extremely surprised if it is illegal in PR or Dulwich Park.

I wasn't aware it was illegal. Southwark's own website talks about the alcohol control areas in the following terms:


The alcohol control area was put in place to deal with problems of street drinking; alcohol-fuelled violence and associated antisocial behaviour. This means police and wardens can confiscate alcohol from anyone causing a nuisance in public. If they refuse to comply it could lead to arrest and/or a maximum fine of ?500.


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200030/community_safety_and_enforcement/405/drugs_and_alcohol/3


The way I read that, it's not illegal but police can step in if it becomes an issue. There may be something which has been passed on top of this. James, can you perhaps clarify?


Another bit of the Southwark website seems to make clear that drinking in public is not illegal.


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200030/community_safety_and_enforcement/405/drugs_and_alcohol/4

Dulwich Fox wrote:


"Yes it would be nice to have a picnic in the park with a bottle of wine or a few chilled beers,

but who dictates who can and who can't. As long as they are of drinking age there cannot be any discrimination.


So as it stands there is no public drinking.. "


You seem to hold a very firm view on the whole illegality issue DF. Can you enlighten us as to the basis on which you contend it is (such) a crime? Or have you held such a staunch view on the subject just for the 45 mins or so since you read James Barber's comment?

Putting aside any question of legality, I really can't see any difference between having a drink when looking after a child in a park playground and having a drink when looking after a child in a pub playground.


If you're incapable of looking after the child as a result, that's a different matter, but surely unrelated to the location??

I don't think there's any ambiguity. There is no by-law against drinking in public, and that's fairly unambiguous.


The only by-law applicable in this instance would be 15 (1) of the "Byelaws for pleasure grounds, public walks and open spaces" of 2007 (available from the antisocial behaviour section of Southwark's website), which states: "No person aged 14 years or over shall enter or remain in a designated area which is a children?s play area unless in charge of a child under the age of 14 years."


For further clarification, Southwarks' perennially helpful Drugs and Alcohol page states that "Drinking in public is not illegal", which seems as unambiguous as you can get.


Aside from by-laws, Southwark does have a designated Alcohol Control Area brought in the wake of one of Blair's little fit of supra-judicial and anti-democratic legislation. However, as a tucked-away page on their website states, although this covers the majority of Southwark, the posh and pointy bit of the borough, consisting of East Dulwich, College and, naturally, Village wards, has always been exempt from such vindictive and high-handed rules, presumably on account of hosting a self-evidently better class of citizen.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I also agree with Sue. If a parent looking after a

> child was actually drunk, that would be different.



What about if the the child is drunk as well? Is that a problem? (Asking for a friend)

They can have a gin with their meal though, can't they? Like they do in France?


It's good to start them young. Otherwise you end-up like in America, where grown met hit 21, get a keg in and spend the evening getting their knobs out and punching cattle.

Personally, I think the parents who set the really bad example are the ones who gasp with horror should a puff of fag smoke or a waft of liquor come within ten feet of their spawn's nostrils.


For it is these parents who will surely launch the jobsworth dullards of the future into society - the ones who the rest of us will be stuck next to at parties before pretending we need a wee.

I'm a little bit torn on this. I have no moral issue with it at all, so long as you're not pissed.


And yet, I dunno, I'd just feel a bit scummy doing it.


I'm no goodie goody, but drinking in a kid's playground just wouldn't feel right for me.



Not that I'd care if someone else was doing it, and I totally agree that we shouldn't be hiding kids away from booze. And I would much rather see someone watching their kid in the playground whilst enjoying a cold beer than totally ignoring their kid in a beer garden whilst drinking and chatting with friends.

Just found this:-


NEW LAW COULD TARGET PARENTS WHO DRINK ALCOHOL IN FRONT OF KIDS AS CHILD ABUSERS


A new law in the UK which will criminalize the ?emotional abuse? of children could target parents who drink alcohol in front of their children as child abusers, giving the state an opportunity to snatch kids on the flimsiest of pretexts, with parents being punished with up to ten years in jail.


Under the new ?Cinderella Law,? denying love to children could be characterized as a crime in the same league as physical or sexual abuse.


The definition of such ?abuse,? being solely in the hands of the state, opens up a pandora?s box of potential behaviors that could warrant government interference in family life.


Writing for the Independent, Frank Furedi, a professor of sociology at the University of Kent, warns that virtually any behavior that could be perceived as harmful to children could be ensnared by the new law.


http://www.infowars.com/new-law-could-target-parents-who-drink-alcohol-in-front-of-kids-as-child-abusers/


Might be a bit extreme but then there are those out there that have very strong views on the topic


DulwichFox

Posted by robbin Today, 01:31PM



"Dulwich Fox wrote:


"Yes it would be nice to have a picnic in the park with a bottle of wine or a few chilled beers,

but who dictates who can and who can't. As long as they are of drinking age there cannot be any discrimination.


So as it stands there is no public drinking.. "


You seem to hold a very firm view on the whole illegality issue DF. Can you enlighten us as to the basis on which you contend it is (such) a crime? Or have you held such a staunch view on the subject just for the 45 mins or so since you read James Barber's comment?"


So, Dulwich Fox, can you enlighten us?


No, I thought not.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've even heard of people having a drink when they

> pick their children up from Nursery ..

>

> DulwichFox


Err, not sure I should own up to it, but yes, I've done this too.... swung by the Great Exhibition on the way back from nursery for an apple juice and a packet of crisps (for the kids) and a pint (for me). Starting to feel like a rather bad parent.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...