posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 12:53 AM
As with various locations cited in above posts, the law in Australia forces publicans to accept responsibility also. When patrons have consumed
x-amount of alcohol or are clearly inebriated, the publican is required by law to cease serving the drunk any further alcohol.
In one well-publicised instance in Queensland, a male patron became drunk in a licenced establishment and walked onto a busy road and into the path of
an oncoming vehicle.
The vehicle, driven by a woman at less than 40 kph, struck the drunk: it was unavoidable as he'd suddenly walked directly in front of her.
The drunk subsequently attempted to sue the driver, despite that it was obvious his injuries were his own responsibility.
The drunk appeared in court (an on tv news, etc) in a wheelchair. He was awarded in the region of half a million dollars.
There was a strong public and other outcry.
From memory, the female driver of the vehicle which had struck the drunk (or more correctly which had been struck BY the drunk) claimed if anyone
deserved to be sued, it was the publican, who had testified in court that the injured drunk had spent many hours in his establishment, drinking
continually. The establishment had continued to serve the drunk when it was obvious that drunk could barely provide his own name.
As consequence of the above case, publicans were advised that if they served to already drunk members of the public, such actions would be punishable
Yes, it sends the wrong message.
But hey, the legal fraternity has for decades now imposed Frankist illogic on the world at large, i.e., black is white, right is wrong and vice versa,
the innocent are deemed guilty, the guilty are deserving of sympathy, blame the victim, etc.
Most often, drunks haven't a penny to their name. So, accountable or not, THEY won't be reimbursing those whose lives they've ruined.
And GOVERNMENTS don't want to be held accountable for these situations, even though they are responsible.
So licenced premises, hotels, publicans etc. are forced by gutless, corrupt politicians to play 'nanny' to loser drunks and gamblers who REFUSE to
deal with day-to-day reality and instead hide inside a bottle or within gambling-sustained fantasies.
Governments derive huge profit from gambling and alcohol. So it's a no- go zone as far as 'war on gambling' or 'war on alcohol' campaigns go.
In Australia, governments are even giving the green-light to poker machines within shopping centres and malls !
And alcohol is spared the gruesome warning campaigns of cigarettes. Yet how many cigarette-smokers, after smoking too much, turn in a smoker's
frenzy and rape a child or beat a child to death or take a gun and blast their perceived enemies or crash their car into a family of four?
Thanks to conscienceless politicians, alcoholics are free to consume mind-altering substances and wreak havoc on populations at large and to consider
themselves AND their actions as someone ELSE's responsibility.
Which of course suits the alcoholic down to the ground, because the reason they drink in the first place is because they refuse to grow up and take
responsibility for themselves or their actions. They're spoilt children who sustain their childlike mentality via copious amounts of alcohol. I
despise them for the UNIMAGINABLE damage they do to ALL those who are unfortunate enough to associated with them (workmates, colleagues, children,
spouses, family, friends, neighbours, local police and numerous other victims of alcoholics).
Disgusting politicians only pay if and when someone THEY or someone they value becomes a victim of a drunk.
Politicians long ago made it clear that they have NO intention of sacrificing alcohol and gambling derived revenue in the interests of a better, safer
So, I made up my mind that if a drunk hurt or kills anyone I value, I will exact my own punishment, in proportion to the damage inflicted. That keeps
me sane in this increasingly INsane, Frankist-ravaged society.