Toll of teenage drinking revealed

To view the original article Click Here

Title – Toll of teenage drinking revealed
Source – www.bbc.co.uk
Date – 28th March 2008

The fact that a third of teenagers admitted to buying their own alcohol is certainly a problem for the licensed retail sector as much as it is for Trading Standards. Unfortunately all the responsible retailers are tarred with the same brush as those who flaunt the law through ignorance, arrogance or in increasing through fear of the consequences of not selling to underage children sometimes involved in gang activity and not frightened of using threats or violence to obtain alcohol.

The only solution is a joint approach; no one group can resolve these problems on their own. The police need to enforce existing laws, the local authority need to be strong on anti-social behaviour, schools and colleges need to educate, parents (unfortunately the source of much of the other two thirds of alcohol drunk by children) need to parent and the licensed retail sector needs to continue to become more professional.

There is simply no excuse for alcohol being sold to children, there is no circumstance where selling alcohol to anyone under 18 is legal. So the message is simple if you are under 18 you can not buy alcohol.

The popular 'challenge 21' system of ‘if you look under 21, you will be asked to prove you are over 18’ makes the role of staff working within the licensed retail sector easier, as they can request valid ID from anyone. These same staff have to be told that it is not optional to ask for proof of age, but mandatory. Does asking cause embarrassment to those staff? If so then they probably need more training, they need to understand the consequences of ignoring the rules and laws.

It is a popular misconception that it is down to the authorities to enforce the law; they certainly have a role to play, but it is for employers to enforce the law amongst their staff. If an employee sells to someone obviously under age without performing the appropriate checks as they have been taught, they the employer should be imposing sanction, verbal warnings, written warnings and ultimately dismissal. Your business can not afford to carry people who flaunt the law which can attract a £5,000 fine or forfeiture of the premises licence and / or the forfeiture of the personal licence holder’s licence.

The key is in training staff professionally and the licensed retail sector is starting to realise the value of professional training, not just to reduce the incidence of underage alcohol sales, but the added value professional training brings to their business and the additional profit well trained staff generate.
At Beyond The Blue we provide the portfolio of BIIAB courses including the National Certificate for Personal Licence Holders (NCPLH), National Certificate for Designated Premises Supervisors (NCDPS) and for front line staff the Award in Responsible Alcohol Retailing (ARAR). We also offer the Award in Conflict Management (ACM) for those people working in areas where they face aggression and violence, as they try and enforce the law in relation to underage sales of alcohol.

Please visit our website at www.btbl.co.uk

KFC has bouncers to stop violence

Title – KFC has bouncers to stop violence
Source – The London Paper
Date – 19th March 2008

On a recent trip to the Philippines I was shocked to see the number of guards that were deployed at all sorts of retail outlets, in fact all outlets. I came back and was telling my friends about the situation there and my most memorable experience of walking to a 7-eleven in the middle of town. When I walked in, I was confronted with an unusually large Pilipino who opened the door for me and like so many of the people I met was exceptionally friendly, the difference was he was not there to greet me, he was the security for 7-eleven. No SIA license in the Philippines, there what identified him as security was the golden pump action shotgun… as I soon learned there is a hierarchy amongst the security guards in the Philippines, the golden shotgun is more respected then the silver one, as for hand guns, well they were just for the new boys… It seems in the Philippians a security guard getting shot is incidental to the job.

When I started telling people this story, it put people off visiting, as any country that requires armed guards at a 7-eleven is surely not a safe place to go. The answer to that particular question can be found at our other website www.safegapyear.com, for now the point to this story is how long is it before that story does not even raise an eyebrow to people living in the UK, how have things gone so wrong that we need to have door supervisors on the door of our fast food restaurants and why did KFC wait for the local authority and police to act to restore order to their restaurant?

There can be no doubt that no matter how much the thought and prospect of employing door supervisors in fast food restaurants is abhorrent, sometimes it is required to redress the balance and to make the working environment safer. But employers should be acting proactively to ensure that they are providing safe environments for their staff and customers alike and the reasons go further than just the simple good practice of responsible employers, it makes good business sense too.

In the case of this KFC in north London, they had clearly lost a degree of control over their premises and violence and suspected drug use followed. We all know once you establish a reputation for zero tolerance, the message quickly spreads amongst those that may seek ‘safe havens’ for drug use and distribution or gang rivalry. Equally when a premises gets a reputation as a soft touch, those that would exploit this, flock.

Employers have a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for staff, clearly that was not the case here, and whatever measures the management took clearly were insufficient for purpose and failed. The result was as the Licensing Act 2003 dictates, for the police and local authority to act to stop any escalation of violence and drug use, the last chance they were given was to provide door supervisors to protect the premises, staff and customers as a condition of their license. The result as far as the business is concerned is good and bad; seemingly the violence and drug use has declined greatly if not stopped altogether, but as a condition of license KFC is now stuck with the expense (and ultimately inevitable loss of trade that will result from some people simply not wishing to visit a fast food restaurant that requires ‘bouncers’ on the door) of security to remain operational. Would voluntary measures and proactive measures not have been more effective, less long term and less expensive?

Providing staff with effective training, taking advice from suitably experienced consultants and maybe even employing door supervisors to redress the balance in the short term might have been effective in a similar way to the measure imposed on them by the police and local council, but would have ingratiated them with these same authorities and would have allowed them to control the expense rather than having it imposed upon them.

We can help businesses and organisations who want to be proactive and who want to resolve potential problem before they happen and before they burden the business with long term costs. We help people avoid dealing with situations that occur ‘out of the blue’ and help them see Beyond The Blue.

Please visit our website at www.btbl.co.uk

Fighting violence against 999 staff

Title – Fighting violence against 999 staff
Source – Staines Leader
Date – 17th March 2008

As if further evidence were needed that the problems of workplace violence within the NHS are serious, this latest set of statistics has been released for our local area. It demonstrates once again the wholly unacceptable level of violence against staff in all sections of the NHS.

The NHS are taking a tough stance against these offenders, ultimately many people would in the heat of the moment suggest that they should just refuse to treat those guilty of such violence against one of the most caring group of individuals within our society. However to do that would simply go against the whole ethos of the NHS and those working within it who have dedicated their lives to protecting and helping everyone who comes to them. But just as they dedicate themselves to this cause, society has a duty to protect all NHS staff from those that would cause them harm.

The NHS has embraced Conflict Resolution training for all its staff; but society in the form of the police and courts still have a duty to protect staff from violence and assault through a tough and uncompromising approach to prosecution and conviction of offenders. We all have a duty to do everything in our power to prevent these incidents occurring in the first place.

Many other sectors could learn from the approach to workplace violence that the NHS takes. It is dedicated to its entire staff being trained in Conflict Resolution, to reduce the number of aggressive and violent incidents they face and to give them more confidence in their workplace.

Part of this process is to help individuals to understand what constitutes workplace violence and to report it. Only by an active and encouraged reporting system can companies and organisations realise the scale and nature of the problems they may have in their workplace. Where this was once seem as a weakness, proactive and effective employers now recognise reporting as a strength, it allows them to understand that sweeping a problem under the carpet doesn’t make it go away, it just makes it grow. Never should NHS staff use the saying in relation to violence ‘it is just part of the job that we have to accept’ for in that very saying lies defeat and acceptance of a status quo that is in no way shape or form acceptable and needs to be defeated.

Our company is based on the ethos of helping individuals, companies and organisations eradicate the use of the phrase ‘it happened out of the blue’ and we help people see ‘Beyond The Blue’. Our Conflict Management & Resolution courses (CMR) are based on a core syllabus which we then tailor to individual clients through a Training Needs Analysis to meet their specific needs. Where violence is a real concern we also provide low-impact Physical Intervention (PI) courses to allow employees to deal with violence without resorting to the use of force or strength in order to protect themselves and others.

We are specialists in dealing effectively and providing solutions to the problems staff face with violence in the workplace.

Please visit our website at www.btbl.co.uk

Third of teachers threatened

To view the original article Click Here

Title – Third of teachers threatened
Source – The Independent
Date – 17th March 2008

Yet another statistic we should be ashamed of in our society. I remember my school days vividly and although I can’t claim I was any kind of saint or that there were no disruptive students in my class, one thing I can remember is that teachers were respected and the possibility of a teacher being abused let alone assaulted would have been headline news.

Today the news that 1 in 3 of all teachers has been threatened and 1 in 10 suffered actual assault, seems unbelievable. Maybe that in itself is the problem, it is difficult to believe that such a thing is possible, so those people making the rules and setting the standards might be wholly unaware, especially those that had the privilege of attending private schools, of the scale of the problems. Maybe spending some real time in a school would be of help to them…

The teachers I have spoken to, tell very similar stories to the one depicted in this article; stories of pupils who regularly carry knives; who shout and scream abuse and who threaten and seem to have the impression that because of their age they are protected by the law rather than frightened of it; stories of dissent amongst teachers as some want to take a hard line, some want to ignore the problem and hope it goes away, some who seem oblivious to it and some want to brush it under the carpet because the pressure on them to be a ‘good school’ or meet an Ofcom standard is greater than the need to be honest about the problems they face.

None of these situations are acceptable; teachers need to feel safe, secure and respected in order to perform as well as they can. To achieve the first step honesty is required. Honesty to confront the problems and to work on the statistics to make sure they accurately reflect the problems. Are all incidents reported? Our experience suggests they are not, either because some teachers feel that it achieves nothing, that they are discouraged from reporting or that they feel guilty reporting; none of these scenarios is acceptable. Once an accurate reporting structure has been established teachers can start the difficult process of addressing the actual problem and seek help where it is required. If it is just ignored we all know which way it is going and do any of us really want our children going into schools where the entrance is guarded by security personnel and pupils are ushered through metal detectors on the way in. Is that really conducive to a positive learning environment?

In the mean time teachers need to be protected, that happens in two ways. It happens by the relevant authorities sticking up for them and it happens by them receiving the correct training to deal with these situations before they occur. Training in Conflict Management & Resolution is a good first step and for high risk environments physical intervention and restraint training may also be relevant. Here they can learn disengagement and break-away skills as well as restraint techniques.

Working with children presents additional concerns in this area and we believe that our low-impact techniques are perfectly suited to dealing with children as none of them involve the use of force or strength, but are effective if the conflict management and resolution skills are not enough to deal with the situation a teacher is confronted with.

We are very interested to help these public sector workers achieve reductions in the workplace violence they face and allow them to redress the balance in favour of the children and their ability to learn in a safe and secure environment that we all enjoyed in our school days.



Please visit our website at www.btbl.co.uk

Doctors raise a glass to tax increases but industry curses

To view the original article Click Here

Title – Doctors raise a glass to tax increases but industry curses
Source – The Times
Date – 13th March 2008

You do have to ask the question sometimes as to how the strategy of the government regarding duty on alcohol is really going to affect the binge drinking culture they like so much to complain about. At least Alistair Darling in his last budget seems to have ignored much of the rhetoric and spin regarding the latest increases and simply admitted it is a great way to bump up the coffers of the treasury.

This time it is not just this year but subsequent above inflation increases that the industry will have to swallow over the next 5 years. The consequences of this action are undoubtedly that more pubs will close over the coming years and that those that survive will struggle further. Can we expect a public outcry or MPs on the news at ten championing their constituents cause when they find themselves out of work like they do when a factory closes? No, it will just be the trickle of job losses business closures and the unnoticed change from a trickle to a torrent.
At a time when our economy is slowing and possibly faltering, should we be increasing taxes and increasing unemployment without a caveat to counteract these measures? More importantly are these measures really going to make the difference the doctors and others want, is 4 or 5 pence a shot / pint going to be the turning point that moves the binge drinkers and alcohol dependents in society into responsible citizens?

If anything the situation is going to get worse. Increasing the duty on alcohol will drive a further wedge between pubs and supermarkets price differential. Supermarkets have a duty to sell alcohol responsibly, but off-sales mean that they have no control after it leaves their store as to how, where and who consumes it, but they still have the financial clout to sell alcohol as loss-leaders. So the problems of binge drinking are hardly being addressed. Pubs and clubs at least have some control over the sale and consumption of alcohol on their premises, arguably some don’t take this responsibility seriously enough, but the authorities have the powers to deal with these rogues if they choose to, but pubs and clubs will have to absorb those costs or pass them on to the consumer. Surely the result is pushing people from pubs and clubs to supermarkets and uncontrolled consumption.

I wonder sometimes if the government has any solution for any problem but tax, tax tax. Does it work anywhere in any part of society? The cars, the roads, congestion, all are taxed, maybe that is the right way to push people onto public transport, but where is all that tax going, because there simply is not a suitable standard of public transport and much of the time public transport is still more expensive than the car! It does feel that the unimaginative government strategy is exactly the same with alcohol, tax, tax, tax, maybe alcohol should be heavily taxed, that is an argument that will continue, but is that really the only way to resolve the problem of excess consumption, in fact is it a solution at all?


The UK is one of the most heavily taxed countries in Europe on alcohol a bottle of wine here has on average £1.33 in duty, in France £0.02 and in Spain, Italy and Germany £0.00, yet they don’t have the same problems we seem to with the consumption of alcohol… maybe we should look for once at how others get things right and we get it seemingly so wrong, rather than being stubborn and continuing with a strategy of tax, tax, tax and no education, reward for responsible retailers and treating a population like children (who when treated that way will act that way), surely our governments know they are taking with the one hand and giving nothing back with the other. At least Alistair Darling made no excuses for increasing taxes, no bluff that he would help retailers that will struggle or Robin Hood tale, but rather all but admitted taking the easy route to additional tax income to cover the holes in the budget he was also was reluctant to talk about….



Please visit our website at www.btbl.co.uk

24-hour boozing – the sober truth

To view the original article Click Here

Title – 24-hour boozing – the sober truth
Source – The Times
Date – 7th March 2008

It does sometimes feel like the headlines are all sensationalist, but that the editorials paint a much more sensible and balanced image on the inside pages; but how many of us have the time to scour the editorials for some positive news. Mick Hume in his piece here, paints what to most of us is a much more realistic and familiar picture of the changes that have materialised following the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003 and counter balances the arguments with the reality faced by many landlords and others working within the licensed retail sector. The reality that it is getting harder as regulation after regulation squeeze margins more every year and put businesses under pressure that many simply can not cope with.

1400 licensed premises closed last year (2007), up from 100 two years previously. Is this really any great surprise, the smoking ban which alienated many and licensing reform which brought additional regulation but with only an average of 21 minutes extra trade on the busiest night, have certainly taken their toll. Whatever the merits of either action and there are certainly arguments in favour and against both, the obvious consequence was a squeeze on a sector that in parts can simply not accommodate any more cost or any more reduction in revenue.

We have to ask ourselves how many other sectors of industry would have to endure such a tightening of opportunity with the obvious consequence of job losses, business failure and hardship through regulation, without being offered a lifeline by the government in the form of an incentive or rescue package at the same time?

Let’s take the smoking ban as an example; it was common knowledge that the smoking ban would hurt trade broadly and so it has proven. Cigarette sales were incidental to most pubs and clubs, that was not where most of the losses have come from, they came from people staying away and reductions in gaming machine revenue. The reaction from the licensed retailers was to invest in shelters and provide alternative arrangements for smokers to allow them to smoke outside, was any funding made available for this? No, the individual businesses had to fund it all themselves, when they were providing facilities for the government to be able to rightly or wrongly implement this law. The reward for millions of pounds of private investment seems to be an inevitable hike in duty on alcohol due in the next budget. How hard can you squeeze and still expect people to support and help you achieve the government targets.

Taking the smoking ban as an example again. Many within the licensed retail sector might support the context in which it was sold. To stop staff working within the sector from suffering the ill effects of second-hand smoke. If this could have been sold with the caveat that the businesses themselves would be supported in other ways from the down turn in trade and the increased costs, then just maybe, it would not have been so hard to sell. But if many jobs have been lost as a direct consequence of the ban, then it is more difficult to stomach. People are not going to support better working environments through regulation, if those regulations effectively put their jobs at risk. Ask someone working in the sector, would you rather work in a smoky pub or be unemployed and the answer is a no-brainer.


I may be simplifying the argument and changes in the law are sometimes needed to address changes in society, but in so many other sectors it seems when the government realises the need for change will result in hardships they look at other ways to provide for those people affected; need I even mention Northern Rock? But the licensed retail sector certainly at grassroots level does seem to be left hanging out to dry at every opportunity, when there are so many other and more creative ways they could be helped to continue to provide employment and growth to the country as a whole.



Please visit our website at www.btbl.co.uk

Written ministerial statement by Andy Burnham on the Evaluation of the impact of the Licensing Act 2003

To view the original article please Click Here

Title – Written ministerial statement by Andy Burnham on the Evaluation of the impact of the Licensing Act 2003
Source – DCMS website
Date – 4th March 2008

It’s not that often that I read ministerial statements and think that they present a relatively balanced view, but then to be fair I don’t read too many ministerial statements if I can help it…

But Mr Burnham here presents that facts and the facts don’t lie. There has not been any significant change to the level of crime and disorder as a result of the Licensing Act 2003. The dynamics may have changed slightly, but that was predictable. There are differences in different parts of the country, but that too is highly predictable as the industry varies from authority to authority and the methods of enforcement locally vary considerably.

There is as you would expect some potential headline grabbing and some tough talking in his statement, some of it hits the nail on the head. There is clearly a need for authorities to take a tough stance on irresponsible alcohol retailers and there are issues surrounding the promotion of alcohol, especially the heavy discounting that occurs in some sectors.

What does worry me a little and a subject I have covered in this blog before is the potential for new legislation, tougher penalties and the continued emphasis on closures and closure orders. My concern is simple, introducing harsher punishment and more legislation seems premature when the existing legislation has yet to be used effectively and in many cases local authorities are still not up to speed with their existing powers under the act and are still trying to catch up.

There is currently for example no stipulation that states that the ‘three strikes in three months’ for selling to an underage person will result in forfeiture of the licence. Under the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 currently the sanction for ‘Persistently selling alcohol to someone under 18’ (three strikes) carries a maximum fine of £10,000 and / or a three month suspension of the licence; alternatively the police can impose a 48 hour suspension. It is likely that following any such action a review of the licence would be undertaken which could lead to further sanctions including forfeiture of the licence, but there is no mention in the act or the guidance of ‘automatic forfeiture’ as the secretary of state suggests.

It is exactly this kind of misinterpretation that concerns many premises and personal licence holders. Because many of the powers of the Licensing Act 2003 have never really been enforced, consistently monitored or effectively used, there still feels like there is a state of limbo within the industry. The continued threat of more legislation and more sanction worries many because they fear that there may suddenly be a political will to act with a strong hand against alcohol retailers with new more stringent legislation which will result in unreasonable restriction and sanction without ever really having seen the potential benefit of the already strong legislation available.

Mr Burnham does call for current legislation to be used against irresponsible retailers and we welcome this, I just call on him to consider a more proactive approach. As we have said many times before sanction against irresponsible retailers is welcome, but why not reward those many responsible retailers who will help the government to achieve its goals if they feel they are seen as part of the solution for once, rather than part of the problem; no matter how much effort they make.

At Beyond The Blue we provide the portfolio of BIIAB Licensed Retail Sector Courses including the National Certificate for Personal Licence Holders (NCPLH) and the Award in Responsible Alcohol Retailing (ARAR). We examine the latest legislation and how it affects alcohol retailers in order to help our clients meet not just their legislative needs, but understand the future direction of the industry and its regulation.

Please visit our website please visit at www.btbl.co.uk