It remains the responsibility of licensees to enforce requirements of …

Comment on Bottle shop cops ‘security guards, paid for by the taxpayer’ by Paul Parker.

It remains the responsibility of licensees to enforce requirements of the legislation within their premises.
I do not support as deterrent for uniformed police to be stationed at take-away alcohol outlets, to catch individuals breaching banning provisions.
I do support plain clothes NT Police, using appropriate technology, to concentrate on catching those providing alcohol to banned persons, and those banned persons.
Take-away sources of alcohol need be closed for at least 24 hours when they provide alcohol to a banned person.
Police then can concentrate on catching those who obtain and supply alcohol to banned persons.
Robyn Lambley expressed concerns for those who provide prohibited persons alcohol.
Were ongoing problems in wider residential areas, where alcohol is almost totally banned, with otherwise law-abiding reasonable consumers of alcohol finding themselves dry, while less reasonable consumers of alcohol, and less reasonable suppliers of alcohol thrived.
The problems of shared alcohol were created with banning possession of alcohol in large areas, rather than dealing with individual offenders.
There is a need for it be NOT to be acceptable to share alcohol with individual persons the court bans.
The argument for acceptability to give banned drinkers alcohol supports arguments of acceptability for unlicensed, intoxicated drivers driving unregistered, uninsured vehicles on public roads.
Cultures change, culture is not a constant.

Recent Comments by Paul Parker

Mantle of mental health care withdrawn
Once again the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory president Marty Aust claims people on custodial supervision orders are almost always housed within prisons because nowhere else is suitable for them.
Is my opinion the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory wears racist blinkers on this.
The Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory’s attack upon the NT Government ignores simple facts.
Decisions to provide leases to provide suitable housing placements for these mentally disadvantaged individuals within or closer to their communities rests with their relevant corporate Land Trusts.
Have these relevant corporate Land justs provided the relevant long term leases?
If not, why not?
What efforts and what successes achieved by the Criminal Lawyers Association of the Northern Territory towards obtaining relevant required leases to accommodate these individuals?
At this time the NT Government is unable to resume land, despite Constitutional requirement for payment of “just compensation”.
Are these really needed sites?
The sounds far to much like pass the buck.


Make Oz Day a celebration of the future, not the past
The logical and legitimate historical relevance is that Australia became an independent self-governing Commonwealth nation with Federation on January 1, 1901.
Our formal functions need to stick with the first Federation timetable, nothing before noon, as logical to enable majority recover from their New Year celebrations in time to attend and enjoy.


Australia Day: Alice’s role in it
Fit as well for Northern Territory to lead promotion to replace 26 January with 1 January which is anniversary the establishment of our Commonwealth of Australia.
IMHO requirement we would need to ensure NO ceremonies before noon to ensure all recover from their New Year celebrations in time to attend.


NT and SA amalgamation: Would they have us?
A treaty proposal as little more than a promotion of permanent racism, a promotion of permanent apartheid, a promotion of the ongoing disadvantage of many, within Australia.


Miners are spreading myths, says environmentalist
Re: Alex Hope Posted January 22, 2019 at 11:23 am
Perhaps Alex can explain what each Land Trust as corporate land-title-holder and owner, actually spends building and maintaining housing being used by their shareholders “traditional owners” who do live on their land-title-held land ?
Perhaps Alex can explain what each Land Trust as corporate land-title-holder and owner actually collects as rent to be spent building and maintaining housing used by their shareholders and “traditional owners” who do live on their land-title-held land?
Perhaps Alex can explain the Commonwealth and NT Government financial contributions to benefit each land-trust-titled area?
Please include also the dollars per resident.


Be Sociable, Share!