Skip to main content

Drunk tanks

Tank driving on US freeway
Drunk tank

When I heard on the radio yesterday that Adrian Lee (who he? - he a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers) had called for drunk tanks to be established in rowdy city centres I initially wondered where they would find all these tanks for drunks to drive and whether that would be such a good idea anyway.

In the event, I realised that Mr Lee had only a slightly worse idea.

What this chap actually wants is slightly unclear if I'm honest.  Sounds simple at first: cells are not the place for drunks so we'll set up some cells to put drunks in and then charge them for the stay.  But when you think for a minute what he's actually proposing is slightly harder to implement.

Mr Lee said, "I do not see why the police service or the health service should pick up the duty of care for someone who has chosen to go out and get so drunk that they cannot look after themselves."  My answer to that is, "well because that is one of the reasons they both exist" but we'll go along with Mr Lee's plan for the moment anyway.

Let's just start by thinking about that statement.  People get drunk.  We know that.  Bad things happen when you are drunk.  A lot of people on Twitter don't like to admit that women are more vulnerable to attack when drunk but we all are, men and women.  Is Mr Lee seriously suggesting that if a woman is raped while too drunk to look after herself the police should ignore her?  What if a man gets drunk and stumbles into the road and is run over.  Should the NHS refuse to treat him because he was drunk?  Even on the face of it his statement is nonsense.

Now, according to that statement police officers shouldn't be getting involved with drunks and assuming a duty of care.  Well, once you nick 'em you got that duty of care so presumably Mr Lee's well thought out plan involves somebody else doing the nicking.  This would require civilian, i.e. non-police officers who are employed by such trustworthy companies as Serco & G4S to be given powers to arrest and imprison people, so a bit of primary legislation required there... should take a couple of years that one.  

Since we can't use police cells now, we'll have to build some local holding facilities, we'll call them "Jails".  They'll need staff who will need to be trained up to care for the prisoners - incidentally, a job which the private sector already does quite badly, e.g. Thameside prison in east London.

Essentially what Mr Lee appears to be saying is that he wants civilians to be able to single out a member of the public, tie them up, drag them off somewhere and hold them prisoner for a night.  Can't imagine what the police would say if I decided to head out and do that to some passing drunk woman tonight.. oh wait yes I can think what they'd say.

I'm not aware of any legislation that would allow any old Tom, Dick of Harry to hold un-convicted members of the public prisoner without falling foul of these tiresome laws we have here, such as false imprisonment and kidnapping.  So, we will need more legislation to allow the jails to operate.  I would hope that the British public would be totally against the introduction of a new, barely trained mob of non-police being given powers to nap people off the street almost at will.  I hope the public would be against it but I won't hold my breath.

Now, how about charging the prisoners for their stay and what happens if they refuse to pay up or can't pay up?  You have three options: 1. don't charge people; 2. don't release them until they pay; or 3. give these non-police officers powers similar to those held by judges to conduct means enquiries to determine ability to pay.

If we don't charge then these jails will be horribly expensive to run.  If you don't release until the bill is paid then you could see people imprisoned for ever if they simply can't pay and the fee increases by £400 per night.  If you give this barely trained (and they will  be barely trained at best) bunch the powers currently only held by a court then fuck the lot of you, I'm moving abroad.

Of course, the companies could release people after their night's stay and sue them for the cost... except that there's no basis in law to claim such a fee.  Guess what.. this means more primary legislation.

I don't doubt that dealing with drunk people is a pain in the arse for police officers and those in the NHS, but it is part of the job.  If you can't accept that then get a job somewhere you won't meet the drunks.  You could, for example, become an MP and introduce some sort of considered, reasoned change to society that cuts down on binge drinking and drunken violence.  Admittedly, drunk tanks are easier to implement than societal changes but they are not nearly as effective.

It's just a thought, but how about state funded burger and kebab vans?  Lots of trouble seems to kick off when people are leaving pubs, bars and clubs.  Give them some hot food to concentrate their minds and they'll probably calm down... if they don't they'll be so busy wiping chilli sauce from their clothes that they still won't be a problem.


  1. "I don't doubt that dealing with drunk people is a pain in the arse for police officers and those in the NHS, but it is part of the job. If you can't accept that then get a job somewhere you won't meet the drunks."
    I`m sure you realise that it`s probably not from a personal point of view that he objects to unpleasant drunks crowding the cells and hospital emergency departments.He just wants them dealt with some other way to enable the police to deal with more serious crime and hospitals to give speedier attention to genuine emergency patients.

    1. That may well be his motivation but it is still a pointless waste of time that will cost far more money than it needs to since the police and hospitals already have the facilities available.

      If somebody is so intoxicated that they require hospital treatment then sticking them in a drunk tank is probably not a good plan.

  2. Drunkeness is self-inflicted.Why should sober tax payers have to clear up the mess left behind and the accrued costs of their stupid behavior?
    Anyway drunk tanks won't happen.Far too expensive to set up and the first time a drunk dies in the care of G4S or similar they will get sued and close down.

    1. Then heart attacks are self-inflicted due to a meat-rich diet. Should the NHS only treat vegetarians?

    2. If you object to people becoming drunk then you should seek to ban alcohol.

  3. Yes eating meat is the only cause of heart-attacks,your argument shoots mine out of the water.
    Police do not treat heart attack victims so I really can't see your point.
    I'm sure there's an anti-police blog somewhere Kimpatsu that needs your spiteful bile,chop chop go find it...

    1. And the only cause of head injuries is drunkenness, right? Pointing out the flaws in your argument is not bile, but authoritarians normally assume that it is because they cannot fathom diverse viewpoints. You're right, I don't like the Omerta of the Thin Blue Line much-Lee's argument is really one that amounts to incarceration without due process-but at least I stand by my opinions and don't post anonymously.

    2. Pointing out the flaws in my argument??? Hilarious...what have head injuries got to do with this?
      I have to post anonymously like nearly everyone else on here,free speech is not allowed in my job.

    3. Er I rather thought Kimpatsu’s point was that if the NHS stoped treating drunks then it creates a precedent and the it becomes necessary to draw a line.
      Maybe don’t treat drunks, obese people, drug users, people with aids, Jehovah’s witnesses and so on.

  4. Yes, I heard this snip on Today yesterday am. It certainly roused me from my morning stupour and my immediate thoughts were that it formed some part of Lee’s retirement plan.
    I am pretty much in full agreement with your succinct summary, one point on which I disagree, “ If you can't accept that then get a job somewhere you won't meet the drunks. You could, for example, become an MP” I fear that Parliament is full of drunks if various contemporary reports are to be believed. For example do you remember that MP who recently attacked a fellow M.P. late one evening in a bar at the House and was dragged off to the slammer with his unshaven countenance appearing in every paper the following day?

    1. Yes I remember him; he called me a prick. I quite liked him strange as it may sound.

  5. Jails? Surely you mean gaols.........and please don't confuse what ACPO says with what real police officers actually think

    1. Obviously in the UK it would be a gaol but there something all very cowboy about the idea of being thrown in the town drunk tank so I decided to go with an Americanism for once.

  6. I was anti-social when I drank, I drank until I fell down all I wanted was to be left alone. There were plenty of Police in those days, even specials who loved working Friday and Saturday and they loved sticking the boot in to the drunks.Surely the police would only be sat in the ASDA car parks for the night if they had nothing else to do.Alcohol is a legal substance and freely served to you by the dealers and pays for their ill gotten gains.
    Why not go after the cartels and strip them of their illegal gains, no dealers no alcohol.

    Drunk tanks? I've never heard of anything so stupid on a legal substance.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…