Pub bans dished out in Oswestry crackdown

Six people have been banned from pubs in Oswestry as part of a crackdown in which landlords are being armed with drug-detecting wipes.

Pub stock

An urgent meeting of pub managers, called following rising problems with drug and drink-fuelled behaviour, was updated on the most recent bans to be put in place.

The meeting was told a three-year ban had been handed out to a man who had threatened a lone female licensee with violence.

Members of Pubwatch also heard two men had been banned from pubs in Oswestry after drug-detecting wipes revealed they had an illegal substance in their possession in a toilet cubicle of a pub. They were banned for 12 months.

Publicans can use the wipes on surfaces in their pubs to determine whether drugs have been used. The wipes change colour if drugs are present.

The wipes are being used by publicans in Oswestry, Market Drayton, Whitchurch and Wem in a bid to tackle recreational drug use, particularly cocaine, in Shropshire’s market towns.

It was also revealed today that a man who assaulted a member of staff at a town pub was also barred for three years.

Recent bans have also been dished out to a man who ignored a three-year ban for the second time, resulting in his ban increasing to five years, and a woman who had been stealing from other customers. She was banned for 12 months.

Mayor of Oswestry Paul Milner backed the group’s action in tackling problems related to alcohol and drugs in the town.

He said: “Pubwatch and the action taken by the group has many benefits; it helps out police officers with their work but it also ensures people can come to Oswestry and enjoy a safe night out, that’s really important because the night time economy is so crucial to the town.

“It also means that licensees are protected too. Every licensee in town should be involved in Pubwatch if they aren’t already.

“These bans ensure the wrong sort of clientèle aren’t coming into Oswestry’s pubs and clubs and causing problems for others.”

Since reforming in April 2015, 20 premises in the town have signed up to the Pubwatch initiative, which is backed by the police, Shropshire Council and Oswestry Town Council.

Under the scheme a person who causes problems in one pub will be barred from all 20 premises.

There are currently 23 people in Oswestry banned by the scheme for periods which range from 12 months to 25 years.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Comments for: "Pub bans dished out in Oswestry crackdown"

johnfrederick

I thought we did not have problems with Crime in Oswestry ?

Noway

Why doesn't the Mayor start a campaign (he loves to see himself in print) to stop drinking in the pubs within Oswestry from early in the morning? Had a conversation with a group of work colleagues about where we lived (different parts of Shropshire), and they said 'Oh yeah Oswestry where people have alcohol for breakfast and stand outside the pubs all day smoking like chimneys'. To be honest, that has pretty much nailed it.

Why doesn't the Job Centre set up an interviewing booth within Wetherspoons to ask the clients how their job seeking activities are going?

Roger

Pub watch schemes have the advantage to the Landlord they he can ban anyone without reason or cause so does not actually require any evidence to prove any action. What Pubwatch then does is to spread the effect over all their members premises. It has nothing to do with justice what so ever.

rg If you wipe a surface and detect drugs who is to say which customer was responsible? I you happen to have just sat down your out of twenty pubs for years

, ni proff of anything required. The assault on the Landlady was verbal. It could be that he had just been refused entry to the pub as a result of pubwatch ban which jhe has no appeal against.

I am not saying that pubwatch is a bad thing but it is a very lose arramngement and has no basis in legality beyond the absolute power of a Landlord to refuse entry to anybody with out the need for cause.

There is no hearing, no trial and no appeal. It is subject to victimisation the extent that if you upset one landlord you upset them all in a conspiracy to restrict your freedom to go out for a drink. I am almost sure 90% of banning are justified but have no doubt that 10% are not and are grossly unfair. if you unlucky enough to be one of the 10% don'y waste you fighting the detail you can't win. They, including the police, close ranks to defend the group and legally they are within their rights regardless of justice. It a no hoper. The only hope is that some day a victim will be very rich and take the matter up as a breach of human rights but even that may not work.

It is also fair to say that the same situation exisrts for Shop watch but their sucsess rate of correctness is even higher. However their is guilt by association involved it that one. But the same thing applies any shop keep can refuse entry without the need of a reason.

All these premises are private premises with an invitation to enter that can be withdrawn at any time.

Personally I think we can not do anything about a single premise but one might expect that when it becomes a group of premises the people dispensing punishment might reasonably be held to a higher test of fairness. If untrue it is libellous and can impact on reputational damage which in turn can be career wrecking.

newt

What can these surface wipes do about the dog poo deposited in our public parks and recreation sites? Can they detect the source and identity of the perpetrators?

Lets Be Rational

While I totally agree any threat or act of violence, should warrant a ban along with catching someone in the act of doing drugs on the premises.

However swabbing surfaces, for me is a step to far, unless the pub is going to employ someone to stand outside the toilet and go and clean after every single person has used it, anyone using the toilet after it was last cleaned could have used a surface to do their drugs, as it does not suddenly disappear after the chain is flushed, an innocent person could so easily get accused of something which they did not do and have no way of clearing their name, based solely on a landlords suspicions.

Bear in mind all pubs in the scheme are notified of the ban along with the person photograph and believe me when I say it does not take long for the word about anything to go around a small town.

It would be so easy for a person to be accused with no opportunity to clear their name and the word go round that the person is a junkie. Also remember before anyone says, if they are incorrectly accused they could go to court, sadly that is not the case in reality because to win a case like that it is up to you to prove what that person is saying is untrue.

Can any prove they did not take drugs last time they visited the pub? The case would also have to be taken privately, something way out of the financial ability of most people as the costs can easily run in to hundreds of thousands of pounds.

johnfrederick

Our proper 5 full police men in Oswestry need all the help they can get ?

Lets Be Rational

johnfredrick I agree, though I am unsure where you get your figure of 5 from. Do you not think though that this may cause more work for them?

I am sure that if I knew I faced a ban after being accused of doing drugs in the pub, I would be demanding police attendance at the time of accusation, as it would be my only opportunity to prove my innocence by being arrested and actually have a bodily test, rather that a surface wipe which could have been left by anyone. Obviously you would only have innocent people demanding this, but as the only alternative to "ban order" without any proof of guilt (yes there would be evidence of drug taking, but not who did it) or avenue of appeal to the accused, what other alternatives would a person have?

johnfrederick

I wish people would believe what I Say I am not the town idiot ? Try the meeting at Oswestry town council on the 8-2 -17 . Reporters for both local news papers were their ?