Getting drinkers fingerprints and identity when they buy a pint helps cut drink driving and other offences?

Question

According to Metro newspaper a scheme in Yoevil Somerset, has seen a 48 percent drop in crime since Landlords were forced to take drinkers finger prints everytime they brought a drink.

Is this a good idea or another step into a totalitarian state?

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=22277&in_page_id=34

Answer 1

Well isn't this typical of how the authoritarians think?

I suppose they will then be able to track them on cameras, identify them on the roads using number plate recognition technology, arrest them on suspcision, require medical records and social inquiry reports and then place them in over-crowded prisons.

Isn't England to-day actually worse than East Germany was under the communists?

Answer 2

It is a good idea to catch criminals, but are they saying that PPL with a criminal past should not have a drink? Having a beer is not something that should be criminally vetted. It seems as if finger printing everyone is being put forward as a good thing and that if one has not done any thing, there is no need to worry. I think there is. These prints will be on a database for all time, while we may not have anything to fear from the present administration, who is to say that a totalitarian government of the future will not abuse these prints? The present Administration will not be here for long, these prints will be here for much longer than that.

Answer 3

What next ? Getting IDed to buy birth control ? IDing in such away will not stop anyone from drinking let alone driving. Unless you plan to not sell that person alcohol when they are on the hit list. Just think what else they can do with this, Can't buy pizza because you have high colesterol. You want that ? If you do we will never see the end of this.

Answer 4

Ridiculous, an affront to the dignity of honest people. The undermining of human rights. I'm surprised there hasn't been overwhelming opposition to such practises. Without a doubt, nothing like that would get past the paper stage here. Here is British Columbia, Canada.

Answer 5

This is the worst idea I've ever heard of. One should not have to submit fingerprints to the government unless one is arrested for a crime. This is like locking up people for thinking bad thoughts or for things they MIGHT do wrong in the future. HORRIBLE.

Answer 6

I think its good in a way as you would feel safer and probably be more responsable when you go out drinking...something that we usually forget to do on a night out! I would imagine there is opposition from those who feel that it is a step too far as anything new and quite intrusive on your freedom..and i understand that but i think in the long run it would be a positive initiative against crime. Alot of nasty things have happened in and outside clubs/bars so i wouldnt mind changes happening around here i can tell you!

Answer 7

I don't think that this would work as the person buying the drinks isn't necessarily the person consuming. A 48% drop in sales would be more accurate for imposing such rules.

Answer 8

Sounds fishy, I have bought drinks before for other people so it would be a waste of time. But hey isn't it just like a governing body to think of something that makes no sense?

Answer 9

Might cut down on the amount of beer he sells. To be honest, I wouldn't go to a pub where I was fingerprinted before I could have a beer.

Answer 10

In the long term all this will achieve is more and more people drinking at home. Since it is cheaper to buy beer from the shop I would imagine people will drink more and therefore it moves the problem from the pub to the home.