Reveller seriously injured in Blackburn nightclub glassing attack (From Lancashire Telegraph)

shut this dive down !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!

How sad that even at Christmas these low lifes have no Seasonal spirit , its much safer to stay at home and be bored than go out and risk Your life.
Sign of the times Im afraid, I just hope the young man makes a full recovery from His injurys.

Blackburn has become - Wild!

All under 'New Labour' rule. Is it any wonder Jack Straw has never wanted to live here!

The problem is there is little to no deterrent for almost any crime of this nature, you only have to watch any of the “Cops On Camera” type programs on TV to see thousands of police man hours wasted rounding up drunks, drug addicts, car thieves or other deviants only for them to be given cautions, small fines or community orders.

Anyone found guilty of this type of crime should spend at least 5 years (And when I say 5 years, I actually mean 5 years, not 2 with good behaviour)

The recent drive by the government (Last one and carried on by the current one) seems to be centred around taxing the greater law abiding, sensible drinking public for the drunken or feral actions and loathsome behaviour of a small morally deprived minority.

The answer is not to make drinking more expensive for all, but to make sure there is sufficient deterrent for those found guilty of drunken or in this case aggressive behaviour.

I enjoy a drink with the best of them but never become aggressive or so drunk I cannot walk or even communicate with anyone, if individuals simply cannot follow the same rules by which we must all abide, then they must pay a very heavy and increasing price each time they are convicted.

I would think a minimum fine of £500 for drunken loutish behaviour, increasing to £1000 for any second offence and £3000 for a 3rd with possibly a custodial sentence, this I feel would make anyone think twice about committing this type of offence.

For aggressive behaviour where actual bodily harm is inflicted then the absolute minimum fine should be £2000 and / or 2 years suspended sentence, again increasing extremely heavily with any subsequent similar offences.

The left wing liberal approach to the issues we all face in society today where there are no go areas and people are afraid to go out at night are clearly not working and never would. Swift reprisals for all and any individual guilty of committing the afore mentioned offences that at present we ALL pay for should be dealt with as set out above in a court of law.

I rest my case malud……….

Claretbob wrote:
The problem is there is little to no deterrent for almost any crime of this nature, you only have to watch any of the “Cops On Camera” type programs on TV to see thousands of police man hours wasted rounding up drunks, drug addicts, car thieves or other deviants only for them to be given cautions, small fines or community orders.

Anyone found guilty of this type of crime should spend at least 5 years (And when I say 5 years, I actually mean 5 years, not 2 with good behaviour)

The recent drive by the government (Last one and carried on by the current one) seems to be centred around taxing the greater law abiding, sensible drinking public for the drunken or feral actions and loathsome behaviour of a small morally deprived minority.

The answer is not to make drinking more expensive for all, but to make sure there is sufficient deterrent for those found guilty of drunken or in this case aggressive behaviour.

I enjoy a drink with the best of them but never become aggressive or so drunk I cannot walk or even communicate with anyone, if individuals simply cannot follow the same rules by which we must all abide, then they must pay a very heavy and increasing price each time they are convicted.

I would think a minimum fine of £500 for drunken loutish behaviour, increasing to £1000 for any second offence and £3000 for a 3rd with possibly a custodial sentence, this I feel would make anyone think twice about committing this type of offence.

For aggressive behaviour where actual bodily harm is inflicted then the absolute minimum fine should be £2000 and / or 2 years suspended sentence, again increasing extremely heavily with any subsequent similar offences.

The left wing liberal approach to the issues we all face in society today where there are no go areas and people are afraid to go out at night are clearly not working and never would. Swift reprisals for all and any individual guilty of committing the afore mentioned offences that at present we ALL pay for should be dealt with as set out above in a court of law.

I rest my case malud……….

Who's malud? is it pakastani for my lord..?
Sir.All money or fines in the world cannot give a victim their sight back once they have been blinded or fetch them out of a coma should they be kicked unconcious.
I think they could improve safety in town centre venues not just in Blackburn but nationwide if they ban glass.All they need to do is tell manufacturers that they will only stock and sell their alcohol in plastic bottles or cans and just ban glass from town centre pubs and clubs.
Am amazed that Warehouse 1 have got away with piling their rubbish up in front of the building for so long.And that council officials have not done more about the rubbish that piles up for weeks at a time before its cleared.The rubbish that gathers in front of the Cellar bar is full of what could be used as weapons.The Cellar bar makes that part of King St look scruffy and unkept and the quicker they shut the doors for good the better.'Humans glass and alcohol has aways been a bad cocktail' ban the glass not the fun.

district01 wrote:
Blackburn has become - Wild!

All under 'New Labour' rule. Is it any wonder Jack Straw has never wanted to live here!

You'll be blaming the weather on 'new Labour' next! Anyone with an axe to grind will swing it at anything, won't they?

Thats what happens when Borstals are shut down.

Dusty Snatchmonger wrote:
Thats what happens when Borstals are shut down.

Borstals had a recall rate of around 80% .if some knob is capable of smashing a glass in someones face ,they need removing from society for as long as possible not retraining to be a good citizen

Biggest problem nowadays is the drugs culture, seems every man and his mutt are snorting summat or other, this leads to the feeling of invincibilty and personality change. I have witnessed this first hand on more than one occasion.
I agree with floydbrfc, remove from society for as long as possible, no TV's, no perks, no gym, no pool table, and NO HUMAN RIGHTS... just bread,water and time to reflect.

Like you say they did away with Mental Homes, Lunatic Asylems etc, and now we have them living in society,as part of the care in the community and they need help brigade,just lock them away and decent people can feel safe

Oh, it's a Grade II listed building? . . . . and that's important . .why?????????

Chris P Bacon wrote:

district01 wrote: Blackburn has become - Wild! All under 'New Labour' rule. Is it any wonder Jack Straw has never wanted to live here!

You'll be blaming the weather on 'new Labour' next! Anyone with an axe to grind will swing it at anything, won't they?

Under New Labours rule bad weather increased by 27% and the summer sunshine was sold to Europe.

I'm of an age where I'm not interested in drinking at 3.20a.m, 30 years ago maybe, but even in the nightclubs we were kicked out at 2a.m.
I still witnessed quite a few "glassings" and as ChrisP says, booze n glass has always been a bad cocktail.
This type of cowardly crime has been going on for years (hence pubs being nicknamed THE FLYING BOTTLE) and now at least invariably leads to a custodial sentence.

I know the LT have been scratting about for stories this Christmas wake, but is this story really so unusual - or even shocking ?

hope the scum bags get cought, and hope the lad is ok, justice should be done or even still provide plastic glasses and also metel detecters for weapons . this country is screwed up to the max

Claretbob wrote:
The problem is there is little to no deterrent for almost any crime of this nature, you only have to watch any of the “Cops On Camera” type programs on TV to see thousands of police man hours wasted rounding up drunks, drug addicts, car thieves or other deviants only for them to be given cautions, small fines or community orders.

Anyone found guilty of this type of crime should spend at least 5 years (And when I say 5 years, I actually mean 5 years, not 2 with good behaviour)

The recent drive by the government (Last one and carried on by the current one) seems to be centred around taxing the greater law abiding, sensible drinking public for the drunken or feral actions and loathsome behaviour of a small morally deprived minority.

The answer is not to make drinking more expensive for all, but to make sure there is sufficient deterrent for those found guilty of drunken or in this case aggressive behaviour.

I enjoy a drink with the best of them but never become aggressive or so drunk I cannot walk or even communicate with anyone, if individuals simply cannot follow the same rules by which we must all abide, then they must pay a very heavy and increasing price each time they are convicted.

I would think a minimum fine of £500 for drunken loutish behaviour, increasing to £1000 for any second offence and £3000 for a 3rd with possibly a custodial sentence, this I feel would make anyone think twice about committing this type of offence.

For aggressive behaviour where actual bodily harm is inflicted then the absolute minimum fine should be £2000 and / or 2 years suspended sentence, again increasing extremely heavily with any subsequent similar offences.

The left wing liberal approach to the issues we all face in society today where there are no go areas and people are afraid to go out at night are clearly not working and never would. Swift reprisals for all and any individual guilty of committing the afore mentioned offences that at present we ALL pay for should be dealt with as set out above in a court of law.

I rest my case malud……….

Rest your case what case? Your living on the wrong planet! And if you want to pontificate get it right! It's Milud or Mi Lud!!!

Claretbob wrote:
The problem is there is little to no deterrent for almost any crime of this nature, you only have to watch any of the “Cops On Camera” type programs on TV to see thousands of police man hours wasted rounding up drunks, drug addicts, car thieves or other deviants only for them to be given cautions, small fines or community orders.

Anyone found guilty of this type of crime should spend at least 5 years (And when I say 5 years, I actually mean 5 years, not 2 with good behaviour)

The recent drive by the government (Last one and carried on by the current one) seems to be centred around taxing the greater law abiding, sensible drinking public for the drunken or feral actions and loathsome behaviour of a small morally deprived minority.

The answer is not to make drinking more expensive for all, but to make sure there is sufficient deterrent for those found guilty of drunken or in this case aggressive behaviour.

I enjoy a drink with the best of them but never become aggressive or so drunk I cannot walk or even communicate with anyone, if individuals simply cannot follow the same rules by which we must all abide, then they must pay a very heavy and increasing price each time they are convicted.

I would think a minimum fine of £500 for drunken loutish behaviour, increasing to £1000 for any second offence and £3000 for a 3rd with possibly a custodial sentence, this I feel would make anyone think twice about committing this type of offence.

For aggressive behaviour where actual bodily harm is inflicted then the absolute minimum fine should be £2000 and / or 2 years suspended sentence, again increasing extremely heavily with any subsequent similar offences.

The left wing liberal approach to the issues we all face in society today where there are no go areas and people are afraid to go out at night are clearly not working and never would. Swift reprisals for all and any individual guilty of committing the afore mentioned offences that at present we ALL pay for should be dealt with as set out above in a court of law.

I rest my case malud……….

Do you really think the kind of inbred, poorly raised, illiterate and usually unemployed scum that do this kind of thing are likely to be in a position to pay such fines, they have no money, that is why they seek out these 'all the methanol you can drink for a fiver' venues in the first place!!

Claretbob wrote:
The problem is there is little to no deterrent for almost any crime of this nature, you only have to watch any of the “Cops On Camera” type programs on TV to see thousands of police man hours wasted rounding up drunks, drug addicts, car thieves or other deviants only for them to be given cautions, small fines or community orders.

Anyone found guilty of this type of crime should spend at least 5 years (And when I say 5 years, I actually mean 5 years, not 2 with good behaviour)

The recent drive by the government (Last one and carried on by the current one) seems to be centred around taxing the greater law abiding, sensible drinking public for the drunken or feral actions and loathsome behaviour of a small morally deprived minority.

The answer is not to make drinking more expensive for all, but to make sure there is sufficient deterrent for those found guilty of drunken or in this case aggressive behaviour.

I enjoy a drink with the best of them but never become aggressive or so drunk I cannot walk or even communicate with anyone, if individuals simply cannot follow the same rules by which we must all abide, then they must pay a very heavy and increasing price each time they are convicted.

I would think a minimum fine of £500 for drunken loutish behaviour, increasing to £1000 for any second offence and £3000 for a 3rd with possibly a custodial sentence, this I feel would make anyone think twice about committing this type of offence.

For aggressive behaviour where actual bodily harm is inflicted then the absolute minimum fine should be £2000 and / or 2 years suspended sentence, again increasing extremely heavily with any subsequent similar offences.

The left wing liberal approach to the issues we all face in society today where there are no go areas and people are afraid to go out at night are clearly not working and never would. Swift reprisals for all and any individual guilty of committing the afore mentioned offences that at present we ALL pay for should be dealt with as set out above in a court of law.

I rest my case malud……….

well said sir, couldn't have put it better myself. just wish we had a few politicians with half the common sense you display.

With all the violence in pubs and clubs in Britain, maybe the time has come to serve drinks only in plastic containers. I prefer my beer in a pint glass, but I would be willing to drink from a plastic container to reduce violence.

With all the violence in pubs and clubs in Britain, maybe the time has come to serve drinks only in plastic containers. I prefer my beer in a pint glass, but I would be willing to drink from a plastic container to reduce violence.

Ronnietate wrote:
With all the violence in pubs and clubs in Britain, maybe the time has come to serve drinks only in plastic containers. I prefer my beer in a pint glass, but I would be willing to drink from a plastic container to reduce violence.

somehow i don't think changing the container will reduce alcohol related violence. It will reduce people being glassed as there'll be less of it around but a lot of damage can be done without glass.

That will be rubbish bags on the outside and scumbags on the inside,sounds like a lovely place to spend an hour or two with friends!

Claretbob wrote:
The problem is there is little to no deterrent for almost any crime of this nature, you only have to watch any of the “Cops On Camera” type programs on TV to see thousands of police man hours wasted rounding up drunks, drug addicts, car thieves or other deviants only for them to be given cautions, small fines or community orders.

Anyone found guilty of this type of crime should spend at least 5 years (And when I say 5 years, I actually mean 5 years, not 2 with good behaviour)

The recent drive by the government (Last one and carried on by the current one) seems to be centred around taxing the greater law abiding, sensible drinking public for the drunken or feral actions and loathsome behaviour of a small morally deprived minority.

The answer is not to make drinking more expensive for all, but to make sure there is sufficient deterrent for those found guilty of drunken or in this case aggressive behaviour.

I enjoy a drink with the best of them but never become aggressive or so drunk I cannot walk or even communicate with anyone, if individuals simply cannot follow the same rules by which we must all abide, then they must pay a very heavy and increasing price each time they are convicted.

I would think a minimum fine of £500 for drunken loutish behaviour, increasing to £1000 for any second offence and £3000 for a 3rd with possibly a custodial sentence, this I feel would make anyone think twice about committing this type of offence.

For aggressive behaviour where actual bodily harm is inflicted then the absolute minimum fine should be £2000 and / or 2 years suspended sentence, again increasing extremely heavily with any subsequent similar offences.

The left wing liberal approach to the issues we all face in society today where there are no go areas and people are afraid to go out at night are clearly not working and never would. Swift reprisals for all and any individual guilty of committing the afore mentioned offences that at present we ALL pay for should be dealt with as set out above in a court of law.

I rest my case malud……….

Claretbob - You’ve just about summed everything up there. Yes, if anyone has an axe to grind with regard to the ills of society in general within what is still a new labour run Blackburn council then to take everything out socially using alcohol is not the answer. Everyone knows from experience their own limits regarding the overuse of alcohol and should bare responsibility for the harm to others that it produces.
Just like the evils of new labour - Still totally oblivious to the lies and mistakes that it has made!

taxi_driver wrote:
shut this dive down !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

It's not actually that bad in there, they can only sell beer to who comes, in as only the young and drunk are actually out there supporting this dying town. There has always been violence in pubs and clubs and glassings have been unfortunately common since pubs have used them..get a grip you blind ignorant people. There has ALWAYS been fights between men in pubs.

Without being P.C. here...you often having scumbags from a "slum" upbringing, being fed cheap beer, with often a I.Q. not much higher then plant-life, in a noisey "drink to get drunk" environment, being fed cheap alcohol.
What a surprise you done find intellectual conversation with open banter and a happy, safe environment for one and all.
It is the result of government long-term neglect of the unemployed and so called "no hopers" and it begins at birth....just has with a potentially dangerous dogs with braindead owners....but no one wants to go there...open a can of worms that will !!

Not heard of any arrests, surely this pub must have cctv !!

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some history to this event. Often what is determined as an 'unprovoked' attack comes from what's gone on before. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning such violence, but young men seem to prefer to sort things out themselves rather than through the legal process