http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-02/alcohol-related-injuries-down-since-kings-cross-lockout-laws/6904450

Sydney's lockout laws have led to a significant decrease in the most life-threatening alcohol-related injuries, doctors from St Vincent's Hospital in Darlinghurst say.

In the 12 months since the laws were introduced, there was a 25 per cent decrease in the most critically injured patients, according to data gathered by the hospital.

Emergency professionals said there was also little evidence to suggest that the CBD lockout laws, which focus on Kings Cross, were pushing alcohol-related violence or injuries to other parts of the city.

The lockout laws were introduced by the NSW Government in February last year after a series of deaths in the inner-city nightclub precinct.

The laws imposed 1:30am lockouts for many hotels, nightclubs and bars, a ban on shots after midnight and a 3:00am last drinks policy.

Professor Gordian Fulde is the director of the emergency department at St Vincent's Hospital, which borders the area affected by the lockouts.

He has compared data from the 12 months before the laws were brought in, with the 12 months since.

"It showed that there was decrease all through the week but the most significant decrease was over the weekend," Professor Fulde said.

"High alcohol time was Friday night to Sunday morning and it showed a 25 per cent decrease in seriously injured patients coming in over the weekend."

Lockout laws do not appear to be pushing the problem to other suburbs, with hospital and police statistics showing no increase in severe injuries in the year since the laws were brought in.

"There were more drinkers in Newtown but in the first year we are anecdotally told there was no increase to Royal Prince Alfred," Professor Fulde said.

"So in the first year there wasn't any shift or people going out and bashing each other up somewhere else."

Anyone remember the Alcopops Tax by Labor  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sydney’s Lockout Laws Have Pushed Violence Into Neighbouring Suburbs And Here’s The Proof

New ‘hotspot maps’ released by the Bureau Of Crime Stats show that, although violent assaults dropped by 26% in Sydney’s CBD and 32% in Kings Cross since the introduction of 1.30am lockouts and 3am last drinks, the figures for the same types of crimes have risen in sections of Surry Hills and Redfern.

And even more interestingly, the area around The Star Casino in Pyrmont (which is exempt from lockouts) has become the city’s worst hotspot for violence since the laws were introduced.

more :
http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/sydneys-lockout-laws-have-pushed-violence-into-neighbouring-suburbs-and-heres-the-proof/

---

The policy works therefore should be implemented for the rest of the suburbs

Its good to see the violence has stopped, too many people were ending up with brain damage and the world does not need any more idiot lefties in it.

____ wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 10:02am:

Sydney’s Lockout Laws Have Pushed Violence Into Neighbouring Suburbs And Here’s The Proof New ‘hotspot maps’ released by the Bureau Of Crime Stats show that, although violent assaults dropped by 26% in Sydney’s CBD and 32% in Kings Cross since the introduction of 1.30am lockouts and 3am last drinks, the figures for the same types of crimes have risen in sections of Surry Hills and Redfern. And even more interestingly, the area around The Star Casino in Pyrmont (which is exempt from lockouts) has become the city’s worst hotspot for violence since the laws were introduced. more : http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/sydneys-lockout-laws-have-pushed-violence-into-neighbouring-suburbs-and-heres-the-proof/

This could be easily fixed by expanding this policy state-wide.

I'm a little surprised by the results, but if they actually work, then it's probably worth considering.

However, like all laws that are set to achieve a specific outcome, there should be a sunset clause added for further review.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 10:37am:

____ wrote on Nov 2nd, 2015 at 10:02am: Sydney’s Lockout Laws Have Pushed Violence Into Neighbouring Suburbs And Here’s The Proof New ‘hotspot maps’ released by the Bureau Of Crime Stats show that, although violent assaults dropped by 26% in Sydney’s CBD and 32% in Kings Cross since the introduction of 1.30am lockouts and 3am last drinks, the figures for the same types of crimes have risen in sections of Surry Hills and Redfern. And even more interestingly, the area around The Star Casino in Pyrmont (which is exempt from lockouts) has become the city’s worst hotspot for violence since the laws were introduced. more : http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/sydneys-lockout-laws-have-pushed-violence-into-neighbouring-suburbs-and-heres-the-proof/ This could be easily fixed by expanding this policy state-wide.

So when is this happening?
Otherwise this was a stunt.

I doubt this has anything to do with party - it's a long-overdue measure and was coming anyway.  The club where I work has installed its own without government pressure - we have a retired local cop doing the floor walking and nobody messes with a retired cop - too many friends still in the Force.

Alcohol shut off 3/4 of an hour before closing, and no multiple drinks buys.

It simply moves the problem from the public arena where it can be managed relatively easily
and sends it behind closed doors at 'drinking-dens' etc.

Not a long bow to draw, to suggest a correlation with increased home-assaults and domestic
violence.

The right wingers on this forum are hilarious, constantly crying about left wing "Authoritarianism" but then totalitarian policy like this is A-OK.

Australia does have a violence and alcohol problem, curfews on adults aren't the way to sort them out. All this is doing is killing the local nightlife economy and driving violence elsewhere.

People are surprised this works? What prohibition stops people from drinking at certain hours and certain places and causes alcohol related issues to drop in those areas? What else would happen?

Doesn't stop this from being a massive nanny-state authoritarian policy that has effectively killed Sydney nightlife (to obviously redevelop Cross into a poncy yuppie boomer gentrified lifeless shithole)

A real discussion on drug reform is needed. If MDMA was the major substance, none of this would ever be an issue.

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 1:00pm:

The right wingers on this forum are hilarious, constantly crying about left wing "Authoritarianism" but then totalitarian policy like this is A-OK. Australia does have a violence and alcohol problem, curfews on adults aren't the way to sort them out. All this is doing is killing the local nightlife economy and driving violence elsewhere. People are surprised this works? What prohibition stops people from drinking at certain hours and certain places and causes alcohol related issues to drop in those areas? What else would happen? Doesn't stop this from being a massive nanny-state authoritarian policy that has effectively killed Sydney nightlife (to obviously redevelop Cross into a poncy yuppie boomer gentrified lifeless shithole) A real discussion on drug reform is needed. If MDMA was the major substance, none of this would ever be an issue.

They are infamous for their sad attempts to project the failings of their perverted and corrupt ideology onto the Left.

Sometimes it's funny, but mostly its simply predictable and tiresome.

Kat wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 12:59pm:

Not a long bow to draw, to suggest a correlation with increased home-assaults and domestic violence.

Has there been such an increase?

I guess not...

Maqqa wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 9:56am:

Anyone remember the Alcopops Tax by Labor  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes.

The alcopops tax was meant to stop teenagers binge drinking, it did nothing apart from raising a few billion in taxes.
The cigarette tax was supposed to stop people smoking, it hasn't achieved that yet has raised billions in taxes.
If the government can sell it as being for your own god the sheeple say nothing about the massive new taxes.

The lockout laws are a joke, they came about because someone was assaulted in the street it had nothing to do with nightclubs.
Why should nightclubs be punished because of dickheads bashing people in the streets?

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 4:42pm:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 2nd, 2015 at 9:56am: Anyone remember the Alcopops Tax by Labor  ;D ;D ;D ;D Yes. The alcopops tax was meant to stop teenagers binge drinking, it did nothing apart from raising a few billion in taxes. The cigarette tax was supposed to stop people smoking, it hasn't achieved that yet has raised billions in taxes. If the government can sell it as being for your own god the sheeple say nothing about the massive new taxes. The lockout laws are a joke, they came about because someone was assaulted in the street it had nothing to do with nightclubs. Why should nightclubs be punished because of dickheads bashing people in the streets?

Because they are obliged to enforce responsible service of alcohol - the fine for not doing so is heavy.  If they allow patrons to over-indulge and those patrons then go out in the street and cause mayhem - the night club bears responsibility.

I like the electronic entry with ID.. any patron can be traced and then a decision made on club responsibility for drunkenness.

Kat wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 12:59pm:

It simply moves the problem from the public arena where it can be managed relatively easily and sends it behind closed doors at 'drinking-dens' etc. Not a long bow to draw, to suggest a correlation with increased home-assaults and domestic violence.

Well that's the partners choice ain't it.  They choose their lifestyle.  WE choose to keep it off our streets.

dazza wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 6:19pm:

Kat wrote on Nov 2nd, 2015 at 12:59pm: It simply moves the problem from the public arena where it can be managed relatively easily and sends it behind closed doors at 'drinking-dens' etc. Not a long bow to draw, to suggest a correlation with increased home-assaults and domestic violence. Well that's the partners choice ain't it.  They choose their lifestyle.  WE choose to keep it off our streets.

So, out of sight, out of mind, eh?

Kat wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 6:40pm:

dazza wrote on Nov 2nd, 2015 at 6:19pm: Kat wrote on Nov 2nd, 2015 at 12:59pm: It simply moves the problem from the public arena where it can be managed relatively easily and sends it behind closed doors at 'drinking-dens' etc. Not a long bow to draw, to suggest a correlation with increased home-assaults and domestic violence. Well that's the partners choice ain't it.  They choose their lifestyle.  WE choose to keep it off our streets. So, out of sight, out of mind, eh?

It's called FREE WILL.  Only they can change their decisions.

No wonder small business complains about revenue when government steps in and tells them what time they can operate their business until.  The exact same results can be achieved without nanny statism. A shame the conservative nut jobs will always destroy freedoms.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 9:48pm:

No wonder small business complains about revenue when government steps in and tells them what time they can operate their business until.  The exact same results can be achieved without nanny statism. A shame the conservative nut jobs will always destroy freedoms.

Like the time when the government said "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead"??

Maqqa wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2015 at 10:21pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2015 at 9:48pm: No wonder small business complains about revenue when government steps in and tells them what time they can operate their business until.  The exact same results can be achieved without nanny statism. A shame the conservative nut jobs will always destroy freedoms. Like the time when the government said "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead"??

The carbon tax destroyed which one of your freedoms?