Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Get RSM on your side at tax time.

ACT Storm Troopers [cutting down on the tables along Franklin Street]

By kimba - 12 March 2006 15

Friends and I were having an enjoyable night at Caphs on Friday night when some of the ACT Government’s ‘storm troopers’ (some confusion if they were from Fair Trading or Liquor licensing) come along and told Caphs that they had too many tables on the sidewalk. Apparently they were around 10 tables over their permit.

Some customers were pretty pissed-off, while a nearby proprietor asked the storm-troopers why they weren’t around (and taking action) in the early hours of the morning when night clubbers were urinating and vomiting on their shopfronts and vandalising their businesses. The storm troopers said it wasn’t their responsibility.

Once again the local authorities screw small business. Well done Nero, Drunken John and Simple Simon!

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
15 Responses to
ACT Storm Troopers [cutting down on the tables along Franklin Street]
DJ 1:50 pm 14 Mar 06

kimba, easy there sport!

“I wonder how many ‘inspectors’ or police were in the nightclubs checking for underage drinkers, drink-spiking let alone curbing the violence and anti-social behaviour around town”

The same as normal – did you feel unsafe? If you think there sould be greater numbers of Police vote for more.

“You have your head buried up your arse if you deny the regular brawls that occur our side Mooseheads and other city bars.”

Who was denying it? For a moment, please take a deep breath and go to your happy place. Better? Good. Fights are not limited to locations that serve alcohol and to say they are is dead wrong.

The basic problem here is that you appear to be against rules that are simply there for public safety.

“small business is a much easier to finger then dealing with the real anti social problems”

What if the illegal business activities of that small business cause anti social problems? Try this one – walk around a pub, say the Phoenix, and continually bump into people spilling your drink on them and theirs on the floor. Politely explain that there are too many chairs/tables/people around and let us all know how it goes.

Do you think the bigger businesses are not put before the licencing board or fined when they breach the same rules? Prove to me that don’t and I’ll take everything back but I doubt you’ll be able to.

bonfire 1:05 pm 14 Mar 06

i have a close association with an agency which performs a lot of ‘compliance’ work. many of the investigations emanate from ‘dob ins’ where miscreants who are busted object because ‘everyone else is doing it’, supply details and a new investigation begins.

as i always say. say nothing and get a lawyer.

simto 11:05 am 14 Mar 06

From what I gathered, the brawl mentioned at Mooseheads was a brawl WITH the police. So therefore, they were present there as well.

Complaining “oh, other people are doing worse things, why are you picking on me” is usually a sign that you’re guilty as hell and just don’t like being caught in the act. Saying “yes, I did it, I apologise and it won’t happen again” is the adult way of behaving in situations like this. Kicking up a whining stink isn’t.

kimba 10:03 am 14 Mar 06

Since I am dealing with such bureaucratic-public service-minded types here I guess I wouldn’t expect any other response.

I have found out more information. Firstly they were 10 chairs over their permit and not 10 tables. They couldn’t be fined as there were always ten or more empty chairs….i.e people were constantly coming and leaving and rearranging chairs to suit their party.

There were THREE inspectors doing their ‘duty’ that night.

I wonder how many ‘inspectors’ or police were in the nightclubs checking for underage drinkers, drink-spiking let alone curbing the violence and anti-social behaviour around town.

Answer is – small business is a much easier to finger then dealing with the real anti social problems.

You have your head buried up your arse if you deny the regular brawls that occur our side Mooseheads and other city bars.

simto 8:13 am 14 Mar 06

Yep, it’s outdoor seating within a defined area of space. Which means more tables means more congestion. Which means safety problems.

What part of this misses your comprehension, Kimba?

DJ 6:59 pm 13 Mar 06

Kimba – “It’s hardly a safety issue as we’re talking about outdoor seating”

Why do YOU think there is a specific limit? Too many people skate through life complaining about how things are done without pausing for a moment and considering that perhaps there are good reasons for them. Enlighten us….

vg 3:50 pm 13 Mar 06

Well said JB. God forbid people should be villified for upholding the law. Too many seats/tables makes it a dead set pain in the date to get around, whether it be on foot, in a wheelchair or pushing a pram

johnboy 2:07 pm 13 Mar 06

Not so much fund raising as collecting the rent surely kimba?

these cafes use public land for private profit. If they’re meant to be paying a certain rate per table, and actually putting more tables out on the footpath than they’ve paid for, surely something should be done about it?

As nyssa and simto have noted, they’d have had to actually buy more tables than they were licenced for to put them out.

Now maybe we should lease the space outright rather than charge for its use on a per table basis, but isn’t that another argument?

kimba 1:28 pm 13 Mar 06

This is all about fund-raising (taxing small business. The ACT Government gets revenue for each table. It’s hardly a safety issue as we’re talking about outdoor seating.

A few people in this blog would make great parking inspectors!

Swaggie 11:56 am 13 Mar 06

Spose it comes down to what a resaonable limit is? The owners don’t seem to agree with ‘the authorities” on that but knowing the Nanny state we live in I suspect there’s plenty of room for a few more.

Mr Evil 8:17 am 13 Mar 06

It’s getting to the stage that you can hardly walk along the footpath outside some of these cafes because they have so many bloody tables out.

simto 8:17 am 13 Mar 06

Yep – you have a table limit for a reason (among other things, it’s a serious safety concern – more tables means it’s harder to evacuate the place should an emergency occur). And I’d be wondering why Caphs has a whole heap of spare tables just lying around so they can breach their limit so suddenly? It wouldn’t be with the full intention of breaching their limit, now, would it?

Bad luck, got caught, no sympathy from me.

nyssa76 7:27 am 13 Mar 06

Turning away customers is a great way to keep the business going.

Yes Caphs knew the table limit but even blind freddy could see that they deliberately went over the limit as they wanted the revenue.

vg 11:16 pm 12 Mar 06

Caphs would have known full well they were 10 tables over their limit, as they are specifically told so. Don’t blame someone for applying the law, blame the idiots who broke it. They’re the ones that screwed your night

Vic Bitterman 8:52 pm 12 Mar 06

What a pack of pathetic small minded beaurocrats.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site