Trendy Tongue and Groove gets a one day liquor ban

johnboy 13 August 2009 42

The Canberra Times brings the happy news that the Liquor Licensing Commissioner has had a bit of a win.

The last time I was in Tongue and Groove my thought after half an hour was “there’s a lot of fake tan and spandex chasing grey hair in here”. It seems the grey haired men enjoying the attention they, or at least their wallets, are getting should have a care:

    Trendy Civic bar Tongue and Groove will serve a one-day ban on serving alcohol after admitting having 14 underage drinkers in its bar room on a Saturday night in June.

    The ban, for 24 hours from 6pm on a Friday night, was far short of the penalty demanded by the Liquor Licensing Commissioner, who wanted the Bunda Street nightspot closed for four weekends.

    The tribunal heard that Office of Regulatory Services investigators saw two girls, whom they knew from previous dealings to be 17, sitting at a table outside the bar.

    The inspectors and two police constables later found the girls inside with a group of other teenagers drinking champagne.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
42 Responses to Trendy Tongue and Groove gets a one day liquor ban
Filter
Order
misshelly misshelly 6:59 pm 19 Aug 09

This Friday night alcohol ban obviously didn’t happen last Friday night – there were plenty of people there when I walked past. Do they get to chose? ie. pick the slowest weekend of the year?

Mr Evil Mr Evil 12:35 pm 14 Aug 09

Special G said :

At the end of the article it adds in 27 under age found in the Maram although they escaped with $2000 fine and a warning. CAn we at least see some consistency.

Ha, ha, ha – consistency in the ACT legal system!

AngryHenry AngryHenry 12:13 pm 14 Aug 09

A better punishment for the venue would be to let them stay open, pack the venue to capacity, seal the doors and then fill it with water.

Everyone will have plenty to drink then.

j from the block j from the block 11:15 am 14 Aug 09

VG, my assumption in the case is that if the girls were seen by licensing officials and police, drinking champagne, they (the girls and venue) are in the wrong.
If I had a bunch of underage girls in my charge for an evening; with a teenage daughter this happens from time to time, and officers were to come and suggest that while they had empty glasses in front of them in a restaurant, they must obviously have drunk from said glasses, and that they were being escorted to the police station, I would suggest that perhaps the officers were mistaken. Before the girls were subjected to spending some time in the cop shop, and I had to explain to all their parents why they were now in the custody of police instead of myself, I would want the officers and myself to be clear what was happening, and any future legal ramifications following on.
My understanding is, and this is having a great deal of dealings with licensing and the police, that they saw the girls drinking, underage, and there is no way they would have taken them down to the station not having total justification for it.

ahappychappy ahappychappy 9:24 am 14 Aug 09

bd84 said :

That was what stumped me too, a new venue gets its marching orders for a night whereas an existing venue with double the youngins gets a slap on the wrist and told to be good. It makes no sense as usual.

I think from memory the situation was very different. The young ones within the Maram were attending an 18th the venue was hired out for. Underagers are allowed into venues when privately booked as long as they are not drinking or served alcohol whilst in the premises. I think it was found they couldn’t prove the venue had served them the alcohol, they were just intoxicated (I assume they had been drinking prior to attending) so the breach was not as bad.

backlash backlash 1:47 am 14 Aug 09

Good god who didn’t get into a pub or club under age, I know I did and had drinks bought for me and no nothing expected or given. Anyway there is such a thing as fake ID’s.

vg vg 10:41 pm 13 Aug 09

layne said :

This is a joke. I was eating there on said evening. These 14 young girls were out for one of their birthdays (I’d guess 18th) and were sitting in the dining area WITH the girls parents, eating and not drinking. They got done because they had empty champagne glasses infront of them. It caused quite a scene – ruined that poor girls birthday.

Fair enough that they shouldn’t of been there (and that girls parents should have known better) but the fact that the police took them all to the station is ridiculous.

No, they go ‘done’ for consuming alcohol in a premises whilst underage.

And the fact they took them to the Police station is the law, not ridiculous

j from the block said :

Change it up, if the girls had gone to a restaurant for a friends 18th, with their parents, and had empty glasses in front of them, would they have been escorted off the premises?
And if they were there with parental / guardian supervision, and had not done anything wrong, would the guardians not have suggested the error in judgement to the police?
Just a thought, but if I was responsible for someone and they were taken to a police station without reason, I would arc up.

And what would your ‘arcing up’ entail? Angry words, tears, veiled threats, mumbled words? Funny thing is that most people who say they would do a, b or c if they ever had to deal with the Police tend to do (d)…….nothing like what they threaten.

But then again arbitrary arresting for ‘nothing at all’ seems to be a plague in these parts

bd84 bd84 10:25 pm 13 Aug 09

Clown Killer said :

This is all a bit bizzare. The other week we have an underage girl who was fully liquored in a bar and there’s no penalty because someone could apparently vouch for being her responsible adult, and now we have a venue penalised because a group of underage girls accompanied by parents of some of the girls are having a glass of champagne.

I grew up in Melbourne and from when I was around 15 my parents would always allow me wine with meals if I wanted it, including when we were dining out and it was never an issue – has something changed since the early 80s.

Liquor Act 1975
152 Sale or supply of liquor to under-age people
(1) A person must not sell or supply liquor to a person under 18 years
old on premises where the sale or supply of liquor is authorised or in
a public place.

154 Buying, possession and consumption of liquor by
under-age people
(1) A person under 18 years old must not—
(a) buy liquor; or
(b) possess or consume liquor on premises where the sale or
supply of liquor is authorised or in a public place.

155 Sending under-age people to obtain liquor
A person must not, without reasonable excuse, send a person under
18 years old to buy or collect liquor on or from premises to which a
licence or permit relates.

If you’re under 18 you can’t buy, possess or consume alcohol unless you’re in a private home. If you take your kids to the liquor store, stand there and let them select what they want to drink and then present to the counter to purchase their selection, the cashier is required to ask your child for ID, if they can’t provide ID service should be refused. It doesn’t matter if mummy is paying for it. I used to have fun with that rule when I worked in a liquor store.

Special G said :

At the end of the article it adds in 27 under age found in the Maram although they escaped with $2000 fine and a warning. CAn we at least see some consistency.

That was what stumped me too, a new venue gets its marching orders for a night whereas an existing venue with double the youngins gets a slap on the wrist and told to be good. It makes no sense as usual.

Pelican Lini Pelican Lini 10:11 pm 13 Aug 09

Young women chasing grey haired men. Sounds great. Wbat’s the catch?

Special G Special G 8:39 pm 13 Aug 09

At the end of the article it adds in 27 under age found in the Maram although they escaped with $2000 fine and a warning. CAn we at least see some consistency.

Clown Killer Clown Killer 5:27 pm 13 Aug 09

That was the point I was making Jazz. Champagne is Champagne and sparking wine is something diferent all together.

Jazz Jazz 4:55 pm 13 Aug 09

You can also by sparkling wine at tongue and groove for far less than $100 a bottle

j from the block j from the block 4:38 pm 13 Aug 09

well, I guess it depends on what you are after in aspiring suitors. Sleazy, old, with a tendnecy to spike your drinks? Look around on a thursday friday or saturday, you’ll find them. I try to advise ladies to avoid those ones. I see it fairly often, maybe you need to change venues!

Meg4n Meg4n 4:30 pm 13 Aug 09

Why is it then I can never find these ‘aspiring suitors’ to buy me a round? And definitely not when I was 17, and youthful and bubbly and stuff.

j from the block j from the block 4:13 pm 13 Aug 09

Prices are not that hideous, there are worse in bars / restaurants.
Depends what you are into I guess. Sadly, I don’t think there would be a shortage of aspiring suitors offering to buy them a round.

Clown Killer Clown Killer 4:01 pm 13 Aug 09

The inspectors and two police constables later found the girls inside with a group of other teenagers drinking champagne

It also leads me to believe that these weren’t just some schoolies out on a drunken spree. Champagne in a place like that would surely set you back at least $100 a bottle!

j from the block j from the block 3:48 pm 13 Aug 09

“The inspectors and two police constables later found the girls inside with a group of other teenagers drinking champagne.”

This leads me to think they would not have returned the BAC of 0.0

lobster lobster 3:41 pm 13 Aug 09

Would not the girls have returned a BAC of 0.0 and then been in the clear?

pierce pierce 2:57 pm 13 Aug 09

Surely someone must have set up a Facebook group to protest this horrendous injustice imposed on those poor girls?

j from the block j from the block 2:21 pm 13 Aug 09

Change it up, if the girls had gone to a restaurant for a friends 18th, with their parents, and had empty glasses in front of them, would they have been escorted off the premises?
And if they were there with parental / guardian supervision, and had not done anything wrong, would the guardians not have suggested the error in judgement to the police?
Just a thought, but if I was responsible for someone and they were taken to a police station without reason, I would arc up.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site