-something sarcastic-

What does that mean?
You made a nonsensical statement, who else would it be to make the decision to detain someone against their will?

-something insulting-

Stop baiting niamh, debate the point or don't...
no need to take issue with everything I say.

Back on topic, I wonder if there will be some kind of kickback for the police to 'refer' to this service, that could be an incentive?

I think there should be, save the public some money.

Me baiting?lol, don't reply to my posts with rude and sarcastic replies or better still don't quote my posts full stop.

You think they should be kickbacks? wouldn't that mean that it would be in the best iterests of the police and not the public to fill these tanks?.,.

If the police are backing this, you have to consider that it could be a solution. Making wild assumptions about shareholders and shady dealings is a premature knee-jerk reaction. We're not talking about a few revellers who've had one too many, we're talking about drunks, putting themselves and other people at risk because they can't take responsibility for themselves and waste the police service's time and resources that could be better used elsewhere. I don't want my contribution to the police to be used in this way every weekend, I'd rather those who can't control their drinking paid the price themselves. If they don't want to do that, don't drink till you can't stand up.

All police are backing this?
It's no more a knee jerk reaction than suggesting these 'tanks' will make the streets safe again for pillars of the community out for a stroll.
It is unenforcable, demanding £400 from someone with no means to pay leads to what, legal action?

They don't though. Most people who can't handle their drink have an uncanny ability to convert shame into a hilarious story and don't learn their lesson.

A drunk tank would be a hell hole but it's a huge strain on police resources so I agree with what's been said in this thread, something needs to be done... perhaps rather than outsourcing this to a private company, there needs to be a new judicial branch created for this specific problem. It's an epidemic in the UK. You go out on any night of the week in any major city centre and you will see obscenely drunk people from any time between 11pm-5am. That in itself isn't even the worst problem, the worst part is that there are people who can't handle being drunk. The quantity isn't the problem; their response is the problem. I know men and women who get aggressive on two drinks. People who burst into tears and cause drama after a couple of spirits. It's insane.

Sadly, there's barely enough cash to fund more important things than rounding up the drunk and incapable. If they're going to use public funds for this something else will have to suffer. I guess that's why the report says "police back" the idea. What a degrading and pointless part of their job it must be dealing with these people.

There are 1000's of things that can and will go wrong here, 'police backed' or not it is not ethical.
The proceeds of crime Act could and should be freed up for this. Why is this not being put forward as a solution?

A lot of good points made on this thread, whilst on the surface this does seem like a good idea, it needs alot of work to make it viable.

I agree. But I think this is something that needs to be done. If not locking people away in cells, something else needs to be done. I personally am all for the idea, but again, i can see why people wont be.

i think there's a huge difference between the people who go out and get drunk on a fun night out, then those who regularly (not always) drink way too much, become aggressive and cause crap between innocent people. If you cannot control your limit, then you shouldn't go out. Or be prepared to face the consequences. I agree with Livia 100% on that one.

People should know when to go home. There's a limit.