Drink and Public Disorder

Self Defence - Drinking and Public Disorder

Drinking and Public Disorder - UK Research 

'Other data supplied to us were summary records of woundings in the city centre in 1989 and 1990. These enabled us to obtain an overview not only of the frequency of such crimes but also of the nature of the crimes and the participants involved. The data show that, on average, about four woundings are reported or detected in the city centre each weekend. These figures are consistent with the levels in our other research sites. There is no evidence to indicate that Coventry has either higher or lower levels of this type of violence than other city and town centres.

The most disturbing feature of these reports, however, is the fact that around 10% of all the woundings are allegedly committed by doormen and security staff in, or immediately outside, various pubs and night-clubs in the city centre. While it seems clear that in some cases the doormen acted in self-defence, there are many occasions where they appear to have instigated the violence.'

Drink and Public Disorder - Doormen

The issue of doormen and security staff was raised frequently by the users who were interviewed. There were many reports of violence inflicted by doormen on allegedly innocent people attempting to gain admission to pubs or night clubs. While many of these reports may have been a little embellished, the sheer frequency of accounts indicates that there is a significant problem.

We have noted above that 10% of all the woundings occurring in the city centre are allegedly committed by doormen or involve the active participation of door staff. Research in other towns and cities suggests that this is a fairly typical, but still worrying, level.

The managers of the night clubs, and their security staff, were at pains to emphasise their professional and non-aggressive approach to door control:

  "We try to stop all the trouble at the door. Fighting is not our method of making people leave. We like the doormen to walk them to the door, open the door and escort them out. The doormen then walk away from the door in order not to antagonise the person who has been thrown out. ... If any door staff are reported to do anything wrong they are sacked immediately. One was caught on the video camera recently giving someone a push out of the door. He was sacked. The videos capture incidents and protect staff from unjustified allegations. We maintain the highest possible standards."

In contrast to this view most users (85% of those who discussed the issue) felt that many door staff were exceptionally brutal in dealing with ‘difficult’ customers and that management turned a blind eye to much of the violence that they dished out. The presence of video cameras was felt to be an ineffective deterrent:

The video cameras are in the wrong position to show the doormen taking people out of the back door and kicking shit out of them.

The P__ P__ was singled out by the majority of users (all of those who discussed the issue) for special criticism:

   "Most doormen do their job quite well, except in the P__ P__ where they are too heavy handed. The doormen there are different to the others. They tend to leap in with violence without assessing the situation.

They have got an ego problem there and they try to assert their authority by laying into people. They always pick on people much smaller than them to ensure that they are never beaten."

A young man with a bruised and cut face and a set of fingers which were black and swollen to twice their normal size commented:

   "I won’t go to the P__ P__. OK, I was drunk and deserved to be thrown out, but I wasn’t being violent or anything - I just couldn’t stand up very well. I was sick on the steps and it went over the bouncer’s shoe. I just couldn’t help it. He banged me all around the face and then just dislocated three of my fingers by bending them backwards."

Many of the users (80%) felt that only a small fraction of the violence involving doormen was reported to the police. There was a general philosophy that most people deserved the treatment they got. In addition, it was felt that the police would be unlikely to believe the complainant because the doormen would collude and act as each other’s witnesses.

We will be making suggestions in Section 7 of this report for more effective control of door and security staff.

The young people we talked to in Coventry expressed views very similar to those in the other centres of our research. They commented on the lack of facilities in their own neighbourhoods and saw the city centre as providing a bit of late-night excitement to compensate for otherwise quite dull weekday lives. The quality of the services provided was not a significant issue. For them, crowded pubs, lots of drinking and group activity were sufficient attraction. The night-clubs provided a simple extension of drinking time, rather than an opportunity for a meal or dancing. For some (10%), evenings in the Burges also provided an arena for aggressive displays and the pursuit of tough reputations. Many of the young males clearly welcomed the ‘hard’ image of some of the pubs and clubs and saw the potential for violence as a positive benefit:

   "It doesn’t worry me. If someone wants to start a fight - that’s fine. I don’t look for trouble, but I don’t mind finishing it."

The majority of users had clear ideas about the characteristics of the pubs and clubs in the city centre and planned their activities accordingly. Although some places were known as potentially violent, this did not deter people from using them if they wanted to meet people there or simply wanted a change from their usual venues.

Drinking and Public Disorder - UK Research