When is a drink classed as alcohol in the UK? The legality of the sale of non- or low alcohol drinks in the UK seems to be poorly understood. The references I have read are forum/discussion posts which are so often contradictory, and blog-type posts from industry types, that sound convincing but have no referencing. I want to know when a drink becomes ‘alcohol’, and so becomes restricted by licensing and age restrictions. It’s easy to see when alcohol is restricted, from government pages like https://www.gov.uk/alcohol-young-people-law but such guidance doesn’t define ‘alcohol’ up front. Meanwhile I have read the low alcohol descriptors guidance (though these have changed slightly since the majority of the blog-style pages were written.) It is almost implied in that guidance that alcohol free (0.05%) and de-alcoholised (0.5%) drinks would be not considered alcohol and so would not be restricted in law, but I haven’t seen this written explicitly. Possibly this is why there is mixed understanding of the issue. So my question becomes, at what level of alcohol does a drink become “alcohol” for the purpose of licensing/restricting its sale?
When is a drink classed as alcohol in the UK? In england-and-wales alcohol, which requires a license to sell etc, is defined by s.191 of the Licensing Act 2003: 191 Meaning of “alcohol&quot; (1) In this Act, “alcohol” means spirits, wine, beer, cider or any other fermented, distilled or spirituous liquor (in any state), but does not include— (a) alcohol which is of a strength not exceeding 0.5% at the time of the sale or supply in question, (b) perfume, (c) flavouring essences recognised by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise as not being intended for consumption as or with dutiable alcoholic liquor, (d) the aromatic flavouring essence commonly known as Angostura bitters, (e) alcohol which is, or is included in, a medicinal product or a veterinary medicinal product, (f) denatured alcohol, (g) methyl alcohol, (h) naphtha, or (i) alcohol contained in liqueur confectionery. ... In scotland, s.2 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 mirrors the 2003 Act: (1) In this Act, “alcohol”— (a) means spirits, wine, beer, cider or any other fermented, distilled or spirituous liquor, but (b) does not include— (i) alcohol which is of a strength of 0.5% or less at the time of its sale ... In northern-ireland, Art.2 of the Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1996* states: “intoxicating liquor” means spirits, wine, beer, cider and any other fermented, distilled or spirituous liquor, but does not include— (e) any liquor which is of a strength not exceeding 0.5 per cent at the time of the sale or other conduct in question ... Therefore, alcohol free (0.05%) and de-alcoholised (0.5%) drinks are not considered alcohol for licencing, sale etc and so are not restricted in law across the United Kingdom. (*The Order is secondary legislation made under the Licensing Act (Northern Ireland) 2016)
This is an excellent explanation. All Australian jurisdictions have (in general) common road rules. In NSW these are enacted by Road Rules 2014 regulation under the Road Transport Act 2013. The relevant provision is Clause 306: 306 Exemption for drivers of emergency vehicles A provision of these Rules does not apply to the driver of an emergency vehicle if: (a) in the circumstances: (i) the driver is taking reasonable care, and (ii) it is reasonable that the rule should not apply, and (b) if the vehicle is a motor vehicle that is moving-the vehicle is displaying a blue or red flashing light or sounding an alarm. From your statement (a)(i) and (b) would seem to apply so it becomes a question if (a)(ii) does. Well, you don't know the circumstances so you can't judge if it is reasonable that the rule not apply: if the police car were involved in a collision, caught on a red light camera or booked then the driver would have to show that it was. It is worth noting that some road offences like drink or dangerous driving are not in the Road Rules, they are in the Crimes Act and so the exemption doesn't apply to them. It is also not a shield from civil liability although the difficulty of proving negligence goes up because disobeying the road rules is no longer enough.
Its worth actually reading through the law again - they're meant for different categories of drugs - and its worth looking up the relevant laws as a whole. You can't cherrypick which law you charge them under in this case. It depends on what the suspect has in posession, and if you have more serious charges, they're probably going to be preferred unless the prosecution decides to throw the entire library at the suspect and charge them with everything they can, or a larger subset. A quick search on the internet - which shouldn't be taken as legal advice, brings up this link. Category 1 drugs are addictive and seen as therapeutically useless - you shouldn't have any realistic reason to have quantities of it in your posession. Category 3 is drugs with therapeutic use - stuff like codine. You could get a prescription for that, but there's potential for abuse. They're aimed at different classes of drugs - and the confusion is over a misinterpretation of what the law is about. As an aside, this is why you need to usually read more than just a specific statute or law to get what its about.
"The EU" is a lot of different jurisdictions, and laws vary between them. The following answer applies to the UK. A: Alice is guilty of making and possessing indecent images of a child. The fact that the child was herself is irrelevant, as are her current feelings on the subject. The "making" offence was committed when she was under 18, so for that she would be treated as a child, but the possession offence would be be charged at her current age. If Alice has made recent copies of the pictures, for instance by moving her files to another computer, then she is guilty of "making" as an adult. B: As with "A", but with increased penalties for publishing it. C: As with "B", except that the offence was committed when she was under 18.
Are UK Tier 4 rules law? Yes. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/1374) has been amended by SI 2020/1611. Unfortunately, the amendment is only available as pdf at the moment and I can't copy-and-paste it on my phone for you. SI 2020/1374 and all subsequent amendments may be found here... https://www.legislation.gov.uk/primary+secondary?title=Coronavirus%20all%20tiers ETA: The Introductory Text to SI 2020/1374 states: The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 45C(1), (3)(c), (4)(b), (4)(d), 45F(2) and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/contents
The bouncer is employed (or (sub)contracted) by the owner/lessee of premises - someone with the right to evict persons from their private property per the common law rights to exclusive use of one's property. When the bouncer evicts you, they are exercising this right on behalf of and as the agent for the owner, who could do it, but instead has assigned limited agency to the bouncer to do that for them. Entrance to (and remaining on) a property may be authorised and revoked at any time - at the time that consent is not given or is withdrawn, you become a trespasser and the police may be called upon to forcibly remove you from the premises. For example, I can have a party at my house, but if I don't like someone, I'm entitled to ask them to leave. I could also ask a friend to ask that person to leave, if I didn't want to do it myself. Note that bouncers aren't empowered to physically evict anyone except for the general right to use reasonable and proportionate force. For instance, someone that was just standing around in the nightclub probably couldn't be physically thrown out, but someone who was causing harm to themselves or others could be restrained or repelled as appropriate (and if restrained, you'd need to be very careful to do so in the course of effecting a citizen's arrest, otherwise you'd probably be committing false imprisonment). There may be statutory provisions that bestow additional rights and responsibilities upon bouncers, but this is the basic premise. I'm fairly certain that this would apply in all Australian jurisdictions; probably in all common law jurisdictions.
No it’s not illegal It’s called retailing: https://youtu.be/ywSkKkuGQ2A https://youtu.be/k8OreiHU91Y https://youtu.be/XpR6y1sNArU You are allowed to advertise the products you sell. Even if you don’t make them. You can even use their trademarks to identify them - that’s what trademarks are for.
Yes, barring any statutory prohibitions against such a rule. I would be very surprised if any existed. They don't exist in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with. Look up the local by-laws to be sure.