Just as an offside that came to mind just then, why is there not anything on Crown about the responsible serving of alcohol to Fev???? 
Surely there is a perfect avenue for lobbyists to get on the media stage and take a shot at them for allowing Fev to get that wrecked.
Actually glad you bought this up because this is one of great "bugbears" with society today
Firstly, it has been mentioned a few times on talkback this week and the comment has been doesn't Crown need to take some repsonsibility..... and I find myself doing this 
Seriously "allowing him to get wrecked" ...
Ultimately, this goose named Fev is responsible for his own actions and he should take responsibilty for what he did (again).
Yeah he was at Crown, yeah there was free grog but did he once say NO I've had enough? Nope this goose just kept taking the the grog... that's was his call, no-one elses.
This goose knows he has a problem with the grog and he chooses to conitune to get smashed, act like an idiot and then the sooks "I know I shouldn't do it" and I wont do it again but then does it again
These days it seems individuals are always looking for someone to blame rather than taking repsonsibility themselves. I for one am absolutely sick of it.
Perhaps we should also blame the AFL for hosting the event and serving beer... I mean when does it end.
Fevola is a moronic drunk. It is that simple
I agree that Fev is a grown man that should be able to drink and be wholly responsible without a third party getting shot, but that's irrelevant to the one narrow point I made. It was not intended to be suggested as an excuse for Fev, but more a slight on Crown for not doing as they would for 99% of other patrons.
My point WillyP, is that Responsible Serving of Alcohol IS part of the law and I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up on a bigger stage because it's entirely relevant to the way that Fev ended up that night drinking in the one establishment. They know that the man is a "goose", and that's why the legislation is there. To try to stop effwits who can't control their wants, or control the wants that have been eroded by alcohol, and think they should have more to be legally able refuse patrons further drinks. Fev is smack bang in that category.
Would it have made a difference if they did? Probably not. Someone else would have got him a beer most likely and the shenanigans would have continued, but it's still relevant. Would you get away with acting like that at Crown?? Highly doubt it. They would have you out the door on your behind.
Personally, I've been thankful in the past when I've had a bit too much and asked for another to keep the good times rolling and someone not in your head says, how about just a water and come back later for another? It's a kind, and gutsy, gesture by the person behind the bar who is impartial and not acting profitably for the bar but are doing it on their own accord as they've been taught. After that water you realise how wrote off you just might be.
Would Fev have been so understanding if someone said have a water instead of a beer? Maybe not, but I again make the point, it's better for it to be a law that it is promoted as the right thing to do than allowing open slather serving.
You might not agree with it at all, and I don't agree that the bar-staff who serve abusive or drunken patrons who want another drink should be held accountable for any consequences of that patrons night, but I do fully agree with the law that gives these places the responsibility to refuse patrons for the betterment of their establishment's atmosphere and the patron themselves, who may not realise it until the next day or at all, but it was for the best. Simple as that.
