Don’t even think about dancing in the streets. The young are going to have to stay as sober as judges and will soon be banned from drinking in the streets, although of course they will be able to do both when ostensibly celebrating a saint.
They can also get as drunk as they like as long as they buy their drink sitting down at one of the Paceville bars or clubs.
The young, in every generation, will always be confronted with killjoys. And most of us, unless we were complete nerds, have had our problems, with the older generation, for creating a nuisance in our youth.
The young never want to go to bed, and if they had their way would spend all their time just partying. They are generally insensitive to adults’ needs and live in a haloed environment where anyone over 21 is regarded as “getting on”.
What has changed since my day is that whereas the age when we really started partying was in our late teens, and it was people over 30 who were left out of the loop, now the kids are hardly out of nappies before they want to join in the revelry.
Now I can understand residents complaining about rowdy behaviour from groups of youngsters drinking, and worse by disposing of it on their doorstep, I certainly would complain and ask them to go away.
And I would love it if our street had notices up asking young drivers to turn down the volume on their car’s amplified stereo systems, and drivers in general not to sound their horns, unless absolutely necessary, and certainly not after 11 p.m.
But the young do need spaces where they can let off steam and use up all that hormonal energy. It is unfortunate for the Paceville residents that their area has become such a young people’s ghetto.
The irony is that the people making the most noise about the problem now are the very same who brought about the current state of affairs.
If the clubs and bars had not been allowed there in the first place, it would not have become the major nightlife quarter it is now. I do question the motives where commercial interests are concerned.
Residents have been ignored from day one, when planning permission was given for such commercial activity in what was a prime residential area.
Now the GRTU, upset that their members are not making as much money as they can, want young people to be banned from drinking unless they sit at their tables.
Regulations to “completely” ban drinking in the streets, confining it to establishments that have chairs and tables outside, were in the pipeline, the President of the GRTU tourism, hospitality and leisure division, Philip Fenech, was quoted as saying in The Times on Friday.
As though if you drink too much at a club table rather than on the street would make a difference, except to the club’s coffers.
Never the brightest at putting across his side of the story, Mr Fenech said that the Paceville establishments’ efforts to stop underage drinking by stopping them from entering bars in the last five years has resulted in their “social displacement” that has caused the “eyesore pockets on the outskirts and in certain areas in the centre, where they sit and drink - from anything but glass containers - in the streets”.
That situation has been present in Paceville much longer than five years and it is not only caused by underage drinkers. In fact the GRTU are calling for a blanket ban and not just for under age drinkers.
And will bottles of water being drunk in the street be banned or tins of coke, or other soft drinks? What about eating in the street? Will that be banned next?
Basically the GRTU want to use Big Brother tactics and force people to use their facilities or stay thirsty. But will it stop there? Mr Fenech is talking about “social re-engineering”. I would be very wary of an attempt to manipulate people’s behaviour to suit commercial interests. Will we be telling people how they should walk next?
As far as I am aware revelry is not a crime. Is it now going to become one? It is one thing being active in criminal activity and another to indulge in revelry, although revelry can involve criminality if drugs and underage drinking are involved.
But I think we have to be very careful before attempting to control freedom of movement unless a crime is being committed.
I was recently watching a documentary on how the police in the UK were tackling problem estates where car theft and vandalism were rife.
They were filmed stopping a couple of girls carrying bottles and because they were not carrying identity cards to prove they were of age to be drinking alcohol, the drinks were confiscated.
A little later a group of young men were told to move on and not loiter creating a nuisance. My first reaction was that I did not feel comfortable with the “Big Brother” atmosphere. But of course children should not be drinking alcohol and groups of young bloods do cause a nuisance and sometimes bully older residents. So they have to be controlled.
However, What struck me about this documentary was that the youngsters who were being stopped were not trying to steal or vandalise anything.
On the contrary, the people who were filmed with hidden cameras committing those crimes did not make any noise, create a nuisance or attract any attention to themselves, obviously.
But to get back to Mr Fenech, together with the Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism, he wants to raise the standard of Paceville and enhance Malta’s image.
I would argue that Malta’s image is more likely to be tarnished by the way we treat illegal immigrants and the drunken, swearing yobs at the festas, then people drinking in the streets of an area renowned for revelry.

pamelapacehansen@gmail.com