In the Drunk Tank

I'm intrigued by the Government's latest gimmick. Sorry, policy. Policy. I keep confusing those two.

They plan to introduce US-style "drunk tanks" to put, presumably, drunks in.

Now a "drunk tank" is, as I understand it, a cell for drunk people. I fail to understand how a "drunk tank" differs from a cell with a drunk in it. Surely a drunk-tank by any other name would smell as foul?

Or would drunk-tanks be available only as accommodation for drunks - in which case I would argue this would be just the kind of waste of resources that Tories hate in the public sector? If there were a sudden outbreak of non-drink-related crime - as it may be, fly-tipping or terrorism - would the suspects be turned away if the only flowery dells left had been redesignated as drunk tanks?

And I detect another flaw.

In the UK, I would argue, the term "drunk tank" is almost exclusively associated with that holiest of punk-folk songs, "Fairytale of New York". The opening of a drunk tank would likely attract a host of drunks, wanting to get locked up therein on the off-chance that the old drunk next to them might start singing about the Rare Ol' Mountain Dew. All we need in this culture is for people to adopt deliberate drunkenness so they can imagine they're in New York, with Kirsty MacColl waiting for them on Christmas Morning when they're kicked out.

No, drunken disorderliness is a crime. Beating up family members when drunk is a crime. Anyone adopting these behaviours should be treated as criminals - not romanticised as Americanised losers. Let's put them in the cells. That's where you put criminals.