IT was, of course, a farce that minutes after being the first person to be prosecuted for drinking inside Blackburn's alcohol-free zone, 21-year-old boozer Anthony Seamus Smith was swigging from a bottle of sherry outside the court and, once more, inside the zone.

But, as his defence lawyer pointed out, the magistrates' options were limited -- to either some form of discharge or a fine.

The latter was evidently not a real choice -- as jobless Smith, already had an outstanding fines debt of more than £330 that would not be cleared until April 2004 at his current swingeing rate of repayment of £4 a week from his dole.

As a result, Smith got a conditional discharge -- and an immediate supping session with this mates that cocked a snook at the law and the effectiveness of the no-booze area.

Isn't it plain, then, that the magistrates need extra options?

And that the best would be for them to be able to stop the welfare benefits of the likes of Smith who pour them down their throat while laughing at the law and insulting the hard-working folk who are forced to fund their lay-about boozing?