Big up the tube drinkers
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Don't be silly, have you not heard of the Human Rights Act.
So, seriously there’s no penalty other than having your can taken off you? No wonder no one takes any notice of it.
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
IMO all chavs and yuppies should be banned from public transport.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
You are so Sunday trolling 
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
What about daft bints?
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
And them as well. Fucking pests with their high heels digging in everyone's toes.
Because we don't actually live in a police state despite what you might read on here ...So why have I never been arrested?
The police have got lots of better things to do than arrest drunks. They usually only arrest for simple drunkenness in two instances: (a) someone is so drunk they are incapable of taking care for themselves (usually dealt with by caution in the morning) and (b) when someone is drunk and is refusing to take advice about going home / not getting involved in an argument or whatever (i.e. failing the "attitude test") (again usually dealt with by way of caution in the morning unless they are still arsey, in which case they may get charged). There is another offence - being drunk and disorderly - which is more commonly used as the sort of "entry level" offence for disorder, though the s5 offence under the Public Order Act 1986 has largely replaced it in a lot of cases as the disorder bit is about the same and there is no need to prove drunkenness as well.
There will be soon - at the moment it's just a condition of travel and ejection is the only sanction. When a penalty is introduced it will undoubtedly have a Fixed Penalty Notice option. And, as has already been noted, that is likely to lead to some amusing wriggles ...
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
Because we don't actually live in a police state despite what you might read on here ...
.
This is why..........
Good God woman ... never fucking doner kebabs ... 
Either shish kebabs or, preferably, shwarmas from Kebab Kid in New Kings Rd Fulham ...
Either shish kebabs or, preferably, shwarmas from Kebab Kid in New Kings Rd Fulham ...
lights.out.london
Black Flag
EastEnder
Brixton Barnacle
I have a serious moral objection to this sort of thing (I don't really, I'm just being pointlessly melodramatic), I mean obviously I can understand why the police don't go around arresting every random, but completely harmless, drunk. But why is it an offence at all? Surely something should only be an offence if you're not supposed to do it, and if it is an offence then aren't the police obligated to enforce the law? Otherwise you're left with the bizarre situation where there's lots of laws, all of which we're supposed to abide by, but which are only selectively enforced at the whim of the officer concerned.Because we don't actually live in a police state despite what you might read on here ...
The police have got lots of better things to do than arrest drunks. They usually only arrest for simple drunkenness in two instances: (a) someone is so drunk they are incapable of taking care for themselves (usually dealt with by caution in the morning) and (b) when someone is drunk and is refusing to take advice about going home / not getting involved in an argument or whatever (i.e. failing the "attitude test") (again usually dealt with by way of caution in the morning unless they are still arsey, in which case they may get charged). There is another offence - being drunk and disorderly - which is more commonly used as the sort of "entry level" offence for disorder, though the s5 offence under the Public Order Act 1986 has largely replaced it in a lot of cases as the disorder bit is about the same and there is no need to prove drunkenness as well.
If I see someone breaking into car and alert a passing copper, presumably he's under obligation to arrest the miscreant (as opposed to having the option of saying "well it is illegal, but I'm going to ignore it anyway")? And if being drunk is illegal, even if the drunks concerned are doing no worse than regaling boring anecdotes, what would be to stop me finding a passing copper, pointing through the window of a pub and saying "they're all drunk and therefore breaking the law, you should arrest them at once!"???
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Same reason that for the past 18 years I've never been pulled over for cruising past plod at 80 on the motorway.
Always amazes me the traffic jam behind a pig car on a motorway. 80 in decent conditions is not dangerous, no traffic pig is gonna pull you for it.
Always amazes me the traffic jam behind a pig car on a motorway. 80 in decent conditions is not dangerous, no traffic pig is gonna pull you for it.
editor
hiraethified
Er, no. They weren't rebelling against anything.cue Bowie's Rebel, Rebel.
SMASH THE SYSTEM!
They were just enjoying a drink and upsetting no one - apart from a few ridiculously uptight moral guardians on a web forum, apparently.
lights.out.london
Black Flag
Uptight moral guardians? On a web forum? Blimey. People drinking booze on a tube journey. Fucking menace to society...yeah...give it to the man...we shall overcome...no turning back....Stand! Stand! Don't run! Babycham! Mine's a babycham!
How old are you, ed? lol.
No Pasaran! Vive! Ethanol!
btw - which tube line was this hot bed/carriage of defiance?
How old are you, ed? lol.
No Pasaran! Vive! Ethanol!
btw - which tube line was this hot bed/carriage of defiance?
editor
hiraethified
I said they were just enjoying a drink and upsetting no one. That's all.
No need for you to get upset over it and there's really no need for any moralising or snidey little remarks either.
Unfortunately there will ALWAYS be more laws and more offences than the police can possible deal with (if they went on a "work to rule" they'd never get twenty yards out of the police station before dealing with some trivial shite).
The fact that every officer has absolute discretion in enforcing the law is a key part of the police - public relationship in the UK. That is, I think, a very powerful aspect which helps maintain the relationship (there are thousands of people (including some on here)) who tell stories of how they could have been arrested but were let off with a bollocking / given a lift home or whatever. This is the entirely reasonable basis for the "attitude test" - if someone is committing a minor offence and the officer is willing to deal with it by way of informal warning, they are perfectly entitled to take a step back and say "OK, if thats how you want to play it, you're nicked!" if their initial approach is met with snarling, spitting abuse and violence.
You mentioned two very different scenarios - one in which the exercise of discretion IS appropriate and one in which it would not usually be. In the first there is no VICTIM as such (e.g. drunkenness), in the second (e.g. theft from a vehicle) there IS. In the latter case, if the officer did not intervene and pursue a proper investigation, etc. the victim would be able to complain about them failing to do their duty. They could try to do that in the first scenario (and some interfering twats do try!) but they'd never get it off the ground in the Courts unless they could show some specific harm being caused.
There is a grey area, which you touch on in the last part of your post and that is where individual, non-victim offences (such as drunkenness) have a wider impact (e.g. widespread drink fuelled disorder because pubs allow drunkenness (it is a very specific criminal offence by licensees, etc. to allow a drunken person to enter or remain in licensed premises, or serve them alcohol, by the way). In these situations police may well have a bit of a local crackdown although they will normally try and make sure that individual's caught up as "collateral damage" (e.g. individual users caught buying as part of an operation aimed at a drug dealer) are dealt with as leniently as possible.
But a blunt instrument, zero-discretion camera might ...
lights.out.london
Black Flag
I'm not upset "over it". I find a wee bit sad that you have this cross you carry - I'm pretty sure there are other things more important re BoJo than railing against not being able to drink on a relatively short journey.
Didn't read any moralising; not that I'm sure that I know what "morals" are.
Gotta have that drink, gotta have that drink. Booze! I demand some booze! And bollox to everyone else.
For a complete picture of this radical group of mobile activists - what were you drinking? A nicely chilled Pouilly Fume? Or a can of 8 Ace? Did you remember to touch in and touch out?
editor
hiraethified
That's a fair old rant there, and all because some people - whom you neither know or have even seen - were quietly drinking on a tube carriage that you weren't even on. No one was bothered except, it seems, you.
You want to calm down else you'll explode at this rate.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
And think how much that would inconvenience the other travellers!
I'm still wondering how TFL "forgot" about this most pressing issue, in their campaign about anti social behaviour.
Do any of the pro-ban people know why TFL clearly willingly ignored this apparently pressing need for a ban?
Did Ken veto it? Had it removed from the campaign? Was the message conceived and executed by someone who habitually pisses in beer cans?
Just how was such a clear and prominent issue missed by the organisation that runs the pulic transport, when it was so clearly obvious to someone who doesn't use the tube very much, if ever?
Do any of the pro-ban people know why TFL clearly willingly ignored this apparently pressing need for a ban?
Did Ken veto it? Had it removed from the campaign? Was the message conceived and executed by someone who habitually pisses in beer cans?
Just how was such a clear and prominent issue missed by the organisation that runs the pulic transport, when it was so clearly obvious to someone who doesn't use the tube very much, if ever?
lights.out.london
Black Flag
Lol. I'm actually hanging upside down in my parachute harness. It adds a whole new dimension to posting. Headrush, fer sure.
I can see this is an important topic for you, ed. I'll leave it.
*hic*
*pass the meths*
Avoid Bank station, due to refurbishment work between Monument and Bank, access is severly restricted. Use alternative routes, if possible.
Cheers!
editor
hiraethified
lights.out.london
Black Flag
Lmao - no. Never.
editor
hiraethified
Then why are you acting like a drunken idiot?
lights.out.london
Black Flag
I'm not.
I'm amused and surprised at the sense of entitlement that seems to accompany frustrated tube-drinkers.
You've made a meal (with free drinks?) about it on the board before.
Odd.
I'm amused and surprised at the sense of entitlement that seems to accompany frustrated tube-drinkers.
You've made a meal (with free drinks?) about it on the board before.
Odd.
Dead Cat Bounce
A member of the Waffle elite.
As someone who uses the tube for at least two hours a day I've never seen a single person trying to enforce this ridiculous 'law', in fact since Boris announced the ban on booze I've not seen a British Transpot Officer on any of my tube journeys.
editor
hiraethified
Imagine! Having a "sense of entitlement" to do something that harms no one and brings pleasure to people, while inconveniencing no one else at all. Whatever else!
Imagine being pissed off by something so incredibly minor and trivial that it had barely ever been mentioned in terms of a social problem on the underground until a fucking Tory toff buffooned into town, unilaterally declared it a menace to civilised society and banned it as part of a truly vacuous PR offensive.
And now you're joining in, whining on about people quietly enjoying a drink on a tube ride that you weren't even on.
Talk about intolerant. You're doing Boris proud.
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
Boris should ban dreadlock wearers next, they must be minging.
Similar threads
