Boris's ban on alcohol on London Transport (with poll)

[Fruitloop]

What's interesting about this is that it's exactly the kind of thing New Labour do. If something is generally acknowledged to be hideously shit, and you are too tight-fisted and ideologically skewed to actually do anything about it, just ban something - it's cheap, makes it look like you're doing something, and the middle classes will tolerate the illiberalism 'cos they know it'll only be enforced against the young, the poor and the off-white.

 

[editor]

Anyone know any good free petition sites where we can get this thing going if the .gov one isn't appropriate?

 

[Crispy]

No, tube journey please.

Buses will be covered by this rule too.

 

[ajdown]

alcoholics? do you know they were alcoholics?

If someone cannot wait half an hour to get home that they need to have alcohol, right here, right now, then I'd say that was fairly indicative of an addiction, and someone addicted to alcohol is .... an alcoholic.

 

[teuchter]

You do realise, of course, that it's only because people cannot control themselves in public that these kind of rules need to be introduced?

1. Please explain the circumstances in which you have been caused distress whilst on the tube as a result of others' alcohol consumption.
2. Please explain in what proportion of these cases those causing you distress were drinking alcohol at that point in time.
3. In these cases, please explain why you think they would have caused you significantly less distress if they had not been drinking alcohol during the period of time they had been on the tube train.

 

[Crispy]

If someone cannot wait half an hour to get home that they need to have alcohol, right here, right now, then I'd say that was fairly indicative of an addiction, and someone addicted to alcohol is .... an alcoholic.

nice diagnosis, doc.

the premise here is pretty simple. drunk people on public transport don't get drunk on public transport, they use it to travel around whilst already drunk.

therefore, stopping people drinking on public transport will not remove drunk people from public transport.

 

[dream_girl]

If you don't like the country or the city, you're more than free to move elsewhere. Nobody is stopping you.

well i'm not going to delve into my private life - but let's say - no i'm not.

 

[ajdown]

No, tube journey please. Time and date. You are aware that you might also be 'surrounded by alcoholics' in a wide variety of public situations too?

Like the office, pub, cinema, post office queues, motor bike rallies, that kind of thing...

As pointed out, buses are covered. I tend not to use the tube unless I'm in a hurry.

Bus, 45 from King's Cross to Brixton Hill, 27.4.08, approx 9.30pm.

As for the rest of your list...

Office... nobody should be drunk at work.
Pub... I don't go to pubs. Can't afford it.
Cinema... rowdy people should be ejected.
Post office queues... don't use them.
Bike rallies... don't go there.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Anyone know any good free petition sites where we can get this thing going if the .gov one isn't appropriate?

This one looks ok: http://www.petitiononline.com/

 

[Roadkill]

If someone cannot wait half an hour to get home that they need to have alcohol, right here, right now, then I'd say that was fairly indicative of an addiction, and someone addicted to alcohol is .... an alcoholic.

Nonsense.

Where's your evidence for the suggestion that all - or even most - most people drinking on public transport are doing so because they're alcoholics who can't wait?

 

[King Biscuit Time]

I like Crispy's idea. Make the ban unenforceable.

Organise a day where people drink a variety of non-alcoholic drinks out of booze containers and increasingly stupid containers, watering cans, gravy boat, Galvanised bucket etc. Get loads of bottles of stuff and a load of cocktail shakers and mix your own cocktails up en route.

Keep trying to get yourself busted for drinking a can of Shandy Bass on the tube - cue 'Fined, for drinking shandy' style headline.

Look up the proper terms of carriage and do loads of stuff that isn't illegal, like stinky food etc.

 

[editor]

1. Please explain the circumstances in which you have been caused distress whilst on the tube as a result of others' alcohol consumption.
2. Please explain in what proportion of these cases those causing you distress were drinking alcohol at that point in time.
3. In these cases, please explain why you think they would have caused you significantly less distress if they had not been drinking alcohol during the period of time they had been on the tube train.

Something tells me he won't answer you directly.

 

[King Biscuit Time]

Cinema... rowdy people should be ejected.

As they should be on the tube. Would you kick out a woman who's drinking a glass of wine while watching a film (as you can at most of the better independent cinemas)?

 

[El Jefe]

Cinema... rowdy people should be ejected.

You're right.

Rowdy people might sensibly be ejected from tubes and buses too, and there are rules in place to deal with this.

So how about - if someone's behaving badly we eject them, if they're not we don't.

Whether in their hand is a carton of Ribena, a can of Fosters or a copy of The KiteRunner really isn't the point, is it?

 

[dream_girl]

If someone cannot wait half an hour to get home that they need to have alcohol, right here, right now, then I'd say that was fairly indicative of an addiction, and someone addicted to alcohol is .... an alcoholic.

well that's not a definition.

I choose to have a drink on the tube because pubs where i work are too crowded and too expensive, and when i get home i'm likely to be far too busy to drink.

i just like to relax a bit on the way home. That makes me an alcholic in your book then, does it?

 

[ajdown]

therefore, stopping people drinking on public transport will not remove drunk people from public transport.

Then it needs to be extended to remove drunk people from public transport in the first place.

If people are a little merry... then so be it... but if they're so drunk they can hardly stand, then they're not only a danger to others but themselves as well.

A drunk staggers down the platform and falls off the edge underneath a tube train ... hundreds of people inconvenienced, driver and witnesses traumatised, all because someone's non-existant "right" to get drunk overrides personal and public safety?

 

[teuchter]

If someone cannot wait half an hour to get home that they need to have alcohol, right here, right now, then I'd say that was fairly indicative of an addiction, and someone addicted to alcohol is .... an alcoholic.

You're confusing "cannot" and "doesn't want to".

What about someone eating a mars bar on a train?

Or reading a newspaper?

Are they "addicts"?

 

[untethered]

Bob Crow is just pointing out that it's a half-baked plan that the unions haven't been consulted on (which is shockingly poor policy-making for a start), and suggesting that tube workers should not be required to risk their personal safety by trying to enforce it. Seems rather reasonable to me.

Perhaps so. What isn't reasonable is the attitude that I perceive in you and others that union disruption of government is intrinsically a good thing.

Would you rather that our "democratically" elected leaders were not critiqued between elections? That noone with expertise ever comments negatively on policy because they weren't (nationally) elected and the politician with no relevant experience was?

Of course not. But Mr Crow and his colleagues have some degree of power to make trouble, not just offer a critique.

Would you like the civil service to stop advising government on the practicalities of policy too? Thatcher and then Blair dismantled as much of it as possible in favour of their cronies who would tell them what they wanted to hear, but going the whole hog and not have any "unelected" personnel advising on policy decisions?

There's a huge difference between being a professional adviser to government and an opponent of government, isn't there? Your example is fatuous. I would agree, however, that replacing many professional neutral advisers with party loyalists was a mistake, and not one that I have supported at any time.

 

[dream_girl]

Then it needs to be extended to remove drunk people from public transport in the first place.

are you prepared for the whole centre of london to become a ghost town after 7pm?

 

[christonabike]

but if they're so drunk they can hardly stand, then they're not only a danger to others but themselves as well.

As I have already pointed out, laws already exist for this scenario

 

[gsv]

Grrr bollocks
Wishing I'd read that manifesto I printed out before I voted for him now

Guess that's what I get for voting Tory. That'll teach me

GS(v)

 

[dream_girl]

Perhaps so. What isn't reasonable is the attitude that I perceive in you and others that union disruption of government is intrinsically a good thing.

It's one of the important checks and balances in the UK polical process. Jsut becasue a politician is elected does not mean she is competent or always right.

 

[ymu]

It's good, except that 'to peacefully enjoy' is a split infinitive!

There's nothing wrong with a split infinitive. The rule was made up by Victorians when grammar was getting trendy. Sometimes, the split infinitive reads and/or scans better than the alternative in which case it should be used; otherwise it is considered poor style, but not poor grammar.

So there!

 

[teuchter]

Then it needs to be extended to remove drunk people from public transport in the first place.

If people are a little merry... then so be it... but if they're so drunk they can hardly stand, then they're not only a danger to others but themselves as well.

A drunk staggers down the platform and falls off the edge underneath a tube train ... hundreds of people inconvenienced, driver and witnesses traumatised, all because someone's non-existant "right" to get drunk overrides personal and public safety?

If you are suggesting that people bearly able to stand should be prevented from getting on the tube, that is one thing. Maybe I would even agree. But it's a totally different issue to people having a drink on the tube.

In any case, someone in that state can technically be arrested for being drunk and disorderly, can't they? So the legislation is already there in fact.

 

[untethered]

You're confusing "cannot" and "doesn't want to".

What about someone eating a mars bar on a train?

Or reading a newspaper?

Are they "addicts"?

This whole argument is the wrong way around.

You're an addict if you can't refrain from doing something. That doesn't mean that anyone that does something does so through addiction.

Someone who couldn't refrain from reading a newspaper or eating a Mars Bar for half an hour would be an addict and would fall within any reasonable definition of mental illness.

 

[editor]

Then it needs to be extended to remove drunk people from public transport in the first place.

There are already laws for dealing with drunk and disorderly people. We don't need any more.

A drunk staggers down the platform and falls off the edge underneath a tube train ... hundreds of people inconvenienced, driver and witnesses traumatised, all because someone's non-existant "right" to get drunk overrides personal and public safety?

All irrelevant to the proposed law.

 

[ajdown]

well that's not a definition.

I choose to have a drink on the tube because pubs where i work are too crowded and too expensive, and when i get home i'm likely to be far too busy to drink.

i just like to relax a bit on the way home. That makes me an alcholic in your book then, does it?

Can you not relax without alcohol? I manage quite easily.

 

[Roadkill]

There's nothing wrong with a split infinitive. The rule was made up by Victorians when grammar was getting trendy. Sometimes, the split infinitive reads and/or scans better than the alternative in which case it should be used; otherwise it is considered poor style, but not poor grammar.

So there!

I was always taught that they're ungrammatical, so they jar with me. But then, I'm a traditionalist who thinks grammar should be trendy. So there!

 

[Sasaferrato]

The rest of that article is interesting, especially the ending. There's a hint of the line of attack regarding minority ethnic people and the inner city to come...

To me, the Sikh gentleman was looking for special treatment for HIS community, which of course would be at the expense of another community as the pot is finite.

 

[untethered]

It's one of the important checks and balances in the UK polical process.

The unions have a political and economic role, not a constitutional one.

Jsut becasue a politician is elected does not mean she is competent or always right.

And no-one has ever suggested otherwise, I hope.

Fortunately, our system favours democratic legitimacy over an impossible-to-define rectitude.