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

[ajdown]

the approval for a law shouldn't be based on 'how little it will inconvenience' but on 'how much it will benefit' and I see no benefit to this law, as there are already adequate laws proscribing offensive drunkeness.

That's the problem - you aren't seeing the bigger picture. There are plenty of benefits, not the least London Transport will become a safer and friendlier place for everyone.

I would be more than happy to see BTP officers on London transport, even if just to provide a reassurance. How many times have you seen someone trying to get on a bus without a ticket, only for the driver to just shut the engine off and sit there waiting for them to get off? More often than not, it ends up being a few passengers like me who have the courage to confront them and force them off the bus - thankfully without having to resort to physical action.

It's happened before when kids play their music out loud, and you have to tell them to turn it off. When they eventually do, lots of people always say "thankyou" to me (or whoever) and you can't help but think "if it bothered you, why didn't you do something about it".

Since people don't like the comparison with smoking, how about places that have 'alcohol control orders' on them, where you can get arrested or fined if you are drinking alcohol out in the street? Why is nobody complaining about those?

The tube is dirty, overcrowded, unreliable, rough-riding, smelly and generally all round unpleasant. Why on earth anyone would think they could enjoy anything down there escapes me. It's just a means to get from A to B.

 

[Crispy]

Passive smoking is not direct harm caused by one individual to another.

Alcohol related violence is.

Ah, but one is constant (passive smoking), the other ocasional (alcohol fuelled violence).

 

[rocketman]

How many times have you seen someone trying to get on a bus without a ticket, only for the driver to just shut the engine off and sit there waiting for them to get off? More often than not, it ends up being a few passengers like me who have the courage to confront them and force them off the bus - thankfully without having to resort to physical action.

It's happened before when kids play their music out loud, and you have to tell them to turn it off. When they eventually do, lots of people always say "thankyou" to me (or whoever) and you can't help but think "if it bothered you, why didn't you do something about it"..

Thing is, that's how "society works". Community (if you recognise the concept) is the way to deal with what is disorderly. Community should always outweigh government. It's laziness that demands more police. The way to bring the spirit of an empowered community back isn't by employing a bunch of people in uniform, but to nurture the community itself. Laziness says it's other people's problem. involvement says it is my problem. The latter is a better path - but does Boris have any support for, or understanding off, the communities that exist in London? He so doesn't, not on the strength of his previous run of statements (and retractions).

 

[_angel_]

Passive smoking is not direct harm caused by one individual to another.

Alcohol related violence is.

Both are, actually, just the passive smoking risk takes longer (unless someone is a severe asthmatic)


There's also a very good fire risk reason to smoking being banned on the tube.

When they banned smoking it was the logical next step...

.. can't say I have any sympathy for the folk who support that ban because it suits them.. but not this one cos it doesn't.

There is an element of truth in this I think.


Does anyone else think that if this had been a labour policy in London by Ken there would have been this outcry about it - I think not.

 

[Kizmet]

With respect, this is starting to get frustrating.

Passive smoking is directly harmful.

Alcohol consumption has no direct effect on anyone other than the drinker, but it might have indirect consequences in terms of violence, which is rare, or general rowdiness, which is less so.

Can we leave it now?

If you like.

You compare passive smoking (the inhalation of smoke by others than the smoker) to alcohol consumption (the direct consumption by the drinker alone).

For it to be a fair comparison you have to consider the effects of alcohol consumption on others.

 

[Crispy]

I'd think this was just as stupid if ken had done it.

 

[Kizmet]

Ah, but one is constant (passive smoking), the other ocasional (alcohol fuelled violence).

How is passive smoking constant?

 

[Roadkill]

If you like.

You compare passive smoking (the inhalation of smoke by others than the smoker) to alcohol consumption (the direct consumption by the drinker alone).

For it to be a fair comparison you have to consider the effects of alcohol consumption on others.

Didn't I mention the POSSIBILITY of people who have been consuming alcohol having an effect on others in post #751?

 

[ajdown]

does Boris have any support for, or understanding off, the communities that exist in London? He so doesn't, not on the strength of his previous run of statements (and retractions).

Instead of complaining here about it, why not contact him directly?

I blame the breakdown of communities all on feminism myself.

 

[Roadkill]

I blame the breakdown of communities all on feminism myself.

Now I'm sure you're a troll.

 

[rocketman]

Instead of complaining here about it, why not contact him directly? I blame the breakdown of communities all on feminism myself.

Look, I don't often do this, but you're a sexist prick.
(Apols to the Urban community and mods)

I have little patience for sexism.

 

[Kizmet]

Didn't I mention the POSSIBILITY of people who have been consuming alcohol having an effect on others in post #751?

Yes. But you stated that passive smoking causes direct harm.. when in reality that's only a possibility too.

In fact why not compare the number of people who are affected by passive smoking compared to those affected by alcohol related incidents...

 

[Yossarian]

Does anyone else think that if this had been a labour policy in London by Ken there would have been this outcry about it - I think not.

If he'd done it mid-term I'd still have thoughtt it was a daft rule to bring in but not especially remarkable - if it'd been one of the first things Livingstone had done in his first week in office after being newly elected I'd have thought was an omen about as auspicious as the door slamming shut on Josef Fritzl's cellar.

 

[rocketman]

If he'd done it mid-term I'd still have thoughtt it was a daft rule to bring in but not especially remarkable - if it'd been one of the first things Livingstone had done in his first week in office after being newly elected I'd have thought was an omen about as auspicious as the door slamming shut on Josef Fritzl's cellar.

Amen

 

[editor]

Does anyone else think that if this had been a labour policy in London by Ken there would have been this outcry about it - I think not.

My opinion about the stupidity of the ban would be constant, whoever introduced it.

It's a total waste of time and money and I hope Boris's attempt to foist this pointless (and potentially dangerous) policy on tube workers without consultation comes seriously unstuck.

Why on earth should anyone quietly having a drink be thrown off a tube and why should any worker have to risk the wrath of drinkers by being compelled to chuck them off when they're causing no bother to anyone?

 

[ajdown]

Now I'm sure you're a troll.

Sorry you see it that way. But don't you agree that, ever since the breakdown of the 'traditional family unit', things have gotten a lot worse?

 

[DotCommunist]

If he'd done it mid-term I'd still have thoughtt it was a daft rule to bring in but not especially remarkable - if it'd been one of the first things Livingstone had done in his first week in office after being newly elected I'd have thought was an omen about as auspicious as the door slamming shut on Josef Fritzl's cellar.

And the award for vilest metaphor of the week is here

 

[ajdown]

I have little patience for sexism.

... Where did I blame it all on women? I just mentioned the concept of feminism. Why should that be limited to women?

 

[editor]

Yes. But you stated that passive smoking causes direct harm.. when in reality that's only a possibility too.

Bullshit. It can cause immediate and clearly recognised short term health problems like eye irritation, coughing to aggravation of asthma and allergies. Shove a cloud of cigarette smoke in your eye and see what happens.

 

[rocketman]

... specious remark...

Just can't be bothered.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Now I'm sure you're a troll.

Quite.

 

[ajdown]

why should any worker have to risk the wrath of drinkers by being compelled to chuck them off when they're causing no bother to anyone?

I thought I read somewhere that it was connected with the plan of getting more British Transport Police on London Transport?

 

[scifisam]

Jesus, people are banging on comparing this ban to the smoking ban? That's ridiculous. Somehow I don't think any drinkers on the tube are going to force alcohol down your throat against your will, and, if they did, they'd already be commiting a crime.

So many new bloody crimes. So much money spent enforcing them. So little change in levels of crime which actually affect people.

Actually the concept of 'start at the root of the problem' seems very sensible to me.

How many people here are going to be personally affected by the ban in a big way, rather than just a minor annoyance/inconvenience or jumping on "lets bash Boris because he's Tory and anything he does will either be wrong, or pinching a Labour idea"?

Everyone is. It's using our money, after all, and the budget is not unlimited.

 

[Roadkill]

Sorry you see it that way. But don't you agree that, ever since the breakdown of the 'traditional family unit', things have gotten a lot worse?

Well, since I'm a wicked old homo it suits me quite well, actually.

 

[ajdown]

Everyone is. It's using our money, after all, and the budget is not unlimited.

What about the money wasted on policing all these marches and protests that go on? I'd much rather my money was spent on ridding the tube of alcohol and stopping a few anarchists getting run over in London traffic.

 

[_angel_]

My opinion about the stupidity of the ban would be constant, whoever introduced it.

It's a total waste of time and money and I hope Boris's attempt to foist this pointless (and potentially dangerous) policy on tube workers without consultation comes seriously unstuck.

Why on earth should anyone quietly having a drink be thrown off a tube and why should any worker have to risk the wrath of drinkers by being compelled to chuck them off when they're causing no bother to anyone?

First point, I doubt there would be this outcry.

I don't see the policy as workable on the tube unless there is some serious clout to back it up ---

but --- in the rest of the country you'd expect to be turfed off a bus for drinking or eating hot food, so I wonder why the principle is so different for London.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Well, since I'm a wicked old homo it suits me quite well, actually.

Homosexual conspiracy ftw!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

First point, I doubt there would be this outcry.

There _was_ this outcry. This came up when Ken was still in and the thread was pretty much the same.

 

[ajdown]

There _was_ this outcry. This came up when Ken was still in and the thread was pretty much the same.

Remember, however, that this forum is not representative of London as a whole.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Remember, however, that this forum is not representative of London as a whole.

I expect it's the feminists skewing the vote, and the anarchist protestors.