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

[ajdown]

Are you a regular user of public transport in London?

Yes, every weekday and most weekends too. Generally an hour (or more if the traffic is shite) at each end of the day.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I don't do devils advocacy work anymore. He has Boris now.



I said what I said.. that in my opinion if you supported the ban on smoking I'm not interested in your whinging about banning drinking.

They took away a much bigger part of my life when they banned smoking than this law will take from yours.

Er, I didn't. So, what about the drinking then?

 

[Roadkill]

I'm not familiar with what he's supposed to have done wrong, so if it's relevant you'll have to list them.

It's not strictly relevant to the thread, no, but since you've talked up 'traditional family unit' quite highly I'm surprised you don't know of the bloke blamed by some for speeding its decline. Or do you?

 

[Kizmet]

No, it means, "almost always."

Tobacco smoke is an irritant. Blow it in your eyes and they sting. If anyone suffers an allergy they can experience "stuffy or runny noses, watery or burning eyes, sneezing, coughing, wheezing, a feeling of suffocation, and other typical allergy symptoms within minutes of exposure."

And here's the science bit:
"Short-term passive smoking causes endothelial dysfunction via oxidative stress in nonsmokers"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902597

I'm not disputing most of that.. just putting it in it's proper context.

 

[ajdown]

It's not strictly relevant to the thread, no, but since you've talked up 'traditional family unit' quite highly I'm surprised you don't know of the bloke blamed by some for speeding its decline. Or do you?

Only by looking it up on Wikipedia. He was in politics before I was even born, although I now vaguely remember the name, I think from a puppet on Spitting Image?

 

[Kizmet]

Er, I didn't. So, what about the drinking then?

What about it? It's an excuse to put 440 extra police on the tube and harass people. And a covert way of infriging on even more liberties.

 

[ajdown]

What about it? It's an excuse to put 440 extra police on the tube and harass people. And a covert way of infriging on even more liberties.

If 'breaking laws' and 'acting antisocially' is a liberty, then it's one we can well do without.

 

[scifisam]

So expressing an unpopular opinion round here is trolling? Shame really.

I regularly engage with people who have unpopular opinions on here, and sometimes back them up if I agree with what they're saying. You're just not good enough to be worth bothering with, though - not on this thread, at least.

Under certain circumstances.



We aren't talking about alcohol in itself.. we are talking about alcohol in a public context.

I think you're doing the same thing as fridgemagnet and comparing the wrong elements of each to each other.



Now there's an idea for Boris..... the next logical step?

So you think alcohol being consumed in a public context is likely to cause problems for people? Despite all the evidence about the drunks on the tube being drunk before they got on.

Passive smoking is dangerous under any contexts. Not some, not possibly - it just is dangerous. You don't seriously dispute that, do you?

Boris is about as likely to ban alcohol altogether as he is to ban public schools.

 

[ajdown]

I regularly engage with people who have unpopular opinions on here, and sometimes back them up if I agree with what they're saying. You're just not good enough to be worth bothering with, though - not on this thread, at least.

I'm new round here still, so you'll have to give me a few more weeks to practice ok?

 

[Kizmet]

So you think alcohol being consumed in a public context is likely to cause problems for people?

Don't you?

Passive smoking is dangerous under any contexts. Not some, not possibly - it just is dangerous. You don't seriously dispute that, do you?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Boris is about as likely to ban alcohol altogether as he is to ban public schools.

 

[scifisam]

Don't you?

No. Most people don't cause problems when drunk, and drinking in public is no more likely to get your drunk than drinking in private.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

So, you're not sure?

 

[citydreams]

Since when did having an alcoholic drink on public transport become a 'right'?

Maybe because they built public transport stations with pubs in them?! Or does that not bother you?

It's a 'right' to go about your own business without being told what to do by others. That's a positive right.
Then it is also a 'right' not to have your self harmed by another person. That's a negative right.
Society is about balancing the positive and the negative.

What you are arguing for is to rid us of the balance in favour of authoritarianism. It goes against everything that this country stands for.

 

[ajdown]

Maybe because they built public transport stations with pubs in them?! Or does that not bother you?

Whilst they might have back in the day, there were far less problems with alcohol too. Drunken punch ups were pretty much the sole denizen of the 'lower classes' - now, it's the city types and what would have ten years ago been called yuppies that are the biggest part of the problem

It's a 'right' to go about your own business without being told what to do by others. That's a positive right.
Then it is also a 'right' not to have your self harmed by another person. That's a negative right.
Society is about balancing the positive and the negative.

Correct, and Boris clearly sees that it's a 'right' to travel on London Transport without people drinking beer all around you, It's more down to how these 'rights' are interpreted, and more often than not swayed by your own personal feelings. I don't like being around people drinking alcohol, whether they are drunk at that particular time or not. Don't I have the 'right' not to be placed in a position where I feel uncomfortable by the actions of others? If being surrounded by a dozen hoodies all glaring at you makes you feel uncomfortable, why should that be different?

What you are arguing for is to rid us of the balance in favour of authoritarianism. It goes against everything that this country stands for.

I hardly think that banning alcohol on public transport in London (when it and similar is already banned on public transport throughout the rest of the country) is hardly 1984.

As I've said before, most people seem to be sheepily following the 'infringement of civil liberties' line when in actual fact, the chances of them wanting to drink alcohol on a bus or the tube are remote and they might perhaps do it a couple of times a year.

We all have to make sacrifices from time to time for the good of others, and for the greater good. It's how life works. If I have a bad back, but give up my seat to a pregnant woman when there are more able people just ignoring her need, then I've made a small sacrifice which demonstrably affects me personally negatively - yet helped her. It may be that someone will get off in a stop or two which will let me sit down again, I might have to stand all the way to my final destination and hardly be able to walk when I get off the bus.

Very few people will want to drink alcohol in the morning on their way to work - leaving only the home journey. So immediately the problem is only 50% of what people are making it out to be... although in my book 50% of nothing is still nothing.

 

[DotCommunist]

Whilst they might have back in the day, there were far less problems with alcohol too. Drunken punch ups were pretty much the sole denizen of the 'lower classes' - now, it's the city types and what would have ten years ago been called yuppies that are the biggest part of the problem.

you are wrong

 

[citydreams]

Whilst they might have back in the day, there were far less problems with alcohol too.

Absolutely daft thing to say.

There has always been 'problems' associated with alcohol. My favourite example is the fact that, back in the day, beer would go off very quickly on brewing so had to be drunk very quickly .

But a more serious example is the banning outright of May Day celebrations.

Boris clearly sees that it's a 'right' to travel on London Transport without people drinking beer all around you

...but says nothing about smelly food, loud music, feet on seats, swearing....

It's laughable that you think he's doing it to stop having people drinking beer around you.

I don't like being around people drinking alcohol, whether they are drunk at that particular time or not. Don't I have the 'right' not to be placed in a position where I feel uncomfortable by the actions of others?

you have a right to free councelling provided by the NHS. I'd suggest you take them up on it if people make you feel uncomfortable for holding a can of beer.

 

[untethered]

I'm not familiar with what he's supposed to have done wrong, so if it's relevant you'll have to list them.

For the full story, see Peter Hitchens, The Abolition of Britain.

 

[untethered]

What you are arguing for is to rid us of the balance in favour of authoritarianism. It goes against everything that this country stands for.

I could list dozens of things that meet that criterion that have changed in Britain in the past 40 years. Attitudes and laws across the whole social spectrum: the family, relationships, marriage, divorce, penal policy, the death penalty, decency, obscenity, freedom of speech, homosexuality, religion, abortion, etc.

Most of these changes have been from a "traditional" position to a (relatively) liberal one.

I'm sure that when the death penalty was abolished and abortion was legalised there were many people that thought it went against everything the country stood for. And of course, some people still feel that way, including many who weren't born at the time.

But the major consequence of becoming a liberal society is that we have become a much more heterogeneous one. It is very hard to point to a common culture or a core set of values to which most people subscribe. As we discussed earlier in the thread, what many would consider to be "common courtesy" is now no longer as common as many would like. As the commonality of our values has disappeared, so has the courtesy.

In the absence of a social consensus on values and therefore behaviour, comes conflict. In the wake of conflict come rules and the authoritarian state which you dislike. I'm not that keen on it either.

We now have a society where common values fail to act as a reliable instrument of social control. We have three choices to move forward. We can seek to rediscover or redefine a common culture. We can use the crude weight of the law to impose an arbitrary and inflexible state of order. Or we can degenerate into an even more deeply fissured society where the best most people can hope for is sufficient opportunity to avoid people offensive to them.

 

[citydreams]

In the absence of a social consensus on values and therefore behaviour, comes conflict. In the wake of conflict come rules and the authoritarian state which you dislike. I'm not that keen on it either.

We now have a society where common values fail to act as a reliable instrument of social control. We have three choices to move forward. We can seek to rediscover or redefine a common culture. We can use the crude weight of the law to impose an arbitrary and inflexible state of order. Or we can degenerate into an even more deeply fissured society where the best most people can hope for is sufficient opportunity to avoid people offensive to them.

Aye. But I can't see a common culture being determined without a common goal. Self-preservation isn't enough on its own as a banner to unite under.

Boris can create as many charities as he likes and as many laws as he is able, but he will never be able to overcome an inherent disregard for authority. The more he flaunts his mandate, the more he'll rile his opposition.

As it says on the undeground: "Do not stop the doors from closing, it can be dangerous"

 

[8ball]

Boris can create as many charities as he likes and as many laws as he is able, but he will never be able to overcome an inherent disregard for authority.

I'd like to believe that.

 

[editor]

As I've said before, most people seem to be sheepily following the 'infringement of civil liberties' line when in actual fact, the chances of them wanting to drink alcohol on a bus or the tube are remote and they might perhaps do it a couple of times a year.

And they might also give a fuck about people who also like to enjoy a quiet drink on the tube too.

I rarely drink on the tune, but see no reason why vast sums of money should be wasted on this ridiculous buffoon's law.

And that's my money, so it's of concern to me and all other taxpayers .

 

[Sunray]

Boris was on the news today stating that people are fed up with 'someone sitting next to them drinking from a can in an intimidating way.'

 

[teuchter]

I'm new round here still, so you'll have to give me a few more weeks to practice ok?

Yeah, but i think you should have invested a bit more time in doing your homework before you started, actually. One can't be sure of course but i think i've decided you're just trolling, because it seems like you've briefly perused the boards (or maybe you just looked up u75 on wikipedia) and made a little list of the things that people seem to be into, and then tried to express contentious opinions on each of them. I mean, what are the chances of someone who hates brixton, drug dealers, drinking, "anarchist protesters", and feminists happening upon these boards! What a coincidence! The thing is, your list is a wee bit off, which is why you should have done a bit more homework. You've probably noticed that your comments about the anarchists haven't got as much response as you hoped - the thing is that most posters on here aren't anarchists at all, despite what you might have read on wikipedia.
Maybe i've got you all wrong of course.
Even if you're not trolling though, have you ever looked into moving to north korea?

 

[citydreams]

Boris was on the news today stating that people are fed up with 'someone sitting next to them drinking from a can in an intimidating way.'

 

[pk]

It's a logical next step along the path of ridding society of its ills. I see no issue here.

"This is A Local City for Local People. There Is Nothing For You Here."

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

yes and sometimes the activities of Z are of such limited and unproven harm that restricting the rights of X based upon them is stupid.

Which is why the doctrine of proportionality is applied wrt the legal consequences. Illegal possession of firearms means potential jail time and big fines; illegal drinking on the Tube means a small fine.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I used to drink on the tube/bus as it was the only way to get round the licensing hours. You finish work at 5.30, get home at 6.30, make dinner, get ready, it's now 8pm. It might take an hour to get to where the pub is. That leaves you a whopping two hours at the pub.

Maybe that's the reason for the difference here vs there. We never had those bizarre pub closing rules that would necessitate public transit drinking for those so inclined.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Exactly. Someone having their (first) can of beer on the tube en route to the pub is hardly going to cause much trouble.

Explain to me again?

Why is it necessary to drink alcoholic drinks on public transit, when the destination is............. a place where one consumes alcoholic drinks?

When you're going out for a meal in a restaurant, do you pre-eat on the Tube, en route to the restaurant?

 

[Kizmet]

No. Most people don't cause problems when drunk, and drinking in public is no more likely to get your drunk than drinking in private.

So how does that explain all the alcohol related injuries and crimes, then?

So, you're not sure?

Only if 'not sure' begins with y and ends with 'es'.



'Can' cause harm under certain circumstances.. if, for example, blown in your face constantly.. or in that environment for prologued periods.. or if you have weak lungs.

But generally humans aren't so frail that a bit of smoke will kill us. Irritate us, yes. But then most people irritate me anyway.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What, so you can't even sit in the park and have a bottle of wine with a picnic? Now that is bloody weird. A cold drink with friends etc in the outdoors on a good summer's day is one of life's ultimate simple pleasures.

Strictly speaking, it's against the law, but depending on where you live, the law is selectively enforced. So if we go for a family picnic at Ambleside Beach, and a bottle of wine gets opened by the adults, nothing will likely get said.

But if later in the evening, two hundred teens show up, light bonfires, and crack open a keg, the cops will enforce the no drinking rule.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And considering that generally people in the UK live in much greater proximity to each other, that suggests that people are hardly descending into disorder any more than Canada is.

You've lost me with that one. Aside from not getting the proximity/crime connection, there's also the fact that something like 85% of the Canadian population lives in urban centers. We may not be sitting in each other's laps like you are, but we aren't each sitting in our homesteads, a mile apart from each other either.