Boris's ban on alcohol on London Transport (with poll)
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
There doesn't need to be, because it sounds like it's unheard of there. As for you, they're just tolerating a crazy gweilo.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
You don't need dangerous drivers to create accidents - accidents can happen because of the weather, road conditions, illness, car faults or tiny errors of judgement. So seatbelts and insurance aren't a case of people being forced to do something thanks to the actions of a disorderly minority - they're there to protect people from real dangers that no-one can completely avoid.
You've misunderstood me. I'm saying that in both instances, the conduct of the majority is regulated to to the activities of the minority. I didn't say that drivers in accidents are dangerous drivers. They are simply drivers who have gotten in an accident. But in any event, they are a small minority of all drivers. But nonetheless, because we can't identify in advance, who will get in an accident, the seatbelt and insurance laws must be of general application.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I think you can if you brown bag it. You just end up looking like a gluesniffer.
Besides - Canada is huge. Plenty of places to drink beer outdoors.
I got "carded" a few times when I was buying booze there as a lad, but the London accent usually persuaded them. Especially if they were female.
Pk: "Oi then! Let's have a shag!"
Female OPP officer: "....[titter titter].....!"
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I find it sad that, in Canada, if you don't have a garden then you're not allowed to take a picnic and a bottle of wine to the park.
Fuck the park: we drive deep into the bush, light huge bonfires, consume vast quantities of booze, and act like demented animals, all with no police within miles.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
You can't 'relax' without a g&t?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
34 pages?
Good lord. People care that much one way or the other about whether or not you have to wait to get off the tube to have a drink?
Good lord. People care that much one way or the other about whether or not you have to wait to get off the tube to have a drink?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
We can't jaywalk?
Why didn't someone tell me this: I'm in a heap of trouble!
Maybe you were here a long time ago. I recall in the Seventies, seeing a motorcycle cop get his bike up on the sidewalk in order to chase down two guys who'd crossed against the light.
Nowadays, the cops might stop for a jaywalker if he fell under their wheels. Maybe.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Maybe you can clear up for me what it is, exactly. I've always imagined it's a bit like the slosh.
editor
hiraethified
There sure seems to be a lot of opinions here from people who neither drink on the tube or, in fact, ever get on a tube.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
where the fuck do you people come from and what are you doing here???
genuine question
What he says is eminently sensible, and echoes the question that I've been asking: do people really need a drink so badly, that they can't wait out a tube ride before they have to start swilling?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Generally, I'm against banning stuff; I'd ban banning, me. I'm just amazed this is such a hot topic. People who are determined nobody should drink on a tube, others who demand the right to.
I don't use the London tube, but I do use public transport, and used to use the Glasgow Underground all the time when I lived there. Never felt the need to have a drink on it, but never felt the need to stop others from so doing if they desired. Is it really an issue?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Did I mention? Our tranit cops carry tasers, and have been known to use them on fare evaders. Imagine what they'd do to someone chugging down a can of Guiness.
But that's exactly it. You don't feel the need to do it, but also don't feel the need to stop others. This law seems to be aimed at something which is victimless and pointless with no justification at all.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
editor
hiraethified
Why do you care? You've never been bothered by a troublesome drinker on the tube in your life!
Oh, and if you want to know why people might want a drink on the tube, here's some examples:
1. Going to meet someone on a first date and needing a drink to calm your nerves
2. On the way to a footie match and needing a drink to get you in the mood.
3. Coming back from a long hot and dusty day working on a building site in the sun
4. Going out for the night and getting a swifty in because you can't afford the club's beer prices
5. Fuck it You've had a really shit day at work and need to unwind
I've drunk beer in the tube for all those reasons and I don't see why equally law abiding people should be deprived of the same privilege, especially when there's no remotely sane reason to ban it.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I get that. I suppose what I don't get is why it matters either way.
I guess because if it doesn't matter enough to justify a law, why pass it?
If your view is that it's irrelevant either way, you must see surely that a law is surplus to requirements, unecessary...
Surely the best litmus test of a law is that you feel it needs passing. If you don't then the only intelligent thing to do is not to pass it, even if you're not that arsed about it
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Maybe you can clear up for me what it is, exactly. I've always imagined it's a bit like the slosh.
Jaywalking is crossing a roadway against a traffic or pedestrian signal, or in the middle of a block etc where there is no crosswalk.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
P.s. Boston is the jaywalking capital of NA.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Yes, of course. I've already said that. It's silly. Like banning eating doughnuts on museum steps.
However, is it really a hardship?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I actually have. Just because it's illegal here, doesn't mean it's never happened. I've sat beside a stench ridden bum with piss down his leg and a bottle in his hand, bent on becoming my best friend.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I guess not, but I don't see that's relevant. It's not a proper hardship, but it's an unecessary curb on my freedom.
That, for me, is enough reason to oppose it.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I think it's mainly the principle behind it, and a reaction to the kind of thinking that leads to implementing these kinds of rules.
The reality is that in practice, it will probably remain quite possible to have a quiet beer on the tube. But that doesn't change the fact that the reasoning behind the rule is nonsensical, and I guess that it makes one wonder what silliness Boris is going to come up with next.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
1. Ok: have the drink at home. If your resolve is so weak that you must chain-drink right up to her doorstep, maybe you should rethink the date. Besides, with that gap on the tube if drinking is illegal, there's a greater chance that you won't arrive a besotted lout puking on her doorstep.
2. Preparatory drinking. I understand that. But when I brought that up as a possible motivation yesterday, I was shouted down. Make up your minds.
3. On my labour type jobs, we just drank at the site at the end of the day, then drove home.
But we didn't drink while actually driving the car.4. Do your predrinking at home. The tube ride is short, or so everyone has said.
5. You're an alcoholic if you can't wait a half hour to unwind with booze.
editor
hiraethified
Thanks for reminding me why the law is a truly pointless one.
Similar threads
