Thing is, I'm all for the greater good. if it could be demonstrated that there was any concrete reason whatsoever for this rule, I'd suck it up - my very occasional tube can isn't such a big deal. So it's not some bloody minded opposition to an issue with public interest at its heart...
Boris's ban on alcohol on London Transport (with poll)
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Thing is, I'm all for the greater good. if it could be demonstrated that there was any concrete reason whatsoever for this rule, I'd suck it up - my very occasional tube can isn't such a big deal. So it's not some bloody minded opposition to an issue with public interest at its heart...
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Probably because you're a nation of scofflaws, and jaywalking is such normal behaviour, that it doesn't need its own special word.
Well, sure. Anything I get fucked off about is probably peanuts when seen in the broader picture, but surely you see why this is annoying people? A pointless law implemented as the first tangible act of a new administration..
It's not habeas corpus or extraordinary rendition or something, but it's a new and pointless law as the first sign of what might become an alarming trend
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
...however, if it was legal here, I'm sure every subway car would be awash with piss stained, swilling bums....
As it is, it happens once in a blue moon.
Murder is illegal here also, but it happens too, on occasion. Since it happens in spite of the law, I suppose we should just scrap the law!
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
This is what I get for talking with you people when it's 1 am there, and you're all half in the bag.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Yes, it's a pointless rule, in a climate of ever increasing pointless rules. The authoritarian tendency is pervasive.
If this is the last straw that breaks the camel's back, all well and good. I'm just surprised. I'd have thought, I dunno, ever increasing detention without trial might do it. But what do I know.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I thought the smoking thing would have done it. Got that one wrong.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
No, in fairness, for the next four hundred years the authoritarian smokers shouldn't inflict their smoke on others, as they did for the last four hundred.
A ban wasn't the way to do it, but hey ho, the tobacco lobby didn't come up with an alternative.
I think the human race would have survived.... didn't do too badly in the last four hundred years, did we?
Till we got to the stage where we are banning stuff because some people find it 'irritating'.
A ban wasn't the way to do it. There were plenty of alternatives.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Yup. A good one would have been: look at the proportion of adult smokers there are in the population, provide that proportion of licences for smoking premises in a licence board area.
But the best the licence trade could do is: "We'll put in more fans".
I quite liked the fans idea...
To represent the proportion fairly you'd need more licences than smokers because they, of course, would be acompanied by many of their non-smoking friends.
But yeah... for a while there I honestly thought that the British public wouldn't cave in the way they did over smoking.
But barely a whimper.
Urbanblues
Was that it, life?
Since we don't play soccer in London - it's not an issue.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Pedants of the world, unite!
@editor: I'l re-relax the smoking rules, and tighten them a bit re: drinking...
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
People get on the tube drunk. They cause problems (though you and Boris - sorry for tying you together like that, which I would never usually do unless I had a shotgun and a promise from you never to pull a Jack Ruby on me) because they're already drunk. It's extremely unlikely, to the point of ridicule, that they got so drunk by drinking a can on a short tube journey.
Only if 'not sure' begins with y and ends with 'es'.
On the planet some people on this board seem to live on, it probably does.
But it often was blown into your face constantly, because lots of people were in that environment for prolonged periods. And tons of people have weak lungs. Personally, I was always for smoking licences, not an outright ban, but I can see the reasoning behind the ban.
You mean aggressive mode. I bet you killed two grannies and a puppy in the course of your journey too!
It's not just because we can't identify who will get into an accident, it's because there's really, really sound evidence that wearing seatbelts saves lives.
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.
So, no drinking in public, but covert drink-driving is OK. Well, I guess with drink-driving the worst that can happen is you kill yourself, your passengers and other drivers, if another vehicle happens to be passing as you drive back to the built-up place where you live. Whereas if you have a drink in a public park, in the open, you might ... um ... belch loudly and start singing inappropriate songs.
Anyway: Boris's first step is to spend lots of money on a pointless measure which will criminalise people who haven't done anything wrong while doing nothing about the supposedly huge amounts of violence and crime on the tube, all to appease a small number of people who, most likely, don't even use the tube that often. Bet none of us saw that coming.
The knife arches are a spiffing wheeze too. Actually, I often used to carry a knife on the tube, along with a big cake, as I went to birthday parties at pubs or in the park. I carried booze, too, quite often. Officers, take me away now.
However it will prevent them from getting more drunk.
Don't get me wrong.. I agree it's silly. But I think any kind of blanket ban is silly.
You want to tie me to Boris? Is this some kind of sick, twisted game...
The point being it's the cumulative effects that we should be interested in.. which is much more akin to the cumulative effects of drinking.
The problem with a full ban is that it sets a very easily replicated precedent on the banning of public nuisance vices.
And I quite like vices.. they make us individuals.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
It's cheaper. And yeah, I have been known to eat before going out for a meal with friends because I couldn't afford to order more than a bowl of chips.
Ah, you misread the thread then. This law doesn't ban drunk people, it bans drinking. The only difference would be that your stench-ridden bum would have had to finish his bottle before taking his journey. Probably wouldn't have helped much, tbf.
It's just called "crossing the road" here. There is no law against doing this at a place of your choosing in the UK (well, I think pedestrians are banned from motorways, so it is effectively banned there - but I once had a job that required me to cross a triple carriageway A road twice a day to transfer the newspapers delivered to one garage to it's partner over the roadProbably because you're a nation of scofflaws, and jaywalking is such normal behaviour, that it doesn't need its own special word.
).I remember when someone told me what jay-walking actually was, after years of hearing it in American films and on TV and thinking it must be something to do with pimps or summat. It took a while to persuade me they weren't joking.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
holy shit this thread is depressing.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
We should be honest here. I understand completely why you'd want drinking legal on the tube. The reason is what we here call 'pre-drinking'. You're going out somewhere where you'll be drinking, but it's going to cost a lot of money, or you're going to a party and want to be drunk when you get there.
So, better to get drunk as fast as possible, as cheaply as possible. Because it's illegal to drink while driving or taking public transit here, we do/did our predrinking at home or at a friend's house.
But if it was legal to drink on public transit, we'd have done it there also, to extend the predrinking as long as possible. [Except for the diff that here, everyone had a motorcycle or car from age 14 on, and public transit was for losers.
]
Problem is that if you admit to this truth, you'd be admitting that Boris has a point, because let's face it, some people aren't that good at their predrinking, and they'd become loud drunk nuisances on the tube or bus.
That's about the long and short of it, as I see it.
So, better to get drunk as fast as possible, as cheaply as possible. Because it's illegal to drink while driving or taking public transit here, we do/did our predrinking at home or at a friend's house.
But if it was legal to drink on public transit, we'd have done it there also, to extend the predrinking as long as possible. [Except for the diff that here, everyone had a motorcycle or car from age 14 on, and public transit was for losers.
]Problem is that if you admit to this truth, you'd be admitting that Boris has a point, because let's face it, some people aren't that good at their predrinking, and they'd become loud drunk nuisances on the tube or bus.
That's about the long and short of it, as I see it.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Nah: we had designated drivers.
Not.
What can I say: sometimes, young people do stupid things. Sometimes, old people do stupid things. Same here as there.
Also, tbh, things have changed since I was that age. Young people now look on drinking and driving as anathema. They still get pissed, but they do in fact have designated drivers, or take cabs.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
You'd have loved these parties. I suppose they were like precursors to raves: out in the middle of nowhere, big fires, loud music from speakers on the back of flatbeds. The main difference, I suppose, was no E: just booze combined with acid or mescaline or maybe MDA.
The alcohol helped dull the fear created when the trees and rocks in the nighttime light turned into squatting beasts.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Yes, of that very small minority who get into a serious accident. But most people will wear seatbelts their whole lives without ever needing them.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
And then get in our cars and crash into poles, etc.
Don't forget, that our urban existence is different from yours.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
It's just called "crossing the road" here. There is no law against doing this at a place of your choosing in the UK (well, I think pedestrians are banned from motorways, so it is effectively banned there - but I once had a job that required me to cross a triple carriageway A road twice a day to transfer the newspapers delivered to one garage to it's partner over the road
We have laws against crossing not at crosswalks etc, even though they aren't obeyed much in the larger cities.
The laws are based on the reality that people popping into the street from between parked cars, etc, are more likely to be hit, than they are if crossing at marked crosswalks where drivers are expecting them.
Yes, it's a restriction on our freedom to run into the street at will, but you can see the reasoning behind it.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
