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

[Johnny Canuck3]

So all this law does is penalise people who aren't drinking to get drunk. It'll help reinforce the weird English attitude to alcohol, but that won't do any more good in the future than it has in the past.

It's like gun laws. Like they say, law abiding citizens will obey the law, so the only people with guns, will be the criminals, who don't give a shit about the law.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What does it matter how much of an encroachment it is, as if these things are measurable anyway?
.

I think they are measurable. For instance, removal of the right of assembly, or the right to vote, is a bigger encroachment on liberty than removal of the right to drink a beer on the tube.

Hell, removal of the right to demonstrate near the houses of parliament is a bigger encroachment.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Having every movement of your public day recorded on cc tv is a greater encroachment.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Just because you can't hold your drink in Canada doesn't mean we should bear the brunt of your jealousy.

Yes, I'm jealous that when I ride the subway, I don't have the freedom to have a sweating construction worker sitting beside me, drinking beer and belching in my face.

 

[citydreams]

I think they are measurable. .

My question was "what does it matter how much of an encroachment..."?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

My question was "what does it matter how much of an encroachment..."?

Because living in a civil society necessarily entails some encroachments on individual freedoms.

 

[editor]

Yes, I'm jealous that when I ride the subway, I don't have the freedom to have a sweating construction worker sitting beside me, drinking beer and belching in my face.

And what's the difference if it was a sweating construction worker sitting beside you, drinking Coca Cola and belching in your face?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Damn: will you look at the time!

Nighty night. Don't forget to pack your Guiness in your rucksack for the tube ride to work tomorrow. But then, I suppose it is 'tomorrow' there already, isn't it. Whatever.....

 

[Poi E]

I think you're describing a more north american approach to politics, not a british one.

I think not. The US is full of rules of every kind.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And what's the difference if it was a sweating construction worker sitting beside you, drinking Coca Cola and belching in your face?

Seems coke doesn't produce as much gas, to my experience. Also, as he drinks more coke, he doesn't develop a desire to tell me all about his troubles with his girlfriend Stacy.

 

[ymu]

No,they'll probably sit around at home drinking, then head out. The only difference is, they won't still be drinking on the Tube.

I must be expressing myself very badly. It's the 3rd time I've pointed it out and still noone gets it, even though you just reiterated the key fact.

The difference is that a proportion of pre-drinkers will pre-drink more to counteract the sobering effect of the non-drinking journey time. They won't be getting drunk, they'll already be drunk - and if we assume that they aim to be as drunk at the end of the journey as they would have been pre-ban, they'll be a lot drunker when they get on than they would have been.

Plus of course, once it's illegal all the kids will be doing it. And they handle their drink really well.

 

[untethered]

No, I'm being told to change my habits because a minority aren't fit for political office.

Did the electorate make the wrong choice, Mr Mugabe? Better have a "second round" and see if they can get it right the next time.

 

[untethered]

The difference is that a proportion of pre-drinkers will pre-drink more to counteract the sobering effect of the non-drinking journey time. They won't be getting drunk, they'll already be drunk - and if we assume that they aim to be as drunk at the end of the journey as they would have been pre-ban, they'll be a lot drunker when they get on than they would have been.

Has it ever occurred to you that drinking to get drunk is a pretty sad and anti-social thing to do?

That the concept of "pre-drinking" to achieve a certain level of inebriation before arriving at one's social function is flawed in principle and certainly not a "right" that the state should defend at the cost of discomfort to others?

 

[Poi E]

Also, as he drinks more coke, he doesn't develop a desire to tell me all about his troubles with his girlfriend Stacy.

Londoners mostly don't engage in that sort of unsolicited, mawkish openness on the tube

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Changed my mind on this. Was against all food & drink on the tube as it works so well in Hong Kong.

However, Gordon Brown says we're in greater danger than ever from terrorists. So I say it should be compulsory to drink booze on the tube. Anyone not drinking proper would likely be a muslim, therefore a suspect and shot. Seven times. In the head.

 

[Crispy]

And how many times does this happen then, Tobes...?

I said Fucking Stop It.

 

[editor]

Seems coke doesn't produce as much gas, to my experience. Also, as he drinks more coke, he doesn't develop a desire to tell me all about his troubles with his girlfriend Stacy.

In my decades of catching the tube at all hours of the day/night, I have never, ever had any drunk people come up to me and talk about their girlfriends.

I've never, ever had any hassle from anyone drinking a can either. The tiny amount of times I've had run-ins on the tube have always been from people who are already drunk.

 

[ymu]

Has it ever occurred to you that drinking to get drunk is a pretty sad and anti-social thing to do?

That the concept of "pre-drinking" to achieve a certain level of inebriation before arriving at one's social function is flawed in principle and certainly not a "right" that the state should defend at the cost of discomfort to others?

I've already pointed out that I think this ban will only exacerbate the unhealthy attitude to alcohol in England, so you ought to know that it has occurred to me. It's utterly irrelevant what I think about it - it's a common behaviour that people indulge in the world over and down the ages. You can't just stamp your feet and demand that they stop it.

Legislation is obviously necessary in some instances, but it should have a clear purpose and a reasonable chance of success. This has neither.

 

[editor]

That the concept of "pre-drinking" to achieve a certain level of inebriation before arriving at one's social function is flawed in principle and certainly not a "right" that the state should defend at the cost of discomfort to others?

What a load of shit. I might have a can of beer on the tube to relax me after a hard day at work and put me in the mood for a night out, and then only drink 2-3 pints of weak ale for the rest of the night.

No discomfort caused to anyone.

 

[untethered]

I've already pointed out that I think this ban will only exacerbate the unhealthy attitude to alcohol in England, so you ought to know that it has occurred to me. It's utterly irrelevant what I think about it - it's a common behaviour that people indulge in the world over and down the ages. You can't just stamp your feet and demand that they stop it.

The ban isn't on pre-drinking. It's on drinking on the tube. I only make the point because people such as yourself have suggested that presumably "reasonable" pre-drinking is a good reason to oppose the ban. But the ban doesn't forbid pre-drinking specifically, but all drinking.

Legislation is obviously necessary in some instances, but it should have a clear purpose and a reasonable chance of success. This has neither.

It's not legislation, it's just a new rule for passengers on what is legally private property.

It does have a clear purpose. To eliminate drinking on the tube and the discomfort that is caused to many by it.

It has a superb chance of success. Despite the bleating of many on here, most Londoners will follow the rule and our city will be the better for it, along with many similar measures which I'm sure will follow.

 

[ajdown]

When was the last time you were on the tube...? Everyone uses Oyster cards now...

I have an annual travelcard for zones 1-2 and it isn't Oyster.

Last time I was on the tube? Tuesday lunchtime, Aldgate to King's Cross.

 

[Crispy]

It has a superb chance of success.

Depends how you measure that, I guess.

 

[Poi E]

It does have a clear purpose. To eliminate drinking on the tube and the discomfort that is caused to many by it.

It has a superb chance of success. Despite the bleating of many on here, most Londoners will follow the rule and our city will be the better for it, along with many similar measures which I'm sure will follow.

Jesus, you really are an illiberal person.

 

[untethered]

Depends how you measure that, I guess.

By people following the rule voluntarily out of respect for authority and consideration for their fellow passengers, rather than through enforcement and coercion.

 

[editor]

It does have a clear purpose. To eliminate drinking on the tube and the discomfort that is caused to many by it..

Could you explain and quantify precisely what this 'discomfort' is please?

So far, it's seems that your comments are based entirely on your personal aesthetic tastes, because this thread remains extraordinarily light on actual evidence of the 'discomfort' caused by someone quietly enjoying a drink on the tube.

Of course, these is a minor problem with drunks on the tube, but - as been stated several times - the vast majority of them are already pissed before they get on the tube, so the ban won't make the tiniest bit of difference.

 

[ymu]

The ban isn't on pre-drinking. It's on drinking on the tube. I only make the point because people such as yourself have suggested that presumably "reasonable" pre-drinking is a good reason to oppose the ban. But the ban doesn't forbid pre-drinking specifically, but all drinking.

You seem to have missed the point by several miles. Pre-drinking isn't banned (how could it be?). Drinking on public transport is banned, which is likely to cause pre-drinkers to drink more before they get on, exacerbating problems caused by people being drunk.

It's not legislation, it's just a new rule for passengers on what is legally private property.

Is it not? Are the British Transport Police a private security firm then? I have no idea, but there's going to be 440 of them to enforce this apparently. I assumed that would require legislation or they won't be able to enforce it.

Either way, it's irrelevant semantics.

It does have a clear purpose. To eliminate drinking on the tube and the discomfort that is caused to many by it.

It has a superb chance of success. Despite the bleating of many on here, most Londoners will follow the rule and our city will be the better for it, along with many similar measures which I'm sure will follow.

Most Londoners don't cause problems on public transport due to being drunk. What they will do isn't really an issue, now is it? And forgive me, but with your deep understanding of this law and peoples' drinking habits, I'd suggest you're maybe not the best person to judge the chances of success.

 

[untethered]

Could you explain and quantify precisely what this 'discomfort' is please?

I think I've done enough explaining. As for trying to "quantify" the problem, it would be an absurdly reductionistic approach to an issue that is subtle yet undeniably real.

So far, it's seems that your comments are based entirely on your personal aesthetic tastes, because this thread remains extraordinarily light on actual evidence of the 'discomfort' caused by someone quietly enjoying a drink on the tube.

I have an instinct and concern for the comfort of others which is shared by few here but many in the rest of the city. It's a pity you're not one of them.

Of course, these is a minor problem with drunks on the tube, but - as been stated several times - the vast majority of them are already p- before they get on the tube, so the ban won't make the tiniest bit of difference.

Not so. Someone that is already very drunk and being disorderly would presumably be refused admittance to the train where enforcement were possible.

However, a person already quite drunk who proceeds to drink more will, inevitably, become more drunk. At some point they may well cross a threshold where their behaviour becomes not just unpleasant but actually threatening or violent. I'm sure we can both agree it's desirable to minimise the opportunities for that happening in a confined space where people cannot easily escape and help is not easily summoned.

In essence, we have a choice to permit people to become more drunk (however drunk they were to start with), or to mandate that they become less drunk by taking a pause in their drinking if they've already started, or to defer their drinking until after their journey if they haven't yet started and start it in a more appropriate place.

I know which of these makes the least sense.

 

[jæd]

I have an annual travelcard for zones 1-2 and it isn't Oyster.

Last time I was on the tube? Tuesday lunchtime, Aldgate to King's Cross.

You have an annual travel card but you don't use it daily..? That makes zero sense. Also zero sense to have a paper Annual Travelcard...

 

[untethered]

You seem to have missed the point by several miles. Pre-drinking isn't banned (how could it be?). Drinking on public transport is banned, which is likely to cause pre-drinkers to drink more before they get on, exacerbating problems caused by people being drunk.

I didn't suggest that "pre-drinking" would be banned, did I?

I return to my point that there is something very wrong with drinking to get drunk. Isn't that so?

 

[editor]

I think I've done enough explaining. As for trying to "quantify" the problem, it would be an absurdly reductionistic approach to an issue that is subtle yet undeniably real.

If it's real and worthy of new laws, show us your evidence.

I have an instinct and concern for the comfort of others which is shared by few here but many in the rest of the city. It's a pity you're not one of them.

What a load of deeply patronising bullshit. Who made you spokesperson for the city?

There's been far more cases of drink-related problems on flights. Do you want that banned too?

Not so. Someone that is already very drunk and being disorderly would presumably be refused admittance to the train where enforcement were possible.

So what are you proposing? Breathalysers at the barriers? Bag checks to make sure they're not carrying any more booze? And who's going to enforce this ban and attempt to physically eject drunk people off the station? The Beer Police?

Your solutions are as laughably half-arsed as Boris's idiotic ban.