Anyway we could ban ajdown. I don't like his posts much, and, based on his own ramblings, if someone doesn't like something much it should be banned...
Boris's ban on alcohol on London Transport (with poll)
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Anyway we could ban ajdown. I don't like his posts much, and, based on his own ramblings, if someone doesn't like something much it should be banned...
ajdown
Posting in this thread
Anyway we could ban ajdown. I don't like his posts much, and, based on his own ramblings, if someone doesn't like something much it should be banned...
If the only defense against the truths I post is to silence me, then it just goes to show that you have nothing left to counteract what I'm saying.
Funny how people here are fighting for 'freedom' and the ability to do whatever they want wherever they want whenever they want, regardless of how it might affect others ... then want to silence someone they simply disagree with.
No. They want to silence you because you are a self-pitying, boorish bigot.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
We dont cause potholes, pollution, congestion, parking problems, or pay through the nose for fuel.
And the bike predates the car, we were here first, so we own the roads.
I'm pretty sure you used to post here before under a different name, am I right?
untethered
For industry & decency
You should try to avoid commenting on fiscal policy as you don't understand it.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Either way, arguments are a better weapon.
The paranoid accusations don't help either.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
2a) the problem isn't being addressed merely the new mayor like the old one is moving the problem away from his own jurisdiction and into others then he can abdicated all responsiblity whilst continuing to complain about the shocking state of 24 hour drinking and people being drunk...
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
Who's engaged in full-time activism?
Every cyclist? I guess it's feasible you might think that, since you think (or pretend to think) that every cyclist does all those other things.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
untethered
For industry & decency
Ha, now this is funny
Isn't it just?
I know a fair few people whose jobs are full-time activism, often in environment and transport campaigns.
I suspect they don't cycle to work because they can't afford to drive.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
FWIW, I've looked into this a bit more. Turns out that most of the train companies already accept Oyster; there are only three that don't, all have already agreed to start accepting it, on a schedule, and FGW were actually supposed to be doing it in May, so they're now doing it later than previously arranged.
So, well done Boris for taking credit for something that had nothing to do with his actions at all.
dream_girl
waiting for my ban
anyone who states they're not selfish is very dodgy imo - especially if they're right wing. How can you be right wing without being selfish?
Cycling is the least selfish thing I do. When I drive I pollute and contribute to congestion. When I use my free travel facility I take a seat from paying passengers.
Neither could I - its dangerous
Unfortunately many motorists on my commuting route don't feel the same and are willing to put other's lives at risk just to save a few seconds journey time - or to save using their brakes. how does a cyclist weaving in and out of traffic present danger?
It's a pity most motorists don't have a concept of choosing a lane and staying in it, and not straddling two lanes to stop others getting in front, or realising that undertaking at speed is dangerous for other road users, and any maneouvre should only be carried out when visibilty is adequate - using mirrors and indicators as required by the law.
My experience is that illegally parked cars, cars impinging on the bus lanes, delivery vehicles, black cabs, road-works and badly driven buses are the main cause of blocked bus lanes. And if cyclists are moving, they are not blocking the bus lane (also marked as cycle lanes btw).
I'm not the fastest cyclist on the road, but rarely does a bus keep up with me on a journey across London - blocking is just not an issue - unless you mean buses holding up cyclists, because that can happen.
Hey - good use of taxpayers money. I suspect that these policemen would be far too busy booking all the buses, cars and lorries that abuse traffic lights before they bothered cyclists.
I have a free bus pass and a car. I am not so selfish that I would actually use my car during rush hour into central London.
Most cyclists I have known over the last 25 years earn a good salary, own a car, and can easily afford the bus fair.
and you're a complete tosser if you believe people only ride bikes because they can't afford any other way to commute. do you know how expensive some of those bikes are?dream_girl
waiting for my ban
Who's engaged in full-time activism?
One of the most common things I get shouted at me on the roads when a driver gets the arsehole with me is "get a job".
Er...I've got one, and what makes them think I haven't?
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Somebody's probably already pointed this out but I can't be arsed to trawl through the 1000 + posts to find out so forgive me if I'm repeating.
This policy is interesting in light of Johnson's long standing opposition to the public smoking ban. In fact he even pledged that he would allow local referendums on whether the ban should remain. He had to ditch this one pretty quick however when someone told him that he had no power to do it. Nonetheless, the hypocrisy is staggering: whilst he wants to allow smoking in public places, which has been proven to be harmful to others, he has outlawed drinking in public which is in and of itself is an entirely harmless pursuit.
Liberty my arse.
This policy is interesting in light of Johnson's long standing opposition to the public smoking ban. In fact he even pledged that he would allow local referendums on whether the ban should remain. He had to ditch this one pretty quick however when someone told him that he had no power to do it. Nonetheless, the hypocrisy is staggering: whilst he wants to allow smoking in public places, which has been proven to be harmful to others, he has outlawed drinking in public which is in and of itself is an entirely harmless pursuit.
Liberty my arse.
chainsaw cat
Tea. Biccies. Happy now?
Correct post.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
erm this makes a mockery of your entire biased loony conmment...
no one with even half a mind of a small gnat would call the consumption of alchol entirely harmless....
even if we ignore drunk drivers, domestic disputes, violence, vandalism, sexual promiscutiy leading to sexually transmitted disease or worse, vomit, broken glass, noise, anti social behaviour and all the instantly recognisable social ills from drinking there are the physicological damage being done and the level of damage beign done to the body which can be as harmful if sustainted as smoking if not worse...
dont' forget that smoking kills less people every year than alcoholism...
If you were going to have a public health issue and want to ban somehting from public consumptuion then it should be booze before fags... by some way...
but then this is the turkey voting for xmas isn't it.
the simple fact remains, people should have the legal right to chose to smoke in a premises they enter as should the premiese themseleves chose whether to allow smoking. Social situtations or actions do not and have never needed state interference, to introduce legislation to outlaw a legal activity in public which is what in essence this is be it drinking or smoking is utterly utterly draconian unnecessary and literlaly taking a liberty...
editor
hiraethified
For many moderate drinkers, it is.
In fact, there's good evidence to suggest that moderate alcohol consumption can be positively beneficially to your heath.
Garf, nobody is saying that alcohol is harmless, the debate is more about someone having a couple of cold ones on the way to the pub. Such people are pretty unlikely to be drunk. Hence the having the beer on the way.
ajdown
Posting in this thread
What about the rights of non-smokers?
I'm afraid they don't have any rights in London any more, Ken Livingstone passed a bye-law just before he left power.
ajdown
Posting in this thread
Elaborate?
editor
hiraethified
ajdown
Posting in this thread
Clearly I've missed something in the history of these forums.
i'm not sure if it extends to greater london, but in zones 1-3 anyway non-smokers are now subject to a range of proscriptive legislation, covering things like priority at road junctions and entry to public places. it was part of the reason boris johnson got elected.
Similar threads
