# tube party on june 1st?



## bluestreak (May 8, 2008)

this was suggested on the thread about that cunt johnson banning having a quiet beer.  but we should do it.  if you build it they will come, and all that.

how should we advertise it to get hundreds of people there?


----------



## bluestreak (May 8, 2008)

also, i'm thinking that perhaps requesting people to, whatever else they do, bring soft drinks in alcohol containers.  make a mockery of the whole thing, IYSWIM.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 8, 2008)

Better still bring Vodka in Evian bottles.  I think to get the biggest crowd you need to take out an advert in the Evening Standard or perhaps the Metro.  That way you will at least get a few hundred Transport Police turning up.


----------



## boohoo (May 8, 2008)

Sounds like a good idea to me!


----------



## citydreams (May 8, 2008)

June 1st is a Sunday.  Might be best waiting for the following Friday?


----------



## BadlyDrawnGirl (May 8, 2008)

Fantastic idea! 



bluestreak said:


> also, i'm thinking that perhaps requesting people to, whatever else they do, bring soft drinks in alcohol containers.  make a mockery of the whole thing, IYSWIM.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 8, 2008)

That was my idea!

Get it sorted though (I don't actually live in London) - I've currently got an enquiry into the Mayor's Office to establish the legality of drinking Shandy Bass on the tube too. That could be a laugh if everyone turns up with a slab of that and gets stuck in.


----------



## Stig (May 8, 2008)

We'll be there.



bluestreak said:


> .
> 
> how should we advertise it to get hundreds of people there?


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 8, 2008)

Why can't you just accept that you can't drink on public transport like everybody else, everywhere else in the country has to.

Why should London be a special case?


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Why can't you just accept that you can't drink on public transport like everybody else, everywhere else in the country has to.
> 
> Why should London be a special case?



Because London is a special case.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> this was suggested on the thread about that c- johnson banning having a quiet beer.



I'm sure having a huge, noisy, intimidating drunken party is the best way to demonstrate that "banning having a quiet beer" is an intolerable restriction on people's freedoms.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

Poi E said:


> Because London is a special case.



I think it's that Londoners think they're special cases. The rules don't apply to them.

Forward to the atomised society! We owe our fellow citizens nothing!


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2008)

EDITED: Would only have been funny at that particular point. now it's not.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 8, 2008)

Poi E said:


> Because London is a special case.



In many circumstances, particularly in relation to transport, yes it is.

In this particular instance, I don't see how it is


----------



## JTG (May 8, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Why can't you just accept that you can't drink on public transport like everybody else, everywhere else in the country has to.
> 
> Why should London be a special case?



I can drink on the trains anywhere else in the country


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

JTG said:


> I can drink on the trains anywhere else in the country


I can drink on planes too. Maybe they want to ban that too?


----------



## selamlar (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> I can drink on planes too. Maybe they want to ban that too?



Fuck that.  I could never set foot on a plane again without alcohol to dull the terror of being so far up in the air.


----------



## Xanadu (May 8, 2008)

And there's not much point in flying business class if you can't get free alcohol.

i.e. the airlines would never allow it!


----------



## Roadkill (May 8, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Why can't you just accept that you can't drink on public transport like everybody else, everywhere else in the country has to.



You can drink on the trains pretty much everywhere, and I see people drinking on buses all over the country.


----------



## Kanda (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> I can drink on planes too. Maybe they want to ban that too?


 
You can't drink your own booze on Planes. You also get a rather hefty fine for being drunk and disorderly on a plane.


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> In many circumstances, particularly in relation to transport, yes it is.
> 
> In this particular instance, I don't see how it is



Ah, it's just that a lot of people like London for its tolerance and permissiveness. If we wanted to live in curtain-twitching, repressed and hypocritical places we'd move to the home counties. If a beer on the tube shocks a christian or a little old lady, then our job is done.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

Poi E said:


> Ah, it's just that a lot of people like London for its tolerance and permissiveness. If we wanted to live in curtain-twitching, repressed and hypocritical places we'd move to the home counties. If a beer on the tube shocks a christian or a little old lady, then our job is done.



Thank you for that wonderful example of the evil, uncivil attitudes that Mr Johnson is now working to overcome.


----------



## Roadkill (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> Thank you for that wonderful example of the evil, uncivil attitudes that Mr Johnson is now working to overcome.



I'll say one thing for you.  You're a master deadpan comic.


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> Thank you for that wonderful example of the evil, uncivil attitudes that Mr Johnson is now working to overcome.



Hopefully he'll ban dour, sour old trouts like you soon. What awful event made you such a po-faced dullard?


----------



## Skorch (May 8, 2008)

Kanda said:


> You can't drink your own booze on Planes. You also get a rather hefty fine for being drunk and disorderly on a plane.



Bar service on the Tube?  Excellent idea.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 8, 2008)

Ban all puritans and their illiberal ways. Maybe we could put them on a boat and send them off somewhere - oh hang on, that didn't work out so well before.


----------



## ovaltina (May 8, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> how should we advertise it to get hundreds of people there?



Facepants. You'll get hundreds within days.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

You do realise this sounds as silly as a group of teenagers hiding behind the bike shed during morning break trying to grab a crafty cigarette without being caught by teacher, because it's the 'grown up and rebellious' thing to be doing?

The law is coming, there's nothing you can do about it except comply, or suffer the consequences.

Outside of this forum, I haven't seen much comment otherwise against the ban.


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You do realise this sounds as silly as a group of teenagers hiding behind the bike shed during morning break trying to grab a crafty cigarette without being caught by teacher, because it's the 'grown up and rebellious' thing to be doing?
> 
> The law is coming, there's nothing you can do about it except comply, or suffer the consequences.
> 
> Outside of this forum, I haven't seen much comment otherwise against the ban.



Sorry we can't be all grown up like you. We still like a bit of fun.


----------



## Stig (May 8, 2008)

ovaltina said:


> Facepants. You'll get hundreds within days.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You do realise this sounds as silly as a group of teenagers hiding behind the bike shed during morning break trying to grab a crafty cigarette without being caught by teacher, because it's the 'grown up and rebellious' thing to be doing?
> *
> The law is coming, there's nothing you can do about it except comply, or suffer the consequences.*
> 
> Outside of this forum, I haven't seen much comment otherwise against the ban.


----------



## Mitre10 (May 8, 2008)

Poi E said:


> Sorry we can't be all grown up like you. We still like a bit of fun.





I liked having a fag in the pub with my beer but the law changed and I dealt with it.

This is no different.


----------



## ovaltina (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Outside of this forum, I haven't seen much comment otherwise against the ban.



Do you read the Evening Boris by any chance?


----------



## corporate whore (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> The law is coming, there's nothing you can do about it except comply, or suffer the consequences.


 
 

I like how Johnson talked it up yesterday:

"Well, I, er, when people realise, er, that they can't, er, do this, er, drink on public transport, then, er, I rather think they'll stop."

Righto.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2008)

corporate whore said:


> I like how Johnson talked it up yesterday:
> 
> "Well, I, er, when people realise, er, that they can't, er, do this, er, drink on public transport, then, er, I rather think they'll stop."
> 
> Righto.



theres a man in touch with the people


----------



## jayeola (May 8, 2008)

^^ "..yes, and um, those young chaps carrying knives and stabbing people, i think that they ought to just jolly well stop""


----------



## corporate whore (May 8, 2008)

An administration based on an unswerving belief in the general public's all-round decency and sense of fair play. Was _that _in the mainfesto?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (May 8, 2008)

Does he mean to ban drink on trains in London? What about the trains that serve drinks? When will it be OK to have a drink, is Croydon far enough? What about planes in London, do I have to wait until I am out of London airspace?

Will I be arrested on the tube? It won't be coppers enforcing anything and I'm not sure the RMT are too keen to enforce the ban either, and what powers would they actually have?


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

Mitre10 said:


> I liked having a fag in the pub with my beer but the law changed and I dealt with it.
> 
> This is no different.



Yes it is. Passive smoking kills. Having a beer on the tube most certainly does not.


----------



## Mitre10 (May 8, 2008)

First they came for the...


Fair enough, it might not cause harm to others, but it does smell.

I would have thought that most people would like someone sitting next to them who doesn't stink of booze than someone who does.





(Playing devil's advocate by the way, I have enjoyed a can on the tube as much as most people here).


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2008)

Mitre10 said:


> First they came for the...
> 
> 
> Fair enough, it might not cause harm to others, but it does smell.
> ...



most people would prefer to sit next to someone who doesn't reek of stale sweat. Would it be reasonable to ban smelly people from the tube?


----------



## Mitre10 (May 8, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> most people would prefer to sit next to someone who doesn't reek of stale sweat. Would it be reasonable to ban smelly people from the tube?




In a word, yes.

Dirty minging bastards, have a bit of self-respect and consideration for others.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2008)

Mitre10 said:


> In a word, yes.
> 
> Dirty minging bastards, have a bit of self-respect and consideration for others.





but seriously, hot day, you in suit, you happen to sweat a lot. Some people do. Is it then reasonable to insist that they shower before they leave work as well as  before they leave in the morning?


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 8, 2008)

Mitre10 said:


> I would have thought that most people would like someone sitting next to them who doesn't stink of booze than someone who does.



But smelling of booze hasn't been banned! ( I know you're only playing devils advocate).


----------



## Mitre10 (May 8, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> but seriously, hot day, you in suit, you happen to sweat a lot. Some people do. Is it then reasonable to insist that they shower before they leave work as well as  before they leave in the morning?




Things you could theoretically ban from the tube include booze, fried food, any food, people who keep backpacks on their backs in the rush hour, kids playing music on phone speakers, smelly people, pissed people, people who have to sit seats away from each other because its busy but still carry on their conversation by shouting, tourists, wasps etc.

Personally, I'd happy to see the back of some of those more than others but I wouldn't like to see a ban implemented against any of them (except the last one maybe!).

I can see other people's point of view though, and I imagine that a substantial number of folks may be intimidated by the sight of others swigging from a can on the tube, or sitting next to them and drinking, others may not like the smell etc etc.

If there are a substantial number then why shouldn't this law be bought in?!? 

As I said earlier, I'm not for it in the slightest. I wasn't for the cigarette ban in pubs either but that happened and I had to change the way I behaved slightly. Looks like I'll have to do it again and wait till I get home for a can now (west end to far end of the central line = 45min journey - probably longer than most on the tube system) but its not a biggie in the general scheme of things.

IMHO of course.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2008)

Mitre10 said:


> As I said earlier, I'm not for it in the slightest. I wasn't for the cigarette ban in pubs either but that happened and I had to change the way I behaved slightly. Looks like I'll have to do it again and wait till I get home for a can now (west end to far end of the central line = 45min journey - probably longer than most on the tube system) but its not a biggie in the general scheme of things.
> 
> IMHO of course.




Get used to rolling over for every govmnt freedom restricting whim if you like. I shan't be joining you.


----------



## Mitre10 (May 8, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Get used to rolling over for every govmnt freedom restricting whim if you like. I shan't be joining you.




Gave up a while ago as this country is heading towards being the sort of place I really don't like. It's a shame because I used to love it, living in London especially. Sometimes I despair about the state we're in at the moment.

Fed up with it all so am a year into my three year plan to emigration (if I pass my courses and nothing happens to change my mind in the meantime!!). Am well aware that the grass might just look greener, but decided if I didn't try I'll never know.

Fucking government, don't plan on being here to see what a change to the tories will be like...


----------



## Onket (May 8, 2008)

I hope this happens. Just please don't bill it as any kind of flashmob effort.


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

Mitre10 said:


> Gave up a while ago as this country is heading towards being the sort of place I really don't like. It's a shame because I used to love it, living in London especially. Sometimes I despair about the state we're in at the moment.
> 
> Fed up with it all so am a year into my three year plan to emigration (if I pass my courses and nothing happens to change my mind in the meantime!!). Am well aware that the grass might just look greener, but decided if I didn't try I'll never know.
> 
> Fucking government, don't plan on being here to see what a change to the tories will be like...



Where are you planning on emigrating to?


----------



## art of fact (May 8, 2008)

i think im gonna organise my own protest cos im gonna be away at the time


----------



## STFC (May 8, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> how should we advertise it to get hundreds of people there?



Free drink?


----------



## Mitre10 (May 8, 2008)

Poi E said:


> Where are you planning on emigrating to?




Moscow hopefully... frying pan and fire come to mind!!   


Anyway, sorry for the thread derail, on with the tube party planning.


----------



## jayeola (May 8, 2008)

Has anyone mentioned the circle line pub crawl on this thread? It would be a simple way to get more attention. Loads of ppl may be interested but the thought of breaking the law may put them off.


----------



## bluestreak (May 8, 2008)

They haven't.  It's not a bad idea.  Did the spacehijackers organise a circle line party once?


----------



## Mitre10 (May 9, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> They haven't.  It's not a bad idea.  Did the spacehijackers organise a circle line party once?




Space Hijackers have organised 3 so far to my knowledge.


 SH Circle Line Party 1

SH Circle Line Party 2

SH Circle Line Party 3


Last one got a bit too big, attracted too much attention and got stoppped before it really started.

Circle Line pub crawl is  :

http://www.tclpc.i12.com/the_circle_line_pub_crawl/TCLPC000-The_Circle_Line_Pub_Crawl-main_page.htm


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

Despite being illegal, it does look fun.

You do realise, of course, you could probably 'charter' a train for only a couple of quid per person if you got it organised and sold tickets, and not get in anyone's way.


----------



## TopCat (May 9, 2008)

How does one swig a can of beer aggresively compared to quaffing champagne ?


----------



## TopCat (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Despite being illegal, it does look fun.
> 
> You do realise, of course, you could probably 'charter' a train for only a couple of quid per person if you got it organised and sold tickets, and not get in anyone's way.



No you can't.


----------



## bluestreak (May 9, 2008)

I'm not aware that one can charter an underground train.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Despite being illegal, it does look fun.



In what way is it 'illegal'?


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I'm not aware that one can charter an underground train.



I've seen 'enthusiast specials' run before, although I can't remember whether these were organised privately or by LUL.


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

RenegadeDog said:


> In what way is it 'illegal'?



Hmm.... overcrowding, for a start.

I dare say 'antisocial behaviour' could be called in for making a noise.

Probably also 'interfering with the operation of a train' by preventing it being used by passengers for the purpose of travelling (due to overcrowding).

Blocking the aisles with your equipment is probably a safety issue.

The naked dancer I saw on one of the pictures certainly could be prosecuted for indecency.

Then, of course, there's the new alcohol ban coming in soon.


That's a start anyway.


----------



## bluestreak (May 9, 2008)

Well, ajdown, if this gets underway you're welcome to come along.  You don't need to drink, in fact, it seems to me that it might be a more efficient protest if a significant proportion of people AREN'T drinking.  That way, if the police try to break it up and don't use Johnson's silly new laws, it will show everyone that the laws are unnecessary.


----------



## Poi E (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I've seen 'enthusiast specials' run before, although I can't remember whether these were organised privately or by LUL.



The anorak express? We'd all have to be drinking real ale.


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Well, ajdown, if this gets underway you're welcome to come along.  You don't need to drink, in fact, it seems to me that it might be a more efficient protest if a significant proportion of people AREN'T drinking.  That way, if the police try to break it up and don't use Johnson's silly new laws, it will show everyone that the laws are unnecessary.



It depends what day it's on, and where I am at that point.  I guess the good thing is, of course, that nobody would know who I am.


----------



## Nixon (May 9, 2008)

I've been drinking on the bus everyday since that's been in the papers  Haven't had anyone said a word to me either.

I'd be well up for this tube party though if it does happen..send us a pm.Much appreciated.


----------



## Crispy (May 9, 2008)

The 3rd circle line party got stopped by the cops - at Sloane Square, so the party just carried on in the square, with a great big samba band


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Hmm.... overcrowding, for a start.



Well then every single day in rush hour is 'illegal'.  Or is the tube only allowed to be crowded with certain kinds of people?



> I dare say 'antisocial behaviour' could be called in for making a noise.



Right, but this is a rather sketchy definition of illegal.



> Probably also 'interfering with the operation of a train' by preventing it being used by passengers for the purpose of travelling (due to overcrowding).



But in a free country (i.e. not a police state) whose business is it of anyone to determine who or what can use the tube at any given time, presuming they have paid the fare?



> Blocking the aisles with your equipment is probably a safety issue.



But not illegal, otherwise all the backpackers on the tube for Heathrow are for the high jump.



> The naked dancer I saw on one of the pictures certainly could be prosecuted for indecency.



Hmmm



> Then, of course, there's the new alcohol ban coming in soon.



But, as mentioned, is drinking on the tube now 'illegal' or merely against the rules of the Underground?


----------



## Poi E (May 9, 2008)

Who let all the boring fuckers on the boards lately? Miserable, calvinist cunts with too much time to worry about rules.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Poi E said:


> Who let all the boring f- on the boards lately? Miserable, calvinist c- with too much time to worry about rules.



Should there be a rule to ban them?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> Should there be a rule to ban them?



Yes! Gas all nazis!


----------



## Poi E (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> Should there be a rule to ban them?



You'd be the one to decide. 

How much do people need to be regulated, untethered?


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Poi E said:


> You'd be the one to decide.
> 
> How much do people need to be regulated, untethered?



To within an inch of their lives.

And then the other inch, just to be on the safe side.


----------



## Poi E (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> To within an inch of their lives.
> 
> And then the other inch, just to be on the safe side.



 I forgot. The resident troll.


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

Poi E said:


> Who let all the boring fuckers on the boards lately? Miserable, calvinist cunts with too much time to worry about rules.



I guess you're referring to me.

Unlucky.  I'm here, and I'm staying until I choose to go elsewhere.

I don't have to worry about rules, because I don't break any of them, therefore I'm not in danger of falling foul of the law enforcement agencies put in place by our democratically elected government for the better good of the country as a whole.


----------



## Poi E (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I guess you're referring to me.
> 
> Unlucky.  I'm here, and I'm staying until I choose to go elsewhere.
> 
> I don't have to worry about rules, because I don't break any of them, therefore I'm not in danger of falling foul of the law enforcement agencies put in place by our democratically elected government for the better good of the country as a whole.



Until they change the rules that affect something that you practise or believe in.

Your blind faith in the powers of the state is appalling. Do you read history?


----------



## Thimble Queen (May 9, 2008)

even though boris is banning drinking alcohol on the tube, you cant get arrested for it yet... Just get asked to leave... right? 

Well up for this btw! x x


----------



## salem (May 9, 2008)

I've seen it mentioned a few places too. However might attract more people and be good if it gets done on 31st May (i.e last day of being legal) and also a Saturday night.


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

Poi E said:


> Until they change the rules that affect something that you practise or believe in.
> 
> Your blind faith in the powers of the state is appalling. Do you read history?



Many things I practise or believe in ARE affected, thanks to liberals and loony lefties.  There's absolutely nothing we can do about it, because we get accused of being racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever else by groups like Stonewall.

I am white and straight.  In Brixton, I am a minority.  Where are the protections for me?  Nowhere.


----------



## christonabike (May 9, 2008)

> I am white and straight. In Brixton, I am a minority. Where are the protections for me? Nowhere.



No you are not a minority

You are a berk


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Many things I practise or believe in ARE affected, thanks to liberals and loony lefties.  There's absolutely nothing we can do about it, because we get accused of being racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever else by groups like Stonewall.
> 
> I am white and straight.  In Brixton, I am a minority.  Where are the protections for me?  Nowhere.



Dear oh dear.  And I thought you were just an old fuddy duddy.


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

christonabike said:


> No you are not a minority


Clearly you haven't been round Brixton lately.  Often I'm the only white face on my bus.


----------



## christonabike (May 9, 2008)

> Clearly you haven't been round Brixton lately.



No I clearly haven't even though I have lived here for fifteen years, cycle through it everyday, and am off to a Brixton pub to meet some Brixton mates after work

Look at some stats rather than geting your info from "who's on the bus today"

I'll put a smiley this time as I say it with humour

Berk


----------



## Poi E (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> l.
> 
> I am white and straight.  In Brixton, I am a minority.  Where are the protections for me?  Nowhere.



Ahhh...here it is. What makes you feel so sorry for yourself? I'm white, straight, live in SE London and think I have the best deal in the world. What is hurting you so much? Is it the familial alcoholic background? A feeling of being given the rough end of the stick?


----------



## citydreams (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Clearly you haven't been round Brixton lately.  Often I'm the only white face on my bus.



Gosh! 

There's a white's only thread thataway >>>>>>


----------



## Crispy (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I am white and straight.  In Brixton, I am a minority.



No you're not
Here is a good source of stats
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk
Drill down to 2001 Census: Key Statistics, KS06 Ethnic Group


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Clearly you haven't been round Brixton lately.  Often I'm the only white face on my bus.



Is that a bad thing?


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> Is that a bad thing?



Not in itself, no.

Just making the point that you never see 'white' anything groups, or 'straight pride' marches anywhere.  When you do, it's classed as discriminatory, but every other culture and orientation can get away with it under 'diversity'.


----------



## christonabike (May 9, 2008)

Fucking hell, you're showing your true colours


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

christonabike said:


> Fucking hell, you're showing your true colours



White is the only colour I am.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Not in itself, no.
> 
> Just making the point that you never see 'white' anything groups, or 'straight pride' marches anywhere.  When you do, it's classed as discriminatory, but every other culture and orientation can get away with it under 'diversity'.



I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by lumping race and sexual behaviour together. People don't get to choose which colour they're born.


----------



## Thimble Queen (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> White is the only colour I am.




wtf


----------



## citydreams (May 9, 2008)

Anyway, now we know what colour and sexuality ajdown is 

....how about that party!?


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by lumping race and sexual behaviour together. People don't get to choose which colour they're born.



Both do consider themselves 'minorities' though, and as a result demand special treatment for equality.


----------



## citydreams (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Both do consider themselves 'minorities' though, and as a result demand special treatment for equality.



Off topic.

Start your own thread please.


----------



## Crispy (May 9, 2008)

Crispy said:


> No you're not
> Here is a good source of stats
> http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk
> Drill down to 2001 Census: Key Statistics, KS06 Ethnic Group


Here, I've done the work for you. This data is from the 2001 census and includes the 5 central Brixton wards (Coldharbour,Tulse Hill,Ferndale,Herne Hill,Brixton Hill)


```
All People				64656
White: British				28732
Black or Black British: Caribbean	10355
Black or Black British: African		8506
White: Other White			6352
White: Irish				1955
Black or Black British: Other Black	1787
Mixed: White and Black Caribbean	1513
Mixed: Other Mixed			831
Chinese or other ethnic group: Chinese	768
Asian or Asian British: Indian		763
Chinese or other ethnic group:		738
Mixed: White and Black African		574
Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi	537
Mixed: White and Asian			495
Asian or Asian British: Other Asian	398
Asian or Asian British: Pakistani	352
```

White British isn't quite a majority, but if you count Irish and Other White, then the magical 50% line is crossed.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Both do consider themselves 'minorities' though, and as a result demand special treatment for equality.



They _are_ minorities. Why shouldn't they have equality?


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Here, I've done the work for you. This data is from the 2001 census and includes the 5 central Brixton wards (Coldharbour,Tulse Hill,Ferndale,Herne Hill,Brixton Hill)
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



57%/43% white/non-white.


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> They _are_ minorities. Why shouldn't they have equality?



Didn't say they shouldn't  ... it's when they get special treatment it's wrong.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Didn't say they shouldn't  ... it's when they get special treatment it's wrong.



What kind of special treatment? Priority seats on the buses?


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> What kind of special treatment? Priority seats on the buses?



On the estate I used to live, there was a special housing officer for dealing with the 'special needs' of homosexual clients.  There was also one for the 'black community'.

The only community group I can see as really having 'special needs' is disabled people, as regards accessibility, perhaps modifications to the flat, not being on the 20th floor etc.

Anyway... there was a topic somewhere.


----------



## rutabowa (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by lumping race and sexual behaviour together. People don't get to choose which colour they're born.


so presumably you think you shoudl be able to legislate against behaviour that people have a choice over (such as "drinking on buses" or "being gay" according to you tho according to most scientists and my experience people do not choose sexuality), if whoever's in charge thinks it's morally bad?


----------



## Poi E (May 9, 2008)

I want a badge for outing the cry baby.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> so presumably you think you shoudl be able to legislate against behaviour that people have a choice over (such as "drinking on buses" or "being gay" according to you tho according to most scientists and my experience people do not choose sexuality), if whoever's in charge thinks it's morally bad?



Yes. And not only do I think so, that principle is at the cornerstone of society.

Of course, opinions differ on what should fall within the scope of regulation.


----------



## Poi E (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> Yes. And not only do I think so, that principle is at the cornerstone of society.


 How sweet.

We organise society to exploit resources, you twit. Controlling behavior is simply an means to an end.


----------



## rutabowa (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> Yes. And not only do I think so, that principle is at the cornerstone of society.
> 
> Of course, opinions differ on what should fall within the scope of regulation.


you can see how dangerous that is though? if someone got in power who thought being gay was immoral (heaven forbid! what city would vote in a wanker like that), then they could start legislating against that. no holding hands in the street etc. "principle at the cornerstone of society", making laws to ban whatever you dislike? what total bullshit.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> you can see how dangerous that is though? if someone got in power who thought being gay was immoral (heaven forbid! what city would vote in a w- like that), then they could start legislating against that. no holding hands in the street etc. "principle at the cornerstone of society", making laws to ban whatever you dislike? what total b-.



So how would that be different in principle from holding that to be opposed to homosexuality was immoral and banning anything that contradicted that?


----------



## rutabowa (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> So how would that be different in principle from holding that to be opposed to homosexuality was immoral and banning anything that contradicted that?



er too many double negatives, i don't understand. 

i think you have made your views pretty clear anyway.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> er too many double negatives, i don't understand.



Do you see any difference in principle between banning homosexual acts and banning opposition to homosexual acts?


----------



## Crispy (May 9, 2008)

I'd like to prohibit the banning of opposition to homosexual acts


----------



## rutabowa (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> Do you see any difference in principle between banning homosexual acts and banning opposition to homosexual acts?



what form would this opposition take? i don't see how it is possible to ban the abstract idea of "opposition". i don't really see what you are getting at, do you think opposition to gayness has been banned or something? there is actually a lot of "opposition" (homophobia) around that noone does anything about. of course there are laws to cover incitement to violence and assaults, i presume you would not want those to be allowed?


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Crispy said:


> I'd like to prohibit the banning of opposition to homosexual acts



I'd be opposed to a ban on such a prohibition.

The question is, how to communicate that to the public?

Oh, hang on...


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> what form would this opposition take? i don't see how it is possible to ban the abstract idea of "opposition". i don't really see what you are getting at, do you think opposition to gayness has been banned or something?



Take the prohibition of discrimination against homosexual couples in adoption, for example. The Catholic adoption agencies didn't like that.



rutabowa said:


> there is actually a lot of "opposition" (homophobia) around that noone does anything about.



All the more reason to think that there is a serious division in society over this that won't be mended just by mandating how people should act.



rutabowa said:


> of course there are laws to cover incitement to violence and assaults, i presume you would not want those to be allowed?



Of course not. But I struggle to see why a law against inciting violence against anyone needs to be supplemented further with aggravated offences when it's directed against a particular group.


----------



## rutabowa (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> All the more reason to think that there is a serious division in society over this that won't be mended just by mandating how people should act.


yet you think there should be a mandate against people drinking on buses? you would rather people were allowed to be openly homophobic (they are allowed to be right now) than to drink on a bus (now banned)? how totally fucked up. this just goes to show how morals are subjective and why it is dangerous to build laws around them.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> yet you think there should be a mandate against people drinking on buses? you would rather people were allowed to be openly homophobic (they are allowed to be right now) than to drink on a bus (now banned)? how totally f- up. this just goes to show how morals are subjective and why it is dangerous to build laws around them.



Drinking on buses isn't a moral issue which affects anyone's core beliefs. Just a matter of preference.

If you're not going to build laws around morals, what?


----------



## rutabowa (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> Drinking on buses isn't a moral issue which affects anyone's core beliefs. Just a matter of preference.


so even less of a reason to legislate against it.

as for making laws based on morals... well in my opinion why make a law against something if it's not harming anyone? so yeh, keep the murder law, the stealing law etc. but don't bring in laws against people sleeping with who they want to, or having a can of beer on the bus, or wearing red on tuesday or whatever random thing you have a prejudice against.

(i suppose you could call it a "moral" thing not to want to harm people, but that is fairly universal thing to our species, i think we are safe in using that as a foundation for a good society)


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> Of course not. But I struggle to see why a law against inciting violence against anyone needs to be supplemented further with aggravated offences when it's directed against a particular group.


I agree (although the context and motivation for the crime are relevant when considering sentence and the extent to which an individual is an ongoing threat to others, obv).

However, you ignore the origins of these laws, which were introduced at a time when racism and homophobia were much more "socially acceptable" (to judges and juries, as well as the perpetrators). These attitudes are not at all acceptable in a modern civilised society, and sometimes it is necessary to use legislation to enforce acceptable standards of behaviour, as I'm sure you will agree.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> so even less of a reason to legislate against it.



There are many valid motivations for regulation. Prohibiting behaviour that causes low-level disorder might not fall within anyone's core morality but there are still good arguments for and against such a ban without accepting that such a ban should _never_ be countenanced.



rutabowa said:


> as for making laws based on morals... well in my opinion why make a law against something if it's not harming anyone?



I don't think anyone does unless they're just being gratuitously authoritarian. But ideas vary on what constitutes "harm". For example, I'd ban gambling as I think it does tremendous harm to society as a whole, if not to every single individual gambler every time they play. Clearly, many would disagree.



rutabowa said:


> so yeh, keep the murder law, the stealing law etc. but don't bring in laws against people sleeping with who they want to, or having a can of beer on the bus, or wearing red on tuesday or whatever random thing you have a prejudice against.



They're not "random", and that's the point.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

ymu said:


> However, you ignore the origins of these laws, which were introduced at a time when racism and homophobia were much more "socially acceptable" (to judges and juries, as well as the perpetrators). These attitudes are not at all acceptable in a modern civilised society, and sometimes it is necessary to use legislation to enforce acceptable standards of behaviour, as I'm sure you will agree.



I agree that the law is one way in which we shape the kind of society we want.

I'd disagree with you on some aspects of what a "civilised society" would look like. I'm pretty ambivalent about whether it's "modern".


----------



## Roadkill (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by lumping race and sexual behaviour together. People don't get to choose which colour they're born.



You think that people choose their sexuality then?


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> You think that people choose their sexuality then?



People choose who they sleep with.


----------



## rich! (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> People choose who they sleep with.



So you favour repression?


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

rich! said:


> So you favour repression?



I favour sexual continence, and that goes for heterosexuals too.


----------



## rutabowa (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> I favour sexual continence, and that goes for heterosexuals too.


you are being very mealy-mouthed. why don't you just say what you really think?


----------



## Roadkill (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> People choose who they sleep with.



Answer the question, please.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> you are being very mealy-mouthed. why don't you just say what you really think?



How do you know what I really think?


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Answer the question, please.



Like everyone that doesn't take a prejudiced view of the complex construct of sexual attraction, I'm not convinced that people are entirely "born homosexual" (or, indeed, not).

What I can say for certain is that people choose who they sleep with.

Clear?


----------



## Roadkill (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> Like everyone that doesn't take a prejudiced view of the complex construct of sexual attraction, I'm not convinced that people are entirely "born homosexual" (or, indeed, not).
> 
> What I can say for certain is that people choose who they sleep with.
> 
> Clear?



No.  You're conflating being and doing.  Of course people choose who they sleep with, but that's not the same as who they're attracted to.  Do you think people choose that?


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> What I can say for certain is that people choose who they sleep with.


Why does it matter to you who they choose to sleep with? As long as it's with consenting adults, I can't see how it could possibly concern you.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> No.  You're confusing being and doing.



I think I have made the distinction entirely clear twice now.



Roadkill said:


> Of course people choose who they sleep with, but that's not the same as who they're attracted to.  Do you think people choose that?



I believe my earlier answer, in summary, was "we don't entirely know".

But the question is immaterial unless you believe that people should be permitted to sleep with everything to which they're sexually attracted. Do you?


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

ymu said:


> Why does it matter to you who they choose to sleep with? As long as it's with consenting adults, I can't see how it could possibly concern you.



I'm quite sure you can't.


----------



## Roadkill (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> I think I have made the distinction entirely clear twice now.



No, you haven't.  All you've done is to say 'people choose who they sleep with,' which is nothing more than stating the obvious.



> I believe my earlier answer, in summary, was "we don't entirely know".
> 
> But the question is immaterial unless you believe that people should be permitted to sleep with everything to which they're sexually attracted. Do you?



It's not strictly true to say that 'we entirely don't know.'  A fair amount of research has been done over the last couple of decades.  Much of that has pointed to a genetic or biological influence on sexuality.  That cannot be ignored, surely?  Nor is it any use trying to bat it aside as 'immaterial,' because if homosexuality is an inborn trait what grounds can there be for disadvantaging people on the basis of it?

No, of course people can't sleep with everyone they're attracted to - what about paedophiles? - but I can't see what you're driving at.  You seem to be hinting that you don't like the legal position that gay people are in these days.  If so, what do you think the law should be? 

Rutabowa's right.  You are being very mealy-mouthed about this.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> It's not strictly true to say that 'we entirely don't know.'  A fair amount of research has been done over the last couple of decades.  Much of that has pointed to a genetic or biological influence on sexuality.  That cannot be ignored, surely?  Nor is it any use trying to bat it aside as 'immaterial,' because if homosexuality is an inborn trait what grounds can there be for disadvantaging people on the basis of it?



An influence isn't deterministic. You seem to want to greatly simplify something that is complex and to a degree, unknown.



Roadkill said:


> No, of course people can't sleep with everyone they're attracted to - what about paedophiles? - but I can't see what you're driving at.  You seem to be hinting that you don't like the legal position that gay people are in these days.  If so, what do you think the law should be?
> 
> Rutabowa's right.  You are being very mealy-mouthed about this.



Frankly, you've been asking simplistic questions and getting answers that more than do justice to the quality of the questions.

I believe that sex outside marriage is immoral and the law should prohibit it. I believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.


----------



## Fez909 (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> But the question is immaterial unless you believe that people should be permitted to sleep with everything to which they're sexually attracted. Do you?


 
Between consenting adults, or between an adult and an inanimate object (pavement, bicycle, whatever ), yes.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Fez909 said:


> Between consenting adults, or between an adult and an inanimate object (pavement, bicycle, whatever ), yes.



Didn't a fellow get prosecuted for having sex with a bicycle?


----------



## Fez909 (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> I believe that sex outside marriage is immoral and the law should prohibit it. I believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.


 
LOL


----------



## Fez909 (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> Didn't a fellow get prosecuted for having sex with a bicycle?


 
Yep.  I feel he shouldn't have.  What's your view?


----------



## rich! (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> Didn't a fellow get prosecuted for having sex with a bicycle?



In a room in a hotel that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in, as well.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Fez909 said:


> LOL



It's amusing, until you consider that this view is almost certainly shared by the majority of the world's population and in our increasingly globalised world you're going to meet a lot more people like me.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Fez909 said:


> Yep.  I feel he shouldn't have.  What's your view?



I think I'd want to know more about the facts of the case, but there's something not right about having sex with bicycles.


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> Didn't a fellow get prosecuted for having sex with a bicycle?


I don't believe there is a law against having sex with inanimate objects. If there is, there are an awful lot of people who are criminals as a result of their private sex lives.

IIRC he was prosecuted for some form of indecency purely on the basis that he was witnessed by two other people, who entered his room when he did not answer to them knocking on the door.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> It's amusing, until you consider that this view is almost certainly shared by the majority of the world's population and in our increasingly globalised world you're going to meet a lot more people like me.



I've never met anyone like you. To the extent that I don't think you even exist.


----------



## Roadkill (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> An influence isn't deterministic. You seem to want to greatly simplify something that is complex and to a degree, unknown.



I used the word 'influence' rather than 'determinant' for a reason...  I'm certainly not simplifying what you rightly say is a very complex issue.  What I am trying to point out is that saying 'we just don't know' is not a truthful answer to the question of what determines sexuality, and that the question is far from immaterial.  If there is strong evidence that homosexuality is an inborn trait and none at all of its being a conscious choice, then that pulls the rug out from under the feet of those who would insist that it's purely a matter of behaviour that the law should be used to control.  You know this full well, which is why you've been bobbing and weaving around the question rather than giving a direct answer.

I'm gay, and I can assure you I didn't choose to be.  If you're going to carry on implying that I must have done, I have to ask, are you calling me a liar, or just suggesting you know me better than I know myself?



> Frankly, you've been asking simplistic questions and getting answers that more than do justice to the quality of the questions.
> 
> I believe that sex outside marriage is immoral and the law should prohibit it. I believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.



No, I've asked you direct questions that you're apparently incapable of or unwilling to answer.  However, from that it seems clear enough that you think gay sex should be illegal, since gay people cannot get married - unless you count a civil partnership a marriage, which I very much doubt.  

Thankfully, most people find the idea that the state should be regulating what consenting adults get up to in private repellent.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

ymu said:


> I don't believe there is a law against having sex with inanimate objects. If there is, there are an awful lot of people who are criminals as a result of their private sex lives.
> 
> IIRC he was prosecuted for some form of indecency purely on the basis that he was witnessed by two other people, who entered his room when he did not answer to them knocking on the door.



I think that's about right.

And I'd agree with the people here (presumably most of them) that this prosecution seems unreasonable given the wide range of perversions that are permitted, if not encouraged.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> I used the word 'influence' rather than 'determinant' for a reason...  I'm certainly not simplifying what you rightly say is a very complex issue.  What I am trying to point out is that saying 'we just don't know' is not a truthful answer to the question of what determines sexuality, and that the question is far from immaterial.



In which case perhaps you could point me to an unassailable study of the matter around which there is no serious dispute.



Roadkill said:


> If there is strong evidence that homosexuality is an inborn trait and none at all of its being a conscious choice, then that pulls the rug out from under the feet of those who would insist that it's purely a matter of behaviour that the law should be used to control.



Hardly. In fact, you could barely be more wrong.

All forms of social control are there to restrain people from acting on their instincts, whether those instincts are inborn and enduring, or transient.

The issue for people like me is absolutely not about whether or to what extent a behaviour is "natural" or instinctive. It's about whether it's good.

You mentioned earlier the matter of paedophiles. The underlying principle is the same. 



Roadkill said:


> You know this full well, which is why you've been bobbing and weaving around the question rather than giving a direct answer.



I know nothing of the sort, as I've explained above.



Roadkill said:


> I'm gay, and I can assure you I didn't choose to be.  If you're going to carry on implying that I must have done, I have to ask, are you calling me a liar, or just suggesting you know me better than I know myself?



I'm absolutely not implying that you chose to be "gay". I know nothing about your personal circumstances (and I'm not asking.)

I believe my first comment on the matter was that we don't know but that there's evidence that people's sexual instincts are not the product of any single factor or process.

What I do know is that we shouldn't do wrong things just because we are inclined towards them. From time to time I may covet my neighbour's ass, but I would be rightly condemned should I seize it.

I take it you disagree with the idea that homosexuals should "recruit"?



Roadkill said:


> No, I've asked you direct questions that you're apparently incapable of or unwilling to answer.  However, from that it seems clear enough that you think gay sex should be illegal, since gay people cannot get married - unless you count a civil partnership a marriage, which I very much doubt.



I think I made that point clear when I said that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman.



Roadkill said:


> Thankfully, most people find the idea that the state should be regulating what consenting adults get up to in private repellent.



So I take it you have no objection to regulating public behaviour such as:

- employment
- adoption
- marriage, "civil partnership", divorce
- inheritance
- education policy
- public health policy
- public order and decency
- publications and obscenity
- behaviour in de facto public places such as clubs


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> - employment
> - adoption
> - marriage, "civil partnership", divorce
> - inheritance
> ...


These are all things/situations which affect others, potentially in a negative way. Having sex with one or more consenting adults in private does not. Very poor effort.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

ymu said:


> These are all things/situations which affect others, potentially in a negative way.
> 
> Having sex with one or more consenting adults in private does not.



So how do we get from what consenting adults do in private to (for example) the demand from a group of adults to have what they do in private protected and to a degree privileged in law?

This concept of "private" behaviour is arbitrary and facile anyway. The law doesn't support people doing whatever they like provided that there is consent, even among adults. Nor would any reasonable person suggest that the things people do in private may not have public consequences.

You can choose to take a wholly libertarian view if you like, but the law certainly doesn't.


----------



## Onket (May 9, 2008)

We're we talking about drinking on the tube a few pages back?


----------



## Roadkill (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> In which case perhaps you could point me to an unassailable study of the matter around which there is no serious dispute.



Not one single study, no.  I could, however, point you to the research done by people such as Simon LeVay and the study a couple of years ago that suggested some pre-birth hormonal influences (BBC story).  There's a useful summary of research findings on Levay's page here.  Together, it adds up to a body of evidence you can't just bat aside as 'immaterial.'



> Hardly. In fact, you could barely be more wrong.
> 
> All forms of social control are there to restrain people from acting on their instincts, whether those instincts are inborn and enduring, or transient.
> 
> ...



So, you're prepared to countenance people being placed in a disadvantageous position because of a characteristic they did not choose and cannot change?  Isn't that a very dangerous precedent to set?  

The comparison with paedophilia is nonsense, because it ignores the question of consent.  Children are rightly deemed incapable of giving informed consent to sex, so it's illegal.  But what grounds are there for making sex between consenting adults illegal, except for some self-referential moral code that defines actions as 'good' and 'bad' arbitrarily, without any reference to their consequences in reality.



> I know nothing of the sort, as I've explained above.



Then try harder.  It's pretty obvious.



> I'm absolutely not implying that you chose to be "gay". I know nothing about your personal circumstances (and I'm not asking.)
> 
> I believe my first comment on the matter was that we don't know but that there's evidence that people's sexual instincts are not the product of any single factor or process.
> 
> ...



How do homosexuals recruit, then?  



> I think I made that point clear when I said that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman.



Just thought I'd clarify... 

Tell me, are you aware of the Montagu trials and the aftermath of them...?



> So I take it you have no objection to regulating public behaviour such as:
> 
> - employment
> - adoption
> ...



Where did I say or imply that, please?


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> So how do we get from what consenting adults do in private to (for example) the demand from a group of adults to have what they do in private protected and to a degree privileged in law?


Pretty sure they just want to be able to have a sex life like anyone else, which includes being able to show affection in public without getting beaten up for it purely because they happen to have the same type of genitals.



untethered said:


> This concept of "private" behaviour is arbitrary and facile anyway. The law doesn't support people doing whatever they like provided that there is consent, even among adults. Nor would any reasonable person suggest that the things people do in private may not have public consequences.


I believe I've already asked you to explain how sex between consenting adults in private can impinge on you, or anyone else. 

If private behaviour has negative public consequences and these are sufficiently serious to merit regulating that private behaviour, then some form of regulation is justified. Otherwise it's not. You believe that people should be prevented from performing homosexual acts. I would like to know your justification for this.



untethered said:


> You can choose to take a wholly libertarian view if you like, but the law certainly doesn't.


It would be hard for the law to take wholly libertarian view , and as I'm not arguing against the existence of law _per se_ (and implicitly support it here in my use of the term "consenting adults"), I don't think you can call my views wholly libertarian either.

Try again? Maybe a bit harder this time.


----------



## Roadkill (May 9, 2008)

Onket said:


> We're we talking about drinking on the tube a few pages back?



Sorry, my fault.  I seized the opportunity whilst it was there: I've been trying to draw untethered into this argument for weeks!  

As I said on another thread, he's obviously trolling, but it's fun to dangle a hook or two occasionally and see what absurdities you can haul up from the depths.


----------



## Maggot (May 9, 2008)

So are we having this tube party or what?


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Not one single study, no.  I could, however, point you to the research done by people such as Simon LeVay and the study a couple of years ago that suggested some pre-birth hormonal influences (BBC story).  There's a useful summary of research findings on Levay's page here.  Together, it adds up to a body of evidence you can't just bat aside as 'immaterial.'



I'll look at it. I have to go now so I'll only respond to this one point.

I have said that the _origin_ of sexual orientation is immaterial, not that the evidence supporting any particular theory is necessarily unimportant to determining the question of origin.

Your presumption (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if an inclination is "natural" then it should not be suppressed and most definitely not prohibited by the state.

You seem to be advancing the common idea that if homosexual instincts are inborn then there is no reasonable grounds for objecting to homosexual behaviour. If you believe that this view is near-universally held then you are wrong, and if you believe that this principle is more generally observed then you are also wrong.

I have argued quite clearly that I disagree. I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but if you could at least accept that for many people homosexual behaviour is considered to be wrong _regardless of its origins or motivations_ then at least we can understand each other.


----------



## meems (May 9, 2008)

what's all this sexual orientation bollocks? where do i sign up to drink beer on the tube? are we all going to have sex at this party as well? i'm so confused


----------



## Maggot (May 9, 2008)

meems said:


> are we all going to have sex at this party as well? i'm so confused


no, we're just gonna watch you and bluey at it.


----------



## meems (May 9, 2008)

oh right. we will charge, mind.


----------



## Maggot (May 9, 2008)

Can we pay in drinks?


----------



## Roadkill (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'll look at it. I have to go now so I'll only respond to this one point.
> 
> I have said that the _origin_ of sexual orientation is immaterial, not that the evidence supporting any particular theory is necessarily unimportant to determining the question of origin.



But the origin clearly isn't immaterial, is it? 



> Your presumption (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if an inclination is "natural" then it should not be suppressed and most definitely not prohibited by the state.
> 
> You seem to be advancing the common idea that if homosexual instincts are inborn then there is no reasonable grounds for objecting to homosexual behaviour. If you believe that this view is near-universally held then you are wrong, and if you believe that this principle is more generally observed then you are also wrong.



Provided an 'inclination' does no harm, then what grounds could there be for repressing it?

Yes, of course I'm advancing the argument that there are no reasonable grounds for objecting to 'homosexual behaviour.'  I'd have thought that was blindingly obvious.  I don't claim it to be a 'near-universally held' view, but it's certainly a very common one, and it's worth pointing out that beyond the lunatic fringe there has been no great groundswell of opinion against the equalisation of the age of consent, civil partnerships and sundry other 'anti-discrimination' laws passed in the last decade or so.



> I have argued quite clearly that I disagree. I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but if you could at least accept that for many people homosexual behaviour is considered to be wrong _regardless of its origins or motivations_ then at least we can understand each other.



I understand your position perfectly well and I'm fully aware that there are some others who would agree with it, but it's nonsense.  Sorry, there is no kinder way of putting it than that.  It's counter-intuitive, self-contradictory, inhumane, irrational and immoral.


----------



## Maggot (May 9, 2008)

Keep on topic you big puff!


----------



## Roadkill (May 9, 2008)

Bloody breeders.


----------



## Poi E (May 10, 2008)

untethered said:


> If you're not going to build laws around morals, what?



Oh c'mon. You've got a few of the ten commandments enshrined in criminal statute. The rest is banal. Revenue gathering, keeping the streets clean, hopefully looking after the health of the populace. Morals? The cry of the indignant with time on their hands.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 10, 2008)

Haven't read the thread so I don't know if anyone has pointed this pre-banning party out yet:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39523235710


----------



## Crispy (May 10, 2008)

Brainaddict said:


> Haven't read the thread


I really wouldn't bother 


> so I don't know if anyone has pointed this pre-banning party out yet:
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39523235710



Sounds like a giggle.


----------



## Onket (May 10, 2008)

Brainaddict said:


> Haven't read the thread so I don't know if anyone has pointed this pre-banning party out yet:
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39523235710



Any way of showing that for people who have not yet got drawn in to facebook?


----------



## toblerone3 (May 10, 2008)

So we all take our bikes onto the tube, drink lots of beer and then have sex with them. Is that the general idea?


----------



## smokedout (May 10, 2008)

fucking middle class facebook tossers who havent got the guts to do it when its actually been made illegal

is all ive got to say


----------



## mango5 (May 14, 2008)

I got a bit lost when the thread went gay.  And I don't have the facebook thingummajig so don'r know what's planned.

I agree with this...


bluestreak said:


> also, i'm thinking that perhaps requesting people to, whatever else they do, bring soft drinks in alcohol containers.  make a mockery of the whole thing, IYSWIM.


And I intend to drink water from a vodka bottle on public transport throughout the Summer.


----------



## laptop (May 19, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> this was suggested on the thread about that cunt johnson banning having a quiet beer.  but we should do it.  if you build it they will come, and all that.
> 
> how should we advertise it to get hundreds of people there?



Probably like *this*:







Nothing to do with me, guv. No, really.


----------



## smokedout (May 30, 2008)

anyone going then?


----------



## ajdown (May 30, 2008)

Front page about it on both freebie papers this evening, suggesting a 'heavy police presence' tomorrow night.


----------



## smokedout (May 30, 2008)

yay, im there

anything for a chance of a ruck with the met


----------



## Stobart Stopper (May 30, 2008)

what a load of yuppie wank.


----------



## tippee (May 30, 2008)

Can't wait for one of these idiots to throw up on my train.
Out of service.
Straight to depot.
Goodnight Vienna.


----------



## smokedout (May 30, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> what a load of yuppie wank.



its all a bit chinless i grant you, but that doesnt mean it might not be a giggle

and if tsg come out in force then itll be interesting to see the middle classes get a taste of what the old bill are really like


----------



## Onket (May 30, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Front page about it on both freebie papers this evening, suggesting a 'heavy police presence' tomorrow night.



In whichever one of them I looked in, it was in the 'What to do at the weekend section' too.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (May 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> its all a bit chinless i grant you, but that doesnt mean it might not be a giggle
> 
> and if tsg come out in force then itll be interesting to see the middle classes get a taste of what the old bill are really like



That is true, I suppose. I would love to get battered by some young, fit riot cop. And stamped on with his big boots.


----------



## Cheesypoof (May 31, 2008)

some city boy tried to snog me on the tube the other nite!!!

he was rejected, obviously.


----------



## Onket (May 31, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> I would love to get battered by some young, fit riot cop.



Shame you can't tell if they are young & fit then, all covered up so you can only see their sheep eyes.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

toblerone3 said:


> So we all take our bikes onto the tube, drink lots of beer and then have sex with them. Is that the general idea?




why would you want to have sex with your bike?


----------



## Maggot (May 31, 2008)

So are we still having the post-banning party on Sunday?


----------



## Maggot (May 31, 2008)

mango5 said:


> And I intend to drink water from a vodka bottle on public transport throughout the Summer.


Great idea!


----------



## smokedout (May 31, 2008)

Maggot said:


> So are we still having the post-banning party on Sunday?



well im working in someones garden on monday and i fully intend to have my usual cold can of lager as i make the hour and a half trek back to south london


----------



## Firky (May 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> yay, im there
> 
> anything for a chance of a ruck with the met



Tit.


----------



## Firky (May 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> fucking middle class facebook tossers who havent got the guts to do it when its actually been made illegal
> 
> is all ive got to say



What did you do exactly? Write about it on your blog, tell your mates in Bradford, post about your faux disgrace on Urban?

Tit.


----------



## smokedout (May 31, 2008)

why do you care

you seem to be getting a little obsessed with me firks


----------



## detective-boy (May 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> and if tsg come out in force then itll be interesting to see the middle classes get a taste of what the old bill are really like


There are fucking dozens of demonstrations and protests every fucking week.  They pass off without any major incident when fuckwits like you, who are only interested in precipitating violence, are not there.

Have you ever wondered why violence follows _you_ around?

Grow up, you pathetic child.


----------



## smokedout (May 31, 2008)

you do too, i feel like ive got my very own urban police escort


----------



## smokedout (May 31, 2008)

btw violence doesnt follow me around anymore and hasnt for many years

i dealt with my anger issues, you should try it db, youll feel much better


----------



## detective-boy (May 31, 2008)

Yeah ... course you have ... 



smokedout said:


> anything for a chance of a ruck with the met


----------



## ddraig (May 31, 2008)

well i will be on a tube and in need of a cold larger tomorrow, so let's see what happens and if i get arrested/threatened/grassed up


----------



## Poi E (May 31, 2008)

ddraig said:


> well i will be on a tube and in need of a cold larger tomorrow, so let's see what happens and if i get arrested/threatened/grassed up



For drinking lager they should throw away the key.


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

Just off to get a bus to Liverpool Street... let's see what happens.


----------



## cesare (May 31, 2008)

smokedout said:


> you do too, i feel like ive got my very own urban police escort


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

At liv st, coppers everywhere


----------



## ddraig (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> At liv st, coppers everywhere



don't go getting your thick skull cracked now will ya! 
never know it might knock some sense and compassion into you


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

barriers barricaded, nobody getting on the tube. looks like btp are doing exactly as expected


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

ddraig said:


> don't go getting your thick skull cracked now will ya!
> never know it might knock some sense and compassion into you



no worries, dog section turned up, looking a bit tense


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2008)

Clockwise Circle Line stopped for the last 5 minutes, too: Departure Board


```
1. Circle Line Outer Rail		At Platform	
2. Barking Sidings (via King's Cross)	Between Moorgate and Liverpool Street	1 min
3. Aldgate				At Moorgate Platform 1		2 mins
```

Like that since 20:53

Circle line shown departed just as I edited


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

tube barriers been shut now, emergency lights flashung


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

station lockdown, just seen 1 arrested


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> barriers barricaded, nobody getting on the tube. looks like btp are doing exactly as expected




so people genuinely wanting/needing to travel are now unable to do so?


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

things looking a bit nasty


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

nope, nothing going anywhere.


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

police clearing onlookers and dispersing crowd


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

total lockdown of station im progress, we just got out in time


----------



## love detective (May 31, 2008)

so as a result of a lot of carbon copy individualistic whining titbags, an already creaking transport system is made even worse

self self self


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

Stop repeating yourself aj and answer my question


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

dang glad to be out of that mess


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

sorry, on mobile web and its flaky. 1000 approx locked in station, tube shut, mainline shutdown, all doors locked, buses not far off of shutdown at liv st. we just got out before the doors were locked and on 133. utter chaos, as predicted, and totally showing why the ban is necessary


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2008)

so... did anyone do the sensible thing and get there mates together for a discreet party on a different line starting from a different station?


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> and totally showing why the ban is necessary




Eh?


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2008)

free spirit said:


> so... did anyone do the sensible thing and get there mates together for a discreet party on a different line starting from a different station?



If they did, they'd still be in a tunnel now


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> sorry, on mobile web and its flaky. 1000 approx locked in station, tube shut, mainline shutdown, all doors locked, buses not far off of shutdown at liv st. we just got out before the doors were locked and on 133. utter chaos, as predicted, and totally showing why the ban is necessary




so all those poor people who had to get to Stansted and elsewhere are fucked?


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> so all those poor people who had to get to Stansted and elsewhere are fucked?


That would appear to be the case, yes. I have a feeling that the lockdown is only going to make a tanked up angry crowd even worse. I don't see anything moving for several hours.


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2008)

laptop said:


> If they did, they'd still be in a tunnel now


yeah, I kinda realised that.

bet a fair few have though


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 31, 2008)

ajdown has become Urban's very own roving reporter.....up to the second commentary!
On the scene news, as it happens!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> That would appear to be the case, yes. I have a feeling that the lockdown is only going to make a tanked up angry crowd even worse. I don't see anything moving for several hours.




what?  and they really seriously expected LT/Police to let them get away with it?

Why did they plan to meet at Liverpool Street station anyway?


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> ajdown has become Urban's very own roving reporter...





Complete with a non-sequitur conclusion worthy of the _Daily Mail_...


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> , and totally showing why the ban is necessary



Eh? This doesn't happen every night mate, or every weekend. I think you have missed an important point here somewhere.


----------



## scifisam (May 31, 2008)

WTF? Station locked down, trains cancelled and lots of trouble caused all because people were having a drink on the tube _before the drinking ban comes in_? Overreact, much?


----------



## scifisam (May 31, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> what?  and they really seriously expected LT/Police to let them get away with it?
> 
> Why did they plan to meet at Liverpool Street station anyway?



Why would they not expect to 'get away with' drinking on the tube on the last night that it's allowed?


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> what?  and they really seriously expected LT/Police to let them get away with it?
> 
> Why did they plan to meet at Liverpool Street station anyway?



I guess Liverpool Street is a big place, on the Circle line, and fairly easy for most people to get to.

It was all advertised on http://www.lastordersontheunderground.com/ and a Facebook group.  I think it's one of these things that started off as a small group of friends, easily containable (you can tell from the website, "second carriage from the rear" that rather got out of hand, much like the parties that turn into house trashings.

Home now, and safe.


----------



## wiskey (May 31, 2008)

as i just said on another thread i think its a very good thing that alcohol has been banned given that mindless pissed morons have caused havoc today and wrecked 3 tube carriages for what?


----------



## wiskey (May 31, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh? This doesn't happen every night mate, or every weekend. I think you have missed an important point here somewhere.



i disagree strongly. it happens EVERY night to some degree and weekends are worse.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Why would they not expect to 'get away with' drinking on the tube on the last night that it's allowed?




The fact that it was widely publicised on various internet sites and that there would be a large attendance.  Do you not think thousands of people turning up and having a party on the tube wouldn't attract attention the attention of the police?


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

scifisam said:


> WTF? Station locked down, trains cancelled and lots of trouble caused all because people were having a drink on the tube _before the drinking ban comes in_? Overreact, much?



The TFL website says Liverpool Street is closed due to "overcrowding".  They'll say it was on 'safety grounds'.  

Part of the problem will be that the police shut the gates to the Tube, and threw out everyone that had got 'trapped' in the ticket hall before the gates back on to the concourse.  Despite a number of attempts to disperse the crowd, people just stayed where they were, banging on the doors, singing and lots of booing.

It quickly turned from a simple overcrowding to a public order and safety matter, and presumably as the crowd refused to comply with perfectly reasonable police instructions, I would assume that lockdown, controlled removal in small groups, further dispersal orders as necessary, and arresting of those that will not go.

Lots of people taking pictures and videoing, so I would expect it'll be all over the news tomorrow.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I guess Liverpool Street is a big place, on the Circle line, and fairly easy for most people to get to.
> 
> It was all advertised on http://www.lastordersontheunderground.com/ and a Facebook group.  I think it's one of these things that started off as a small group of friends, easily containable (you can tell from the website, "second carriage from the rear" that rather got out of hand, much like the parties that turn into house trashings.
> 
> Home now, and safe.





Well maybe if they'd used a bit of common sense, they'd have said to use any station.  Maybe that way Liverpool Street station wouldn't have been closed down to overcrowding and people would have been able to get to Stansted for their flights

Personally, I'd have jumped on at Victoria


----------



## scifisam (May 31, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> The fact that it was widely publicised on various internet sites and that there would be a large attendance.  Do you not think thousands of people turning up and having a party on the tube wouldn't attract attention the attention of the police?



But circle line parties have been going on for a good long while. Thousands of people - I call bullshit. I see people being punished for doing something that they are still allowed to do. Ridiculous.

@wiskey: and of course, those drunken people were all completely sober before they got on the tube, and, from tomorrow, you will never ever see another drunk person on the tube again. (Where did you read about the three tube carriages, btw?)


----------



## free spirit (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Lots of people taking pictures and videoing, so I would expect it'll be all over the news tomorrow.


all over facebook tonight more like


(and the news tomorrow)


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

scifisam said:


> But circle line parties have been going on for a good long while. Thousands of people - I call bullshit. I see people being punished for doing something that they are still allowed to do. Ridiculous.
> 
> @wiskey: and of course, those drunken people were all completely sober before they got on the tube, and, from tomorrow, you will never ever see another drunk person on the tube again. (Where did you read about the three tube carriages, btw?)



yes, I know, and you should have seen the trouble that Dubversion caused at one of them.  Proof they should be banned


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Thousands of people - I call bullshit.



I was there, got out just before the lockdown, and would estimate around 1,000 people there on the lower concourse and upper level at the McDonalds end of the station.

Lots more milling around outside, unable to get in, and I heard groups of people planning making a run to Moorgate and Farringdon to get on at different places to carry on their little party.


----------



## scifisam (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I was there, got out just before the lockdown, and would estimate around 1,000 people there on the lower concourse and upper level at the McDonalds end of the station.
> 
> Lots more milling around outside, unable to get in, and I heard groups of people planning making a run to Moorgate and Farringdon to get on at different places to carry on their little party.



Was it hugely busier than Liverpool St at that time of night, though? It's never the quietest of stations.


----------



## Crispy (May 31, 2008)

we'll know soon enough.

imo, incidents of drunkeness on the tube might decline a little bit from now on, but the majority of drunk people on the tube will continue to be people who got drunk before they got on.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Was it hugely busier than Liverpool St at that time of night, though? It's never the quietest of stations.




I've been there late at night when it's been quiet, well anything's quiet compared to the madness that is rush hour I suppose


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

> Bernie Sumption, 26, a software engineer, led a group of about 25 people armed with balloons, sparkly blue party hats and mini-quiches, travelling clockwise from Moorgate. He was carrying a banner saying “Goodbye, my old friend booze”.
> 
> 
> He said: “I have brought some dips and nibbles. We’re just doing one lap – any more would be debauched. We just felt particularly motivated to mark this sad day.”
> ...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 31, 2008)

i have tried and tried and been quite unable to think of a more pointless and puerile protest. fucking students


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Was it hugely busier than Liverpool St at that time of night, though? It's never the quietest of stations.



We got there about 8.40 and hung around outside M&S on the upper level.  It was relatively quiet, sure people around, but not overly busy at all.  As we made our way down to the tube entrance, you could see people heading towards the tube, and as you reached the entrance it was clear that there was a big crowd inside the tube ticket office, going nowhere.  People were still arriving, and it was obvious a problem was starting.  We retreated to the platform 6 entrance, and hung around a bit as the crowds grew.

We then retreated to the upper level by the betting shop, where the lower level from roughly the departure boards to the bus station was absolutely full of people, and the upper level becoming increasingly crowded as people watched to see what was going on.

Police started trying to move people, so we made a retreat to the Bishopsgate entrance and had a very nice chat with a security guy, who suggested we just tried to get out to the bus.  A cop did stop us, but we pleaded our case and he said "ok, quick" and we got out literally 30 seconds before a station guy closed the bus depot entrance doors.

About 1000 people were locked inside the station, none of whom I would guess would normally have been there at that time, were there just for the party.

So, if 1000 extra people is "hugely busier" than normal, I guess yes.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 31, 2008)

sounds like hell on earth tbh


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> fucking students




Londoner Matt Wynn, 43, a wanker, said: "I've come along with a bottle of champagne because I want to show that you can drink responsibly on the Tube and not cause trouble. It's going to be a bit of a stop-start evening, though, because there are no toilets on the Tube."


----------



## scifisam (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> We got there about 8.40 and hung around outside M&S on the upper level.  It was relatively quiet, sure people around, but not overly busy at all.  As we made our way down to the tube entrance, you could see people heading towards the tube, and as you reached the entrance it was clear that there was a big crowd inside the tube ticket office, going nowhere.  People were still arriving, and it was obvious a problem was starting.  We retreated to the platform 6 entrance, and hung around a bit as the crowds grew.
> 
> We then retreated to the upper level by the betting shop, where the lower level from roughly the departure boards to the bus station was absolutely full of people, and the upper level becoming increasingly crowded as people watched to see what was going on.
> 
> ...



Hmm, fair enough, that does sound like a lot more than normal - like on match days, that kinda thing, where some stations have a higher police presence too, but they didn't have as much time to prepare for this because the ban went through so quickly. 

Shutting people into the station seems an odd thing to do. 'It's too crowded in here - you're not allowed to leave.'


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 31, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Londoner Matt Wynn, 43, a wanker, said: "I've come along with a bottle of champagne because I want to show that you can drink responsibly on the Tube and not cause trouble. It's going to be a bit of a stop-start evening, though, because there are no toilets on the Tube."


i'd fucking push him under for starters innit. like my soup du jour.....


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Shutting people into the station seems an odd thing to do. 'It's too crowded in here - you're not allowed to leave.'




probably didn't want to risk them getting a bus to the next tube station


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Londoner Matt Wynn, 43, a wanker, said: "I've come along with a bottle of champagne because I want to show that you can drink responsibly on the Tube and not cause trouble. It's going to be a bit of a stop-start evening, though, because there are no toilets on the Tube."



Advertising it on Facebook and having 1000 hanger-on losers turn up, 990 of whom have probably never touched alcohol on the tube in their entire lives, is probably not the most 'responsible' thing, I guess.

Seems like the Space Hijackers might have got something together:


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> probably didn't want to risk them getting a bus to the next tube station



Before the lockdown, I heard lots of people talking about going to Moorgate or Farringdon to get on the tube.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i'd fucking push him under for starters innit. like my soup du jour.....




I think it'll be really funny if that lot at Liverpool Street discover later on that loads of people had a party on the Circle Line because they got on at different stations


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Shutting people into the station seems an odd thing to do. 'It's too crowded in here - you're not allowed to leave.'




Very odd. 

Almost as though someone in the City of London Police *wanted* there to be "a riot".





On the other hand, given how stupid CoLP are: I'm guessing they pulled out the file marked "Public Order - Liverpool Street". 

And in that file they'd have found it as a meeting point for the M41 Street Party   and for J18 1999 

So - did they mistake a bunch of people wanting an ironic party (not a protest at all by the sound of it) for... you know...


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Advertising it on Facebook and having 1000 hanger-on losers turn up, 990 of whom have probably never touched alcohol on the tube in their entire lives, is probably not the most 'responsible' thing, I guess.
> 
> Seems like the Space Hijackers might have got something together:




Quite



> Sumption’s sister Freddie, 29, a student, added: “*To be honest, I didn’t realise that it was legal to drink on the Tube until it was about to be made illegal.*”


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 31, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I think it'll be really funny if that lot at Liverpool Street discover later on that loads of people had a party on the Circle Line because they got on at different stations


be even funnier if the tube line took everyone out to Epping and then said that was it........they have to walk back thru the forest now....


----------



## scifisam (May 31, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i'd fucking push him under for starters innit. like my soup du jour.....



Yes, because wishing to show that you can drink responsibly really is an action so evil that death is the only reasonable course of action. 

And he must be a wanker for wanting to have a drink with that aim in mind.

Christ almighty. Get a grip.


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Sumption’s sister Freddie, 29, a student, added: “To be honest, I didn’t realise that it was legal to drink on the Tube until it was about to be made illegal.”



With a name like "Freddie Sumption" ... assuming it's real... what would you expect?


----------



## DJ Squelch (May 31, 2008)

laptop said:


> Very odd.
> 
> Almost as though someone in the City of London Police *wanted* there to be "a riot".
> 
> ...



It'll be BTP not CoLP


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> With a name like "Freddie Sumption" ... assuming it's real... what would you expect?




Quite.  There was someone called Alias as well


----------



## laptop (May 31, 2008)

I think I have seen (a little bit of) the future: 



(Obviously with soft drinks next time. Obviously.)


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 31, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Yes, because wishing to show that you can drink responsibly really is an action so evil that death is the only reasonable course of action.
> 
> And he must be a wanker for wanting to have a drink with that aim in mind.
> 
> Christ almighty. Get a grip.


get a grip? nope sorry, this is student-wanker-bollocks of the highest order and if a grip is to be felt, it should be the soft caress as i lay some student-berks-head down on the tramline of desperation,


----------



## scifisam (May 31, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> get a grip? nope sorry, this is student-wanker-bollocks of the highest order and if a grip is to be felt, it should be the soft caress as i lay some student-berks-head down on the tramline of desperation,



It was a party to commemorate the ending of boozing on the tube. That's all. 

Presumably you're pretty drunk yourself to be posting such idiocy, so you should feel some sympathy for them really.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

laptop said:


> I think I have seen (a little bit of) the future:
> 
> 
> 
> (Obviously with soft drinks next time. Obviously.)





That's nothing new though.  There were a group of people doing the same type of shit 20 years ago.  I remember them setting up in the middle of Richmond Green 

why don't people just walk around with a sign round their neck saying "look at me", probably much less hassle


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Presumably you're pretty drunk yourself to be posting such idiocy, so you should feel some sympathy for them really.



Having witnessed the first 45 minutes of it first-hand, I think the bigger idiocy is amongst those who turned up seriously expecting this to go ahead without the police stopping it - and refusing to disperse when it was pretty clear that they weren't going to back down.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 31, 2008)

scifisam said:


> It was a party to commemorate the ending of boozing on the tube. That's all.
> 
> Presumably you're pretty drunk yourself to be posting such idiocy, so you should feel some sympathy for them really.


but is this the end of boozing on the tube? i very much doubt it.

am drunk as a skunk. in the safety of my own house. whoops.....|


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Having witnessed the first 45 minutes of it first-hand, I think the bigger idiocy is amongst those who turned up seriously expecting this to go ahead without the police stopping it - and refusing to disperse when it was pretty clear that they weren't going to back down.




I said that 40 posts ago 



Minnie_the_Minx said:


> what?  and they really seriously expected LT/Police to let them get away with it?
> 
> Why did they plan to meet at Liverpool Street station anyway?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Having witnessed the first 45 minutes of it first-hand, I think the bigger idiocy is amongst those who turned up seriously expecting this to go ahead without the police stopping it - and refusing to disperse when it was pretty clear that they weren't going to back down.



What EXACTLY were you there for?


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> What EXACTLY were you there for?



Observation, wanting to see whether it was going to be as chaotic as I guessed it was going to be... and I was right.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Observation, wanting to see whether it was going to be as chaotic as I guessed it was going to be... and I was right.




don't you have anything better to do on a Saturday night?


----------



## ajdown (May 31, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> don't you have anything better to do on a Saturday night?



We'd already done it.  Dr Who was on at 7pm.

Now, it's bedtime. so yes we do have better things to do than post here.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (May 31, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Now, it's bedtime. so yes we do have better things to do than post here.




What's that then?


----------



## Crispy (May 31, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> What's that then?


Playing Rock Band until your hands blister (and then you wear gloves )


----------



## Stig (Jun 1, 2008)

Well, we did the circle line. It was great!  

We did the late shift, and went for Kings Cross at 9pm. No problem getting on whatsoever. 

Loads of really nice people sharing their drinks, lots of singing and a guy with a guitar. 

It was very crowded though, a total sauna, and people were leaving rubbish, but a few of us did our best to make sure nothing was strewn over the floor. 

There were a few shouty men banging on the walls of the tube in a pissed footy hooligan style, and then about 8 people lit up fags, and didn't put them out when everyone asked, which is when we got off. Well ok, we got off about 5 stops later when it became possible to get to a door.  Glad we did the thing though!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 1, 2008)

Stig said:


> Well, we did the circle line. It was great!
> 
> We did the late shift, and went for Kings Cross at 9pm. No problem getting on whatsoever.



Obviously more sense than the lot that went to Liverpool Street then


----------



## free spirit (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Seems like the Space Hijackers might have got something together:




lol - knew that lot would manage to do it properly


----------



## smokedout (Jun 1, 2008)

was surreal, the two tubes that were packed with lairy middle class types got stopped at edgeware road about 11pm, bit of argy bargy with the old bill, batons came out but didnt see any arrests

all in all a bit surreal, not what id call political but quite amusing and annoying in different ways

will post a proper rundown tomorrow, bit pissed now funnily enough


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 1, 2008)

From the BBC - 

David Mudkips, 25, a web programmer from Hackney, described the experience on the train as: "Like rush hour but fun. There were people's sweaty armpits in my face but I didn't care because I was drinking."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

well done channer


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

DJ Squelch said:


> It'll be BTP not CoLP




Ah, yes, that other hotbed of intellect


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 1, 2008)

Well done guys.  *slow handclap* Normally I support any activism regardless, but this whole flashmob facebook look-at-me apolitical wanking makes me fucking sick.  If they had any balls they'd have done it tomorrow.  But they don't.  It's just an excuse to act like lairy cunts.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 1, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Well done guys.  *slow handclap* Normally I support any activism regardless, but this whole flashmob facebook look-at-me apolitical wanking makes me fucking sick.  If they had any balls they'd have done it tomorrow.  But they don't.  It's just an excuse to act like lairy cunts.



youre right, that said a seasoned activist whod been at liverpool street told me that it was the closest theyd seen to a full on riot in london for years, and the mood wasnt far off at edgeware road

and the middle classes kicking off against boris, you cant deny theres political capital in that somewhere


----------



## wiskey (Jun 1, 2008)

smokedout said:


> all in all a bit surreal, not what id call political but quite amusing and annoying in different ways



mindless is the word I'd use


----------



## ajdown (Jun 1, 2008)

smokedout said:


> and the middle classes kicking off against boris, you cant deny theres political capital in that somewhere



I'm really glad that they chose a really important issue for their first 'demonstration against the system' rather than one of these silly problems like the war in Iraq.

I bet you that 90% of the people who turned up did so because, like, it's a party, and its such a cool idea and ever so slightly rad.

Here's a few videos that have popped up.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ax5zt3kvF8w
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oUrkkuQrRN0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wm4SfcCoEVY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PX_f8L-pgvA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4qfKQoQS3lI

I notice that a lot of people there were also breaking the law by using flash photography on the tube, and videoing without a permit (which, having done both at several Network Rail locations for work purposes in the last year I know, because it's part of the 20 minute safety induction that I doubt many of them have been through either).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7429638.stm

"_Seventeen people were arrested for offences such as assault, being drunk and disorderly, assaulting police, public order related offences and drug offences, BTP said. 

One police vehicle was damaged and two officers assaulted and another injured. 

Police also reported four assaults on train drivers and three assaults on other members of London Underground staff. 

There were also "multiple instances" of Tube trains being damaged, which meant they were withdrawn from service, which in turn led to several Tube services being suspended._ "

I'm actually suprised, given the crowd at Liverpool Street and the tense atmosphere, that if this was duplicated at other stations there weren't more arrests.

I really like the comment on the original website from one of the organisers:  "_In regards to the reports of assaults and violence, I am surprised. This did not reflect the mood of anything I saw. To the instigators of any violence, you were not members of this party, just thugs. _" Like it wasn't going to be gatecrashed anyway...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2008)

Am I alone in thinking the Bo-Jo will see the wanton destruction of the carriages and the violence of last night's party to be vindication of his policy?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 1, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Am I alone in thinking the Bo-Jo will see the wanton destruction of the carriages and the violence of last night's party to be vindication of his policy?



You aren't alone in thinking that, and Boris won't be alone in seeing last night as justification either.

Within 10 minutes of the Tube being shut, the heavy police presence would have told anyone who was there just for the party (and the sake of exercising a 'right' that most of them probably didn't know existed beforehand anyway, let alone having 'exercised' it*) that this thing ain't gonna happen.


*Please note that a previously non-existant explicit banning of an activity does not mean that it is has, up until that point, been a 'right'.


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> the wanton destruction of the carriages and the violence



Yes, BTP are spinning it that way.




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> Seventeen people were arrested for offences such as assault, being drunk and disorderly, assaulting police, public order related offences and drug offences, BTP said.
> 
> One police vehicle was damaged and two officers assaulted and another injured.
> 
> ...



Seven assaults on Underground workers - seven unforgivable acts*. 




			
				RMT said:
			
		

> Of the 531 attacks on staff [on the Northern Line in 18 months to mid-2006], eight were against off-duty personnel. The second most targeted London Underground employees work on the Piccadilly Line, with 363 attacks. Jubilee Line staff suffered 300 attacks.
> 
> http://www.rmtbristol.org.uk/2006/10/northern_line_has_most_staff_a.html



Assuming, conservatively, that these are the worst three of the ten major lines, and that the Jubilee is about average, there are *5 or 6 assaults on staff  on an average day* on the Underground. Also unforgivable*.

We can be utterly sure that if there were more *specifics* of damage, they'd have been fed to the open maw of the media.

Bet you they were counting trains taken out of service for vomit as "damage". Were they taking trains out of service for ripped-down ads? oxpecker?

Seventeen arrests - and what is the normal number of arrests in the West End on a Saturday night? Even, what is the normal number of arrests on the Underground on a Saturday night? 

Anyone want to call BTP and ask?



* Has to be said before I'm allowed to speak of the rest, yes?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 1, 2008)

I'm not sure that 17 arrests, or however many arrests, are really the issue here.

It's 1,000 people turning up in one location for one specific purpose, which their original website says, meet in the 2nd carriage from the rear on the Circle Line clockwise first train out of Liverpool Street after 9pm.

Even the most ardent anti-ban supporter could see that 1000 people do not fit into one tube carriage.

There seem to have been a lot of parties, including some on the Circle Line, of little groups doing 'their own thing', which all passed off without incident.  The vast majority of the problems caused last night were all due to a bunch of Facebook tossers jumping on the bandwagon for what seemed like it was going to be a party - nothing to do with protesting the alcohol ban in the slightest.

You've probably seen as many incidents on the news as I have where a party for a few friends ends up being mentioned on Facebook and loads of uninvited guests turn up and trash the place.  Why did anyone think this event would be any different?


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

Rereading:




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> several Tube services being suspended



A lie.

"Tube service suspended" means a line with no service, and it shows up automatically on tfl.gov.uk, which I was watching for just such eventualities.

The worst reported was about a 15-minute service gap on the Circle Line - target is 10 minutes.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 1, 2008)

I'm taking current reports with a pinch of salt to be honest.

In any case - having lots of people descend on the Tube with booze specifically to drink it and get drunk on the Tube is _precisely what doesn't normally happen_. The results clearly can't be used as an argument either pro or anti (perhaps slightly pro, people could say "well even when we were _trying_ to get drunk we were fine, what's wrong with an odd can", presuming they were sensible).

But argument at this point is irrelevant anyway, so that's not really a criticism. It's been decided politically, the press support the line according to their own agendas, and this was just a reaction to that not some sort of "contribution" to a "debate" that never happened in the first place.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 1, 2008)

laptop said:


> A lie.
> 
> "Tube service suspended" means a line with no service, and it shows up automatically on tfl.gov.uk, which I was watching for just such eventualities.
> 
> The worst reported was about a 15-minute service gap on the Circle Line - target is 10 minutes.



This might just be terminology.  Services 'from Liverpool Street' were suspended for several hours, with trains running straight through.


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> This might just be terminology.



I'm wondering what imprecise phrase BTP Press Office used that was calculated to get the clueless Press Association hack to write "services suspended".

Which didn't happen. It's a lie.

Stations were closed. They said that separately.


----------



## rich! (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> This might just be terminology.  Services 'from Liverpool Street' were suspended for several hours, with trains running straight through.



We were at Kings Cross at 9pm, and they were announcing trains weren't stopping at Liverpool St because of overcrowding.

The Circle Line ran happily for the next hour; I know because we were on it.

We then left, went back to Kings Cross, had a pint of Betjeman in the Betjeman,   left to find the alarm on at the underground (impressive "you can here this on the surface" alarm) and lots of police arriving.

A 73 bus took us up to the Angel and the next beer


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Seems like the Space Hijackers might have got something together:




Fosters lager and the prodigy. What a hoot!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2008)

It's a shame they left such a mess - no excuse for that - haven't previous Circle Line parties been more responsible affairs?
Maybe it was the influx of Facebook twerps who made the mess.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 1, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> It's a shame they left such a mess - no excuse for that - haven't previous Circle Line parties been more responsible affairs?
> Maybe it was the influx of Facebook twerps who made the mess.



Yes, I remember reading on the SH site about the last one that they took along bags and helped clear the train before they left.  

It's these lightweighters, who think drinking and partying is Pimms on the lawn with Tarquin and Annabel, and that hardship is when the battery on their mobile runs out, that were pretty much all who turned up for the event at Liverpool Street last night.   

I dare say, for most of them, the majority of the night was spent crying to daddy on their mobile phones trying to persuade him to call the family solicitor to get them out of the lockdown.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 1, 2008)

laptop said:


> I'm wondering what imprecise phrase BTP Press Office used that was calculated to get the clueless Press Association hack to write "services suspended".
> 
> Which didn't happen. It's a lie.
> 
> Stations were closed. They said that separately.



Ok then the service from those closed stations was suspended then wasnt it

Spin your way round that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I dare say, for most of them, the majority of the night was spent crying to daddy on their mobile phones trying to persuade him to call the family solicitor to get them out of the lockdown.



The flaw in your supposition is that mobiles don't get a signal on the underground.


----------



## trashpony (Jun 1, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> It's a shame they left such a mess - no excuse for that - haven't previous Circle Line parties been more responsible affairs?
> Maybe it was the influx of Facebook twerps who made the mess.



It wasn't just facebook - london paper and the other rag both promoted it as something fun to do last night (after a front page saying chaos was expected)


----------



## ajdown (Jun 1, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> The flaw in your supposition is that mobiles don't get a signal on the underground.



I was referring to the 1000 or so Facebookers that turned up and were 'locked in' at Liverpool Street on the main concourse, where you can get a signal.

Plus, of course, lots of bits of the Underground actually aren't, and there are places you can get a signal.  Moorgate, Farrington and Barbican are three that immediately spring to mind.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 1, 2008)

> But others took a different approach from the beginning.
> 
> Peter Moore, 35, a sailor from Brighton, said he had downed a can of beer in 10 seconds. "It's sweaty on there, but I'm going round and round until I vomit," he said.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 1, 2008)

untethered said:


> Didn't a fellow get prosecuted for having sex with a bicycle?



It turned out that he'd been framed.


----------



## rover07 (Jun 1, 2008)

Sounds like a great party


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Ok then the service from those closed stations was suspended then wasnt it.



0/10 - Tory petrolhead boy.


----------



## netbob (Jun 1, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Why can't you just accept that you can't drink on public transport like everybody else, everywhere else in the country has to.
> 
> Why should London be a special case?



The issue is more that the ban is a bit of political showboating designed to appeal to people outside of london. It's the best kind of policy for politicians, one that addresses a problem that doesnt exist (and can therefore claim to have been solved).

Why the organisers of the tube party didnt do it the day after the ban is beyond me. It doesnt seemed to have achieved anything except some jolly japes and a few trashed train carriages.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 1, 2008)

Oswaldwistle said:


> Why can't you just accept that you can't drink on public transport like everybody else, everywhere else in the country has to.



Lolz 

Well they have a bar on the great North-eastern from Kings cross to Newcastle so I don't know where you're getting your information from.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 1, 2008)

laptop said:


> 0/10 - Tory petrolhead boy.



Three assumptions, only 1 is correct. I believe the expression is "PWNED"


----------



## tippee (Jun 1, 2008)

memespring said:


> It's the best kind of policy for politicians, one that addresses a problem that doesnt exist.
> 
> If people are drunk and they continue to drink on a train they get worse. It is a problem - it does exist.
> 
> It's a fairly good policy (though very poorly implemented) for working class tube drivers like me. It means we might have to look after a few less drunken fuckwits on a weekend.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 1, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Well they have a bar on the great North-eastern from Kings cross to Newcastle so I don't know where you're getting your information from.



As I understand the law, if the train itself has a restaurant/buffet carriage or trolley service that serves alcohol, then you're allowed to consume alcohol on that train whether you bought it on the train or not.  If the train does not have these facilities on-board then you are not allowed to consume alcohol.

Unfortunately, this is rarely enforced because, in the majority of cases, the guards on the trains just can't be bothered with the hassle from people that think they have the right to drink alcohol on any train when they don't.

In practice, if you're just quietly having a drink, then you'll be left alone.  If you're noisy, abusive and causing trouble, then the Transport Police (if called) will meet the train somewhere and remove the troublemakers or confiscate their alcohol.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 1, 2008)

tippee said:


> It's also a pretty good policy for working class tube drivers like me. It means we might have to look after a few less drunken fuckwits on a weekend.



... and pretty good for those who just want to get from A to B quietly and safely.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> As I understand the law, if the train itself has a restaurant/buffet carriage or trolley service that serves alcohol, then you're allowed to consume alcohol on that train whether you bought it on the train or not.  If the train does not have these facilities on-board then you are not allowed to consume alcohol.



Which isn't what Oswald was saying. Nor can you impose laws that don't apply everywhere.

Do you think they'll close the bars in Liverpool street station if consumption of alcohol and rail travel don't mix?

We both know the answer to that, don't we?


----------



## Geoff Collier (Jun 1, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Lolz
> 
> Well they have a bar on the great North-eastern from Kings cross to Newcastle so I don't know where you're getting your information from.



More importantly, they also have toilets. As far as I know, there isn't a single public toilet anywhere on the London Underground - what did people do last night?


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Three assumptions, only 1 is correct.



Oh do fuck off. A quick review of your posts reveals you to be a Tory and a petrolhead - whatever you call yourself.

The spin that services were suspended appears to have gone out through the Press Association - it shows up in papers in Canada. The Times and the Guardian don't repeat it: they presumably employ people who do use the Underground and do understand the difference between the police shutting a station and the line manager suspending a service.


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

Geoff Collier said:


> As far as I know, there isn't a single public toilet anywhere on the London Underground



Be aware!




			
				Mad map site said:
			
		

> Need to use a toilet and you're on the tube? These stations have toilet facilities...


----------



## ajdown (Jun 1, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Do you think they'll close the bars in Liverpool street station if consumption of alcohol and rail travel don't mix?
> 
> We both know the answer to that, don't we?



The Wetherspoons pub, whilst on railway property, is technically 'outside the station'.  Once you get inside the clearly marked boundaries of Liverpool Street station, then no more alcohol.  The pubs that surround the station are also outside the boundaries of railway property.

Pubs on railway stations are nothing to do with the railway companies themselves, they're just paying rent like a Burger King or Smiths would.  The presence of a pub contributes nothing to the railway environment for the majority of travellers.

Anything that would encourage overpaid City wanks to go home after work and leave transport easier for people who actually live in London or have a purpose for being there has to be a good thing.


----------



## netbob (Jun 1, 2008)

tippee said:


> If people are drunk and they continue to drink on a train they get worse. It is a problem - it does exist.
> 
> It's a fairly good policy (though very poorly implemented) for working class tube drivers like me. It means we might have to look after a few less drunken fuckwits on a weekend.




Maybe. But I rarely saw people drinking on the tube, plenty of already pissed people though. I dont envy the people who are now going to have to ask those few people to stop drinking. Isnt that going to be dealing with more pissheads?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Pubs on railway stations are nothing to do with the railway companies themselves, they're just paying rent like a Burger King or Smiths would.  The presence of a pub contributes nothing to the railway environment for the majority of travellers.



What, because getting pissed in the station before you board a train causes less social problems than getting on a train sober and drinking whilst you travel?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2008)

Maybe they won't bother even enforcing this law


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 1, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> Maybe they won't bother even enforcing this law



Well I doubt the underground workers will add it to their list of duties, if that's who they expect to police it...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 1, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Londoner Matt Wynn, 43, a wanker, said: "I've come along with a bottle of champagne because I want to show that you can drink responsibly on the Tube and not cause trouble. It's going to be a bit of a stop-start evening, though, because there are no toilets on the Tube."


Peter Moore, 35, a sailor from Brighton, said he had downed a can of beer in 10 seconds. "It's sweaty on there, but I'm going round and round until I vomit," he said.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Well I doubt the underground workers will add it to their list of duties, if that's who they expect to police it...



So, this law is just an empty gesture, isn't it?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 1, 2008)

Orang Utan said:


> So, this law is just an empty gesture, isn't it?



Until the BTP clock you doing it, I suppose it is, yes.

Oh, and self-righteous fellow travellers.


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Oh, and self-righteous fellow travellers.




Looks as though that's what they're relying on - or, rather, what the announcement is for. 

Heaven for people who like to go "tut!"



> *Boris Johnson’s alcohol ban on the Tube is impossible to enforce, unions claim*
> 
> ...staff working for Transport for London and British Transport Police will not have the power to fine passengers, and officials admitted that there would not be regular patrols of carriages.
> 
> ...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 1, 2008)

laptop said:


> Heaven for people who like to go "tut!"





Me and my mate were just discussing the predictable British divide between the folk partying on the tube to celebrate the in-coming ban and everyone else calling the revellers 'disgraceful'


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 1, 2008)

scifisam said:


> WTF? Station locked down, trains cancelled and lots of trouble caused all because people were having a drink on the tube _before the drinking ban comes in_? Overreact, much?


But it isn't a reaction to "people having a drink on the tube" in the way you imply, is it?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 1, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> But it isn't a reaction to "people having a drink on the tube" in the way you imply, is it?



Well, no. Too many people on a platform at once plus too much alcohol and throw in some live rails waiting to catch anyone falling...

As Kill-Joyish as it sounds, the authorities had no alternative than to contain the, erm, 'party'.


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

Of course if that Tory cunt Boris hadn't dreamt up this ludicrously ill-thought piece of pointless, knee jerk legislation, there'd be no need for the parties in the first place.


----------



## winjer (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I was referring to the 1000 or so Facebookers that turned up and were 'locked in' at Liverpool Street on the main concourse, where you can get a signal.


No-one at any point was locked in at Liverpool Street.

And as for 'Facebookers'


----------



## winjer (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Within 10 minutes of the Tube being shut, the heavy police presence


Where was there a heavy police presence within ten minutes of the tube being shut?



> *Please note that a previously non-existant explicit banning of an activity does not mean that it is has, up until that point, been a 'right'.


That's the entire basis of the English legal system down the pan then...


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I'm actually suprised, given the crowd at Liverpool Street and the tense atmosphere, that if this was duplicated at other stations there weren't more arrests.


The number of arrests rarely reflects the reality of what was happening in terms of incidents which actually merited arrest (let alone theoretically could have led to arrest).  This has always been the case at large-scale public disorder events for the simple reason there is not a bottomless pit of police officers and an arrest removes one or two for at least a few minutes, even if there are the absolute best prisoner handling facilities in place (which there would not have been for last night) and, usually, for at least an hour.

Despite the whinings regularly rehearsed on here, police officers on public order deployments are always briefed that arrest is a last resort.

(Sadly, for other reasons mostly connected with the centralisation and reduction in custody facilities in many force areas, the same applies every day in many police areas now, with a result that many violent offenders are not removed from the street when such action may have prevented the more serious assaults, etc. some go on to commit later. )


----------



## Crispy (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> Of course if that Tory cunt Boris hadn't dreamt up this ludicrously ill-thought piece of pointless, knee jerk legislation, there'd be no need for the parties in the first place.


Although, with facebook these days, in theory a carefully planned SH event could have turned out just as badly


----------



## scott_forester (Jun 1, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Am I alone in thinking the Bo-Jo will see the wanton destruction of the carriages and the violence of last night's party to be vindication of his policy?



Pretty much what I thought this morning seeing the footage on TV.


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 1, 2008)

laptop said:


> I'm wondering what imprecise phrase ...


You'd better watch out!  This is U75 - you know what happens every time I try to ask anyone to be precise in what they post ...


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Although, with facebook these days, in theory a carefully planned SH event could have turned out just as badly


Maybe, but the point is that if the Tory Fop hadn't come up with this stupid, stupid legislation, there'd be no big parties and no hassle in the first place.


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> In practice, if you're just quietly having a drink, then you'll be left alone.


A distinction which applies to most behaviour, in most contexts ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 1, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Oh, and self-righteous fellow travellers.


Which will undoubtedly be the source of many of the more serious incidents, winding nothing situations up into assaults and disorder ...


----------



## winjer (Jun 1, 2008)

DJ Squelch said:


> laptop said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, it was BTP and CoLP from the beginning and it was all fairly calm until they called in back-up from the Met. (Haven't we heard this somewhere before?) The police were referring to it as a demonstration.


----------



## winjer (Jun 1, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Although, with facebook these days, in theory a carefully planned SH event could have turned out just as badly


What's the significance of it being facebook, compared to just email?


----------



## winjer (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> The Wetherspoons pub, whilst on railway property, is technically 'outside the station'.  Once you get inside the clearly marked boundaries of Liverpool Street station, then no more alcohol.


Are you determined to undermine your argument by just making stuff up? Ponti's? Bonapartes?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 1, 2008)

winjer said:


> What's the significance of it being facebook, compared to just email?


It's public and the newspapers can read all about it. Friends of friends on email can snowball, but not with the same regularity as with social networking sites, if you ask me.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> Maybe, but the point is that if the Tory Fop hadn't come up with this stupid, stupid legislation, there'd be no big parties and no hassle in the first place.


Except that the last SH CL party was also huge and got out of hand in terms of numbers (IMO). The popularity was already climbing even back then.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> Maybe, but the point is that if the Tory Fop hadn't come up with this stupid, stupid legislation, there'd be no big parties and no hassle in the first place.



If people didn't insist on antisocial drinking on the tube in the first place, there wouldn't have been a need for the law, would there?


----------



## smokedout (Jun 1, 2008)

couple of (fairly lame) pics here


----------



## ajdown (Jun 1, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Which will undoubtedly be the source of many of the more serious incidents, winding nothing situations up into assaults and disorder ...



People do seem to dislike being reminded that they are behaving antisocially and breaking the law, yes. No respect these days.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 1, 2008)

interesting that a quick search reveals every press article on this to be almost exactly the same

which suggests that theyve just c&p'd the police press release

i dont think i saw one journo actually there last night


----------



## winjer (Jun 1, 2008)

Crispy said:


> It's public and the newspapers can read all about it. Friends of friends on email can snowball, but not with the same regularity as with social networking sites, if you ask me.


It's only public if people choose to make it so. I think it has more to do with the  near-ubiquity of internet use than social networking, but perhaps the two go hand-in-hand.


----------



## netbob (Jun 1, 2008)

Crispy said:


> It's public and the newspapers can read all about it. Friends of friends on email can snowball, but not with the same regularity as with social networking sites, if you ask me.




Also facebook is the current media darling (it was secondlife last year). Someone setups a facebook group with a couple of thousand people in it and the its apparently newsworthy.


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

smokedout said:


> interesting that a quick search reveals every press article on this to be almost exactly the same
> 
> which suggests that theyve just c&p'd the police press release
> 
> i dont think i saw one journo actually there last night




I don't think they even bothered doing that - looks as though the Press Association took shorthand from plod and its customers stuck their own bylines on the top.

The BBC did send someone - who claims to be called "Gareth Furby".


----------



## citydreams (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> People do seem to dislike being reminded that they are behaving antisocially .



..says the person who doesn't want to socialise with people anyway 

The law is an ass.  And so are you if you think that those who impose it will ever be respected.


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Except that the last SH CL party was also huge and got out of hand in terms of numbers (IMO). The popularity was already climbing even back then.


But there wasn't all these arrests or wild claims of damage.


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 1, 2008)

winjer said:


> No, it was BTP and CoLP from the beginning and it was all fairly calm until they called in back-up from the Met. (Haven't we heard this somewhere before?)


And your evidence for the implied connection between the two is ...


----------



## netbob (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If people didn't insist on antisocial drinking on the tube in the first place, there wouldn't have been a need for the law, would there?



It's self-anecdotal i know, but since Ive been in london (nearly 9 years) I can't think of a single incident of that kind (people on the tube drinking and being antisocial). I'm not saying it hasnt happened, but it wasnt quite the plague on your house that it was presented as. 

The reason the change came in was simple. It was something Boris could be seen to do immediately (since he's in control of TFL and can make byelaws) that would play well in the papers & the rest of the country. It could have been anything, they just happened to choose this.


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If people didn't insist on antisocial drinking on the tube in the first place, there wouldn't have been a need for the law, would there?


Now that is the big question ... _where_ is the evidence for significant levels of "antisocial drinking" on the tube?


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> People do seem to dislike being reminded that they are behaving antisocially and breaking the law, yes. No respect these days.


If the law doesn't respect people's right to go about their business lawfully (i.e. enjoying a quiet drink  on the tube), then why should you expect people to dutifully obey it when they're causing no harm to _anyone?_

Or do you think people should just accept whatever rash, ill thought out, fun-spoiling legislation is dreamt up in pointless, knee jerk PR gestures?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2008)

The anti-social non-drinkers who you should worry about


----------



## Crispy (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> But there wasn't all these arrests or wild claims of damage.


No, but the point I'm trying to make is that the ubiquity of social networking sites means that everyone and his dog can find out about these things very quickly, as can the press. The earlier CL parties worked because the group sizes were small, everyone knew the rules and knowledge of the event was limited. But the trend over time was for each succesive one to be more popular than the last. If they'd carried on with such regular parties, I have no doubt that it would have got as big and as uncontrolled as it did last night.


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Now that is the big question ... _where_ is the evidence for significant levels of "antisocial drinking" on the tube?


Exactly, There was already ample legislation in place for drunk and disorderly conduct on the tube and passengers have the right to be protected from them, but there seems scant evidence for mass social ills being inflicted by people having a can on the tube.


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 1, 2008)

ajdown said:


> People do seem to dislike being reminded that they are behaving antisocially and breaking the law, yes. No respect these days.


I'm not talking about people challenging significant antisocial behaviour.  I'm talking about fuckwit busybodies confronting people about things which really don't matter, in ways that are outrageously confrontational in themselves and winding up the situations that then escalate.  (Including at least three on buses where I've ended up having to intervene to calm them down again ... )


----------



## the button (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> there seems scant evidence for mass social ills being inflicted by people having a can on the tube.



It's what is known in management consultancy circles as a "quick win."* I.e. if you want to make a series of changes, do something early on which might not have much long-term impact, but which will be highly visible. 

And we know Boris used to work for a management consultancy. Although not for long. 

*  at self for knowing this.


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

Crispy said:


> If they'd carried on with such regular parties, I have no doubt that it would have got as big and as uncontrolled as it did last night.


I'm not so sure to be honest. If it was a meaningful act of defiance and protest rather then a whizzo-beano-look-at-me-I'm-on-Facebook (i.e. if it was held _after_ the ban) it would have been unlikely to have been anywhere near as popular.

This event was all over the traditional media and hyped to the max, so it's no wonder so many people got involved, but I doubt that any subsequent similar actions will generate anywhere near as much publicity as this one.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 1, 2008)

memespring said:


> It's self-anecdotal i know, but since Ive been in london (nearly 9 years) I can't think of a single incident of that kind (people on the tube drinking and being antisocial). I'm not saying it hasnt happened, but it wasnt quite the plague on your house that it was presented as.
> 
> The reason the change came in was simple. It was something Boris could be seen to do immediately (since he's in control of TFL and can make byelaws) that would play well in the papers & the rest of the country. It could have been anything, they just happened to choose this.



I absolutely agree. I have (apart from a short sojourn in a rural non-idyll) have spent the best part of five decades in London. I have thought long and hard and can only think of one incident on the tube where someone had drink with them and was being an arsehole. 

I have seen plenty of drunks behaving like arseholes on public transport but they've got tanked up in pubs and at parties and are using public transport to get elsewhere. 

I've seen plenty of drunks on public transport who have been perfectly well behaved. 

I have seen plenty of perfectly sober people behaving worse than arseholes on public transport. Plenty of those....hey Boris! SOLUTION! Ban people off public transport! That's where the problem lies!


----------



## winjer (Jun 1, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> And your evidence for the implied connection between the two is ...


Direct observation of a predictable scenario. For over two hours there was little more than harsh words exchanged, then 2/3rds a serial of TSG turned up, formed a line with some of the CoLP Level 1s and shoved the remaining crowd towards the Bishopsgate entrance, which as any sane person could have guessed resulted in a bottleneck on the narrow stairs and escalators, some of the crowd took exception, batons drawn, heads cracked, etc.

It wouldn't have taken a great deal of intelligence to realise that the Moorgate end, with its wide ramp would have been a better option than fighting hand-to-ASP _up stairs_...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> But there wasn't all these arrests or wild claims of damage.



Ah....!

But Tabatha and Tarquin have finally got hold of the concept as it breathes its last and being read its last rites.

Best be careful who we're dragging in on this particular evening Cunstable Rileth...

Evenin' all.


----------



## winjer (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> If it was a meaningful act of defiance and protest rather then a whizzo-beano-look-at-me-I'm-on-Facebook (i.e. if it was held _after_ the ban) it would have been unlikely to have been anywhere near as popular.


Which of the previous CLPs was _promoted as_ a meaningful act of defiance and protest?


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

winjer said:


> Which of the previous CLPs was _promoted as_ a meaningful act of defiance and protest?


None. Did I say that any were?


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

winjer said:


> the Moorgate end, with its wide ramp would have been a better option than fighting hand-to-ASP up stairs...










But that'd have put the crowd in among Important Offices.


----------



## winjer (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> None. Did I say that any were?


Not quite, but at several points you've implied a qualitative difference between this event for originating on Facebook and those. I'm trying to establish what it is, apart from pure antipathy towards Facebook for inherent yet unnameable evil.


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 1, 2008)

winjer said:


> Direct observation of a predictable scenario. For over two hours there was little more than harsh words exchanged, then 2/3rds a serial of TSG turned up...


Various alternative scenarios could explain what you conclude though, couldn't they?  E.G.:

1. The situation, originally policed by a few BTP / CoLP, starts to get out of hand.  They call for help.  The Met turn up.  The "getting out of hand" would have continued whether or not the Met did or not (and would probably have ended up worse if they hadn't.

2. The situation has reached the point where it is necessary to get the crowd out of the station.  The BTP and CoLP are unable to do that themselves and so do not attempt it until help arrives.  The Met arrives and the crowd are moved.  The crowd don't like being told what to do and get arsey.  But they would have done at that point, regardless of who was doing the telling.

(And it is interesting that despite the clear implication in the initial post that it was aggressive Met policing which caused it to kick off, you do not describe that at all - you describe a poor choice of tactics which, given that it was not within Met jurisdiction, would probably have been selected by BTP and / or CoLP.)


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 1, 2008)

winjer said:


> I'm trying to establish what it is, apart from pure antipathy towards Facebook for inherent yet unnameable evil.


I'll name it.

It's infested by fuckwits, who really would do better getting a life instead of jumping on board the latest passing fad ...


----------



## durruti02 (Jun 1, 2008)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Ban people off public transport!



BLOODY URBAN LIBERALISM ! 

BORIS SHOULD BAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT OUTRIGHT!! PUBLCI TRANSPORT IS THE CAUSE OF BAD BEAHVIOUR ON ER PUBLIC TRANSPORT!


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

What's this about facebook?



If you wanted to recruit a few thousand fuckwits, you'd put your event on the front page of both London freesheets - wouldn't you?


----------



## untethered (Jun 1, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> I'll name it.
> 
> It's infested by f-, who really would do better getting a life instead of jumping on board the latest passing fad ...



Facebook is so big and its membership is so diverse that it makes about as much sense to blame it for anything as it does to blame the internet itself.


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

I blame writing.


----------



## untethered (Jun 1, 2008)

As for the Tube party, Mr Johnson must be rubbing his hands with glee. I'm quite sure he suspected that Londoners are far more interested in their own selfish pleasures than they are in getting involved in serious political engagement, but now he knows it as a fact. From here on in I reckon he'll have an easy ride.

Too bad for the thousands of people who were inconvenienced, delayed, harassed and intimidated by the partygoers.


----------



## untethered (Jun 1, 2008)

laptop said:


> I blame writing.



Oh yes. Down with written communication. Bring back word of mouth.

Stop the rapid spread of ideas in its tracks before it's too late!


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 1, 2008)

I've changed my mind now that I know there was some proper confrontation with police.  No excuse for having a go at staff, none whatsoever, but perhaps a few facebook idjits are now aware of what happens when you don't tow the line.

So, here's a new idea, let's call one every month.  See what happens?


----------



## Firky (Jun 1, 2008)

This is what I imagine hell to be like.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=z_fhfTObqmw&feature=related


----------



## Crispy (Jun 1, 2008)

firky said:


> This is what I imagine hell to be like.
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=z_fhfTObqmw&feature=related


My youtube voloume is currently set to 'muted' and I could still only take about 3 seconds.


----------



## Get Involved (Jun 1, 2008)

firky said:


> This is what I imagine hell to be like.
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=z_fhfTObqmw&feature=related



that video is over two years old


----------



## Firky (Jun 1, 2008)

Pull a mad face because we are crazy man, party on the tube. We are so crazy.

So it is two years old


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 1, 2008)

Here we are Firks, Circle Line party on the er, District Line  

http://youtube.com/watch?v=n6WqhhxBuoE


----------



## Firky (Jun 1, 2008)

More people look pissed off than having a party.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 1, 2008)

firky said:


> More people look pissed off than having a party.





Exactly.  They moan about how hot it is on the tube and then all pile into a packed carriage quite willing to be pushed about just so they can have a pint


----------



## tastebud (Jun 1, 2008)

that was fucking awesome!  Best fun I've had in years! Apparently I'm on the BBC footage. Met loads of cool people, had soo much fun!

We broke the tube though. They stopped the Circle line in the end. So we took the party to other lines - was hilarious.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 1, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i have tried and tried and been quite unable to think of a more pointless and puerile protest. fucking students



Yep I wish people could get this worked up and organised over something that actually matters.


----------



## tastebud (Jun 1, 2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7429709.stm I just found myself.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 1, 2008)

tastebud said:


> We broke the tube though. They stopped the Central line in the end. So we took the party to other lines - was hilarious.




how did you break the tube?  What was hilarious, breaking the tube or the party?


----------



## tastebud (Jun 1, 2008)

both. like i say, great fun!


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 1, 2008)

tastebud said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7429709.stm I just found myself.


"Thousands of people have marked a drinks ban on the London Tube with a party - leading to arrests, assaults and cancelled trains."

Which will surely make people think this ban was a good idea...............counter-productive to say the least


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 1, 2008)

Government (and the Mayor) appear more comfortable restricting civil liberties than they do restricting the alcohol advertising culture that subliminally tells generation after generation the way to have a good time, to be part of the ‘in’ crowd, to be part of a ‘happening scene’ to paaar-tey is to drink their products. You also of course, need alcohol to celebrate (anything), ‘drown your sorrows’ and ‘lose your inhibitions’. 

It’s as faux as advertisers tell us nicotine addiction is cool and bohemian and alternative, or associating car ownership with amorphous ‘right’ and freedom.

In fact, the alcohol thing is even weirder imo as so many try to link it with their sense of national identity. It’s fantastic market penetration- but I suppose you wouldn’t hope for much less given the amount spent through the decades.

Otherwise, I agree with memespring – it’s the crowd pleasing political first-footings of a new broom.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 1, 2008)

tastebud said:


> both. like i say, great fun!




How did you damage the train?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 1, 2008)

One of the seven gates of Hell







Good clean fun?


----------



## Onket (Jun 1, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> "Thousands of people have marked a drinks ban on the London Tube with a party - leading to arrests, assaults and cancelled trains."
> 
> *Which will surely make people think this ban was a good idea*...............counter-productive to say the least



Only simple people.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 1, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> One of the seven gates of Hell
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Peasants.  Couldn't even be bothered to clean up after themselces


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jun 1, 2008)




----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 1, 2008)

DJ Squelch said:


>




Is one of them you?


----------



## Passdout (Jun 1, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Is one of them you?


Or all of them


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Peasants.  Couldn't even be bothered to clean up after themselces


Don't be a mug and fall for the newspaper twisting.

You'll find very similar scenes on _any_ tube train after a busy journey. In fact, it's often even worse in the week after the rush hour, when the carriages are full of discarded free newspapers, water bottles, food wrappers etc.

So where's the outrage about that?


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jun 1, 2008)

No last tube party i went to was a PFB graffiti one in 91, now that did leave some mess.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> Don't be a mug and fall for the newspaper twisting.




I'm quite aware of that.  I was taking the piss.  I'm often wading through a sea of Metros on the way to work


----------



## ohmyliver (Jun 1, 2008)

tastebud said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7429709.stm I just found myself.



Well I suppose its cheaper finding one self on the Circle line than say having to travel around India


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 1, 2008)

DJ Squelch said:


>


Look how much fun we're having with our products!

You can tell we're fun, you want to be like us, don't you?


Change the booze for fags, change the era to (say) the 1970s and it's the same old story.


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> Look how much fun we're having with our products!







But look what happens when you make a serious effort to eliminate "products":


----------



## tastebud (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> Don't be a mug and fall for the newspaper twisting.


  indeed.



editor said:


> You'll find very similar scenes on _any_ tube train after a busy journey. In fact, it's often even worse in the week after the rush hour, when the carriages are full of discarded free newspapers, water bottles, food wrappers etc.
> 
> So where's the outrage about that?


Yep. Just like festivals, gigs, parties, even offices sometimes. People party, stuff gets broken/dirty & it's rarely the ones that make the mess that do the clearing up.

Even the Guardian's reporting is distortedly hysterical.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 1, 2008)

tastebud said:


> Yep. Just like festivals, gigs, parties, even offices sometimes. People party, stuff gets broken/dirty & it's rarely the ones that make the mess that do the clearing up.



I wish it weren't the case 

*bops round the party, binbag in hand*


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 1, 2008)

But the cost of clearing up after a festival is included in your ticket.  Or those in the case of free parties/gigs the organisers have to do it (i should know I help out with a monthly free event!!). Neither of these applies here.

Sorry to be on the side of the 'Daily Mail' brigade, but this party has been massively counter productive and hasn't helped your 'cause' one little bit........


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> But the cost of clearing up after a festival is included in your ticket.  Or those in the case of free parties/gigs the organisers have to do it (i should know I help out with a monthly free event!!). Neither of these applies here..


And the cost of cleaning up the tube is also included in _my_ ticket.

The comparatively minor mess that was made by this one off party pales into _absolute insignificance_ compared to the vast quantities of mess created every single day on tube trains.

So what is your point, exactly?

(*that's not to say that those people shouldn't have cleaned up their mess)


----------



## untethered (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> The comparatively minor mess that was made by this one off party pales into _absolute insignificance_ compared to the vast quantities of mess created every single day on tube trains.



I don't think the mess is the major problem.

The major problem is the thousands of people that couldn't get onto their train, off their train or even into their station while _considerately _going about their legitimate daily business.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 1, 2008)

laptop said:


> But look what happens when you make a serious effort to eliminate "products":



um.... am i missing the point of this post?


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

untethered said:


> The major problem is the thousands of people that couldn't get onto their train, off their train or even into their station while _considerately _going about their legitimate daily business.


Then blame Boris and his fucking stupid new law.


----------



## gabi (Jun 1, 2008)

firky said:


> This is what I imagine hell to be like.
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=z_fhfTObqmw&feature=related



Fuck me... thats even worse than the other vid i saw. Barley's in there somewhere im sure of it.

What a pack of cunts. Boris must be lovin this.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> So what is your point, exactly?



That this is a massive own goal, basically. The people involved in this party have managed to prove just why this law was needed.


----------



## Onket (Jun 1, 2008)

No they haven't.


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> That this is a massive own goal, basically. The people involved in this party have managed to prove just why this law was needed.


Right. So the law was needed to outlaw any relatively minor littering and drunken antics that that may take place in reaction to such a law being introduced?

Have I got that right?


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 1, 2008)

We aren't going to agree on this one, Editor, but what you need to consider is the way this will be percieved, in particular by the liberal middle class demographic who might previously have had doubts about this ban on libertarian grounds but now will likely be firmly behind Boris.


----------



## gabi (Jun 1, 2008)

All the idiots have done is give Boris justification (in the minds of other idiots) for his idiotic law. The average voter won't draw the distinctions being bandied about here. 

He's off to a good start, or thats the way he'll pitch it anyway. Not so much an own goal as an instance of the crowd coming on the pitch and kicking the goalkeeper's head in. Idiots.


----------



## scott_forester (Jun 1, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> That this is a massive own goal, basically. The people involved in this party have managed to prove just why this law was needed.



I don't think they were protesting it, I'm pretty sure if you asked most of them what they were going to do after the ban to get it removed they'd say 'nothing'

I took it more as a huge piss take.

Then again when Bob Crow calls you a "disgrace" you know you're in trouble.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 1, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> in particular by the liberal middle class demographic who might previously have had doubts about this ban on libertarian grounds but now will likely be firmly behind Boris.



You do you think were the people on the tube last night?. The liberal middle class will never be behind boris.


----------



## winjer (Jun 1, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> It's infested by fuckwits, who really would do better getting a life instead of jumping on board the latest passing fad ...


c.f. The internet. Granted it provides an efficient mechanism by which people can bandwagoneer, but that's not the same as being predominantly used for that or by those people.


----------



## winjer (Jun 1, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Various alternative scenarios could explain what you conclude though, couldn't they?  E.G.:
> 
> 1. The situation, originally policed by a few BTP / CoLP, starts to get out of hand.  They call for help.  The Met turn up.  The "getting out of hand" would have continued whether or not the Met did or not (and would probably have ended up worse if they hadn't.
> 
> 2. The situation has reached the point where it is necessary to get the crowd out of the station.  The BTP and CoLP are unable to do that themselves and so do not attempt it until help arrives.  The Met arrives and the crowd are moved.  The crowd don't like being told what to do and get arsey.  But they would have done at that point, regardless of who was doing the telling.


They could of course, but those you suggest are not supported by the facts on the ground.

1. There was no -ve change in crowd dynamics, quite the opposite with the crowd reduced to less than half it's initial numbers, with people drifting away after the sound system left.

2. Entirely possible, but irrelevant to the manner in which it was done, which was the point of my comment. The crowd did not simply get arsey at being moved, the loose line of police could easily have been resisted or walked around, but there was no confrontation until the bottleneck.



> (And it is interesting that despite the clear implication in the initial post that it was aggressive Met policing which caused it to kick off, you do not describe that at all - you describe a poor choice of tactics which, given that it was not within Met jurisdiction, would probably have been selected by BTP and / or CoLP.)


(a) Listening to the discussion just prior between the senior BTP, CoLP and Met* cops the choice of tactics seemed to come straight from the Met.
(b) Is it not the case that since J18 the Met takes the lead on public order situations in the City? Or pre-planned only?

Either way, it was the presence of the Met cops that allowed the aggressive tactics to be used, if you feel that given suitable strength of numbers the CoLP and BTP would be just as aggressive, then I won't argue with that 

* I believe the collective noun is _an indecision of senior officers._


----------



## untethered (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> Then blame Boris and his f- stupid new law.



If it's all the same to you, I'll blame Boris for his laws and partygoers for their party.

Nothing that Boris has enacted has compelled anyone to go out and hold a huge, selfish, hedonistic party that isn't even an effective protest against the law.

People partied because they wanted to party and thought their "right" to party was more important than other people's right to a peaceful and troublefree journey. That isn't Boris's fault, it's theirs.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 1, 2008)

untethered said:


> If it's all the same to you, I'll blame Boris for his laws and partygoers for their party.
> 
> Nothing that Boris has enacted has compelled anyone to go out and hold a huge, selfish, hedonistic party that isn't even an effective protest against the law.
> 
> People partied because they wanted to party and thought their "right" to party was more important than other people's right to a peaceful and troublefree journey. That isn't Boris's fault, it's theirs.


I pretty much agree with this. Stupid law, stupid party.


----------



## winjer (Jun 1, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> But the cost of clearing up after a festival is included in your ticket.  Or those in the case of free parties/gigs the organisers have to do it (i should know I help out with a monthly free event!!). Neither of these applies here.
> 
> Sorry to be on the side of the 'Daily Mail' brigade, but this party has been massively counter productive and hasn't helped your 'cause' one little bit........


There were people clearing up after themselves at Liverpool Street, but as I understand the train above at King's Cross was emptied by the police, including dogs, we'll never know whether those people would have done the same.

How has it been counter-productive at all in terms of the ban? Without the parties would the ban have been dropped as unworkable? Or would it, as it still will, remain in theory but in practice only be very selectively enforced?


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 1, 2008)

I think people are being to literal on Boris's ban. Personally I believe its a tactic to wrest control of the tube off the unions.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> And the cost of cleaning up the tube is also included in _my_ ticket.
> 
> The comparatively minor mess that was made by this one off party pales into _absolute insignificance_ compared to the vast quantities of mess created every single day on tube trains.
> 
> ...


yep, those agency migrant cleaners on less than the national minimum wage should be grateful that i leave my shit all over the public transport.... included in the cost of _your_ ticket ffs....


----------



## emanymton (Jun 1, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> I think people are being to literal on Boris's ban. Personally I believe its a tactic to wrest control of the tube off the unions.



In What way?


----------



## emanymton (Jun 1, 2008)

Editor said:
			
		

> (*that's not to say that those people shouldn't have cleaned up their mess)





Paulie Tandoori said:


> yep, those agency migrant cleaners on less than the national minimum wage should be grateful that i leave my shit all over the public transport.... included in the cost of _your_ ticket ffs....


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 1, 2008)

emanymton said:


>


well, what is it saying then?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 1, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> well, what is it saying then?



Er, it's saying that those people should have cleaned up their mess.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 1, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Er, it's saying that those people should have cleaned up their mess.


soz, am still getting over myself, as per last night. thanks for pointing me in the right direction. respec


----------



## scott_forester (Jun 1, 2008)

emanymton said:


> In What way?



Yeah I don't understand that either, once they sober up he's fucked.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jun 1, 2008)

I think last nights events said more about people who organise their social lives through mediums such as Space Book than any genuine protest against a ban which most people seemingly assumed was in place anyway.


----------



## Andy the Don (Jun 1, 2008)

Oh christ, its the London "urban progressive" facebook meeja generation.. in full effect.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jun 1, 2008)

The thing is did people ever hold parties on the Tube in the past ? 

I would never enjoy such a thing because I would be getting off at every stop to have a wee. So why all the fuss because booze has been banned ?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 1, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> We aren't going to agree on this one, Editor, but what you need to consider is the way this will be percieved, in particular by the liberal middle class demographic who might previously have had doubts about this ban on libertarian grounds but now will likely be firmly behind Boris.



But who cares? Really? The "liberal middle class demographic" has a solid history of basically following moral panics in a "oh well of course maybe the media exaggerates this ahem cough but something needs to be done" way in any case.

You'd have to be a fool to think that an individual occurrence of people deliberately going on the tube to get pissed as a protest against casual drinking was in any sense an indication of something that happened normally and was relevant to the issue - and the fools who would believe it would likely believe any old rubbish they read in the Standard anyway. And in any case, they didn't make the policy and they don't make the policy, regardless of what they think.


----------



## tastebud (Jun 1, 2008)

God  You people are priceless


----------



## tastebud (Jun 1, 2008)

untethered said:


> The major problem is the thousands of people that couldn't get onto their train, off their train or even into their station while _considerately _going about their legitimate daily business.


Again, not my experience. The commuters were utterly intrigued by the party - startled, surprised, amused. But I didn't see anyone pissed off or aggro.
I know there were a few reports in the papers... but these were right at the end and in the minority when compared to the large scale of the thing in its entirety.
Any train driver I saw looked pretty amused, too.

Yeah it was a bit of a ruckus and at the end people were ridiculously drunk, but I thought the point was to create a bit of chaos/commotion.

These parties have been going on for nine years and urbanites used to go to them... people are just pissed off about this one cos there was fancy dress, students and facebook.

Ridiculous.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 1, 2008)

Disagree tastebud, i have no problem with parties on the underground, in fact i support them 100%.  but i haven't seen anything to let me know that this one has been organised with anything but inherent support for the ban and johnson.  what are they doing now to challenge this law?  if you can make me see this as part of a challenge to johnson, then i support it, but otherwise it strikes me as a load of people having a party and not taking responsibility for their actions.  i want to know, for example, how come 7(?) LU workers were assaulted.  what happened?  was it real assaults, did the partygoers step in?  the vids i've seen make it look really selfish and laddish, like a bunch of football fans and nothing like the old circle line parties.  you know i'm in favour, hell i started this thread with the hope of getting a party going, but i can't see how this one has done anything to fight johnson.  

more tube parties needed though, this is a good start, but in order to have a point other than selfishness, there needs to be a follow up, IYSWIM.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 1, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Disagree tastebud, i have no problem with parties on the underground, in fact i support them 100%. .



Fucking stupid place for a party. 
Some years ago I saw a couple of school kids were hammering shit out of each other on a platform in Victoria. A huge shrek look-a-like grabbed both of them and dragged them out telling them if they wanted to fight to do it outside as they were going to cause themselves to fall in front of a train or worse an innocent passer by. Sums it all up realy.


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> yep, those agency migrant cleaners on less than the national minimum wage should be grateful that i leave my shit all over the public transport...


I think your attitude stinks.



(Can you see what I'm doing here? Not nice is it. But enjoy a taste of your own medicine)


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Fucking stupid place for a party.



Isn't it just.

Fucking nobbers.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 1, 2008)

Fucking embarressing realy of all the shit going on the in world, thats what these pampered individuals want to protest about.


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Er, it's saying that those people should have cleaned up their mess.


And that's what I said over 30 posts and seven hours ago too, not that that's going to stop Paulie Tandoori going for the cheap shot.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> I think your attitude stinks.
> 
> 
> 
> (Can you see what I'm doing here? Not nice is it. But enjoy a taste of your own medicine)


this thing got my back up for all sorts of reasons. sleep tight monsieur.


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Fucking stupid place for a party.


Perhaps you could post up your 'approved' list of sensible free party locations?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 1, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Disagree tastebud, i have no problem with parties on the underground, in fact i support them 100%.  but i haven't seen anything to let me know that this one has been organised with anything but inherent support for the ban and johnson.  what are they doing now to challenge this law?  if you can make me see this as part of a challenge to johnson, then i support it, but otherwise it strikes me as a load of people having a party and not taking responsibility for their actions.  i want to know, for example, how come 7(?) LU workers were assaulted.  what happened?  was it real assaults, did the partygoers step in?  the vids i've seen make it look really selfish and laddish, like a bunch of football fans and nothing like the old circle line parties.  you know i'm in favour, hell i started this thread with the hope of getting a party going, but i can't see how this one has done anything to fight johnson.
> 
> more tube parties needed though, this is a good start, but in order to have a point other than selfishness, there needs to be a follow up, IYSWIM.



A bunch of people without any motivation apart from being pissed off at the law, coming together at the same time and place. No overall organisation, no specific political purpose, no actual will to do much in practice apart from drink until challenged. An issue involving booze, so people are even more likely than usual to be pissed and start shit with random folk; not entirely unknown in a protest though is it?


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 1, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Fucking stupid place for a party.
> Some years ago I saw a couple of school kids were hammering shit out of each other on a platform in Victoria. A huge shrek look-a-like grabbed both of them and dragged them out telling them if they wanted to fight to do it outside as they were going to cause themselves to fall in front of a train or worse an innocent passer by. Sums it all up realy.



Depends.  There have been some good CLPs in the past, safe and friendly and perfect.  I'm in favour of utilising "public" spaces for parties, redefining the nature of zones and what you can and can't do in them.  Fighting and partying are very different things.  See, if you can behave like a civilised human being you can party anywhere without causing hurt, alarm, mess, or disruption.  And that's what any party against this rule should have been - it should have shown that it's completely stupid and pointless.  In many ways it's been a success.  Without the no drinking law the police dealt with the party, the law wasn't needed.  But the manner in which the party went off was easily manipulated by the media into looking completely uncivilised, without it being close enough to a riot to show how angry people are.

In the end it's a good start, but without doing more parties and more protest it looks like an acquiescence to Johnson, rather than a defiance.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 1, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Depends.  There have been some good CLPs in the past, safe and friendly and perfect.  I'm in favour of utilising "public" spaces for parties, redefining the nature of zones and what you can and can't do in them.  Fighting and partying are very different things.  See, if you can behave like a civilised human being you can party anywhere without causing hurt, alarm, mess, or disruption.  And that's what any party against this rule should have been - it should have shown that it's completely stupid and pointless.  In many ways it's been a success.  Without the no drinking law the police dealt with the party, the law wasn't needed.  But the manner in which the party went off was easily manipulated by the media into looking completely uncivilised, without it being close enough to a riot to show how angry people are.
> 
> In the end it's a good start, but without doing more parties and more protest it looks like an acquiescence to Johnson, rather than a defiance.


Very good and wise post imo.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> Perhaps you could post up your 'approved' list of sensible free party locations?



How about anywhere where you're not drunkenly involving the travelling public who want fuck all to do with you?


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 1, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> A bunch of people without any motivation apart from being pissed off at the law, coming together at the same time and place. No overall organisation, no specific political purpose, no actual will to do much in practice apart from drink until challenged. An issue involving booze, so people are even more likely than usual to be pissed and start shit with random folk; not entirely unknown though is it?



Of course, and actually aside from the alleged attacks on staff and the ghastly fuck-monkeys involved (i mean cmon, look at the vids and tell me if those are the sort of toss-haired wankers you'd want at your party mostly - i mean, i'd pay tastebud to come and lend some coolness to any of my parties but for the most part if people came and behaved like that at an offline we'd throw them out), i'm happier now with how it turned out than i thought i would.  Reports suggest that people actually fought back against the police in places.  This is good.

But it reminds me a bit of how I felt at the tailend of RTS, where it seemed all party and no politics and alienated so many passers-by, rather than the early days where it drew them in and advertised to everyone why we were here and why a party was the chosen tool of dissent.

Most people there, it seems (though i'd love to be wrong) wanted a party, but are too bothered about the new rule.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 1, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Of course, and actually aside from the alleged attacks on staff and the ghastly fuck-monkeys involved (i mean cmon, look at the vids and tell me if those are the sort of toss-haired wankers you'd want at your party mostly - i mean, i'd pay tastebud to come and lend some coolness to any of my parties but for the most part if people came and behaved like that at an offline we'd throw them out), i'm happier now with how it turned out than i thought i would.  Reports suggest that people actually fought back against the police in places.  This is good.
> 
> But it reminds me a bit of how I felt at the tailend of RTS, where it seemed all party and no politics and alienated so many passers-by, rather than the early days where it drew them in and advertised to everyone why we were here and why a party was the chosen tool of dissent.
> 
> Most people there, it seems (though i'd love to be wrong) wanted a party, but are too bothered about the new rule.



Well, what do you do? There's no "protest-organising" body that anyone gives a toss about any more; the closest is decentralised provocateurs doing shit that gets posted on Facebook and thus finds its way to the Metro. Nobody was there selling papers.

Having a party doesn't do anything, you know that.


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> But it reminds me a bit of how I felt at the tailend of RTS, where it seemed all party and no politics and alienated so many passers-by...


That seems to precisely sum up a lot of people's attitude these days....


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 1, 2008)

Well, to be honest, what people like me should have done, if nothing else is printed up a load of information sheets and handed them out to partygoers and passers by.  Then we should organise a follow up, next month, in the same way.  For a start.

Why didn't I.  Laziness and annoyance mostly.  

I'm coming around to the idea of decentralised provacateurs completely.  It's a great idea, and one that we should learn from.  But with a bit of organisation, IYSWIM


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 1, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Depends.  There have been some good CLPs in the past, safe and friendly and perfect.  I'm in favour of utilising "public" spaces for parties, redefining the nature of zones and what you can and can't do in them.  Fighting and partying are very different things.  See, if you can behave like a civilised human being you can party anywhere without causing hurt, alarm, mess, or disruption.



Even if you dont discriminate who you invite eh? Do you post up invites to parties in your house on the internet?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 1, 2008)

Pamphlets eh?


----------



## citydreams (Jun 1, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> How about anywhere where you're not drunkenly involving the travelling public who want fuck all to do with you?



Luton council tried that.  They gave us an 'approved' site for an Exodous rave...  right next to the f'ing motorway!!  Asthma central.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 1, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Even if you dont discriminate who you invite eh? Do you post up invites to parties in your house on the internet?



No, because that's a completely different thing.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 1, 2008)

editor said:


> Perhaps you could post up your 'approved' list of sensible free party locations?




Be easier to post up the most stupid, pissed people + leading edge platforms would probably be right up there

Seriously though, educate me here, wouldnt you feel guilty if someone had been killed at this party if you had promoted it?


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 1, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Pamphlets eh?



The message needs to get out somehow, don't you think.  If you called a protest on facebook, no-one would come.  You obviously think I'm missing something, what would you think would be a good move?


----------



## laptop (Jun 1, 2008)

Bluestreak -

If one were to organise a proper protest, it wouldn't be about the drinking ban, would it?


A two-fingers entirely non-serious party seems like exactly the proper response.


And I don't much care, given that, whether it's properly defiant, on the day before or the day after the notional ban.


Now, on the day in the autumn when it will *actually* become illegal to drink on the Underground (see Times link several pages back)...


Nah. Can't be arsed.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 1, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Seriously though, educate me here, wouldnt you feel guilty if someone had been killed at this party if you had promoted it?



Control was lost and this became a distinct possibility once it was 'open to all'.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 1, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> The message needs to get out somehow, don't you think.  If you called a protest on facebook, no-one would come.  You obviously think I'm missing something,* what would you think would be a good move*?


Secret messages on lolly-pop sticks


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 1, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> The message needs to get out somehow, don't you think.  If you called a protest on facebook, no-one would come.  You obviously think I'm missing something, what would you think would be a good move?



No, what, if you say something on Facebook clearly lots of people _do_ attend. I think this proves it. Handing out pamphlets at the scene might be interesting but surely you can see the irony there between concepts of what a protest should look like? It's not just me, is it?


----------



## the button (Jun 1, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Secret messages on lolly-pop sticks


----------



## scifisam (Jun 1, 2008)

Thing is, I didn't have the impression that these tube parties were intended as protests. They were intended as parties, saying goodbye to drinking on the tube. So I'm not sure that there's any point in criticising their lack of political content.


----------



## editor (Jun 1, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Seriously though, educate me here, wouldnt you feel guilty if someone had been killed at this party if you had promoted it?


Strawman of the week!

I'd feel guilty if someone had been killed at a house party I'd promoted. In fact, I'd feel guilty if someone had been killed at a picnic I'd promoted. Or a tea'n'cakes afternoon.

Pissed people get on the tube every day and night of the week and this new law won't make the slightest, remotest tot of fucking difference.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 1, 2008)

I would have thought the protest would be to do it tonight or in the future.

As sam said, last night was a farewell party surely?


----------



## Xanadu (Jun 2, 2008)

Rutita1 said:


> I would have thought the protest would be to do it tonight or in the future.
> 
> As sam said, last night was a farewell party surely?



Think it's been said by a couple of people.  But I agree.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

firky said:


> This is what I imagine hell to be like.
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=z_fhfTObqmw&feature=related





Get Involved said:


> that video is over two years old



Hell isn't a new concept.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Sorry to be on the side of the 'Daily Mail' brigade, but this party has been massively counter productive and hasn't helped your 'cause' one little bit........



Meanwhile, in Oswald's carriage...


----------



## mk12 (Jun 2, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> One of the seven gates of Hell
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And who is going to have to clean that up? Not Boris. 

Well done though. I hope you all had fun.


----------



## Xanadu (Jun 2, 2008)

That's what the tube always looks like on a friday/saturday night


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2008)

I wonder if the Mail/Standard will be kicking up a fuss about the fucking mess made by their own shitty free newspapers that are dumped all over trains _every single day_?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

mk12 said:


> And who is going to have to clean that up? Not Boris.
> 
> Well done though. I hope you all had fun.



You think tube carriages don't look like that on any other day of the week?

If you're going to tut-tut at everyone then at least know what the fuck you're talking about.



Xanadu said:


> That's what the tube always looks like on a friday/saturday night



Beat me to it.


----------



## cesare (Jun 2, 2008)

I'm completely against this ridiculous PR driven quick win 'ban' (that can't be enforced - hah hah - and isn't even 'law' yet) but I never had any intention of and didn't join that PARTAAAAAAY. 

I'm a bit more inclined to concentrate on what he slides in virtually without notice tbh, e.g. cockers' allegation that he's taking away travel concessions from the disadvantaged.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 2, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> I think people are being to literal on Boris's ban. Personally I believe its a tactic to wrest control of the tube off the unions.



Flagging this up again as I would appreciate more detail on this point. I don’t see how the drinking ban can be about the Unions (apart from making their members jobs harder) but maybe there is something I don’t know


----------



## emanymton (Jun 2, 2008)

Xanadu said:


> That's what the tube always looks like on a friday/saturday night



I find the mess quite shocking, I would have imagined it to be worse.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 2, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> i'm happier now with how it turned out than i thought i would.  Reports suggest that people actually fought back against the police in places.  This is good.



Is it? 

Rangers fans in Manchester thought back against police recently was that a good thing?

The far right sometimes fight back against the police is that a good thing?

I’ll always support people fighting back against the police as part of real and progressive protest but don’t think we can automatically assume that people fighting back against the police is a good thing.* Can we be certain that the people attacking the police are not the same people who attacked and abused London Underground staff? 

*Well it’s a good thing in that it’s something of a win win situation as far as I’m concerned.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Pissed people get on the tube every day and night of the week and this new law won't make the slightest, remotest tot of fucking difference.



Where have I said anything different In fact I agree with you.

But the point is people actively encouraging drinking on overcrowded platforms is irresponsible.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jun 2, 2008)

emanymton said:


> Flagging this up again as I would appreciate more detail on this point. I don’t see how the drinking ban can be about the Unions (apart from making their members jobs harder) but maybe there is something I don’t know



Its been reputed that there used to be a drinking culture. IIRC some years ago Panorama highlighted the case of evidence of drinking on site- in one case, despite lots of empty tinnies being found nothing could be proved.
 TBH Ive no idea if this is (or ever was) the case, in fact I very much doubt it. Im just very cynical.


----------



## jæd (Jun 2, 2008)

Gixxer1000 said:


> But the point is people actively encouraging drinking on overcrowded platforms is irresponsible.



Yes... I was quite surprised that one of the free papers had a headline about the party on Saturday... I wonder what would've happened if someone fell off a platform. 

I think that this party was set up to fail from the start. There's no litter bins or toilets on the tube, so even the most respectable party would be hard-pressed to avoid littering. 

I also think that the promotion of the party by the free papers may of (intentionally or otherwise) increased numbers. Hardly mainstream behavior on a summer Saturday night to hed down the Tube and stay there... Can't see much chance or relaxing this bye-law now.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> I wonder if the Mail/Standard will be kicking up a fuss about the fucking mess made by their own shitty free newspapers that are dumped all over trains _every single day_?



Strawman of the week.


----------



## mk12 (Jun 2, 2008)

Xanadu said:


> That's what the tube always looks like on a friday/saturday night



That's alright then.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Pissed people get on the tube every day and night of the week and this new law won't make the slightest, remotest tot of fucking difference.



It'll prevent people stinking up carriages with cans of beer and it'll stop alcohol being wafted and spilled under the noses of those who'd rather not be anywhere near it. 

There are many, many people in our society who do not drink alcohol, why should they be forced into contact with those that do? 

Why the fuck should I have to smell your beer just because you got onto the same tube train as me? Fair enough if I'd walked into a pub or your home but this is a confined public space.

How about I sit next to you and fart throughout the journey or eat a chicken Madras? 

You have a right to certain freedoms, but you have no right to impinge on mine.

Excellent law, round 1 to Boris.


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 2, 2008)

gabi said:


> All the idiots have done is ...


... demonstrate the shallow, self-centred, pathetic, "let's paaarty!", fuckwittery of huge swathes of the great British public ... 

How much more powerful would pictures of carriages full of people sitting quietly sipping from cans and bottles have been ...


----------



## Kanda (Jun 2, 2008)

Anyone remember when you could smoke on the tube?!!


----------



## gabi (Jun 2, 2008)

Kanda said:


> Anyone remember when you could smoke on the tube?!!



Jesus  How long ago was that?

I vaguely recall my old man smoking away on a longhaul flight from NZ to LA when i was a kid. Seems unreal now. The air stewards from those days must have suffered.


----------



## Onket (Jun 2, 2008)

A few posters are starting to sound a bit "it was cool before everyone started doing it".


----------



## jæd (Jun 2, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> ... demonstrate the shallow, self-centred, pathetic, "let's paaarty!", fuckwittery of huge swathes of the great British public ...
> 
> How much more powerful would pictures of carriages full of people sitting quietly sipping from cans and bottles have been ...



If there hadn't been any party due to people wanting to demonstrate their "rights" then after a few years there might have been a relaxation. Unlikely now...


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> It'll prevent people stinking up carriages with cans of beer and it'll stop alcohol being wafted and spilled under the noses of those who'd rather not be anywhere near it.


So exactly how many times have you personally suffered "alcohol being wafted and spilled under your nose" on the tube?

You see, I've been getting the tube for 30 years now, and I'm having trouble recalling a single instance of someone spilling beer under my nose.

Personally, I'd rather be nowhere near small minded bigots, but being tolerant comes with living in a big city as does respecting other people's rights to enjoy a beer when it has zero impact on you. 

Perhaps you should try that tolerance. Might do wonders for your blood pressure.


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 2, 2008)

winjer said:


> (b) Is it not the case that since J18 the Met takes the lead on public order situations in the City? Or pre-planned only?


No, there's always primacy by the senior officers from the City in terms of the overall strategy.  Sometimes in operations which cross borders (e.g. MayDay) there will be Met primacy for the whole event, but there will always be City senior officers involved at the most senior level even then ... but only one person can be the actual event commander and, though that could in theory be anyone from any of the forces involved, the sheer size of the Met means it is usually one of theirs.


----------



## Poi E (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> It'll prevent people stinking up carriages with cans of beer and it'll stop alcohol being wafted and spilled under the noses of those who'd rather not be anywhere near it. .



Never noticed it to be much of a problem. The main smell is the body odour of drinkers and smokers and you can't ban that.


----------



## jæd (Jun 2, 2008)

Onket said:


> A few posters are starting to sound a bit "it was cool before everyone started doing it".



I think you'll notice that I pointed out that a while ago, and now everyone seems to be doing it.


----------



## jæd (Jun 2, 2008)

Poi E said:


> Never noticed it to be much of a problem. The main smell is the body odour of drinkers and smokers and you can't ban that.



Why not...?   Showers on each platform, and as you enter the station...


----------



## Xanadu (Jun 2, 2008)

mk12 said:


> That's alright then.



Where the fuck did I say it was alright???  The mess caused by the party was exactly the same as that which the tube endures twice every week, thus highlighting it as a fault of the party is idiotic.

It was a shit party, but shit for reasons other than just the litter caused.


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> I wonder if the Mail/Standard will be kicking up a fuss about the fucking mess made by their own shitty free newspapers that are dumped all over trains _every single day_?


* _*WARNING:*  Breath retention can cause dizziness, coma and death and is not recommended._ *


----------



## Crispy (Jun 2, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> * _*WARNING:*  Breath retention can cause dizziness, coma and death and is not recommended._ *


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 2, 2008)

emanymton said:


> I’ll always support people fighting back against the police as part of real and progressive protest but don’t think we can automatically assume that people fighting back against the police is a good thing.* Can we be certain that the people attacking the police are not the same people who attacked and abused London Underground staff?
> 
> *Well it’s a good thing in that it’s something of a win win situation as far as I’m concerned.


And your reason for discriminating between attacks on one category of person doing their job with attacks on another category of person doing their job is ... ?

(Clue: The word you are looking for has nine letters and begins with "P")


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> I wonder if the Mail/Standard will be kicking up a fuss about the fucking mess made by their own shitty free newspapers that are dumped all over trains _every single day_?


 

You should send that picture to them and ask them


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 2, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> You should send that picture to them and ask them


Nah, don't send that one ... get one at the end of a line (e.g. Richmond) about 9.15am ... it's way, way, way worse than that!


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Xanadu said:


> Where the fuck did I say it was alright???  The mess caused by the party was exactly the same as that which the tube endures twice every week, thus highlighting it as a fault of the party is idiotic.
> 
> It was a shit party, but shit for reasons other than just the litter caused.



Have you seen the mess that was left at Liverpool Street?  Watch http://youtube.com/watch?v=PX_f8L-pgvA at about 50 seconds in when the line of police has cleared some of the concourse.

There is absolutely no excuse for that mess whatsoever.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 2, 2008)

gabi said:


> Jesus  How long ago was that?
> 
> I vaguely recall my old man smoking away on a longhaul flight from NZ to LA when i was a kid. Seems unreal now. The air stewards from those days must have suffered.


 

Before the King's Cross fire, I used to smoke on the tube.

After they banned it on the tube, they banned it on the buses


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 2, 2008)

I think, in the end, what I've done here is decided that there should be a party to protest the rule-change.  Then someone else has organised a party for the sake of it.  So I've decided that they're motivated by the same things I am, but are going about it wrong.  In the end, they're not.  Like people keep telling me, it's not a protest, it was a party.  As a party it was a great success.

In the end I'm criticising chips for not being pizza.

The fault was my own, I should have pulled my finger out and organised the protest I was on about when I started this thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> So exactly how many times have you personally suffered "alcohol being wafted and spilled under your nose" on the tube?



Oooh let's see, I'd say there's been some thoughtless cunt merrily swigging away on about half of all Friday and Saturday night tubes I've ridden in the past 30 odd years. The smell of alcohol is always evident.



> You see, I've been getting the tube for 30 years now, and I'm having trouble recalling a single instance of someone spilling beer under my nose.



Nice swerve, pick up the "spill" and forget the "waft" 



> Personally, I'd rather be nowhere near small minded bigots, but being tolerant comes with living in a big city as does respecting other people's rights to enjoy a beer when it has zero impact on you.



Many people, drinkers or otherwise, find the smell of alcohol unpleasant on public transport, therefore it does impact them. 

So, ok if I fart purposely and continuously when I'm sitting next to you? How about that curry then? 

Anyway it's banned soon. 

Big win afaic.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 2, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Nah, don't send that one ... get one at the end of a line (e.g. Richmond) about 9.15am ... it's way, way, way worse than that!


 

You don't need to.  Editor lives in Brixton.  In fact, that picture is a pretty tidy carriage


----------



## gabi (Jun 2, 2008)

Poi E said:


> Never noticed it to be much of a problem. The main smell is the body odour of drinkers and smokers and you can't ban that.



I think it would've sufficed to put up those 'Be considerate with smelly food' style posters if people really thought the smell (?!) of the booze is the problem. 

Ludicrous that people can still legally get on with a box of Chicken Cottage but I can't sip on a can on the way to a gig. Fuckin boris.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 2, 2008)

gabi said:


> I think it would've sufficed to put up those 'Be considerate with smelly food' style posters if people really thought the smell (?!) of the booze is the problem.
> 
> Ludicrous that people can still legally get on with a box of Chicken Cottage but I can't sip on a can on the way to a gig. Fuckin boris.



You're not allowed to drink alcohol or eat hot (ie smelly) food on Leeds (and most places) buses. 

Given how shoe horned in people are on the tube, a similar policy doesn't seem anything more than an extension of good manners.

Yeah, banning stuff isn't necessarily the way to go but I think people are making a big fuss about nothing.. how long do you actually spend on the tube anyway?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Before the King's Cross fire, I used to smoke on the tube.
> 
> After they banned it on the tube, they banned it on the buses




I used to be a smoker in those days, but always tried to avoid the smoking carriage on the tube because it was gross! On more than one occasion, when I had inadvertently got into that carriage, I changed carriages at the next stop!

As for drinking on the tube, I never thought about it, and have certainly never particularly noticed that people do it, although I have had a beer on an evening bus on my way to party at Offline or whatever, so that part of the ban is a bit of a blow.

I think Boris Johnson has missed the point in bringing in this ban, though, and I really don't think it is going to make any difference at all to the problem of drunkenness on public transport. I don't, however, think this party helped at all. 

A well organised and peaceful protest party after the ban might have been effective, but I don't think Saturday's pandemonium helped at all, and has allowed Boris to claim some vindication for the ban!


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I think, in the end, what I've done here is decided that there should be a party to protest the rule-change.  Then someone else has organised a party for the sake of it.  So I've decided that they're motivated by the same things I am, but are going about it wrong.  In the end, they're not.  Like people keep telling me, it's not a protest, it was a party.  As a party it was a great success.
> 
> In the end I'm criticising chips for not being pizza.



Agreed.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> I used to be a smoker in those days, but always tried to avoid the smoking carriage on the tube because it was gross! On more than one occasion, when I had inadvertently got into that carriage, I changed carriages at the next stop!
> 
> As for drinking on the tube, I never thought about it, and have certainly never particularly noticed that people do it, although I have had a beer on an evening bus on my way to party at Offline or whatever, so that part of the ban is a bit of a blow.
> 
> ...


 

Yes, I sometimes did that.  Had a ciggie first, then moved carriages.  It's a good thing though that it was banned from tubes/buses and I don't think after King's Cross anyone was really in the mood to bother fighting against the ban


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Given how shoe horned in people are on the tube, a similar policy doesn't seem anything more than an extension of good manners.



Agreed. 



> Yeah, banning stuff isn't necessarily the way to go but I think people are making a big fuss about nothing.. how long do you actually spend on the tube anyway



Unfortunately there are people, as evidenced by this thread who believe they have an absolute "right to enjoy a beer on the tube" regardless of others around them. These people absolutely *cannot wait *a few seconds until they're off the transport system before quaffing their ale. Poor fellows, maybe there's a market for "alchohol patches"????

It's these selfish gits that the legislation will take care of.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But this is not the reason that Boris went for the ban, is it? 

Personally, I find the smell of alcohol first thing in the morning, when crammed up against someone's armpit when they have been drinking the night before, is the absolute worst, but there is no ban that can stop that.

Neither will the ban stop people who stink of alcohol and are drunk and obnoxious, from travelling on the tube.

I don't believe the ban was aimed at the few people who have a longer journey, and fancy a beer on the way in to a gig, as I was describing I sometimes used to do on the bus on the way to the JAMM for an offline. 

I acknowledge that some people find the smell of alcohol offensive, and don't like watching people drinking it, but get over yourself, really! Do you not go to restaurants and cafés just in case someone has a beer?


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Yeah, banning stuff isn't necessarily the way to go but I think people are making a big fuss about nothing.. how long do you actually spend on the tube anyway?


I rarely drink on the tube, but I believe it's important to stand up to stupid, petty laws that unnecessarily restrict people's freedoms ad little pleasures. Thin edge of the web and all that...


Minnie_the_Minx said:


> You don't need to.  Editor lives in Brixton.  In fact, that picture is a pretty tidy carriage


Indeed. The carriages can look an absolute mess after a rush hour tube, with free papers all over the place.


Spymaster said:


> Oooh let's see, I'd say there's been some thoughtless cunt merrily swigging away on about half of all Friday and Saturday night tubes I've ridden in the past 30 odd years.


So they're "thoughtless" because your apparently _hyper sensitive_ nose can pick up the smell of the lager in their can, even if they're nowhere near you?

So what about people travelling home from the pub? They're more likely to smell of alcohol. And smokers? They can whiff a bit too. And workmen! They can hum a bit after a hard day's graft. Do you want them all banned too?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> Unfortunately there are people, as evidenced by this thread who believe they have an absolute "right to enjoy a beer on the tube" regardless of others around them.



Judging by some of the comments around, it seems that quite a few people that went to the 'party' didn't know you _could_ drink alcohol on the tube, before the ban was announced.


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2008)

gabi said:


> Jesus  How long ago was that?
> 
> I vaguely recall my old man smoking away on a longhaul flight from NZ to LA when i was a kid. Seems unreal now. The air stewards from those days must have suffered.


You could smoke on flights until well into the '90s I think - I certainly did in the late '80s and that was long before a ban IIRC; I spent most of one flight swapping seats with an Italian football team as they'd run out of seats in the smoking section by the time we stopped at Rome. 

Smoking on the tube was banned after the Oxford Circus fire (November 1984), but not enforced until the King's Cross fire (Nov 1987). There were still smoking carriages on overland trains until very recently - less than a decade ago, I think.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

The smoking ban on the overland trains was introduced at different times by different companies. Virgin were one of the first to ban smoking completely, and I used to have to travel up to Liverpool a lot with work, which caused me real difficulties, since I was a cigarette addict, and really couldn't bear to wait that long between cigarettes! Particularly when we travelled up in the evening and had a beer on the train. That was hard!

I do remember the driver/conductor announcing how long we would be waiting at each station, though, to allow the addicts like myself to jump off and have a quick smoke.

Anyway, that's off topic...


----------



## ymu (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> Anyway, that's off topic...


Well indeed, but Gabi seems to think we grew up with dinosaurs or summat. I'm old, but not _that_ old.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> So they're "thoughtless" because your apparently _hyper sensitive_ nose can pick up the smell of the lager in their can, even if they're nowhere near you?



Well, frankly yes. 

The majority of people that I know are totally in favour of the ban, booze on the tube is a frequently discussed topic. 

Just because you and a few other posters here want to assert your "rights" over me and your fellow passengers doesn't make that the populist opinion. 

And it's not just the smell. Alcohol is a controlled substance and I don't want you sitting next to my kids drinking on the tube. They are not allowed in pubs, why the bollocking fuck do you think it's ok to expose them to alcohol on trains?



> So what about people travelling home from the pub? They're more likely to smell of alcohol. And smokers? They can whiff a bit too. And workmen! They can hum a bit after a hard day's graft. Do you want them all banned too



We can't control thoughtless peoples personal hygiene, we can, to an extent, control their behaviour on public transport.

By the way, would you have a problem with me farting and eating curry next to you on a tube?


----------



## laptop (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> booze on the tube is a frequently discussed topic.




Heaven for people who like to go "*tut!*"


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

laptop said:


> Heaven for people who like to go "*tut!*"



There are millions of us !


----------



## laptop (Jun 2, 2008)

Ban tutting on the Tube - now!


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

And curtail my *RIGHT* to enjoy a tut on the tube??????

I'm _OUTRAGED_ !


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 2, 2008)

ymu said:


> You could smoke on flights until well into the '90s I think - I certainly did in the late '80s and that was long before a ban IIRC; I spent most of one flight swapping seats with an Italian football team as they'd run out of seats in the smoking section by the time we stopped at Rome.
> 
> Smoking on the tube was banned after the Oxford Circus fire (November 1984), but not enforced until the King's Cross fire (Nov 1987). There were still smoking carriages on overland trains until very recently - less than a decade ago, I think.


 

I was smoking on Malaysian Airlines in 2000


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> The majority of people that I know are totally in favour of the ban, booze on the tube is a frequently discussed topic. ?


Really? Could you perhaps show me some of this fevered discussion prior to the ban being introduced? Oh, and on what basis are you claiming that the majority are for this ban?


Spymaster said:


> And it's not just the smell. Alcohol is a controlled substance and I don't want you sitting next to my kids drinking on the tube. They are not allowed in pubs, why the bollocking fuck do you think it's ok to expose them to alcohol on trains??


Right. So on that basis you must also want alcohol banned from restaurants, festivals, cricket matches, country fairs, parks etc because you're _oh-so-delicate_ children may be exposed to an adult (gasp!) having a drink.

Great logic there.


----------



## laptop (Jun 2, 2008)

Has anyone considered the SAFETY IMPLICATIONS of a mass-*tut!*?



False teeth everywhere, people tripping and falling on the live rails...


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Right. So on that basis you must also want alcohol banned from restaurants, festivals, cricket matches, country fairs, parks etc because you're _oh-so-delicate_ children may be exposed to an adult (gasp!) having a drink.


I would love to see children banned from all of these places and more ... That'd solve it!


----------



## smokedout (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> And it's not just the smell. Alcohol is a controlled substance and I don't want you sitting next to my kids drinking on the tube. They are not allowed in pubs, why the bollocking fuck do you think it's ok to expose them to alcohol on trains?



err kids are allowed in lots of pubs in the daytime


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Really? Could you perhaps show me some of this fevered discussion prior to the ban being introduced? Oh, and on what basis are you claiming that the majority are for this ban?



Don't be stupid.






			
				Me said:
			
		

> The majority of people *that I know *are totally in favour of the ban, booze on the tube is a frequently discussed topic. ?





> So on that basis you must also want alcohol banned from restaurants, festivals, cricket matches, country fairs, parks etc ...



Nope, perfectly happy for all of those. You see, alcohol is *sold* at all of the venues you've listed, it is part and parcel of the event. If I wanted to avoid it I could do so by avoiding the event. Not much chance of that when you jump on my tube with your can of Special is there?

It's your logic that's fucked if you think it's perfectly acceptable for someone to enter a cramped public environment and force people into contact with alcohol fumes any time they please.

Never had you down for a such selfish arse.

By the way, are you happy for me to fart and knock back a full vindaloo when you're on the tube?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

smokedout said:


> err kids are allowed in lots of pubs in the daytime



No they're not if they're under 18 and unaccompanied.

You can't see the difference between kids on licensed premises with adult supervision and kids on public transport?


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> I rarely drink on the tube, but I believe it's important to stand up to stupid, petty laws that unnecessarily restrict people's freedoms ad little pleasures. Thin edge of the web and all that...



Ah come on, you can't make out the right to drink on public transport is some kind of basic freedom that should be stood up for....IIRC you supported the smoking ban which IMHO is a far greater restriction on personal freedom.

I realise we aren't going to agree on this, Editor, but I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why London is a special case in this instance- when boozing on PT is banned everywhere else that I know of.


----------



## rich! (Jun 2, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Ah come on, you can't make out the right to drink on public transport is some kind of basic freedom that should be stood up for....IIRC you supported the smoking ban which IMHO is a far greater restriction on personal freedom.
> 
> I realise we aren't going to agree on this, Editor, but I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why London is a special case in this instance- when boozing on PT is banned everywhere else that I know of.



I think it's pretty simple - boozing *shouldn't* necessarily be banned on public transport, since it doesn't normally negatively impact the health of those in the vehicle. Smoking does normally negatively impact the health of those in the vehicle, hence the ban.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 2, 2008)

rich! said:


> I think it's pretty simple - boozing *shouldn't* necessarily be banned on public transport, since it doesn't normally negatively impact the health of those in the vehicle. Smoking does normally negatively impact the health of those in the vehicle, hence the ban.


 


Yeah, but they had smoking carriages so non-smokers didn't have to sit in them


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 2, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Yeah, but they had smoking carriages so non-smokers didn't have to sit in them



Yes you did if you couldn't get a seat elsewhere. Being in the carriage next to the smoking one was almost as bad. 

Never mind the fire hazard on top of that.

Thank God they've gone.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Are people _that desperate for a drink _they need to slurp a tin on the Northern line or the 26 bus?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Are people _that desperate for a drink _they need to slurp a tin on the Northern line or the 26 bus?



Nah, they just need to "assert their rights".


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Are people _that desperate for a drink _they need to slurp a tin on the Northern line or the 26 bus?


Have you ever worked on a building site for 12 hours solid and with a 45 minute tube journey home afterwards?

You'll find a cool can of beer can often make things more pleasant and it harms no one.


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> I realise we aren't going to agree on this, Editor, but I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why London is a special case in this instance- when boozing on PT is banned everywhere else that I know of.


That's an extraordinarily weak argument, unless you think the existence of laws elsewhere - no matter how unfair or unnecessary - should set a precedent for London.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> ... and it harms no one.



Too many pissheads (I speak as reformed one) who get too aggressive on their ale in a non-licenced space. Don't want it, don't need it.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> That's an extraordinarily weak argument,



So weak, nobody has yet been able to provide an answer to it!


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Have you ever worked on a building site for 12 hours solid and with a 45 minute tube journey home afterwards?



I work more than 12 hours every day and in over 30 years of tube use have always managed to wait until I got home before hitting the booze. 

Not sure what the type of work has to do with anything unless you're trying to argue that builders should specifically be exempt from the ban.


----------



## Gavin Bl (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Indeed. The carriages can look an absolute mess after a rush hour tube, with free papers all over the place.



as an aside, I always find it annoying that people who have taken these newspapers feel able to leave them lying around. Take your rubbish with you!!


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> Not sure what the type of work has to do with anything unless you're trying to argue that builders should specifically be exempt from the ban.



Polish builders will be restricted to voddy, Irish to stout, Scots builders to Scotch, Geordies to Broon Ale etc etc etc.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 2, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Yes you did if you couldn't get a seat elsewhere. Being in the carriage next to the smoking one was almost as bad.
> 
> Never mind the fire hazard on top of that.
> 
> Thank God they've gone.


 


Yeah, but tubes weren't nearly as packed as they are now (well, they were actually as I used to live on Northern line).

I DID already say it was a good thing it was banned or buses and tubes


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> So weak, nobody has yet been able to provide an answer to it!




Alcohol was quietly banned on the bus round here a year or so ago. But as there are almost no staff to enforce it, a quiet can is ignored. Civilised drinkers ge left alone, rowdy drunks are thrown off.
It could have gone that way with tube drinking, but Boris felt the need to trumpet it as some great idea, get peoples backs up and generaly making a montain from a molehill. This ban will be quietly flouted in london as it is elsewhere.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Are people _that desperate for a drink _they need to slurp a tin on the Northern line or the 26 bus?



Seems like it, yes.

Rather sad, if all be told.


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 2, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Alcohol was quietly banned on the bus round here a year or so ago. But as there are almost no staff to enforce it, a quiet can is ignored. Civilised drinkers ge left alone, rowdy drunks are thrown off.



hmm, you don't reckon that rowdy drunks will be left alone cos they're too difficult to deal with but civilised drinkers will be picked on to show that "something is being done"? that's what happens with ticket dodging


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Seems like it, yes.
> 
> Rather sad, if all be told.



where are all these "desperate" people?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> where are all these "desperate" people?



It doesn't matter if its 1 or 100 people on every bus or one in every 50 buses.

Someone that cannot do without alcohol for a 30 minute journey on public transport clearly has a problem.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> hmm, you don't reckon that rowdy drunks will be left alone cos they're too difficult to deal with but civilised drinkers will be picked on to show that "something is being done"? that's what happens with ticket dodging



In the meantime maybe, but once the fuss dies off, quiet flouting will ensue i reckon


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It doesn't matter if its 1 or 100 people on every bus or one in every 50 buses.
> 
> Someone that cannot do without alcohol for a 30 minute journey on public transport clearly has a problem.



yes someone who can't do without alcohol for 30 minutes has a problem, what's yr point?


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> I wonder if the Mail/Standard will be kicking up a fuss about the fucking mess made by their own shitty free newspapers that are dumped all over trains _every single day_?


Yeah in the two years since I left London this has got so notacbly and continually worse. Last tiem I was down the central line at night was fucking disgusting. Muddy papers strewn everywhere & a labour government that loves to legislate in ways that infringe on people's liberties but must never do so in a way that restricts a corporation's freedom


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Rather sad, if all be told.



Isn't it just?

Isn't it sad that people are so attached to their "right to annoy", that's all it is!

Nobody in their right mind can possibly suggest that booze on the tube is a good idea. It's just not, and tube drinkers do annoy some people.

All this really boils down to is that big bad Tory, Boris has nicked their cans and this is obviously an erosion of civil liberties.   

Drinking on the tube is as ill mannered as farting or eating stinky food.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

Realistically the ban on alcohol can have only one concrete effect: stopping people drinking on the tube. It's impossible to stop people being _drunk_ on the tube as the possible knock-on increase in drink-driving incidents renders the suggestions obviously absurd. So the issue at hand is: how much trouble do people _drinking_ on the tube actually cause *in virtue of their drinking* rather than their perhaps being drunk? The ban isn't going to stop them being drunk, it's just going to stop them drinking.


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> I work more than 12 hours every day and in over 30 years of tube use have always managed to wait until I got home before hitting the booze.


Just because you don't feel the need for the occasional quiet can on the tube, why do you want to stop others enjoying such a harmless pleasure?

It's just unpleasant, spiteful intolerance, plain and simple.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> All this really boils down to is that big bad Tory, Boris has nicked their cans and this is obviously an erosion of civil liberties.



A 'civil liberty' that, it appears, most people weren't aware of one they actually had before the ban appeared.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:
			
		

> It's just unpleasant, spiteful intolerance, plain and simple.


...and symptomatic of a wider roll-back of social liberalism in this country so that sad bastards increasingly feel they have a invoilable right to impose their hang-ups on others.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> It's just unpleasant, spiteful intolerance, plain and simple.



Rubbish.  Sorry.  

Aren't the drinkers being intolerant of the rights of those who do not wish to be surrounded by alcohol?


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Just because you don't feel the need for the occasional quiet can on the tube, why do you want to stop others enjoying such a harmless pleasure?
> 
> It's just unpleasant, spiteful intolerance, plain and simple.



But it's _not_ the post-work quiet beer which causes the problems. It's people wankered and behaving badly..._on a tube_...save it for the pub/bar/club etc, etc.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 2, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> where are all these "desperate" people?


there's quite a few of them here.....


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> You'll find a cool can of beer can often make things more pleasant and it harms no one.


Drinking on the tube kills!


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> A 'civil liberty' that, it appears, most people weren't aware of one they actually had before the ban appeared.



lol


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> yes someone who can't do without alcohol for 30 minutes has a problem, what's yr point?



The point is that public transport policy isn't going to be decided according to the difficulties experienced by piss heads or junkies.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:
			
		

> Aren't the drinkers being intolerant of the rights of those who do not wish to be surrounded by alcohol?


It's the basic cornerstone of liberalism that in the absense of any _concrete harm_ being done by one party to another, there's no basis for infringing the first party's freedoms. I've seen no evidence of harm being done by people drinking (as opposed to being drunk) on the tube.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> Isn't it just?
> 
> Isn't it sad that people are so attached to their "right to annoy", that's all it is!
> 
> ...



I believe I am in my "right mind", and I suggest that allowing booze on the tube is a good idea. There - I have said it.

Drunks on the tube are not nice, though, and will continue to happen despite the ban. 

You keep going on about farting and eating curries. Do you have a problem we should know about, or are you just being boringly repetitive?


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:
			
		

> It's people wankered and behaving badly..._on a tube_...save it for the pub/bar/club etc, etc.


Banning drunk people from public transport is an obvious non-starter & I don't see how banning drinking stops people being wankered and behaving badly on the tube.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> It's the basic cornerstone of liberalism that in the absense of any _concrete harm_ being done by one party to another, there's no basis for infringing the first party's freedoms. I've seen no evidence of harm being done by people drinking (as opposed to being drunk) on the tube.



Try the tube just before (tube) closing time from just about anywhere in Zone 1/2.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:
			
		

> Try the tube just before (tube) closing time from just about anywhere in Zone 1/2.


I lived in zone 1 and got the tube every day for 3 years and I've ever seen any evidence of people _drinking_ (again: as opposed to being drunk) causing problems.


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> So the issue at hand is: how much trouble do people _drinking_ on the tube actually cause *in virtue of their drinking* rather than their perhaps being drunk?


Can I have £10 on "None" please ...


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> It's the basic cornerstone of liberalism that in the absense of any _concrete harm_ being done by one party to another, there's no basis for infringing the first party's freedoms. I've seen no evidence of harm being done by people drinking (as opposed to being drunk) on the tube.



Define 'concrete harm'?  Everyone has their limits of what is and isn't acceptable.

What about an ex-alcoholic who has managed to break the addiction, who can get around life by not going into pubs/clubs, having to sit next to someone on a bus with the smell of alcohol wafting up their nose. 

"Harm" as you define it includes mental and psychological damage as well as 'physical harm'.  You can't just claim unless someone is getting bottled, it must be harmless.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> I lived in zone 1 and got the tube every day for 3 years. Your point is?



My point is that it's easy to find aggressive drunks on the tube most nights who seem to think their carriage is a lounge-on-wheels.

It's a _tube!_ Inappropriate or what? Go to _the pub_!


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> yes someone who can't do without alcohol for 30 minutes has a problem, what's yr point?




It's not about *needing *alcohol, at least in my case. It's just that I want the journey to my gig to be part of the evening out, rather than a boring chore, and it can be a nice, civilised beginning to the evening, to have a can of lager on the bus.

If someone really is that desperate for a drink, do you think they will pay any attention to the ban? Alcohol is banned in open spaces in most of the USA, but I have seen plenty of people flouting that.

Also, I believe it ignores the real issue of anti social behaviour on the tube, which has very little to do with whether or not one is allowed to drink on there!


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Oh, come on!

Civilised drinking is drinking on public transport? That's too funny.


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> You keep going on about farting and eating curries. Do you have a problem we should know about, or are you just being boringly repetitive?


This really is _very_ good ... but I fear it may be wasted here ...


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> A 'civil liberty' that, it appears, most people weren't aware of one they actually had before the ban appeared.


In very broad terms, like almost every society - except the USA which does things in the opposite manner - your rights are defined by what you can't do i.e.  if the law doesn't say you can't do something, then you can do it.

So this does represent an erosion of civil liberty.

Could probably have said that more simply but you'll get the drift.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> You keep going on about farting and eating curries.



Simply asking Ed if he supports my right to do so on public transport. No different to what he wants to do but it's fucking bad manners.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Oh, come on!
> 
> Civilised drinking is drinking on public transport? That's too funny.




What is uncivilised about having a can of lager on my way to a gig?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> Also, I believe it ignores the real issue of anti social behaviour on the tube, which has very little to do with whether or not one is allowed to drink on there!



To many people , drinking alcohol on public transport *is *antisocial, as much as the twat in the hoodie with tinny rap blaring out on a mobile phone.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:
			
		

> You can't just claim unless someone is getting bottled, it must be harmless.


I can claim that if the "harm" being caused is a function of, shall we say, someone's own idoysincracies (less chariably: someone's unreasonable hang ups) then it's not concrete harm. By your logic, gays kissing in public should be banned because it hurts & offends homophobes. Do you think this is reasonable? Or should we maybe think a bit more carefully about how we conceptualise "harm"? You may be happy with this piece of legislation - in my view: you getting your hang-ups imposed on everyone else - but would you be happy when others start imposing their hang-ups on you?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Try the tube just before (tube) closing time from just about anywhere in Zone 1/2.



I think you've missed the key part of that paragraph: how many of those problems have been caused by _people drinking on the tube_, not by people being drunk?

Though I have to say that I haven't actually seen any problems caused by people being drunk. Such problems certainly do exist - fights and people falling down escalators, for example - so they do need addressing (usually by taking the drunk person away somewhere they won't get into trouble), but what I've mostly seen is merry people singing away, talking to strangers and having loud conversations. I think this is what bothers certain people on here, and I think they're being a little oversensitive.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> My point is that it's easy to find aggressive drunks on the tube most nights who seem to think their carriage is a lounge-on-wheels.!


But what does this have to do with their *drinking* rather than their *being drunk*? The former is the issue here, the latter isn't.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> To many people , drinking alcohol on public transport *is *antisocial, as much as the twat in the hoodie with tinny rap blaring out on a mobile phone.



Why?


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> It's just that I want the journey to my gig to be part of the evening out, rather than a boring chore, and it can be a nice, civilised beginning to the evening, to have a can of lager on the bus.


Absolutely! At the end of a night out in London I used to like walking/tube home with a can of guiness and then have a spliff when I get in. Nice way to wind down from an evening.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

Nosos said:
			
		

> So the issue at hand is: how much trouble do people drinking on the tube actually cause in virtue of their drinking rather than their perhaps being drunk?



Why?

Why is it about how much *trouble* is caused by these people? 

How about the fact that their drinking makes for a *less pleasant* experience for many of their fellow travellers?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> So this does represent an erosion of civil liberty.



But how many people, seriously, will it affect?

The greater good of the many is far more important than the desires of the individual.

If 99.9% of people never drank on the tube anyway, or are in support of the ban, then the 0.1% who did drink and are against it, just have to put up with it or risk suffering the effects of breaking the law.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> Simply asking Ed if he supports my right to do so on public transport. No different to what he wants to do but it's fucking bad manners.



But that's about manners, not legislation/bans.

Personally, it wouldn't worry me at all if you ate a curry whilst sitting next to me, and I am fully aware that lots of people do fart on public transport!


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:


> Why?
> 
> Why is it about how much *trouble* is caused by these people?
> 
> How about the fact that their drinking makes for a *less pleasant* experience for many of their fellow travellers?


Be sure to construct a meaningful argument as to why someone quietly having a can of beer makes for a more unpleasant experience than someone, say, quietly drinking from a bottle of water, and why we need legislation for this.

Thanks.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> Why is it about how much *trouble* is caused by these people?


You've yet to explain what trouble is caused by their drinking! What trouble caused by people *being drunk* is obvious & not in dispute but it's irrelevent to the issue: this ban won't stop drunk people getting on the tube. Please, from the bottom of my heart, I implore you to actually explain to me in concrete terms what harm people drinking on the tube does to those members of the public who *aren't* repulsed by the smell of alcohol (I'm repulsed by the smell of meat but I don't think that gives a right to demand others be banned from eating meat in front of me) and *don't* seemingly harbour some deep-seated antagonism to people who drink, the psychological reasons for which I can only begin to speculate about (although reading ajdown's posts on another thread offers a few suggestions).

Edit: I misread your past post. You think people should be banned from doing stuff if it makes it less pleasent for you? Have you ever actually thought through how free _anyone_ would be if this were applied reciprically? If anything that impinged on the pleasure of another were banned we would, literarly be living in a totalitarian state. Accepting people's right to do things you disaprove of is a basic requirement of life in a free society. Get over yourself.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> Why?



The smell, for a start.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> But what does this have to do with their *drinking* rather than their *being drunk*? The former is the issue here, the latter isn't.



I think we'll end up going round in circles (no party available!).

It's a tube train. Save the ales for the bar.

"Rights"? Bolloxology.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> But how many people, seriously, will it affect?
> 
> The greater good of the many is far more important than the desires of the individual.
> 
> If 99.9% of people never drank on the tube anyway, or are in support of the ban, then the 0.1% who did drink and are against it, just have to put up with it or risk suffering the effects of breaking the law.


I'm just stating a fact. The issue itself I find amusing, not least for the indignant enthusiasm of so many  for this advertising-led culture of drinking.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> I'm just stating a fact. The issue itself I find amusing, not least for the indignant enthusiasm of so many  for this advertising-led culture of drinking.



^ interesting


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:
			
		

> The greater good of the many is far more important than the desires of the individual.


What "greater good" is being served here? What harm is being inflicted? What good is being achieved by enforcing this ban? The self-righteousness to rational content ratio of your argument (as well as spymaster's) is really quite stunningly shit here.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> The smell, for a start.



That is a ridiculous reason, unless you also support banning everything that smells from the tube, in which case it is still ridiculous but at least consistent.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I think we'll end up going round in circles (no party available!).
> 
> It's a tube train. Save the ales for the bar.
> 
> "Rights"? Bolloxology.


Look I'm asking for a simple answer to a polite question. All you're doing is repeating "I don't think people should drink on the tube" ad nauseum. I get you to think that. Care to offer _reasons_ why others should also think that? Or is that an unreasonable imposition?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

It will affect me because, whenever I go to JAMM for an Offline, I like to have a can of lager on the way there.

Are you seriously suggesting that 99.9% of the population support the ban? You are deluded, if so!


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

90%+ of the population presumably don't give a shit either way


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> The smell, for a start.



So the smell from my can of lager offends you that much that it must be banned, even though it probably wouldn't smell at all compared to all the drunks who have downed their pints before they get on the bus/tube?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> I'm just stating a fact. The issue itself I find amusing, not least for the indignant enthusiasm of so many  for this advertising-led culture of drinking.



Alcohol sales are no more or less advertising led then everything else. The culture of drinking is a wee bit older than WKD adverts and the Portmann Group.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> So the smell from my can of lager offends you that much, even though it probably wouldn't smell at all compared to all the drunks who have downed their pints before they get on the bus/tube?


Big sweaty people who smell make my journey less pleasent. Am I right to ask that they ban them from the tube?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> What "greater good" is being served here? What harm is being inflicted? What good is being achieved by enforcing this ban? The self-righteousness to rational content ratio of your argument (as well as spymaster's) is really quite stunningly shit here.



You're obviously against the ban.

Why is your desire to drink alcohol on public transport more important than the desire of the 100 other people in that carriage/bus not to be around someone drinking alcohol?

It's no secret I don't like alcohol.  I'm not trying to stop everyone drinking alcohol, just a desire to avoid having to put up with people drinking in inappropriate situations.

There are many, many places where people can consume alcohol freely 24 hours a day either without infringing on the rights of other people, or with like minded individuals.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> Look I'm asking for a simple answer to a polite question. All you're doing is repeating "I don't think people should drink on the tube" ad nauseum. I get you to think that. Care to offer _reasons_ why others should also think that? Or is that an unreasonable imposition?





Alcohol.

Unlicenced public space.

Inappropriate.
ABC123.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 2, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Alcohol sales are no more or less advertising led then everything else. The culture of drinking is a wee bit older than WKD adverts and the Portmann Group.


If you think the point is that simple, best you find other people to respond to.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Alcohol.
> 
> Unlicenced public space.
> 
> ...



But that makes no sense as an argument.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 2, 2008)

But why is it inappropriate?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> Big sweaty people who smell make my journey less pleasent. Am I right to ask that they ban them from the tube?


 

Absolutely


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That is a ridiculous reason, unless you also support banning everything that smells from the tube, in which case it is still ridiculous but at least consistent.



I have no problem banning smelly food (ie greasy chicken boxes) on public transport either.

Smelly people isn't such an easy option because of the heat on the tube especially during the summer.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Alcohol.
> 
> Unlicenced public space.
> 
> ...



You're.

Still.

Just.

Repeating.

Yourself.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:
			
		

> Why is your desire to drink alcohol on public transport more important than the desire of the 100 other people in that carriage/bus not to be around someone drinking alcohol?


(a) I doubt all that many of those 100 people particularly care
(b) You've yet to explain what harm people drinking does other than offend you given your own hang ups
(c) You've yet to explain why it's reasonable for you to impose your own hang ups on others
(d) You've yet to say whether you accept the consequences of everyone being able to impose their own hang ups 

Unless some real harm's being done then don't legislate. This seems the most obvious thing in the world to me & if we live in a liberal society it ought to be common sense. Please disagree with the principle or explain why the harm done to you is such that it justifies legislation.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> But that makes no sense as an argument.



*bangs head on desk*

It's a train/bus/tram. Not a bar. Not a pub. Not a club. Not your front room. No need to drink on tubes and buses. No need at all.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> If you think the point is that simple, best you find other people to respond to.




You din't have a point you had a condescending smirk.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I have no problem banning smelly food (ie greasy chicken boxes) on public transport either.
> 
> Smelly people isn't such an easy option because of the heat on the tube especially during the summer.



Banning smelly food would be difficult, because you'd have to define what you mean by 'smelly.' For those here who cry at the smell of an open can of lager, a ham sandwich would probably make them faint. Banning food altogether wouldn't be sensible, I think; those adverts aimed at making people more polite are the right way to go.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Be sure to construct a meaningful argument as to why someone quietly having a can of beer makes for a more unpleasant experience than someone, say, quietly drinking from a bottle of water, and why we need legislation for this.
> 
> Thanks.




What about coffee? I hate the smell of coffee. Should that be banned, too?


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 2, 2008)

You aren't demonstrating that as any more than opinion, lightsoutlondon.

I mean, it's no more damaging to society than any drinking.  The notion of having acceptable drinking zones is bizarre, except where not doing so puts people at risk.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> *bangs head on desk*
> 
> It's a train/bus/tram. Not a bar. Not a pub. Not a club. Not your front room. No need to drink on tubes and buses. No need at all.



That isn't an argument either. It's just you saying the same thing again.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> *bangs head on desk*
> 
> It's a train/bus/tram. Not a bar. Not a pub. Not a club. Not your front room. No need to drink on tubes and buses. No need at all.


You realise that everyone gets you think that? They're waiting for you to offer reasons why they should think that too. It's what we do on a discussion board, see? We d-i-s-c-us-s. We don't just repeat ourselves over and over before getting pissed off when people have the temerity to _still_ not agree with us when we've said the same thing 10 times


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> It will affect me because, whenever I go to JAMM for an Offline, I like to have a can of lager on the way there.
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that 99.9% of the population support the ban? You are deluded, if so!




I might have known.  It's people like you Guin that make the world a less pleasant place.   


I think it's a pointless rule, a waste of time drawing it up, a waste of time trying to enforce it.  Personally I don't understand why someone feels the need to drink on the tube and can't just wait until they get to wherever, but i can't see how someone sipping from a beer can on the tube is causing anyone a problem.  It's when they are drunk that there can be problems and those people got drunk elsewhere.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> What about coffee? I hate the smell of coffee. Should that be banned, too?


This is the consistent application of the principle being invoked by ajdowns: something offending him constitutes a de facto case for legislating against it. In their world there's no need to point to any concrete harm done by it but only the psychological distress caused to him & others similarly inclined. You follow this through to its logical conclusions and the results are genuinely scary.

I mean this is just about the _principles_ underlying the ban. In practical terms it's fucking absurd. No harm was being done in the first place by people drinking - I've asked repeatedly for examples and been giving none - so a new offense has been created in the absense of any compelling public interest (fail!) , which will initially be policed by tube staff who should not be forced into this role (fail!), then by BTP who given terrorism & people being drunk and disorderly (as CRUCIALLY opposed to merely _drinking_) have much better things to do (fail!) and they'll inevitably be forced to do so given what a high profile policy it was by the new mayor.

4 x fail


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 2, 2008)

Papingo said:


> I might have known. It's people like you Guin that make the world a less pleasant place.
> 
> 
> I think it's a pointless rule, a waste of time drawing it up, a waste of time trying to enforce it. Personally I don't understand why someone feels the need to drink on the tube and can't just wait until they get to wherever, but i can't see how someone sipping from a beer can on the tube is causing anyone a problem. It's when they are drunk that there can be problems and those people got drunk elsewhere.


 

I think they should be sorting out the drug takers on the tube instead


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> explain why the harm done to you is such that it justifies legislation.



So it's now down to if you are 'personally affected' you can only support something?

Most of the people that are against the war in Iraq/Afghanistan are probably not affected by it in their everyday lives in the slightest, but something in their politics/world view/whatever makes them feel it is wrong, so they speak out against it.

I don't have to be surrounded by people drinking on the bus every day to be in support of the alcohol ban.

Understand now?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

Papingo said:


> I might have known.  It's people like you Guin that make the world a less pleasant place.


I do my best. Glad to see my efforts have been duly noted. 


Papingo said:


> I think it's a pointless rule, a waste of time drawing it up, a waste of time trying to enforce it.  Personally I don't understand why someone feels the need to drink on the tube and can't just wait until they get to wherever, but i can't see how someone sipping from a beer can on the tube is causing anyone a problem.  It's when they are drunk that there can be problems and those people got drunk elsewhere.



I agree.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 2, 2008)

Yeah, cos people are are always necking pills on the tube


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So it's now down to if you are 'personally affected' you can only support something?
> 
> Most of the people that are against the war in Iraq/Afghanistan are probably not affected by it in their everyday lives in the slightest, but something in their politics/world view/whatever makes them feel it is wrong, so they speak out against it.
> 
> ...



No, because you haven't explained why, other than that it smells!


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> *bangs head on desk*
> 
> It's a train/bus/tram. Not a bar. Not a pub. Not a club. Not your front room. No need to drink on tubes and buses. No need at all.




there is no need to drink in any of those places either.  Therefore we should also ban it there.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> You realise that everyone gets you think that? They're waiting for you to offer reasons why they should think that too. It's what we do on a discussion board, see? We d-i-s-c-us-s. We don't just repeat ourselves over and over before getting pissed off when people have the temerity to _still_ not agree with us when we've said the same thing 10 times




Who cares? 

Anyway...you can't drink on the tube anymore, cos most people believe it to be inappropriate for the environment in which it would be drunk, and for the comfort and safety of others.

Hooray!

Y'know - the sense of entitlement of some of the posts on this thread is incredible. Go to a pub and have a beer. Jesus.

Civil liberties and beer on tubes? _Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight._


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Who cares?
> 
> Anyway...you can't drink on the tube anymore, cos most people believe it to be inappropriate for the environment in which it would be drunk, and for the comfort and safety of others.
> 
> ...


You are a moron. I give up.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:
			
		

> Most of the people that are against the war in Iraq/Afghanistan are probably not affected by it in their everyday lives in the slightest, but something in their politics/world view/whatever makes them feel it is wrong, so they speak out against it.


That is so obviously not a meaningful analogy that it's almost painful. 



> I don't have to be surrounded by people drinking on the bus every day to be in support of the alcohol ban.


Course not. I'd hope that you'd have another intellectual wherewithall to actually give some good reasons in favour of it though.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> You are a moron. I give up.



And I just remembered why I had you on 'ignore' for so long, pretentious prick. 

Pop off and have a pint on the Met line, eh?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 2, 2008)

Things that many people find distasteful/annoying/don't want to put up with:

Public displays of affection (eg. kisssing 'light petting')
Tapping feet in time to music
Body odour
Political slogans on Tshirts
Jazz
Regional accents
Tipping the crumbs from the bottom of the crisp packet into one's mouth, spilling some and then brushing them off one's lapels.

The list could be endless. Drinking a can of lager is also on the list. This list is not what we should refer to when creating laws.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> No, because you haven't explained why, other than that it smells!



Would it even make a difference?  Is "I support the ban" not sufficient?

Why do people object to the war in Iraq/Afghanistan?  Would you tell them their reasons aren't good enough, or just accept that it's their right to choose to be against it?

I'm not for one moment saying that supporting the alcohol ban is even in the same league as being against the "War on Terror" ... but the principle remains the same.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> And I just remembered why I had you on 'ignore' for so long, pretentious prick.
> 
> Pop off and have a pint on the Met line, eh?


I try and have a reasonable discussion with you & it ends by you telling me to kill myself? What a sad pathetic and angry person you really are.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Who cares?
> 
> Anyway...you can't drink on the tube anymore, cos most people believe it to be inappropriate for the environment in which it would be drunk, and for the comfort and safety of others.
> 
> ...



It's not because most people believe that at all. It's because Boris wanted to start his tenure with a big, loud change. 

You and ajdown still haven't given a reason for the ban, other than 'I don't like alcohol' and 'it's a tube,' both of which we already know and are irrelevant.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> I try and have a reasonable discussion with you & it ends by you telling me to kill myself? What a sad pathetic and angry person you really are.



_Kill yourself?_ What are you on about you tosser?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Would it even make a difference?  Is "I support the ban" not sufficient?
> 
> Why do people object to the war in Iraq/Afghanistan?  Would you tell them their reasons aren't good enough, or just accept that it's their right to choose to be against it?
> 
> I'm not for one moment saying that supporting the alcohol ban is even in the same league as being against the "War on Terror" ... but the principle remains the same.



It's fairly easy to show demonstrable harm from a war. You don't have to personally experience the harm to show that such harm exists. But you haven't shown any harm to anyone from drinking on the tube.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

scifisam said:
			
		

> You and ajdown still haven't given a reason for the ban, other than 'I don't like alcohol' and 'it's a tube,' both of which we already know and are irrelevant.


And if "I don't like x" is a reasonable grounds in itself for legislating against something, does ajdown accept the frankly quite scary conclusions of this? Or is alcohol somehow a special case?


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> _Kill yourself?_ What are you on about you tosser?


Misread the met line comment. Terribly sorry old chap.

See how easy it is to be nice?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Would it even make a difference?  Is "I support the ban" not sufficient?
> 
> Why do people object to the war in Iraq/Afghanistan?  Would you tell them their reasons aren't good enough, or just accept that it's their right to choose to be against it?
> 
> I'm not for one moment saying that supporting the alcohol ban is even in the same league as being against the "War on Terror" ... but the principle remains the same.



But you do seem to think that you have widespread support for such a ban, despite this not appearing to be demonstrated on this thread, at least.

Let me get it right - you agree with the ban on alcohol on public transport in London because you agree with the ban on alcohol on public transport in London. Oh, and because cans of lager smell. Is that right? That was well worth all the posts to explain, wasn't it!


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

scifisam said:


> It's not because most people believe that at all. It's because Boris wanted to start his tenure with a big, loud change.
> 
> You and ajdown still haven't given a reason for the ban, other than 'I don't like alcohol' and 'it's a tube,' both of which we already know and are irrelevant.



It's self evident - why the need to consume a drug which alters behaviour, perception, co-ordination etc in a non-licenced and non-controlled environment? 

Booze? Fill your boots! I'll buy you one. Here...have two! But let's go to an ale house and not hop on a bus.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Things that many people find distasteful/annoying/don't want to put up with:
> 
> Public displays of affection (eg. kisssing 'light petting')
> Tapping feet in time to music
> ...


Good post.

Seriously: do the people in favour of a alcohol ban on the tube on the basis that they find alcohol on the tube offensive and it impingnes on the pleasure of their journey support banning the other things on the tube? If not, why not?


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> Misread the met line comment. Terribly sorry old chap.
> 
> See how easy it is to be nice?



Guess what?

Go fuck yourself.

that was a broadcast from the angry/sad/cunt party.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:
			
		

> But let's go to an ale house and not hop on a bus.


But what harm is being done if you have a can on the bus on the way home?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> It's self evident - why the need to consume a drug which alters behaviour, perception, co-ordination etc in a non-licenced and non-controlled environment?
> 
> Booze? Fill your boots! I'll buy you one. Here...have two! But let's go to an ale house and not hop on a bus.



It's not self-evident at all. You really do have to give some evidence that drinking on the tube causes problems.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> And if "I don't like x" is a reasonable grounds in itself for legislating against something, does ajdown accept the frankly quite scary conclusions of this? Or is alcohol somehow a special case?



Of course it's potentially scary if taken to the extreme, but we're only talking about stopping drinking alcohol on public transport for crying out loud.

You see a lot of things against Christians in the media, but I don't see much round here being said in support of their rights.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> It's self evident - why the need to consume a drug which alters behaviour, perception, co-ordination etc in a non-licenced and non-controlled environment?
> 
> Booze? Fill your boots! I'll buy you one. Here...have two! But let's go to an ale house and not hop on a bus.



But I like to have a can of lager on my way to a gig! Honestly. I do. I am not just being controversial. I really do like to have a can of lager on the way to Offline. Calms my nerves of meeting up with all the weirdos from the internet, too, but that's a side issue 

Besides, you have never offered to buy me a drink, and I didn't think you would, since you are openly teetotal, so I wouldn't ask you to! However, since you are offering. I will have two pints of lager, please.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> But what harm is being done if you have a can on the bus on the way home?



*weeps*

*reaches for librium*

Is librium allowed on transport? 

*grabs Oyster card and heads for the 53 to Plumstead*


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> But I like to have a can of lager on my way to a gig! Honestly. I do. I am not just being controversial. I really do like to have a can of lager on the way to Offline. Calms my nerves of meeting up with all the weirdos from the internet, too, but that's a side issue
> 
> Besides, you have never offered to buy me a drink, and I didn't think you would, since you are openly teetotal, so I wouldn't ask you to! However, since you are offering. I will have two pints of lager, please.


 

No crisps?  

(Actually, crisps should be banned as they're smelly - unless it's you that's eating them)


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> But I like to have a can of lager on my way to a gig! Honestly. I do. I am not just being controversial. I really do like to have a can of lager on the way to Offline. Calms my nerves of meeting up with all the weirdos from the internet, too, but that's a side issue
> 
> Besides, you have never offered to buy me a drink, and I didn't think you would, since you are openly teetotal, so I wouldn't ask you to! However, since you are offering. I will have two pints of lager, please.



I bought you a drink at PRoD! 

But I shall explode the myth of the Scotsman and buy you another one next time I see you.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

Back on ignore you go you sad repetative twat


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> But you do seem to think that you have widespread support for such a ban, despite this not appearing to be demonstrated on this thread, at least.



As I've stated before, this thread - and this forum generally - does not represent an accurate cross-section of the population.  Hence, you aren't going to necessarily get the same results here as you might in a national newspaper.

It's like the old advertisment: "Inexpensive clothing for the mature fuller figure" is the same thing as "Cheap dresses for fat old women" ... both saying the same thing, but you'd get a very different reaction.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:
			
		

> Of course it's potentially scary if taken to the extreme, but we're only talking about stopping drinking alcohol on public transport for crying out loud..


But why if it's right to ban alcohol on this basis, is it wrong to ban other things on the same basis?


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> Back on ignore you go you sad repetative twat



Had you on ignore for yonks you pretentious little cock. Say it to my face next time, shitface.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:
			
		

> As I've stated before, this thread - and this forum generally - does not represent an accurate cross-section of the population.  Hence, you aren't going to necessarily get the same results here as you might in a national newspaper..


That's certainly true. It's important to be wary of any polling data there is on this though - someone saying "yes" to a question "do you support a ban on the tube?" doesn't entail (a) that they think it's an important issue (b) that they are offended by it in the same way you are. I'd still love to see any polling data though. I bet BoJo got some done internally.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> No crisps?
> 
> (Actually, crisps should be banned as they're smelly - unless it's you that's eating them)



I only eat plain crisps, so not too smelly. 

I think a can of lager and a packet of plain crisps on the bus on the way to a gig, is a great idea. Not going to happen anymore, because I am far too much of a scaredy cat to break any laws.


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 2, 2008)

aggression is the greater problem than drinking don't you all think?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I bought you a drink at PRoD!
> 
> But I shall explode the myth of the Scotsman and buy you another one next time I see you.



Did you? Oh dear. I honestly don't remember that. I wasn't drunk at that stage, either.

I am so sorry. Thanks ever so much.

Must be my round then.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> someone saying "yes" to a question "do you support a ban on the tube?" doesn't entail (a) that they think it's an important issue (b) that they are offended by it in the same way you are.



Are any of the 'opinion polls' we see truly representative though?


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

I've still yet to see any argument that drinking on the tube (as opposed to people being drunk) is any sort of _social problem_ at all. As opposed to it being a personal problem for some people who, for a whole variety of reasons, hate the stuff & don't want to be round it.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> As I've stated before, this thread - and this forum generally - does not represent an accurate cross-section of the population.  Hence, you aren't going to necessarily get the same results here as you might in a national newspaper.
> 
> It's like the old advertisment: "Inexpensive clothing for the mature fuller figure" is the same thing as "Cheap dresses for fat old women" ... both saying the same thing, but you'd get a very different reaction.



Oh, national newspapers are how we measure the views of the population?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> aggression is the greater problem than drinking don't you all think?



Absolutely... but isn't a lot of aggresion following consuming alcohol, which has an amplified effect in the hot stuffy atmosphere of the tube?


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> Did you? Oh dear. I honestly don't remember that. I wasn't drunk at that stage, either.
> 
> I am so sorry. Thanks ever so much.
> 
> Must be my round then.



I did a round when we got off the bus. I guess you were included along with t'rest?  I remember it cos the bar person got the whole thing arse about face.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Are any of the 'opinion polls' we see truly representative though?


It's not a zero-sum thing. It depends on how the poll was designed, how questions was constructed, the size of the sample, the method of sampling etc. There's huge problems with all sorts of social research that takes place on that sort of scale but it's a starting point at the very least and you can do stuff with it as long as you always take it with a pinch of salt.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> Oh, national newspapers are how we measure the views of the population?



I've not seen many 'front pages' blaming Boris for the fiasco of Saturday night, have you?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Had you on ignore for yonks you pretentious little cock. Say it to my face next time, shitface.



Could you put him on ignore, or lay off the insults please (both of you, really)


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Absolutely... but isn't a lot of aggresion following consuming alcohol, which has an amplified effect in the hot stuffy atmosphere of the tube?


i have never seen a case where someone gets on the tube fine, drinks a can of beer, and then turns aggressive, if that is what you mean? Sometimes people who don't drink argue on the bus though, and to be honest i dislike that, so ban them. this girl sat in front of me was splitting up with her boyfriend, no need for that on the bus.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Could you put him on ignore, or lay off the insults please (both of you, really)



Erm. He started it. Miss. Lol.

Okay. Sure.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Could you put him on ignore, or lay off the insults please (both of you, really)


Aye.. I made the mistake of pruning my ignore list, now rectified...


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> i have never seen a case where someone gets on the tube fine, drinks a can of beer, and then turns aggressive, if that is what you mean? Sometimes people who don't drink argue on the bus though, and to be honest i dislike that, so ban them. this girl sat in front of me was splitting up with her boyfriend, no need for that on the bus.



The problem is that you don't know if this is their first or 10th can of the night.  Normal tube behaviour such as accidently knocking into someone that a sober person would just brush off as 'one of those things' might turn into a punch up because someone has a much lower tolerance level after a beer or 4.

As for the arguing, totally in agreement - was this face to face, or on a mobile phone (loud conversations on which should be banned too).


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:
			
		

> As for the arguing, totally in agreement - was this face to face, or on a mobile phone (loud conversations on which should be banned too).


Who do you think is going to enforce all these bans you're advocating?


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:
			
		

> Normal tube behaviour such as accidently knocking into someone that a sober person would just brush off as 'one of those things' might turn into a punch up because someone has a much lower tolerance level after a beer or 4.


The problem is that *they are drunk* not that _they are drinking_.


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> The problem is that you don't know if this is their first or 10th can of the night.  Normal tube behaviour such as accidently knocking into someone that a sober person would just brush off as 'one of those things' might turn into a punch up because someone has a much lower tolerance level after a beer or 4.


luckily now noone who has had 9 beers will ever be able to get on the tube.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> Edit: You think people should be banned from doing stuff if it makes it less pleasent for you? Have you ever actually thought through how free _anyone_ would be if this were applied reciprically? If anything that impinged on the pleasure of another were banned we would, literarly be living in a totalitarian state.



Well you've made me think about it. 

I try not to negatively impact other peoples lives as much as possible. I avoid eating, drinking, farting etc. in public because I don't want to offend anyone.

I find the consumption of alcohol on trains discourteous to fellow travellers, not harmful. 

There are many hundreds of thousands of people who don't drink for various reasons, some of whom will be offended by the consumption of booze on tubes.  

I think that anyone who can't hang on for a few minutes until they are out of a tightly enclosed public space before cracking open a can should be receiving help. 

I think the British drinking culture is shit, and that the loss/gain ratio of stopping boozing on tubes will be generally advantageous to the majority of tube users (lost=nothing, gained=a more pleasant journey for all but the drinkers).


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

nosos said:


> Who do you think is going to enforce all these bans you're advocating?



That's the unfortunate part, there aren't enough police to go around without this additional work for them to do.

Wouldn't it be so much nicer if people just followed the laws of this country put in place by our democratically elected representatives.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I did a round when we got off the bus. I guess you were included along with t'rest?  I remember it cos the bar person got the whole thing arse about face.



That was very kind of you. 

I take it this was not one of the occasions when I had a can of lager on the bus, then?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> luckily now noone who has had 9 beers will ever be able to get on the tube.



Ten was an arbitrary number.  Everyone has their own tolerances.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> That was very kind of you.
> 
> I take it this was not one of the occasions when I had a can of lager on the bus, then?



No. You were _sans_ beer. Not even a can of cider and a dog on a bit of string!


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Ten was an arbitrary number.  Everyone has their own tolerances.



yes. i know.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> I try not to negatively impact other peoples lives as much as possible. I avoid eating, drinking, farting etc. in public because I don't want to offend anyone.
> 
> I find the consumption of alcohol on trains discourteous to fellow travellers, not harmful.


I see that as common courteousy. It's a virtue & it's something all-too-frequently lacking in a busy city. I just don't think it's a good idea to legislate on it because (a) it has to be enforced & inevitably they are the sorts of low-level offences which are either nigh on impossible to enforce and/or detract police from far more important matters (b) there's the inevitable slipperly slope in a modern fragmented and multicultural society where there are whole variety of interpretations of what constitutes proper behaviour. Where harm's done to people then there is a _social problem_. In the absense of such harm then it's a _personal problem_. This is no way means it's not real, or that the harm done isn't important, just that it's not the role of the state to legislate on the matter.



> I think that anyone who can't hang on for a few minutes until they are out of a tightly enclosed public space before cracking open a can should be receiving help.


But tbh I think it says more about you that you seemingly think the only reason anyone could possibly want to drink while in transit is that they're an alcoholic? I'm sorry if that sounds abrasive (I don't mean to be) I think it's true though. Paritcularly given the number of people on this thread who've professed otherwise.



> I think the British drinking culture is shit, and that the loss/gain ratio of stopping boozing on tubes will be generally advantageous to the majority of tube users (lost=nothing, gained=a more pleasant journey for all but the drinkers).


But to say it's a "more pelasant journey" implies that the drinkers (as opposed to the _drunks_ where the harm is done by the alcohol they consumer prior to transit) are doing some harm to those who aren't drinking. I'm still not sure what exactly this harm is.


----------



## laptop (Jun 2, 2008)

So.

We have a couple of posters who, at least, just like to say "tut!" and possibly just like banning things.

And one who as far as I an tell just likes arguing.





Can I put it on the record that the last time I drank alcohol on the Underground it was a moderately nice Merlot, with wineglasses, and we were very happy, and  the people around us were without exception happy for us.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be so much nicer if people just followed the laws of this country put in place by our democratically elected representatives.


Which would be easier if they stopped trying to solve every problem through legislation. It's difficult to encourage personal responsibility when the government sends out the message that it can solve any and every problem from whitehall.


----------



## cesare (Jun 2, 2008)

How's this:



Spymaster said:


> I try not to negatively impact other peoples lives as much as possible. I avoid eating, drinking, farting etc. in public because I don't want to offend anyone.
> 
> I find the consumption of meat on trains discourteous to fellow travellers, not harmful.
> 
> ...



?


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

laptop said:


> Can I put it on the record that the last time I drank alcohol on the Underground it was a moderately nice Merlot, with wineglasses, and we were very happy, and  the people around us were without exception happy for us.



Can I recommend a Northstar 2004 "Columbia Valley" Merlot, c£20 pb. It travels well.

Boom tish!


----------



## Badgers (Jun 2, 2008)

It has all beee said before but........

No issue with being drunk on the tube as long as you are not aggressive 
Not allowed to have a drink on the tube even if you do not litter or anything 
Fine to drink orange squash from a hip flask 

Still okay to eat fried chicken off the bone, whilst listening to loud music on your tinny mobile


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 2, 2008)

Heh, some lass once told me off for eating on a train.  I pulled out my burger (i was drunk, it was the last train, you know how it is), and she leaned over and said "excuse me, i'm a vegetarian you know and that meat smell is horrible".  I lifted the top bun off and said "so am i, it's a veggie burger".  Long pause.  "oh", she said, "ok then".


----------



## Crispy (Jun 2, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Heh, some lass once told me off for eating on a train.  I pulled out my burger (i was drunk, it was the last train, you know how it is), and she leaned over and said "excuse me, i'm a vegetarian you know and that meat smell is horrible".  I lifted the top bun off and said "so am i, it's a veggie burger".  Long pause.  "oh", she said, "ok then".


 I bet that felt fucking fantastic


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 2, 2008)

Crispy said:


> I bet that felt fucking fantastic


 
More than you can possibly imagine.


----------



## Nixon (Jun 2, 2008)

Hmmmm im just trying to trail back this thread to find out what actually happened..I heard they just shut down the line after a while or something but I thought that was pretty inevitable with 10000 people possibly attending and it being splashed all over the papers before the event..it's obviously a pretty dangerous place to have a party.

I was going to go but got wrapped up in helping set up a squat party and then getting trashed at said party till sunday eve.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

and I would have cracked up if I'd been a random listening to the conversation...


----------



## laptop (Jun 2, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Heh, some lass once told me off for eating on a train.  I pulled out my burger (i was drunk, it was the last train, you know how it is), and she leaned over and said "excuse me, i'm a vegetarian you know and that meat smell is horrible".  I lifted the top bun off and said "so am i, it's a veggie burger".  Long pause.  "oh", she said, "ok then".








Which is the whole point: it's *all* about going "tut!". 

Research shows that loud music causes heart attacks.

Oh no it doesn't: it shows an association. It's the *anger* that loud music causes - largely at lack of *control*, I suggest - that causes heart attacks. See one poster lately reappeared in this parish.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 2, 2008)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...inking+binge+leader+is+City+banker/article.do

puts this party in a somewhat different light, IMHO


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2008)

That bastion of unbiased journalism, the stannah


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 2, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> That bastion of unbiased journalism, the stannah



I suppose they faked the youtube video too


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

How do all these people who's noses are so sensitive to the smells of any kind of liqueur cope at functions such as weddings and birthdays? 

Do they wear pegs on their hooters if they're forced to socialise down at the pub? Does alcohol smell less repugnant in public houses?

Some people are coming out with all manner of disingenuous old shite on this thread.

If I were to ban _anything_ on the tube it would be the little wankers listening to shite music using the speakers of their mobile phones.

I can't say that I've actually seen that many people drinking on the tube for it to have ever been any kind of 'problem'.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 2, 2008)

Yet another Facebook events causes tens of thousands of pounds in damages - is anyone surprised. I am concenred that this was more a political event staged by militant Ken Livingstone supporters and the Labour Party should distance itself from this violence. There is more to this story.

- Joe, London


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> How do all these people who's noses are so sensitive to the smells of any kind of liqueur cope at functions such as weddings and birthdays?
> 
> Do they wear pegs on their hooters if they're forced to socialise down at the pub? Does alcohol smell less repugnant in public houses?
> 
> ...



I think the point is that people don't want to deal with alcohol in a public space like a tube or bus. I don't think anyone is advocating prohibition.

I take your point about tinny music on phones etc,.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I think the point is that people don't want to deal with alcohol in a public space like a tube or bus. I don't think anyone is advocating prohibition.
> 
> I take your point about tinny music on phones etc,.



The biggest argument being trotted out is the 'smell'. 

Do these people never go to the pub? How would they cope?

Other than that, someone necking a tin of fosters is no different than someone necking a tin of diet coke.


----------



## winjer (Jun 2, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...inking+binge+leader+is+City+banker/article.do
> 
> puts this party in a somewhat different light, IMHO


Except for the fact that there wasn't just one party, nor just one organiser.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> The biggest argument being trotted out is the 'smell'.
> 
> Do these people never go to the pub? How would they cope?
> 
> Other than that, someone necking a tin of fosters is no different than someone necking a tin of diet coke.



Sure. But IME fizzy pop doesn't make people volatile in a space where most folk don't expect to have to deal with that kind of behaviour. You expect beer smells, sticky carpets, pissed people, shabby loos and the odd fight in bars etc. Not on transport.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...inking+binge+leader+is+City+banker/article.do
> 
> puts this party in a somewhat different light, IMHO



Losing his job is too good for that tosser.  I'd say a jail sentence for inciting a riot is more fitting.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Losing his job is too good for that tosser.  I'd say a jail sentence for inciting a riot is more fitting.



Lex talionis, dude. That's a bit harsh, eh?


----------



## winjer (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I think the point is that people don't want to deal with alcohol in a public space like a tube or bus. I don't think anyone is advocating prohibition.


What about a public space like a park? And what evidence do you have that this group of people is so large that you don't need to quantify it?


----------



## winjer (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I'd say a jail sentence for inciting a riot is more fitting.


Yet another lie. Where was this _alleged_ riot?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Sure. But IME fizzy pop doesn't make people volatile in a space where most folk don't expect to have to deal with that kind of behaviour. You expect beer smells, sticky carpets, pissed people, shabby loos and the odd fight in bars etc. Not on transport.



So necking a tin of fosters between farringdon and kings cross dramatically changes otherwise sane people into deranged nutters?

Do you realise how silly that sounds?

And why do they sell such substances on planes and other train services if it has such a dramatic effect on the human psyche?


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

winjer said:


> What about a public space like a park? And what evidence do you have that this group of people is so large that you don't need to quantify it?



Where I live the parks are controlled drinking zones, IIRC. Certainly the streets are.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> So necking a tin of fosters between farringdon and kings cross dramatically changes otherwise sane people into deranged nutters?
> 
> Do you realise how silly that sounds?
> 
> And why do they sell such substances on planes and other train services if it has such a dramatic effect on the human psyche?



Aw, c'mon. You're taking it to the nth degree and stretching it till it snaps!


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

*Quote of the day*



> A girl slurs to me: "I am going to stand by the Cornish pasty shop. Nothing bad can happen next to a Cornish pasty shop."


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Aw, c'mon. You're taking it to the nth degree and stretching it till it snaps!



No, that's what you are doing.

I haven't seen a fight in a bar for years and I don't think I've ever seen one on a tube train.

You're being disingenuous in order to be self-righteous.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> No, that's what you are doing.
> 
> I haven't seen a fight in a bar for years and I don't think I've ever seen one on a tube train.
> 
> You're being disingenuous in order to be self-righteous.



No. Not self-righteous. I don't see the need for people to drink booze (a drug) on London transport. Drink and be merry, but in an appropriate space.

The saddest thing about the whole shooting match? Boris can now say "I told you so."


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> No. Not self-righteous. I don't see the need for people to drink booze (a drug) on London transport. Drink and be merry, but in an appropriate space.



It's a public space. The majority of violent incidents on public transport are by kids on the rob, not someone having a tinny who's on their way to a concert/party or whatever.

Do you propose that they ban it on planes and all trains now too?

Have you flown on a plane? How did you cope with all the drinking going on around you?

Have you drank on a plane? I hope not because it's game, set and match to me if you have! 

(waits for the fibs...)


----------



## winjer (Jun 2, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> The fault was my own, I should have pulled my finger out and organised the protest I was on about when I started this thread.


But how would you practically have avoided it becoming just the same as Saturday night?


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> It's a public space. The majority of violent incidents on public transport are by kids on the rob, not someone having a tinny who's on their way to a concert/party or whatever.
> 
> Do you propose that they ban it on planes and all trains now too?
> 
> ...



I don't drink.


----------



## winjer (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Where I live the parks are controlled drinking zones, IIRC.


Sounds horrible.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I don't drink.



Well that explains everything then.

Cheers.  

Have you flown on a plane?


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I don't see the need for people to drink booze (a drug) on London transport.


there's "no need" to do a lot of things that are fun.

there's "no need" to listen to music, or to read, or to... exchange a pleasantry with a loved one, or a joke with a friend. there's "no need" to dress in anything but a suit, etc etc.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I don't drink.


 
Perhaps that influences your feelings here?  In the same way that I would love to ban eating meat on the tube cos of how it makes me feel, I'm aware that actually people eating it are exercising a right that I'm not comfortable with due to the same sort of disgust that you prolly feel at the notion of alcohol, IYSWIM?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Lex talionis, dude. That's a bit harsh, eh?



One or two high profile punishments will put a lot of people off of organising similarly stupid, disrupting, and now illegal, events in the future.


----------



## winjer (Jun 2, 2008)

Nixon said:


> Hmmmm im just trying to trail back this thread to find out what actually happened..I heard they just shut down the line after a while or something but I thought that was pretty inevitable with 10000 people possibly attending and it being splashed all over the papers before the event..it's obviously a pretty dangerous place to have a party.


In short: lots of parties on various tube lines, the larger ones ended by police emptying trains and closing stations. Party on the concourse at Liverpool St from 9pm, c1000 people, with sound system for about an hour, eventually moved out of the station when sufficient police present (40-50) around 11:30pm.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Well that explains everything then.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> Have you flown on a plane?



rotflmao - no ..._ I flap my fucking arms_, mate! Lmao! 

I think I'm missing the point as to why people are so upset at the ban? I do love how passionate Urbanites get about stuff. No kidding.

*@Bluestreak* - my missus is a drinker. I threw her over my shoulder and put her to bed at the weekend. I have no issues with others drinking, despite my inability to drink like a gentleman. I take your point, though, in a general way.


----------



## cesare (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> One or two high profile punishments will put a lot of people off of organising similarly stupid, disrupting, and now illegal, events in the future.



It's not illegal yet  (the drinking)


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> One or two high profile punishments will put a lot of people off of organising similarly stupid, disrupting, and now illegal, events in the future.


But drinking on the tube isn't actually illegal yet....

That's what one of the manifold reasons why this ban is an insanely transpart piece of media driven politics.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> rotflmao - no ..._ I flap my fucking arms_, mate! Lmao!



Well how on earth did you cope with all the drinking and subsequent fighting in such a confined space?


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Well how on earth did you cope with all the drinking and subsequent fighting in such a confined space?



I flew in the undercarriage.


----------



## Nixon (Jun 2, 2008)

wiskey said:


> i disagree strongly. it happens EVERY night to some degree and weekends are worse.



people don't organise to have fucking parties on the tube every day or every weekend..to some degree,but not to this degree which is the point.it's not as excessive as this,where as some arse organised 10000 people to do it all at once on on tube line,which is stupid.they might consume alcohol on public transport/stations,en route somewhere,but i think it's a bit of an overstatement to say that hundreds of people intentionally congregate on the tube/public transport SPECIFICALLY to get pissed and effectively "party" ON public transport at the weekends..that's silly.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I flew in the undercarriage.



You're being witty all of a sudden because you know I've got you by the bollocks sunshine...


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> I think I'm missing the point as to why people are so upset at the ban? I do love how passionate Urbanites get about stuff. No kidding.


it is not so much the law itself (it won't affect me a great deal) as that it is the 1st example of boris johnson introducing arguably pointless laws without any research... if he is going to start legislating against things he feels are morally bad without any regard for what anyone else thinks then this could be the start of a fairly horrible city. he doesn't like gays does he? i guess gay public displays of affection might be next for teh chop (i'm exaggerating to show my point. hopefully)


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> *@Bluestreak* - my missus is a drinker. I threw her over my shoulder and put her to bed at the weekend. I have no issues with others drinking, despite my inability to drink like a gentleman. I take your point, though, in a general way.


 
Fair dos, I was worried you might take that as an attack rather than an observation.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

cesare said:


> It's not illegal yet  (the drinking)



Interesting.  So why is everyone calling it a 'ban' instead of a 'polite request not to'?


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> You're being witty all of a sudden because you know I've got you by the bollocks sunshine...



No. Not at all. It's just rehashing more of the same from both sides.

Perhaps if I understood why people believe they ought to be allowed to drink in non-licenced/controlled environments, I might be able to see your PoV. But I just don't get it - and I'm not being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jun 2, 2008)

Just seen the middle page pic in the Evening Standard and I have to say that they all look like a bunch of pissed-up middle class Yuppies, mostly white as well. Just like the sort who go to Glastonbury. No normal people to be seen IMO.


----------



## cesare (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Interesting.  So why is everyone calling it a 'ban' instead of a 'polite request not to'?



Because it makes him look more powerful for his first 'quick win'. PR exercise.


----------



## Onket (Jun 2, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Just seen the middle page pic in the Evening Standard and I have to say that they all look like a bunch of pissed-up middle class Yuppies, mostly white as well. Just like the sort who go to Glastonbury. No normal people to be seen IMO.



Bloody hell!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Just seen the middle page pic in the Evening Standard and I have to say that they all look like a bunch of pissed-up middle class Yuppies, mostly white as well. Just like the sort who go to Glastonbury. No normal people to be seen IMO.


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Perhaps if I understood why people believe they ought to be allowed to drink in non-licenced/controlled environments, I might be able to see your PoV. But I just don't get it - and I'm not being deliberately obtuse.


it's just that i would rather not have ANYTHING banned unless there is a proven reason to ban it.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Fair dos, I was worried you might take that as an attack rather than an observation.



S'cool, mate. You know I'm not sXe in my "recovery". I just can't do _booze_ anymore.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> it is not so much the law itself (it won't affect me a great deal) as that it is the 1st example of boris johnson introducing arguably pointless laws without any research... if he is going to start legislating against things he feels are morally bad without any regard for what anyone else thinks then this could be the start of a fairly horrible city. he doesn't like gays does he? i guess gay public displays of affection might be next for teh chop (i'm exaggerating to show my point. hopefully)



Point taken.



rutabowa said:


> it's just that i would rather not have ANYTHING banned unless there is a proven reason to ban it.



Ban banning! When do we want it? Now!


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Just seen the middle page pic in the Evening Standard and I have to say that they all look like a bunch of pissed-up middle class Yuppies, mostly white as well. Just like the sort who go to Glastonbury. No normal people to be seen IMO.



I was there for a bit.  Guilty as being white, but not particularly middle class, not a yuppie, never been to the Glastonbury festival... where do I fit in?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Just seen the middle page pic in the Evening Standard and I have to say that they all look like a bunch of pissed-up middle class Yuppies, mostly white as well.



Aye. And their well-heeled pillar-of-the-community parents are the Daily Fail and sub-standard's target audience.

Funny how it all turns out in the wash.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 2, 2008)

Onket said:


> Bloody hell!


Ooh, she's a card ain't she?


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 2, 2008)

Puts us in our place and no mistake.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jun 2, 2008)

I bet some of them really were called Rupert and Tarquin.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I was there for a bit.  Guilty as being white, but not particularly middle class, not a yuppie, never been to the Glastonbury festival... where do I fit in?



Weren't you there so you could "tut"?


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Weren't you there so you could "tut"?



Okay. That is kinda funny!


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Okay. That is kinda funny!



Well he appears to be condemning it an awful lot for someone who seems desperate to be seen as part of the action...


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Weren't you there so you could "tut"?



Not at all, I was in fits of laughter at the stupidity of these morons not only for their behaviour but for thinking they could have even got away with it in the first place without something going tits up.


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

**thinks about getting deckchair, donkey rides and snack concession stalls out of storage**


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Not at all, I was in fits of laughter at the stupidity of these morons not only for their behaviour but for thinking they could have even got away with it in the first place without something going tits up.



Sounds like you had a hoot of a saturday night then! 

You had no other plans I take it...?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Funny how it all turns out in the wash.


Some of them looked like they could have done with one as well. Dirty fuckers.


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Not at all, I was in fits of laughter at the stupidity of these morons not only for their behaviour but for thinking they could have even got away with it in the first place without something going tits up.


i don't really get your idea of a good night out!


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jun 2, 2008)

You never get this sort of behaviour at Flashmob either.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> it's just that i would rather not have ANYTHING banned unless there is a proven reason to ban it.


This really ought to be political common sense - not just on moral grounds but on pragmatic grounds. Someone actually has to enforce laws for them to work.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 2, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> You never get this sort of behaviour at Flashmob either.


 
Yes you do.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> i don't really get your idea of a good night out!



He's posted the most on this thread too by by a country mile.

He just *Had to be there!*


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Sounds like you had a hoot of a saturday night then!
> 
> You had no other plans I take it...?



I tend not to go out in the evenings, by choice.  There's plenty of things we can do at home without having to go out that we can enjoy, although I accept these things may not be someone else's choice of fun.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Sounds like you had a hoot of a saturday night then!
> 
> You had no other plans I take it...?


 

Dr Who


----------



## winjer (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Not at all, I was in fits of laughter at the stupidity of these morons not only for their behaviour but for thinking they could have even got away with it in the first place without something going tits up.


But thousands of them did, more than were on the concourse at Liverpool Street.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

C66 said:
			
		

> He's posted the most on this thread too by by a country mile.



Which again suggests to me that the people who really care about banning booze have some serious hang-ups. 

I'm sorry they do but I'd really rather they didn't demand that the stage legislate that everyone else fall into line with them.

Ajdown has, in my mind, the status of a anti gay rights campaigners who feels drawn to the subject and insists on getting first hand 'on the ground' knowledge of that which offends him so. Tragic and irritating in equal measure.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I tend not to go out in the evenings, by choice.  There's plenty of things we can do at home without having to go out that we can enjoy, although I accept these things may not be someone else's choice of fun.



But on this particular weekend you thought you'd stretch the purse-strings to the price of a travel card so you could guffaw at rebellious teenagers getting sozzled in a train station?

Ri-i-ight...


----------



## rutabowa (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I tend not to go out in the evenings, by choice.


wuhh... so you are saying you were forced to go out to this tube party thing? it looks as though you were the only person posting on here who went, or am i confused


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Other than that, someone necking a tin of fosters is no different than someone necking a tin of diet coke.


Exactly.



lightsoutlondon;7577323]Sure. But IME fizzy pop doesn't make people volatile in a space where most folk don't expect to have to deal with that kind of behaviour. You expect beer smells said:


> No. Not self-righteous. I don't see the need for people to drink booze (a drug) on London transport. Drink and be merry, but in an appropriate space.


Who are you to decide what's "appropriate"? So long as you're not bothering anyone or putting yourself or others at risk, you should be able to drink where and when you like.


ajdown said:


> Interesting.  So why is everyone calling it a 'ban' instead of a 'polite request not to'?


Perhaps because all the London Transport signs say that "drinking alcohol is prohibited."


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> But on this particular weekend you thought you'd stretch the purse-strings to the price of a travel card so you could guffaw at rebellious teenagers getting sozzled in a train station?
> 
> Ri-i-ight...



I have an annual travelcard for work purposes so it didn't cost me anything extra actually.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> wuhh... so you are saying you were forced to go out to this tube party thing? it looks as though you were the only person posting on here who went, or am i confused



No, I chose to pop along for the start to see whether the chaos about to ensue was as bad as, or worse, than I had predicted.  Hung around for half an hour, got bored looking at the idiots, and went home.

Maybe nobody else that normally posts here did go, I'm not sure.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Exactly.
> 
> 
> Perhaps because all the London Transport signs say that "drinking alcohol is prohibited."


 

yes, I've been reading stories that they're hoping it will be a case of self-policing, the same as when the smoking ban came in.  So why then do they have stickers everywhere and tannoy announcements telling you it's not allowed?


----------



## lights.out.london (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Who are you to decide what's "appropriate"?



I have a voice, just like you.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Haven't seen too many sticky carpets or shabby loos in tube trains, the only time I smell beer is when it's on the breath of someone who's already drunk or going out the morning after, and I can't recall the last time I saw a fight on the underground, not that that's necessarily got _anything_ to do with the issue of people drinking on the tube. So why bring it up?Who are you to decide "what's appropriate"?
> Perhaps because all the London Transport signs say that "drinking alcohol is prohibited."



Go and ring up BTP and get the figures for drunken, violent incidents on trains and the tube. You will be surprised at how many they deal with in one day.
I think the alcohol ban is a good thing, they should also ban people who smell of drink as well.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I have an annual travelcard for work purposes so it didn't cost me anything extra actually.



But you put in a fair amount of leg work for someone who seems so ardently against such shenanigans.

Or are you about to tell me you live in Spitalfields market now as well?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 2, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Go and ring up BTP and get the figures for drunken, violent incidents on trains and the tube. You will be surprised at how many they deal with in one day.



Do they have figures for how many of those incidents were caused by people _drinking on the tube_? No? You surprise me. 



> I think the alcohol ban is a good thing, they should also ban people who smell of drink as well.



Because, of course, having drunk people singing on a train is much worse than having them driving home or forced to sleep on the streets.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> they should also ban people who smell of drink as well.



Yeah and we'll have breathalysers on the turn-styles!


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> But you put in a fair amount of leg work for someone who seems so ardently against such shenanigans.



Does hopping on one bus, sitting still for about 45 minutes, then walking across the road at Liverpool Street count as a 'lot of legwork'?

I guess I did have to do about the same in reverse to get home...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> No, I chose to pop along for the start to see whether the chaos about to ensue was as bad as, or worse, than I had predicted.  Hung around for half an hour, got bored looking at the idiots, and went home.



Do you slow down on the motorway when there's been an accident to see if anyone has been decapitated?



ajdown said:


> Does hopping on one bus, sitting still for about 45 minutes, then walking across the road at Liverpool Street count as a 'lot of legwork'?
> 
> I guess I did have to do about the same in reverse to get home...



So an hour and a half of travel so you could *watch* a party. I couldn't think of any better way to spend a saturday night. Were Ant and Dec not on this week?


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Go and ring up BTP and get the figures for drunken, violent incidents on trains and the tube. .


All *totally irrelevant *to the ban.

There are already laws for dealing with drunk and disorderly behaviour. If you think this new law is actually addressing a real problem, then please provide some idea of what percentage of people _actually drinking on the tube_ (as opposed to already being drunk) regularly cause problems.

If you cant back it up, you have no argument, past the exceptionally exceptionally frivolous "oooh! But I don't like the smell" which could mark the thin end of a large wedge.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jun 2, 2008)

Ban all alcohol from flights as well. There's no need for people to drink, they should not be allowed to buy it on a plane.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Totally irrelevant to the ban.
> 
> There are already laws for dealing with drunk and disorderly behaviour. If you think this new law is actually addressing a real problem, then please provide some idea of what percentage of people _actually drinking on the tube_ (as opposed to already being drunk) regularly cause problems.
> 
> If you cant back it up, you have no argument, past the exceptionally exceptionally frivolous "oooh! But I don't like the smell" which could mark the thin end of a large wedge.



Drunks are bad enough just being drunk, but when they are sitting in the same carriage as me, drinking even more from a can or bottle I just want to kick their fucking arses.


----------



## rich! (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Maybe nobody else that normally posts here did go, I'm not sure.



I know two people from round here who went, had a couple of beers on a carriage, enjoyed the atmosphere, tidied up and left.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 2, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Ban all alcohol from flights as well. There's no need for people to drink, they should not be allowed to buy it on a plane.



Here's where I think a fair few people would disagree with you \, even if they agree with a ban on other forms of public transport; a fair few people couldn't cope with flying without a bit of booze. You know, like BA Baracus.


----------



## jæd (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Does hopping on one bus, sitting still for about 45 minutes, then walking across the road at Liverpool Street count as a 'lot of legwork'?
> 
> I guess I did have to do about the same in reverse to get home...



So... You spent at least 1 hour, 45 mins (assuming your 5 mins waiting for the bus each way, and 5 mins at Liverpool St). I thought you said you lived in Brixton. It must be well boring now if thats how the residents spend their Saturday nights...


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Do you slow down on the motorway when there's been an accident to see if anyone has been decapitated?


Generally you don't have a lot of choice, if everyone else is slowing down you have to be in the queue.



Citizen66 said:


> So an hour and a half of travel so you could *watch* a party. I couldn't think of any better way to spend a saturday night. Were Ant and Dec not on this week?



Going and sitting in a pub drinking, or going to a club and having your ears blasted by some noise, is a 'good use of a saturday night' to some people.  I don't think it is.  Why is my choice a problem to you?


----------



## jæd (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Going and sitting in a pub drinking, or going to a club and having your ears blasted by some noise, is a 'good use of a saturday night' to some people.  I don't think it is.  Why is my choice a problem to you?



"Why is my choice a problem to you?". Isn't that what people are telling _you_...?


----------



## winjer (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Going and sitting in a pub drinking, or going to a club and having your ears blasted by some noise, is a 'good use of a saturday night' to some people.  I don't think it is.  Why is my choice a problem to you?


I find it unpleasant, someone who can't let others have a good time without travelling far out of their way to point and laugh at them clearly has a problem. Ban these sick cunts.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Going and sitting in a pub drinking, or going to a club and having your ears blasted by some noise, is a 'good use of a saturday night' to some people.  I don't think it is.  Why is my choice a problem to you?



Because your idea of 'fun' is going to watch other people having fun in the expressed knowledge that it will be something that you will find irksome and of great mirth in equal measure.

Strikes me as a little odd but each to their own I suppose.

I went out for sushi and some drinks with friends in Berlin.


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Drunks are bad enough just being drunk, but when they are sitting in the same carriage as me, drinking even more from a can or bottle I just want to kick their fucking arses.


You're entitled to your personal opinion and it's a shame that you get upset by someone having a drink, but I've still to see a remotely credible and meaningful argument why it should be _banned_ by law.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

jæd said:


> "Why is my choice a problem to you?". Isn't that what people are telling _you_...?



Ah but by simply going to have a look, I wasn't negatively affecting anyone else by being there.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

editor said:


> You're entitled to your personal opinion and it's a shame that you get upset by someone having a drink, but I've still to see a remotely credible and meaningful argument why it should be _banned_ by law.



SS is another teetotaller sticking their oar in.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Ah but by simply going to have a look, I wasn't negatively affecting anyone else by being there.



Yeah, it's us who gets that with the incessant whining.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah, it's us who gets that with the incessant whining.



I think you're confusing "whining" with "expressing a legitimate, legal and perfectly valid opinion that you just happen to disagree with".

Besides, I'm not the only one posting in this thread.  I'm just responding to people responding to me.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I think you're confusing "whining" with "expressing a legitimate, legal and perfectly valid opinion that you just happen to disagree with"



I probably agree with you more than you think. I would probably think that I'd have thought that the 'party-goers' were numpties too but would have stopped short of wasting a saturday night going to watch their antics.


----------



## _angel_ (Jun 2, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Ban all alcohol from flights as well. There's no need for people to drink, they should not be allowed to buy it on a plane.



You'd have to get me very pissed to even contemplate flying. For a lot of people nervous  of flying it q important.

Anyway why shouldn't u b served wine with a meal ona long haul flight?

We're talking about going without booze a few minutes on a tubetrain, not a 12 hour flight.


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 2, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> he doesn't like gays does he?


He's got that covered - his deputy is gay (Richard Barnes ... but as he's a tory prick it doesn't really count ... )


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> You'd have to get me very pissed to even contemplate flying. For a lot of people nervous  of flying it q important.



I knock back a few bevies before a flight so I can sleep after take off. It's preferable to dying of boredom.


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> I knock back a few bevies before a flight so I can sleep after take off. It's preferable to dying of boredom.


Didn't know you were a pilot ...


----------



## smokedout (Jun 2, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Perhaps if I understood why people believe they ought to be allowed to drink in non-licenced/controlled environments, I might be able to see your PoV. But I just don't get it - and I'm not being deliberately obtuse.



not everyone can afford to drink in licenced premises


----------



## smokedout (Jun 2, 2008)

Protesters pledge more anti-Boris booze-ups


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 2, 2008)

> After the Carnage! Brothers in arms! Thanks y'all to everyone who came and had a great time last night. We rocked ! "... massive cheers for the fact that there were only a few knobheads making things violent and barely any incidents or arrests as a result. I'd call that a roaring success, what what?!
> "But now to the future. Allons-y. What next? A freaky frat party in a Tesco's car park? A motherfunking mash up in Leicester square? let's keep the party happening!"




cock-head


----------



## editor (Jun 2, 2008)

smokedout said:


> Protesters pledge more anti-Boris booze-ups


That article is a treat, with the authors seemingly well chuffed with their ability to dredge Facebook for utterly irrelevant personal information:


> Details of some of the organisers behind the Saturday night protests can be revealed today. Alexandre Graham, 26, who set up the Circle Line Party - Last Day Of Drinking On The Tube, which attracted more than 1,000 members on Facebook - is a bilingual graduate in mathematics and management from Loughborough University who has spent the past 18 months working as a banker with the Royal Bank of Scotland.
> 
> Mr Graham, 26, who rents a flat in Fulham High Street in west London, said he had "no idea" the Circle Line gathering would spiral so badly out of control...
> 
> Mr Graham's co-organiser Ian Rawlings, 23, an exhibitions executive who lives with his parents in Saffron Walden, said: "We all have very good jobs, we work hard for our money and when we get the chance to spend it we like to spend it."


And my favourite: 





> Witnesses described nightmarish scenes on trains and in stations as drunken people fought and vomited.


Ya. Rly.


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

This one wound me up:

"These sad little cretins know absolutely nothing about politics, political issues or the very serious issues and problems that affect this City. They are pointless little drunks. Grow up and get a job or an education, you tedious morons"

To be fair, this is a slightly better target for this sort of line then when it's directed at, say, mayday protests or anti-arms protest. Even so this sentiment winds me up no end.


----------



## jæd (Jun 2, 2008)

> Witnesses described nightmarish scenes on trains and in stations as drunken people fought and vomited.



I suspect there was more than one party that night...

Personally, Facebook should be banned...


----------



## nosos (Jun 2, 2008)

"Nothing else to do have they? Spend most of their income on rent and idle their life away on facebook. Should of had the party on the track if you ask me."

harsh!


----------



## winjer (Jun 2, 2008)

Evening Boris said:


> Mr Graham, 26, who rents a flat in Fulham High Street in west London, said he had "no idea" the Circle Line gathering would spiral so badly out of control.



hmm. The Facebook event Mr Graham organised started at 1730 at Westminster, and had 170 confirmed guests, hardly comparing to the tens of thousands linked to others, so they're just going after people they can get details of, as ever.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> I probably agree with you more than you think. I would probably think that I'd have thought that the 'party-goers' were numpties too but would have stopped short of wasting a saturday night going to watch their antics.



A waste?  Perhaps... but it didn't mean I had to cancel something else that I would rather have been doing, therefore it was that or stay in and play World of Warcraft.

Un'Goro Crater will be there another day.  The tube party won't.

Interesting how there hasn't been anything seemingly arranged now *after *the ban.  The parties "in Hyde Park and Leicester Square" that was on the front page of the freebie paper this evening don't really count because they aren't on public transport.


----------



## jæd (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Interesting how there hasn't been anything seemingly arranged now *after *the ban.  The parties "in Hyde Park and Leicester Square" that was on the front page of the freebie paper this evening don't really count because they aren't on public transport.



And you can drink in those parks as well...


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

jæd said:


> And you can drink in those parks as well...



Exactly, that's really sticking it to Boris isn't it?


----------



## winjer (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Interesting how there hasn't been anything seemingly arranged now *after *the ban.


Bunch more circle line parties yesterday. You can find the photos and videos for yourself, since you clearly have nothing better to do than lie on here.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 2, 2008)

jæd said:


> And you can drink in those parks as well...



drinking's banned on the streets across westminster, although its at the discretion of police

which means its only banned for poor people in practice


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

winjer said:


> Bunch more circle line parties yesterday. You can find the photos and videos for yourself, since you clearly have nothing better to do than lie on here.



I didn't see any.  Besides, I'm not lying, I'm sitting.


----------



## hipipol (Jun 2, 2008)

*Oh wow*

Bunch of Hoorays get pissed on the tube - massive civil rights issue that

Suppose it beats rioting at Waitrose over Bollinger prices


----------



## emanymton (Jun 2, 2008)

emanymton said:
			
		

> I’ll always support people fighting back against the police as part of real and progressive protest but don’t think we can automatically assume that people fighting back against the police is a good thing.* Can we be certain that the people attacking the police are not the same people who attacked and abused London Underground staff?
> 
> *Well it’s a good thing in that it’s something of a win win situation as far as I’m concerned.





detective-boy said:


> And your reason for discriminating between attacks on one category of person doing their job with attacks on another category of person doing their job is ... ?
> 
> (Clue: The word you are looking for has nine letters and begins with "P")



Sorry been a work all day so this is dragging stuff up from the depths of this thread.

You may notice the phrase ‘fighting back’ in my post, in order to fight back you normally have to be attacked first.

Based on your posts I quite like you and often find myself agreeing with you (I can only assume I’m getting old ) but I don’t expect we will agree on this and frankly I can't be bothered to have a long argument on it so mind if we leave it at that?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

emanymton said:


> You may notice the phrase ‘fighting back’ in my post, in order to fight back you normally have to be attacked first.



I'm not sure you can really qualify 'fighting back' as a response to the police dispersing a crowd that have failed to respond to previous requests to disperse, especially when there didn't appear to be any 'excessive force' used apart from a line to move people.

I didn't see any riot gear, CS gas, pepper spray, batons or horses used in any of the videos I've seen.  You can bet it would have been front page news if they had.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 2, 2008)

> Originally Posted by detective-boy
> And your reason for discriminating between attacks on one category of person doing their job with attacks on another category of person doing their job is ... ?
> 
> (Clue: The word you are looking for has nine letters and begins with "P")



most other people dont routinely assault members of the public whilst doing their job


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 2, 2008)

emanymton said:


> You may notice the phrase ‘fighting back’ in my post, in order to fight back you normally have to be attacked first.


You never met an obnoxious, jobsworth / useless, uninterested tube employee then?


----------



## smokedout (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I'm not sure you can really qualify 'fighting back' as a response to the police dispersing a crowd that have failed to respond to previous requests to disperse, especially when there didn't appear to be any 'excessive force' used apart from a line to move people.
> 
> I didn't see any riot gear, CS gas, pepper spray, batons or horses used in any of the videos I've seen.  You can bet it would have been front page news if they had.



TSG were knocking about but they didnt get to get dressed up


----------



## detective-boy (Jun 2, 2008)

smokedout said:


> most other people dont routinely assault members of the public whilst doing their job


Most don't have to spend their days dealing with obnoxious pricks like you who want a fight from the outset.

(And the phrase you are looking for is "use force on", not "assault".  There is a difference.  You'll no doubt learn it when you graduate from nursery school ...)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> Ban all alcohol from flights as well. There's no need for people to drink, they should not be allowed to *buy* it on a plane.



Buy on a plane?

Fucking proles.

*polishes monocle on cravat and mooches back in to first class lounge


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Buy on a plane?
> 
> Fucking proles.
> 
> *polishes monocle on cravat and mooches back in to first class lounge



Last time I went on an international flight, alcoholic drinks were £3 each.

That's probably more the reason people don't always buy alcohol on a plane.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> SS is another teetotaller sticking their oar in.



For the record I'm teetotall but opose the ban, in case people where thining all tetotallers support it


----------



## emanymton (Jun 2, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> You never met an obnoxious, jobsworth / useless, uninterested tube employee then?



Yeah but they didn't try to hit me on the head with a big stick!


----------



## winjer (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I didn't see any.


As we've already established you're not the most observant nor outgoing of people.


ajdown said:


> Besides, I'm not lying, I'm sitting.


Lies you've posted in this thread and the one in music:
"They weren't protesting though." - they clearly were, and claimed to be
"Most of them didn't realise [drinking] was allowed until they heard it was being banned." - no evidence at all
"most of the exits were locked to contain the crowd" - no-one was locked in at Liverpool St
"a jail sentence for inciting a riot is more fitting." - there was no riot
"Once you get inside the clearly marked boundaries of Liverpool Street station, then no more alcohol." - there are at least two outlets selling alcohol for immediate consumption inside the station
"Within 10 minutes of the Tube being shut, the heavy police presence" - there was only a small police presence for most of the event
"note that a previously non-existant explicit banning of an activity does not mean that it is has, up until that point, been a 'right'." - in English law it means exactly that
"locked in' at Liverpool Street on the main concourse" - as above, no-one was locked in.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Winjer, were you there at Liverpool Street, or not?  Simple question.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Didn't know you were a pilot ...



Haha, Sharp retort.


----------



## winjer (Jun 2, 2008)

Yes I was, as you'd know if you'd bothered to read the thread, e.g.:

"For over two hours there was little more than harsh words exchanged, then 2/3rds a serial of TSG turned up, formed a line with some of the CoLP Level 1s and shoved the remaining crowd towards the Bishopsgate entrance, which as any sane person could have guessed resulted in a bottleneck on the narrow stairs and escalators, some of the crowd took exception, batons drawn, heads cracked, etc.

It wouldn't have taken a great deal of intelligence to realise that the Moorgate end, with its wide ramp would have been a better option than fighting hand-to-ASP _up stairs_..."


----------



## laptop (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:
			
		

> Once you get inside the clearly marked boundaries of Liverpool Street station, then no more alcohol.







?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Then apologies for not being able to remember the content of 800+ posts on this thread alone.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Then apologies for not being able to remember the content of 800+ posts on this thread alone.



But 10% of the comments made are yours!


----------



## ajdown (Jun 2, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> But 10% of the comments made are yours!



740?


----------



## cesare (Jun 2, 2008)

ajdown said:


> 740?



91


----------



## scifisam (Jun 3, 2008)

A quote on another forum:

'What if a group of youngsters trashed a bus and then offered to pay for it, would that be OK?'


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 3, 2008)

This thread is funny. And it makes me want to go on the tube just so I can have a drink. In fact, does anyone fancy a little party on the circle line?


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> 91



You actually went through and counted them?  That's rather sad actually.


----------



## cesare (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You actually went through and counted them?  That's rather sad actually.



That's not very nice. Of course I didn't. If you click on the link to 'posts' it brings up a screen with a breakdown of the posters and how many posts they've made on that thread. 

You've made more than double anyone else. Now at 92 compared to the next, minnie-the-minx, at 40.


----------



## magneze (Jun 3, 2008)

Brainaddict said:


> This thread is funny. And it makes me want to go on the tube just so I can have a drink. In fact, does anyone fancy a little party on the circle line?


Maybe ... is there a facebook event for it?


----------



## Brainaddict (Jun 3, 2008)

Magneze said:


> Maybe ... is there a facebook event for it?


We could make one 



Of course it wouldn't get anywhere near as many people as before because most people don't want to risk arrests or fines, but I'm sure we could still make some people on this thread splutter


----------



## Crispy (Jun 3, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You actually went through and counted them?  That's rather sad actually.


No. Click on the post count in the forum viwe and you get a list of posters and the post count in that thread.


----------



## cesare (Jun 3, 2008)

Crispy said:


> No. Click on the post count in the forum viwe and you get a list of posters and the post count in that thread.



Yes, you've explained it better. It's the 'replies' column.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jun 3, 2008)

Has anybody answered the question about if you would kill yourself by weeing onto the live rail on the underground tracks yet ?


----------



## tippee (Jun 3, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> Has anybody answered the question about if you would kill yourself by weeing onto the live rail on the underground tracks yet ?



I'm still alive.

I've had to stop my train in the 'pipe' to have a slash a few times.


----------



## editor (Jun 3, 2008)

Stoat Boy said:


> Has anybody answered the question about if you would kill yourself by weeing onto the live rail on the underground tracks yet ?


You'd only give your willy the shocks if you managed to provide a constant, solid stream to the rail. If you're splashing it all  over the place _sten gun stylee_ you should be fine, but it's not a nice thing to do anyway.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 3, 2008)

cesare said:


> If you click on the link to 'posts' it brings up a screen with a breakdown of the posters and how many posts they've made on that thread.



Hmm I learnt something new today.


----------



## emanymton (Jun 3, 2008)

Crispy said:


> No. Click on the post count in the forum viwe and you get a list of posters and the post count in that thread.



Oh thats cool


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jun 4, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Last time I went on an international flight, alcoholic drinks were £3 each.
> 
> That's probably more the reason people don't always buy alcohol on a plane.



3 quid? Was that on squeazy Jet?

Last two times I've flown, Air China and China Eastern, all booze has been free.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 4, 2008)

RenegadeDog said:


> 3 quid? Was that on squeazy Jet?
> 
> Last two times I've flown, Air China and China Eastern, all booze has been free.



Same on Delta and US Airways.


----------



## greenfox (Jun 4, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Same on Delta and US Airways.



that is one of the factors that means that I never fly on these airlines - Virgin and BA still offer free drink and both are good for me.

On another matter ajdown are you this person: <editor: URL removed>


----------



## cesare (Jun 4, 2008)

greenfox said:


> that is one of the factors that means that I never fly on these airlines - Virgin and BA still offer free drink and both are good for me.
> 
> On another matter ajdown are you this person: <editor: URL removed> ?



Lol, if it is, then DotCommunist was nearer than he realised:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7550757&postcount=54



Uncanny


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 4, 2008)

cesare said:


> Lol, if it is, then DotCommunist was nearer than he realised:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7550757&postcount=54
> 
> ...



I'd already found that myspace and assumed it was he


----------



## cesare (Jun 4, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd already found that myspace and assumed it was he




ROFL


----------



## editor (Jun 4, 2008)

greenfox said:


> On another matter ajdown are you this person: <editor: URL removed>


Sorry, you're not allowed to post up personal info of posters, even if it is easy to find online.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 4, 2008)

incidentally, my manager got caught up in the party quite by accident, and proclaimed it the best fun he's had in years, and says they should do more of them.

the voice of the man on the street i guess.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 4, 2008)

You really shouldn't use your real name as a board name, aj. Want a different one?


----------



## jæd (Jun 4, 2008)

greenfox said:


> that is one of the factors that means that I never fly on these airlines - Virgin and BA still offer free drink and both are good for me.



At one point BA were giving out two of those little bottles of wine without asking...  Delta have shit service, anyway.



greenfox said:


> On another matter ajdown are you this person: <editor: URL removed>


----------



## ajdown (Jun 4, 2008)

Crispy said:


> You really shouldn't use your real name as a board name, aj. Want a different one?



I could easily re-register a new name should I choose to, but I don't see that I have anything in particular to hide, after all it's not like I'm involved in anything illegal.

Would it make any difference anyway, whatever name I use here people will know it was me whether I tell them or not, because I tend to be a bit out on my own around these parts, although there's still plenty of things that others agree with me on... it's just not those that make the multiple posts and heated arguments.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 4, 2008)

Crispy said:


> You really shouldn't use your real name as a board name, aj. Want a different one?


 

Wenceslas.  give him Wenceslas.


----------



## jæd (Jun 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Wenceslas.  give him Wenceslas.



FamilyGuy would be better...  Or even, UrbanToby  (And yes, I know...)


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2008)

Looks like the tube workers don't give a fuck about Boris's stupid law. Good for them.



> Putting the Tube booze ban to the test
> 
> The booze ban on the capital's transport network has been slammed as an unenforceable "half-baked gimmick designed solely as a publicity stunt".
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 14, 2008)

quietly flouted with the collusion of the staff who don't give a shit. As I had hoped. Good


----------



## ajdown (Jun 14, 2008)

I guess it proves that you can't stop people being antisocial and considerate for their fellow humans travelling with them.

It also shows that very few tube staff seem to have enough pride in their job to enforce the rules either.

It's really a shame, you know, that people think they're being "right on" by challenging laws even thought they are there for everyone's benefit.

Nobody yet has been able to prove any tangiable benefit as to why drinking on the tube is a good thing.


----------



## winjer (Jun 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I guess it proves that you can't stop people being antisocial and considerate for their fellow humans travelling with them.


antisocial
adj

Definition: non-participating; avoiding company
Antonyms: friendly, fun-loving, participating, sociable



ajdown said:


> I tend not to go out in the evenings, by choice.


----------



## ajdown (Jun 14, 2008)

Wrong definition, it's one word not two words hyphenated.


----------



## winjer (Jun 14, 2008)

That makes no sense. But if you'd care to provide your alternative definition...


----------



## editor (Jun 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I guess it proves that you can't stop people being antisocial and considerate for their fellow humans travelling with them.


Remind me what is more "anti social" and "inconsiderate" about quietly drinking from a can of beer as opposed to a water bottle.


----------

