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



## editor (May 5, 2008)

Thank heavens Boris is getting stuck into the really important issues!

Apparently, we can expect drinking on the tube (and, presumably buses) to be banned within a few days.

So there goes one of life's harmless little pleasures.



> Travellers will be banned within days from drinking alcohol on the Tube and the recruitment of 440 extra police officers to patrol trains and station platforms will begin this week. Work will also begin on installing airport-style hand-held scanners and knife arches in stations
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/safe-travel-is-a-priority-says-new-mayor-821117.html


----------



## colacubes (May 5, 2008)

editor said:


> Thank heavens Boris is getting stuck into the really important issues!
> 
> Apparently, we can expect drinking on the tube (and, presumably buses) to be banned within a few days.
> 
> So there goes on of life's harmless little pleasures.



I have to say that I'd much rather he banned people eating KFC/Burger King on the tube  

Generally (in my experience) I've not really come across much trouble from people drinking on the tube/busses.  Pissed people yes, but generally they weren't drinking at the time.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

It's been legal to drink alcohol on public transport up to the ;present!!??


----------



## editor (May 5, 2008)

nipsla said:


> I have to say that I'd much rather he banned people eating KFC/Burger King on the tube


Aye. If he'd come up with a kebab/stinky food ban, I might have been up for it, but the vast majority of people having a can on their way home from work/out for the night are usually no bother at all.

There's enough pissed arseholes on the tube late at night, but the ban isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to their behaviour.



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> It's been legal to drink alcohol on public transport up to the ;present!!??


Yes. And it's been great.


----------



## scifisam (May 5, 2008)

What a wonderful use of public funds.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

editor said:


> Thank heavens Boris is getting stuck into the really important issues!
> 
> Apparently, we can expect drinking on the tube (and, presumably buses) to be banned within a few days.
> 
> So there goes on of life's harmless little pleasures.



What an immense sucker of scabby dogs' cocks the man is.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 5, 2008)

The rest of that article is interesting, especially the ending. There's a hint of the line of attack regarding minority ethnic people and the inner city to come...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

Drinking in a public place has always been illegal here. People are rude, inconsiderate and loud enough on buses, etc, without allowing them to swill alcohol during the ride.


----------



## scifisam (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Drinking in a public place has always been illegal here. People are rude, inconsiderate and loud enough on buses, etc, without allowing them to swill alcohol during the ride.



It really is not a big issue here at all. The problems with drunks on the tube have nothing to do with allowing drinking on there - they're pretty much always drunk before they get on.


----------



## Harold Hill (May 5, 2008)

I actually support this.  Greasy food and phones playing music next please.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

scifisam said:


> It really is not a big issue here at all. The problems with drunks on the tube have nothing to do with allowing drinking on there - they're pretty much always drunk before they get on.



The cops used to turn a blind eye to public drinking, and the level of public disorder was way higher.

They now have a zero tolerance policy, and the public events etc, go off without a hitch in the vast majority of cases.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

I think we already had a big thread about it where the whole issue was explored... but generally, if you're actually _drinking_ on the tube, you're not a problem, yes. You'd have to be on a pretty bloody long tube ride to actually get pissed and obnoxious by drinking on the tube, even allowing for signal failures and diversions to a place you never bloody wanted to go.


----------



## Dhimmi (May 5, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The rest of that article is interesting, especially the ending. There's a hint of the line of attack regarding minority ethnic people and the inner city to come...



Hang on, won't the Muslim community be delighted with this? It'll just fly through too, whereas had Ken done this it'd be attracting the usual flak...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

Is this one of Boris' ideas?

Sounds like the man has his head properly screwed on, if this is an example.


----------



## scifisam (May 5, 2008)

This isn't public drinking - this is drinking on the tube specifically. You don't often see people drinking on the tube anyway - it's not an issue worth spending so much money on. It's not going to lead to a reduction in crime levels, as is claimed.

It'd be a sad day if public drinking were banned outright, for events like the New Year's fireworks and so on.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 5, 2008)

Dhimmi said:


> Hang on, won't the Muslim community be delighted with this? It'll just fly through too, whereas had Ken done this it'd be attracting the usual flak...



Time will tell. I've been wondering the past few days how various agendas are going to attempt to attack, destabilise and in time unseat him.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

scifisam said:


> This isn't public drinking - this is drinking on the tube specifically..



Here, a bus or subway car is defined as a 'public place'.


----------



## scifisam (May 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I think we already had a big thread about it where the whole issue was explored... but generally, if you're actually _drinking_ on the tube, you're not a problem, yes. You'd have to be on a pretty bloody long tube ride to actually get pissed and obnoxious by drinking on the tube, even allowing for signal failures and diversions to a place you never bloody wanted to go.



Yup. This, I expect, if one of the reasons that it is so rare to see drinking on the tube - it's not worth the effort.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Yup. This, I expect, if one of the reasons that it is so rare to see drinking on the tube - it's not worth the effort.



Then you won't miss it if it's made illegal.


----------



## pogofish (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> It's been legal to drink alcohol on public transport up to the ;present!!??



This is up to the individual local authority here.  Some places have had it banned for years, others not.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Drinking in a public place has always been illegal here. People are rude, inconsiderate and loud enough on buses, etc, without allowing them to swill alcohol during the ride.


Except that the vast majority of annoying drunks on the tube are _already_ drunk so this law won't make a tot of difference. 

Hardly anyone drinks on the tube and causes problems. It's just typical clueless Tory empty tubthumping (see: the CJA for more of the same).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

By the way, the worst place I've been for pissed up annoying people on public transport has been Baltimore, where they have public drinking ordinances. Whenever I got on the damn bus there always seemed to be someone stinking of booze next to me, rambling on. For what it's worth.

(I like Baltimore by the way, nothing against the place.)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

editor said:


> Except that the vast majority of annoying drunks on the tube are _already_ drunk so this law won't make a tot of difference.
> 
> Hardly anyone drinks on the tube and causes problems. It's just typical clueless Tory empty tubthumping (see: the CJA for more of the same).



As you know, alcohol is cumulative. If you have a 40 minute tube trip plus a walk before you get to the soccer game, you'll already be on your way to sobering up.

Not the same if you drink right up to the stadium gates.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

pogofish said:


> This is up to the individual local authority here.  Some places have had it banned for years, others not.



I suppose that's true here, too, which is why in the Mormon-controlled prairie towns, there is no alcohol at all.


----------



## JHE (May 5, 2008)

I don't care about the (rather pointless) ban on drinking on the Tube, but the plan to have "440 extra police officers to patrol trains and station platforms" sounds OK.  They will be welcomed by many people - especially by the people (many of them women) who  feel that the Tube is not safe at night.


----------



## teuchter (May 5, 2008)

Who's going to actually enforce it on the trains, then?

Presumably they won't be able to stop you from getting on the tube with a closed can of beer, and then cracking it open once you're on the train.

This is so stupid.


----------



## scifisam (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Then you won't miss it if it's made illegal.



It's more the pointless spending of public funds that concern me - all the extra police he's promising to back this up. 

40 minute tube journeys are not common, especially when you're talking for pleasure purposes rather than work commuting.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> As you know, alcohol is cumulative. If you have a 40 minute tube trip plus a walk before you get to the soccer game, you'll already be on your way to sobering up.
> 
> Not the same if you drink right up to the stadium gates.



Dare I say it, but this is just a tad made up. If you want to drink before a match you don't hang around at home and then suddenly dash there at the last minute  Not unless you've gotten so pissed you forgot.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

scifisam said:


> It's more the pointless spending of public funds that concern me - all the extra police he's promising to back this up.
> .



But you just said that almost no one drinks on the tube, which means it'll take next to no extra police manpower to stop that little bit.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> As you know, alcohol is cumulative. If you have a 40 minute tube trip plus a walk before you get to the soccer game, you'll already be on your way to sobering up.


Wrong way around Johnny. 

People sometimes have a can or two on their way to a football game, but they're rarely any bother at all.

They're far more likely to be loud and annoying _after_ the game when they've spent hours drinking in boozers before and after the pub - so Boris's new law wont make a fucking tot of difference. 

When was the last time you experienced problems with someone _drinking_ as opposed to being drunk on the tube, btw?

I'm afraid I'm hard pushed to think of any instances.


----------



## scifisam (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But you just said that almost no one drinks on the tube, which means it'll take next to no extra police manpower to stop that little bit.



Read the article. He's planning on 440 extra police to back this up.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

scifisam said:


> 40 minute tube journeys are not common, especially when you're talking for pleasure purposes rather than work commuting.



Don't those soccer hooligans have to commute in from the suburbs or something?


----------



## teuchter (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> As you know, alcohol is cumulative. If you have a 40 minute tube trip plus a walk before you get to the soccer game, you'll already be on your way to sobering up.
> 
> Not the same if you drink right up to the stadium gates.



That would only make the slightest bit of sense if the idea was to stop people getting drunk at all. In any case if someone wants to get drunk before a football match they'd get an earlier tube and spend the 40 mins in a pub instead.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Read the article. He's planning on 440 extra police to back this up.



Maybe it's a bigger problem than you thought.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

editor said:


> When was the last time you experienced problems with someone _drinking_ as opposed to being drunk on the tube, btws.



No one drinks on the tube here, because it's illegal, always been illegal.

Like I said, you did get people drinking in public places, usually as a prelude to big events. There were always lots of fights, etc.

Then the cops clamped down, and the fighting etc, dropped right off at these things.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

I know what you're saying about alcohol, but it's been the local experience that a clampdown on drinking in public lead to a decrease in rowdy behaviour. I don't know exactly why, based on the science of alcohol consumption, but I know it to be true.

I recall two different experiences from my callow youth.

One time, we drank some booze, and went to a movie. When we came out, we were on our way to a hangover.

Another time, we snuck some booze into a movie, and came out staggering drunk.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (May 5, 2008)

The trick is in enforcement.

...and then for those who break the law, going through our already over-burdened criminal justice system.

Rather than banning drinking on the tube for everyone, wouldn't it make more sense to asbo the people who drink on the tube and are violent/cause disruption as a result of it? 

That way if they break the asbo they get banged up. Not very liberal I know but my point is that there exist means of dealing with the issue rather than bringing in something new.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

Even in the magical land of Yurp, we don't show films on the tube, and usually, journeys don't last an hour and a half unless you're really unlucky.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

Prince Rhyus said:


> The trick is in enforcement.
> 
> ...and then for those who break the law, going through our already over-burdened criminal justice system.
> 
> ...



The idea of meting out punishments to people when they do things wrong is _so_ 20th century.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Even in the magical land of Yurp, we don't show films on the tube, and usually, journeys don't last an hour and a half unless you're really unlucky.



Did you really not understand the point?

I can spell it out word for word if you didn't.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

Why do people want to drink alcohol on the tube, anyway, if it's not 'preparatory' drinking?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Did you really not understand the point?
> 
> I can spell it out word for word if you didn't.



I _saw_ the point, but I thought it was a bollocks analogy.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I _saw_ the point, but I thought it was a bollocks analogy.



Will it really cause you so much consternation to be separated from your booze for a short tube ride?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

Just shotgun down a few brewskis just before you head out, to tide you over through the journey; then get off the tube, and run to the nearest pub.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Like I said, you did get people drinking in public places, usually as a prelude to big events. There were always lots of fights, etc.
> 
> Then the cops clamped down, and the fighting etc, dropped right off at these things.


And what's this got to do with drinking on the tube?

Problems caused by people actually drinking on the tube (as opposed to already being drunk) really are so small as to be almost insignificant.

But clearly Boris's vote-stirring propaganda is working on you.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Just shotgun down a few brewskis just before you head out, to tide you over through the journey; then get off the tube, and run to the nearest pub.


But you'd be more likely to be drunk on the tube if you wolfed down drinks before getting on the train than if you drank during the actual journey!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

editor said:


> But clearly Boris's vote-stirring propaganda is working on you.



What he's doing is consistent with the way the law is in NA. Perhaps he sees it as a small step to curbing the creeping social disorder that you seem to be undergoing.


----------



## gaijingirl (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Why do people want to drink alcohol on the tube, anyway, if it's not 'preparatory' drinking?



I had a gin and tonic on the train today - served by the train staff.  I'd been on a long day cycling and fancied a drink on my way home.  The lady in front of me was having a can of beer.  Quite normal - neither of us "preparatory" drinking - just enjoying a drink on our way home.  Sometimes I'll do the same on a tube or bus - although I'd be less likely to as it would generally be a shorter journey.

I don't do it very often.. but then I very rarely see people drinking on the tube at all...

This whole policy is just a complete waste of time, energy and public money that could be so much better spent.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

editor said:


> But you'd be more likely to be drunk if you wolfed down drinks before getting on the tube than if you drank during the journey!



That's true. I"m just putting that out there as a pragmatic solution for all those who will become anxious if they are separated from their beer for the whole length of a tube ride.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

gaijingirl said:


> I had a gin and tonic on the train today - served by the train staff. .



Things have changed. When I was last on the London Underground, there were no waiters serving drinks.

Maybe I was on the wrong car?


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2008)

Stupid cunting fuck.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

gaijingirl said:


> I had a gin and tonic on the train today - served by the train staff.  I'd been on a long day cycling and fancied a drink on my way home.  The lady in front of me was having a can of beer.  Quite normal - neither of us "preparatory" drinking - just enjoying a drink on our way home.  Sometimes I'll do the same on a tube or bus - although I'd be less likely to as it would generally be a shorter journey..



Can you drink on the tube in Tokyo?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What he's doing is consistent with the way the law is in NA. Perhaps he sees it as a small step to curbing the creeping social disorder that you seem to be undergoing.



Because clearly the US has no issues with drugs and alcohol.


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Can you drink on the tube in Tokyo?



When they're not looking . . .


----------



## Harold Hill (May 5, 2008)

Whats wrong with banning it because it stinks.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Because clearly the US has no issues with drugs and alcohol.



Can you legally take drugs on the tube also, or are you just augmenting the argument with irrelevancies?


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2008)

Harold Hill said:


> Whats wrong with banning it because it stinks.



We haven't banned you yet.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2008)

gaijingirl said:


> I don't do it very often.. but then I very rarely see people drinking on the tube at all...


Johnny: please read and understand this point. Drinking on the tube is not that common and people causing trouble while drinking is even rarer.

The clueless Boris wildly exaggerated the whole 'threat' of rampaging drinkers on the tube to garner votes.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Because clearly the US has no issues with drugs and alcohol.



No soccer hooligans.


----------



## gaijingirl (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Things have changed. When I was last on the London Underground, there were no waiters serving drinks.
> 
> Maybe I was on the wrong car?




I don't know how you refer to them where you are, but trains and tubes are different things here.. that's why I said that I had the G&T on the train.... and sometimes I will also drink on the tube or bus (the three being separate forms of transport).

(ETA.. I'm in London btw).


----------



## scifisam (May 5, 2008)

Harold Hill said:


> Whats wrong with banning it because it stinks.



It seems rather a lot of money to spend on something which is going to make no difference to crime and 'anti-social behaviour.' That's what's wrong.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Can you legally take drugs on the tube also, or are you just augmenting the argument with irrelevancies?


Illegal drugs are illegal wherever they are taken, so your point is just a tad facile.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

editor said:


> . Drinking on the tube is not that common and people causing trouble while drinking is even rarer.
> 
> The clueless Boris wildly exaggerated the whole 'threat' of rampaging drinkers on the tube to garner votes.



If it is so rare as you make it out to be, then the London electorate really must be stupid sheeple to believe such propaganda.

It would be like campaigning on a promise to rid the Capital of rampaging hyenas. Most people wouldn't be fooled by such an obvious fabrication.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

editor said:


> Illegal drugs are illegal wherever they are taken, so your point is just a tad facile.



But we're talking about the merit, or lack thereof, of banning alcohol consumption on public transportation.

How do illegal drugs enter into it?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If it is so rare as you make it out to be, then the London electorate really must be stupid sheeple to believe such propaganda.
> 
> It would be like campaigning on a promise to rid the Capital of rampaging hyenas. Most people wouldn't be fooled by such an obvious fabrication.



Is there the slightest bit of evidence that the London electorate thinks this is a good idea? This wasn't even in his manifesto.


----------



## Harold Hill (May 5, 2008)

scifisam said:


> It seems rather a lot of money to spend on something which is going to make no difference to crime and 'anti-social behaviour.' That's what's wrong.



I'm not sure the extra officers are just to enforce a no alcohol rule though are they.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Is there the slightest bit of evidence that the London electorate thinks this is a good idea? This wasn't even in his manifesto.



You should have a word with the boss, then.



> 05-05-2008, 15:23
> editor
> with Dynamic Tension   Join Date: Dec 2000
> Location: high in a tower block
> ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But we're talking about the merit, or lack thereof, of banning alcohol consumption on public transportation.
> 
> How do illegal drugs enter into it?



You should be on TV, you've got this down pat 

Stop talking about drugs, it's irrelevant. I might have said "drugs and alcohol"; the drugs wasn't relevant, you're just picking it up to avoid talking about alcohol.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You should be on TV, you've got this down pat
> 
> Stop talking about drugs, it's irrelevant.



Are you and the editor doing some sort of Laurel and Hardy routine here?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You should be on TV, you've got this down pat
> .



p.s My name isn't Pat.


----------



## Dhimmi (May 5, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Time will tell. I've been wondering the past few days how various agendas are going to attempt to attack, destabilise and in time unseat him.



Well I'm not a Londoner so I have a simplistic viewpoint on it. Boris will end up getting the blame for the cash sinkhole the Olympics are set to become, and if, as looks likely, the Tories are back at No10 by then so will they. Very similar to how the Millennium Dome, created by Tories, was blamed on Nu Labour but with a multiplying factor.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You should be on TV, you've got this down pat
> 
> Stop talking about drugs, it's irrelevant. I might have said "drugs and alcohol"; the drugs wasn't relevant, you're just picking it up to avoid talking about alcohol.



I wanted to talk about alcohol, but ed started maundering about illegal drugs.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

Dhimmi said:


> Well I'm not a Londoner so I have a simplistic viewpoint on it. Boris will end up getting the blame for the cash sinkhole the Olympics are set to become, and if, as looks likely, the Tories are back at No10 by then so will they. Very similar to how the Millennium Dome, created by Tories, was blamed on Nu Labour but with a multiplying factor.



Boris will also get blamed for Global Warming, and also the Tibetan Genocide.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But we're talking about the merit, or lack thereof, of banning alcohol consumption on public transportation.
> 
> How do illegal drugs enter into it?


So, you admit that your argument for banning drinking on the tube fell apart in little pieces when you suggested wolfing down a load of booze before making the journey, yes?

And how is Boris's argument any different?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

Dhimmi said:


> Well I'm not a Londoner so I have a simplistic viewpoint on it. Boris will end up getting the blame for the cash sinkhole the Olympics are set to become, and if, as looks likely, the Tories are back at No10 by then so will they. Very similar to how the Millennium Dome, created by Tories, was blamed on Nu Labour but with a multiplying factor.



I think that is basically right, but there is a slight difference to the Dome thing, in that, under the current system, mayors really aren't going to be able to reject the Olympics; they'd lose the support of so many people they need to impress to stay active. (Not that this is a good thing.) They might manage it better or worse but even in the best case, it's still going to be a massively over-spent piece of crap. The Dome, on the other hand, was much more a discretionary affair.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I wanted to talk about alcohol, but ed started maundering about illegal drugs.


You mentioned drugs before me actually, and I was _quoting your post._


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2008)

The Olympics is a stupid pointless waste of drugs and should be relocated to Luton.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

editor said:


> So, you admit that your argument for banning drinking on the tube fell apart in little pieces when you suggested wolfing down a load of booze before making the journey, yes?
> 
> And how is Boris's argument any different?



No. My 'argument' was a sop to confirmed alcoholics who couldn't face a tube trip without an alcoholic load on.

I think most normal people can withstand a tube trip without a beer clutched in their sweaty mitts.


----------



## 8ball (May 5, 2008)

It's good to have a brew in your hand when dealing with the Tube.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think most normal people can withstand a tube trip without a beer clutched in their sweaty mitts.


Most normal people have no problem enjoying a can on the tube too.

If you think banning it is such a good idea and worth the expenditure involved in enforcing it, perhaps you could produce some figures concerning the problems caused by people drinking on the tube please?

Remember, people getting on who are already drunk don't count!

So, what stats have you got? There's certainly not much empiric evidence to be found here though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No. My 'argument' was a sop to confirmed alcoholics who couldn't face a tube trip without an alcoholic load on.
> 
> I think most normal people can withstand a tube trip without a beer clutched in their sweaty mitts.



I can withstand a whole _lifetime_ without having a drink, but I don't want to and I don't see any reason why I should. Or why some twat should tell me I have to.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

8ball said:


> The Olympics is a stupid pointless waste of drugs and should be relocated to Luton.



This is problematic because while I'm not a fan of Luton, it's not done anything to deserve having the Olympics.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

editor said:


> You mentioned drugs before me actually, and I was _quoting your post._



Apologies to you: it was Fridgemagnet who first expanded it to 'drugs and alcohol'. I thought it was you.

Fridgemagnet. I should have known.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I can withstand a whole _lifetime_ without having a drink, but I don't want to and I don't see any reason why I should. Or why some twat should tell me I have to.



There are all sorts of legal constraints on alcohol consumption.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> There are all sorts of legal constraints on alcohol consumption.



There are all sorts of different birds - finches, crows, the parrot family....


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

editor said:


> Most normal people have no problem enjoying a can on the tube too.
> 
> If you think banning it is such a good idea and worth the expenditure involved in enforcing it, perhaps you could produce some figures concerning the problems caused by people drinking on the tube please?
> 
> ...



What evidence do you have that it_ won't_ be of assistance.


p.s. My opinion is based on the experience here, between the days when such public alcohol consumption was tolerated, and now, when it isn't.

So I at least have _some_ evidence for my position.


----------



## Dhimmi (May 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I think that is basically right, but there is a slight difference to the Dome thing, in that, under the current system, mayors really aren't going to be able to reject the Olympics; they'd lose the support of so many people they need to impress to stay active. (Not that this is a good thing.) They might manage it better or worse but even in the best case, it's still going to be a massively over-spent piece of crap. The Dome, on the other hand, was much more a discretionary affair.



Good point, it was just a convenient and similar example. 

I think the key to get Boris out is preparation, although I haven't heard what Ken's plans are. Does anyone know? Labour could look very different by the time of the next Mayoral Election though so whether he'd get to be the official candidate I couldn't say.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There are all sorts of different birds - finches, crows, the parrot family....



You've been into the sauce already, haven't you.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You've been into the sauce already, haven't you.



It's my little suggestion that you might be just stating something without it being relevant.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 5, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's my little suggestion that you might be just stating something without it being relevant.



But you'd be incorrect, which is why I made the comment about the sauce.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

Dhimmi said:


> Good point, it was just a convenient and similar example.
> 
> I think the key to get Boris out is preparation, although I haven't heard what Ken's plans are. Does anyone know? Labour could look very different by the time of the next Mayoral Election though so whether he'd get to be the official candidate I couldn't say.



No, I've not heard... but at this rate I doubt he'd stand as a Labour candidate next time (well, next time the mayoral elections come around, NL will be even more fucked than they are now). In fact I imagine he'll be trying to disassociate himself from them as much as possible.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> p.s. My opinion is based on the experience here, between the days when such public alcohol consumption was tolerated, and now, when it isn't.
> 
> So I at least have _some_ evidence for my position.


Actually, it seems you have precisely _zero_ contemporary evidence or personal experience of the supposed 'issue' that the new law is dealing with.

Maybe you should ponder that awhile before continuing to debate the issue with people who regularly get the tube?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 5, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But you'd be incorrect, which is why I made the comment about the sauce.



Sophistry is all very fun but basically, the thing is, you've made some weird claims about drinking behaviour which don't stand up, and now you've fallen back on "well I think it happened here X years ago so it must be true".


----------



## story (May 5, 2008)

When I worked on building sites, I'd have a beer on the Tube on the way home to wash the dust out of my throat and settle me after a long hard physical day. Then I'd have a cup of tea when I got home. I know for a certain fact that this is not uncommon amongst builders, painters etc.

These days, if I've had to come home from work and then straightaway go out to a social event, I'll have a beer on the Tube as a way of changing gear. I mostly only do this if I've had to make a quick turn around between work and going out. I don't do it because I can't wait to have a beer, it's because I fancy a beer. Again, this is not uncommon.



Most drunkards who travel on the Tube appear to be office workers, not football fans. They are not drinking on the Tube, they are already very drunk when they get on. They are desperately hanging on to their motor skills after a long boozy night in some wine bar next door to work where he embarrassed himself trying to chat up Sarah Jane from Accounts, and now he's going home to collapse on the sofa and not eat the kebab he bought on the way home and in the morning he'll wake up and not be able to find his shoe and then be late to work because he threw up after brushing his teeth and had to brush them again. And tonight he'll go back to the wine bar because today was so very very rubbish, and he'll do it all over again.


----------



## Dhimmi (May 6, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No, I've not heard... but at this rate I doubt he'd stand as a Labour candidate next time (well, next time the mayoral elections come around, NL will be even more fucked than they are now). In fact I imagine he'll be trying to disassociate himself from them as much as possible.



Well I'm not so sure, he's very loyal to the Labour party, and London. 

I'm guessing he'd stand for Brent East MP again where he's still widely supported, regain the seat from LibDems, and possibly stand again for mayor when the time comes. Although being in his early sixties he might jump at the chance of retiring...


----------



## soulman (May 6, 2008)

It wouldn't surprise me if he had a 'holiday home' tucked away somewhere warm, and a speaking circuit to keep him in the style to which he will become accustomed.


----------



## citydreams (May 6, 2008)

Ken was quoted before the election that if he lost he would start work on his memoirs, right after walking his kids to school as a man with time on his hands.


----------



## citydreams (May 6, 2008)

story said:


> When I worked on building sites, I'd have a beer on the Tube on the way home to wash the dust out of my throat and settle me after a long hard physical day. ..



Aye, there's no way I'm going to stop necking a cold can after a back-busting day.  

Can't see the Circle Line parties happening again though.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 6, 2008)

Dhimmi said:


> Well I'm not so sure, he's very loyal to the Labour party, and London.
> 
> I'm guessing he'd stand for Brent East MP again where he's still widely supported, regain the seat from LibDems, and possibly stand again for mayor when the time comes. Although being in his early sixties he might jump at the chance of retiring...



Not a chance, with the boundary changes the fight is Sarah Teather versus Dawn Butler. Butler is part of Harriet Harman's faction and is not going to be deselected for Ken.

I could see Ken being offered a peerage not sure he'd take it though...


----------



## soulman (May 6, 2008)

He's done his bit for capitalism so why shouldn't he enjoy his retirement. At least he won't be working until he's 70.


----------



## citydreams (May 6, 2008)

soulman said:


> He's done his bit for capitalism so why shouldn't he enjoy his retirement. At least he won't be working until he's 70.



I don't understand what you're getting at. What's he done for capitalism?  

And he's 62.  He could have retired two years ago.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 6, 2008)

I havn't read the whole of this thread but I was a little shocked when I read the OP. There seems to be a continuous drip drip attack on liberties in this city. I gave up smoking last year at the time of the smoking  ban in pubs and I can see some use to that because it has helped me to kick an unhealthy habit,  but still I'm not happy with the whole fucking clampdown situation. 

This is a stupid measure. I havn't had a drink on a tube train for years but it makes me want to have a beer on a train immediately. 

I hate the clampdown.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 6, 2008)

toblerone3 said:


> I havn't read the whole of this thread but I was a little shocked when I read the OP. There seems to be a continuous drip drip attack on liberties in this city. I gave up smoking last year at the time of the smoking  ban in pubs and I can see some use to that because it has helped me to kick an unhealthy habit,  but still I'm not happy with the whole fucking clampdown situation.
> 
> This is a stupid measure. I havn't had a drink on a tube train for years but it makes me want to have a beer on a train immediately.
> 
> I hate the clampdown.



It is my "liberty" not to have people sitting around on the train and to have clean air in restaurants, bars and offices.  My "liberties" are as important as yours.   

Here, as was pointed out by JC, we don't drink in public places.  That includes parks, buses - anywhere that has public assess.  For us, this is civilizated.  I found it very strange that you embrace this as a personal freedom.  It makes the the UK seems a little backward, imo.


----------



## Nixon (May 6, 2008)

toblerone3 said:


> I havn't read the whole of this thread but I was a little shocked when I read the OP. There seems to be a continuous drip drip attack on liberties in this city. I gave up smoking last year at the time of the smoking  ban in pubs and I can see some use to that because it has helped me to kick an unhealthy habit,  but still I'm not happy with the whole fucking clampdown situation.
> 
> This is a stupid measure. I havn't had a drink on a tube train for years but it makes me want to have a beer on a train immediately.
> 
> I hate the clampdown.



This.


----------



## citydreams (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> For us, this is civilizated.



Civilizated? Not much chance of saying that after a few! 

Never heard the term before.  Are you a civilizion?


----------



## spring-peeper (May 6, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Civilizated? Not much chance of saying that after a few!
> 
> Never heard the term before.  Are you a civilizion?



My apologies for the incorrect spelling - had this problem all my life now so I've learned to accept it.  Keep forgetting that others see the words differently.

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting here.


----------



## editor (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> It is my "liberty" not to have people sitting around on the train and to have clean air in restaurants, bars and offices.


Could you explain what liberties of yours are being infringed on when someone on a train decides to quietly  have a can of beer after a hard day at work? 


spring-peeper said:


> For us, this is civilizated.


Help! What are you doing to our language?!!


----------



## citydreams (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> My apologies for the incorrect spelling - had this problem all my life now so I've learned to accept it.  Keep forgetting that others see the words differently.
> 
> Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting here.



Chill!  The word comes up under a google search


----------



## spring-peeper (May 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Could you explain what liberties of yours are being infringed on when someone on a train decides to quietly  have a can of beer after a hard day at work?
> Help! What are you doing to our language?!!



None.  I've never seen anyone drink on your public transportation system before, so it came as a complete shock that it was legal.

You seem to have a much more lax attitude about drinking over there - here alcohol is kept out of the public view.   In Ontario, all alcohol (open or closed) must be carried in the boot - it is the law.

You see it as a freedom - I can accept that.  I can also accept that when in Texas, drinking and driving is accepted.  I remember one time when the State tried to ban it and the population claimed it was their right, and won.

Different countries, different cultures.

Oh - and sorry about the assault on your language.  It was unintentionally.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 6, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Chill!  The word comes up under a google search



Really ...  

Bet it gives to correct spelling, though - doesn't it?

I usually check all my stuff - it's just that I still can't get my head around the fact you can drink on public transport.  It was a total surprise.


----------



## Yossarian (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> None.  I've never seen anyone drink on your public transportation system before, so it came as a complete shock that it was legal.



There was a pretty good selection of alcoholic drinks for sale last time I took VIA rail...


----------



## Dhimmi (May 6, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Not a chance, with the boundary changes the fight is Sarah Teather versus Dawn Butler. Butler is part of Harriet Harman's faction and is not going to be deselected for Ken.
> 
> I could see Ken being offered a peerage not sure he'd take it though...



Ahhhhh. Thanks for the insight.


----------



## Tricky Mickey (May 6, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I can withstand a whole _lifetime_ without having a drink, but I don't want to and I don't see any reason why I should. Or why some twat should tell me I have to.



Nail/head. This is what makes me laugh. Tories are forever going on about the nanny state, when they are the worst culprits of all for it. 

It's just populism, of the most craven, ill-considered kind. And we'll be seeing lots more of it.


----------



## bluestreak (May 6, 2008)

I think a lot of you are missign connections here.

This is a typical politician's solution.  Firstly, we take two problems that exist amongst the electorate.

1. fears of anti-social behaviour.
2. decreased taking in pubs.

by banning drinking on the tube, we neatly appear to be dealing with the first, whilse hopefully dealing with the second.

in the end, the sort of people who drink on tubes now and again are people like urbanites.  let's say i'm going to a gig.  i want a couple of beers first.  having one can of £1 beer saves me buying a can of £3.50 beer in the venue.  now it's illegal.  i'm not allowed to save money.  in fact, if i have the cheek to try, i could get nicked and fined.

meanwhile, of course, people who cause ASB won't take the blindest bits of notice.  result, no change in crime, increased takings in the venues, and anyone unlucky enough to be nicked for having a can on the way to a gig gets added to the stats for resolution and punishment of what is now ASB but before was quiet peaceful behaviour.

incidentally, the reason there were threatened tube strikes recently is because london underground are removing staff from smaller stations to save money, leaving unmanned stations and of course the fear of ASB.  how can london afford more transport police but less station workers.  station workers are cheaper?

another bit of traing the british public to do as they're told.


----------



## wtfftw (May 6, 2008)

What about buses? I can't be dealing with the tube.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Actually, it seems you have precisely _zero_ contemporary evidence or personal experience of the supposed 'issue' that the new law is dealing with.
> 
> Maybe you should ponder that awhile before continuing to debate the issue with people who regularly get the tube?



Say what you will, but in fact, we had public drinking here, then it was stopped, and the level of public disorder went down.

I know you want to ignore that, and call it 'zero evidence', because it goes against the grain of your dislike for Boris, but there it is. It is the truth.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Sophistry is all very fun but basically, the thing is, you've made some weird claims about drinking behaviour which don't stand up, and now you've fallen back on "well I think it happened here X years ago so it must be true".



It is true: it did happen here, and not so long ago that I think either basic human nature, nor organic chemistry, has changed in the interim.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

toblerone3 said:


> I havn't read the whole of this thread but I was a little shocked when I read the OP. There seems to be a continuous drip drip attack on liberties in this city. I gave up smoking last year at the time of the smoking  ban in pubs and I can see some use to that because it has helped me to kick an unhealthy habit,  but still I'm not happy with the whole fucking clampdown situation.
> 
> This is a stupid measure. I havn't had a drink on a tube train for years but it makes me want to have a beer on a train immediately.
> 
> I hate the clampdown.



Unfortunately, your people dont seem to be handling their liberties very well; the place is slowly slipping into social disorder.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Help! What are you doing to our language?!!



I think she's dyslexic. Good show, guvnor!


----------



## citydreams (May 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Say what you will, but in fact, we had public drinking here, then it was stopped, and the level of public disorder went down.



Or they took it somewhere else...?  

Do you have the 'binge drinking' culture over there Johnny?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> There was a pretty good selection of alcoholic drinks for sale last time I took VIA rail...



You can also drink on Air Canada. I think you can discern the difference.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Or they took it somewhere else...?
> 
> Do you have the 'binge drinking' culture over there Johnny?



Yes, they can get shitfaced at home, at friends', and at any of numerous drinking establishments.

They can't get shitfaced in public places or events.

The liberty of drinking and drinkers is tempered and counterbalanced by the liberty of those not drinking at the moment, not to have drunk and disorderly people in their midst.

We have drinking, even heavy drinking. But if by 'binge drinking culture' you mean those pictures I see of your town centers filled with puking and fighting louts, the men shirtless and the women flailing on the ground, their miniskirts awry, then in general, no.


----------



## citydreams (May 6, 2008)

So, I'm guessing drinking at a picnic in a park is banned too?


----------



## Yossarian (May 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> We have drinking, even heavy drinking. But if by 'binge drinking culture' you mean those pictures I see of your town centers filled with puking and fighting louts, the men shirtless and the women flailing on the ground, their miniskirts awry, then in general, no.


 
Ever spent a Friday night in Hull, Quebec?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> Ever spent a Friday night in Hull, Quebec?



No. Ever spent Saturday night on Granville Street? Same thing, I think. But those spectacles aren't the typical Canadian experience, and there are specific reasons in each case for their existence.


----------



## citydreams (May 6, 2008)

Hmm...  



			
				Canada Daily said:
			
		

> Cannabis cultivation, otherwise known as marijuana grow operations, has more than doubled over the past decade, from 3,400 incidents in 1994 to more than 8,000 incidents last year. The rate of cocaine-related incidents increased by 17% in 2004, numbering nearly 17,000.


http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

JHE said:


> I don't care about the (rather pointless) ban on drinking on the Tube, but the plan to have "440 extra police officers to patrol trains and station platforms" sounds OK.  They will be welcomed by many people - especially by the people (many of them women) who  feel that the Tube is not safe at night.



By the sounds of all the assaults, robberies etc that you have, 440 additional cops sounds like a middling-to-weak start at a fix.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Hmm...
> 
> http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm



Yep, lots of drugs here.

I know you have a point.


----------



## citydreams (May 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> By the sounds of all the assaults, robberies etc that you have, 440 additional cops sounds like a middling-to-weak start at a fix.



They're not on the tubes.  We had incidents of "steaming" a good few years ago.  But that's changed since the days of CCTV.

TfL carries out surveys on personal safety and they all show year on year improvements.  

The main concern is for the journey between the station and home.  Not on the tube itself.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

citydreams said:


> They're not on the tubes.  We had incidents of "steaming" a good few years ago.  But that's changed since the days of CCTV.
> 
> TfL carries out surveys on personal safety and they all show year on year improvements.
> 
> The main concern is for the journey between the station and home.  Not on the tube itself.



How about happy slapping.

And personally, I'd rather live in a society with restrictions on public drinking, than in one where I'm basically watched 24 hours a day over cc cameras by faceless security personnel.


----------



## Yossarian (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Here, as was pointed out by JC, we don't drink in public places. That includes parks, buses - anywhere that has public assess. For us, this is civilizated. I found it very strange that you embrace this as a personal freedom. It makes the the UK seems a little backward, imo.


 
I don't see what's so civilized about having a government that has to bring in laws to stop people drinking in public because it doesn't trust the populace to behave.

Windsor's bringing in a 'no puking in public' law:
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourn...=bcc4a327-0583-416a-84e3-bb6b15df8915&k=13395

That's not because Windsor's a step further down the road to civilization than cities without similar laws, it's because on weekend nights Oullette Avenue is full of teenage drinkers from over the border who can't handle their beer spraying pavement pizzas everywhere. (a little bit like Hull, Quebec...)


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> I don't see what's so civilized about having a government that has to bring in laws to stop people drinking in public because it doesn't trust the populace to behave..



Those laws have always been on the books here. Seems it's _your_ govt bringing in laws to stop people drinking in public because it doesn't trust people to behave..


As to the second part of your post, like I said, there are specific reasons. In Windsor's case, it's a huge load of boorish Amercian youth coming across to drink cheap Moosehead or whatever, and to act like asses in ways that would get them tossed in the clink back home.

In Vancouver, it's because the idiot council decided to concentrate a large number of bars and nightclubs in a four block strip, then extend drinking hours to 4 am, while the surrounding municipalities didn't.

That meant a flood of Surreyites and other suburbans, like a canadian version of the loutish american, flooding downtown to drink all night, and fight and puke and fuck in alleys. So our policing costs have gone up, while Surrey is laughing. Bastards!

In Hull, it's probably some mix of american louts and French Canadians that is the problem.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

Would something like this have been possible without London drinking?


----------



## citydreams (May 6, 2008)

I think that might have been Moonshine


----------



## Yossarian (May 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> In Hull, it's probably some mix of american louts and French Canadians that is the problem.


 
It's the Anglos from over the border in Ontario - drinking age is a year lower in Quebec and the bars stay open a couple of hours later than the ones in Ottawa. Pretty good poutine stands too, from what I can remember...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> It's the Anglos from over the border in Ontario - drinking age is a year lower in Quebec and the bars stay open a couple of hours later than the ones in Ottawa. Pretty good poutine stands too, from what I can remember...



Exactly, it's always something like that.

But the streets of Toronto are pretty orderly on a Saturday night.







Boring fuckers....


----------



## Yossarian (May 6, 2008)

Downtown can get pretty rowdy on a Saturday, but places are pretty spread out so you don't get quite the same concentration of drunks you might see in other cities.

Looks like the real action's in the Skydome: 

http://www.blogto.com/sports_play/2008/04/blue_jays_ban_beer/


----------



## bluestreak (May 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> By the sounds of all the assaults, robberies etc that you have, 440 additional cops sounds like a middling-to-weak start at a fix.



it's really not that bad.  you make it sound like south central around here!


----------



## bluestreak (May 6, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I think a lot of you are missign connections here.
> 
> This is a typical politician's solution.  Firstly, we take two problems that exist amongst the electorate.
> 
> ...



also, i thought this was very intelligent, but no-one seems to agree or disgree


----------



## ymu (May 6, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> also, i thought this was very intelligent, but no-one seems to agree or disgree


I agree, but I didn't have anything else to add so I didn't say so. 

Johnny seems to disagree though.



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You can also drink on Air Canada. I think you can discern the difference.



I think he's saying public drinking is OK when there's a profit to be made but scumbags doing it on the cheap must be stopped for the sake of capit...errr...society.


----------



## Yossarian (May 6, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> in the end, the sort of people who drink on tubes now and again are people like urbanites.  let's say i'm going to a gig.  i want a couple of beers first.  having one can of £1 beer saves me buying a can of £3.50 beer in the venue.  now it's illegal.  i'm not allowed to save money.  in fact, if i have the cheek to try, i could get nicked and fined.



Yep, this sounds right. There's no toilets on the trains anyway so it's not as if anybody is likely to bring a dozen cans onto the Circle Line or something and settle in for a day's heavy drinking. Maybe they should just bring back the platform pubs...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 6, 2008)

Harold Hill said:


> I actually support this.  Greasy food and phones playing music next please.



^^^^^^wot he said


In Hong Kong you can't eat or drink on the tube and it's lovely. Clean & tidy, tidy & clean.


----------



## DJ Squelch (May 6, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> Yep, this sounds right. There's no toilets on the trains anyway so it's not as if anybody is likely to bring a dozen cans onto the Circle Line or something and settle in for a day's heavy drinking. Maybe they should just bring back the platform pubs...



Another reason for banning it. People drinking on ther tube will need a piss sooner & if they're stuck in the carriage they have to go there or on the station platform if their tubes about to arrive and the nearest toilet is in the ticket hall. Also each year a few drunk people fall on the tracks / in front of trains, I know they were probably drunk before getting on the tube but allowing drinking on the tube only increases the chances of it occuring. 

I know it wont make much difference to drunken behavoiur on trains but certainly puts forward the right message. If you want to have a drink before a gig then just get there a bit earlier.


----------



## editor (May 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> We have drinking, even heavy drinking. But if by 'binge drinking culture' you mean those pictures I see of your town centers filled with puking and fighting louts, the men shirtless and the women flailing on the ground, their miniskirts awry, then in general, no.


All of which has precious little to do with drinking on the tube.


Johnny Canuck2 said:


> By the sounds of all the assaults, robberies etc that you have, 440 additional cops sounds like a middling-to-weak start at a fix.


Assaults and robberies on the tube are down year on year. It's even safer than Perth's transit system!


Johnny Canuck2 said:


> How about happy slapping.


What about it? It's a minor trend that's all but vanished and very little of it took place on the tube.


DJ Squelch said:


> Also each year a few drunk people fall on the tracks / in front of trains, I know they were probably drunk before getting on the tube but allowing drinking on the tube only increases the chances of it occuring.


Sounds like you want people to take a breathalyser test before they're allowed to get on the tube.


----------



## story (May 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Say what you will, but in fact, we had public drinking here, then it was stopped, and the level of public disorder went down.
> 
> I know you want to ignore that, and call it 'zero evidence', because it goes against the grain of your dislike for Boris, but there it is. It is the truth.



I wonder if the figures for domestic abuse, drunk driving, assault, and alcohol related hospital admissions went down in the same period or up?

I mean, are you saying that drinking went down because public drinking went down? Or did it just become less obvious?





Johnny Canuck2 said:


> By the sounds of all the assaults, robberies etc that you have, 440 additional cops sounds like a middling-to-weak start at a fix.



The Tube really isn't *that* unsafe.



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Those laws have always been on the books here. Seems it's _your_ govt bringing in laws to stop people drinking in public because it doesn't trust people to behave..
> 
> 
> As to the second part of your post, like I said, there are specific reasons. In Windsor's case, it's a huge load of boorish Amercian youth coming across to drink cheap Moosehead or whatever, and to act like asses in ways that would get them tossed in the clink back home.
> ...



These are all specific details of particular instances. We have them too.

In the same way that we can only see Canada in a broad sense, so you can only see the UK from a general point of view.

Specifics are important.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 6, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> I don't see what's so civilized about having a government that has to bring in laws to stop people drinking in public because it doesn't trust the populace to behave.
> 
> Windsor's bringing in a 'no puking in public' law:
> http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourn...=bcc4a327-0583-416a-84e3-bb6b15df8915&k=13395
> ...



I'm 45 minutes from Hull - it's on the Quebec/Ontario border (Hull is just over the bridge from Ottawa).  Most border towns are the same - here the kids go to Grenville (again, just across a bridge).

Quebec and Ontario have different drinking laws.  The bars stay open longer than in Ontario and the legal drinking age is less.  This is one of the main reasons that this area is so bad. 

I don't think that the drinking laws are in place because we do not think that our drunks are out of control.  It's more along the lines of a family values kind of thing.  No drinking in public.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> In Hull, it's probably some mix of american louts and French Canadians that is the problem.



No, that is not the problem.  Very few americans.  

And why single out the French Canadians?  The English Canadians are just as bad.  Please keep your prejudices out of it.


----------



## Roadkill (May 6, 2008)

This is a nonsense proposal.  As several others have suggested, the overwhelming majority of people who do have a drink on the tube do so quietly and without causing a problem, and the small number who do make trouble are invariably pissed before they get on.  Banning drinking on the tube will achieve nothing beyond penalising a whole lot of people for the mistakes of a tiny minority.


----------



## citydreams (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> I don't think that the drinking laws are in place because we do not think that our drunks are out of control.  It's more along the lines of a family values kind of thing.  No drinking in public.



Where are the _family values _in not drinking in public?  It's ok to do _bad_ things at home, but not where other people can see you?


----------



## gabi (May 6, 2008)

Drinking on trains/tubes is one of the small things that make me love London. Friends who come over from the US or NZ etc can't believe we get away with that.

Next he'll be trying to ban people drinking on the street outside pubs. Cunt.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 6, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Where are the _family values _in not drinking in public?  It's ok to do _bad_ things at home, but not where other people can see you?



Totally mystifies me - that is how it was explained to me when I questioned it. 

Maybe it has something to do with the Canadian attitude about not offending others by your actions.  Seeing others walking down the street or sitting on a train drinking could be termed as offensive to certain religions/ex-alcoholics or any one trying to raise their kids to see that alcohol is not a necessary part of your life.


----------



## editor (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Seeing others walking down the street or sitting on a train drinking could be termed as offensive to certain religions/ex-alcoholics or any one trying to raise their kids to see that alcohol is not a necessary part of your life.


How's that any different to kids seeing adults having a bottle of wine at at the restaurant? Or people drinking on any one of a zillion TV shows?


----------



## behemoth (May 6, 2008)

Couldn't we also ban topless men walking around in pairs swigging lager from cans in public?


----------



## spring-peeper (May 6, 2008)

behemoth said:


> Couldn't we also ban topless men walking around in pairs swigging lager from cans in public?



As long as the ban applies to men only.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 6, 2008)

It is up to each region to decide what is acceptable public behaviour.  

Here it is not acceptable behaviour for people to be drinking on public transit.  This is so engrained in me that it came as a total surprise that it was acceptable in London.

This does only apply to London, right?


----------



## spring-peeper (May 6, 2008)

editor said:


> How's that any different to kids seeing adults having a bottle of wine at at the restaurant? Or people drinking on any one of a zillion TV shows?



Can't remember the last prime time show I watched that had alcohol comsumption on it.


----------



## jæd (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Can't remember the last prime time show I watched that had alcohol comsumption on it.



"Friends" had bottles of wine, beers, etc...


----------



## story (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> It is up to each region to decide what is acceptable public behaviour.
> 
> Here it is not acceptable behaviour for people to be drinking on public transit.  This is so engrained in me that it came as a total surprise that it was acceptable in London.
> 
> This does only apply to London, right?



So far as I am aware, the whole of the UK is allowed to drink in public, just as in most (all?) of Europe.


----------



## editor (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Can't remember the last prime time show I watched that had alcohol comsumption on it.


Try watching either of the UK's two most popular TV soaps. The pub is at the heart of both.


----------



## story (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Can't remember the last prime time show I watched that had alcohol comsumption on it.



Whereas here in the UK our two biggest soaps (Eastenders and Coronation Street) are centred around the pub.


Jinx, editor.


----------



## story (May 6, 2008)

jæd said:


> "Friends" had bottles of wine, beers, etc...



It was often flagged up as a problem, or as a significant thing, as I recall. Not normal and unremarkable.


----------



## dream_girl (May 6, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> it's really not that bad.  you make it sound like south central around here!



Most nights I amble home to south London on my bike - through the West End, Southwark, Brixton, wandsworth, Tooting, etc, quite late, usually around 10 or 11 pm. The streets look pretty orderly to me. Occasionally I see someone causing trouble - but not often. Last load of drunken hooligans I saw were after a football match about 2 years ago. They weren't on the tube, nor were they drinking at the time I saw them.

I've never had trouble from someone drinking on the tube, I saw about a dozen people drinking from cans on Saturday night, all calm, happy and not apparently very drunk. 

The girl I saw vomit over her skirt was not drinking. 

I'm sure Boris would better serve us all if he turned his attention to the anti-social behaviour of some motorists.


----------



## Badgers (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Can't remember the last prime time show I watched that had alcohol comsumption on it.



Fools and Horses 
Morse 
The Moomins


----------



## Brainaddict (May 6, 2008)

editor said:


> So there goes one of life's harmless little pleasures.


Innit?

Hairy Bollocks to Boris


----------



## ymu (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> It is up to each region to decide what is acceptable public behaviour.
> 
> Here it is not acceptable behaviour for people to be drinking on public transit.  This is so engrained in me that it came as a total surprise that it was acceptable in London.
> 
> This does only apply to London, right?


They brought in restricted no-drinking areas across the UK about 10 years ago, IIRC. This gave local councils the right to declare certain areas as no-drinking, but it's up to them. I can't see them telling the train companies or the airlines that they can't sell alcohol, and IME most bus companies ban eating and drinking anyway (but I've never seen this enforced - not that there are any conductors left to enforce it).

Just to reiterate, this is a ban on drinking, not on being drunk and causing problems. The latter is already covered by existing legislation. It's hard to see why it needs a whole new law, unless it's the only thing Boris could think of apart from "reach no strike agreement with Bob Crow".


----------



## dream_girl (May 6, 2008)

ymu said:


> It's hard to see why it needs a whole new law, unless it's the only thing Boris could think of apart from "reach no strike agreement with Bob Crow".



He promised to scrap bendy buses and bring back the Routemasters, I seem to remember. 

I look forward to the former, but the latter would be illegal wouldn't it?


----------



## ymu (May 6, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> He promised to scrap bendy buses and bring back the Routemasters, I seem to remember.
> 
> I look forward to the former, but the latter would be illegal wouldn't it?


Oh yes, the other Boris' Big Idea. Even the Evening Standard noticed that the holes in that were big enough to drive, well, a Routemaster through. 

Not sure about the legality, but Boris thought getting a no-strike deal with the tube unions was a plausible policy. The unions  beg to differ. 



> *Tube unions say no to a no-strike deal*
> 
> London's new Mayor today had a baptism of fire over the Tube as union leaders told him a no-strike deal was not an option.
> 
> ...


----------



## jæd (May 6, 2008)

story said:


> It was often flagged up as a problem, or as a significant thing, as I recall. Not normal and unremarkable.



In restaurants and during meals at home, wine bottles are shown. There were *some* episodes that concentrated on alcohol abuse, but compared to the number that showed responsible drinking, these were in the minority...


----------



## story (May 6, 2008)

ymu said:


> Tube unions say no to a no-strike deal
> 
> London's new Mayor today had a baptism of fire over the Tube as union leaders told him a no-strike deal was not an option.
> 
> ...



Nice one


----------



## dream_girl (May 6, 2008)

Were there more strikes under Livingstone than during the period when the Tories ran london's transport system back in the 1990s?


----------



## story (May 6, 2008)

jæd said:


> In restaurants and during meals at home, wine bottles are shown. There were *some* episodes that concentrated on alcohol abuse, but compared to the number that showed responsible drinking, these were in the minority...



Oh okay.

Well I can't pretend to be an expert (although god knows it's on all the time, anyone who watches television must know every ep by now).


----------



## d.a.s.h (May 6, 2008)

It's very rare to see people on the tube with an open can or bottle in hand. Much rarer than say 20 years ago.

In fact, the very rarity of it is may be something to do with the proposed ban. Today's tube drinkers might look more 'deviant' to some. Plus the fact there's more nervousness surrounding what people get up to in public places.


----------



## story (May 6, 2008)

Yeah, and Muslim extremist fundamentalist terrorists are well known for their drinking habits.

Maybe it's like using bread-crumbs to get rid of the tigers?




ETA the story







Mullah Nasrudin is out in his garden one day sprinkling bread crumbs around, and a friend comes by and says, "Mullah, why are you sprinkling those bread crumbs?" He says, " Oh, I do it to keep the tigers away." And the friend says, "But there aren't any tigers within thousands of miles of here." And Nasrudin says, "Effective, isn't it?"


----------



## Brainaddict (May 6, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> there's more nervousness surrounding what people get up to in public places.


Lovely society we live in these days isn't it? Some top police officer was mouthing off today about how we should learn to fear CCTV cameras. Great.


----------



## Badgers (May 6, 2008)

What if you put it in a flask? 
Or drink shandy bass?


----------



## Crispy (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> It is up to each region to decide what is acceptable public behaviour.
> 
> Here it is not acceptable behaviour for people to be drinking on public transit.  This is so engrained in me that it came as a total surprise that it was acceptable in London.
> 
> This does only apply to London, right?



There are occasional bans on public drinking, on a local council basis, sometimes with time restrictions. Otherwise, there are no restrictions. All public transport is fine. Nearly all commuter and intercity trains have alcohol for sale, wether from the buffet car or the little trolley that gets wheeled down the aisle.


----------



## gabi (May 6, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> It's very rare to see people on the tube with an open can or bottle in hand.




Clearly you dont live in brixton  Having the Academy down in my hood means that any night when theres a gig there the tube home from work is full of people necking cans of stella on the way down there...

All in good fun tho. I love having a can on the way to gigs.


----------



## story (May 6, 2008)

Brainaddict said:


> Lovely society we live in these days isn't it? Some top police officer was mouthing off today about how we should learn to fear CCTV cameras. Great.



oh god...

Link or source please?


----------



## dream_girl (May 6, 2008)

Brainaddict said:


> Lovely society we live in these days isn't it? Some top police officer was mouthing off today about how we should learn to fear CCTV cameras. Great.



If people fear them enough they might decide to get rid of them.


----------



## story (May 6, 2008)

Badgers said:


> What if you put it in a flask?



or a brown paper bag?


----------



## d.a.s.h (May 6, 2008)

gabi said:


> Clearly you dont live in brixton  .




Well er true enough! Mind I seem to recall as a youth that practically _no_ public transport journey greater than half an hour could be undertaken without someone having the necessary supplies i.e. 4-8 cans of Hofmeister in a placky bag.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 6, 2008)

story said:


> oh god...
> 
> Link or source please?


It was in a beeb story about how CCTV doesn't work:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7384843.stm


----------



## story (May 6, 2008)

Brainaddict said:


> It was in a beeb story about how CCTV doesn't work:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7384843.stm



thank you


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 6, 2008)

I don't think there is much to fear from a CCTV camera.  The nearest one to where I live is hardly ever loaded.  I think they only put the bullets in at the weekend.  Even if you see a flash and hear a bang you know you are OK because they have missed you.


----------



## rutabowa (May 6, 2008)

story said:


> or a brown paper bag?



that's a good look, whenever i see someone with a brown paper bagged can i think "there is somone who is serious"


----------



## bluestreak (May 6, 2008)

Brainaddict said:


> Lovely society we live in these days isn't it? Some top police officer was mouthing off today about how we should learn to fear CCTV cameras. Great.


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 6, 2008)




----------



## untethered (May 6, 2008)

Hopefully this will be the first step towards a decency revolution in London. It's a small step, but it could mark the beginning of the end for people who think they should be able to dress, speak and act as they please in public without any regard for their fellow citizens.

Mr Johnson made encouraging noises about "zero tolerance" during his campaign. We shall see whether he has the courage and imagination to put our money where his mouth is.


----------



## El Jefe (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> it could mark the beginning of the end for people who think they should be able to dress, speak and act as they please in public without any regard for their fellow citizens.



You think the way we speak and DRESS should be regulated?


----------



## teuchter (May 6, 2008)

Crispy said:


> There are occasional bans on public drinking, on a local council basis, sometimes with time restrictions. Otherwise, there are no restrictions. All public transport is fine. Nearly all commuter and intercity trains have alcohol for sale, wether from the buffet car or the little trolley that gets wheeled down the aisle.



You aren't allowed to drink on the streets in central Glasgow. If you are carrying an open bottle or can the police can take it off you.

When I first came down to London I was well impressed with the fact that you could wander about at will with a drink in hand.

I actually thought that you weren't supposed to drink on London buses, though - I have certainly seen, on several occasions, bus drivers refuse to let people on board with open drinks, but perhaps they were just making it up as they go along.

Anyway, any sensible and civilised person will agree that the tube drinking ban is a complete nonsense. I have every intention of ignoring it and may even step up my on-tube drinking levels in protest.


----------



## May Kasahara (May 6, 2008)

El Jefe said:
			
		

> You think the way we speak and DRESS should be regulated?



Yes. Shorts may be suitable for the promenade, but not for every day life


----------



## teuchter (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> Hopefully this will be the first step towards a decency revolution in London. It's a small step, but it could mark the beginning of the end for people who think they should be able to dress, speak and act as they please in public without any regard for their fellow citizens.
> 
> Mr Johnson made encouraging noises about "zero tolerance" during his campaign. We shall see whether he has the courage and imagination to put our money where his mouth is.



Can you draft a London Dress Code Policy for our amusement, please?


----------



## untethered (May 6, 2008)

May Kasahara said:


> Yes. Shorts may be suitable for the promenade, but not for every day life



No. They're suitable for the sports field but _not _the promenade.

Ditto vests, polo shirts, football shirts, etc.


----------



## May Kasahara (May 6, 2008)

There's no hope for me


----------



## untethered (May 6, 2008)

May Kasahara said:


> There's no hope for me



It just goes to show what happens when society takes a laissez-faire approach rather than giving appropriate guidance.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 6, 2008)

It seems to be up to bus drivers whether to let people on with drinks or not. Sometimes it's fine, sometimes not. I wonder about the enforcement of this on the tube though. Can't see drivers stopping a whole train and calling the cops just because someone has opened a can of beer.


----------



## editor (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> Hopefully this will be the first step towards a decency revolution in London. It's a small step, but it could mark the beginning of the end for people who think they should be able to dress, speak and act as they please in public without any regard for their fellow citizens.


Perhaps you could share some of your suggested sartorial restrictions with us all?

Will there be an minimum skirt length? Enforced hat wearing?


----------



## untethered (May 6, 2008)

Brainaddict said:


> It seems to be up to bus drivers whether to let people on with drinks or not. Sometimes it's fine, sometimes not. I wonder about the enforcement of this on the tube though. Can't see drivers stopping a whole train and calling the cops just because someone has opened a can of beer.



They wouldn't under normal circumstances. It would be enforced by PCSOs on routine patrols on the trains and stations.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 6, 2008)

Brainaddict said:


> It seems to be up to bus drivers whether to let people on with drinks or not. Sometimes it's fine, sometimes not. I wonder about the enforcement of this on the tube though. Can't see drivers stopping a whole train and calling the cops just because someone has opened a can of beer.




Most of the buses round here have no food/no alcahol/no smoking signs.


on the top deck, these signs are roundly ignored.


Anyway who's going to enforce this tomfoolery?


----------



## Brainaddict (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> They wouldn't under normal circumstances. It would be enforced by PCSOs on routine patrols on the trains and stations.


I can see people getting caught in the stations, but you see officers actually in your train carriage about once in a blue moon. So as well as being a crap policy, it will be unenforceable. Which is good if you think it's a crap policy, but makes Boris even more of a cock.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> They wouldn't under normal circumstances. It would be enforced by PCSOs on routine patrols on the trains and stations.



so waste police time on harmless but deemed by Boris to be bad activity?


fuck me thats stupid


----------



## Fruitloop (May 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Perhaps you could share some of your suggested sartorial restrictions with us all?
> 
> Will there be an minimum skirt length? Enforced hat wearing?



They could arrest women who were improperly covered. I hear that's all the rage these days.


----------



## untethered (May 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Can you draft a London Dress Code Policy for our amusement, please?





editor said:


> Perhaps you could share some of your suggested sartorial restrictions with us all?
> 
> Will there be an minimum skirt length? Enforced hat wearing?



I think it would be especially useful now that the warmer weather is with us and the likelihood of indecent dress or stylistic errors in the name of comfort is all the greater.

That said, in one of those peculiar moments of life yesterday I noticed a young man in the "gangster/hoodie" mode that was wearing elegant black leather gloves despite the heat, and thought that the routine wearing of gloves in public was a worthwhile convention that has sadly passed.


----------



## editor (May 6, 2008)

Brainaddict said:


> I can see people getting caught in the stations, but you see officers actually in your train carriage about once in a blue moon. So as well as being a crap policy, it will be unenforceable. Which is good if you think it's a crap policy, but makes Boris even more of a cock.


Perhaps people will be encouraged to pull the emergency cord if they see ruthless law breaker eyeing up a can of Carling in their bag?

Boris! Protect us from people enjoying a quiet can on the tube!



untethered said:


> I think it would be especially useful now that the warmer weather is with us and the likelihood of indecent dress or stylistic errors in the name of comfort is all the greater.


You're just trolling now.

But in the name of sartorial guidance, could you post up some pictures of your attire for us to learn from?


----------



## untethered (May 6, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> They could arrest women who were improperly covered. I hear that's all the rage these days.



And men. Nothing sexist about it.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> I think it would be especially useful now that the warmer weather is with us and the likelihood of indecent dress or stylistic errors in the name of comfort is all the greater.
> 
> That said, in one of those peculiar moments of life yesterday I noticed a young man in the "gangster/hoodie" mode that was wearing elegant black leather gloves despite the heat, and thought that the routine wearing of gloves in public was a worthwhile convention that has sadly passed.



I hate to break it to you Untetered but the fellow wearing those gloves was probably doing so in order that he leaves no fingerprints.


----------



## ymu (May 6, 2008)

I know he can be a bit pompous so maybe it's hard to tell, but I think there was intentional humour in that untethered post you're quoting. I hope so anyway - I'd hate to think such a comedic talent was unaware of its own genius.


----------



## untethered (May 6, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I hate to break it to you Untetered but the fellow wearing those gloves was probably doing so in order that he leaves no fingerprints.



Well he didn't seem to be causing any trouble, but there again Mrs Untethered and I had better things to do than follow him around for the rest of the afternoon.

Perhaps he was on his way to do a "job". Still, I couldn't fault his gloves.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 6, 2008)

I have flip-flops on at work. Take that, social conformity!


----------



## untethered (May 6, 2008)

editor said:


> But in the name of sartorial guidance, could you post up some pictures of your attire for us to learn from?



The idea is a perfectly reasonable one. Guidelines for style, laws for decency.

Yesterday saw me in a white long-sleeved Oxford shirt, brown Derby shoes, stone chinos and a navy v-necked sweater later in the day. Topped off with a Panama hat, of course.

Perfectly comfortable, entirely practical, timelessly elegant and quite decent.

I notice that Dan Cruickshank has been blazing a trail with his cravat in _Adventures in Architecture_ on the BBC. I wonder if they will undergo a revival.


----------



## untethered (May 6, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> I have flip-flops on at work. Take that, social conformity!



Ugh. Flip-flops probably top my list of things that should never be worn.

Inelegant at the best of times and more often than not worn by people with the worst feet imaginable.


----------



## teuchter (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> I think it would be especially useful now that the warmer weather is with us and the likelihood of indecent dress or stylistic errors in the name of comfort is all the greater.



Well, go on then, provide us with your guidelines, then. 

You seem to be all talk and no trousers on this issue.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> Ugh. Flip-flops probably top my list of things that should never be worn.
> 
> Inelegant at the best of times and more often than not worn by people with the worst feet imaginable.



I have beautiful feet, I'll have you know. Muscular, clean, well kept....

Northern Europeans just don't understand the proper clothing for hot weather, which is why the tube smells like a badger set for most of the summer.


----------



## d.a.s.h (May 6, 2008)

Untethered, you may be interested to know that the gendarmes at Cannes enforce just such a policy regarding dress. They keep a particularly close eye on the railway station. Those passengers who disembark in a state of sartorial disarray are advised to smarten up or get back on the train.


----------



## untethered (May 6, 2008)

For gentlemen in the warmer weather, head to toe:

1. If you want to get ahead, get a hat. A good hat is elegant and gives practical protection from the sun. The Panama hat is a deserved classic, being lightweight and stylish. A good one will also roll for storage and transport. For a more casual look, a broad-brimmed canvas hat does the job (think cricket umpires). Stick to light solid colours. Avoid slogans, badges and logos. _You're not playing sport._ (Unless you are, in which case none of this applies.) Also avoid caps, especially baseball caps. Anything "zany" (unusual shapes or colour schemes). Going bare-headed in the street is unwise but don't wear the thing indoors.

2. A fine shirt is the cornerstone of any outfit. In warmer weather the shirt is even more prominent as its likely to be worn uncovered, so this is the time to invest in some good lightweight shirts for summer rather than slacken off into casual or "sporting" styles. Keep it light. No-one ever got turned away for wearing white. Avoid effeminate colours (pink and pastels).

A shirt is meant to fit. It's not a smock. If you're an unusual size, get one made to measure. Nothing looks worse than an extra half inch in the collar or on the sleeves.

Avoid short sleeves unless you're a pilot or a security guard. You probably wouldn't want to be mistaken for either.

Lightweight cotton, linen and silk/linen mixes are suitable for summer.

The collar should be open if the occasion is informal, or buttoned with a tie if not. If a tie is worn, do it properly - either properly tied around your closed collar or not at all. Avoid the slovenly look of a slackened tie and open collar.

Do I really need to say "tuck it in"? Probably.

There is never a good reason to wear a t-shirt. Vests are underwear.

To be continued...


----------



## mitochondria (May 6, 2008)

The new Singapore looms...







thanks God they don't eat durians in London.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 6, 2008)

I notice the penalty for durian consumption is ominously unmentioned. Is it beheading?


----------



## ovaltina (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> people who think they should be able to dress, speak and act as they please in public without any regard for their fellow citizens.



Or you could just move to Milton Keynes


----------



## mitochondria (May 6, 2008)

I'd think caning would be appropriate.


----------



## untethered (May 6, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> Untethered, you may be interested to know that the gendarmes at Cannes enforce just such a policy regarding dress. They keep a particularly close eye on the railway station. Those passengers who disembark in a state of sartorial disarray are advised to smarten up or get back on the train.



Sounds fantastic.

Of course, the police in this country are often as badly dressed as many of the populace.


----------



## Crispy (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> Avoid short sleeves unless you're a pilot or a security guard. You probably wouldn't want to be mistaken for either.







I beg to differ.


----------



## d.a.s.h (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> Of course, the police in this country are often as badly dressed as many of the populace.



This is generally true. Many of them don't know how to dress smartly and seem only too willing to leap into those loutish paramilitary style outfits with the black baseball hats at the slightest excuse.

Also, many policemen today are very short. Combined with their often scruffy appearance, it's no wonder that they struggle to command respect. Not that _I_ am ever rude to them. First, I was brought up to respect the police and, second, at a shade over six foot tall, I don't wish to incur the vengeance of the 'little people'.


----------



## editor (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> The idea is a perfectly reasonable one. Guidelines for style, laws for decency.
> 
> Yesterday saw me in a white long-sleeved Oxford shirt, brown Derby shoes, stone chinos and a navy v-necked sweater later in the day. Topped off with a Panama hat, of course.


Quality trolling, sire.


----------



## gaijingirl (May 6, 2008)

mitochondria said:


> The new Singapore looms...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They do in Oriental City (Colindale, north London).  The durian stall is the only one outside the building.


----------



## May Kasahara (May 6, 2008)

As much as I long to see the return of men in sharp hats, I feel compelled to point out that wearing a hat doesn't instantly confer sartorial success. My boss often wears a black trilby-style affair, and fond as I am of my boss, he looks a complete arse in it. Men embarking on a new career of hat-wearing are just as likely to get it wrong as they are with anything else.


----------



## Dan U (May 6, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> I have beautiful feet, I'll have you know. Muscular, clean, well kept....
> 
> Northern Europeans just don't understand the proper clothing for hot weather, which is why the tube smells like a badger set for most of the summer.



ha ha so true.


----------



## Crispy (May 6, 2008)

May Kasahara said:


> As much as I long to see the return of men in sharp hats, I feel compelled to point out that wearing a hat doesn't instantly confer sartorial success. My boss often wears a black trilby-style affair, and fond as I am of my boss, he looks a complete arse in it. Men embarking on a new career of hat-wearing are just as likely to get it wrong as they are with anything else.


It's all about the _right_ hat. I have a friend who wears a hat, and it suits him perfectly, but anyone else would look a complete dick in it. I don't have the right hat, but if it finds me one day, I shall not resist it.


----------



## STFC (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> That said, in one of those peculiar moments of life yesterday I noticed a young man in the "gangster/hoodie" mode that was wearing elegant black leather gloves despite the heat, and thought that the routine wearing of gloves in public was a worthwhile convention that has sadly passed.



Were you in the environs of Elephant & Castle at the time?


----------



## 8ball (May 6, 2008)

Well, I've learnt what a durian is today.

Am quite curious now . . .


----------



## pk (May 6, 2008)

Well... as a matter of routine whenever working in Soho I'll usually pop into Oddbins on the way to Oxford Circus and take advantage of their DAB beer deal, then drink one on the tube, then another on the train, and maybe even another on if it's late and the journey is longer than normal.

I very much doubt this new rule is going to stop me. Sod off Boris.

However, leery drunks who swig from bottles spirits and smell of piss - fuck them off!

And the main development seems to have been avoided here - knife detectors and scanners. Fuck yes.

Can we have minimum sentences of 2 or 3 years for knife carriers, and 5 years for gunmen?

Fucking hope so. In this Bozza has my support.


----------



## dream_girl (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> Hopefully this will be the first step towards a decency revolution in London. It's a small step, but it could mark the beginning of the end for people who think they should be able to dress, speak and act as they please in public without any regard for their fellow citizens.


----------



## dream_girl (May 6, 2008)

pk said:


> And the main development seems to have been avoided here - knife detectors and scanners. Fuck yes.



Knife detectors? That's amazing. I didn't think such a thing existed. At least that means we won't all be randomly stopped and searched for carrying metal items onto the tube.


----------



## STFC (May 6, 2008)

pk said:


> Well... as a matter of routine whenever working in Soho I'll usually pop into Oddbins on the way to Oxford Circus and take advantage of their DAB beer deal, then drink one on the tube, then another on the train, and maybe even another on if it's late and the journey is longer than normal.
> 
> I very much doubt this new rule is going to stop me. Sod off Boris.
> 
> ...



Didn't Boris Johnson vote against five year mandatory sentences for illegal firearm possession? I'd like to know why - hopefully because he thought it should be longer.


----------



## dream_girl (May 6, 2008)

STFC said:


> Didn't Boris Johnson vote against five year mandatory sentences for illegal firearm possession? I'd like to know why - hopefully because he thought it should be longer.



Maybe he believed that such a measure might make it more likely that armed criminals would use their weapons.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I actually thought that you weren't supposed to drink on London buses, though - I have certainly seen, on several occasions, bus drivers refuse to let people on board with open drinks, but perhaps they were just making it up as they go along.


I don't think you're allowed to drink anything, alcoholic or not, on the bus for reasons of mess. But if you're subtle and well behaved I don't think you ever get told off. 



> Anyway, any sensible and civilised person will agree that the tube drinking ban is a complete nonsense. I have every intention of ignoring it and may even step up my on-tube drinking levels in protest.


Yes. I haven't had a beer on the tube for ages, but this does make me want to buy a 6 pack and go visit north London.


----------



## Reno (May 6, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> Knife detectors? That's amazing. I didn't think such a thing existed. At least that means we won't all be randomly stopped and searched for carrying metal items onto the tube.



((((Prince Albert))))


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 6, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I notice the penalty for durian consumption is ominously unmentioned. Is it beheading?



You probably have to eat one.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 6, 2008)

If Boris Johnson must have his name abbreviated, could it not be _BoJo _or even PK's _Bozza_.  Let it be _Bozo_, because he is one.

It looks to me as if his advisors and puppeteers want him to be seen 'hitting the ground running' which is quite an appropriate metaphor for one who has been parachuted into London.  He will be seen doing similar things to Bloomberg in New York.  Evidence of criminal presence will be pushed off the streets and out of the public eye and into the dark corners where the poor live.

Boris will be like George Bush, just a figurehead controlled by political backroom boys this time at Conservative Central Office.  Cameron will want to make as much out of Boris as possible, along with local authorities now controlled by the Tories.  Watch out for parallel initiatives happening in London and Tory local authorities.

Crime will be top of the agenda at the next election.


----------



## jæd (May 6, 2008)

Agent Sparrow said:


> You probably have to eat one.



What's wrong with eating them...? They test lovely...! (A bit like vanilla custard)  You buy the fruit in Chinatown, or handily (sealed) pods...


----------



## ovaltina (May 6, 2008)

Apparently there are 45 pages devoted to Bojo in today's Standard


----------



## ymu (May 6, 2008)

STFC said:


> Didn't Boris Johnson vote against five year mandatory sentences for illegal firearm possession? I'd like to know why - hopefully because he thought it should be longer.


Much as I hate to credit Boris with any intelligence, it might have been because it was a shit idea, which is why the judiciary forced Blunkett to backtrack. So now we're left with a situation where minimum sentences are effectively only enforcable for those over 21, which may or may not have encouraged older criminals to get younger teens to hold the weapons. Make the age for minimum prison sentences lower and the kids holding the guns will just get younger. I've heard this from people in South London who think it's happening, but here's a related news link.


----------



## teuchter (May 6, 2008)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I don't think you're allowed to drink anything, alcoholic or not, on the bus for reasons of mess. But if you're subtle and well behaved I don't think you ever get told off.
> 
> 
> Yes. I haven't had a beer on the tube for ages, but this does make me want to buy a 6 pack and go visit north London.



Shall we organise an U75 mass tube drinking expedition as soon as the new rule is introduced?


----------



## untethered (May 6, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Shall we organise an U75 mass tube drinking expedition as soon as the new rule is introduced?



A U75 mass observation of the law would be a better idea.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> A U75 mass observation of the law would be a better idea.




The sheer unlikeliness of the suggestion


----------



## untethered (May 6, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> The sheer unlikeliness of the suggestion



That's what would make it so effective.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 6, 2008)

jæd said:


> What's wrong with eating them...? They *test* lovely...! (A bit like vanilla custard)  You buy the fruit in Chinatown, or handily (sealed) pods...


Test? What are they used to test?! Helmets? 

Personally not a fan of durian consumption, but perhaps this is mainly psychological after having to share a 4 hour bus journey with about 300 of them. And dried durian is the worst thing in the world. 



teuchter said:


> Shall we organise an U75 mass tube drinking expedition as soon as the new rule is introduced?



 I missed the circle line party - time for a mini one?


----------



## jbob (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> For gentlemen in the warmer weather, head to toe:
> 
> 1. If you want to get ahead, get a hat. A good hat is elegant and gives practical protection from the sun. The Panama hat is a deserved classic, being lightweight and stylish. A good one will also roll for storage and transport. For a more casual look, a broad-brimmed canvas hat does the job (think cricket umpires). Stick to light solid colours. Avoid slogans, badges and logos. _You're not playing sport._ (Unless you are, in which case none of this applies.) Also avoid caps, especially baseball caps. Anything "zany" (unusual shapes or colour schemes). Going bare-headed in the street is unwise but don't wear the thing indoors.
> 
> ...



I have to say that I think this should become part of a 'cut out and keep' guide to sartorial elegance. Most of these tips are spot on (although I disagree with the t-shirt bit, and promote the idea of wearing a thin cotton white t-shirt under a shirt).

I was in Paris the other week, and the difference between the average well heeled Parisian and the practiced slobby-scruffy look of the Londoner could not be more extreme. Have some pride in your appearance for Gods sake! 
Didn't see any drinking or eating on the Metro there; don't think it's illegal, either.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 6, 2008)

I would think that wearing a hat on the tube would certainly _not_ be appropriate.


----------



## teuchter (May 6, 2008)

The alternative is some kind of spartacus action where, for everyday tube journeys, you take with you an old gin / buckfast / whisky bottle filled with water, and sip from it. If everyone did this, they would never be able to tell who was actually drinking alcohol.

It would also be more environmentally friendly than buying botteld water, of course.


----------



## jbob (May 6, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I would think that wearing a hat on the tube would certainly _not_ be appropriate.



The Guide says take it off indoors.


----------



## May Kasahara (May 6, 2008)

I like scruffy boys


----------



## jbob (May 6, 2008)

It takes too much effort to be scruffy.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

ymu said:


> I think he's saying public drinking is OK when there's a profit to be made but scumbags doing it on the cheap must be stopped for the sake of capit...errr...society.



No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that on long-haul transportation like planes or trains, there's a societal expectation that there will be alcohol, plus, the issues present with short-haul transportation and drinking, aren't there.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

story said:


> I wonder if the figures for domestic abuse, drunk driving, assault, and alcohol related hospital admissions went down in the same period or up?
> 
> I mean, are you saying that drinking went down because public drinking went down? Or did it just become less obvious?
> 
> ...



I think that drinking remained prevalent, but that these specific problems, ie those associated with public drinking, went down.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

story said:


> These are all specific details of particular instances. We have them too.
> 
> In the same way that we can only see Canada in a broad sense, so you can only see the UK from a general point of view.
> 
> Specifics are important.



It's hard to disagree with that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> No, that is not the problem.  Very few americans.
> 
> And why single out the French Canadians?  The English Canadians are just as bad.  Please keep your prejudices out of it.



That was said with tongue in cheek. As I've said before, I have cousins who live in Montreal, who are the children of my mother's sister, and a French Canadian man.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

story said:


> So far as I am aware, the whole of the UK is allowed to drink in public, just as in most (all?) of Europe.



I think what she was asking, is whether or not drinking is allowed on public transit outside of London.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

untethered said:


> Ugh. Flip-flops probably top my list of things that should never be worn.
> 
> Inelegant at the best of times and more often than not worn by people with the worst feet imaginable.



Well then, don't wear them, and keep your gaze above ground level.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think what she was asking, is whether or not drinking is allowed on public transit outside of London.



buses say no in northampton, and no to food also. However sitting on the top deck and eating/drinking discreetly is tolerated.

Taxis sometimes let you, but not very often cause their not supposed to


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 6, 2008)

scifisam said:


> What a wonderful use of public funds.



Better than funding one of Ken Livingstones freebie trips overseas.


----------



## Reno (May 6, 2008)

May Kasahara said:


> I like scruffy boys



Me too.


----------



## hassan (May 6, 2008)

This ban has the Hassan seal of approval


----------



## jayeola (May 6, 2008)

- Ban stinky food  on public transport, especially if it's not from Waitrose
 - Ban shit public transport systems
 - Ban ridiculous excuses for signal failures in places that I have never heard of, ten miles from my home, that affect my journey to work
 - Try to actually stop people from taking hard drugs on buses (I want to see THAT one enforced)


----------



## Dead Cat Bounce (May 6, 2008)

I can't see the problem with someone like me who occasionally drinks a can of booze on the tube after a hard days work.

Boris, if you want to do something to improve the London underground might I suggest you look at the waste these papers produce..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/dec/10/pressandpublishing.transportintheuk

Nine and a half tonnes of waste a day.

And this isn't coming from a Guardian reader, compare the environmental damage to someone enjoying a can after a days work.

Time to get your priorities right.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think that drinking remained prevalent, but that these specific problems, ie those associated with public drinking, went down.



Yes, but what is your position on hats on the tube?

I would also like untethered's further opinion on proper summer clothing for public transport, come to think of it. One would not wish to wear anything that would invite excessive perspiration, to the disgust of one's fellow travellers. I had been considering a lightweight linen suit myself, which I think would not appear _too_ casual.


----------



## DJ Squelch (May 6, 2008)

Dead Cat Bounce - I wonder why Ken didn't ban them (free papers) as most of them were against him. Last time I came up London one of the really noticable unpleasant changes was the number of people trying to give me free papers. The number outside Liverpool St station was absurd, it was like running an obsticle course trying to avoid them.


----------



## soulman (May 6, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yes, but what is your position on hats on the tube?
> 
> I would also like untethered's further opinion on proper summer clothing for public transport, come to think of it. One would not wish to wear anything that would invite excessive perspiration, to the disgust of one's fellow travellers. I had been considering a lightweight linen suit myself, which I think would not appear _too_ casual.



Don't forget your hat!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Yes, but what is your position on hats on the tube?.



Something tells me that untethered looks like Truman Capote.


----------



## scott_forester (May 6, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The rest of that article is interesting, especially the ending. There's a hint of the line of attack regarding minority ethnic people and the inner city to come...



Got to be honest I tend to blank out anything Diane Abbott says, annoying bint.


----------



## Psychonaut (May 6, 2008)

Havent read the thread, hope this hasnt been done already:



> Work will also begin on installing airport-style hand-held scanners and *knife arches in stations*



What does this mean? Will everyone have to queue up to walk through one of those fucking annoying gates that detect your house-keys?

Surely that will take fucking ages? unless some sort of racial/social profiling is used....


----------



## rich! (May 6, 2008)

d.a.s.h said:


> Well er true enough! Mind I seem to recall as a youth that practically _no_ public transport journey greater than half an hour could be undertaken without someone having the necessary supplies i.e. 4-8 cans of Hofmeister in a placky bag.



If you ask for a copy of the Conditions of Travel for the railway system, you will find that Clause 42 mandates that there be at least one person on each train sampling a can of "bevvy" before the train is allowed to depart any northern station at any time. Once the sun is over the yard-arm (i.e., about 2 hours after dawn), this requirement extends to the whole UK.

Still, at least it will prevent rail strikes - the trains will simply fail to run...


----------



## scott_forester (May 7, 2008)

Psychonaut said:


> Havent read the thread, hope this hasnt been done already:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not sure what they'll do here. I don't think it's a bad idea but I have a lot of metal on me; phone, mp3 player and games doohickey. I'd imagine they may use them on fare dogers etc.


----------



## Superdupastupor (May 7, 2008)

pogofish said:


> This is up to the individual local authority here.  Some places have had it banned for years, others not.



Drinking laws are confusing.
In Edinburgh it is fine pretty much to drink where and when you like.
In Glasgow drinking is kosher only in pub/club or private homes..
caused me all kinds of bother this year when I moved to the ouige' last year 
.
I think the lesson is that drunk folk aren't the problem.
It is people the start a bother that need a sorting


----------



## twistedAM (May 7, 2008)

I don't really have a problem with it but he'd definitely strike a chord with me if he banned fried foods and music played on shitty little mobile phones.


----------



## chainsaw cat (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The cops used to turn a blind eye to public drinking, and the level of public disorder was way higher.
> 
> They now have a zero tolerance policy, and the public events etc, go off without a hitch in the vast majority of cases.



lazy policing, lazy politics.

most people don't cause problems through drinking. 

I like a pint (god knows) and don't see why i shouldn't drink exactly as much as I want, where and when I want to, as long as I don't put others at risk. That pretty much means only my car is excluded as a drinking experience location (or 'booze - site').

But, 'cos the politicians have a repertioire of only 2 usable responses to any problem, I get to be harassed by my own servants (the cops) for doing something both harmless and enjoyable.


The 2 responses are, btw, ban it or tax it heavily.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 7, 2008)

chainsaw cat said:


> lazy policing, lazy politics.
> 
> most people don't cause problems through drinking.
> .



But that's how it is with everything. Most people are law abiding, and not wanting to cause trouble. It's the small minority who aren't that way, who cause disproportionate trouble, and who are the motivator behind many of these laws.


----------



## chainsaw cat (May 7, 2008)

So ban driving, rather than catch dangerous drivers.

Ban marriage rather than prosecuting wife beaters.

Ban guns rather than murder, oh hang on, we did that.....


----------



## spring-peeper (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> That was said with tongue in cheek. As I've said before, I have cousins who live in Montreal, who are the children of my mother's sister, and a French Canadian man.



I realized that a bit later on.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that on long-haul transportation like planes or trains, there's a societal expectation that there will be alcohol, plus, the issues present with short-haul transportation and drinking, aren't there.



Trains and planes are not really public transportation.  They are privately owned.  I think the issue should be more about what is acceptable on publically funding transportation.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 7, 2008)

chainsaw cat said:


> So ban driving, rather than catch dangerous drivers.
> 
> Ban marriage rather than prosecuting wife beaters.
> 
> Ban guns rather than murder, oh hang on, we did that.....



There are laws that are irrelevant or inapplicable for everyone, that are applicable for some.

We all must wear seatbelts even though most will never be in an accident. We must all insure our cars, even though the same applies re: accident.


----------



## pk (May 7, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> Knife detectors? That's amazing. I didn't think such a thing existed. At least that means we won't all be randomly stopped and searched for carrying metal items onto the tube.



Pretty straightforward for detectors to differentiate between jewellery or battery operated devices and hardened steel lumps of blade.

Plus the tech is getting cheaper, I'm all for it.

And the other point you raised, regarding mandatory sentences for gun-toters leading to increased likelyhood of guns being drawn and used... I'm not so sure.
Anyone caught with a gun right now would expect a custodial and have their entire life spun for evidence of further crime.
Locking them up for 5 years, and more importantly encouraging people to grass on gun-carriers knowing they'll be out of the picture for that long, can only mean less killings in the long term.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> There are laws that are irrelevant or inapplicable for everyone, that are applicable for some.
> 
> We all must wear seatbelts even though most will never be in an accident. We must all insure our cars, even though the same applies re: accident.



seatbelts and insurance have visible positive effects against respectively loss of life and loss/damage of a valuable machine.

Loss of the right to have a can on the tube has no proven or likely effect on drunken anti-social behaviour on the tube. Tube troublemakers are likely already pissed before they get on.

I don't see how we can allow the very worst elements can be used to justify denial of the majorities harmless pleasure.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

pk said:


> Pretty straightforward for detectors to differentiate between jewellery or battery operated devices and hardened steel lumps of blade.
> 
> Plus the tech is getting cheaper, I'm all for it.
> 
> ...



I think more concentration on stopping the guns getting in in the first place is the sensible move. As for knife crime, given how prevelant a pointy sharp thing is in our society and has been for x amount of years, it might be bettewr to look at the underlying social causes that produce stabby toerags. Cause I'm damn sure the mandatory sentences won't do fuck all


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't see how we can allow the very worst elements can be used to justify denial of the majorities harmless pleasure.



For the same reason as with seatbelts and insurance.

A small minority of tube riders[or vehicle drivers] will create a problem [be in a serious accident]. But because we can't identify who those people will be beforehand, the law has to be made of general applicaton.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> For the same reason as with seatbelts and insurance.
> 
> A small minority of tube riders[or vehicle drivers] will create a problem [be in a serious accident]. But because we can't identify who those people will be beforehand, the law has to be made of general applicaton.




Positive effect johnny! this idea of banning tube drinking will have no positive effect!

And when a law penalises or restrticts the majority because its in place to catch a minority of wrongdoers, then it is ill thought.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Positive effect johnny! this idea of banning tube drinking will have no positive effect!.




You assume that to be the case, but you actually have no idea if it's so or not.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> And when a law penalises or restrticts the majority because its in place to catch a minority of wrongdoers, then it is ill thought.



Like firearms restrictions?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You assume that to be the case, but you actually have no idea if it's so or not.




Having taken the tube a lot and other forms of public trndport i can say yeah, I do have an idea. People getting on the transport lready blotto are the makers of trouble


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Like firearms restrictions?



be honest about it johnny, proliferation of small arms into society does no-one any good. It's not so much the minority badguys im on about here. It's the accidental shootings, the arguements gone gun-wrong, the police confrontations that could have ended with out dead perp/cop etc. 

Comparing competent gun control to incompetent tube/alcohol rules is silly Johnny


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Having taken the tube a lot and other forms of public trndport i can say yeah, I do have an idea. People getting on the transport lready blotto are the makers of trouble



So your evidence is purely anecdotal. Iirc, millions ride the tube every day. There are many many interactions on the tube, that you are not aware of.

I can drive for weeks without seeing a motor vehicle accident, but I know for a fact that dozens are occurring every day in this city.


----------



## pk (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I think more concentration on stopping the guns getting in in the first place is the sensible move.



I don't see there's much hope of stopping them entering the country.
The borders are porous to the point of farce, and given the relatively easy market in firearms from the east, and the euros to be made...



> As for knife crime, given how prevelant a pointy sharp thing is in our society and has been for x amount of years, it might be bettewr to look at the underlying social causes that produce stabby toerags. Cause I'm damn sure the mandatory sentences won't do fuck all



Underlying social causes matter fuck all to them or me, if they're stopped from easy travel around London and given a sentence - they will be thinking twice before packing a blade and leaving the house.

The stabby toerags are such because of a lack of moral guidance one way or another, unless you're going to be routinely checking on the parents of kids or dropping in to schools to get lists of truants, it's up to them to realise that their dreams of being the next 50 Cent are doomed to miserable failure.

Of course - the entire prison system is fucked too, there are far more productive and life-changing things you could do with kids who have slipped by the wayside than lock them up with the kind of surplus cunts they actually want to emulate, but that's another thread for another time.

In the meantime - Bozza's mandate is to make the capital more palatable for his Henley constituents (who would happily sip their fucking Pimms on the Tube without any fuss).

A tougher line on offensive weapons is a good start IMO.

A ban on alcohol would be used to rid the tube system of people who are pissed and being cunts, I would hope.

Of course, the acid test will be New Years Eve - everyone jumping on the tube with bags of grog - let's see Bozworth bring his bobbies to bash the boozers then - not forgetting they've already bashed his mates for opposing the foxhunt ban. Interesting times ahead methinks!!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> So your evidence is purely anecdotal. Iirc, millions ride the tube every day. There are many many interactions on the tube, that you are not aware of.
> 
> I can drive for weeks without seeing a motor vehicle accident, but I know for a fact that dozens are occurring every day in this city.





it is of course based also on the experiences of every other tube user I've met.


I reckon it's that worrying puritan NA streak showing again that leads you to think anyone drinking on public transport is an anti-social nuisance. That or the right leaning pap you lap up about the UK


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

pk said:


> I don't see there's much hope of stopping them entering the country.
> The borders are porous to the point of farce, and given the relatively easy market in firearms from the east, and the euros to be made...



its where we need to start rather than crying when the horse has bolted imo




> Underlying social causes matter fuck all to them or me, if they're stopped from easy travel around London and given a sentence - they will be thinking twice before packing a blade and leaving the house.



No they won't. It just adds to the bullshit glamour and danger. They don't give a fuck and nor do you: hence the issue won't see sensible resolution without attitude changes



> The stabby toerags are such because of a lack of moral guidance one way or another, unless you're going to be routinely checking on the parents of kids or dropping in to schools to get lists of truants, it's up to them to realise that their dreams of being the next 50 Cent are doomed to miserable failure.
> 
> Of course - the entire prison system is fucked too, there are far more productive and life-changing things you could do with kids who have slipped by the wayside than lock them up with the kind of surplus cunts they actually want to emulate, but that's another thread for another time.


I'm sure you know that two out of every three prisoners has at least two diagnosable mental illnesses. Prison is what to do with the genuine cunts and the mass of cunted-by-the-system



> In the meantime - Bozza's mandate is to make the capital more palatable for his Henley constituents (who would happily sip their fucking Pimms on the Tube without any fuss).
> 
> A tougher line on offensive weapons is a good start IMO.
> 
> ...




BoJo will rape the capital for what its worth and laugh while doing it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> it is of course based also on the experiences of every other tube user I've met.
> 
> 
> I reckon it's that worrying puritan NA streak showing again that leads you to think anyone drinking on public transport is an anti-social nuisance. That or the right leaning pap you lap up about the UK



No one else from any other country, has said that alcohol consumption is allowed on their public transportation. I think UK is an anomaly on this.

I think it springs from the day when most people were proles working in factories and mines, and their lives were  so horrible that they couldn't wait the length of a tube ride before beginning their nightly drinking, especially with the bizarre restrictive pub drinking hours that you had until recently.

Explain that one, you were able to drink on the subway, but not in a pub during the afternoon?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> be honest about it johnny, proliferation of small arms into society does no-one any good. It's not so much the minority badguys im on about here. It's the accidental shootings, the arguements gone gun-wrong, the police confrontations that could have ended with out dead perp/cop etc.



The majority of gun owners do so in a law abiding and safe manner. So, the laws restricting their ownership are directed at that small minority who will either use them negligently or criminally.

It's an exact parallel to this anti drinking law, which you call 'ill thought out'.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No one else from any other country, has said that alcohol consumption is allowed on their public transportation. I think UK is an anomaly on this.
> 
> I think it springs from the day when most people were proles working in factories and mines, and their lives were  so horrible that they couldn't wait the length of a tube ride before beginning their nightly drinking, especially with the bizarre restrictive pub drinking hours that you had until recently.
> 
> Explain that one, you were able to drink on the subway, but not in a pub during the afternoon?




sod knows, the w fight between christian temperance and the Brit love of booze is bewildering.

And journey-beer is far far older than the tube fella.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> And journey-beer is far far older than the tube fella.




I'm sure it is. It probably goes back to the days when your forebears laboured in coal mines, or the fields.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> The majority of gun owners do so in a law abiding and safe manner. So, the laws restricting their ownership are directed at that small minority who will either use them negligently or criminally.
> 
> It's an exact parallel to this anti drinking law, which you call 'ill thought out'.





It's not though is it?

Ban guns from trains for example. Good idea, a man with no gun on the train cannot shoot anyone


Ban alcohol from trains. Well now what about the fella who gets on the train already fucked out of his tree on hard spirits.

It's not an exact parallel its a lazy attempt to conflate two wildly variant issues


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> It's not though is it?
> 
> Ban guns from trains for example. Good idea, a man with no gun on the train cannot shoot anyone
> 
> ...



Come on, you're smarter than this.

Most people carry out [x] safely and without incident. Small minority does not.

Govt passes a law of general application, restricting the rights of all to do [x], in order to proscribe the small minority.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Come on, you're smarter than this.
> 
> Most people carry out [x] safely and without incident. Small minority (z) does not.
> 
> Govt passes a law of general application, restricting the rights of all to do [x], in order to proscribe the small minority.




yes and sometimes the activities of Z are of such limited and unproven harm  that restricting  the rights of X based upon them  is stupid.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2008)

I used to drink on the tube/bus as it was the only way to get round the licensing hours.  You finish work at 5.30, get home at 6.30, make dinner, get ready, it's now 8pm.  It might take an hour to get to where the pub is.  That leaves you a whopping two hours at the pub.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I think we already had a big thread about it where the whole issue was explored... but generally, if you're actually _drinking_ on the tube, you're not a problem, yes. You'd have to be on a pretty bloody long tube ride to actually get pissed and obnoxious by drinking on the tube, even allowing for signal failures and diversions to a place you never bloody wanted to go.



Exactly.  Someone having their (first) can of beer on the tube en route to the pub is hardly going to cause much trouble.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2008)

gaijingirl said:


> I had a gin and tonic on the train today - served by the train staff.  I'd been on a long day cycling and fancied a drink on my way home.  The lady in front of me was having a can of beer.  Quite normal - neither of us "preparatory" drinking - just enjoying a drink on our way home.  Sometimes I'll do the same on a tube or bus - although I'd be less likely to as it would generally be a shorter journey.
> 
> I don't do it very often.. but then I very rarely see people drinking on the tube at all...
> 
> This whole policy is just a complete waste of time, energy and public money that could be so much better spent.



GG, rich people drinking alcohol on their expensive commuter train=fine
Poor people drinking a couple of beers on the way to the pub, to get round the licensing hours/pub prices=vicious evil end of society as we know it.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Here, as was pointed out by JC, we don't drink in public places.  That includes parks, buses - anywhere that has public assess.  For us, this is civilizated.  I found it very strange that you embrace this as a personal freedom.  It makes the the UK seems a little backward, imo.



What, so you can't even sit in the park and have a bottle of wine with a picnic?  Now that _is_ bloody weird.  A cold drink with friends etc in the outdoors on a good summer's day is one of life's ultimate simple pleasures.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Unfortunately, your people dont seem to be handling their liberties very well; the place is slowly slipping into social disorder.



Apart from some schoolkids using lots of F words as they walked past me on Millfields common when I was back in the UK last summer, this simply doesn't seem to be the case.  It's the same rather quiet, polite, grey place it's always been


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No. Ever spent Saturday night on Granville Street? Same thing, I think. But those spectacles aren't the typical Canadian experience, and there are specific reasons in each case for their existence.



Right, but they aren't the typical London experience either, outside of a few suburban semi-separate-towns like Kingston, Croydon etc.  It has little to do with blokes minding their own business having a can of beer on the way to the pub after a hard week at work.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> By the sounds of all the assaults, robberies etc that you have, 440 additional cops sounds like a middling-to-weak start at a fix.



We have just about double the number of total crimes, yet also double the population

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes



And considering that generally people in the UK live in much greater proximity to each other, that suggests that people are hardly descending into disorder any more than Canada is.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> also, i thought this was very intelligent, but no-one seems to agree or disgree



I agreed 100% with it.  Sorry, was too busy disagreeing with the puritanical north americans on here.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> No one else from any other country, has said that alcohol consumption is allowed on their public transportation. I think UK is an anomaly on this.
> 
> I think it springs from the day when most people were proles working in factories and mines, and their lives were  so horrible that they couldn't wait the length of a tube ride before beginning their nightly drinking, especially with the bizarre restrictive pub drinking hours that you had until recently.
> 
> Explain that one, you were able to drink on the subway, but not in a pub during the afternoon?



I've had beer on buses in China before.

That said, nobody Chinese does it, because it's just a bit weird in Chinese society to drink when not eating.  But there's definitely not a law against it.  Then again, there are far fewer laws in China on most things (except for criticising the government).


----------



## peterkro (May 7, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> None.  I've never seen anyone drink on your public transportation system before, so it came as a complete shock that it was legal.
> 
> You seem to have a much more lax attitude about drinking over there - here alcohol is kept out of the public view.   In Ontario, all alcohol (open or closed) must be carried in the boot - it is the law.
> 
> ...



I love north America,keep it out of public view and it goes away,whether it's alcohol,drugs ,sex or death sweeping it under the carpet isn't going to make it go away.As one who previously enjoyed a can or two on the tube I see this as just another attack on our right to live a life unfettered by some deluded nut job with a mission to have us all regimented to the point of non existance.


----------



## paolo (May 7, 2008)

Johnny: Drinking on public transport is legal in all the European countries I can think of. In Berlin where I was recently there are even shops on platforms that sell cold beer, an I even saw one with some high tables so you could perch and chat with a beer while waiting for your S-Bahn. Like London, it's people having a beer going somewhere else. Noone is "getting pissed on the tube".

I wonder if this ban will have the effect it had in the US, I.e. Carry on regardless, with those single can bags you get given automatically when you buy a single beer?


----------



## Giles (May 7, 2008)

twisted said:


> I don't really have a problem with it but he'd definitely strike a chord with me if he banned fried foods and music played on shitty little mobile phones.




Yes, speaker mobile phones are antisocial. If you want to listen to your own music, use headphones, don't inflict it on everyone around you over a crappy little speakerphone.

The silly thing about the proposed drinking ban is that it will annoy and affect those who AREN'T drunk and troublesome, because they will largely obey it, and be ignored by those who ARE, because they won't give a stuff, and won't be told what to do, unless uniformed police turn up.

Giles..


----------



## Giles (May 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> Much as I hate to credit Boris with any intelligence, it might have been because it was a shit idea, which is why the judiciary forced Blunkett to backtrack. So now we're left with a situation where minimum sentences are effectively only enforcable for those over 21, which may or may not have encouraged older criminals to get younger teens to hold the weapons. Make the age for minimum prison sentences lower and the kids holding the guns will just get younger. I've heard this from people in South London who think it's happening, but here's a related news link.



Why is it a "shit idea"? 

Most people want to stop the casual carrying of firearms by ever-younger criminals. 

If someone is caught with a totally illegal handgun in public, then to me that means that have it because they want to frighten people into "respecting" them, or because they think it more than possible that they might need to shoot someone that day.

If younger people are carrying the guns, lock them up too. Why should they be treated differently? 

If anything, it is the carrying of guns by immature teenagers that makes their use over absolutely trivial incidents more likely, because they are not able to think beyond the immediate insult / situation / etc as to whether it is "worth" shooting someone.

Giles..


----------



## pk (May 7, 2008)

They'll be banning the champagne bar at St Pancras next!!


----------



## scifisam (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> For the same reason as with seatbelts and insurance.
> 
> A small minority of tube riders[or vehicle drivers] will create a problem [be in a serious accident]. But because we can't identify who those people will be beforehand, the law has to be made of general applicaton.



You don't need dangerous drivers to create accidents - accidents can happen because of the weather, road conditions, illness, car faults or tiny errors of judgement. So seatbelts and insurance aren't a case of people being forced to do something thanks to the actions of a disorderly minority - they're there to protect people from real dangers that no-one can completely avoid.

Germany, Eastern Europe, Spain and Italy definitely allow drinking on public transport and anywhere in public, and France definitely allows drinking on some trains and in general public places like parks. Otherplaces might do as well, but I don't know. It's certainly not a British thing. Banning it is a North American thing. 

I find it sad that, in Canada, if you don't have a garden then you're not allowed to take a picnic and a bottle of wine to the park.


----------



## pk (May 7, 2008)

scifisam said:


> I find it sad that, in Canada, if you don't have a garden then you're not allowed to take a picnic and a bottle of wine to the park.



I think you can if you brown bag it. You just end up looking like a gluesniffer.






Besides - Canada is huge. Plenty of places to drink beer outdoors.

I got "carded" a few times when I was buying booze there as a lad, but the London accent usually persuaded them. Especially if they were female.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 7, 2008)

RenegadeDog said:


> What, so you can't even sit in the park and have a bottle of wine with a picnic?  Now that _is_ bloody weird.  A cold drink with friends etc in the outdoors on a good summer's day is one of life's ultimate simple pleasures.



I agree - but that is Ontario.  You are not even supposed to drink on your front lawn, must be in the back.  Quebec is not so strict.  As I said before, it is up to the individual areas to impose their standards as to what is acceptable and what is not.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 7, 2008)

RenegadeDog said:


> I used to drink on the tube/bus as it was the only way to get round the licensing hours.  You finish work at 5.30, get home at 6.30, make dinner, get ready, it's now 8pm.  It might take an hour to get to where the pub is.  That leaves you a whopping two hours at the pub.



Can't you keep beer at home?  Then you can start drinking at 6:30.


----------



## myname (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Why do people want to drink alcohol on the tube, anyway, if it's not 'preparatory' drinking?



well, just this weekend I was travelling back from the North of England to London on a train that had no option to buy a drink, didn't get into London until gone 9pm after over 5 hours on the train and I really wanted a drink, so I bought a tin of g&t at the station and drank it on the tube, didn't cause any problems and it meant I could start relaxing from my journey a little sooner.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 7, 2008)

Ban is from 1st June....


----------



## Reno (May 7, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> Johnny: Drinking on public transport is legal in all the European countries I can think of. In Berlin where I was recently there are even shops on platforms that sell cold beer, an I even saw one with some high tables so you could perch and chat with a beer while waiting for your S-Bahn.



I think in Germany beer isn't even considered alcohol. 

Personally I'm not bothered by this ban on drinking on public transport as I don't do that anyway, though it seems like a knee-jerk reaction applied in the wrong place.


----------



## Skorch (May 7, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What he's doing is consistent with the way the law is in NA. Perhaps he sees it as a small step to curbing the creeping social disorder that you seem to be undergoing.



NorthAmerican-style laws fucking suck.  You can't J-walk.  You can't enjoy a beer in the park.  Don't do this.  Don't do that.  There's no room for personal responsibility, so they lower society down to the lowest common denominator.  There's still unruly thugs in Canada.  Some kid had his skull caved in mere houses away from my old house in Edmonton while on his way home from his University exams.  Perhaps he was drinking a beer and the assailant was outraged by his lack for social decency.

I for one am deeply saddened that I won't be able to enjoy a tin on my way into the west end on a Saturday night.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

There used to be bars in some tube stations too, I think. Can't find a source right now.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

One step towards making public transport safe and enjoyable.  Next step hopefully the idiots playing music out loud on their mobile phones.

Unfortunately none of these things are going to make a difference unless there are people prepared to follow through and take action against offenders, be it drivers, conductors or on-call law enforcement officers.

If people can't manage a half hour or so on a bus or the tube without alcohol ... then perhaps that's an issue they need to address for themselves rather than blaming the authorities.

As someone who has had more than one late night journey disrupted by people drunk and abusive on a bus... this can't come soon enough.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

I predict that the number of drunk people on tubes and buses will hardly be affected by this law.


----------



## citydreams (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> There used to be bars in some tube stations too, I think. Can't find a source right now.



Sloane Square was a classic.  It was built with a pub called Hole in the Wall.  It closed in 1985.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloane_Square_tube_station





http://www.jamd.com/search?assettype=g&assetid=3313406&text=sloane+square+%22Hole+in+the+Wall%22


----------



## STFC (May 7, 2008)

Will it cover the DLR as well? On my way home last night there were empty cans scattered all around the floor of the carriage. This was just after 6pm. Are people really that desperate for a drink that they can't wait to get home or to their local?


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

STFC said:


> Will it cover the DLR as well?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7387113.stm

"The ban on the Tube, trains, buses and Docklands Light Railway was one of Mr Johnson's election pledges."


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

STFC;7463347]Will it cover the DLR as well? On my way home last night there were empty cans scattered all around the floor of the carriage. This was just after 6pm. Are people really that desperate for a drink that they can't wait to get home or to their local?[/quote]A lot of people work late shifts around the Docklands. Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy a can after work?[quote=Crispy said:


> I predict that the number of drunk people on tubes and buses will hardly be affected by this law.


I concur. It's a total waste of resources and money.


----------



## jæd (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> As someone who has had more than one late night journey disrupted by people drunk and abusive on a bus... this can't come soon enough.



So do people sober up immediately they get onto to public transport...? 

I wonder if they allow deck-chairs + popcorn on Public Transport these days...


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> A lot of people work late shifts around the Docklands. Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy a can after work?


I wasn't aware that "consuming alcohol" was actually a fundamental human right.

If they can't wait till they get home, then they have a problem they need to address.

If they're working "too late" to go out and have a beer after work, then they need to look at changing their hours or their job if alcohol is more important to them than anything else.

Stopping alcohol on public transport is hardly comparable to 'no dogs, no blacks, no irish' is it?


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

jæd said:


> So do people sober up immediately they get onto to public transport...?


If it was up to me, I'd incorporate a breathalyser into the Oyster card reader, and ban drunks from travelling on public transport.


----------



## ddraig (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I wasn't aware that "consuming alcohol" was actually a fundamental human right.
> 
> If they can't wait till they get home, then they have a problem they need to address.
> 
> ...



where the fuck do you people come from and what are you doing here??? 
genuine question


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If it was up to me, I'd incorporate a breathalyser into the Oyster card reader, and ban drunks from travelling on public transport.


 

If it was up to me you'd be in a siberian gulag


----------



## jæd (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If it was up to me, I'd incorporate a breathalyser into the Oyster card reader, and ban drunks from travelling on public transport.



Yep, lets get them to drive home instead...!


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If it was up to me, I'd incorporate a breathalyser into the Oyster card reader, and ban drunks from travelling on public transport.


You'd rather they drive? Or sleep it off on the streets?


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

ddraig said:


> where the fuck do you people come from and what are you doing here???
> genuine question



I came from the result of my mummy and daddy having a 'special cuddle', then 9 months later the stork bought me and left me on the doorstep.

What am I doing here?  Trying to bring some balance perhaps?  Exercising my right to free speech and, as someone who is affected by the issue being discussed (and life will be improved by its implementation) I see no reason not to contribue to the discussion.


----------



## rich! (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If it was up to me, I'd incorporate a breathalyser into the Oyster card reader, and ban drunks from travelling on public transport.



So you'd leave drunk people to walk home and be preyed on by unlicensed minicab drivers. Then when they were assaulted/raped it would be their fault for "drinking provocatively".


----------



## STFC (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7387113.stm
> 
> "The ban on the Tube, trains, buses and Docklands Light Railway was one of Mr Johnson's election pledges."



Good. I don't have a problem with this:



> Don Shenker, Chief Executive of Alcohol Concern, said: "Public drinking and the behaviour sometimes associated with it can, and does, deeply affect people's ability to enjoy public spaces.
> 
> "Taking a firm approach to public drinking in this way sends a strong message that public drunkenness is socially unacceptable."



People here are just focusing on not being able to enjoy a quiet can or two on the tube, but this is just one part of a wider strategy to curb anti-social behaviour on public transport. Surely nobody is against that?

Personally, I'd go further and ban all eating and drinking on the network.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> You'd rather they drive? Or sleep it off on the streets?



How about learning to enjoy themselves without needing alcohol?  Half of the country's problems today are alcohol related.

It's just a pity that two of the most addictive and harmful drugs available today - alcohol and tobacco - aren't regulated more.  I know they bring in tax to the government, but how much is that compared to what is wasted in the NHS dealing with medical issues caused by them?


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Sloane Square was a classic.  It was built with a pub called Hole in the Wall.  It closed in 1985.


I remember that bar!


----------



## jæd (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I came from the result of my mummy and daddy having a 'special cuddle', then 9 months later the stork bought me and left me on the doorstep.
> 
> What am I doing here?  Trying to bring some balance perhaps?  Exercising my right to free speech and, as someone who is affected by the issue being discussed (and life will be improved by its implementation) I see no reason not to contribue to the discussion.



Tobyjug, how have you been...?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (May 7, 2008)

Bit of a bummer. I like a glass of wine on a long journey or on a Friday on the way home from work (though I am cycling again now).


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

STFC said:


> Good. I don't have a problem with this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

why stop there! its only concious people that cause nuiscance. We should have gas masks on the tube, mandatory sleeping-gas producing ones. Then we'd employ ticket inspectors/ressuscitators.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

jæd said:


> Tobyjug, how have you been...?


I think you must have me confused with someone else.  This is my first ID here.


----------



## STFC (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> A lot of people work late shifts around the Docklands. Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy a can after work?I concur. It's a total waste of resources and money.



As I said, this was at 6pm. Whoever had been "enjoying a can" before I got on the train had just thrown it on the floor when they had finished.


----------



## rutabowa (May 7, 2008)

STFC said:


> Personally, I'd go further and ban all eating and drinking on the network.


i'd ban all eating and drinking anywhere. pussy.


----------



## Giles (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If it was up to me, I'd incorporate a breathalyser into the Oyster card reader, and ban drunks from travelling on public transport.



Thus neatly countering the longstanding advice to use public transport rather than your car if you are going to be drinking. Useful!

Giles..


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> How about learning to enjoy themselves without needing alcohol?  Half of the country's problems today are alcohol related.
> 
> It's just a pity that two of the most addictive and harmful drugs available today - alcohol and tobacco - aren't regulated more.  I know they bring in tax to the government, but how much is that compared to what is wasted in the NHS dealing with medical issues caused by them?



History shows that regulation and restriction have little effect on consumption of intoxicants. Check out prohibition america for the obvious example.


----------



## pk (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> As someone who has had more than one late night journey disrupted by people drunk and abusive on a bus... this can't come soon enough.



I get the feeling you're the type to get abused in public places regardless of drinking laws.

Didn't you used to post here under the name "tobyjug"?


----------



## STFC (May 7, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> i'd ban all eating and drinking anywhere. pussy.



You'd ban people from eating pussy? I agree it may not be appropriate on public transport...


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It's just a pity that two of the most addictive and harmful drugs available today - alcohol and tobacco - aren't regulated more.  I know they bring in tax to the government, but how much is that compared to what is wasted in the NHS dealing with medical issues caused by them?



Absolutely. Alcohol and tobacco need much greater regulation.

In the case of alcohol, our society has gone from one where it's acceptable to have a drink to one where for many people it's acceptable (indeed, usual) to be drunk.

That needs to change.


----------



## rutabowa (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> History shows that regulation and restriction have little effect on consumption of intoxicants. Check out prohibition america for the obvious example.


actually although prohibition is generally held to be a failure the figures show that the amount of alcohol-induced illnesses went down loads, i don't have the figures on me, but as a public health and order law it was actually very succesful. it was mainly repealed for tax reasons.


----------



## rutabowa (May 7, 2008)

STFC said:


> You'd ban people from eating pussy? I agree it may not be appropriate on public transport...



you have to entertain yourself some way if you can't drink


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> actually although prohibition is generally held to be a failure the figures show that the amount of alcohol-induced illnesses went down loads, i don't have the figures on me, but as a public health and *order law* it was actually very succesful.


 

really? so there wasn't huge amounts of money made by gangsters smuggling booze?


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> History shows that regulation and restriction have little effect on consumption of intoxicants. Check out prohibition america for the obvious example.



Try being in a large group of drunks in the street in Riyadh, for an obvious example.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Absolutely. Alcohol and tobacco need much greater regulation.
> 
> In the case of alcohol, our society has gone from one where it's acceptable to have a drink to one where for many people it's acceptable (indeed, usual) to be drunk.
> 
> That needs to change.


You are talking absolute crap as usual. The British (and Londoners in particular) have a long history of drunken, often loutish, behaviour dating back  many centuries.


----------



## rutabowa (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> really? so there wasn't huge amounts of money made by gangsters smuggling booze?



gangsters find ways to make money whatever the situation, it's not like they just gave up gangstering when prohibition was repealed/


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You are talking absolute crap as usual. The British (and Londoners in particular) have a long history of drunken, often loutish, behaviour dating back  many centuries.



These things go in cycles, as I'm sure you're aware.

It's undeniable that public drunkenness is a serious problem at present. Time to bring in more regulation as many people seem not to be able to exercise sufficient self-discipline for everyone else to comfortably enjoy the city.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> gangsters find ways to make money whatever the situation, it's not like they just gave up gangstering when prohibition was repealed/


Some did. Prohibition, be it of alcohol or other drugs, represents a major opportunity for gangster behaviour, which will expand to fill the space. 

In the same way, spiv-style dodginess in the UK reduced when rationing ended.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> gangsters find ways to make money whatever the situation, it's not like they just gave up gangstering when prohibition was repealed/


 

the three traditionals illegal gambling/prostitution and protection rackets. However these activities don't generate the sorts of profits one can expect from prohibiting certain substances. This increased profit means more vicious infighting and lots more gangsters. It's actually bad for society.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Try being in a large group of drunks in the street in Riyadh, for an obvious example.



Yeah, lovely downtown Riyadh. Charming place. Think I'll take my girlfriend.

PS: Can we stop the completely tedious and uninformed "You're tobyjug!" crap.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> These things go in cycles, as I'm sure you're aware.


And you're saying that regulation solved the problem in the past then, yes?


----------



## rutabowa (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> the three traditionals illegal gambling/prostitution and protection rackets. However these activities don't generate the sorts of profits one can expect from prohibiting certain substances. This increased profit means more vicious infighting and lots more gangsters. It's actually bad for society.



of course i am not saying bring back prohibition, only that there is a common view that it was a total failure when in fact it did achieve quite a lot of what it set out to do


----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

I'm tobyjug, and so's my wife.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> In the case of alcohol, our society has gone from one where it's acceptable to have a drink to one where for many people it's acceptable (indeed, usual) to be drunk.


One of the bigger problems is that it's almost as expensive to have a 'soft drink' in a pub as it is to drink alcohol.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> One of the bigger problems is that it's almost as expensive to have a 'soft drink' in a pub as it is to drink alcohol.



One of the biggest problems is the state trying to socially engineer people's (adults') behaviour. If I want to drink myself stupid, fuck off and let me. If I then engage in antisocial behaviour as a result of my drinking, punish me for that. I'm gettin mightily pissed off with the recent rise of the puritan state, as exemplified on here by the likes of untethered. 

Why the fuck should I pay loads of tax because I want to drink alcohol, subsidising the teetotal do-good boring fucks who sip Perrier at home with both their friends. On balance, I actually think alcohol is a *good* thing, and there is absolutely no reason why it should be more expensive than non-alcoholic drinks - brewing is not an expensive process.


----------



## jbob (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> One of the bigger problems is that it's almost as expensive to have a 'soft drink' in a pub as it is to drink alcohol.



Try the tube then.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> And you're saying that regulation solved the problem in the past then, yes?



Regulation can contribute to an improvement in conditions where done properly.

Law enforcement is the pinnacle of the social order pyramid. It would be naive to think that it could work in the absence of the foundation layers below. But measures to build any layer of the pyramid are worthwhile provided that simultaneous work is done on the other layers.

I start from the presumption that it's a good thing for all people to be able to use public space at any time of the day without fear, intimidation and harassment. Curbing public drinking and drunkenness would be an important step towards that end.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> I start from the presumption that it's a good thing for all people to be able to use public space at any time of the day without fear, intimidation and harassment. Curbing public drinking and drunkenness would be an important step towards that end.



What about those who want to have a little drink in a public space and cause no trouble? Are they not to be allowed to enjoy themselves too?


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why the f- should I pay loads of tax because I want to drink alcohol, subsidising the teetotal do-good boring f- who sip Perrier at home with both their friends.



You're not subsidising anyone. You're paying the price that society bears for alcohol-related illnesses, public disorder and crime.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> You're not subsidising anyone. You're paying the price that society bears for alcohol-related illnesses, public disorder and crime.


|
Got the figures for that? 

A small amount of alcohol every day is actually good for your health, while most people manage to drink and never commit any crime as a consequence.


----------



## twistedAM (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> One of the bigger problems is that it's almost as expensive to have a 'soft drink' in a pub as it is to drink alcohol.



It is in a shop as well. Compare the prices of a can of quality lager and a 500ml bottle of Coke. I'd hazard a guess they're both 89p in Costcutter.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

twisted said:


> It is in a shop as well. Compare the prices of a can of quality lager and a 500ml bottle of Coke. I'd hazard a guess they're both 89p in Costcutter.


And why should they not be the same price?


----------



## christonabike (May 7, 2008)

Will we be able to drink cans wrapped up in a paper bag, (like in New York, mmmm Olde English 800, 40 ounce bottles)?

I've read a lot of pages of this thread and can see no comment on this

If so, problem solved


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

The UK is turning into one big version of the Baptist Church in Under Milk Wood, with "Thou shalt not" written on every wall.


----------



## twistedAM (May 7, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And why should they not be the same price?



Well there's a lot of duty on alcohol and none on Coca-Cola or soft drinks so you'd think lager would be more expensive per litre. The brewing process is also more expensive.
The price of beer in shops has gone down radically in real terms over the past few years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

twisted said:


> The brewing process is also more expensive.


Is it? You know this - that the brewing process is more expensive than the process used to make Coca Cola?


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One of the biggest problems is the state trying to socially engineer people's (adults') behaviour. If I want to drink myself stupid, fuck off and let me. If I then engage in antisocial behaviour as a result of my drinking, punish me for that. I'm gettin mightily pissed off with the recent rise of the puritan state, as exemplified on here by the likes of untethered.
> 
> Why the fuck should I pay loads of tax because I want to drink alcohol, subsidising the teetotal do-good boring fucks who sip Perrier at home with both their friends. On balance, I actually think alcohol is a *good* thing, and there is absolutely no reason why it should be more expensive than non-alcoholic drinks - brewing is not an expensive process.



So... let me get this straight?

You feel I'm imposing my "lifestyle choices" on you ... yet you can't see that you want to do exactly the same?

I'm not asking you to stop drinking alcohol totally ... just perhaps have a bit of consideration for those that, for whatever reason, don't or can't - and don't wish to be surrounded by it.


----------



## twistedAM (May 7, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it? You know this - that the brewing process is more expensive than the process used to make Coca Cola?



Yes. Have a little think about it.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

Dunno, but I'll be taking my water onto the tube in an empty vodka bottle. I like that one


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So... let me get this straight?
> 
> You feel I'm imposing my "lifestyle choices" on you ... yet you can't see that you want to do exactly the same?
> 
> I'm not asking you to stop drinking alcohol totally ... just perhaps have a bit of consideration for those that, for whatever reason, don't or can't - and don't wish to be surrounded by it.


This shouldn't have to be a matter for the law


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

twisted said:


> Yes. Have a little think about it.



No, you have a little think about it. That's no sort of answer.


----------



## twistedAM (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Dunno, but I'll be taking my water onto the tube in an empty vodka bottle. I like that one



The Buckfast suggestion was even better. You don't want to get your water tainted by sunlight.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> This shouldn't have to be a matter for the law



Well if everyone were able to drink responsibly then it wouldn't be.


----------



## TopCat (May 7, 2008)

I can't read the whole thread due to concentration issues, but has anyone suggested a tube party in honour of this new legislation?


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

TopCat said:


> I can't read the whole thread due to concentration issues, but has anyone suggested a tube party in honour of this new legislation?



Yes, they have.

It's a thoroughly bad idea.


----------



## 8ball (May 7, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, you have a little think about it. That's no sort of answer.



I'd guess there are a lot more energy costs related to boiling and heating at various stages of the brewing process, plus some bits of it would go on a good bit longer than the Coca-Cola process, I imagine.

That's my 'having a little think' answer which may bear little resemblance to reality.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

TopCat said:


> I can't read the whole thread due to concentration issues, but has anyone suggested a tube party in honour of this new legislation?


 


it would be awesome.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

There is hardly a freedom that exists that isn't abused by some group of people or other, but to involve the law in everything infantilizes adults even further, and diminishes rather than increases social responsibility.


----------



## twistedAM (May 7, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, you have a little think about it. That's no sort of answer.



Are you one of these inner city kids the taboids go on about that think eggs grow on trees and therefore beer comes from Lake Artois?
It's common sense that something that takes longer to make costs more. Ingredients for soft drinks are just bunged together and some fizz added and they're ready to drink straight away whereas booze has to be brewed in several stages.


----------



## TopCat (May 7, 2008)

..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> There is hardly a freedom that exists that isn't abused by some group of people or other, but to involve the law in everything infantilizes adults even further, and diminishes rather than increases social responsibility.


Yes.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

twisted said:


> Are you one of these inner city kids the taboids go on about that think eggs grow on trees and therefore beer comes from Lake Artois?
> It's common sense that something that takes longer to make costs more. Ingredients for soft drinks are just bunged together and some fizz added and they're ready to drink straight away whereas booze has to be brewed in several stages.



The number of different guises in which sugary water is sold will be an enduring tribute to capitalisms malign ingenuity.


----------



## TopCat (May 7, 2008)

twisted said:


> Are you one of these inner city kids the taboids go on about that think eggs grow on trees and therefore beer comes from Lake Artois?
> It's common sense that something that takes longer to make costs more. Ingredients for soft drinks are just bunged together and some fizz added and they're ready to drink straight away whereas booze has to be brewed in several stages.



I don't want to be rude but you are quite ignorant of both the brewing process and the construction of soft drinks.


----------



## 8ball (May 7, 2008)

TopCat said:


> ..





Tube Party has spontaneously vanished - glitch in teh matrix?


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> There is hardly a freedom that exists that isn't abused by some group of people or other, but to involve the law in everything infantilizes adults even further, and diminishes rather than increases social responsibility.



The problem lies in using the law _alone _as a means of social control. Sadly, in many cases it's all we've got left.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

I don't know, I would guess that the whole manufacturing and distribution process for most mass-market alcohol and soft drinks would cost about the same per brand. If it was more to make alcohol, with the tax already being far higher and distribution outlets being restricted, it wouldn't be very economical for them to be sell at approximately the same price as non-alcoholic drinks. The profit per unit is tiny for both anyway.


----------



## twistedAM (May 7, 2008)

TopCat said:


> I don't want to be rude but you are quite ignorant of both the brewing process and the construction of soft drinks.




Feel free to put me right. Im pretty sure I'm right unless volume and scale make lager cheaper but anyway it's all a bit of a distraction.


----------



## TopCat (May 7, 2008)

twisted said:


> Feel free to put me right. Im pretty sure I'm right unless volume and scale make lager cheaper but anyway it's all a bit of a distraction.



I have brewed and drank a great deal of beer and have also made lemonade etc. It's really quite funny to watch you assert your opinion about the expense given you have no idea of the brewing process at all.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

twisted said:


> Feel free to put me right. Im pretty sure I'm right unless volume and scale make lager cheaper but anyway it's all a bit of a distraction.


 

yup. What does it matter if lager and soft drinks are priced about the same? 

Unless the thought of people on low incomes enjoying a beer horrifies?


----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

Gotta keep those lower orders in line. They're savages, dotcha know.


----------



## twistedAM (May 7, 2008)

TopCat said:


> I have brewed and drank a great deal of beer and have also made lemonade etc. It's really quite funny to watch you assert your opinion about the expense given you have no idea of the brewing process at all.




It's quite funny for you to assume I have no idea of the brewing process.
Anyway less of the point-scoring. 
I can't see how it's more expensive to make a can of Coke than it is say, Kronenberg - one of the reason's why Coke is expensive is that the parent company charges a high royalty to local bottlers.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

How the fuck does one 'swig aggresively'


fuckwit he is


----------



## twistedAM (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> yup. What does it matter if lager and soft drinks are priced about the same?
> 
> Unless the thought of people on low incomes enjoying a beer horrifies?




This stupid tangent was raised when someone complained about soft drinks being as expensive as beer in pubs and I pointed out that they're the same price in shops as well. That's all really.


----------



## DeadManWalking (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> How the fuck does one 'swig aggresively'
> 
> 
> fuckwit he is



That's exactly what wound me up so much, god it's only been two days and I'm fucking angry, even thought about leaving London!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

twisted said:


> It's common sense that something that takes longer to make costs more. Ingredients for soft drinks are just bunged together and *some fizz added* and they're ready to drink straight away whereas booze has to be brewed in several stages.



As an example of something that may not be so obvious, how much energy does this take? You assume this is self-evident, whereas it doesn't seem so to me.


----------



## jæd (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I think you must have me confused with someone else.  This is my first ID here.



Heh, that's what you said last time...


----------



## twistedAM (May 7, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As an example of something that may not be so obvious, how much energy does this take? You assume this is self-evident, whereas it doesn't seem so to me.



I tried to find a nice little diagram on the net for soft drink production but best i got was this:

http://www.australianbeverages.org/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=ASP0002/ccms.r?PageID=10055

Which does seem quite simple compared to this:

http://www.energymanagertraining.com/distillery/Brewery_process.htm

I'd still bet on beer but I suppose the water purification and CO2 adds some costs to soft drinks


----------



## TopCat (May 7, 2008)

jæd said:


> Heh, that's what you said last time...



Who cares?


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

jæd said:


> Heh, that's what you said last time...


I said stop it.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> How the f- does one 'swig aggresively'



One can do just about anything aggressively.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 7, 2008)




----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

I sure hope they fine lots of Tory voters.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> One can do just about anything aggressively.


 

*aggressively weaves daisy-chains*


----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

<viciously darns socks>


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>


Think I'll huff the vapours then


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> *aggressively weaves daisy-chains*



You _beast_.


----------



## CharlieAddict (May 7, 2008)

fuckin' rubbish rule!

on a hot summer's day and afterwork, i love drinking a can of beer on the tube. bah!

bollocks to this. 

if you're gonna ban something, ban all food, chewing gum and drinks on tube. 
it works in the countries that practices this. clean tube/trains. lovely traveling experience.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 7, 2008)

What about if I'm getting a train to Sheffield.
Am I not allowed to crack into a can until I'm outside greater London?


----------



## rich! (May 7, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> What about if I'm getting a train to Sheffield.
> Am I not allowed to crack into a can until I'm outside greater London?



"Ladies and Gentlemen, the train is about to enter the Greater London Intolerance Zone. We will be stopping for ten minutes while BT Police board to search for unauthorised alcohol consumption.

Meanwhile, the bar is serving a selection of hot and cold drinks, tea and coffee, beers wines and spirits."


----------



## rutabowa (May 7, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> What about if I'm getting a train to Sheffield.
> Am I not allowed to crack into a can until I'm outside greater London?



nothing is changing on trains.


----------



## Dask (May 7, 2008)

What about having a protest on June the 1st on the circle line, Flash mob drinking on public transport day??

Just an idea.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 7, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> nothing is changing on trains.



Are you sure - I thought the ban covers all public transport?
I realise they're not going to be able to police proper intercity trains, but what about London overground services.


----------



## rutabowa (May 7, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Are you sure - I thought the ban covers all public transport?
> I realise they're not going to be able to police proper intercity trains, but what about London overground services.



hmm dunno i don't think i will change my habits though.


----------



## christonabike (May 7, 2008)

Anyone got the official line on this, like from somewhere official and not a newspaper

There's nowt about it on Tfl

Ta


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

Fucking stupid law that will achieve precisely nothing. Drunken behaviour on tubes has got precious little to do with _drinking_ on the tube train - besides, most journeys don't give you enough time to get drunk even if you tried really hard.

What a clueless fuckwit that Boris cunt is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Fucking stupid law that will achieve precisely nothing. Drunken behaviour on tubes has got precious little to do with _drinking_ on the tube train - besides, most journeys don't give you enough time to get drunk even if you tried really hard.
> 
> What a clueless fuckwit that Boris cunt is.


We can expect a lot more of this. Remember who voted for him - the suburban middle classes and the west london rich. He needs to keep these forces for reaction sweet if he's to win again in four years' time.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>



Another reason to ride a bike. It was being able to have a sneaky drink which made public transport tolerable imo.


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> Trains and planes are not really public transportation.  They are privately owned.  I think the issue should be more about what is acceptable on publically funding transportation.


I don't know about Canada, but the buses are privately owned too. Airlines and the railway companies get public subsidy, just as the buses do. You can charter a private plane and a private train just like you can hire a private coach, but scheduled services are public transport.

How is it OK for people to be allowed to drink on a journey long enough to get drunk on, but not to sup a tinny on a short hop across London? People who are causing problems can be dealt with under existing legislation, whether they're drunk or not. 

It's just a pointless bit of legislation that has a few braindead morons thinking that it'll stop them being harrassed by drunk people on the tube when it blatantly won't. There isn't enough time to get pissed on most tube journeys, so it can't possibly reduce the number of people who are drunk whilst using it - but it probably will mean that some people will get a lot more tanked up before they head out, so it seems more likely to exacerbate any existing problem than anything.



ajdown said:


> It's just a pity that two of the most addictive and harmful drugs available today - alcohol and tobacco - aren't regulated more.  I know they bring in tax to the government, but how much is that compared to what is wasted in the NHS dealing with medical issues caused by them?


Smokers pay nearly twice as much in tax as the NHS spends on treating smoking related diseases. Not sure on the figures for alcohol, but that costs the NHS less than tobacco does and the tax take is probably comparable to tobacco.

Feel free to worry about what people are doing to their bodies, but don't try and claim you're paying for it. You benefit from it - not just the tax take, but the fact that these people die younger and so don't tend to claim much of it back in the way of a pension.


----------



## CharlieAddict (May 7, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We can expect a lot more of this. Remember who voted for him - the suburban middle classes and the west london rich. He needs to keep these forces for reaction sweet if he's to win again in four years' time.



i voted for him and i'm neither a suburban middle class or a west londoner.

and i buy The Times as well.


----------



## citydreams (May 7, 2008)

christonabike said:


> Anyone got the official line on this, like from somewhere official and not a newspaper
> 
> There's nowt about it on Tfl
> 
> Ta




Aye:




			
				TfL Intranet said:
			
		

> From 1 June 2008, drinking from and carrying open containers of alcohol will be banned.
> 
> Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, today joined London’s Transport Commissioner, Peter Hendy, to unveil information posters advising passengers of the plans, which will be displayed on the Transport for London network from today.
> 
> ...


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

CharlieAddict said:


> i voted for him and i'm neither a suburban middle class or a west londoner.
> 
> and i buy The Times as well.



did you cast all the one million odd votes then?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

Alchohol Concern have backed the plan:



> Don Shenker, Chief Executive of Alcohol Concern, said:
> 
> “Alcohol Concern welcomes the decision to ban drinking on all Transport for London modes. Public drinking and the behaviour sometimes associated with it can , and does, deeply affect people’s ability to enjoy public spaces. Taking a firm approach to public drinking in this way sends a strong message that public drunkenness is socially unacceptable and will support both the public and transport staff. This in the end, is what ‘culture change’ is all about.”


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

CharlieAddict said:


> i voted for him and i'm neither a suburban middle class or a west londoner.


The Forces of Reaction know no boundaries.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

Bob Crow's response is amusing and makes a fair point:



> But the Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) Union's leader Bob Crow said: "We are in favour of any measure that will make our members' lives safer and curb anti-social behaviour, but it appears that this really hasn't been thought through very well and could well make matters worse.
> 
> *"We are being told that it will be our members who will have to approach people drinking and ask them to stop - but the mayor hasn't asked us what we think.*
> 
> "Perhaps the mayor will come out with his underpants on over his trousers like Superman one Saturday to show us how it should be done, and maybe tell a crowd of Liverpool supporters that they can't drink on the train."


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2008)

Looks like we're going to have a 4 year run of Boris v Bob. 

Boris 0, Bob 2 so far.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

Go Bob Crow! I reckon we're going to be in for some interesting times ahead as Boris comes up with more half baked transport plans.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Alchohol Concern have backed the plan:



Notice how they shimmy from public drinking to public drunkenness, as if they weren't actually rather unrelated.


----------



## christonabike (May 7, 2008)

There were 3000 Leeds fans going through London Bridge a couple of weeks ago, I'd like to see them stopped for drinking from a can


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Go Bob Crow! I reckon we're going to be in for some interesting times ahead as Boris comes up with more half baked transport plans.



Yes, let's hope that unelected union leaders make it as difficult as possible for our democratically-elected mayor to implement his programme! 

Down with the will of the people!


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Alchohol Concern have backed the plan:



Christian do-gooding mother fuckers


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Yes, let's hope that unelected union leaders make it as difficult as possible for our democratically-elected mayor to implement his programme!
> 
> Down with the will of the people!



Isn't Bob Crow elected by the RMT members?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (May 7, 2008)

So is this just a London thing? Will I be able to have a sniffter on the way up to ma & pas?


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Yes, let's hope that unelected union leaders make it as difficult as possible for our democratically-elected mayor to implement his programme!



Are you suggesting that the RMT is undemocratic?


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Isn't Bob Crow elected by the RMT members?



I'm sure you know precisely what I meant.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Yes, let's hope that unelected union leaders make it as difficult as possible for our democratically-elected mayor to implement his programme!
> 
> Down with the will of the people!


The will of 20% of the people to be precise.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Down with the will of the people!



Less than half the people who voted voted for Boris. Of them I doubt if 100% support the ban on drinking. I don't think this is an issue of "unelected" leader vs. will of the people somehow. 

Besides - to have a truly fair representation of the will of the people I think we could have done without a month of spurious anti-Livingstone stories form the Tory press.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm sure you know precisely what I meant.



What you meant was: Fuck the workers.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The will of 20% of the people to be precise.



The will of the majority of Londoners (give or take) that felt strongly enough about the outcome to bother to vote.

Good enough for me.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm sure you know precisely what I meant.



You meant something almost completely different from what you said then?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm sure you know precisely what I meant.



No I don't. You said he wasn't unelected. I'm sure he is. Now one of us is right and the other is being a disingenuous wanker. I'll let you guess which is which.


----------



## El Jefe (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> The will of the majority of Londoners (give or take) that felt strongly enough about the outcome to bother to vote.



It was nowhere near a majority of Londoners willing to vote.


----------



## Fun-Sized (May 7, 2008)

Ken was going to do this too.

For what reason would anyone wish to drink on the tube anyway, unless they want to look like a tramp? Lone drinking is especially dodgy. Wait till you get home, or to the pub.  How long is the average tube journey?  I would guess around 25mins - if someone can't get by for that length of time without alcohol, then they need to take a long hard look at their life.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What you meant was: F- the workers.



What I meant was that elected politicans should decide how the city is run and employed workers should get on with the job of doing the things their employer asks of them.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> The will of the majority of Londoners (give or take) that felt strongly enough about the outcome to bother to vote.
> 
> Good enough for me.



How many of them were voting on the drinking on public transport issue do you think?


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> No I don't. You said he wasn't unelected. I'm sure he is. Now one of us is right and the other is being a disingenuous w-. I'll let you guess which is which.



For the avoidance of any further doubt I'll spoon-feed you and clarify that I was referring to being elected by the public, not just by union members.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> What I meant was that elected politicans should decide how the city is run and employed workers should get on with the job of doing the things their employer asks of them.



Sod health and safety - lets just listen to our bosses. they're never going to ask us to do something illegal or unsafe are they?


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> How many of them were voting on the drinking on public transport issue do you think?



That's not how representative democracy works, as I'm sure you know.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

CharlieAddict said:


> i voted for him and i'm neither a suburban middle class or a west londoner.
> 
> and i buy The Times as well.



I don't buy the Times (no need to waste money on a paper when there's so many free ones) but I'm certainly not suburban middle class or west london either.

Unless you count being born in Somerset as "west of London".

Why are these things always blamed on some 'class' or as a 'political issue' when it's actually down to the simple matter of whether you want to be surrounded by alcoholics on public transport, or not.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

Fun-Sized said:


> Ken was going to do this too.



Really? That changes things a bit. Got a source?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> For the avoidance of any further doubt I'll spoon-feed you and clarify that I was referring to being elected by the public, not just by union members.



But you said unelected union leaders. Bob Crow is elected. Unless you mean unelected in the same way people do when they say Chavez is a dictator?


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> For the avoidance of any further doubt I'll spoon-feed you and clarify that I was referring to being elected by the public, not just by union members.



So you think that transport workers who are expected to uphold this ban should not have a say on whether its possible, safe, etc? You think we shoyuld be ordered about by unelected bosses?

So much for being professionals!!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Really? That changes things a bit. Got a source?



I've not read that. Sounds like something that Ken might have said at a hustings though "I'd consider banning booze etc"...


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> That's not how representative democracy works, as I'm sure you know.



In that case I don;t think you should use the phrase will of the people - you clearly realise it is a bullshit phrase. 

And that's why politicians consult people before making decisions like this. Boris should consult us - unions, workers, transport companies, passengers, police, etc.


----------



## Fun-Sized (May 7, 2008)

If anyone is going to enforce the ban then it should be the Transport Police, who are trained to deal with such situations, not Tube employees.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why are these things always blamed on some 'class' or as a 'political issue' when it's actually down to the simple matter of whether you want to be surrounded by alcoholics on public transport, or not.



Not only is this a worthwhile point, but it's worth adding that it's the people at the bottom of the social/economic scale that suffer most from public disorder.

The people that are less likely to be able to choose where they live and work.

The people that are less likely to be able to choose to drive if the streets and public transport are unsafe.

The people that are too young, old or infirm to defend themselves or flee if trouble occurs.

But don't worry about them. Just defend the "rights" of relatively-affluent twenty/thirty-somethings to be able to treat the whole city as their orgiastic rumpus room.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

I'm about to launch an e-petition on petitions.pm.gov (is the right place?). What do people think of the text:





> Overturn Boris Johnson's plans to ban the drinking of alcohol on London's transport system
> 
> This ridiculous law not only infringes on people's right to peacefully enjoy a drink on the tube - perhaps after work or on their way out for a night - but it will be expensive to enforce and achieve precisely nothing.
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

Fun-Sized said:


> Ken was going to do this too.
> 
> *For what reason would anyone wish to drink on the tube anyway, unless they want to look like a tramp? Lone drinking is especially dodgy.* Wait till you get home, or to the pub. How long is the average tube journey? I would guess around 25mins - if someone can't get by for that length of time without alcohol, then they need to take a long hard look at their life.


 

Your opinion is irrelevant here-some people enjoy a can and a newspaper on the train/tube/bus after work. These people tend not to give a shit wether or not some random thinks they look like a tramp, or that their lone drink is 'dodgy'


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

Fun-Sized said:


> If anyone is going to enforce the ban then it should be the Transport Police, who are trained to deal with such situations, not Tube employees.



I agree. The other alternative is to give tube staff body armor and stun guns...


----------



## El Jefe (May 7, 2008)

Fun-Sized said:


> Ken was going to do this too.
> 
> For what reason would anyone wish to drink on the tube anyway, unless they want to look like a tramp? Lone drinking is especially dodgy. Wait till you get home, or to the pub.  How long is the average tube journey?  I would guess around 25mins - if someone can't get by for that length of time without alcohol, then they need to take a long hard look at their life.



See, that's the sort of assumption filled, judgemental bollocks that is driving this kind of legislation.

The thing is, i shouldn't NEED to justify my desire to have a drink on the tube.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> I'm about to launch an e-petition on petitions.pm.gov (is the right place?). What do people think of the text:



Excellent wording, big thumbs up from me!

e2a: yes use that one, also send out a press notice (Brixton based community activist site opposes Bojo booze ban etc), try and get Brian Paddick to say something about it too. = headline city!


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why are these things always blamed on some 'class' or as a 'political issue' when it's actually down to the simple matter of whether you want to be surrounded by alcoholics on public transport, or not.


Be sure to explain how that's going to change if people are unable to drink for the duration of their short journey.

Oh, and when was the last time you were "surrounded by alcoholics" on a tube journey or is this just a manufactured FACT!


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> I'm about to launch an e-petition on petitions.pm.gov (is the right place?). What do people think of the text:



Of course, I disagree with your motion.

But it's not the right place. pm.gov.uk is for matters that affect central government. If you want to petition the mayor, do so directly. (Not that he has a website for such things, but there are others.)


----------



## teuchter (May 7, 2008)

It's not hard to tell that someone probably only had about a day to design the posters...


----------



## STFC (May 7, 2008)

To be honest, it's doing those who drink on the tube a big favour - it does look a bit desperate if you can't wait until you reach your destination (and I say this as someone who has drunk on the tube once or twice).


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Of course, I disagree with your motion.
> 
> But it's not the right place. pm.gov.uk is for matters that affect central government. If you want to petition the mayor, do so directly. (Not that he has a website for such things, but there are others.)


It's more about gaining press and there's no similar public petition facility for London.


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm sure you know precisely what I meant.


Bob Crow is just pointing out that it's a half-baked plan that the unions haven't been consulted on (which is shockingly poor policy-making for a start), and suggesting that tube workers should not be required to risk their personal safety by trying to enforce it. Seems rather reasonable to me.

Would you rather that our "democratically" elected leaders were not critiqued between elections? That noone with expertise ever comments negatively on policy because they weren't (nationally) elected and the politician with no relevant experience was?

Would you like the civil service to stop advising government on the practicalities of policy too? Thatcher and then Blair dismantled as much of it as possible in favour of their cronies who would tell them what they wanted to hear, but going the whole hog and not have any "unelected" personnel advising on policy decisions?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> It's not hard to tell that someone probably only had about a day to design the posters...



Heh I was thinking that, also wondering if this a hint of the new look branding and London.gov site....


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> I'm about to launch an e-petition on petitions.pm.gov (is the right place?). What do people think of the text:



It's good, except that 'to peacefully enjoy' is a split infinitive!  

You could perhaps emphasise the fact that tube journeys are mainly so short that people don't have time to get pissed, which would reinforce the point about such problems as do exist being cause by people who are already drunk when they get on the train.


----------



## El Jefe (May 7, 2008)

STFC said:


> To be honest, it's doing those who drink on the tube a big favour - it does look a bit desperate if you can't wait until you reach your destination (and I say this as someone who has drunk on the tube once or twice).



So I should be grateful that a piece of illiberal, unworkable, disastrous legislation has been passed to enable me to uphold my otherwise flawless public image?

What absolute toss.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

STFC said:


> To be honest, it's doing those who drink on the tube a big favour - it does look a bit desperate if you can't wait until you reach your destination (and I say this as someone who has drunk on the tube once or twice).


 


You may be so devoid in self confidence that the thought of how you are percieved by strangers on the tube ranks as significant, but many people are not.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> It's more about gaining press and there's no similar public petition facility for London.



You won't gain any press. Your petition will be rejected and no-one will be able to sign it. You're just creating work for Mr Brown's web slaves for no demonstrable benefit.

Find a general petition site and do it there. Or better, don't.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

Fun-Sized said:


> if someone can't get by for that length of time without alcohol, then they need to take a long hard look at their life.



Shit country, noisy city, stressful job, malfunctioning public transport. And Boris Johnson is mayor. I don't think a long hard look is necessary, it's obvious why I want a drink at the end of a long day at work.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> You won't gain any press. Your petition will be rejected and no-one will be able to sign it. You're just creating work for Mr Brown's web slaves for no demonstrable benefit.
> 
> Find a general petition site and do it there. Or better, don't.



Bullshit. And another good reason to go ahead with it.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> You may be so devoid in self confidence that the thought of how you are percieved by strangers on the tube ranks as significant, but many people are not.



But isn't that the problem? No-one cares what anyone else thinks any more.

We live in a shameless society where being drunk in public is considered, quite wrongly, to be no-one else's business.

Thank goodness that we now have a common sense mayor that cares about such things.


----------



## laptop (May 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


>






Last time I drank on the Tube, we brought wineglasses. And brightened everyone else's day.


Anyone for a bottle or eight of cava on 1 June?


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Find a general petition site and do it there. Or better, don't.



Why? Because it would interfere with your narrow conceptions of democracy?


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> also send out a press notice (Brixton based community activist site opposes Bojo booze ban etc), try and get Brian Paddick to say something about it too. = headline city!


Um... you do not speak for me.  Therefore this 'community activist site' does not 'oppose' something that is long overdue.

You do realise, of course, that it's only because people cannot control themselves in public that these kind of rules need to be introduced?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

laptop said:


> Anyone for a bottle or eight of cava on 1 June?



You know a mass drinkathon in defiance aint a bad idea...


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> B-. And another good reason to go ahead with it.



http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/list/rejected


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> We live in a shameless society where being drunk in public is considered, quite wrongly, to be no-one else's business.



So if I have one drink now I'm going to be treated as a drunkard?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Um... you do not speak for me.  Therefore this 'community activist site' does not 'oppose' something that is long overdue.
> 
> You do realise, of course, that it's only because people cannot control themselves in public that these kind of rules need to be introduced?



I'm not saying I do but the Ed does own the site and besides he could run a poll to gage opinion. Also, it doesn't have to be 100% true to gain press attention, it just has to make a good story.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Be sure to explain how that's going to change if people are unable to drink for the duration of their short journey.
> 
> Oh, and when was the last time you were "surrounded by alcoholics" on a tube journey or is this just a manufactured FACT!



Whilst 'surrounded' probably has different definitions, how about "the last time I was out on a bus after 9pm"?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> But isn't that the problem? No-one cares what anyone else thinks any more.
> 
> We live in a shameless society where being drunk in public is considered, quite wrongly, to be no-one else's business.
> 
> Thank goodness that we now have a common sense mayor that cares about such things.


 

Why should we care what strangers think? why am I bothering to debate this with you,? you'd probably be horrified by my attire you relic.

oh and stop jumping from a public drink to public drunkeness again.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You do realise, of course, that it's only because people cannot control themselves in public that these kind of rules need to be introduced?


Please list some recent examples of trouble caused by people drinking on the tube or shut the fuck up with your clueless moralising.
Thanks.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> So if I have one drink now I'm going to be treated as a drunkard?



I neither said nor implied any such thing.

I suppose it might depend on how big your "one drink" is, though.


----------



## christonabike (May 7, 2008)

It's become a bit us v them

us: want a quiet drink on the train, and to let London Transport Police enforce already existing laws

them: killjoy twats who just love a nanny state that tells people what to do, especially if they don't like it themselves


----------



## STFC (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> You may be so devoid in self confidence that the thought of how you are percieved by strangers on the tube ranks as significant, but many people are not.



Yes, that must be it.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> You know a mass drinkathon in defiance aint a bad idea...



Don't come whining to us then when you get slapped with an £80 fixed penalty notice, or whatever they decide to do for people who are breaking the law.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Whilst 'surrounded' probably has different definitions, how about "the last time I was out on a bus after 9pm"?



alcoholics? do you know they were alcoholics?


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Whilst 'surrounded' probably has different definitions, how about "the last time I was out on a bus after 9pm"?


No, tube journey please. Time and date. You are aware that you might also be 'surrounded by alcoholics' in a wide variety of public situations too? 

Like the office, pub, cinema, post office queues, motor bike rallies, that kind of thing...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

christonabike said:


> It's become a bit us v them
> 
> us: want a quiet drink on the train, and to let London Transport Police enforce already exixting laws
> 
> them: killjoy twats who just love a nanny state that tells people what to do, especially if they don't like it themselves



That's why it'll be a news story, the media are into this can bojo reach out to the inner city, the 'inner city fight back' angle could gain traction.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Don't come whining to us then when you get slapped with an £80 fixed penalty notice, or whatever they decide to do for people who are breaking the law.



I'd be too pissed to care at that point.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> Shit country, noisy city, stressful job, malfunctioning public transport. And Boris Johnson is mayor. I don't think a long hard look is necessary, it's obvious why I want a drink at the end of a long day at work.



If you don't like the country or the city, you're more than free to move elsewhere.  Nobody is stopping you.

Out of interest, what does your 'hard day at work' consist of?


----------



## laptop (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> motor bike rallies, that kind of thing...


----------



## QueenOfGoths (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> But isn't that the problem? No-one cares what anyone else thinks any more.
> 
> We live in a shameless society where being drunk in public is considered, quite wrongly, to be no-one else's business.
> 
> Thank goodness that we now have a common sense mayor that cares about such things.



If the person who is drunk is harming no one, getting in no ones way etc.. then it is no ones business.

I am no binge drinker - too bloody old for that - but I object to some fucker telling me when and where I can have a drink. 

And I object more to some fucker wasting public money on the enforecment of banning booze somewhere i.e. on the tube/buses, where it really isn't a problem.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Um... you do not speak for me. Therefore this 'community activist site' does not 'oppose' something that is long overdue.
> 
> You do realise, of course, that it's only because people cannot control themselves in public that these kind of rules need to be introduced?


 

you know what happens when we allow the very worst elements of our society to be held up as reasons for new rules laws and regulations? we go baa! baa! as we stroll into the direction the gov want. Our stupidity and their manipulation.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> I neither said nor implied any such thing.
> 
> I suppose it might depend on how big your "one drink" is, though.



you did imply such a thing - by supporting this ban on drinking and justifying it on the basis that it combats drunkards. Well, lets ban dogs because it will successfully tackle the socially unacceptable practice of allowing dogs to shit on the pavement. 

Hey ban cyclists too because a few ride on the pavement. 

Hmmm...what else can we ban. all in the cause of law and order you understand.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Why should we care what strangers think?



Because sensitivity and reciprocity is the foundation of civility.



DotCommunist said:


> why am I bothering to debate this with you,?



Everyone has to learn somewhere.



DotCommunist said:


> you'd probably be horrified by my attire you relic.



I suspect I would.



DotCommunist said:


> oh and stop jumping from a public drink to public drunkeness again.



I'm not, but there is clearly a relationship between the two.

Regardless of the state of inebritation, the act of drinking may be perceived by many as unwelcome and intimidating in a place that doesn't afford easy egress.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

What's interesting about this is that it's _exactly_ the kind of thing New Labour do. If something is generally acknowledged to be hideously shit, and you are too tight-fisted and ideologically skewed to actually do anything about it, just ban something - it's cheap, makes it look like you're doing something, and the middle classes will tolerate the illiberalism 'cos they know it'll only be enforced against the young, the poor and the off-white.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

Anyone know any good free petition sites where we can get this thing going if the .gov one isn't appropriate?


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> No, tube journey please.


Buses will be covered by this rule too.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> alcoholics? do you know they were alcoholics?



If someone cannot wait half an hour to get home that they need to have alcohol, right here, right now, then I'd say that was fairly indicative of an addiction, and someone addicted to alcohol is .... an alcoholic.


----------



## teuchter (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You do realise, of course, that it's only because people cannot control themselves in public that these kind of rules need to be introduced?



1. Please explain the circumstances in which you have been caused distress whilst on the tube as a result of others' alcohol consumption.
2. Please explain in what proportion of these cases those causing you distress were drinking alcohol at that point in time.
3. In these cases, please explain why you think they would have caused you significantly less distress if they had not been drinking alcohol during the period of time they had been on the tube train.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If someone cannot wait half an hour to get home that they need to have alcohol, right here, right now, then I'd say that was fairly indicative of an addiction, and someone addicted to alcohol is .... an alcoholic.


nice diagnosis, doc.

the premise here is pretty simple. drunk people on public transport don't get drunk on public transport, they use it to travel around whilst already drunk.

therefore, stopping people drinking on public transport will not remove drunk people from public transport.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If you don't like the country or the city, you're more than free to move elsewhere.  Nobody is stopping you.



well i'm not going to delve into my private life - but let's say - no i'm not.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> No, tube journey please. Time and date. You are aware that you might also be 'surrounded by alcoholics' in a wide variety of public situations too?
> 
> Like the office, pub, cinema, post office queues, motor bike rallies, that kind of thing...



As pointed out, buses are covered.  I tend not to use the tube unless I'm in a hurry.

Bus, 45 from King's Cross to Brixton Hill, 27.4.08, approx 9.30pm.

As for the rest of your list...

Office... nobody should be drunk at work.  
Pub... I don't go to pubs.  Can't afford it.
Cinema... rowdy people should be ejected.
Post office queues... don't use them.
Bike rallies... don't go there.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Anyone know any good free petition sites where we can get this thing going if the .gov one isn't appropriate?



This one looks ok: http://www.petitiononline.com/


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If someone cannot wait half an hour to get home that they need to have alcohol, right here, right now, then I'd say that was fairly indicative of an addiction, and someone addicted to alcohol is .... an alcoholic.



Nonsense.  

Where's your evidence for the suggestion that all - or even most - most people drinking on public transport are doing so because they're alcoholics who can't wait?


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 7, 2008)

I like Crispy's idea. Make the ban unenforceable.

Organise a day where people drink a variety of non-alcoholic drinks out of booze containers and increasingly stupid containers, watering cans, gravy boat, Galvanised bucket etc. Get loads of bottles of stuff and a load of cocktail shakers and mix your own cocktails up en route.

Keep trying to get yourself busted for drinking a can of Shandy Bass on the tube - cue 'Fined, for drinking shandy' style headline.

Look up the proper terms of carriage and do loads of stuff that isn't illegal, like stinky food etc.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> 1. Please explain the circumstances in which you have been caused distress whilst on the tube as a result of others' alcohol consumption.
> 2. Please explain in what proportion of these cases those causing you distress were drinking alcohol at that point in time.
> 3. In these cases, please explain why you think they would have caused you significantly less distress if they had not been drinking alcohol during the period of time they had been on the tube train.


Something tells me he won't answer you directly.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Cinema... rowdy people should be ejected.



As they should be on the tube. Would you kick out a woman who's drinking a glass of wine while watching a film (as you can at most of the better independent cinemas)?


----------



## El Jefe (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Cinema... rowdy people should be ejected.



You're right.

Rowdy people might sensibly be ejected from tubes and buses too, and there are rules in place to deal with this.

So how about - if someone's behaving badly we eject them, if they're not we don't.

Whether in their hand is a carton of Ribena, a can of Fosters or a copy of The KiteRunner really isn't the point, is it?


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If someone cannot wait half an hour to get home that they need to have alcohol, right here, right now, then I'd say that was fairly indicative of an addiction, and someone addicted to alcohol is .... an alcoholic.



well that's not a definition. 

I choose to have a drink on the tube because pubs where i work are too crowded and too expensive, and when i get home i'm likely to be far too busy to drink. 

i just like to relax a bit on the way home. That makes me an alcholic in your book then, does it?


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> therefore, stopping people drinking on public transport will not remove drunk people from public transport.



Then it needs to be extended to remove drunk people from public transport in the first place.

If people are a little merry... then so be it... but if they're so drunk they can hardly stand, then they're not only a danger to others but themselves as well.

A drunk staggers down the platform and falls off the edge underneath a tube train ... hundreds of people inconvenienced, driver and witnesses traumatised, all because someone's non-existant "right" to get drunk overrides personal and public safety?


----------



## teuchter (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If someone cannot wait half an hour to get home that they need to have alcohol, right here, right now, then I'd say that was fairly indicative of an addiction, and someone addicted to alcohol is .... an alcoholic.



You're confusing "cannot" and "doesn't want to".

What about someone eating a mars bar on a train?

Or reading a newspaper?

Are they "addicts"?


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> Bob Crow is just pointing out that it's a half-baked plan that the unions haven't been consulted on (which is shockingly poor policy-making for a start), and suggesting that tube workers should not be required to risk their personal safety by trying to enforce it. Seems rather reasonable to me.



Perhaps so. What isn't reasonable is the attitude that I perceive in you and others that union disruption of government is intrinsically a good thing.



ymu said:


> Would you rather that our "democratically" elected leaders were not critiqued between elections? That noone with expertise ever comments negatively on policy because they weren't (nationally) elected and the politician with no relevant experience was?



Of course not. But Mr Crow and his colleagues have some degree of power to make trouble, not just offer a critique.



ymu said:


> Would you like the civil service to stop advising government on the practicalities of policy too? Thatcher and then Blair dismantled as much of it as possible in favour of their cronies who would tell them what they wanted to hear, but going the whole hog and not have any "unelected" personnel advising on policy decisions?



There's a huge difference between being a professional adviser to government and an opponent of government, isn't there? Your example is fatuous. I would agree, however, that replacing many professional neutral advisers with party loyalists was a mistake, and not one that I have supported at any time.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Then it needs to be extended to remove drunk people from public transport in the first place.



are you prepared for the whole centre of london to become a ghost town after 7pm?


----------



## christonabike (May 7, 2008)

> but if they're so drunk they can hardly stand, then they're not only a danger to others but themselves as well.



As I have already pointed out, laws already exist for this scenario


----------



## gsv (May 7, 2008)

Grrr bollocks 
Wishing I'd read that manifesto I printed out before I voted for him now 

Guess that's what I get for voting Tory. That'll teach me 

GS(v)


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Perhaps so. What isn't reasonable is the attitude that I perceive in you and others that union disruption of government is intrinsically a good thing.



It's one of the important checks and balances in the UK polical process. Jsut becasue a politician is elected does not mean she is competent or always right.


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> It's good, except that 'to peacefully enjoy' is a split infinitive!


There's nothing wrong with a split infinitive. The rule was made up by Victorians when grammar was getting trendy. Sometimes, the split infinitive reads and/or scans better than the alternative in which case it _should_ be used; otherwise it is considered poor style, but not poor grammar.

So there!


----------



## teuchter (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Then it needs to be extended to remove drunk people from public transport in the first place.
> 
> If people are a little merry... then so be it... but if they're so drunk they can hardly stand, then they're not only a danger to others but themselves as well.
> 
> A drunk staggers down the platform and falls off the edge underneath a tube train ... hundreds of people inconvenienced, driver and witnesses traumatised, all because someone's non-existant "right" to get drunk overrides personal and public safety?



If you are suggesting that people bearly able to stand should be prevented from getting on the tube, that is one thing. Maybe I would even agree. But it's a totally different issue to people having a drink on the tube. 

In any case, someone in that state can technically be arrested for being drunk and disorderly, can't they? So the legislation is already there in fact.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> You're confusing "cannot" and "doesn't want to".
> 
> What about someone eating a mars bar on a train?
> 
> ...



This whole argument is the wrong way around.

You're an addict if you can't refrain from doing something. That doesn't mean that anyone that does something does so through addiction.

Someone who _couldn't_ refrain from reading a newspaper or eating a Mars Bar for half an hour would be an addict and would fall within any reasonable definition of mental illness.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Then it needs to be extended to remove drunk people from public transport in the first place.


There are already  laws for dealing with drunk and disorderly people. We don't need any more.



ajdown said:


> A drunk staggers down the platform and falls off the edge underneath a tube train ... hundreds of people inconvenienced, driver and witnesses traumatised, all because someone's non-existant "right" to get drunk overrides personal and public safety?


All irrelevant to the proposed law.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> well that's not a definition.
> 
> I choose to have a drink on the tube because pubs where i work are too crowded and too expensive, and when i get home i'm likely to be far too busy to drink.
> 
> i just like to relax a bit on the way home. That makes me an alcholic in your book then, does it?



Can you not relax without alcohol?  I manage quite easily.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> There's nothing wrong with a split infinitive. The rule was made up by Victorians when grammar was getting trendy. Sometimes, the split infinitive reads and/or scans better than the alternative in which case it _should_ be used; otherwise it is considered poor style, but not poor grammar.
> 
> So there!



I was always taught that they're ungrammatical, so they jar with me.  But then, I'm a traditionalist who thinks grammar _should_ be trendy.  So there!


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 7, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The rest of that article is interesting, especially the ending. There's a hint of the line of attack regarding minority ethnic people and the inner city to come...



To me, the Sikh gentleman was looking for special treatment for HIS community, which of course would be at the expense of another community as the pot is finite.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> It's one of the important checks and balances in the UK polical process.



The unions have a political and economic role, not a constitutional one.



dream_girl said:


> Jsut becasue a politician is elected does not mean she is competent or always right.



And no-one has ever suggested otherwise, I hope.

Fortunately, our system favours democratic legitimacy over an impossible-to-define rectitude.


----------



## teuchter (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> This whole argument is the wrong way around.
> 
> You're an addict if you can't refrain from doing something. That doesn't mean that anyone that does something does so through addiction.
> 
> Someone who _couldn't_ refrain from reading a newspaper or eating a Mars Bar for half an hour would be an addict and would fall within any reasonable definition of mental illness.



Well, exactly.

Someone who _couldn't_ refrain from drinking for half an hour would be the same. However, this does not apply to someone who _would like_ to have a drink on the tube.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 7, 2008)

At least he hasn't banned public transport. Yet.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> are you prepared for the whole centre of london to become a ghost town after 7pm?



If it means I can travel around unhindered and unbothered, I have no problem with that.

Much of the reason I don't go out when it gets late is simply down to the fact that I don't feel safe.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> I was always taught that they're ungrammatical, so they jar with me.  But then, I'm a traditionalist who thinks grammar _should_ be trendy.  So there!



By definition, a traditionalist rejects trends in favour of long-established practice.

As a traditionalist, I'd say that grammar should be valued, not merely transiently fashionable.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 7, 2008)

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for anyone to drink alcohol on public transport.


----------



## teuchter (May 7, 2008)

Can you add a poll to this thread, Editor?


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Someone who _couldn't_ refrain from drinking for half an hour would be the same. However, this does not apply to someone who _would like_ to have a drink on the tube.



Indeed.

The interests of those who would like to drink on the tube have to be balanced against those who would like the tube to be free of drinkers.

I think Mr Johnson has struck the right balance in this case.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

What balance?


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Can you add a poll to this thread, Editor?



That'll make the news. U75 members voting overwhelmingly in favour of drinking on the tube.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is absolutely no need whatsoever for anyone to drink alcohol on public transport.



All public transport, or just urban transport?  Surely, even if you approve of stopping people having a beer on the bus, you wouldn't want to stop people having a drink with a meal on a long-distance flight or train journey, would you?


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> What balance?



The process whereby you consider the merits of different parties or propositions and come to a judgement that may not please them all.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 7, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is absolutely no need whatsoever for anyone to drink alcohol on public transport.



What about in parks, or walking down the street?

People seem obsessed with the notion that wherever people are drinking, they are trying to get smashed. The very idea that someone would be thirsty, and pop in to a shop and select a can of lager over a can of coke seems a completely alien concept to most, and it's this ridiculous attitude to drink that gets re-enforced by these stupid draconian laws, and at the same time ensures we'll never normalise our relationship with drink in this country and 'go continental'.


----------



## STFC (May 7, 2008)

Travelling by boat is the way forward - some of them even have bars on board. A much more pleasant drinking environment than a dirty, stuffy, overcrowded tube train.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> All public transport, or just urban transport?  Surely, even if you approve of stopping people having a beer on the bus, you wouldn't want to stop people having a drink with a meal on a long-distance flight or train journey, would you?



Alcohol is already banned on trains.

It might also be advisable on flights, especially some of the cheaper ones to the more popular destinations.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Can you not relax without alcohol?  I manage quite easily.



Of course I can - but no-one is going to tell me I can't if I choose to. I enjoy drinking. I also enjoy reading the paper which helps me relax too. And listening to music. Or I could medidate expcept a tube journey isn't really conducive to this. Maybe I could light a few scented candles around the carriage? 

Sometimes I would quite like a cup of tea on the tube - or even a nice cool soft drink.

But some days - I need a beer. I don't mean in an addicted way. But in a I'm in the mood for a cool refreshing beer sort of way.


----------



## teuchter (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Indeed.
> 
> The interests of those who would like to drink on the tube have to be balanced against those who would like the tube to be free of drinkers.
> 
> I think Mr Johnson has struck the right balance in this case.



Yes, the interests have to be balanced. 

But I can't agree that the right balance has been struck in this case.


----------



## El Jefe (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Alcohol is already banned on trains.



Oh really?


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Alcohol is already banned on trains.



No it isn't.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Indeed.
> 
> The interests of those who would like to drink on the tube have to be balanced against those who would like the tube to be free of drinkers.


Sorry, why should someone quietly drinking a can of beer be bothering you any more than someone slurping on a carton of Ribena?

See as no one here has been able to produce masses of reports of problems caused by people drinking on the tube, please explain why you think it should be banned.

Personally, I'd like my tube train to be free of bigots, small minded people and intolerant types who think they have a right to dictate what I can do and not do when it has absolutely no bearing on them whatsoever.

But there you go.


----------



## Belushi (May 7, 2008)

STFC said:


> Travelling by boat is the way forward - some of them even have bars on board. A much more pleasant drinking environment than a dirty, stuffy, overcrowded tube train.



Are boats really a viable alternative to the tube for most journeys?


----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> The process whereby you consider the merits of different parties or propositions and come to a judgement that may not please them all.



That's a touchingly naive view of the situation. More likely this is the (recycled) New Labour strategy for diverting attention from the general shitness of a public service whilst grabbing a few favourable headlines by scapegoating some group or activity that the blue-rinse brigade look down on anyway.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> What about in parks, or walking down the street?
> 
> People seem obsessed with the notion that wherever people are drinking, they are trying to get smashed. The very idea that someone would be thirsty, and pop in to a shop and select a can of lager over a can of coke seems a completely alien concept to most, and it's this ridiculous attitude to drink that gets re-enforced by these stupid draconian laws, and at the same time ensures we'll never normalise our relationship with drink in this country and 'go continental'.



I agree. Is Boris going to tackle the evil of bored elderly women at home nipping at the sherry throughout the day until they can barely walk?

What about Boris drinking at work? He admitted as much when interviewed on the day of the election.


----------



## STFC (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Alcohol is already banned on trains.



No it's not.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> What about in parks, or walking down the street?
> 
> People seem obsessed with the notion that wherever people are drinking, they are trying to get smashed.



And who's fault is that? Would it be the large number of people that make our town centres miserable and dangerous of an evening?



King Biscuit Time said:


> The very idea that someone would be thirsty, and pop in to a shop and select a can of lager over a can of coke seems a completely alien concept to most



It's an alien concept to most non-alcoholics, in the same way that most people needing to relax are generally satisfied with a sit down and a cup of tea and don't have to resort to cannabis.



King Biscuit Time said:


> and it's this ridiculous attitude to drink that gets re-enforced by these stupid draconian laws, and at the same time ensures we'll never normalise our relationship with drink in this country and 'go continental'.



What's "going continental"? Getting quietly and slowly drunk all day rather than quickly all in one go?


----------



## El Jefe (May 7, 2008)

Anyway, untethered, back to alcohol being banned on trains...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> Can you add a poll to this thread, Editor?



Good idea.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

Which trains are alcohol banned on, please, untethered?


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is absolutely no need whatsoever for anyone to drink alcohol on public transport.


There's no 'need' for anyone to drink alcohol anywhere else for that matter. So what's your point?


----------



## STFC (May 7, 2008)

Belushi said:


> Are boats really a viable alternative to the tube for most journeys?



I don't care, it's a viable alternative for me!


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> No it isn't.



Actually it can be.

I can't find the relevant part of the "National Conditions of Carriage" at the moment, but as I understand it, if the train has a restaurant/buffet vehicle, and/or a trolley that sells alcohol, then you may of course consume alcohol on it.

If it does not have a dedicated carriage or trolley service, then you are not supposed to drink alcohol on it.

Unfortunately this is rarely enforced because a) there aren't the staff to do it, b) those that can are afraid of getting attacked for bringing it to the attention of those breaking the rule.

Because people who *want* to drink alcohol cannot understand why they cannot, and often (thanks to the alcohol) turn violent when they are asked to stop.


----------



## Belushi (May 7, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> Of course I can - but no-one is going to tell me I can't if I choose to. I enjoy drinking. I also enjoy reading the paper which helps me relax too. And listening to music. Or I could medidate expcept a tube journey isn't really conducive to this. Maybe I could light a few scented candles around the carriage?
> 
> Sometimes I would quite like a cup of tea on the tube - or even a nice cool soft drink.
> 
> But some days - I need a beer. I don't mean in an addicted way. But in a I'm in the mood for a cool refreshing beer sort of way.



Innit, I dont actually drink much at all; but sometimes when its hot I'll grab a nice cold can of lager to drink on the train home.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Sorry, why should someone quietly drinking a can of beer be bothering you any more than someone slurping on a carton of Ribena?



Don't get me started on Ribena-slurpers.



editor said:


> See as no one here has been able to produce masses of reports of problems caused by people drinking on the tube, please explain why you think it should be banned.



These are the regular miseries of city life, not the grand tragedies that make dramatic reading. Mr Johnson seems to appreciate that attention to the small details matters as much as the grand gestures.



editor said:


> Personally, I'd like my tube train to be free of bigots, small minded people and intolerant types who think they have a right to dictate what I can do and not do when it has absolutely no bearing on them whatsoever.
> 
> But there you go.



Perhaps you could start a minor libertarian political party which no-one besides you and your friends would vote for.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Because people who *want* to drink alcohol cannot understand why they cannot, and often (thanks to the alcohol) turn violent when they are asked to stop.



One can of Grolsch and that's it - it takes 10 coppers to bring me down.


----------



## Belushi (May 7, 2008)

STFC said:


> I don't care, it's a viable alternative for me!



I'm looking at my A-Z but I dont think theres a viable way ofr me to commute between Streatham and Kentish Town each day by boat


----------



## STFC (May 7, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> What about in parks, or walking down the street?
> 
> People seem obsessed with the notion that wherever people are drinking, they are trying to get smashed. The very idea that someone would be thirsty, and pop in to a shop and select a can of lager over a can of coke seems a completely alien concept to most, and it's this ridiculous attitude to drink that gets re-enforced by these stupid draconian laws, and at the same time ensures we'll never normalise our relationship with drink in this country and 'go continental'.



But in places with a 'continental' attitude to alcohol, public drunkenness is often frowned upon. It could never work here. Island race and all that.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

Belushi said:


> I'm looking at my A-Z but I dont think theres a viable way ofr me to commute between Streatham and Kentish Town each day by boat



Through the sewers?


----------



## rutabowa (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Which trains are alcohol banned on, please, untethered?



i don't think he actually uses public transport, he just wants to say how everyone else uses it.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Because people who *want* to drink alcohol cannot understand why they cannot, and often (thanks to the alcohol) turn violent when they are asked to stop.


Could you support this claim with some facts, please?
Exactly how many drinkers turn violent under the circumstances you have described? Numbers please.


Thanks.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Which trains are alcohol banned on, please, untethered?



Tube trains.


----------



## Belushi (May 7, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> Through the sewers?



Good thinking, all they'd have to do is waterproof a couple of tube trains...


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is absolutely no need whatsoever for anyone to drink alcohol on public transport.



There is absolutely no need to hop from one side of the pavement to the other whilst singing rule britannia, transposed to the minor. Ban it!


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> What's "going continental"? Getting quietly and slowly drunk all day rather than quickly all in one go?




No, it's realising that Wine and Beer are drinks like any other.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> These are the regular miseries of city life, not the grand tragedies that make dramatic reading. Mr Johnson seems to appreciate that attention to the small details matters as much as the grand gestures.


So what 'miseries' are caused by people having a can on the tube please?

All I'm hearing from you is dull bigoted rhetoric so can you now back up your claims and give documented examples of this "misery" caused by tube drinkers. Thanks.


----------



## STFC (May 7, 2008)

Belushi said:


> I'm looking at my A-Z but I dont think theres a viable way ofr me to commute between Streatham and Kentish Town each day by boat



That's a real shame, as it's a great way to travel. It beats the DLR, especially on a day like today.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Actually it can be.
> 
> I can't find the relevant part of the "National Conditions of Carriage" at the moment, but as I understand it, if the train has a restaurant/buffet vehicle, and/or a trolley that sells alcohol, then you may of course consume alcohol on it.
> 
> ...



The National Rail Conditions of Carriage are available in pdf format here.  I've done a search on 'drink,' 'drinking,' 'drunk' and 'alcohol' and come up with nothing, so it rather looks as if you're wrong.

There is - obviously - a condition relating to disorderly behaviour, but that is not limited to drunkenness.  Nor, however much you might want to conflate the two, does it preclude anyone from enjoying a quiet drink.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> There is absolutely no need to hop from one side of the pavement to the other whilst singing rule britannia, transposed to the minor. Ban it!



Actually 'Rule Brittania' with a flattened third sounds so horrific it's probably illegal already.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> No, it's realising that Wine and Beer are drinks like any other.



That's odd. I've never noticed anyone becoming surly or belligerent after a surfeit of water.


----------



## teuchter (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If it means I can travel around unhindered and unbothered, I have no problem with that.
> 
> Much of the reason I don't go out when it gets late is simply down to the fact that I don't feel safe.



Yup, I think I was right earlier, you might fit in better in North Korea.

Maybe Singapore as a second-choice option if you can't get in.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Could you support this claim with some facts, please?
> Exactly how many drinkers turn violent under the circumstances you have described? Numbers please.
> 
> 
> Thanks.



Those figures are not readily available.  But that's not to say that it doesn't happen, and frankly I'm suprised that you are trying to make out that it doesn't.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> So what 'miseries' are caused by people having a can on the tube please?
> 
> All I'm hearing from you is dull bigoted rhetoric so can you now back up your claims and give documented examples of this "misery" caused by tube drinkers. Thanks.



As I said. It's no more about "documented examples of misery" than litter and graffiti is.

And yet, I'm sure we can both agree that they are social ills that need to be curbed.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Tube trains.



Not yet.  Meanwhile, you said that alcohol IS ALREADY banned on trains.  Can you point me to which trains, or will you gracefully concede that you're wrong?


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 7, 2008)

It's going to be a pretty tough ban to enforce, isn't it? Particularly at the weekend. I predict a riot.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is absolutely no need whatsoever for anyone to drink alcohol on public transport.


 
Just because you see no need that does not mean it should be specificaly banned. It's not going to magicaly cure the ills it is designed to adress. There are already relevant laws to deal with those ills.
This is some Boris showboating that will do nothing except piss people off, workers and passangers alike.


Who am I hurting having my one can on the Bus? my fellow passangers never complain. The bus driver doesn't chuck me off. The sodding conductor doesn't even bat an eyelid.

As it happens alcohol and hot food has been banned on the buses for a while in my town. The quiet drinker is ignored and the rowdy ejected.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Those figures are not readily available.  But that's not to say that it doesn't happen, and frankly I'm suprised that you are trying to make out that it doesn't.



So, no evidence at all then.  How predictable.


----------



## warszawa (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> So what 'miseries' are caused by people having a can on the tube please?
> 
> All I'm hearing from you is dull bigoted rhetoric so can you now back up your claims and give documented examples of this "misery" caused by tube drinkers. Thanks.



It's actually about general public decency and if you can't see that then you probably have none.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's going to be a pretty tough ban to enforce, isn't it? Particularly at the weekend. I predict a riot.



It won't be enforced.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Not yet.  Meanwhile, you said that alcohol IS ALREADY banned on trains.  Can you point me to which trains, or will you gracefully concede that you're wrong?



As per the comment above, I thought drinking was banned except in the buffet car.

If I'm wrong on that, consider this a graceful concession and let's chalk up "banning drinking on trains" as the next step forward.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's going to be a pretty tough ban to enforce, isn't it? Particularly at the weekend. I predict a riot.



Oh absolutely. People hate having to be told to be considerate of others. They can't stand it.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 7, 2008)

warszawa said:


> It's actually about general public decency and if you can't see that then you probably have none.



So it's now within the remit of the Mayor of London to enforce a certain notion of 'decency' on the people of London?

What's he going to ban next - Women from wearing short skirts? People who pass the Port to the left?


----------



## El Jefe (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Oh absolutely. People hate having to be told to be considerate of others. They can't stand it.



I find many things people do in public inconsiderate. However, being a grown up I find I suck it up rather than demanding it all be outlawed. THAT'S being considerate of others


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Who am I hurting having my one can on the Bus? my fellow passangers never complain. The bus driver doesn't chuck me off. The sodding conductor doesn't even bat an eyelid.



Fellow passengers are probably too afraid to say anything for fear of being stabbed - people have been assaulted for far less.

The driver couldn't care less, and can't be bothered with the hassle.  I reported someone smoking upstairs on the bus to a driver a while back and he just said "if you don't like it, get off and get the next bus" - despite the fact the guy was sitting under a £1000 fine sticker.

Conductors?  Don't exist on most buses now.


----------



## STFC (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> As it happens alcohol and hot food has been banned on the buses for a while in my town. The quiet drinker is ignored and the rowdy ejected.



I imagine that's exactly how it will work in London.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> So it's now within the remit of the Mayor of London to enforce a certain notion of 'decency' on the people of London?
> 
> What's he going to ban next - Women from wearing short skirts? People who pass the Port to the left?



You do realise this is music to untethered's ears, do you? He is man immune to _reductio_.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Oh absolutely. People hate having to be told to be considerate of others. They can't stand it.


 


There'll be no riot. I predict the workers ignoring the quiet can drinker and using the ban to eject the rowdy. Much as happens in my town.

The passangers aren't going to give a shit either I rckon


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Oh absolutely. People hate having to be told to be considerate of others. They can't stand it.



I don't mind, but I do always offer the people sat on either side of me a sip of my Special Brew.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

There are already laws against drunk and disorderly

There are no laws against tipsy and orderly

A single can on the tube will not get you drunk

Getting absolutely steaming and getting on the tube and causing a ruckus/fracas/brouhaha/rumpus is already illegal

Being stone cold sober and getting on the tube and causing a ruckus/fracas/brouhaha/rumpus is already illegal

What, exactly does this new law actually cover?


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> As per the comment above, I thought drinking was banned except in the buffet car.
> 
> If I'm wrong on that, consider this a graceful concession and let's chalk up "banning drinking on trains" as the next step forward.



No, let's not.

I have seen people get drunk and rowdy on trains, and unlike on the tube, on a long distance journey there's time enough for people to do so.  But again, the vast majority of people who make trouble are drunk before they get on, and the vast majority of people who do have a drink on the train don't cause trouble.  So why ban it?


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> So it's now within the remit of the Mayor of London to enforce a certain notion of 'decency' on the people of London?
> 
> What's he going to ban next - Women from wearing short skirts? People who pass the Port to the left?



This is the first really good news in a very long time. The tide is turning!

See my earlier posts on this thread if you're interested in finding out how to stay stylish and decent in the warm weather.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

goldenecitrone said:


> I don't mind, but I do always offer the people sat on either side of me a sip of my Special Brew.



I bet you have crisp crumbs all round your mouth, too.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Fellow passengers are probably too afraid to say anything for fear of being stabbed - people have been assaulted for far less.


 

err, I live in Kettering not Mosside




> The driver couldn't care less, and can't be bothered with the hassle. I reported someone smoking upstairs on the bus to a driver a while back and he just said "if you don't like it, get off and get the next bus" - despite the fact the guy was sitting under a £1000 fine sticker.


 
I get the impression you get a lot of short shrift in life


> Conductors? Don't exist on most buses now.


 
they do on the x4 from northants to kettering.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> You do realise this is music to untethered's ears, do you? He is man immune to _reductio_.



I'm not immune to _reductio_, I just have a wider agenda than most.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> I bet you have crisp crumbs all round your mouth, too.



Crisps? What do you think I am, some kind of peasant? Kebabs are Underground food, not stuffing crisps.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> I'm not immune to _reductio_, I just have a wider agenda than most.



You are a right-Leninist. There's a lot of it about.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

goldenecitrone said:


> Crisps? What do you think I am, some kind of peasant? Kebabs are Underground food, not stuffing crisps.



How awful.

Imagine a city free from "fast food". The smells, the litter, the garish facades, the dreadful public grazing, all gone.

Now imagine that this is actually possible, here in 21st Century London, if we have the will to make it happen.

Think big. Fortune favours the brave.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> How awful.
> 
> Imagine a city free from "fast food". The smells, the litter, the garish facades, the dreadful public grazing, all gone.
> 
> ...


 

yeah, I like the dystopia we have now. Yours would be a nightmare


----------



## Dask (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> There are already laws against drunk and disorderly
> 
> There are no laws against tipsy and orderly
> 
> ...



Nail on the head!! I think you should send that in an email to to the Mayor's office.

Also why can't the Ed's idea of having a petition on the downing street website go ahead? Does it break some T&C's?


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> I was always taught that they're ungrammatical, so they jar with me.  But then, I'm a traditionalist who thinks grammar _should_ be trendy.  So there!


That's the point. The idea that it's a grammar thing is a myth.



> Myth #1: Don’t Split an Infinitive.
> 
> “Split” all you want, because this old superstition has never been legit. Writers of English have been doing it since the 1300s.
> 
> ...


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> err, I live in Kettering not Mosside



I live in Brixton.  I thought this was "London and the South East"?


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

Dask said:


> Also why can't the Ed's idea of having a petition on the downing street website go ahead? Does it break some T&C's?



As I explained earlier, that website is only for petitions to central government.

This isn't a central government matter.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> That's the point. The idea that it's a grammar thing is a myth.



Well, maybe I was taught wrongly, then. 

<shrugs>


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I live in Brixton. I thought this was "London and the South East"?


 
what so I'm not allowed an opinion


I still have to use the tube when I visit my family, which is fairly regular.

Theres wider issues at work here other than how it will affect me personaly.


----------



## _angel_ (May 7, 2008)

Would you really _need _to drink on the tube? Most journeys aren't that long. It's not really on a par with a cross country rail journey where you'd have something to eat as well.

For me it would be on a par with drinking on a bus.. just wrong and a bit rude.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah, I like the dystopia we have now. Yours would be a nightmare



I hardly see how replacing all the "fast food" outlets with genuine restaurants and cafes would be a "nightmare". It would be a significant step towards restoring civilisation to London.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 7, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Look up the proper terms of carriage and do loads of stuff that isn't illegal, like stinky food etc.



Everyone should open jars of Chinese 'smelly tofu' on the tube.  Mind you, that would cause terror panics.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> What, exactly does this new law actually cover?



Drinking alcohol on the tube, bus or trams. Redgardless of how sober or pissed you may be or how you conduct your self.

I would love to see the ban extended to eating and playing music too. Public transport in this city is filthy and a Far East style ban on eating & drinking would be a great help in cleaning it up.

Whilst I enjoy a beer on my way home from work now and again, I am rarely that desparate that I couldn't wait until I got where I was going.

Mind you I take the overground and that isn't covered by the ban


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> For me it would be on a par with drinking on a bus.. just wrong and a bit rude.



Sadly, many people these days neither understand nor share your instincts.


----------



## rutabowa (May 7, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Mind you I take the overground and that isn't covered by the ban


really? cool!


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> I hardly see how replacing all the "fast food" outlets with genuine restaurants and cafes would be a "nightmare". It would be a significant step towards restoring civilisation to London.


 

I don't object to that Untethered. It's about the least mental thing I've ever read from you. However given the sheer lunacy of most of your ideas, I'm suspicious.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 7, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> really? cool!






			
				BBC said:
			
		

> That's why from 1 June the drinking of alcohol will be banned from the Tube, tram, bus, and Docklands Light Railway."
> 
> The ban on the London Overground will take longer, as Transport for London has to apply to the Department for Transport for permission to enforce the bar on the consumption of alcohol.



The ban on overground can't really work as many services have restaurant cars and bar cars. It would be very hard to legislate on length of journey.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The ban on overground can't really work as many services have restaurant cars and bar cars. It would be very hard to legislate on length of journey.



Not on the London Overground franchise, which I assume is what this refers to.


----------



## rutabowa (May 7, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The ban on overground can't really work as many services have restaurant cars and bar cars. It would be very hard to legislate on length of journey.


tube's a bit grimy for drinking on anyway, overland you have the sun and a view. i assume the ban doesn't extend to nightbuses? that woudl be madness


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Not on the London Overground franchise, which I assume is what this refers to.



Not sure, but I would have thought that as the department of transport has responsibility for this and not tfl then it would need central government leglislation and that would somehow have to not apply to longer journeys?


----------



## teuchter (May 7, 2008)




----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't object to that Untethered. It's about the least mental thing I've ever read from you.



I consider myself duly damned with faint praise.



DotCommunist said:


> However given the sheer lunacy of most of your ideas, I'm suspicious.



What are you expecting? An exhortation to "decent" food? All-British menus? Homosexualist couples turned away at the door? Grace to be said before every sitting?

Actually, one of those ideas isn't bad.

Breaking up the big chains would be good, too.


----------



## London_Calling (May 7, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What, exactly does this new law actually cover?


The Guardian is currently stating the postion as this:



> From next month anyone found drinking or carrying open alcohol containers on any of London's buses, tube trains, trams or the Docklands Light Railway is liable to be ejected.


so anyone:
(a) drinking alcohol, or
(b) carrying open(ed) alcohol containers


I suppose this only leaves (as acceptable) carrying unopened alcohol containers - I know how I'm going to feel the first time a train is delayed as we wait for the police because a drunk won't get off. Just seems to be making more work for the police and delaying punters.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> tube's a bit grimy for drinking on anyway, overland you have the sun and a view. i assume the ban doesn't extend to nightbuses? that woudl be madness




you've never used the central line to epping then - or the northbound met for that matter.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Would you really _need _to drink on the tube?


If it's not infringing on anyone's right to enjoy a peaceful journey, I can't think of a single reason why not. Can you?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 7, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> The Guardian is currently stating the postion as this:
> 
> 
> so anyone:
> ...



Screw tops drinks FTW!


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> If it's not infringing on anyone's right to enjoy a peaceful journey, I can't think of a single reason why not. Can you?



Doesn't it strike you as uncouth?


----------



## London_Calling (May 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


>


Nice to see the corporate message linking 'fun' and alcohol is still impressing the younger generations.

Lets 'celebrate' with Champagne?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Screw tops drinks FTW!


 
sadly it counts as open once the seal is bust. thats what the (ed) bit is sayin


----------



## El Jefe (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Doesn't it strike you as uncouth?



As I said, many things strike me as 'uncouth'. None of them are proper matters for legislation.

Even you must be able to see that you can't legislate society to fit a subjective notion of niceness?


----------



## London_Calling (May 7, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Screw tops drinks FTW!


You're drinking it, and your breath smells. Go to the corner of the class and put the hat on.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> As I said, many things strike me as 'uncouth'. None of them are proper matters for legislation.
> 
> Even you must be able to see that you can't legislate society to fit a subjective notion of niceness?



Of course you can. You're watching it happen right here in London, right now.

Let's hope it will be the first of many such successes.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> sadly it counts as open once the seal is bust.



FFS  


So I take my 80 year old single malt to a mates, we have 2 glasses each and I take it home again and I'm now a criminal  Even Singapore isn't that anal.


----------



## rutabowa (May 7, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> you've never used the central line to epping then - or the northbound met for that matter.



no


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Not sure, but I would have thought that as the department of transport has responsibility for this and not tfl then it would need central government leglislation and that would somehow have to not apply to longer journeys?



No, I think the Mayor of London would be within his rights to ban drinking on London Overground trains.  He certainly has some power over that franchise.

I'm sure he has no power to enforce a ban on drinking on trains operated by other franchisees, which would be a matter for the DfT and/or Network Rail.  Nor should he, since it would be highly unreasonable for the Mayor of London to be able to ban drinking on trains serving parts of the UK many miles from London!


----------



## London_Calling (May 7, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> FFS
> 
> 
> So I take my 80 year old single malt to a mates, we have 2 glasses each and I take it home again and I'm now a criminal  Even Singapore isn't that anal.


It's not a criminal offence. For a year at least, apparently.

Apart from that . . .


----------



## El Jefe (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> Of course you can. You're watching it happen right here in London, right now.
> 
> Let's hope it will be the first of many such successes.



Thing is, I know you're trolling so I don't know why I'm bothering, but who gets to decide what is uncouth and what isn't?

Do you really believe a consensus is possible? And that even if a majority considered an activity uncouth, that should pass into law?


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Drinking alcohol on the tube, bus or trams. Redgardless of how sober or pissed you may be or how you conduct your self.
> 
> I would love to see the ban extended to eating and playing music too. Public transport in this city is filthy and a Far East style ban on eating & drinking would be a great help in cleaning it up.



and ban people using both armrests, people with unfeasibly large rucksacks, with offensive fashion sense, with smelly feet, with colds, with unwashed hair, with irritating laughs, ones that fart, and anyone reading Harry Potter. Then I'd be happy.


----------



## warszawa (May 7, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> So it's now within the remit of the Mayor of London to enforce a certain notion of 'decency' on the people of London?



Of course, just as you can't walk along the street completely nude, verbally abusing passing pedestrians. But, I suppose, have it your way: no standards.


----------



## rutabowa (May 7, 2008)

warszawa said:


> Of course, just as you can't walk along the street completely nude, verbally abusing passing pedestrians. But, I suppose, have it your way: no standards.



er. wierd.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 7, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> and ban people using both armrests, people with unfeasibly large rucksacks, with offensive fashion sense, with smelly feet, with colds, with unwashed hair, with irritating laughs, ones that fart, and anyone reading Harry Potter. Then I'd be happy.



You should have stood for mayor, you'd have hammed BoJo


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> who gets to decide what is uncouth and what isn't?



Our elected representatives in this case.



El Jefe said:


> Do you really believe a consensus is possible? And that even if a majority considered an activity uncouth, that should pass into law?



I'm reluctant to use the law to enforce something that should just be a widely-observed standard of public behaviour. The problem in this country is that it's so divided in its culture that a large section of the population thinks nothing of greatly offending everyone else and rails against any form of opposition, whether it's encouragement, argument or enforcement.

Somehow, standards have to be maintained. It's sad that the law has to reach this far to do it, but it seems necessary right now.


----------



## warszawa (May 7, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> er. wierd.



Well, it wouldn't be infringing on your physical person or whatever nonsensical excuse you might use to escape the fact that we share the same public space in society and common decency is an issue and sometimes a legal one.


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You should have stood for mayor, you'd have hammed BoJo



damn - i missed off disabled people!!


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

warszawa said:


> Well, it wouldn't be infringing on your physical person or whatever nonsensical excuse you might use to escape the fact that we share the same public space in society and common decency is an issue and sometimes a legal one.



The problem is that decency is no longer common. If it were, we wouldn't need these laws.


----------



## rutabowa (May 7, 2008)

warszawa said:


> Well, it wouldn't be infringing on your physical person or whatever nonsensical excuse you might use to escape the fact that we share the same public space in society and common decency is an issue and sometimes a legal one.



if you want to strip naked and insult people it's your lookout, i just think it's fucked up! i'm surprised you haven't been arrested, there are criminal laws on exposing yourself, and shouting insults could be construed as assault.


----------



## El Jefe (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> The problem is that decency is no longer common. If it were, we wouldn't need these laws.



So we're agreed that your conception of decency isn't 'common'. In which case, why should it be enforced? What privileges your version ahead of another?


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> The problem is that decency is no longer common. If it were, we wouldn't need these laws.



. oops - misread post


----------



## Giles (May 7, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> There'll be no riot. I predict the workers ignoring the quiet can drinker and using the ban to eject the rowdy. Much as happens in my town.



I wonder, though.

I can see this law being applied to those perfectly well-behaved and sober, enjoying a cold can, because they are an easier target to hassle than a group of people who are pissed and lairy. 

Unless there are several actual police doing the hassling, I can see your average jobsworth hassling those causing no trouble while ignoring the kind of people that this law is intended for, for fear of them kicking off.

Giles..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> The problem is that decency is no longer common.


You must live in a different country from me. The vast majority of people I have dealings with every day are decent.


----------



## pk (May 7, 2008)

Is it possible Bozza only wants to stop London Underground STAFF getting pissed on the job?
Cue Bob Crow and more strike action!


----------



## Dandred (May 7, 2008)

What a good thread, apart from JC2's trolling at the start.


Here in Korea there are no drinking or eating laws in public, except for eating squid in the cinema.

I think this is a pointless law. 

A nice beer or two on the tube on the way home from work has never been a problem with anyone. Pissed idiots getting on and still hammering their beers has, this won't stop as they are pissed and won't care about a stupid law at post 11pm


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 7, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> So we're agreed that your conception of decency isn't 'common'. In which case, why should it be enforced? What privileges your version ahead of another?



This.


----------



## _angel_ (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> If it's not infringing on anyone's right to enjoy a peaceful journey, I can't think of a single reason why not. Can you?



Tbh I automatically assumed it was banned anyway. I know you can't drink on Leeds buses or bring in smelly food.

I wouldn't want to be the one to enforce it, though.

I can think of reasons - people being drunk and intimidating. Although I guess it shouldn't be any different from a 'real' train, somehow it is. On long distance journeys people have tables to eat - and drink - at.

On the tube there's a weird atmos anyway with people facing each other, it is an intimidatory thing.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I can think of reasons - people being drunk and intimidating. Although I guess it shouldn't be any different from a 'real' train, somehow it is. On long distance journeys people have tables to eat - and drink - at.
> 
> On the tube there's a weird atmos anyway with people facing each other, it is an intimidatory thing.



But most people having a drink on the tube aren't intimidating.  Some drunks are, but then many of them aren't drinking at the time and pretty much all of them are already drunk by the time they get on.  And there are already laws in place to deal with them anyway.

So again it comes down to the question, what is a ban actually going to achieve?


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 7, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I know you can't drink on Leeds buses or bring in smelly food.



Pretty much the case in most places AFAIK.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I can think of reasons - people being drunk and intimidating. Although I guess it shouldn't be any different from a 'real' train, somehow it is.


You haven't answered my question. Can you give me any reason why you should ban something that isn't infringing on your right to enjoy a peaceful journey?



_angel_ said:


> On the tube there's a weird atmos anyway with people facing each other, it is an intimidatory thing.


So you find the mere presence of a can of beer in someone's hand "intimidatory"? Why, exactly?


----------



## _angel_ (May 7, 2008)

I don't necessarily find someone drinking on the tube intimidatory but I can see why they may be banning it - in fact I just took it as given that you weren't supposed to do this. Most buses for example won't allow alcohol and smelly food and I don't really see why the tube should be different.

I imagine it will be hard to enforce though, but it's just good manners really. Maybe if there was the same kind of education about this as there was smoking we'd get somewhere.

On the whole, tube passengers are on their own. The driver can't really do owt and there aren't conductors so it's easy to see how incidents could occur. Promoting better manners on the tube would therefore be helpful.

I say this as someone who likes a drink, as well, but I can refrain from drinking on tubes and buses without problem.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> So we're agreed that your conception of decency isn't 'common'. In which case, why should it be enforced? What privileges your version ahead of another?



I start with the presumption that if people are going to share public space, often at very close quarters, then they need to be considerate of others.

People's preferences and sensitivities vary, ranging on a scale from those that are concerned about nothing except violence directed at them, to those for whom the very presence of others is an irritant to be endured where it cannot be avoided.

Obviously, we cannot please everyone all the time.

However, there is a long-established principle that one should make sacrifices where necessary to contribute to the comfort of others when in public. It is this principle that has disappeared for many people and has led to a range of behaviour, from the minor incivilities to major disorder, that plague our city.

As an example, some people enjoy loud music but most people find it very annoying, especially where it is others' music over which they have no control. So we prohibit music that is played loudly where it annoys others. This is justifiable because we do not want the preferences (it's hardly a necessity) of some to lead to the misery of many. Further, we make no general prohibition against music, or even loud music in contexts where it will not annoy others. This is considered by most people to be an appropriate balance.

I don't think that this measure against drinking on the tube is designed to stand alone. It represents the first of a range of measures to restore this "sacrifice principle" to behaviour in public. Individual instances of drinking on the tube may be perceived as anything between irritating and uncouth, all the way to grossly threatening. Mr Johnson is asking all Londoners to forego the dubious pleasure of drinking on the tube not because it in itself presages the fall of civilisation, but because it's a small way in which the tide can be turned from individual selfishness to a more widespread consideration of others' comfort.

I suspect there's also a "Broken Windows Theory" motivation here, but that's for another post, if not another thread.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Would you really _need _to drink on the tube? Most journeys aren't that long. It's not really on a par with a cross country rail journey where you'd have something to eat as well.
> 
> For me it would be on a par with drinking on a bus.. just wrong and a bit rude.



That's actually an interesting point.  People going out for a night with friends often eat with the alcohol, which does slow down the "getting drunk" part.  Whereas people drinking a can or two on public transport generally don't eat with it, thus the alcohol ends up in the blood - and impairing judgement - much quicker.

Public transport - especially during busy times and late night, can often be a stressful and frustrating experience.  Given how alcohol shortens people's fuses, putting both of them together is a bad move.

Plus this poll can show that... 40,421 members, only 25 vote "totally against" the ban.  You can also mention 23 "supporting or with reservations of the ban" v 25 "totally against" the ban.  It seems like maybe there isn't an "overwhelming" dissention here?

"Two more people against than for the ban on obscure anarchist internet forum"... great headline grabber?


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> "Two more people against than for the ban on obscure anarchist internet forum"... great headline grabber?



is this an *anarchist* internet forum?


----------



## Sunray (May 7, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> and ban people using both armrests, people with unfeasibly large rucksacks, with offensive fashion sense, with smelly feet, with colds, with unwashed hair, with irritating laughs, ones that fart, and anyone reading Harry Potter. Then I'd be happy.



It would be far easier to ban you than all of them.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> But most people having a drink on the tube aren't intimidating.  Some drunks are, but then many of them aren't drinking at the time and pretty much all of them are already drunk by the time they get on.  And there are already laws in place to deal with them anyway.
> 
> So again it comes down to the question, what is a ban actually going to achieve?



Not much it seems:



> Over the Christmas and New Year period, Underground services performed well.  In particular, there were only two significant incidents.  … . The post event de-briefs have shown that there was an overall reduction in incidents caused by alcohol/anti-social behaviour incidents across the network, with a significantly lower number of staff assaults after 04:00.


 Source


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> So you find the mere presence of a can of beer in someone's hand "intimidatory"? Why, exactly?



I tried this out on Saturday coming home at night on the tube I sat opposite blokes drinking from cans and tried to work out of I felt intimidated. I didn't feel in the least intimidated, even when I was sitting among 5 of them in a carriage. They were just so obviously enjoying themselves - not as drunk as me probably even though I had no drink - and not in the least threatening. 

I think some people just see the world in a very skewed and negative way. One of them is now mayor of London.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> I think some people just see the world in a very skewed and negative way. One of them is now mayor of London.



And the other 1.1 million are the people that voted for him, perhaps.


----------



## Onket (May 7, 2008)

Has anyone said anything about putting the can/bottle in a brown paper bag in the last 28 pages? If so, what?


----------



## teuchter (May 7, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> Nice to see the corporate message linking 'fun' and alcohol is still impressing the younger generations.



I think it's safe to say that humans had been having 'fun' with alcohol for many thousands of years before corporations came along.

Just like they had been dealing with alcohol-related anti-social behaviour for thousands of years.

And I would guess that even our cave-man predecessors were able to get their head around the idea that it's rather more civilised to punish people for the anti-social behaviour, than for enjoying a quiet drink.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 7, 2008)

or hipflasks???


----------



## teuchter (May 7, 2008)

Onket said:


> Has anyone said anything about putting the can/bottle in a brown paper bag in the last 28 pages? If so, what?



Yes, and that it will be the sensible way around this nonsense.

Although I won't be bothering with the bag; I shall just refrain from opening the can until I'm sat in the train.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I think it's safe to say that humans had been having 'fun' with alcohol for many thousands of years before corporations came along.
> 
> Just like they had been dealing with alcohol-related anti-social behaviour for thousands of years.
> 
> And I would guess that even our cave-man predecessors were able to get their head around the idea that it's rather more civilised to punish people for the anti-social behaviour, than for enjoying a quiet drink.


 

Lets not let the Centaurs have any though


> Thereupon the vapours of the sacred wine wafted out of the cave and intoxicated the wild centaurs, led by Nessus, who had gathered outside. They attacked the cave with stones and fir trees. Heracles was forced to shoot many arrows (poisoned, of course, with the blood of the Hydra) to drive them back. During this assault, Chiron was hit in the thigh by one of the poisoned arrows


----------



## dream_girl (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> And the other 1.1 million are the people that voted for him, perhaps.



Did i say that? I don't think so. More accurately, I was refering to the relatively tiny number of people who think that enjoying a quiet drink is tantamount to alcoholism.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I imagine it will be hard to enforce though, but it's just good manners really.


Why is it 'bad manners' to quietly sip from a can, bothering no one?

I could see your point if you were referring to people wolfing down great stinky kebabs or distributing spent chicken bones around the carriage, but I feel to see what is so offensive about someone having a can on their way home/out.

Unless, of course, you think drinking _anything_ on the tube is bad manners too.


----------



## _angel_ (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Why is it 'bad manners' to quietly sip from a can, bothering no one?
> 
> I could see your point if you were referring to people wolfing down great stinky kebabs or distributing spent chicken bones around the carriage, but I feel to see what is so offensive about someone having a can on their way home/out.
> 
> Unless, of course, you think drinking _anything_ on the tube is bad manners too.



You see, one persons meat is another ones poison. You object to meat, some people object to alcohol. I don't care that much either way, but wouldn't personally drink on the tube or on a bus, but like I said, most places hot food and alcohol are banned from.


----------



## 8ball (May 7, 2008)

I don't like olives.

BAN THEM EVERYWHERE!!!


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Do people feel the same about the banning of smoking on public transport?  Just curious.


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Do people feel the same about the banning of smoking on public transport?  Just curious.


In what way are these things linked? 
I've not heard of passive drinking. Can you get cirrhosis from alcohol fumes?


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> In what way are these things linked?
> I've not heard of passive drinking. Can you get cirrhosis from alcohol fumes?



No.. but can you get punched in the face because someone smoked too many fags?


----------



## DJ Squelch (May 7, 2008)

8ball said:


> I don't like olives.
> 
> BAN THEM EVERYWHERE!!!



Especially On The Buses


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> You see, one persons meat is another ones poison. You object to meat, some people object to alcohol.


Thing is, I'm not asking for people to be banned from eating meat, even if they're doing it on the same table as me. It's called 'tolerance.'


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> In what way are these things linked?
> I've not heard of passive drinking. Can you get cirrhosis from alcohol fumes?



To someone who doesn't smoke, smoking in public is antisocial.  You can't sit outside in a pub garden anymore because all the smokers hang out there instead.  You can't wait for a bus without choking on someone's smoke - yet people think they have a right to smoke in public without considering those around them.

That's what it all really boils down to ... consideration for those around you that might object - or lack of consideration.

When people cannot regulate themselves, the law has to step in and regulate it for them.  That's how things go.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

When they banned smoking it was the logical next step...

.. can't say I have any sympathy for the folk who support that ban because it suits them.. but not this one cos it doesn't.


----------



## Poi E (May 7, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> some people object to alcohol. .



Good for them. Have they ever been offered a can on the tube?


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> No.. but can you get punched in the face because someone smoked too many fags?


And again, how is stopping people drinking going to stop aggressive drunks? 

Will aggressive drunken types moderate their pre-tube drinking as a result of this law? 

If they decide to ignore the law, will asking them to stop make it more or less likely that someone gets punched? 

Will it stop people getting tanked up on cheap drinks before they go the pub/club/gig, or will they just drink more before leaving home?


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You can't wait for a bus without choking on someone's smoke


I think you'll find you can.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> .. can't say I have any sympathy for the folk who support that ban because it suits them.. but not this one cos it doesn't.


You do realise there's zero logical in that statement, don't you? No one else's health is being endangered by someone quietly having a can of beer on a tube.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> When they banned smoking it was the logical next step...
> 
> .. can't say I have any sympathy for the folk who support that ban because it suits them.. but not this one cos it doesn't.



Not really.  The justification for the smoking ban was passive smoking: the same problem doesn't arise with alcohol.  There's no inconsistency in agreeing with one and not t'other.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Not really.  The justification for the smoking ban was passive smoking: the same problem doesn't arise with alcohol.  There's no inconsistency in agreeing with one and not t'other.



Both do, however, infringe on the imagined 'rights' of an individual to partake in that activity in public.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Not really.  The justification for the smoking ban was passive smoking: the same problem doesn't arise with alcohol.  There's no inconsistency in agreeing with one and not t'other.



There are other asssociated problems with alcohol. That's the inconsistency.

Don't get me wrong.. I think we should ban as little as possible and let folk work things out for themselves.

But I can't help feeling that the people who supported one ban because it suited them.. but object to another because it doesn't... are being inconsistent in a way that entirely suits them.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> You do realise there's zero logical in that statement, don't you? No one else's health is being endangered by someone quietly having a can of beer on a tube.



No one elses health is endangered by someone having a single cigarette in an empty pub.

But that's still not allowed.


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> When they banned smoking it was the logical next step...
> 
> .. can't say I have any sympathy for the folk who support that ban because it suits them.. but not this one cos it doesn't.


You might need to justify that statement. I'm a smoker, I support the smoking ban because there is an unacceptable risk to health for non-smokers due to passive smoking. I'm more or less teetotal these days, but I think it's pointless to ban people drinking on public transport.

This discussion is pointless if it's just people saying "I don't do it/don't see why people need to/don't like it when others do". The point is, what will this law achieve, and how much will it cost to achieve it?

I think it can't be enforced and will likely make things worse, for reasons I have already explained in some detail. This is why I oppose it. It's a bad law and a waste of time and money. Nothing to do with personal inconvenience.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Both do, however, infringe on the imagined 'rights' of an individual to partake in that activity in public.



This is irrelevant. There are differences between different activities. The act of drinking does not physically affect other people; the act of smoking does. Characterising the whole issue as some sort of idealised freedom of action one is clownish.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> No one elses health is endangered by someone having a single cigarette in an empty pub.


Apart from the person serving them of course, not that this piss weak attempt at analogy is worth pursuing.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Both do, however, infringe on the imagined 'rights' of an individual to partake in that activity in public.



The right to drink and smoke anywhere there is no specific prohibition on doing so isn't imaginary.  You may not like it, but it's a fact nonetheless.  Personally, I don't like impinging on anyone's liberty to act as they see fit unless it directly harms someone else - which is why I don't agree with Boris's ban on drinking on LT, and why I'd have favoured a 'separate rooms' policy rather than a full ban on smoking in public places.  But you don't seem to place much of a value on liberty.



Kizmet said:


> There are other asssociated problems with alcohol. That's the inconsistency.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.. I think we should ban as little as possible and let folk work things out for themselves.
> 
> But I can't help feeling that the people who supported one ban because it suited them.. but object to another because it doesn't... are being inconsistent in a way that entirely suits them.



No, it isn't an inconsistency.  Pasisve smoking - or, at least, regular exposure to high levels of smoke - is directly harmful.  Alcohol simply isn't in the same way.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

Smoking, furthermore, is just plain irritating, and I say this as a smoker. The tube would be unbearable if smoking was permitted. Plus it's a serious fire hazard in a confined space.

This is all just a low-quality rhetorical trick if you ask me, anyway.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This is irrelevant. There are differences between different activities. The act of drinking does not physically affect other people; the act of smoking does. Characterising the whole issue as some sort of idealised freedom of action one is clownish.



When was the last time you heard of someone getting injured or killed after a night out smoking?


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Apart from the person serving them of course,



Maybe if they sucked on the other end of the cigarette at the same time... 

Otherwise let's assume they are on the other side of the pub from the smoker.



> not that this piss weak attempt at analogy is worth pursuing.



It's not an analogy.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> When was the last time you heard of someone getting injured or killed after a night out smoking?



This is a completely irrelevant question to the subject of banning drinking on the tube.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> No, it isn't an inconsistency.  Pasisve smoking - or, at least, regular exposure to high levels of smoke - is directly harmful.  Alcohol simply isn't in the same way.



I didn't say it was the same way.

It's _much more_ harmful in entirely different ways.


----------



## Yossarian (May 7, 2008)

Boris Johnson spent some crucial years of his youth in the Bullingdon Club, renowned for getting pissed and smashing things up, and has probably never used public transport on a regular basis in his life so I guess it's no surprise that he's got things so mixed up that he thinks banning drinking on public transport is going to make some kind of improvement.

I don't live in London anymore and I can't remember the last time I had a drink on public transport when I did - although I definitely did a few times when I was working weird shift hours - but I'll be back there for a week or two this summer and I'm now going to feel pretty much duty-bound to be 'aggressively swilling' on every journey.


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> No one elses health is endangered by someone having a single cigarette in an empty pub.
> 
> But that's still not allowed.


You think the smoking ban should be amended to allow people to have one fag if they should find themselves in a completely empty pub?


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This is a completely irrelevant question to the subject of banning drinking on the tube.



Only if you want to think it is. But that's the inconsistency I was talking about.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> But you don't seem to place much of a value on liberty.



With liberty and freedom comes responsibility.  Too many people forget that.  

I value my liberty highly - there is nothing I wish to do that current laws prevent me from doing, except a few things that are purely for my own selfish benefit... therefore I don't do them.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> You think the smoking ban should be amended to allow people to have one fag if they should find themselves in a completely empty pub?



Heh. 

Obviously not.. just countering ed's point about a 'quiet can on the tube' with a similar situation.

The problem, of course isn't the single smoker.. or the quiet can drinker.. it's the massive amounts of smoke from lots of smokers... and the spillages, bloodshed, violence, abuse, rape, threats and general stink of the drunks.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

This comparison to smoking argument needs to be dropped, the logic is broken. Try other arguments, there are much better ones.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Only if you want to think it is. But that's the inconsistency I was talking about.



I fail to see the relevance of asking about "nights out" doing _anything_ when considering _doing something on the tube_. They're not the same, if that really needs pointing out.

When was the last time you heard of somebody having a parrot sandwich?


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> This is a completely irrelevant question to the subject of banning drinking on the tube.



Why?

The more alcohol a person consumes, the more likely they are to get agressive, or be injured/killed.  That's pretty much a given fact.

Therefore, removing some opportunities for consuming alcohol can only lower those statistics.

Just like someone smoking 60 a day is likely to die quicker than someone who occasionally smokes one or two a day.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Heh.
> 
> Obviously not.. just countering ed's point about a 'quiet can on the tube' with a similar situation.
> 
> The problem, of course isn't the single smoker.. or the quiet can drinker.. it's the massive amounts of smoke from lots of smokers... and the spillages, bloodshed, violence, abuse, rape, threats and general stink of the drunks.


Is the single can drinker going to go into a bloody rage? No.
Is going into a bloody rage already illegal? Yes.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why?
> 
> The more alcohol a person consumes, the more likely they are to get agressive, or be injured/killed.  That's pretty much a given fact.
> 
> ...



What, this is some sort of public health issue? I'm sorry, but not even the greatest proponents of this are even trying to pretend that it is actually to reduce overall consumption (okay, apart from you).


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> With liberty and freedom comes responsibility.  Too many people forget that.



Some do, many don't.  What are you implying?


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> When was the last time you heard of someone getting injured or killed after a night out smoking?


Smoking was banned on the tube as a direct result of the King's Cross fire, which killed 31 people.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

Actually, I don't think many people would object to somebody having a fag when they were _completely on their own in a pub_, but that's another non-issue, since, well, it rather takes away the point of having a pub doesn't it?

I don't agree with the pub smoking ban personally but I can certainly see that there is an argument for it - nothing like that in this instance.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> When was the last time you heard of someone getting injured or killed after a night out smoking?


It's like you're wilfully being stupid here. Deaths in the home from fires caused by cigarettes are commonplace, not that it's got anything to do with the issue of drinking on the underground.


> In 2003 there were 593 fire-related deaths in the UK, with 395 deaths from accidental house fires, *35% of which were caused by the careless disposal of smoking materials.*
> http://www.southwales-fire.gov.uk/SWFSCMS/OurPerformance/statistics.htm


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> This comparison to smoking argument needs to be dropped, the logic is broken. Try other arguments, there are much better ones.



I simply don't agree. It may take a little lateral thinking.. but the comparison on the basic level of _actual_ experiences caused by the taking of either narcotic... is totally justified.

Alcohol hurts loads of people. So does smoking.

They are not taken the same way - so clearly they cannot be dealt with exactly the same way.. nevertheless the comparison is valid.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Is the single can drinker going to go into a bloody rage? No.



What's to say that it's the _first_ can?



> Is going into a bloody rage already illegal? Yes.



Wouldn't it be better to prevent the bloody rage in the first place.. rather than just mop it up afterwards then have a nice can of beer on the way home?


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

If it's not the first can, then the person is already drunk and can be arrested for drunk and disorderly.

Look, it's very simple. Drinking does not inevitably lead to offensive drunkeness. Offensive drunkeness is already illegal, so _why the new law_?


----------



## Yossarian (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I simply don't agree. It may take a little lateral thinking.. but the comparison on the basic level of _actual_ experiences caused by the taking of either narcotic... is totally justified.
> 
> Alcohol hurts loads of people. So does smoking.
> 
> They are not taken the same way - so clearly they cannot be dealt with exactly the same way.. nevertheless the comparison is valid.



Do the dashes and '...'s mark where the vital words that would make your argument sensible have been removed?


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

Excessive drinking kills and hurts lots of people. Therefore, we should take opportunities to ban drinking.
Dangerous driving kills and hurts lots of people. Therefore we should take opportunities to ban driving.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> If it's not the first can, then the person is already drunk and can be arrested for drunk and disorderly.
> 
> Look, it's very simple. Drinking does not inevitably lead to offensive drunkeness. Offensive drunkeness is already illegal, so _why the new law_?



I'm not backing the new law.. I just said that it was an obvious logical next step after the banning of smoking.

And that I don't have any sympathy with the inconsistent point of view that supported one ban but objects to another simply because it affects their personal habits.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> Do the dashes and '...'s mark where the vital words that would make your argument sensible have been removed?


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> Smoking was banned on the tube as a direct result of the King's Cross fire, which killed 31 people.


Correction, according to wiki it was banned after the Oxford Circus fire, but the ban wasn't enforced until the King's Cross fore 2 years later.



> The escalator on which the fire started was built during World War II, and had never been replaced since. The stairs and sides of the escalator were made of wood, meaning that they burned quickly and easily. Although smoking was banned on the subsurface sections of the London Underground in February 1985 (a consequence of the Oxford Circus fire), the fire was most probably caused by a commuter discarding a burning match, which fell down the side of the escalator onto the running track (Fennell 1988, p. 111). The running track had not been cleaned in some time and was covered in grease and fibrous detritus.
> 
> Other possible causes such as arson and an IRA bomb were quickly rejected as possible causes of the fire, mainly because of the strong evidence pointing to discarded smokers' materials (Fennell 1988, App. K).


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

sorry kizmet, it wasn't really supposed to be an attack on you.
I do think that the comaprisons that can be drawn between this ban and the pub smoking one are flimsy though.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> sorry kizmet, it wasn't really supposed to be an attack on you.



No worries, dude.



> I do think that the comaprisons that can be drawn between this ban and the pub smoking one are flimsy though.



If you try and compare like for like.

But the fact is comparisons are valid because they are both bans.


----------



## DJ Squelch (May 7, 2008)

Do people find it worrying that Labour are at their lowest point for years, the BNP are doing better than ever in London but the longest political thread on U75 this week is about moaning that you cant have a can of Stella on the tube? I'm not sure what that says about the state of things but I'm sure it says something.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

DJ Squelch said:


> Do people find it worrying that Labour are at their lowest point for years, the BNP are doing better than ever in London but the longest political thread on U75 this week is about moaning that you cant have a can of Stella on the tube? I'm not sure what that says about the state of things but I'm sure it says something.



Doesn't it say more for the state of British politics that this is one of the first things the new Mayor of London proposes...?


----------



## ymu (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I'm not backing the new law.. I just said that it was an obvious logical next step after the banning of smoking.
> 
> And that I don't have any sympathy with the inconsistent point of view that supported one ban but objects to another simply because it affects their personal habits.


Smoking bans have been introduced in many many countries over the last 5 years or so because of the strong (new) evidence of health risks due to passive smoking. The UK ban is more draconian than most (any I've heard of, actually), but it's based on proper evidence of harm and advice from the WHO.

There's nothing logical about alcohol being next. The harm to others from alcohol is a result of people being drunk and out of control, regardless of whether anyone else was in their presence whilst they were getting drunk.

Again, what harms will this law prevent?


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> But the fact is comparisons are valid because they are both bans.



But for different reasons - one on the basis of direct harm to health, the other because it _can _contribute to misbehaviour - so the comparison is flawed.

FWIW I don't agree with either.  Boris's booze ban is bollocks, and the smoking ban was a piece of nanny-statism whose benefits could have been secured by something far less draconian.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Doesn't it say more for the state of British politics that this is one of the first things the new Mayor of London proposes...?



Actually the concept of 'start at the root of the problem' seems very sensible to me.

How many people here are going to be *personally* affected by the ban in a big way, rather than just a minor annoyance/inconvenience or jumping on "lets bash Boris because he's Tory and anything he does will either be wrong, or pinching a Labour idea"?


----------



## rocketman (May 7, 2008)

Boris runs London = Oh god oh god you stupid stupid bastards, you fell for his cartoon capers, you thought he was Bugs Bunny when he's Muttley at best. We're fucked, and if this is his first move expect more ersatz shit in a regimented society of negative values, after all - what has he really said there? London, it seems, under his analysis, is full of drunks. How could anyone vote for such arrogance and feel good about it? Now look forward to the Olympics, sponsored by BAE or some other dodgy arms dealer. Olympics for Unity (sponsored by death). Am I alone in seeing the moral lack in our elected useful idiot?
Oh yeh, and keep politics out of sport, unless McDonalds sponsors the wifi. Jesus wept.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

ymu said:


> Smoking bans have been introduced in many many countries over the last 5 years or so because of the strong (new) evidence of health risks due to passive smoking. The UK ban is more draconian than most (any I've heard of, actually), but it's based on proper evidence of harm and advice from the WHO.
> 
> There's nothing logical about alcohol being next. The harm to others from alcohol is a result of people being drunk and out of control, regardless of whether anyone else was in their presence whilst they were getting drunk.
> 
> Again, what harms will this law prevent?



I get the feeling that this addition of 440 extra police offecers to police the tube is about much more than just banning drinking.....


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Actually the concept of 'start at the root of the problem' seems very sensible to me.



What problem is someone having a quiet can on the tube the root of, then? 



> How many people here are going to be *personally* affected by the ban in a big way, rather than just a minor annoyance/inconvenience or jumping on "lets bash Boris because he's Tory and anything he does will either be wrong, or pinching a Labour idea"?



Not me.  I can't remember the last time I had a drink on public transport, with the exception of a whisky to help me drop off to sleep on a long flight.  It's just not something I enjoy doing.  Don't want it banned, though.  A ban won't benefit anyone, and will inconvenience people who currently have a drink on the tube or bus without harming anyone.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> But for different reasons - one on the basis of direct harm to health, the other because it _can _contribute to misbehaviour - so the comparison is flawed.



Both have circumstancial harm associated with then.



> FWIW I don't agree with either.  Boris's booze ban is bollocks, and the smoking ban was a piece of nanny-statism whose benefits could have been secured by something far less draconian.



^ Word.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> How many people here are going to be *personally* affected by the ban in a big way, rather than just a minor annoyance/inconvenience or jumping on "lets bash Boris because he's Tory and anything he does will either be wrong, or pinching a Labour idea"?



the approval for a law shouldn't be based on 'how little it will inconvenience' but on 'how much it will benefit' and I see no benefit to this law, as there are already adequate laws proscribing offensive drunkeness.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

A blanket ban on all food and drink in order to reduce litter would make more logical sense, btw.


----------



## Yossarian (May 7, 2008)

DJ Squelch said:


> Do people find it worrying that Labour are at their lowest point for years, the BNP are doing better than ever in London but the longest political thread on U75 this week is about moaning that you cant have a can of Stella on the tube? I'm not sure what that says about the state of things but I'm sure it says something.



It's not as if the whole thread has been purely political debate - drinking habits through the ages have been discussed, along with the history of public transport, the impact on personal health & on society of drinking in general, the different attitudes towards drinking between Britain and Canada, some fashion tips, the causes Johnson's mayorship, probably some random gossip as well - it's an epic!


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> A blanket ban on all food and drink in order to reduce litter would make more logical sense, btw.



No smoking.. no drinking.. soon no laughing and no talking.

And only 100 breaths between stops!


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Both have circumstancial harm associated with then.



One direct, one very much indirect.  There's the difference.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> One direct, one very much indirect.  There's the difference.



Passive smoking is not direct harm caused by one individual to another.

Alcohol related violence is.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Passive smoking is not direct harm caused by one individual to another.
> 
> Alcohol related violence is.



With respect, this is starting to get frustrating.

Passive smoking is _directly_ harmful.  

Alcohol consumption has no _direct_ effect on anyone other than the drinker, but it might have indirect consequences in terms of violence, which is rare, or general rowdiness, which is less so.

Can we leave it now?


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> the approval for a law shouldn't be based on 'how little it will inconvenience' but on 'how much it will benefit' and I see no benefit to this law, as there are already adequate laws proscribing offensive drunkeness.



That's the problem - you aren't seeing the bigger picture.  There are plenty of benefits, not the least London Transport will become a safer and friendlier place for everyone.

I would be more than happy to see BTP officers on London transport, even if just to provide a reassurance.  How many times have you seen someone trying to get on a bus without a ticket, only for the driver to just shut the engine off and sit there waiting for them to get off?  More often than not, it ends up being a few passengers like me who have the courage to confront them and force them off the bus - thankfully without having to resort to physical action.  

It's happened before when kids play their music out loud, and you have to tell them to turn it off.  When they eventually do, lots of people always say "thankyou" to me (or whoever) and you can't help but think "if it bothered you, why didn't you do something about it".

Since people don't like the comparison with smoking, how about places that have 'alcohol control orders' on them, where you can get arrested or fined if you are drinking alcohol out in the street?  Why is nobody complaining about those?

The tube is dirty, overcrowded, unreliable, rough-riding, smelly and generally all round unpleasant.  Why on earth anyone would think they could enjoy _anything _down there escapes me.  It's just a means to get from A to B.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Passive smoking is not direct harm caused by one individual to another.
> 
> Alcohol related violence is.


Ah, but one is constant (passive smoking), the other ocasional (alcohol fuelled violence).


----------



## rocketman (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> How many times have you seen someone trying to get on a bus without a ticket, only for the driver to just shut the engine off and sit there waiting for them to get off?  More often than not, it ends up being a few passengers like me who have the courage to confront them and force them off the bus - thankfully without having to resort to physical action.
> 
> It's happened before when kids play their music out loud, and you have to tell them to turn it off.  When they eventually do, lots of people always say "thankyou" to me (or whoever) and you can't help but think "if it bothered you, why didn't you do something about it"..



Thing is, that's how "society works". Community (if you recognise the concept) is the way to deal with what is disorderly. Community should always outweigh government. It's laziness that demands more police. The way to bring the spirit of an empowered community back isn't by employing a bunch of people in uniform, but to nurture the community itself. Laziness says it's other people's problem. involvement says it is my problem. The latter is a better path - but does Boris have any support for, or understanding off, the communities that exist in London? He so doesn't, not on the strength of his previous run of statements (and retractions).


----------



## _angel_ (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Passive smoking is not direct harm caused by one individual to another.
> 
> Alcohol related violence is.




Both are, actually, just the passive smoking risk takes longer (unless someone is a severe asthmatic)


There's also a very good fire risk reason to smoking being banned on the tube.



Kizmet said:


> When they banned smoking it was the logical next step...
> 
> .. can't say I have any sympathy for the folk who support that ban because it suits them.. but not this one cos it doesn't.



There is an element of truth in this I think.


Does anyone else think that if this had been a labour policy in London by Ken there would have been this outcry about it - I think not.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> With respect, this is starting to get frustrating.
> 
> Passive smoking is _directly_ harmful.
> 
> ...



If you like.

You compare passive smoking (the inhalation of smoke by *others* than the smoker) to alcohol consumption (the direct consumption by the drinker *alone*).

For it to be a fair comparison you have to consider the effects of alcohol consumption on *others*.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

I'd think this was just as stupid if ken had done it.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Ah, but one is constant (passive smoking), the other ocasional (alcohol fuelled violence).



How is passive smoking constant?


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> If you like.
> 
> You compare passive smoking (the inhalation of smoke by *others* than the smoker) to alcohol consumption (the direct consumption by the drinker *alone*).
> 
> For it to be a fair comparison you have to consider the effects of alcohol consumption on *others*.









Didn't I mention the POSSIBILITY of people who have been consuming alcohol having an effect on others in post #751?


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

rocketman said:


> does Boris have any support for, or understanding off, the communities that exist in London? He so doesn't, not on the strength of his previous run of statements (and retractions).



Instead of complaining here about it, why not contact him directly?

I blame the breakdown of communities all on feminism myself.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I blame the breakdown of communities all on feminism myself.



Now I'm sure you're a troll.


----------



## rocketman (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Instead of complaining here about it, why not contact him directly? I blame the breakdown of communities all on feminism myself.



Look, I don't often do this, but you're a sexist prick. 
(Apols to the Urban community and mods)

I have little patience for sexism.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Didn't I mention the POSSIBILITY of people who have been consuming alcohol having an effect on others in post #751?



Yes. But you stated that passive smoking causes direct harm.. when in reality that's only a possibility too.

In fact why not compare the number of people who are affected by passive smoking compared to those affected by alcohol related incidents...


----------



## Yossarian (May 7, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Does anyone else think that if this had been a labour policy in London by Ken there would have been this outcry about it - I think not.



If he'd done it mid-term I'd still have thoughtt it was a daft rule to bring in but not especially remarkable - if it'd been one of the first things Livingstone had done in his first week in office after being newly elected I'd have thought was an omen about as auspicious as the door slamming shut on Josef Fritzl's cellar.


----------



## rocketman (May 7, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> If he'd done it mid-term I'd still have thoughtt it was a daft rule to bring in but not especially remarkable - if it'd been one of the first things Livingstone had done in his first week in office after being newly elected I'd have thought was an omen about as auspicious as the door slamming shut on Josef Fritzl's cellar.



Amen


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Does anyone else think that if this had been a labour policy in London by Ken there would have been this outcry about it - I think not.


My opinion about the stupidity of the ban would be constant, whoever introduced it. 

It's a total waste of time and money and I hope Boris's attempt to foist this pointless (and potentially dangerous) policy on tube workers without consultation comes seriously unstuck. 

Why on earth should anyone quietly having a drink be thrown off a tube and why should any worker have to risk the wrath of drinkers by being compelled to chuck them off when they're causing no bother to anyone?


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Now I'm sure you're a troll.



Sorry you see it that way.  But don't you agree that, ever since the breakdown of the 'traditional family unit', things have gotten a lot worse?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> If he'd done it mid-term I'd still have thoughtt it was a daft rule to bring in but not especially remarkable - if it'd been one of the first things Livingstone had done in his first week in office after being newly elected I'd have thought was an omen about as auspicious as the door slamming shut on Josef Fritzl's cellar.


 

And the award for vilest metaphor of the week is here


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

rocketman said:


> I have little patience for sexism.


... Where did I blame it all on women?  I just mentioned the concept of feminism.  Why should that be limited to women?


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Yes. But you stated that passive smoking causes direct harm.. when in reality that's only a possibility too.


Bullshit. It can cause immediate and clearly recognised short term health problems like eye irritation, coughing to aggravation of asthma and allergies. Shove a cloud of cigarette smoke in your eye and see what happens.


----------



## rocketman (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ... specious remark...



Just can't be bothered.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Now I'm sure you're a troll.



Quite.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> why should any worker have to risk the wrath of drinkers by being compelled to chuck them off when they're causing no bother to anyone?



I thought I read somewhere that it was connected with the plan of getting more British Transport Police on London Transport?


----------



## scifisam (May 7, 2008)

Jesus, people are banging on comparing this ban to the smoking ban? That's ridiculous. Somehow I don't think any drinkers on the tube are going to force alcohol down your throat against your will, and, if they did, they'd already be commiting a crime. 

So many new bloody crimes. So much money spent enforcing them. So little change in levels of crime which actually affect people. 



ajdown said:


> Actually the concept of 'start at the root of the problem' seems very sensible to me.
> 
> How many people here are going to be *personally* affected by the ban in a big way, rather than just a minor annoyance/inconvenience or jumping on "lets bash Boris because he's Tory and anything he does will either be wrong, or pinching a Labour idea"?



Everyone is. It's using our money, after all, and the budget is not unlimited.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Sorry you see it that way.  But don't you agree that, ever since the breakdown of the 'traditional family unit', things have gotten a lot worse?



Well, since I'm a wicked old homo it suits me quite well, actually.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Everyone is. It's using our money, after all, and the budget is not unlimited.


What about the money wasted on policing all these marches and protests that go on?  I'd much rather my money was spent on ridding the tube of alcohol and stopping a few anarchists getting run over in London traffic.


----------



## _angel_ (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> My opinion about the stupidity of the ban would be constant, whoever introduced it.
> 
> It's a total waste of time and money and I hope Boris's attempt to foist this pointless (and potentially dangerous) policy on tube workers without consultation comes seriously unstuck.
> 
> Why on earth should anyone quietly having a drink be thrown off a tube and why should any worker have to risk the wrath of drinkers by being compelled to chuck them off when they're causing no bother to anyone?



First point, I doubt there would be this outcry.

I don't see the policy as workable on the tube unless there is some serious clout to back it up ---

but --- in the rest of the country you'd expect to be turfed off a bus for drinking or eating hot food, so I wonder why the principle is so different for London.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Well, since I'm a wicked old homo it suits me quite well, actually.



Homosexual conspiracy ftw!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> First point, I doubt there would be this outcry.



There _was_ this outcry. This came up when Ken was still in and the thread was pretty much the same.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There _was_ this outcry. This came up when Ken was still in and the thread was pretty much the same.



Remember, however, that this forum is not representative of London as a whole.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Remember, however, that this forum is not representative of London as a whole.



I expect it's the feminists skewing the vote, and the anarchist protestors.


----------



## scifisam (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What about the money wasted on policing all these marches and protests that go on?  I'd much rather my money was spent on ridding the tube of alcohol and stopping a few anarchists getting run over in London traffic.



So, you'd rather people weren't able to march or protest. You think expressing political opinions is worse than having a quiet drink on the tube. Rrright.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Bullshit. It *can* cause immediate and clearly recognised short term health problems like eye irritation, coughing to aggravation of asthma and allergies. Shove a cloud of cigarette smoke in your eye and see what happens.



The word 'can' usually means 'possibly'.

Which is exactly what I said. Passive smoking _can possibly_ cause harm under a number of circumstances.. exposure to smoke.. location concentration.. prologued exposure over time.

No matter how much you try to divorce the two.. that fact is that drinking causes harm. It doesn't have to and doesn't always. But it does. And lots of it.

So supporting one ban because it isn't your habit.. but objecting to another because it is your habit is hypocritical.


----------



## scifisam (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Remember, however, that this forum is not representative of London as a whole.



What's that got to do with anything? The question was whether there would have been such an outcry on here if Ken had put this law forward. The answer is yes, there would have been and actually was just as much outcry when it was discussed long before the election. It's got nothing to do with how representative of London this forum is.


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Homosexual conspiracy ftw!



Damn.  Outed.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

scifisam said:


> So, you'd rather people weren't able to march or protest. You think expressing political opinions is worse than having a quiet drink on the tube. Rrright.



I've never felt the need to join a protest march, nope.  Yet my taxes are wasted on paying for extra police to look after them all.

If you think wasting taxpayer's money on removing alcohol from public transport, why is your view more important than mine?

Or could it be that they are both legitimate opinions that hold the same amount of validity, and we just happen to have different views?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

Oh come off it. Smoking in a confined space is directly irritating to everyone around you regardless of passive smoking issues, and there is the fire hazard point. And as I said - I smoke. _Drinking_ in a confined space has no effect on other people around you, apart perhaps from the smell, which is much much worse from other food and drink regarding which there has been no attempt at a ban, and there is no risk of a fire from a discarded can of Stella.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

scifisam said:


> What's that got to do with anything? .... It's got nothing to do with how representative of London this forum is.


Have you seen much media air/print time given over to what a bad idea this is?  Most of what I've seen in the mainstream media today has been supportive.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Oh come off it. Smoking in a confined space is directly irritating to everyone around you regardless of passive smoking issues, and there is the fire hazard point. And as I said - I smoke. _Drinking_ in a confined space has no effect on other people around you, apart perhaps from the smell, which is much much worse from other food and drink regarding which there has been no attempt at a ban, and there is no risk of a fire from a discarded can of Stella.



The problem with your point of view is that you are only considering the actual action of drinking - the putting of the can against your lips. That's shortsighted because drinking affects your behaviour.

It's that effect on behaviour that must be compared.

You don't see a comparison because you're comparing them wrongly.


----------



## scifisam (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> The word 'can' usually means 'possibly'.
> 
> Which is exactly what I said. Passive smoking _can possibly_ cause harm under a number of circumstances.. exposure to smoke.. location concentration.. prologued exposure over time.
> 
> ...



There's no possibly about it. Passive smoking _does_ cause harm. 

Alcohol, in itself, doesn't cause harm to anyone but the drinker. It needs other factors, such as excessive consumption, before it causes harm. 

If you want to ban alcohol on the tube because alcohol might lead people to get violent, then you really should be advocating banning alcohol altogether. Tube journeys aren't long enough for someone to get drunk on. 

BTW, qute a lot of people support the smoking ban despite being smokers who don't drink on the tube. You must have missed ymu's post. 

@aj - sorry, I'm not engaging with you any more. You're a terrible troll.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> apart perhaps from the smell, which is much much worse from other food and drink regarding which there has been no attempt at a ban.



Personally I would welcome that.  It'd certainly reduce the amount of litter thrown around, especially on buses given that there's somewhere selling fried chicken on almost every corner.



FridgeMagnet said:


> , and there is no risk of a fire from a discarded can of Stella.



I'm not sure if this has ever happened but certainly metal objects like beer cans coming into contact with the live rail on the Tube could cause a spark which, given all the grease, oil and other rubbish down there could result in a fire - plus, of course, also a can is much harder than, say a newspaper, and could flick up and damage delicate underframe equipment on a tube train.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> The problem with your point of view is that you are only considering the actual action of drinking - the putting of the can against your lips. That's shortsighted because drinking affects your behaviour.
> 
> It's that effect on behaviour that must be compared.
> 
> You don't see a comparison because you're comparing them wrongly.



You're not, surely, claiming that banning drinking on the tube will have any effect on overall alcohol consumption?


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

scifisam said:


> @aj - sorry, I'm not engaging with you any more. You're a terrible troll.


So expressing an unpopular opinion round here is trolling?  Shame really.


----------



## Crispy (May 7, 2008)

Actually, I support this ban, as it's made pissing about on an internet message board great fun today


----------



## Yossarian (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I've never felt the need to join a protest march, nope.  Yet my taxes are wasted on paying for extra police to look after them all.
> 
> If you think wasting taxpayer's money on removing alcohol from public transport, why is your view more important than mine?
> 
> Or could it be that they are both legitimate opinions that hold the same amount of validity, and we just happen to have different views?



No, your opinion clearly holds far less validity than the other person's - the right of people to hold political demonstrations is one of the cornerstones of your country's ability to call itself a free society. By comparison, your quibbles about people having an alcoholic drink on public transport are as important as neighbours arguing over a two-inch difference in hedge size.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

scifisam said:


> There's no possibly about it. Passive smoking _does_ cause harm.



Under certain circumstances.



> Alcohol, in itself, doesn't cause harm to anyone but the drinker. It needs other factors, such as excessive consumption, before it causes harm.



We aren't talking about alcohol in itself.. we are talking about alcohol in a public context.

I think you're doing the same thing as fridgemagnet and comparing the wrong elements of each to each other. 



> If you want to ban alcohol on the tube because alcohol might lead people to get violent, then you really should be advocating banning alcohol altogether.



Now there's an idea for Boris..... the next logical step?


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You're not, surely, claiming that banning drinking on the tube will have any effect on overall alcohol consumption?



Do you think this is going to be the end of the banning?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Do you think this is going to be the end of the banning?



Banning the consumption of alcohol on the tube is what we are discussing here.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Banning the consumption of alcohol on the tube is what we are discussing here.



Just like banning smoking was what we were talking about then when folk like me said just wait.. alcohol next...


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Do you think this is going to be the end of the banning?



Probably not, no.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Just like banning smoking was what we were talking about then when folk like me said just wait.. alcohol next...



Saying "just wait, alcohol next" is a different topic to "smoking bans". If the topic were "banning things generally" it would be relevant. One might wish to start a more general thread in Philosophy or somewhere on the matter - and there are already some.

The chances of this being the first step in a general ban on alcohol are zero. The chances of this being an indication generally of restrictions on liberties for no good reason, with the excuse of blaming alcohol, are reasonable, but then I'm not the one defending this.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> No, your opinion clearly holds far less validity than the other person's - the right of people to hold political demonstrations is one of the cornerstones of your country's ability to call itself a free society. By comparison, your quibbles about people having an alcoholic drink on public transport are as important as neighbours arguing over a two-inch difference in hedge size.



Actually people have fought over less, and spent thousands in legal costs trying to get 'petty' things like that sorted out.

Since when did having an alcoholic drink on public transport become a 'right'?  It isn't.  Never has been.  It's only now that it's becoming an issue and it's having to be explicitely banned that people are under the false impression that they could all along.

There are a lot of things that are 'unwritten rules' about what you can and can't do in public places.  It shouldn't have to take up valuable political time passing a law on something that was never allowed in the first place.

"Not banning" does not automatically equate 'is allowed', by the way.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Just like banning smoking was what we were talking about then when folk like me said just wait.. alcohol next...



It's a logical next step along the path of ridding society of its ills.  I see no issue here.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Saying "just wait, alcohol next" is a different topic to "smoking bans". If the topic were "banning things generally" it would be relevant. One might wish to start a more general thread in Philosophy or somewhere on the matter - and there are already some.



It's not a different topic it's a logical extension.



> The chances of this being the first step in a general ban on alcohol are zero. The chances of this being an indication generally of restrictions on liberties for no good reason, with the excuse of blaming alcohol, are reasonable, but then I'm not the one defending this.



Neither am I.. if you look closely.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It's a logical next step along the path of ridding society of its ills.  I see no issue here.



Head down your local boozer and say that... I'm certain you'll see a few issues being raised....


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It's a logical next step along the path of ridding society of its ills.  I see no issue here.



Then we can start on getting rid of all the nasty laws passed by that disgraceful leftist Roy Jenkins, eh?


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> First point, I doubt there would be this outcry.


So despite everyone here telling you differently, you know best, yes? 



Kizmet said:


> The word 'can' usually means 'possibly'.


No, it means, "almost always." 

Tobacco smoke is an irritant. Blow it in your eyes and they sting. If anyone suffers an allergy they can experience "stuffy or runny noses, watery or burning eyes, sneezing, coughing, wheezing, a feeling of suffocation, and other typical allergy symptoms within minutes of exposure."

And here's the science bit:
"Short-term passive smoking causes endothelial dysfunction via oxidative stress in nonsmokers"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16902597


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> It's not a different topic it's a logical extension.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither am I.. if you look closely.



If you want to play devil's advocate, you have to do a lot better at arguing the devil's position.


----------



## Yossarian (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> it's having to be explicitely banned that people are under the false impression that they could all along.



Since it isn't being banned until a few weeks from now, I think people were under the completely correct impression that they could all along.

Are you a regular user of public transport in London?


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Then we can start on getting rid of all the nasty laws passed by that disgraceful leftist Roy Jenkins, eh?



I'm not familiar with what he's supposed to have done wrong, so if it's relevant you'll have to list them.


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If you want to play devil's advocate, you have to do a lot better at arguing the devil's position.



I don't do devils advocacy work anymore. He has Boris now.



I said what I said.. that _in my opinion_ if you supported the ban on smoking I'm not interested in your whinging about banning drinking.

They took away a much bigger part of my life when they banned smoking than this law will take from yours.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> Are you a regular user of public transport in London?


Yes, every weekday and most weekends too.  Generally an hour (or more if the traffic is shite) at each end of the day.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I don't do devils advocacy work anymore. He has Boris now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Er, I didn't. So, what about the drinking then?


----------



## Roadkill (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I'm not familiar with what he's supposed to have done wrong, so if it's relevant you'll have to list them.



It's not strictly relevant to the thread, no, but since you've talked up 'traditional family unit' quite highly I'm surprised you don't know of the bloke blamed by some for speeding its decline.  Or do you?


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

editor said:


> No, it means, "almost always."
> 
> Tobacco smoke is an irritant. Blow it in your eyes and they sting. If anyone suffers an allergy they can experience "stuffy or runny noses, watery or burning eyes, sneezing, coughing, wheezing, a feeling of suffocation, and other typical allergy symptoms within minutes of exposure."
> 
> ...



I'm not disputing most of that.. just putting it in it's proper context.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> It's not strictly relevant to the thread, no, but since you've talked up 'traditional family unit' quite highly I'm surprised you don't know of the bloke blamed by some for speeding its decline.  Or do you?



Only by looking it up on Wikipedia.  He was in politics before I was even born, although I now vaguely remember the name, I think from a puppet on Spitting Image?


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Er, I didn't. So, what about the drinking then?



What about it? It's an excuse to put 440 extra police on the tube and harass people. And a covert way of infriging on even more liberties.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> What about it? It's an excuse to put 440 extra police on the tube and harass people. And a covert way of infriging on even more liberties.



If 'breaking laws' and 'acting antisocially' is a liberty, then it's one we can well do without.


----------



## scifisam (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> So expressing an unpopular opinion round here is trolling?  Shame really.



I regularly engage with people who have unpopular opinions on here, and sometimes back them up if I agree with what they're saying. You're just not good enough to be worth bothering with, though - not on this thread, at least. 



Kizmet said:


> Under certain circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
So you think alcohol being consumed in a public context is likely to cause problems for people? Despite all the evidence about the drunks on the tube _being drunk before they got on_. 

Passive smoking is dangerous under any contexts. Not some, not possibly - it just is dangerous. You don't seriously dispute that, do you?

Boris is about as likely to ban alcohol altogether as he is to ban public schools.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

scifisam said:


> I regularly engage with people who have unpopular opinions on here, and sometimes back them up if I agree with what they're saying. You're just not good enough to be worth bothering with, though - not on this thread, at least.


I'm new round here still, so you'll have to give me a few more weeks to practice ok?


----------



## Kizmet (May 7, 2008)

scifisam said:


> So you think alcohol being consumed in a public context is likely to cause problems for people?



Don't you?



> Passive smoking is dangerous under any contexts. Not some, not possibly - it just is dangerous. You don't seriously dispute that, do you?



Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.



> Boris is about as likely to ban alcohol altogether as he is to ban public schools.


----------



## scifisam (May 7, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Don't you?



No. Most people don't cause problems when drunk, and drinking in public is no more likely to get your drunk than drinking in private.



> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.



So, you're not sure?


----------



## citydreams (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Since when did having an alcoholic drink on public transport become a 'right'?



Maybe because they built public transport stations with pubs in them?!   Or does that not bother you?

It's a 'right' to go about your own business without being told what to do by others.  That's a positive right.
Then it is also a 'right' not to have your self harmed by another person.  That's a negative right.
Society is about balancing the positive and the negative.

What you are arguing for is to rid us of the balance in favour of authoritarianism.   It goes against everything that this country stands for.


----------



## ajdown (May 7, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Maybe because they built public transport stations with pubs in them?!   Or does that not bother you?



Whilst they might have back in the day, there were far less problems with alcohol too.  Drunken punch ups were pretty much the sole denizen of the 'lower classes' - now, it's the city types and what would have ten years ago been called yuppies that are the biggest part of the problem




citydreams said:


> It's a 'right' to go about your own business without being told what to do by others.  That's a positive right.
> Then it is also a 'right' not to have your self harmed by another person.  That's a negative right.
> Society is about balancing the positive and the negative.


Correct, and Boris clearly sees that it's a 'right' to travel on London Transport without people drinking beer all around you,  It's more down to how these 'rights' are interpreted, and more often than not swayed by your own personal feelings.  I don't like being around people drinking alcohol, whether they are drunk at that particular time or not.  Don't I have the 'right' not to be placed in a position where I feel uncomfortable by the actions of others?  If being surrounded by a dozen hoodies all glaring at you makes you feel uncomfortable, why should that be different?



citydreams said:


> What you are arguing for is to rid us of the balance in favour of authoritarianism.   It goes against everything that this country stands for.


I hardly think that banning alcohol on public transport in London (when it and similar is already banned on public transport throughout the rest of the country) is hardly 1984.

As I've said before, most people seem to be sheepily following the 'infringement of civil liberties' line when in actual fact, the chances of them wanting to drink alcohol on a bus or the tube are remote and they might perhaps do it a couple of times a year.

We all have to make sacrifices from time to time for the good of others, and for the greater good.  It's how life works.  If I have a bad back, but give up my seat to a pregnant woman when there are more able people just ignoring her need, then I've made a small sacrifice which demonstrably affects me personally negatively - yet helped her.  It may be that someone will get off in a stop or two which will let me sit down again, I might have to stand all the way to my final destination and hardly be able to walk when I get off the bus.

Very few people will want to drink alcohol in the morning on their way to work - leaving only the home journey.  So immediately the problem is only 50% of what people are making it out to be... although in my book 50% of nothing is still nothing.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Whilst they might have back in the day, there were far less problems with alcohol too.*  Drunken punch ups were pretty much the sole denizen of the 'lower classes' - *now, it's the city types and what would have ten years ago been called yuppies that are the biggest part of the problem.




you are wrong


----------



## citydreams (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Whilst they might have back in the day, there were far less problems with alcohol too.



Absolutely daft thing to say.  

There has always been 'problems' associated with alcohol.  My favourite example is the fact that, back in the day, beer would go off very quickly on brewing so had to be drunk very quickly .

But a more serious example is the banning outright of May Day celebrations.




> Boris clearly sees that it's a 'right' to travel on London Transport without people drinking beer all around you



...but says nothing about smelly food, loud music, feet on seats, swearing....

It's laughable that you think he's doing it to stop having people drinking beer around you.



> I don't like being around people drinking alcohol, whether they are drunk at that particular time or not.  Don't I have the 'right' not to be placed in a position where I feel uncomfortable by the actions of others?



you have a right to free councelling provided by the NHS.  I'd suggest you take them up on it if people make you feel uncomfortable for holding a can of beer.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I'm not familiar with what he's supposed to have done wrong, so if it's relevant you'll have to list them.



For the full story, see Peter Hitchens, _The Abolition of Britain_.


----------



## untethered (May 7, 2008)

citydreams said:


> What you are arguing for is to rid us of the balance in favour of authoritarianism.   It goes against everything that this country stands for.



I could list dozens of things that meet that criterion that have changed in Britain in the past 40 years. Attitudes and laws across the whole social spectrum: the family, relationships, marriage, divorce, penal policy, the death penalty, decency, obscenity, freedom of speech, homosexuality, religion, abortion, etc.

Most of these changes have been from a "traditional" position to a (relatively) liberal one.

I'm sure that when the death penalty was abolished and abortion was legalised there were many people that thought it went against everything the country stood for. And of course, some people still feel that way, including many who weren't born at the time.

But the major consequence of becoming a liberal society is that we have become a much more heterogeneous one. It is very hard to point to a common culture or a core set of values to which most people subscribe. As we discussed earlier in the thread, what many would consider to be "common courtesy" is now no longer as common as many would like. As the commonality of our values has disappeared, so has the courtesy.

In the absence of a social consensus on values and therefore behaviour, comes conflict. In the wake of conflict come rules and the authoritarian state which you dislike. I'm not that keen on it either.

We now have a society where common values fail to act as a reliable instrument of social control. We have three choices to move forward. We can seek to rediscover or redefine a common culture. We can use the crude weight of the law to impose an arbitrary and inflexible state of order. Or we can degenerate into an even more deeply fissured society where the best most people can hope for is sufficient opportunity to avoid people offensive to them.


----------



## citydreams (May 7, 2008)

untethered said:


> In the absence of a social consensus on values and therefore behaviour, comes conflict. In the wake of conflict come rules and the authoritarian state which you dislike. I'm not that keen on it either.
> 
> We now have a society where common values fail to act as a reliable instrument of social control. We have three choices to move forward. We can seek to rediscover or redefine a common culture. We can use the crude weight of the law to impose an arbitrary and inflexible state of order. Or we can degenerate into an even more deeply fissured society where the best most people can hope for is sufficient opportunity to avoid people offensive to them.



Aye.  But I can't see a common culture being determined without a common goal.  Self-preservation isn't enough on its own as a banner to unite under.

Boris can create as many charities as he likes and as many laws as he is able, but he will never be able to overcome an inherent disregard for authority.  The more he flaunts his mandate, the more he'll rile his opposition.

As it says on the undeground: "Do not *stop the doors from closing*, it can *be dangerous*"


----------



## 8ball (May 7, 2008)

citydreams said:


> Boris can create as many charities as he likes and as many laws as he is able, but he will never be able to overcome an inherent disregard for authority.



I'd like to believe that.


----------



## editor (May 7, 2008)

ajdown said:


> As I've said before, most people seem to be sheepily following the 'infringement of civil liberties' line when in actual fact, the chances of them wanting to drink alcohol on a bus or the tube are remote and they might perhaps do it a couple of times a year.


And they might also give a fuck about people who also like to enjoy a quiet drink on the tube too.

I rarely drink on the tune, but see no reason why vast sums of money should be wasted on this ridiculous buffoon's law.

And that's *my* money, so it's of concern to me and all other taxpayers .


----------



## Sunray (May 7, 2008)

Boris was on the news today stating that people are fed up with 'someone sitting next to them drinking from a can in an intimidating way.'


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I'm new round here still, so you'll have to give me a few more weeks to practice ok?



Yeah, but i think you should have invested a bit more time in doing your homework before you started, actually. One can't be sure of course but i think i've decided you're just trolling, because it seems like you've briefly perused the boards (or maybe you just looked up u75 on wikipedia) and made a little list of the things that people seem to be into, and then tried to express contentious opinions on each of them. I mean, what are the chances of someone who hates brixton, drug dealers, drinking, "anarchist protesters", and feminists happening upon these boards! What a coincidence! The thing is, your list is a wee bit off, which is why you should have done a bit more homework. You've probably noticed that your comments about the anarchists haven't got as much response as you hoped - the thing is that most posters on here aren't anarchists at all, despite what you might have read on wikipedia.
Maybe i've got you all wrong of course.
Even if you're not trolling though, have you ever looked into moving to north korea?


----------



## citydreams (May 8, 2008)

Sunray said:


> Boris was on the news today stating that people are fed up with 'someone sitting next to them drinking from a can in an intimidating way.'


----------



## pk (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It's a logical next step along the path of ridding society of its ills.  I see no issue here.



"This is A Local City for Local People. There Is Nothing For You Here."


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> yes and sometimes the activities of Z are of such limited and unproven harm  that restricting  the rights of X based upon them  is stupid.



Which is why the doctrine of proportionality is applied wrt the legal consequences. Illegal possession of firearms means potential jail time and big fines; illegal drinking on the Tube means a small fine.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

RenegadeDog said:


> I used to drink on the tube/bus as it was the only way to get round the licensing hours.  You finish work at 5.30, get home at 6.30, make dinner, get ready, it's now 8pm.  It might take an hour to get to where the pub is.  That leaves you a whopping two hours at the pub.




Maybe that's the reason for the difference here vs there. We never had those bizarre pub closing rules that would necessitate public transit drinking for those so inclined.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

RenegadeDog said:


> Exactly.  Someone having their (first) can of beer on the tube en route to the pub is hardly going to cause much trouble.



Explain to me again?

Why is it necessary to drink alcoholic drinks on public transit, when the destination is............. a place where one consumes alcoholic drinks?

When you're going out for a meal in a restaurant, do you pre-eat on the Tube, en route to the restaurant?


----------



## Kizmet (May 8, 2008)

scifisam said:


> No. Most people don't cause problems when drunk, and drinking in public is no more likely to get your drunk than drinking in private.


 
So how does that explain all the alcohol related injuries and crimes, then?



> So, you're not sure?


 
Only if 'not sure' begins with y and ends with 'es'.



'Can' cause harm under certain circumstances.. if, for example, blown in your face constantly.. or in that environment for prologued periods.. or if you have weak lungs.

But generally humans aren't so frail that _a bit_ of smoke will kill us. Irritate us, yes. But then most people irritate me anyway.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

RenegadeDog said:


> What, so you can't even sit in the park and have a bottle of wine with a picnic?  Now that _is_ bloody weird.  A cold drink with friends etc in the outdoors on a good summer's day is one of life's ultimate simple pleasures.



Strictly speaking, it's against the law, but depending on where you live, the law is selectively enforced. So if we go for a family picnic at Ambleside Beach, and a bottle of wine gets opened by the adults, nothing will likely get said.

But if later in the evening, two hundred teens show up, light bonfires, and crack open a keg, the cops will enforce the no drinking rule.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

RenegadeDog said:


> And considering that generally people in the UK live in much greater proximity to each other, that suggests that people are hardly descending into disorder any more than Canada is.



You've lost me with that one. Aside from not getting the proximity/crime connection, there's also the fact that something like 85% of the Canadian population lives in urban centers. We may not be sitting in each other's laps like you are, but we aren't each sitting in our homesteads, a mile apart from each other either.


----------



## pk (May 8, 2008)

Well I had TWO bottles of Newcastle Brown Ale on the Piccadilly Line this evening.

*smug mode*


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

RenegadeDog said:


> I've had beer on buses in China before.
> 
> That said, nobody Chinese does it, because it's just a bit weird in Chinese society to drink when not eating.  But there's definitely not a law against it.



There doesn't need to be, because it sounds like it's unheard of there. As for you, they're just tolerating a crazy gweilo.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

scifisam said:


> You don't need dangerous drivers to create accidents - accidents can happen because of the weather, road conditions, illness, car faults or tiny errors of judgement. So seatbelts and insurance aren't a case of people being forced to do something thanks to the actions of a disorderly minority - they're there to protect people from real dangers that no-one can completely avoid.



You've misunderstood me. I'm saying that in both instances, the conduct of the majority is regulated to to the activities of the minority. I didn't say that drivers in accidents are dangerous drivers. They are simply drivers who have gotten in an accident. But in any event, they are a small minority of all drivers. But nonetheless, because we can't identify in advance, who will get in an accident, the seatbelt and insurance laws must be of general application.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

pk said:


> Well I had TWO bottles of Newcastle Brown Ale on the Piccadilly Line this evening.


Were you drinking them in an "intimidating way"?

© Tory buffoon tosspot


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

pk said:


> I think you can if you brown bag it. You just end up looking like a gluesniffer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pk: "Oi then! Let's have a shag!"
Female OPP officer: "....[titter titter].....!"


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

scifisam said:


> I find it sad that, in Canada, if you don't have a garden then you're not allowed to take a picnic and a bottle of wine to the park.



Fuck the park: we drive deep into the bush, light huge bonfires, consume vast quantities of booze, and act like demented animals, all with no police within miles.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

myname said:


> well, just this weekend I was travelling back from the North of England to London on a train that had no option to buy a drink, didn't get into London until gone 9pm after over 5 hours on the train and I really wanted a drink, so I bought a tin of g&t at the station and drank it on the tube, didn't cause any problems and it meant I could start relaxing from my journey a little sooner.



You can't 'relax' without a g&t?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2008)

34 pages?

Good lord.  People care that much one way or the other about whether or not you have to wait to get off the tube to have a drink?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

Skorch said:


> NorthAmerican-style laws fucking suck.  You can't J-walk. .



We can't jaywalk?

Why didn't someone tell me this: I'm in a heap of trouble!


Maybe you were here a long time ago. I recall in the Seventies, seeing a motorcycle cop get his bike up on the sidewalk in order to chase down two guys who'd crossed against the light.

Nowadays, the cops might stop for a jaywalker if he fell under their wheels. Maybe.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> We can't jaywalk?


Maybe you can clear up for me what it is, exactly.  I've always imagined it's a bit like the slosh.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Good lord.  People care that much one way or the other about whether or not you have to wait to get off the tube to have a drink?


There sure seems to be a lot of opinions here from people who neither drink on the tube or, in fact, ever get on a tube.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ddraig said:


> where the fuck do you people come from and what are you doing here???
> genuine question



What he says is eminently sensible, and echoes the question that I've been asking: do people really need a drink so badly, that they can't wait out a tube ride before they have to start swilling?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> There sure seems to be a lot of opinions here from people who neither drink on the tube or, in fact, ever get on a tube.


Generally, I'm against banning stuff; I'd ban banning, me.  I'm just amazed this is such a hot topic.  People who are determined nobody should drink on a tube, others who demand the right to.

I don't use the London tube, but I do use public transport, and used to use the Glasgow Underground all the time when I lived there.  Never felt the need to have a drink on it, but never felt the need to stop others from so doing if they desired.  Is it really an issue?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

Did I mention? Our tranit cops carry tasers, and have been known to use them on fare evaders. Imagine what they'd do to someone chugging down a can of Guiness.


----------



## El Jefe (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Generally, I'm against banning stuff; I'd ban banning, me.  I'm just amazed this is such a hot topic.  People who are determined nobody should drink on a tube, others who demand the right to.
> 
> I don't use the London tube, but I do use public transport, and used to use the Glasgow Underground all the time when I lived there.  Never felt the need to have a drink on it, but never felt the need to stop others from so doing if they desired.  Is it really an issue?



But that's exactly it. You don't feel the need to do it, but also don't feel the need to stop others. This law seems to be aimed at something which is victimless and pointless with no justification at all.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

pk said:


> Well I had TWO bottles of Newcastle Brown Ale on the Piccadilly Line this evening.
> 
> *smug mode*



Pisstank!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> 34 pages?
> 
> Good lord.  People care that much one way or the other about whether or not you have to wait to get off the tube to have a drink?



They're going to rename the country 'Alcoholicland'.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What he says is eminently sensible, and echoes the question that I've been asking: do people really need a drink so badly, that they can't wait out a tube ride before they have to start swilling?


Why do you care? You've never been bothered by a troublesome drinker on the tube in your life!

Oh, and if you want to know why people might want a drink on the tube, here's some examples:

1. Going to meet someone on a first date and needing a drink to calm your nerves
2. On the way to a footie match and needing a drink to get you in the mood.
3. Coming back from a long hot and dusty day working on a building site in the sun
4. Going out for the night and getting a swifty in because you can't afford the club's  beer prices
5. Fuck it You've had a really shit day at work and need to unwind

I've drunk beer in the tube for all those reasons and I don't see why equally law abiding people should be deprived of the same privilege, especially when there's no remotely sane reason to ban it.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> But that's exactly it. You don't feel the need to do it, but also don't feel the need to stop others. This law seems to be aimed at something which is victimless and pointless with no justification at all.


I get that.  I suppose what I don't get is why it matters either way.


----------



## El Jefe (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I get that.  I suppose what I don't get is why it matters either way.



I guess because if it doesn't matter enough to justify a law, why pass it?

If your view is that it's irrelevant either way, you must see surely that a law is surplus to requirements, unecessary...

Surely the best litmus test of a law is that you feel it needs passing. If you don't then the only intelligent thing to do is not to pass it, even if you're not that arsed about it


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Maybe you can clear up for me what it is, exactly.  I've always imagined it's a bit like the slosh.



Jaywalking is crossing a roadway against a traffic or pedestrian signal, or in the middle of a block etc where there is no crosswalk.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

P.s. Boston is the jaywalking capital of NA.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> If your view is that it's irrelevant either way, you must see surely that a law is surplus to requirements, unecessary...


Yes, of course.  I've already said that.  It's silly.  Like banning eating doughnuts on museum steps.

However, is it really a hardship?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Why do you care? You've never been bothered by a troublesome drinker on the tube in your life!.



I actually have. Just because it's illegal here, doesn't mean it's never happened. I've sat beside a stench ridden bum with piss down his leg and a bottle in his hand, bent on becoming my best friend.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Jaywalking is crossing a roadway against a traffic or pedestrian signal, or in the middle of a block etc where there is no crosswalk.


Cheers.  

Do we have a word for that here? If not, why not?


----------



## El Jefe (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, of course.  I've already said that.  It's silly.  Like banning eating doughnuts on museum steps.
> 
> However, is it really a hardship?



I guess not, but I don't see that's relevant. It's not a proper hardship, but it's an unecessary curb on my freedom.

That, for me, is enough reason to oppose it.


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I get that.  I suppose what I don't get is why it matters either way.



I think it's mainly the principle behind it, and a reaction to the kind of thinking that leads to implementing these kinds of rules.

The reality is that in practice, it will probably remain quite possible to have a quiet beer on the tube. But that doesn't change the fact that the reasoning behind the rule is nonsensical, and I guess that it makes one wonder what silliness Boris is going to come up with next.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> it's an unecessary curb on my freedom.


It is.  True.

There are lots, though.  I guess I save my annoyance for bigger ones.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Oh, and if you want to know why people might want a drink on the tube, here's some examples:
> 
> 1. Going to meet someone on a first date and needing a drink to calm your nerves
> 2. On the way to a footie match and needing a drink to get you in the mood.
> ...



1. Ok: have the drink at home. If your resolve is so weak that you must chain-drink right up to her doorstep, maybe you should rethink the date. Besides, with that gap on the tube if drinking is illegal, there's a greater chance that you won't arrive a besotted lout puking on her doorstep.

2. Preparatory drinking. I understand that. But when I brought that up as a possible motivation yesterday, I was shouted down. Make up your minds.

3. On my labour type jobs, we just drank at the site at the end of the day, then drove home. But we didn't drink while actually driving the car.

4. Do your predrinking at home. The tube ride is short, or so everyone has said.

5. You're an alcoholic if you can't wait a half hour to unwind with booze.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I actually have. Just because it's illegal here, doesn't mean it's never happened.


Thanks for reminding me why the law is a truly pointless one.


----------



## El Jefe (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> It is.  True.



Thing is, I'm all for the greater good. if it could be demonstrated that there was any concrete reason whatsoever for this rule, I'd suck it up - my very occasional tube can isn't such a big deal. So it's not some bloody minded opposition to an issue with public interest at its heart...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Cheers.
> 
> Do we have a word for that here? If not, why not?



Probably  because you're a nation of scofflaws, and jaywalking is such normal behaviour, that it doesn't need its own special word.


----------



## El Jefe (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> There are lots, though.  I guess I save my annoyance for bigger ones.



Well, sure. Anything I get fucked off about is probably peanuts when seen in the broader picture, but surely you see why this is annoying people? A pointless law implemented as the first tangible act of a new administration.. 

It's not habeas corpus or extraordinary rendition or something, but it's a new and pointless law as the first sign of what might become an alarming trend


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> scofflaws




You're making these up!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Thanks for reminding me why the law is a truly pointless one.



...however, if it was legal here, I'm sure every subway car would be awash with piss stained, swilling bums....


As it is, it happens once in a blue moon.

Murder is illegal here also, but it happens too, on occasion. Since it happens in spite of the law, I suppose we should just scrap the law!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

This is what I get for talking with you people when it's 1 am there, and you're all half in the bag.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> surely you see why this is annoying people?


Yes, it's a pointless rule, in a climate of ever increasing pointless rules.  The authoritarian tendency is pervasive.
If this is the last straw that breaks the camel's back, all well and good.  I'm just surprised.  I'd have thought, I dunno, ever increasing detention without trial might do it.  But what do I know.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> You're making these up!





> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
> scoff·law   Audio Help   /ˈskɔfˌlɔ, ˈskɒf-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[skawf-law, skof-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> –noun 1. a person who flouts the law, esp. one who fails to pay fines owed.
> 2. a person who flouts rules, conventions, or accepted practices.
> ...



....................


----------



## Kizmet (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, it's a pointless rule, in a climate of ever increasing pointless rules. The authoritarian tendency is pervasive.
> If this is the last straw that breaks the camel's back, all well and good. I'm just surprised. I'd have thought, I dunno, ever increasing detention without trial might do it. But what do I know.


 
I thought the smoking thing would have done it. Got that one wrong.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I thought the smoking thing would have done it. Got that one wrong.


No, in fairness, for the next four hundred years  the authoritarian smokers shouldn't inflict their smoke on others, as they did for the last four hundred.

A ban wasn't the way to do it, but hey ho, the tobacco lobby didn't come up with an alternative.


----------



## Kizmet (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> No, in fairness, for the next four hundred years the authoritarian smokers shouldn't inflict their smoke on others, as they did for the last four hundred.


 
I think the human race would have survived.... didn't do too badly in the last four hundred years, did we?

Till we got to the stage where we are banning stuff because some people find it 'irritating'.



> A ban wasn't the way to do it, but hey ho, the tobacco lobby didn't come up with an alternative.


 
A ban wasn't the way to do it. There were plenty of alternatives.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> There were plenty of alternatives.


Yup.  A good one would have been: look at the proportion of adult smokers there are in the population, provide that proportion of licences for smoking premises in a licence board area.

But the best the licence trade could do is: "We'll put in more fans".


----------



## Kizmet (May 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Yup. A good one would have been: look at the proportion of adult smokers there are in the population, provide that proportion of licences for smoking premises in a licence board area.
> 
> But the best the licence trade could do is: "We'll put in more fans".


 
I quite liked the fans idea... 

To represent the proportion fairly you'd need more licences than smokers because they, of course, would be acompanied by many of their non-smoking friends.

But yeah... for a while there I honestly thought that the British public wouldn't cave in the way they did over smoking.

But barely a whimper.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

God, you're not still going on about fucking smoking, are you? Get over it.


----------



## Urbanblues (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> As you know, alcohol is cumulative. If you have a 40 minute tube trip plus a walk before you get to the soccer game, you'll already be on your way to sobering up.
> 
> Not the same if you drink right up to the stadium gates.



Since we don't play soccer in London - it's not an issue.


----------



## Kizmet (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> God, you're not still going on about fucking smoking, are you? Get over it.



Never.

Inextricably linked, man. A docile but intolerant population.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

Urbanblues said:


> Since we don't play soccer in London - it's not an issue.



Pedants of the world, unite!

@editor: I'l re-relax the smoking rules, and tighten them a bit re: drinking...


----------



## scifisam (May 8, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> So how does that explain all the alcohol related injuries and crimes, then?



People get on the tube drunk. They cause problems (though you and Boris - sorry for tying you together like that, which I would never usually do unless I had a shotgun and a promise from you never to pull a Jack Ruby on me) because they're already drunk. It's extremely unlikely, to the point of ridicule, that they got so drunk by drinking a can on a short tube journey. 



> Only if 'not sure' begins with y and ends with 'es'.



On the planet some people on this board seem to live on, it probably does. 



> 'Can' cause harm under certain circumstances.. if, for example, blown in your face constantly.. or in that environment for prologued periods.. or if you have weak lungs.
> 
> But generally humans aren't so frail that _a bit_ of smoke will kill us. Irritate us, yes. But then most people irritate me anyway.



But it often was blown into your face constantly, because lots of people were in that environment for prolonged periods. And tons of people have weak lungs. Personally, I was always for smoking licences, not an outright ban, but I can see the reasoning behind the ban. 



pk said:


> Well I had TWO bottles of Newcastle Brown Ale on the Piccadilly Line this evening.
> 
> *smug mode*



You mean aggressive mode. I bet you killed two grannies and a puppy in the course of your journey too!



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You've misunderstood me. I'm saying that in both instances, the conduct of the majority is regulated to to the activities of the minority. I didn't say that drivers in accidents are dangerous drivers. They are simply drivers who have gotten in an accident. But in any event, they are a small minority of all drivers. But nonetheless, because we can't identify in advance, who will get in an accident, the seatbelt and insurance laws must be of general application.



It's not just because we can't identify who will get into an accident, it's because there's really, really sound evidence that wearing seatbelts saves lives. 



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Fuck the park: we drive deep into the bush, light huge bonfires, consume vast quantities of booze, and act like demented animals, all with no police within miles.



So, no drinking in public, but covert drink-driving is OK. Well, I guess with drink-driving the worst that can happen is you kill yourself, your passengers and other drivers, if another vehicle happens to be passing as you drive back to the built-up place where you live. Whereas if you have a drink in a public park, in the open, you might ... um ... belch loudly and start singing inappropriate songs. 

Anyway: Boris's first step is to spend lots of money on a pointless measure which will criminalise people who haven't done anything wrong while doing nothing about the supposedly huge amounts of violence and crime on the tube, all to appease a small number of people who, most likely, don't even use the tube that often. Bet none of us saw that coming.

The knife arches are a spiffing wheeze too. Actually, I often used to carry a knife on the tube, along with a big cake, as I went to birthday parties at pubs or in the park. I carried booze, too, quite often. Officers, take me away now.


----------



## Kizmet (May 8, 2008)

scifisam said:


> People get on the tube drunk. They cause problems (though you and Boris - sorry for tying you together like that, which I would never usually do unless I had a shotgun and a promise from you never to pull a Jack Ruby on me) because they're already drunk. It's extremely unlikely, to the point of ridicule, that they got so drunk by drinking a can on a short tube journey.


 
However it will prevent them from getting more drunk.

Don't get me wrong.. I agree it's silly. But I think any kind of blanket ban is silly.

You want to tie me to Boris? Is this some kind of sick, twisted game... 



> But it often was blown into your face constantly, because lots of people were in that environment for prolonged periods. And tons of people have weak lungs. Personally, I was always for smoking licences, not an outright ban, but I can see the reasoning behind the ban.


 
The point being it's the _cumulative effects_ that we should be interested in.. which is much more akin to the cumulative effects of drinking.

The problem with a full ban is that it sets a very easily replicated precedent on the banning of public nuisance vices.

And I quite like vices.. they make us individuals.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Explain to me again?
> 
> Why is it necessary to drink alcoholic drinks on public transit, when the destination is............. a place where one consumes alcoholic drinks?
> 
> When you're going out for a meal in a restaurant, do you pre-eat on the Tube, en route to the restaurant?


It's cheaper. And yeah, I have been known to eat before going out for a meal with friends because I couldn't afford to order more than a bowl of chips.



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I actually have. Just because it's illegal here, doesn't mean it's never happened. I've sat beside a stench ridden bum with piss down his leg and a bottle in his hand, bent on becoming my best friend.


Ah, you misread the thread then. This law doesn't ban drunk people, it bans drinking. The only difference would be that your stench-ridden bum would have had to finish his bottle before taking his journey. Probably wouldn't have helped much, tbf.



Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Probably  because you're a nation of scofflaws, and jaywalking is such normal behaviour, that it doesn't need its own special word.


It's just called "crossing the road" here. There is no law against doing this at a place of your choosing in the UK (well, I think pedestrians are banned from motorways, so it is effectively banned there - but I once had a job that required me to cross a triple carriageway A road twice a day to transfer the newspapers delivered to one garage to it's partner over the road ).

I remember when someone told me what jay-walking actually was, after years of hearing it in American films and on TV and thinking it must be something to do with pimps or summat. It took a while to persuade me they weren't joking.


----------



## bluestreak (May 8, 2008)

holy shit this thread is depressing.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

We should be honest here. I understand completely why you'd want drinking legal on the tube. The reason is what we here call 'pre-drinking'. You're going out somewhere where you'll be drinking, but it's going to cost a lot of money, or you're going to a party and want to be drunk when you get there.

So, better to get drunk as fast as possible, as cheaply as possible. Because it's illegal to drink while driving or taking public transit here, we do/did our predrinking at home or at a friend's house.

But if it was legal to drink on public transit, we'd have done it there also, to extend the predrinking as long as possible. [Except for the diff that here, everyone had a motorcycle or car from age 14 on, and public transit was for losers.]

Problem is that if you admit to this truth, you'd be admitting that Boris has a point, because let's face it, some people aren't that good at their predrinking, and they'd become loud drunk nuisances on the tube or bus.

That's about the long and short of it, as I see it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

scifisam said:


> So, no drinking in public, but covert drink-driving is OK.



Nah: we had designated drivers.

Not. 

What can I say: sometimes, young people do stupid things. Sometimes, old people do stupid things. Same here as there.

Also, tbh, things have changed since I was that age. Young people now look on drinking and driving as anathema. They still get pissed, but they do in fact have designated drivers, or take cabs.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

scifisam said:


> So, no drinking in public, but covert drink-driving is OK. (



You'd have loved these parties. I suppose they were like precursors to raves: out in the middle of nowhere, big fires, loud music from speakers on the back of flatbeds. The main difference, I suppose, was no E: just booze combined with acid or mescaline or maybe MDA.

The alcohol helped dull the fear created when the trees and rocks in the nighttime light turned into squatting beasts.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

scifisam said:


> It's not just because we can't identify who will get into an accident, it's because there's really, really sound evidence that wearing seatbelts saves lives.
> (



Yes, of that very small minority who get into a serious accident. But most people will wear seatbelts their whole lives without ever needing them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Whereas if you have a drink in a public park, in the open, you might ... um ... belch loudly and start singing inappropriate songs. (



And then get in our cars and crash into poles, etc.

Don't forget, that our urban existence is different from yours.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


> It's cheaper. And yeah, I have been known to eat before going out for a meal with friends because I couldn't afford to order more than a bowl of chips.D



When I'm that broke, I don't go out to restaurants.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


> It's just called "crossing the road" here. There is no law against doing this at a place of your choosing in the UK (well, I think pedestrians are banned from motorways, so it is effectively banned there - but I once had a job that required me to cross a triple carriageway A road twice a day to transfer the newspapers delivered to one garage to it's partner over the road ).



We have laws against crossing not at crosswalks etc, even though they aren't obeyed much in the larger cities.

The laws are based on the reality that people popping into the street from between parked cars, etc, are more likely to be hit, than they are if crossing at marked crosswalks where drivers are expecting them.

Yes, it's a restriction on our freedom to run into the street at will, but you can see the reasoning behind it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


> It took a while to persuade me they weren't joking.



Do you people have _any_ law there, or just a million cc cameras recording all your misbehaviour?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> holy shit this thread is depressing.



Cheer up: grab a brew, and head out for a tube ride!


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I quite liked the fans idea...
> 
> To represent the proportion fairly you'd need more licences than smokers because they, of course, would be acompanied by many of their non-smoking friends.


Not by me they wouldn't.  As an asthmatic, I long ago learned to avoid smoky atmospheres.  Which includes the houses of smokers.

Logically, though, would smokers never accompany non smokers?


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> We should be honest here. I understand completely why you'd want drinking legal on the tube. The reason is what we here call 'pre-drinking'. You're going out somewhere where you'll be drinking, but it's going to cost a lot of money, or you're going to a party and want to be drunk when you get there.


That's a large part of the problem that nobody wants to address, either in London or nationally.

Why do you have to get drunk to enjoy yourself?

It seems that there is a general feeling of if you can remember any of last night, it wasn't a good night out.

If this is going to make people think "do I really need that drink on the tube that badly", and modify their plans appropriately, then I think that can only be a good thing for all of us?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> That's a large part of the problem that nobody wants to address, either in London or nationally.
> 
> Why do you have to get drunk to enjoy yourself?
> 
> ...



I think I'm more in the camp of the predrinkers, having been one myself at an earlier stage of my life.

But having said that, I can see the social utility of separating the likes of me from the average, sober Tube passenger.


----------



## citydreams (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why do you have to get drunk to enjoy yourself?



I don't normally - I prefer to have a drink to unwind.  Unless I get stuck sitting next to someone that finds me intimidating 





> If this is going to make people think "do I really need that drink on the tube that badly", and modify their plans appropriately, then I think that can only be a good thing for all of us?



No.  I like seeing hoardes of drinkers heading to Brixton on the tube to a gig.  It cheers me up no end.  Same goes for people enjoying a drink sitting under a tree.  Guess that's going to be banned soon too.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think I'm more in the camp of the predrinkers, having been one myself at an earlier stage of my life.
> 
> But having said that, I can see the social utility of separating the likes of me from the average, sober Tube passenger.



I'm not advocating a total ban on alcohol.  Just in inappropriate shared settings where it's not essential.

Alcohol, I am told, is part of a group of wider 'social shared experience' things that are best shared.  Isn't sitting on the tube chugging out of a can of special brew kinda sad?  Most people's images of the 'lone drinker' are related to the down-and-out slumped in a doorway and generally smelling, and looking, awful ... and you often can't tell how drunk a person is until they start to move.  For all you know, the city gent in the Armani suit necking down of a can is not on his first but his 10th, and the next time the train goes over a bump is going to lean over and throw up all over you.


----------



## citydreams (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> For all you know, the city gent in the Armani suit necking down of a can is not on his first but his 10th, and the next time the train goes over a bump is going to lean over and throw up all over you.




Another ajdown fact!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Alcohol, I am told, is part of a group of wider 'social shared experience' things that are best shared.  Isn't sitting on the tube chugging out of a can of special brew kinda sad? .



What if you're with your buds?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I'm not advocating a total ban on alcohol.  Just in inappropriate shared settings where it's not essential.
> 
> Alcohol, I am told, is part of a group of wider 'social shared experience' things that are best shared.  Isn't sitting on the tube chugging out of a can of special brew kinda sad?  Most people's images of the 'lone drinker' are related to the down-and-out slumped in a doorway and generally smelling, and looking, awful ... and you often can't tell how drunk a person is until they start to move.  For all you know, the city gent in the Armani suit necking down of a can is not on his first but his 10th, and the next time the train goes over a bump is going to lean over and throw up all over you.



If people want to go to a personal hell via alcohol, I won't be the one to stop them. I just believe that there is a social benefit, minor though it may be, in promoting order via the restriction of alcohol consumption in certain public places.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> For all you know, the city gent in the Armani suit necking down of a can is not on his first but his 10th, and the next time the train goes over a bump is going to lean over and throw up all over you.



All we can hope is that some of the vomitus ends up on the Armani, and he must pay the penitence of a high dry cleaning bill.

My clothes, will just go in the wash at home.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 8, 2008)

Series of time-wasting emails duly dispatched to the Mayor's office, the makers of Shandy Bass, and the makers of traditional fermented Ginger Beer to clairy the exact rules on tube Shandy Drinking.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

citydreams said:


> I like seeing hoardes of drinkers heading to Brixton on the tube to a gig.  It cheers me up no end.


See, you've identified the problem again but can't see it.

You're probably right, one lone person sitting in the end of a carriage with a can of special brew isn't likely to be much of an issue ... but when you get 50, 100 or more people all drinking - and drinking lots before a gig such as you suggest because of the cost of alcohol at the venue, they are going to get rowdy.  Many of the gigs in Brixton also attract younger people, who either haven't learnt, or choose to ignore, their limits.

It all brings us back to the social problem of the need to drink alcohol in large quantities to the point of being unable to remember it or control yourself, to enable you to feel you have had a 'good night out'.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> What if you're with your buds?



Is it really that hard to find somewhere else to have a drink before getting on the tube, or waiting half an hour till you get off it and have one there instead?

If you can't enjoy yourself with your friends without alcohol ... then there is a problem.


----------



## jæd (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> See, you've identified the problem again but can't see it.
> 
> You're probably right, one lone person sitting in the end of a carriage with a can of special brew isn't likely to be much of an issue ... but when you get 50, 100 or more people all drinking - and drinking lots before a gig such as you suggest because of the cost of alcohol at the venue, they are going to get rowdy.  Many of the gigs in Brixton also attract younger people, who either haven't learnt, or choose to ignore, their limits.



And how many times does this happen then, Tobes...?  I'm trying to remember the last time I saw one person with a can, let alone 50.

Oh, and you haven't responded about how everyone sobers up as soon as they get on public transport...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Is it really that hard to find somewhere else to have a drink before getting on the tube, or waiting half an hour till you get off it and have one there instead?
> 
> If you can't enjoy yourself with your friends without alcohol ... then there is a problem.



I agree that it doesn't hurt to wait just a little bit to do your drinking, but some people aren't that way.

Similarly, people should be able to enjoy one another without alcohol, but some aren't that way. I have no desire to moralize as to whether or not this is wrong or right.

What I'm saying, is that it promotes the public good, to restrict drinking on public transportation.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

jæd said:


> And how many times does this happen then, Tobes...?  I'm trying to remember the last time I saw one person with a can, let alone 50.
> 
> Oh, and you haven't responded about how everyone sobers up as soon as they get on public transport...



I don't use the tube at night because of the fact there are more likely to be more drunk people about than during the day.  I'd rather spend an hour on a bus going home than 20 minutes on the tube, then having to hang around outside Brixton tube station waiting for a bus for the last stage of my journey - there you haven't only got the alcoholics to deal with but the drug pushers as well.

I like to feel safe when I'm out and about.  If groups of hoodies, drug pushers and drunk people make me feel not safe, then that is not my fault.  Maybe I'm more sensitive to these things because I don't drink is not my fault either - because it's well known and accepted that even just one can of something alcoholic lowers your boundaries and adjusts your judgement.


If people are drunk already, then as has already been pointed out, there are existing laws that cover that, or they're too drunk to be able to figure out how to put their ticket in the machine and can't get on the tube in the first place.

It's all down to personal responsibility and consideration for others.  The fact that this seems to be no longer thought about by so many is why such laws, unpopular as they may be to a small but sadly vocal group, become necessary.


----------



## citydreams (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> If people want to go to a personal hell via alcohol, I won't be the one to stop them. I just believe that there is a social benefit, minor though it may be, in promoting order via the restriction of alcohol consumption in certain public places.



I agree that there may be a social benefit.  But it is totally outweighed by the social disbenefit of encroaching on people's freedom.


----------



## citydreams (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If you can't enjoy yourself with your friends without alcohol ... then there is a problem.



No-one is saying that they can't.  People are saying that they shouldn't be forced to go without.  The majority of us are able to act responsibly.  There is no reason why we should change our habits because you feel uncomfortable.  

As said before, there are already regulations in place to deal with unsociable individuals.


----------



## jæd (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I like to feel safe when I'm out and about.  If groups of hoodies, drug pushers and drunk people make me feel not safe, then that is not my fault.  Maybe I'm more sensitive to these things because I don't drink is not my fault either - because it's well known and accepted that even just one can of something alcoholic lowers your boundaries and adjusts your judgement.



Ooh...! The Demon Drink, out to get you...! 

Um, quick hint. You might want to find another website to post on since this one has people who like a drink or two, and even like those nasty drug things. (And you can't be too careful if you go on the tube at 6.45 pm, there might be someone high on drrrruuugggsss).


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

citydreams said:


> I agree that there may be a social benefit.  But it is totally outweighed by the social disbenefit of encroaching on people's freedom.



How great of an encroachment is it, really?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

citydreams said:


> No-one is saying that they can't.  People are saying that they shouldn't be forced to go without.  The majority of us are able to act responsibly.  There is no reason why we should change our habits because you feel uncomfortable.  .



You're being forced to change your habits because a minority aren't able to act respoonsibly.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> When I'm that broke, I don't go out to restaurants.


I have to have money to spend time with my mates now?


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Both do, however, infringe on the imagined 'rights' of an individual to partake in that activity in public.



You've got things topsy-turvy.

I think you can do pretty much whatever the helll you want. That is the starting point. And then the state has to come up with some pretty fucking decent reasons to stop you doing something. Harming other people's health is a good reason. Having a beer on the tube harms no-one.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


> I have to have money to spend time with my mates now?



They'd probably prefer it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

Poi E said:


> I think you can do pretty much whatever the helll you want.



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


----------



## jæd (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ...or they're too drunk to be able to figure out how to put their ticket in the machine and can't get on the tube in the first place.



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


----------



## citydreams (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You're being forced to change your habits because a minority aren't able to act respoonsibly.



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


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> We should be honest here. I understand completely why you'd want drinking legal on the tube. The reason is what we here call 'pre-drinking'. You're going out somewhere where you'll be drinking, but it's going to cost a lot of money, or you're going to a party and want to be drunk when you get there.
> 
> So, better to get drunk as fast as possible, as cheaply as possible. Because it's illegal to drink while driving or taking public transit here, we do/did our predrinking at home or at a friend's house.
> 
> ...



What are pre-drinkers likely to do if they can't drink in transit? 

AFAICT this law will only create more problem drinkers on public transport because:

- Those who were drinking to get drunk before probably won't decide to head out _more_ sober than usual. 
- The kinds of problem drinkers we have now won't give a crap (hell, if they can drink a can of beer "aggressively", do we expect them to politely stop when asked ). 

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


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

citydreams said:


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



What sort of rejoinder could I have for a zinger like that?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


> - Those who were drinking to get drunk before probably won't decide to head out _more_ sober than usual. .



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


----------



## citydreams (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> How great of an encroachment is it, really?



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

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


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


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



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


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

citydreams said:


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



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

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


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

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


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

citydreams said:


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



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


----------



## citydreams (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think they are measurable. .



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


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

citydreams said:


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



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


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


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


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


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

Damn: will you look at the time!

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


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


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



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


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


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



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


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

citydreams said:


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



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


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


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



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

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


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


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



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


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2008)

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

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


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2008)

jæd said:


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



I said Fucking Stop It.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


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


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

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


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> Has it ever occurred to you that drinking _to get drunk_ is a pretty sad and anti-social thing to do?
> 
> That the concept of "pre-drinking" to achieve a certain level of inebriation before arriving at one's social function is flawed in principle and certainly not a "right" that the state should defend at the cost of discomfort to others?


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

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


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


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


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

No discomfort caused to anyone.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


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



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



ymu said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

jæd said:


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



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

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


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> It has a superb chance of success.



Depends how you measure that, I guess.


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> It does have a clear purpose. To eliminate drinking on the tube and the discomfort that is caused to many by it.
> 
> It has a superb chance of success. Despite the bleating of many on here, most Londoners will follow the rule and our city will be the better for it, along with many similar measures which I'm sure will follow.



Jesus, you really are an illiberal person.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Depends how you measure that, I guess.



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


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


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


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





untethered said:


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


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

Either way, it's irrelevant semantics. 



untethered said:


> It does have a clear purpose. To eliminate drinking on the tube and the discomfort that is caused to many by it.
> 
> It has a superb chance of success. Despite the bleating of many on here, most Londoners will follow the rule and our city will be the better for it, along with many similar measures which I'm sure will follow.


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


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


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



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



editor said:


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



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



editor said:


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



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

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

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

I know which of these makes the least sense.


----------



## jæd (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I have an annual travelcard for zones 1-2 and it isn't Oyster.
> 
> Last time I was on the tube?  Tuesday lunchtime, Aldgate to King's Cross.



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


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


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



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

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


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


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


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



untethered said:


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


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

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





untethered said:


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


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

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


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

jæd said:


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



You asked when I was last on the tube.

My normal - and more convenient - commute to work is on the bus, either two or three in each direction whichever happens to come along first.

The travelcard is part of my work 'benefits' so there is no real cost to me, it's just taxable - which works out cheaper for me than having to buy the thing individually.


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> There's been far more cases of drink-related problems on flights.



Really? Figures please.


----------



## jæd (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


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



We've had Brian posting here, I don't think it would be too much to think that untethered is Boris' login...


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


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



Your premise is wrong. You don't need "evidence" to implement what is really a minor rule about a small aspect of behaviour.

What kind of evidence would satisfy you? A survey, perhaps? An overblown academic study into the aversive effect of tube drinking on other passengers?

Mr Johnson says it's not a nice thing to do and that's good enough for me. I'm sure the measure will be widely welcomed by Londoners, apart from the small minority of hardcore drink-to-be-drunkards and loony libertarians.



editor said:


> What a load of deeply patronising bulls-. Who made you spokesperson for the city?



The same person as made you one.



editor said:


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



Yes, although I'd question whether there have been more cases of problems on flights. We hear about the dramatic cases but not about the minor incivilities that make others' lives just that little bit worse. It's problems at that level that this kind of measure is designed to tackle.



editor said:


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



Oh, you're really so funny!


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 8, 2008)

Still no word from the Mayor's office as to whether I'll be able to continue to enjoy my post-work Shandy Bass or Posh Ginger Beer on the tube.

The people need to know.


----------



## jæd (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> You asked when I was last on the tube.
> 
> My normal - and more convenient - commute to work is on the bus, either two or three in each direction whichever happens to come along first.



So if your normal commute is by bus, then why lecture us on drinking on the Tube.  You're not exactly a heavy user, unlike some here or spend a good chunk of time Underground...


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2008)

jæd said:


> So if your normal commute is by bus, then why lecture us on drinking on the Tube.  You're not exactly a heavy user, unlike some here or spend a good chunk of time Underground...


The ban applies to buses too.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2008)

jæd said:


> So if your normal commute is by bus, then why lecture us on drinking on the Tube.  You're not exactly a heavy user, unlike some here or spend a good chunk of time Underground...




AJ has an irrational fear and revulsion of alcohol, thats why.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

jæd said:


> So if your normal commute is by bus, then why lecture us on drinking on the Tube.  You're not exactly a heavy user, unlike some here or spend a good chunk of time Underground...



As already replied by Crispy, the ban is transport wide.

At least on a bus if someone is getting out of control, it is much easier to move to a position of safety and get off at the next stop - whereas on a tube you don't have access to the driver and there might be much longer between stops.  Even if you pull the emergency cord, the train usually continues to the next station which may be several minutes before help is available.

Also, have you considered that the reason I take the bus instead of the tube is not just because of the extreme heat down there (another factor combined with alcohol makes a potentially dangerous situation worse) is because of the antisocial behaviour that you can experience down there?

The reason most people drive in London is not because it is more convenient, or cheaper, certainly not quicker in many cases - but because they don't have to be bothered about antisocial behavour, of which drinking alcohol on public transport is just one of many potential antisocial activities that you might encounter on the tube.

I would have thought that all the environmentalists here would be supporting a measure like the alcohol ban as part of encouraging people to leave their cars at home and use public transport instead.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> What kind of evidence would satisfy you? A survey, perhaps? An overblown academic study into the aversive effect of tube drinking on other passengers?


A passenger survey showing the actual need for this new law backed up by police arrest figures would be a good start,.

You may currently be enjoying having an autocratic major making up laws on his personal whims, but who knows - something you like doing might be next on his ban list.


untethered said:


> Yes, although I'd question whether there have been more cases of problems on flights. We hear about the dramatic cases but not about the minor incivilities that make others' lives just that little bit worse.


So are you for a ban on planes or not?


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> At least on a bus if someone is getting out of control, it is much easier to move to a position of safety and get off at the next stop - whereas on a tube you don't have access to the driver and there might be much longer between stops.  Even if you pull the emergency cord, the train usually continues to the next station which may be several minutes before help is available.


Could you list the times you have personally suffered anti-social behaviour at the hands of people holding cans in their hands on the tube please?


----------



## London_Calling (May 8, 2008)

Is the existing law re 'drunk and disorderly' inadequate somehow?


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Really? Figures please.


There's ample evidence of major problems caused by people drinking on planes. Can you find anything similar for tube _drinkers?_

Besides the point is consistency here. If it's unacceptable behaviour on tubes then it must be equally unacceptable on planes.


----------



## tommers (May 8, 2008)

39 pages?!?

shows the depth of peoples' addiction I suppose.


----------



## scifisam (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


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



I think that's what those against the tube drinking ban have been saying too. People will drink more at home, thus be drunker once they get on the tube. The amount they can currently drink on a short tube ride isn't going to get them drunk or make them significantly drunker than they were before. 

The physical act of holding a can of lager to your mouth and drinking is not doing anyone any harm. Nobody's yet proven that it will - so it seems pointless using money and resources on it. 

BTW, this new rule hasn't been brought in because a minority of people drink on the tube and then misbehave badly, it's been brought in because our new Mayor wants to look tough and please a certain section of the population. Which is pretty much what all new political leaders do when they first take up office.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> AJ has an irrational fear and revulsion of alcohol, thats why.



It's only irrational to you.

Having seen the damage that alcohol abuse has done to several close family members, as a child it completely put me off "following the normal path" in life of just picking up drinking and smoking because they're 'cool and rebellious' things to do.

I'm sorry if you see my viewpoint as a problem, but do remember I'm not advocating a total ban worldwide on alcohol ... just when travelling on public transport and being considerate to others... not just those like me, but how about people who are trying to recover from alcohol-based problems and know all it takes is one more can to get back on their problem (trying to avoid the temptation caused by smelling someone else's brew), but parents with children travelling, and of course the image that it gives to tourists.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> The reason most people drive in London is not because it is more convenient, or cheaper, certainly not quicker in many cases - but because they don't have to be bothered about antisocial behavour, of which drinking alcohol on public transport is just one of many potential antisocial activities that you might encounter on the tube.



So people get into an enormous, selfish, pollution machine, that chokes up the lungs of the people of London, contributes to the greenhouse effect, and causes Christ knows how many accidents and fatalities, because they're annoyed by the antisocial behavior of others?

I'm sure I don't need to point out the hypocrisy here.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Could you list the times you have personally suffered anti-social behaviour at the hands of people holding cans in their hands on the tube please?



No, because a) I don't record all this information, and b) it would give you patterns of my journeying which I don't feel is sensible to give out on a public forum.

It's not just me that's supporting this ban, so why pick on me?  Besides, what difference would it make if I listed 5, 50 or 500 occasions where I have been personally affected?  It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to your views on the matter.


----------



## scifisam (May 8, 2008)

London_Calling said:


> Is the existing law re 'drunk and disorderly' inadequate somehow?



Yep. It doesn't make Boris look tough. 

@tommers - you must know it's not about addiction, yeah? Though I guess you didn't actually bother to read the thread before calling people alcoholics.


----------



## Dravinian (May 8, 2008)

I voted for the ban 100%.

I couldn't give a toss about drinking on the tube, but I do care that now he has come out with this, he has got to enforce it somehow, or he will look like a complete twat.

The enforcement of any rule on the underground, is going to make it safer, as it means staff will have to be actively involved with passengers, to make sure they don't have open drinks and intervening if they do.  This involves a presence and can only help in passenger safety.


----------



## scifisam (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> No, because a) I don't record all this information, and b) it would give you patterns of my journeying which I don't feel is sensible to give out on a public forum.
> 
> It's not just me that's supporting this ban, so why pick on me?  Besides, what difference would it make if I listed 5, 50 or 500 occasions where I have been personally affected?  It wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to your views on the matter.



I'd be astonished if you could even think of five occasions where you've been bothered by people holding a can of drink. And I mean bothered by them actually doing something, not by them just drinking. So those occasions wouldn't exactly give us any idea about your regular journeys - you make it sound as though your daily commute is plagued by hordes of rowdy lager-swillers.


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> There's ample evidence of major problems caused by people drinking on planes. Can you find anything similar for tube _drinkers?_



I'm sure TFL have statistics for reported drunkness incidents. You brought up the plane thing so it's your responsibility to prove it.

Figures please. Yes/No?


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> So people get into an enormous, selfish, pollution machine, that chokes up the lungs of the people of London, contributes to the greenhouse effect, and causes Christ knows how many accidents and fatalities, because they're annoyed by the antisocial behavior of others?
> 
> I'm sure I don't need to point out the hypocrisy here.



No, you don't ... but then again, why are so many people defending a 'right' they thought they had, when they don't drink on the tube themselves?  

Let me guess... you're one of these people who think we should all ride bicycles everywhere?


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

ajdown;7467750]Having seen the damage that alcohol abuse has done to several close family members said:


> It's not just me that's supporting this ban, so why pick on me?


You're supporting it so let's see what your real-world basis for the ban is. If it's just a reflection of your bigotry and intolerance unsupported by facts, just say so.


Dravinian said:


> I couldn't give a toss about drinking on the tube, but I do care that now he has come out with this, he has got to enforce it somehow, or he will look like a complete twat.


And that's a bad thing?


----------



## scifisam (May 8, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> I voted for the ban 100%.
> 
> I couldn't give a toss about drinking on the tube, but I do care that now he has come out with this, he has got to enforce it somehow, or he will look like a complete twat.
> 
> The enforcement of any rule on the underground, is going to make it safer, as it means staff will have to be actively involved with passengers, to make sure they don't have open drinks and intervening if they do.  This involves a presence and can only help in passenger safety.



The staff are a bit pissed off about having an extra duty thrust on them with no consultation, though - which is understandable. They have better things to do than fine people for holding cans of beer. If they have to get on tube trains to check for drinkesrs, then they won't be on the platforms, unless TFL pays for an awful lot more staff, of course.


----------



## scifisam (May 8, 2008)

Crispy said:


> I'm sure TFL have statistics for reported drunkness incidents. You brought up the plane thing so it's your responsibility to prove it.
> 
> Figures please. Yes/No?



TFL won't have stats for problems caused by people _drinking on the tube_, though. 

@ajdown - a right 'they thought they had'? No, a right they did have, and still do at the moment.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

scifisam said:


> I'd be astonished if you could even think of five occasions where you've been bothered by people holding a can of drink. And I mean bothered by them actually doing something, not by them just drinking. So those occasions wouldn't exactly give us any idea about your regular journeys - you make it sound as though your daily commute is plagued by hordes of rowdy lager-swillers.



If "drinking alcohol" bothers me, then it bothers me, they don't have to be drunk and yelling abuse at me for it to be considered a problem by me.  We all have our own standards and tolerances.

By the way, the vote is 62 totally against, v 61 for it or not totally against at the moment.  Quite balanced considering.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> There's ample evidence of major problems caused by people drinking on planes. Can you find anything similar for tube _drinkers?_



You seem to have missed the point by a mile.

This isn't about major problems, which are as many people have already pointed out, already prohibited.

This is about the minor problems. The small incivilities. The inconsideration for others. The unwelcome, discourteous, sub-criminal undesirable behaviour.



editor said:


> Besides the point is consistency here. If it's unacceptable behaviour on tubes then it must be equally unacceptable on planes.



Of course. Because all contexts are exactly alike and therefore must be regulated by the same rules.

If it's wrong to stand naked in the street, it must be wrong to stand naked in the shower.

Ban all nudity! Up with consistent rules!


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

Crispy said:


> I'm sure TFL have statistics for reported drunkness incidents. You brought up the plane thing so it's your responsibility to prove it.
> 
> Figures please. Yes/No?


It would be a fruitless exercise as I doubt very much that LT reports are going to state whether they were drinking _at the time_ or already drunk - something that's a little less incontrovertible on a plane journey where the person has been served drinks at his seat for several hours.

And - again - the real point here is consistency. If untethered is against drinking on the tube, then I'd like to hear why he thinks it's OK on planes where there are  many documented instances of major problems being caused through in flight drinking.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It's only irrational to you.
> 
> Having seen the damage that alcohol abuse has done to several close family members, as a child it completely put me off "following the normal path" in life of just picking up drinking and smoking because they're 'cool and rebellious' things to do.



so what you sdaw as a child prevented you from developing a sensible attitude towards alcohol. Bad luck


I





> 'm sorry if you see my viewpoint as a problem, but do remember I'm not advocating a total ban worldwide on alcohol ... just when travelling on public transport and being considerate to others... not just those like me, but how about people who are trying to recover from alcohol-based problems and know all it takes is one more can to get back on their problem (trying to avoid the temptation caused by smelling someone else's brew),


where to start here? I know you're not advocating a worldwide ban, but you have cosistently failed to provide examples or stats. I suspect your puritanical streak causes you to exaggerate the problem. Let's not forget how at the start of the thread as  far as you were concerned anyone having a can on the tube was an alcoholic. More evidence of your inability to consider alcohol without hysterical judgment.


----------



## scifisam (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If "drinking alcohol" bothers me, then it bothers me, they don't have to be drunk and yelling abuse at me for it to be considered a problem by me.  We all have our own standards and tolerances.
> 
> By the way, the vote is 62 totally against, v 61 for it or not totally against at the moment.  Quite balanced considering.



So you'd ban drinking on the grounds that drinking itself bothers you even if they're not actually doing anything else out of the ordinary? You're a bit messed up.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> Of course. Because all contexts are exactly alike and therefore must be regulated by the same rules.


So it's OK for people to get pissed on planes - and sometimes cause major problems - but it's not OK for people to drink a can on the tube?

How's that work then?


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

King Biscuit Time said:


> So people get into an enormous, selfish, pollution machine, that chokes up the lungs of the people of London, contributes to the greenhouse effect, and causes Christ knows how many accidents and fatalities, because they're annoyed by the antisocial behavior of others?
> 
> I'm sure I don't need to point out the hypocrisy here.



ajdown's point was a fair one. And you're right, too, that reaching for the car because you're bothered by the anti-social behaviour of others is neither right nor appropriate.

But that's why we need to make public transport and public space as pleasant as possible for everyone. So that the incentives to use it are maximised and the disincentives are minimised.

And I return to my much earlier point that there is an equity factor here. While some people have the option of driving when public transport/space gets too intolerable, many don't. We have a responsibility to those people to ensure their lives are as safe and comfortable as possible while moving around the city.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> So it's OK for people to get p- on planes - and sometimes cause major problems - but it's not OK for people to drink a can on the tube?
> 
> How's that work then?



Apologies that I didn't clarify my earlier point, but I am in favour of an alcohol ban on planes too.

It's not acceptable for people to get drunk _anywhere_ but the usefulness of regulating both drinking and drunkenness varies from situation to situation.


----------



## mitochondria (May 8, 2008)

I think eating oranges and other citrus fruit should also be forbidden on the tube. Smell makes me drool and that's a discomfort for me and many other people would also experience this. BAN the fruit!


----------



## Giles (May 8, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> I voted for the ban 100%.
> 
> I couldn't give a toss about drinking on the tube, but I do care that now he has come out with this, he has got to enforce it somehow, or he will look like a complete twat.
> 
> The enforcement of any rule on the underground, is going to make it safer, as it means staff will have to be actively involved with passengers, to make sure they don't have open drinks and intervening if they do.  This involves a presence and can only help in passenger safety.




The idea is that it is easier to have tube staff tell people that they can't drink at all, than to have to call police to actually arrest someone for being drunk and disorderly.

That is obviously the theory. Whether the staff will actually do anything to stop people remains to be seen......

Giles..


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

tommers said:


> 39 pages?!?
> 
> shows the depth of peoples' addiction I suppose.



Indeed.

Urban75 is the hard stuff. Once you get sucked in, it's very hard to find your way out again.


----------



## tommers (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Urban75 is the hard stuff. Once you get sucked in, it's very hard to find your way out again.



argumentoholics.


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

For every rule, the harm that supposedly would be prevented by the rule should be shown. No-one has done so yet. The only arguments I've heard are:

-More rules are good for London
-some people don't like watching others drink alcohol
-putting booze in the way of recovering alcoholics is not nice


----------



## jæd (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> As already replied by Crispy, the ban is transport wide.



Your first few posts were about drinking on the Tube. Or are bendy-buses called "carriages" these days. 



ajdown said:


> At least on a bus if someone is getting out of control, it is much easier to move to a position of safety and get off at the next stop - whereas on a tube you don't have access to the driver and there might be much longer between stops.  Even if you pull the emergency cord, the train usually continues to the next station which may be several minutes before help is available.



Or you could just move to the next carriage...



ajdown said:


> I would have thought that all the environmentalists here would be supporting a measure like the alcohol ban as part of encouraging people to leave their cars at home and use public transport instead.



I've never, ever been threatened by anti-social behaviour to the extent I would use a car... And I don't know anyone else who would...


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> A passenger survey showing the actual need for this new law backed up by police arrest figures would be a good start,.



People don't get arrested for irritating and causing minor irritation to other passengers by drinking. It's not against the law. Yet.

And what good would a passenger survey do? What if 70% wanted a ban and 30% didn't? Would that veto the ban because it would go against the wishes of a significant minority? Would a simple majority in favour of the ban be sufficient? Who decides how the survey is constructed and interpreted?

Leadership is about instinct and taking risks. Mr Johnson's instinct here is spot on and he does, of course, take full responsibility for the policy.

If you don't like it, you don't have to vote for him again at the next election.



editor said:


> You may currently be enjoying having an autocratic major making up laws on his personal whims, but who knows - something you like doing might be next on his ban list.



I doubt Mr Johnson will be banning being well-dressed, reading books and having a polite conversation with one's immediate neighbour. Those that act reasonably and considerately of others have little to fear from a mayor that wants to encourage and where necessary, enforce consideration.



editor said:


> So are you for a ban on planes or not?



Yes, please.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> so what you sdaw as a child prevented you from developing a sensible attitude towards alcohol. Bad luck


I don't see it as 'bad luck' in the slightest actually.

If someone chooses to do something that impairs their judgement, puts them at personal risk, and has the potential to do long-term damage to their body... how on earth can that be 'sensible'???


----------



## ovaltina (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> This is about the minor problems. The small incivilities. The inconsideration for others. The unwelcome, discourteous, sub-criminal undesirable behaviour.



/Daily Mail
Bring on the Tory nanny state! Much better than the NU Labour nanny state! 
/


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If someone chooses to do something that impairs their judgement, puts them at personal risk, and has the potential to do long-term damage to their body... how on earth can that be 'sensible'???


Do you drink at all?

And you are aware that moderate alcohol consumption can be good for you, yes?


----------



## jæd (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I'm sorry if you see my viewpoint as a problem, but do remember I'm not advocating a total ban worldwide on alcohol ... just when travelling on public transport and being considerate to others... not just those like me, but how about people who are trying to recover from alcohol-based problems and know all it takes is one more can to get back on their problem (trying to avoid the temptation caused by smelling someone else's brew), but parents with children travelling, and of course the image that it gives to tourists.



So based on _just you_, we should ban drinking, even though you can't give any solid evidence that it causes a problems...

I think we should ban people from wearing tracksuits, because even though it doesn't cause any problems, I don't like them...   And what would tourist think if they saw someone wearing them.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

jæd said:


> I think we should ban people from wearing tracksuits, because even though it doesn't cause any problems...



Can you start a new thread for this one, please? I wouldn't want to derail this one.


----------



## Dravinian (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> And that's a bad thing?



I would say it is a win win situation.

He fails and looks like a complete twat, Win.

He succeeds and the extra staff required are involved and represent a presence on trains and stations, thus making it far safer.  Win.

Hence me voting 100% yes.


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> Can you start a new thread for this one, please? I wouldn't want to derail this one.


----------



## jæd (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Do you drink at all?
> 
> And you are aware that moderate alcohol consumption can be good for you, yes?



He could be a recovered alcoholic. But then I have a mate who is, and he doesn't insist I'm not allowed to drink when I'm around him...


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2008)

jæd said:


> He could be a recovered alcoholic. But then I have a mate who is, and he doesn't insist I'm not allowed to drink when I'm around him...




He said earlier in the thread that he doesn't drink, and now we find his militant teetotal stance comes from having witnessed what alcoholics do to themselves as a child.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Do you drink at all?
> 
> And you are aware that moderate alcohol consumption can be good for you, yes?



No, I don't drink, and proud of the fact.

I am aware that 'moderate' can be good, in some circumstances... but the whole problem here is that people's alcohol consumption rarely is 'moderate'


----------



## Fruitloop (May 8, 2008)

But that's just bollocks though isn't it. Millions of people drink moderately, claiming that this is not the case just makes you look foolish, as many of us drink moderately ourselves and know large numbers of people who do likewise.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> No, I don't drink, and proud of the fact.
> 
> I am aware that 'moderate' can be good, in some circumstances... but the whole problem here is that people's alcohol consumption rarely is 'moderate'





What a bizarre thing to be proud of


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> What a bizarre thing to be proud of



To you, perhaps.  But that doesn't devalue it.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> I didn't suggest that "pre-drinking" would be banned, did I?
> 
> I return to my point that there is something very wrong with drinking to get drunk. Isn't that so?


It's irrelevant what I think about it. People do it.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


> It's irrelevant what I think about it. People do it.



People murder people, too.

Should society have an opinion on the matter, and if it's a bad thing, seek to curtail it?


----------



## Roadkill (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I am aware that 'moderate' can be good, in some circumstances... but the whole problem here is that people's alcohol consumption rarely is 'moderate'



Some people drink too much.  So what?  What has this to do with an alcohol ban on public transport?


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> People murder people, too.
> 
> Should society have an opinion on the matter, and if it's a bad thing, seek to curtail it?



Drinking on the tube equated with murder.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

Poi E said:


> Drinking on the tube equated with murder.



Don't be ridiculous.

Although in one sense, it's worse. Most of us are never troubled by murder, whereas we are constantly subjected to the selfish habits of gangs of pre-drinkers, scowling hooders and the tinnitus timpani.

It's time to improve the quality of life of everyone rather than just concentrating on the worst crimes.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> It's time to improve the quality of life of everyone rather than just concentrating on the worst crimes.


Clearing the streets of noisy, polluting, dangerous cars would immeasurably improve the quality of life in neighbourhoods, as would bringing in a more equitable distribution of wealth and more opportunities for the under privileged.

Are you doing anything about these issues, or is it just the _thought_ of someone quietly and harmlessly enjoying a drink on the tube that bothers you so?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> No, I don't drink, and proud of the fact.


I don't eat turnips. I glow with satisfaction at the end of each day that I manage to live out without eating any turnips.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> Can you start a new thread for this one, please? I wouldn't want to derail this one.


Genius!


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> Don't be ridiculous.
> 
> Although in one sense, it's worse. Most of us are never troubled by murder, whereas we are constantly subjected to the selfish habits of gangs of pre-drinkers, scowling hooders and the tinnitus timpani.
> 
> It's time to improve the quality of life of everyone rather than just concentrating on the worst crimes.



You are quite mad.  Or a very clever troll. Or pbman with a dictionary.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Clearing the streets of noisy, polluting, dangerous cars would immeasurably improve the quality of life in neighbourhoods, as would bringing in a more equitable distribution of wealth and more opportunities for the under privileged.



I entirely agree with your point about cars and you'll be pleased to know that I'm very active in promoting alternative and sustainable transport, as well as improving urban design, etc.

Redistribution of wealth is somewhat more tricky but the things I describe do bring greater opportunities to disadvantaged people and produce tangible improvements to their quality of life.



editor said:


> Are you doing anything about these issues, or is it just the _thought_ of someone quietly and harmlessly enjoying a drink on the tube that bothers you so?



Yes, I am. No, it's not.


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2008)

Can I be the first to draw a comparison between a sneaky can of ale on the tube and the Holocaust?

Can I?


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2008)

8ball said:


> Can I be the first to draw a comparison between a sneaky can of ale on the tube and the Holocaust?
> 
> Can I?


I want to see if you can do it!


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> People murder people, too.
> 
> Should society have an opinion on the matter, and if it's a bad thing, seek to curtail it?


Of course. The response does have to be proportionate though. I think we should go to great lengths to prevent murder because _every single incident_ has very serious consequences for many many people - the victim(s), the victim(s) family, the perpetrator, the perpetrator(s) family, the witnesses, and society as a whole if it's not dealt with.

You're not going to be able to ban pre-drinking without banning people from drinking in their own homes. Which seems rather disproportionate and very difficult, and expensive, to police. It wouldn't get Boris re-elected either.


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2008)

Drinking on the tube is like making love to a beautiful woman . . .


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

Crispy said:


> I want to see if you can do it!


First they came for the drinkers ...

Not difficult - Untethered's already predicted it and AJ is hoping for it.


----------



## Brainaddict (May 8, 2008)

Poi E said:


> You are quite mad.  Or a very clever troll. Or pbman with a dictionary.


He is the most successful troll on here at the moment. I think he believes some of what he says but imo the rest of it he just says to wind up us commie types.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 8, 2008)

Crispy said:
			
		

> I want to see if you can do it!



Maybe there's room in the market for an urban75 board game, where players get points for the most fanciful connections between mildy anti-social or puritan-offending behaviour and heinous crimes against humanity;  

public drinking is like genocide because...

spliff smoking is worse than child rape because....


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

Brainaddict said:


> He is the most successful troll on here at the moment. I think he believes some of what he says but imo the rest of it he just says to wind up us commie types.



Yes. I feel quite silly now.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


> Of course. The response does have to be proportionate though. I think we should go to great lengths to prevent murder because _every single incident_ has very serious consequences for many many people - the victim(s), the victim(s) family, the perpetrator, the perpetrator(s) family, the witnesses, and society as a whole if it's not dealt with.



Very true.

The difference between murder and Tube drinking is that the problems caused by the latter are cumulative across a set of incidents rather than discrete and specific to each one.

But they're still problems.



ymu said:


> You're not going to be able to ban pre-drinking without banning people from drinking in their own homes. Which seems rather disproportionate and very difficult, and expensive, to police. It wouldn't get Boris re-elected either.



As much as I deplore the culture that leads to "pre-drinking", neither I nor Mr Johnson are proposing to curtail it with this measure.


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> public drinking is like genocide because...
> .



I'll start. Because the interahamwe were drinking in public when they chopped up Tutsis.


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2008)

Poi E said:


> I'll start. Because the interahamwe were drinking in public when they chopped up Tutsis.



Good one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

8ball said:


> Can I be the first to draw a comparison between a sneaky can of ale on the tube and the Holocaust?
> 
> Can I?


It's precisely the jobsworth "obey authority at all costs, don't question the rules" attitude that will see this stupid law enforced that made Auschwitz possible.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

Poi E said:


> I'll start. Because the interahamwe were drinking in public when they chopped up Tutsis.



That's not quite right.

They started pre-drinking to give themselves post-colonial Dutch courage for the evil deed.

Then they boarded the Kigali Metro en masse on their way to the killing fields.

Had a proposed drinking ban been in place on the Metro the mob would have been sufficiently sobered up by the time they reached their destination that they would not have been adequately disinhibited to start the butchery.

But no. "Liberal" voices prevailed. The drinking ban was scotched and the rest, as they say, is history.

Now, back to the topic.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 8, 2008)

Once the hangover kicked in it would only have made them grumpier.


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> But no. "Liberal" voices prevailed. .



unfortunately they didn't. Conservative, non-interventionist opinion held sway and left them to their fate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

It's the Margaret Thatcher version of conservatism. Leave people's economic fate in the hands of the free market while intervening to control standards of private morality.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's the Margaret Thatcher version of conservatism. Leave people's economic fate in the hands of the free market while intervening to control standards of private morality.



What has drinking on the Tube got to do with private morality?


----------



## Fruitloop (May 8, 2008)

Because my drinking is not a matter for your concern.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> Because my drinking is not a matter for your concern.



In your own home or in designated areas such as pubs/bars, you are absolutely correct.

However, when out in public, it no longer becomes just 'your' issue.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 8, 2008)

So you say, but you have yet to offer any compelling evidence why this should be so.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> So you say, but you have yet to offer any compelling evidence why this should be so.



Some people consider talking loudly on a mobile phone on a bus/tube to be annoying and antisocial, others (especially those that do it) don't care.

Some people consider eating smelly food on a bus/tube to be annoying and antisocial, others (especially those that do it) don't care.

Some people consider reading big newspapers on a bus/tube to be annoying and antisocial, others (especially those that do it) don't care.

Some people consider playing music out loud on a bus/tube to be annoying and antisocial, others (especially those that do it) don't care.

Some people consider taking up more than one seat with bags etc on a bus/tube to be annoying and antisocial, others (especially those that do it) don't care.

Some people consider dropping litter on a bus/tube to be annoying and antisocial, others (especially those that do it) don't care.

Some people consider drinking alcohol on a bus/tube to be annoying and antisocial, others (especially those that do it) don't care.

What makes you choose some things to be acceptable, and others not to be?  The most compelling facts, figures, statistics, whatever in the world probably wouldn't make you change your mind if you really cannot see how something might affect or upset other people.


----------



## tom_craggs (May 8, 2008)

To be honest I rarely see people drinking on the buses or tubes and have never seen trouble resulting from it when I have.

As has been said, get rid of the KFC - that would make me happier! 

Who is supposed to police this anyway? 

Nonsense resolution to a problem that doesn't exist.


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2008)

If only I could be arsed to post a facepalm image . . .


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2008)

need a facepalm smiley maybe?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2008)

there is no superior facepalm to the Jean-Luc one


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2008)

Crispy said:


> need a facepalm smiley maybe?



I was trying to get it put in last time we went for  if you remember.


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

Anyway, what is the harm that is being done with drinking on the tube? Eating smelly stuff is smelly, noisy iPods are noisy, large papers invade the personal space of others. Drinking a can of beer um....er....some people don't like the way it looks? Is that it?


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

tom_craggs said:


> As has been said, get rid of the KFC - that would make me happier!



I've already emailed Boris, offering my support, suggesting making the ban wider to include food and drink generally, which will also reduce the litter problem.

I also said that, as I work not far from City Hall, I'd be happy to meet up and chat any time if I could be of help.  Not that I expect a reply but you never know


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I've already emailed Boris, offering my support, suggesting making the ban wider to include food and drink generally, which will also reduce the litter problem.


That's right, ban drink from the tube - have you EVER USED THE TUBE IN SUMMER? Everyone travelling on the tube in the summer should carry a drink.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

Poi E said:


> Anyway, what is the harm that is being done with drinking on the tube? Eating smelly stuff is smelly, noisy iPods are noisy, large papers invade the personal space of others. Drinking a can of beer um....er....some people don't like the way it looks? Is that it?



For most people, it's not their "first" can of beer, it's another one along the row - which in the stressful, hot, oppressive environment of the tube can cause problems.

It's a known fact that anyone drinking alcohol "changes" - either shorter temper and angers easier, or becomes laid back and drowsy... neither of which are nice to be next to.


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2008)

Now, banning all food and drink on the tube to cut down on litter and dirt is something I could agree with, or at least logically follow from argument to policy.

By singling out booze, Boris makes this about public morality and is on far shakier ground.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> For most people, it's not their "first" can of beer, it's another one along the row - which in the stressful, hot, oppressive environment of the tube can cause problems.
> 
> It's a known fact that anyone drinking alcohol "changes" - either shorter temper and angers easier, or becomes laid back and drowsy... neither of which are nice to be next to.


I have an alcoholic friend who is extremely irritable before his first drink of the day. Believe me, you'd ratherr he had a can to hand if you were sat next to him and the train got stuck in the tunnel for any length of time.


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2008)

These damn laid back, drowsy people!!


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have an alcoholic friend who is extremely irritable before his first drink of the day. Believe me, you'd ratherr he had a can to hand if you were sat next to him and the train got stuck in the tunnel for any length of time.



Medical help and counselling is what he needs if he's that bad then ... not a can on the tube.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Now, banning all food and drink on the tube to cut down on litter and dirt is something I could agree with, or at least logically follow from argument to policy.


The longest tube journeys can take up to 2 hours - not allowing for delays. I don't think it is reasonable to ban food for this long, and you could probably take a ban on any drink to the court of law.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Medical help and counselling is what he needs if he's that bad then ... not a can on the tube.


Fuck you, you judgemental cunt.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Some people consider talking loudly on a mobile phone on a bus/tube to be annoying and antisocial, others (especially those that do it) don't care.
> 
> Some people consider eating smelly food on a bus/tube to be annoying and antisocial, others (especially those that do it) don't care.
> 
> ...



Are you going to ban all of these things? If not, why single any of them out? If yes,


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 8, 2008)

Banning non-alcoholic drink on the tube in summer would be very dangerous,Crispy


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's right, ban drink from the tube - have you EVER USED THE TUBE IN SUMMER? Everyone travelling on the tube in the summer should carry a drink.


They even have notices on the trains telling people to do so.


----------



## Poi E (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> For most people, it's not their "first" can of beer, it's another one along the row - which in the stressful, hot, oppressive environment of the tube can cause problems.
> 
> It's a known fact that anyone drinking alcohol "changes" - either shorter temper and angers easier, or becomes laid back and drowsy... neither of which are nice to be next to.



In 9 years I've not noticed this, though. Pissed people, yes.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The longest tube journeys can take up to 2 hours - not allowing for delays. I don't think it is reasonable to ban food for this long, and you could probably take a ban on any drink to the court of law.



A generally accepted fact is that when you drink (anything), your body needs to let some of it out a little while later.

If people need a pee, then they have to get off the train and possibly up to surface level to try and find a toilet if the station doesn't have facilities.    

So they'd have to break their journey, and could easily have another drink at street level before getting back down to continue their journey.

I'm not sure how a court of law could do anything ... after all, nobody is forcing you to spend all that time without a drink, you aren't being forced to travel either.  You're entirely free to get off and take whatever refreshments you desire at your convenience.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 8, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have an alcoholic friend who is extremely irritable before his first drink of the day. Believe me, you'd ratherr he had a can to hand if you were sat next to him and the train got stuck in the tunnel for any length of time.



and he can't have a drink at home before leaving because......


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2008)

(((facepalm smiley)))


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> and he can't have a drink at home before leaving because......



If he goes more than a couple of hours without a drink, he gets twitchy. Why does anybody consider it their place to pass judgement on him for this, knowing nothing about him, his history or his reasons to drink?


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If he goes more than a couple of hours without a drink, he gets twitchy. Why does anybody consider it their place to pass judgement on him for this, knowing nothing about him, his history or his reasons to drink?



Because it's all irrelevant.  If someone has an alcohol problem, there are plenty of ways that he can receive help with it.  If he chooses not to seek help, then in all honesty he only has himself to blame.

Sorry if that comes across as harsh, but nobody *needs* alcohol in order to survive.


----------



## STFC (May 8, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Now, banning all food and drink on the tube to cut down on litter and dirt is something I could agree with, or at least logically follow from argument to policy.
> 
> By singling out booze, Boris makes this about public morality and is on far shakier ground.



It's about reducing anti-social behaviour on the transport network, so I suppose it is about public morality in a way. If it reduces drunken behaviour and makes people feel safer on the tube/bus/tram then it's a good thing. If it inconveniences a few people who like to sip peacefully from a can on their way home then so be it.

I like a drink, as anyone who has met me will know, but I can (usually) wait until I get where I'm going without feeling the need to crack open a beer on the way. I genuinely believe that more people will support the ban - as part of a wider drive to reduce anti-social behaviour - than be against it. I haven't see a huge public outcry since the news was announced.


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Banning non-alcoholic drink on the tube in summer would be very dangerous,Crispy


Oh I know, it's just that a ban on the basis of litter has more logical strength than one based on puritanism.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 8, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If he goes more than a couple of hours without a drink, he gets twitchy. Why does anybody consider it their place to pass judgement on him for this, knowing nothing about him, his history or his reasons to drink?



I was more concerned about your friend than taking the time to pass judgement.  

So it is not the "first drink in the morning" thing that is a problem.  Good - I was wondering how he could get up, dress, get to the tube, etc without taking that first drink.

Me, I get not only twitchy but down right obnoxious if I don't have a cigarette every hour or so.  Long trips are a nightmare, especially when there are delays.  I hate flying.

I think I should get special treatment as well.

eta - smoking ban should not apply to me


----------



## spring-peeper (May 8, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Oh I know, it's just that a ban on the basis of litter has more logical strength than one based on puritanism.



I don't understand why people just don't carry reusable water bottles or cups.  Cuts down on the litter, saves the enviroment and you can put whatever you want in it.


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2008)

I always reuse water bottles myself. Can't remember when I bought this one. February sometime?


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Because it's all irrelevant.  If someone has an alcohol problem, there are plenty of ways that he can receive help with it.  If he chooses not to seek help, then in all honesty he only has himself to blame.
> 
> Sorry if that comes across as harsh, but nobody *needs* alcohol in order to survive.


Alcohol withdrawal can kill. It's not up to you to tell people how to live their lives and it definitely isn't up to you to dictate when and how they break their addictions, especially from a position of utter ignorance.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> I was more concerned about your friend than taking the time to pass judgement.
> 
> So it is not the "first drink in the morning" thing that is a problem.  Good - I was wondering how he could get up, dress, get to the tube, etc without taking that first drink.
> 
> ...


It's not comparable - I can sit next to you drinking a bottle of beer and it in no way inconveniences you nor damages your health.

In any case, you can always chew nicotine gum.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


> Alcohol withdrawal can kill. It's not up to you to tell people how to live their lives and it definitely isn't up to you to dictate when and how they break their addictions, especially from a position of utter ignorance.



Perhaps, but the point still remains that there are a myriad of qualified professionals and agencies out there that can offer help if he chooses that he wants it.

What sort of friend would you be to just sit back and watch him destroying himself from the inside out, without trying to help?

But this is off the subject so I'm happy to drop it.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 8, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not comparable - I can sit next to you drinking a bottle of beer and it in no way inconveniences you nor damages your health.
> 
> In any case, you can always chew nicotine gum.



How about I'm a herion addict?  Am I allowed to shoot up on your tubes?  I'm not harming anyone else that way.

Suggesting that the ban should be repelled on the basis of it infridges on the rights of an addict is absurd.


----------



## chainsaw cat (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> There are laws that are irrelevant or inapplicable for everyone, that are applicable for some.
> 
> We all must wear seatbelts even though most will never be in an accident. We must all insure our cars, even though the same applies re: accident.



No, those laws are about collective benefit - your seatbelt means I don't pay hospital bills etc. when some drunk hits you.

Stopping me drinking in public has no benefit at all to the community.

Indeed, it may mean that Mr Khan at the off license has to get a second job.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> How about I'm a herion addict?  Am I allowed to shoot up on your tubes?  I'm not harming anyone else that way.
> 
> Suggesting that the ban should be repelled on the basis of it infridges on the rights of an addict is absurd.


Silly comparison.

a) heroin is proibited, so it's a crime to shoot up anywhere
b) you couldn't shoot up safely on the tube
c) one hit lasts for hours - more or less the opposite of alcohol, where one sip is more or less pointless


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2008)

Crispy said:


> I always reuse water bottles myself. Can't remember when I bought this one. February sometime?



A study showed that you are at risk of loads of nasty shit if you reuse water bottles.

I think the study was commissioned by Evian.


----------



## Roadkill (May 8, 2008)

The question of alcoholism is a bit of a red herring IMO.  

Certainly there are some people who can't wait to have a drink and that's clearly a problem, but the overwhelming majority of people having a drink on public transport aren't doing so because they're alcoholics - they crack open a can because they fancy a beer.  They're not drunk, and not causing any more hassle than they would be drinking from a can of coke.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

spring-peeper said:


> How about I'm a herion addict?  Am I allowed to shoot up on your tubes?  I'm not harming anyone else that way.
> 
> Suggesting that the ban should be repelled on the basis of it infridges on the rights of an addict is absurd.


I'm not talking about rights, I'm talking about not legislating to prevent reasonable people from doing reasonable things. 

If in doubt, leave people alone.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2008)

what seems to be going on here is that a great many people think that anything not expressly permitted should not be done.

Thats not how it works.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Some people consider talking loudly on a mobile phone on a bus/tube to be annoying and antisocial, others (especially those that do it) don't care.
> 
> Some people consider eating smelly food on a bus/tube to be annoying and antisocial, others (especially those that do it) don't care.
> 
> ...



What is at issue is not what some people consider to be antisocial (curly hair and thick lips?), but whether they are right to do so. Does the inconvenience to someone who doesn't like to look at others drinking justify interfering in others freedom sufficiently to prohibit it? I think not, and furthermore think that it is a dangerous road to go down, since there is hardly any activity that some nutcase or other might not take exception to.


----------



## Kenny Vermouth (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Thank heavens Boris is getting stuck into the really important issues!
> 
> Apparently, we can expect drinking on the tube (and, presumably buses) to be banned within a few days.
> 
> So there goes one of life's harmless little pleasures.


It's better than Ken siphoning off cash to his cronies.

I'm still laughing that the biggest cunt in England was kicked out - and I reckon it had more to do with the wanker himself than general dislike of Labour.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

Kenny Vermouth said:


> I'm still laughing that the biggest cunt in England was kicked out - and I reckon it had more to do with the wanker himself than general dislike of Labour.


Interesting. Could you put some figures on that? How did he do compared to Labour's vote nationally?


----------



## Fruitloop (May 8, 2008)

12% above I believe. Think the theory might be sinking....


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> what seems to be going on here is that a great many people think that anything not expressly permitted should not be done.
> 
> Thats not how it works.



I've no idea how you come to that conclusion. This discussion is quite clearly about a new prohibition, not about a new list of sanctioned activities to which the public must confine themselves.


----------



## Kenny Vermouth (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


> Interesting. Could you put some figures on that? How did he do compared to Labour's vote nationally?


You miss the point.

It wasn't a comparison of Labour votes in London to Labour votes elsewhere.

It was a suggestion that his loss was more to do with him personally than the general trend against London.

Still, I'm sure the figures you are interested are available.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> 12% above I believe. Think the theory might be sinking....


FFS! He'll never learn if you don't let him discover things for himself.

*sulks
*flounces


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

Kenny Vermouth said:


> Still, I'm sure the figures you are interested are available.


I know they are, but you're only sure? So this theory isn't based on looking at any actual evidence?

I'm astonished, and somewhat dismayed.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

Kenny Vermouth said:


> I'm still laughing that the biggest cunt in England was kicked out - and I reckon it had more to do with the wanker himself than general dislike of Labour.


Didn't Livingstone record more votes than in the 2000 and 2004 elections?


----------



## dtb (May 8, 2008)

i understand what boris is trying to do here, i'm not 100% in favour of the ban as i like a drink on the tube also. if it makes a step towards his plan to reduce anti-social behaviour then it's a small sacrifice to make.  plenty of countries in europe already operate bans on drinking in public places as well, i think this works quite well in general.


----------



## STFC (May 8, 2008)

dtb said:


> i understand what boris is trying to do here, i'm not 100% in favour of the ban as i like a drink on the tube also. if it makes a step towards his plan to reduce anti-social behaviour then it's a small sacrifice to make.  plenty of countries in europe already operate bans on drinking in public places as well, i think this works quite well in general.



I think you're spot on.

I have to admit, I never realised there were so many people who like boozing on the tube. Maybe they should start their own party and run for the mayoralty in 2012.


----------



## Roadkill (May 8, 2008)

STFC said:


> I have to admit, I never realised there were so many people who like boozing on the tube.



Not everyone who is against a ban does...


----------



## STFC (May 8, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Not everyone who is against a ban does...



That's not my point. I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of people who have said they enjoy a can while on a tube journey.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Not everyone who is against a ban does...


Don't be silly! Why on earth would someone bother to have an opinion on government policy unless there was something in it for them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

STFC said:


> That's not my point. I'm genuinely surprised at the amount of people who have said they enjoy a can while on a tube journey.



Is that because they mind their own business and don't bother anybody else, so you haven't noticed them?


----------



## STFC (May 8, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is that because they mind their own business and don't bother anybody else, so you haven't noticed them?



No, I notice them all right. They are pretty few and far between, but they usually leave their cans behind so you can't fail to notice them even after they've gone.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

STFC said:


> No, I notice them all right. They are pretty few and far between, but they usually leave their cans behind so you can't fail to notice them even after they've gone.



Really? You know that the majority of people who drink on the Tube leave litter? How do you know this?


----------



## STFC (May 8, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? You know that the majority of people who drink on the Tube leave litter? How do you know this?



The majority of ones that I've noticed, yes. I know this because I've seen it.


----------



## art of fact (May 8, 2008)

I mainly see free london papers littered on the tube not beer cans


----------



## STFC (May 8, 2008)

art of fact said:


> I mainly see free london papers littered on the tube not beer cans



Handy for anyone who hasn't picked one up before getting on the train. Beer cans don't make for great reading.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

art of fact said:


> I mainly see free london papers littered on the tube not beer cans



Yep. Beer cans are a rare sight.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 8, 2008)

STFC said:


> Handy for anyone who hasn't picked one up before getting on the train. Beer cans don't make for great reading.



Try making a crack pipe out of London Lite.

Can't be done.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2008)

STFC said:


> Handy for anyone who hasn't picked one up before getting on the train. Beer cans don't make for great reading.




TBF they makes better reading than the Evening Standard


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Try making a crack pipe out of London Lite.
> 
> Can't be done.




*nominates lbj and the untethered one to have a comedy troll-a-thon


----------



## STFC (May 8, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Try making a crack pipe out of London Lite.
> 
> Can't be done.



Amateur.


----------



## Crispy (May 8, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> TBF they makes better reading than the Evening Standard


A positive HIV test report makes better reading than the standard.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (May 8, 2008)

God, I only say this on the news last night and already there there are over a thousands posts on this thread...

I cannot possibly think what is wrong with having a can of drink on the tube after a hard days work.

I've done it a number of times on the train from Stratford. 

Is this is a respectable class thing? I was on a train from Liverpool street to north Essex a number of months ago. Drinking a can of Stella, it was obviously not to the liking of the rather better dressed and more "respectable" other commuters...


----------



## STFC (May 8, 2008)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Drinking a can of Stella, it was obviously not to the liking of the rather *better dressed* and more "respectable" other commuters...



Had you forgotten to put your trousers on? I hate it when that happens.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (May 8, 2008)

No they were just better dressed - I have no style


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 8, 2008)

It seems this 'policy' might have legs given the emotionalist way its working. 

I've spoken to three people today who didn't think about the conflation of being drunk and drinking until I pointed it out. They thought (or should that be felt?) that by banning drinking on tube and buses you'd have less drunks about (even though none of them could give examples of bad experiences of drunken people on public transport). To them it made sense in a kinda non-logical logic way...


----------



## scifisam (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Urban75 is the hard stuff. Once you get sucked in, it's very hard to find your way out again.



That was very good. 



STFC said:


> The majority of ones that I've noticed, yes. I know this because I've seen it.



That would still leave lots of people you don't notice drinking because they don't leave their cans behind.


----------



## editor (May 8, 2008)

STFC said:


> Handy for anyone who hasn't picked one up before getting on the train. Beer cans don't make for great reading.


Free newspapers that have been blown all over the tube with pages sent asunder generally don't make for a good reading experience.

But you'll generally find far more discarded soft drink/water bottles lolling around the carriages than beer cans, so I'm sure there's a valid point in here somewhere.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

I think we should take a radical new approach to overcrowding and anti-social behaviour on the Tube.

Ban everyone under 30.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

art of fact said:


> I mainly see free london papers littered on the tube not beer cans



Because all the cans are hidden under the discarded newspapers?


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> I think we should take a radical new approach to overcrowding and anti-social behaviour on the Tube.
> 
> Ban everyone under 30.



Logan's Run in reverse?


----------



## jayeola (May 8, 2008)

Ban!

hoodies
trackies
walkmans & other music player
tinny r'n'b on mobile phones
tattoos
beards
all drinks
children


----------



## scifisam (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Logan's Run in reverse?



Logan's Shuffle-Slowly-Behind-A-Walking-Frame.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

I just thought of one thing.

Banning alcohol on the tube was one of Boris's 'manifesto pledges'.

It is reasonable to assume that most people who voted for Boris were aware of this pledge.

Consequently, if this plan was voted in as part of a democratic process, with the largest % of Londoners essentially saying 'yes' to this plan ... what's the problem?

It's what people want.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I just thought of one thing.
> 
> Banning alcohol on the tube was one of Boris's 'manifesto pledges'.
> 
> ...


So was making a no-strike deal with the tube unions. He didn't consult them on that one either. 

The Register report is much funnier than the BBC one I posted earlier (identical Bob Crow quote in both):





> The Rail Maritime and Transport Union, though, has expressed doubts over the cunning plan to restore order in the capital. Its leader Bob Crow said: "We are in favour of any measure that will make our members' lives safer and curb anti-social behaviour, but it appears that this really hasn't been thought through very well and could well make matters worse. We are being told that it will be our members who will have to approach people drinking and ask them to stop - but the mayor hasn't asked us what we think.
> 
> Crow brilliantly concluded: "Perhaps the mayor will come out with his underpants on over his trousers like Superman one Saturday to show us how it should be done, and maybe tell a crowd of Liverpool supporters that they can't drink on the train."
> 
> ...


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It is reasonable to assume that most people who voted for Boris were aware of this pledge.



You think?


----------



## spanglechick (May 8, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> It seems this 'policy' might have legs given the emotionalist way its working.
> 
> I've spoken to three people today who didn't think about the conflation of being drunk and drinking until I pointed it out. They thought (or should that be felt?) that by banning drinking on tube and buses you'd have less drunks about (even though none of them could give examples of bad experiences of drunken people on public transport). To them it made sense in a kinda non-logical logic way...



and thisisexactly themindset that voted for boris in droves.

forget the nutters like kbj - the burbs are packed with people who read outrage in the paper and think 'something must be done', regardless of whether it's a real problem or a sensible solution.

I'd put good money on at least half of boris's voters not travelling by tube (or bus) on anything like a regular basis.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

8ball said:


> You think?



If not then they only have themselves to blame.  It's foolish to vote based purely on party, rather than policies and promises (although it's accepted that promises mean nothing in politics).

As for the tube unions ... essential public services should not be privately operated, nor unions involved.  There is a job to be done, and if you don't like the conditions you're free to find another job.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 8, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> and thisisexactly themindset that voted for boris in droves.
> 
> forget the nutters like kbj - the burbs are packed with people who read outrage in the paper and think 'something must be done', regardless of whether it's a real problem or a sensible solution.
> 
> * I'd put good money on at least half of boris's voters not travelling by tube (or bus) on anything like a regular basis.*



Heh.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 8, 2008)

*Boris butts in*




> "No more alcohol on tubes or buses": this was the very first Johnsonian edict to be issued from the eighth floor of City Hall and, as such, has special significance. Our new mayor has started as he means to go on - squaring up to the binge-drinking yobs of popular imagination.
> It plays well, no doubt, in the heartlands. There's nothing more irritating to a Tory than a representative of the great unwashed swilling beer from a can in full public view. Johnson is nailing his colours to the mast as someone who will take a stand on behalf of good manners and decency.
> 
> But I'm confused. Because, when I went to see the candidates speak at a hustings organised by Stonewall, I remember Boris saying he was in favour of liberty. In fact, as Dave Hill helpfully reminds us, his exact words were: "I have always been in favour of liberty and I've always been in favour of freedom. What I don't like is the state butting in and telling people how to live their lives."
> ...


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (May 8, 2008)

> there's a difference between a gaffe and a fundamental intellectual inconsistency.



That is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of conservativism- Libertartian, small government hands off conservatism vs paternalisitic, social conservatism or taken to its logical extremes anarcho-capitalism vs authoriatarism 

In the Thatcher/major years it played out over Sunday trading, over homosexuality, over Alton's abortion bill and so on.

And we have another example here- this is nothing really new.


----------



## Urbanblues (May 8, 2008)

spanglechick said:


> ...the burbs are packed with people...



That's the problem!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


> I must be expressing myself very badly. It's the 3rd time I've pointed it out and still noone gets it, even though you just reiterated the key fact.
> 
> The difference is that a proportion of pre-drinkers will pre-drink more to counteract the sobering effect of the non-drinking journey time. D



Oh.




Has someone done a study? 

Or are you talking about what you will be doing?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

Poi E said:


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



Not even the drunkards?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Changed my mind on this. Was against all food & drink on the tube as it works so well in Hong Kong.
> 
> However, Gordon Brown says we're in greater danger than ever from terrorists. So I say it should be compulsory to drink booze on the tube. Anyone not drinking proper would likely be a muslim, therefore a suspect and shot. Seven times. In the head.



Couldn't we find a happy medium, and just make everyone who rides the tube eat a pork schnitzel instead?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> A passenger survey showing the actual need for this new law backed up by police arrest figures would be a good start,.



So if we surveyed UKers and a majority favoured the death penalty, should it be brought back?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> There's ample evidence of major problems caused by people drinking on planes.



There is?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Besides the point is consistency here. If it's unacceptable behaviour on tubes then it must be equally unacceptable on planes.



You're trying to compare apples to oranges.

Air travel is provided by private companies, to whom I pay hundreds of dollars to ferry me across the Atlantic. If the public demands a right to have a drink concommitant with the payment of all that airfare, it's good business for the airline to provide it.

A transit system is owned by the public, and for most, travel on it is an unavoidable necessity. As it is owned by the public, the public can demand certain levels of decorum to be present for those who are forced to use its services.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Air travel is provided by private companies, to whom I pay hundreds of dollars to ferry me across the Atlantic. If the public demands a right to have a drink concommitant with the payment of all that airfare, it's good business for the airline to provide it.



Last time I flew to the states, you could get fruit juice, water, tea or coffee free, or cans of something were £3/$5 each.

Most people only had one can, if at all, because of the cost - so it is a deterrent.

The majority of cases of drunken behaviour come from the first class cabins, where alcohol is usually free.

Given that you aren't allowed to take your own onto a plane ... that seems a fairly reasonable solution - if you must have alcohol, you are at least having to pay for the privilege.

These flights were 8 hours, not 20 minutes, however.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

scifisam said:


> I think that's what those against the tube drinking ban have been saying too. People will drink more at home, thus be drunker once they get on the tube. The amount they can currently drink on a short tube ride isn't going to get them drunk or make them significantly drunker than they were before.
> 
> The physical act of holding a can of lager to your mouth and drinking is not doing anyone any harm. Nobody's yet proven that it will - so it seems pointless using money and resources on it.
> 
> BTW, this new rule hasn't been brought in because a minority of people drink on the tube and then misbehave badly, it's been brought in because our new Mayor wants to look tough and please a certain section of the population. Which is pretty much what all new political leaders do when they first take up office.



You may or may not be right. What I think he's doing, is following in Giuliani's footsteps, with a 'broken windows' policy.

Giuliani said that the way to start back toward public order, is to sweat the small stuff. The analogy is that if you leave a bunch of broken windows in buildings on streets, it creates a lowered sense of pride, a lower desire to keep things orderly, etc. So you start by mending the windows. He also cracked down smaller offences. It apparently helped to turn around the disorder of New York.

In UK, it might be true that most tube drinkers don't cause problems, but it might be more of a perceptual thing, that it's ok to drink anywhere and everywhere. Sort of an air of licence, that it's always a party, so it's ok to cut up, do whatever.

By working to change those subtle perceptions, you create a higher expectation of decorum from the average person on the street.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

untethered said:


> You seem to have missed the point by a mile.
> 
> This isn't about major problems, which are as many people have already pointed out, already prohibited.
> 
> This is about the minor problems. The small incivilities. The inconsideration for others. The unwelcome, discourteous, sub-criminal undesirable behaviour.




This is what I was getting at talking about the 'broken windows policy'. The message re: drinking is sort of like, 'you aren't in your front room. Don't treat these public places as if you were in your front room.'


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

mitochondria said:


> I think eating oranges and other citrus fruit should also be forbidden on the tube. Smell makes me drool and that's a discomfort for me and many other people would also experience this. BAN the fruit!



Where I live, alcohol isn't actually singled out: all eating and drinking is banned on public transportation. It's inconsiderate to other riders.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Last time I flew to the states, you could get fruit juice, water, tea or coffee free, or cans of something were £3/$5 each.
> 
> Most people only had one can, if at all, because of the cost - so it is a deterrent.
> 
> ...




Also, these major disturbances are so rare that they're reported in the news. They occur once in a while, out of thousands of flight movements per day around the world.


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2008)

People shouldn't be allowed to wear primary colours on the tube - it shows a complete lack of consideration to people who may have hangovers.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2008)

8ball said:


> People shouldn't be allowed to wear primary colours on the tube


I agree.  But you know what I find really intimidating and upsetting?  Men wearing fake tan on public transport.  It makes me cry inside.


----------



## ajdown (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Also, these major disturbances are so rare that they're reported in the news. They occur once in a while, out of thousands of flight movements per day around the world.



But so do rail accidents.  Millions and millions of passenger miles are travelled between incidents yet when they do occur, as you say, they hit the news... despite the fact that thousands of road accidents happen daily and rarely get a mention.


----------



## ymu (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You're trying to compare apples to oranges.
> 
> Air travel is provided by private companies, to whom I pay hundreds of dollars to ferry me across the Atlantic. If the public demands a right to have a drink concommitant with the payment of all that airfare, it's good business for the airline to provide it.
> 
> A transit system is owned by the public, and for most, travel on it is an unavoidable necessity. As it is owned by the public, the public can demand certain levels of decorum to be present for those who are forced to use its services.


The bus companies are privately owned in the UK, and the tube was effectively privatised through PPP, but that went a bit wrong last year when one of the companies went bust and it's all been a bit expensive to sort out... Tax is used to subsidise the private airlines and private train companies too. I find it hard to find a meaningful distinction here; they're all forms of "public transport".

But even if we agree with your ill-informed premise, I can't see why paying a private company the cost of a ticket entitles me to make demands, but if I pay for it through tax as well as the purchase of a ticket, I'm entitled to no say at all. I have more rights as a consumer than I do as a voter? Well yes - but that's not really such a good thing, IMO.

I'm not at all sure what point you were trying to make. Perhaps you could clarify?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

ymu said:


> The bus companies are privately owned in the UK, and the tube was effectively privatised through PPP, but that went a bit wrong last year when one of the companies went bust and it's all been a bit expensive to sort out... Tax is used to subsidise the private airlines and private train companies too. I find it hard to find a meaningful distinction here; they're all forms of "public transport".
> 
> But even if we agree with your ill-informed premise, I can't see why paying a private company the cost of a ticket entitles me to make demands, but if I pay for it through tax as well as the purchase of a ticket, I'm entitled to no say at all. I have more rights as a consumer than I do as a voter? Well yes - but that's not really such a good thing, IMO.
> 
> I'm not at all sure what point you were trying to make. Perhaps you could clarify?



You had to read all the post to get the point I was making. Air travel is largely a matter of choice, which we pay premium dollars for.

Tube travel/transit is largely a matter of necessity that, due to volume use, is relatively inexpensive, but usually unavoidable.


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2008)

So you can't drink on the Tube cos you're all peasants!!


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2008)

.


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You had to read all the post to get the point I was making. Air travel is largely a matter of choice, which we pay premium dollars for.
> 
> Tube travel/transit is largely a matter of necessity that, due to volume use, is relatively inexpensive, but usually unavoidable.


Sorry. Still not getting it. 

Long distance, trains (remember trains?) are usually the quickest and cheapest option for me. I am allowed to drink. Sometimes, I have to go by 'plane because someone else is paying and it's cheaper than peak rail fares (did you say premium dollars? ). Takes longer, can't get as much stuff done on the way, don't like it, budget airline is definitely not a luxury. But I am allowed to drink.

But let's pretend for a moment that trains and planes are only for treats and never necessity ... Are you suggesting that I should be prohibited from drinking on journeys when I don't really want to be there - but if I don't really need to be there at all, it would be OK?

I'm sure it's not that that you meant. Is it?


----------



## chainsaw cat (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> If not then they only have themselves to blame.  It's foolish to vote based purely on party, rather than policies and promises (although it's accepted that promises mean nothing in politics).
> 
> As for the tube unions ... essential public services should not be privately operated, *nor unions involved.  There is a job to be done, and if you don't like the conditions you're free to find another job*.




I hope to God you are being satirical and not a blithering idiot.


----------



## chainsaw cat (May 9, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You're trying to compare apples to oranges.
> 
> Air travel is provided by private companies, to whom I pay hundreds of dollars to ferry me across the Atlantic. If the public demands a right to have a drink concommitant with the payment of all that airfare, it's good business for the airline to provide it.
> 
> *A transit system is owned by the public, and for most, travel on it is an unavoidable necessity. As it is owned by the public, the public can demand certain levels of decorum to be present for those who are forced to use its services*.



or....

I'm a member of the public. Therefore I own the transit system and I'll do as I wish on it because it's mine (as long as I'm not harming anyone else, which is not a right gifted to me in any circumstances other than self/other defence).

Therefore, if I fancy a can of Speckled Hen or a swig of Stags Breath, yum yum that's for me. Yum.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 9, 2008)

not sure if this has been asked already (only managed to read 15 of the 46 pages of this thread!) but will drinking alcohol on the tube actually be _illegal_? surely making something illegal requires an act of parliament? presumably this "ban" will be some sort of minor bye-law or amendment to the conditions of carriage on the tube or something.

so what will the punishment be if you get caught? take your beer off you? chuck you off the tube/bus? a fine? 

i love a cheeky can of strongbow on the bus/tube on the way home from work (when im not cycling). or a quick beer or two on the way to the football, or on the way to a party/going out. and to be honest i reckon i'll keep on doing it. i'm willing to risk any of those punishments for a quiet beer on the way home.

of course, drinking wont be banned on trains. so one alternative is just get the train back to brixton from victoria and have your beer there, lovely. mine's a cider.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> There is?


Yes.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 9, 2008)

editor said:


> Yes.



To repeat: compare the number of these incidents with the number of flight movements in the world every day.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 9, 2008)

ymu said:


> Sorry. Still not getting it.
> 
> Long distance, trains (remember trains?) are usually the quickest and cheapest option for me. I am allowed to drink. Sometimes, I have to go by 'plane because someone else is paying and it's cheaper than peak rail fares (did you say premium dollars? ). Takes longer, can't get as much stuff done on the way, don't like it, budget airline is definitely not a luxury. But I am allowed to drink.
> 
> ...



Another factor I believe behind why there's drinking on planes, is flight anxiety.

Most people don't have that on the tube.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> To repeat: compare the number of these incidents with the number of flight movements in the world every day.


How many incidents are there of people _drinking on the tube_ causing problems every day, Johnny?

Please list some recent examples.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 9, 2008)

ymu said:


> But let's pretend for a moment that trains and planes are only for treats and never necessity ... Are you suggesting that I should be prohibited from drinking on journeys when I don't really want to be there - but if I don't really need to be there at all, it would be OK?
> 
> I'm sure it's not that that you meant. Is it?



I think I'm saying that if I'm paying $500 to a private company to ferry me somewhere and I want a drink, you should give it to me, or I'll go to a competitor who will.

The situation with the daily tube ride is different in a multitude of ways.

The only real similarity is that a machine is carrying you from point a to b without you driving it.


----------



## chainsaw cat (May 9, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Another factor I believe behind why there's drinking on planes, is flight anxiety.
> 
> Most people don't have that on the tube.



There's a lot of it about JC2, many people are anxious about being attacked by a drunk or having their personal life interfered with by a pointless politician.

They need a beer.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 9, 2008)

I've brought this discussion up with a few people here. I say, In London, you can drink alcohol on the buses and subways.

It is invariably met with astonished laughter.

I guess people are different all over.


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

chainsaw cat said:


> I hope to God you are being satirical and not a blithering idiot.



Why?

Something big changed with my job recently.  I do not like it.  As there is nothing I can do to change the job, my only option is to seek employment elsewhere, which I am actively doing.

Why is it essential services like the tube go on strike?  Because they know they have the fear of mass disruption on their side, and people give in.  Yet other jobs don't.  It's known that McDonalds pay badly and the conditions are generally crap, but when did you last hear burger flippers going on strike?  They either put up with it, or leave, or get booted.


----------



## STFC (May 9, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You may or may not be right. What I think he's doing, is following in Giuliani's footsteps, with a 'broken windows' policy.
> 
> Giuliani said that the way to start back toward public order, is to sweat the small stuff. The analogy is that if you leave a bunch of broken windows in buildings on streets, it creates a lowered sense of pride, a lower desire to keep things orderly, etc. So you start by mending the windows. He also cracked down smaller offences. It apparently helped to turn around the disorder of New York.
> 
> ...



Exactly. But the point seems to have been lost on those who keep banging on about having a 'civilised' can on their way home from work.


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

STFC said:


> Exactly. But the point seems to have been lost on those who keep banging on about having a 'civilised' can on their way home from work.



... which is, as has already been pointed out various times, *not essential*.

There's a lot of things that I 'could' do on the way home, to save time ... but they'd infringe on the space or rights of others (whether legal rights or just something people feel they can have) so I console myself with relaxing by looking out of the window at the world going by.

I might notice a new shop that looks interesting, or have a chuckle watching a woman in silly shoes trying to run for a bus, or someone riding a really cool looking bike, or whatever.  Perfectly relaxing, and alcohol free.

The concept of 'unable to relax without alcohol' makes no sense whatsoever to me.


----------



## pk (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ... which is, as has already been pointed out various times, *not essential*.
> 
> There's a lot of things that I 'could' do on the way home, to save time ... but they'd infringe on the space or rights of others (whether legal rights or just something people feel they can have) so I console myself with relaxing by looking out of the window at the world going by.
> 
> ...



Actually, you help me relax.

I print out your pearls of unbridled wisdom and keep them in the loo, so that whenever I need to purge a pattie I can read them in the correct context.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why?
> 
> Something big changed with my job recently.  I do not like it.  As there is nothing I can do to change the job, my only option is to seek employment elsewhere, which I am actively doing.
> 
> Why is it essential services like the tube go on strike?  Because they know they have the fear of mass disruption on their side, and people give in.  Yet other jobs don't.  It's known that McDonalds pay badly and the conditions are generally crap, but when did you last hear burger flippers going on strike?  They either put up with it, or leave, or get booted.



There is nothing you can do about the job because organised labour has no power these days. You bring it on yourself, and then still support it afterwards. Amazing and tragic.


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> There is nothing you can do about the job because organised labour has no power these days. You bring it on yourself, and then still support it afterwards. Amazing and tragic.



Even if I wanted to belong to a union, we don't have it here and they probably aren't recognised anyway, so it's all cosmetic.

Besides, it just wouldn't be appropriate in the place I work.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 9, 2008)

Where is it not appropriate, unless you're a spook?


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

Fruitloop said:


> Where is it not appropriate, unless you're a spook?



I work in an administrative position for a large charity.  Giving away any more specific information would be inappropriate on a forum such as this.


----------



## Andy the Don (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I work in an administrative position for a large charity. Giving away any more specific information would be inappropriate on a forum such as this.


 
The T&G covers charity workers & your organisation should have a union rep. If not why don't you go for the position. Remember just because they are a charity it does not mean that they cannot be shit employers & you could well one day find yourself requiring the services of your union.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 9, 2008)

Absolutely. I worked for charities for quite a long time and despite fundamentally doing good work some of them were hideously bad employers. Some of them were so lousy that it ultimately worked to their own detriment, as all the good people bailed out and they were left with an endless succession of temps who came and went too fast to ever get to grips with the job properly.

Doing good work does not give you carte blanche to shaft your employees!


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

Andy the Don said:


> The T&G covers charity workers & your organisation should have a union rep. If not why don't you go for the position. Remember just because they are a charity it does not mean that they cannot be shit employers & you could well one day find yourself requiring the services of your union.



There is no union rep.  There is no union representation of any kind.  I see no point in attracting trouble for myself by trying to start up something that I feel totally unnecessary, and I'd much rather just find somewhere else to work.  I don't even think anyone else would be interested in joining anyway.

It's not as though I'm tied to London either, and in all honesty I'd rather be somewhere friendlier, greener, quieter and cheaper.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

chainsaw cat said:


> I'm a member of the public. Therefore I own the transit system and I'll do as I wish on it because it's mine (as long as I'm not harming anyone else, which is not a right gifted to me in any circumstances other than self/other defence).



There are two problems here.

Firstly, in as much as you might reasonably argue that you "own" the transport system, you do not own it exclusively. You have a share in it. A very, very small share.

Secondly, this tiny share does not give you the exclusive right to set the policy for use of the system. That right is delegated to the management and ultimately to the mayor, who you'll be pleased to know is democratically elected.

The judgement about whether your actions are acceptable (or as you put it, "harming others") are not ultimately for you to make. I doubt you would accept the right of others to act as they pleased as long as _they _were happy others weren't negatively affected, would you?


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> The judgement about whether your actions are acceptable (or as you put it, "harming others") are not ultimately for you to make. I doubt you would accept the right of others to act as they pleased as long as _they _were happy others weren't negatively affected, would you?



That would depend on whether they were right or not about the negative effects on others.  If they were morally and intellectually competent I'd be happy to let them do as they please.

Much happier than I would be to accept Boris Johnson's decision that drinking an alcoholic beverage on the Tube leads to a creeping voodoo-esque malevolence and must be banned.


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why?
> 
> Something big changed with my job recently.  I do not like it.  As there is nothing I can do to change the job, my only option is to seek employment elsewhere, which I am actively doing.
> 
> Why is it essential services like the tube go on strike?  Because they know they have the fear of mass disruption on their side, and people give in.  Yet other jobs don't.  It's known that McDonalds pay badly and the conditions are generally crap, but when did you last hear burger flippers going on strike?  They either put up with it, or leave, or get booted.


Wow. My conditions are shit and I can't be arsed to challenge it, so noone else should be able to either. We can always find another job with an employer we won't challenge and who can get away with exactly the same crap because it's not being challenged.

McDonald's workers are not allowed to unionise. Doesn't mean there is no organisation amongst McDonald's workers.

There's also a reason why employers ban unions. Can you guess what it is?


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

It's not the conditions as such, it's just bad management decisions made by people higher up the food chain that I can do nothing about.


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> It's not the conditions as such, it's just bad management decisions made by people higher up the food chain that I can do nothing about.


I've left 3 jobs for identical reasons. I've never felt the need to argue against unions as a result.


----------



## rennie (May 9, 2008)

It's an attack on civil liberties! I'm British and I should be able to drink where n when I want to! (or something)


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> You may or may not be right. What I think he's doing, is following in Giuliani's footsteps, with a 'broken windows' policy.
> 
> Giuliani said that the way to start back toward public order, is to sweat the small stuff. The analogy is that if you leave a bunch of broken windows in buildings on streets, it creates a lowered sense of pride, a lower desire to keep things orderly, etc. So you start by mending the windows. He also cracked down smaller offences. It apparently helped to turn around the disorder of New York.
> 
> ...



I'm going to pick up on this as I mentioned it much earlier in the thread. Broken windows theory (hereafter BWT) is both controversial and often misunderstood.

The origin of the theory comes from the sociologists Wilson and Kelling. They observed that if an abandoned building had a broken window, before long all the other windows were broken. This observation was confirmed by an experiment where they left a car parked on the street and kicked out one of the headlights. Soon enough, people caused more damage and before long the whole car was stripped.

From this comes the idea that one has to mend the broken windows to avoid much worse trouble. As you say, "sweat the small stuff".

Where there is controversy is whether dealing with low-level problems simply inhibits further low-level problems and/or whether it inhibits greater ones.

The answer, as often, is "it depends". One example is the New York crackdown on fare evasion on the subway. This apparently had a measurable and positive effect on other kinds of crime, including violent crime. Fare dodgers were often committing other crimes (carrying drugs and weapons, for example). The presence of enforcement officers ostensibly to collect fares inhibited criminals and gang members from using the subway network to facilitate other kinds of crimes.

I'm not wholly convinced that BTW policies ("zero tolerance") can have a sustained impact on serious crime without committing huge extra resources to enforcement.

The other element to the policy is the maintenance of "order". It's important to note that order is not simply the absence of crime. An ordered society (or place) is one that is perceived as being safe, comfortable, predictable and consistent. I appreciate that for many people an extreme of this kind of order is the antithesis of urban life. It's about getting the balance right.

Things are constantly in flux. An ordered society is one that not only minimises crime, but also maximises comfort by creating an atmosphere where there is little fear of crime. A theme to which I return often (including earlier on this thread) is that there are many people in society who are not as self-possessed as perhaps the average U75 reader. These people are inhibited from going to certain places at certain times because they fear (rightly or wrongly) that the disorder they have observed could easily become a crime in which they are a victim. If we fail to deal with these people's anxiety (and I'm not talking about people with pathological anxiety, of course) then we are perpetuating an insidious form of social exclusion.

Therefore, the establishment of order becomes a priority in law enforcement and civic management. Putting order first says that it's not good enough just to minimise crime. You must encourage civility, courtesy and consideration. It is about making public space not just somewhere where people are happy to take a calculated risk that they won't be a victim of crime but somewhere where they're actually motivated to occupy. It is necessary to have a debate about which things are acceptable in public and which aren't; that's what's happening here. But that debate needs to start from the presumption that not breaking the law or not doing what many would consider to be "harming others" isn't enough.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

8ball said:


> That would depend on whether they were right or not about the negative effects on others.  If they were morally and intellectually competent I'd be happy to let them do as they please.



And what if those people doing as they pleased affected you negatively, despite them being ostensibly "morally and intellectually competent"?



8ball said:


> Much happier than I would be to accept Boris Johnson's decision that drinking an alcoholic beverage on the Tube leads to a creeping voodoo-esque malevolence and must be banned.



I'm sure you understand that this is part of a set of ideas about the kind of public space culture we have and the drinks ban won't be the last measure towards advancing those ideas. I'm sure (at least, I sincerely hope) that there will be much more to it than just banning a whole raft of undesirable things.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> And what if those people doing as they pleased affected you negatively, despite them being ostensibly "morally and intellectually competent"?



You need to look at the word 'ostensibly' in that sentence. 



untethered said:


> I'm sure you understand that this is part of a set of ideas about the kind of public space culture we have and the drinks ban won't be the last measure towards advancing those ideas. I'm sure (at least, I sincerely hope) that there will be much more to it than just banning a whole raft of undesirable things.



Well the removal of private advertising from public space would be a start - that actually _does_ have negative consequences on people.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 9, 2008)

8ball said:


> Well the removal of private advertising from public space would be a start - that actually _does_ have negatice consequences on people.



Indeed.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 9, 2008)

God yeah, I used to hate the constant shouty ads at eye-level everywhere you go. It means if you don't want to be distracted by them you have to either bring a book or sit with your eyes closed.

But I guess there's a profit in it, so it will never be brought up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 9, 2008)

And a great deal of advertising is expressly designed to make you feel bad - so that you can then fill that empty space with whatever product they are flogging.


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

8ball said:


> Well the removal of private advertising from public space would be a start - that actually _does_ have negative consequences on people.


Sounds like a good idea to me.  I don't need advertising, I have Google if I want to look for something.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

8ball said:


> You need to look at the word 'ostensibly' in that sentence.



What I'm alluding to is that people have different standards.



8ball said:


> Well the removal of private advertising from public space would be a start - that actually _does_ have negative consequences on people.



I agree entirely. One thing this country really needs is a campaign that stands up and says _let's get rid of the lot_. The city isn't your shopfront.


----------



## chainsaw cat (May 9, 2008)

Divisive Cotton said:


> God, I only say this on the news last night and already there there are over a thousands posts on this thread...
> 
> I cannot possibly think what is wrong with having a can of drink on the tube after a hard days work.
> 
> ...





I had some lagers on the train to London a few weeks ago, on the table which was also strewn with legal papers for the case conference i was at. The guy opposite asked why someone like me was drinking. I genuinely didn't know wtf he was on about, in retrospect he probably meant someone with a tie on and a responsible job? It was a parting comment as he stood to leave so I couldn't really go into it with him. 

PS that Branson can't be making much on Carlsberg at only £2.90 a can....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> I agree entirely. One thing this country really needs is a campaign that stands up and says _let's get rid of the lot_. The city isn't your shopfront.


An issue that causes an outburst of agreement.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> What I'm alluding to is that people have different standards.



They may have different 'standards' but if they are so deluded that they believe someone drinking a can of ale on the tube is 'harming' them then they probably shouldn't be allowed out on public transport unsupervised.



untethered said:


> I agree entirely. One thing this country really needs is a campaign that stands up and says _let's get rid of the lot_. The city isn't your shopfront.



Dangerous consensus spotted off starboard bough - kill it!


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> An issue that causes an outburst of agreement.





8ball said:


> Dangerous consensus spotted off starboard bough - kill it!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 9, 2008)

Kennedy and Khruschev seem extraordinarily interested in each other's crotch.


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

8ball said:


> They may have different 'standards' but if they are so deluded that they believe someone drinking a can of ale on the tube is 'harming' them then they probably shouldn't be allowed out on public transport unsupervised.



The same thing could easily be said about those who don't think there's anything wrong with drinking alcohol on public transport.

Whenever I've seen people drinking alcohol on a bus, the seat next to them is almost always empty, and most people would rather stand than take that seat.

There might not be anything considered "wrong" about drinking alcohol in a place such as on the bus or tube ... but it still generates a certain 'atmosphere' around the person that is partaking.


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> The same thing could easily be said about those who don't think there's anything wrong with drinking alcohol on public transport.
> 
> Whenever I've seen people drinking alcohol on a bus, the seat next to them is almost always empty, and most people would rather stand than take that seat.
> 
> There might not be anything considered "wrong" about drinking alcohol in a place such as on the bus or tube ... but it still generates a certain 'atmosphere' around the person that is partaking.



This is a job for the Department of Urban Research.

Find a scruffy chap.

First, have him drink water from a bottle over the course of five or six stops at a reasonably busy period and see how other people react to him (occupying adjacent seats, etc.)

Then substitute the water bottle for a beer can (containing water, of course). Just because we're doing science doesn't give us an excuse to partake.

Forward the results to the group and if appropriate, the mayor.


----------



## Poi E (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> Therefore, the establishment of order becomes a priority in law enforcement and civic management. .



No, the priority is re-defining the rules such that law enforcement and other bodies wielding force appear to be effective.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 9, 2008)

untethered said:


> This is a job for the Department of Urban Research.
> 
> Find a scruffy chap.
> 
> ...



Next, start with 'scruffy' chap (old-fashioned crusty type), then 'smarten' him up.

Compare results, and send on to mayor in case he wishes to ban crusties from public transport.

ETA: If you travel on National Express, it is striking how often it will happen that where the  majority of passengers are white, the very last seat to be occupied will be one next to a black man. You appear to be suggesting that public policy should reflect widely held prejudices - who decides which prejudice is ok and which is not?


----------



## untethered (May 9, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Next, start with 'scruffy' chap (old-fashioned crusty type), then 'smarten' him up.
> 
> Compare results, and send on to mayor in case he wishes to ban crusties from public transport.



Oh, we should just do that anyway.

What would be the downside? None that I can see.

_Stop them moving around and infecting others with their filthy ideas._


----------



## rutabowa (May 9, 2008)

i saw a wonderful seen on the train the other day, a man and a woman who had been strangers before the journey in in depth philosophical conversation about their relationships etc, just chatting with no flirting undertones or anything, no swapping of phone numbers they just got off at their stops and that was that... and the guy was drinking a can of White Ace cider or something! i don't know why but i loved that.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> i don't know why but i loved that.



I guess it confirms a deeply-held suspicion that not everyone is a cartoon twat out of a tabloid.


----------



## rutabowa (May 9, 2008)

8ball said:


> I guess it confirms a deeply-held suspicion that not everyone is a cartoon twat out of a tabloid.



ah yes, that would be it.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Why?
> 
> Something big changed with my job recently.  I do not like it.  As there is nothing I can do to change the job, my only option is to seek employment elsewhere, which I am actively doing.
> 
> Why is it essential services like the tube go on strike?  Because they know they have the fear of mass disruption on their side, and people give in.  Yet other jobs don't.  It's known that McDonalds pay badly and the conditions are generally crap, but when did you last hear burger flippers going on strike?  They either put up with it, or leave, or get booted.



so your arguing for less rights of employment not more... 

yes that's a sane option after all we all know how big business has the welafare of the workers at heart don't we.

I mean they have never put profit before welafare it's unthinkable.

simple fact of the matter is that any decent business should welcome union advice and help in order to ensure that they are deleviering their obligations and undertaking the duty of care they have under law for their staff... this comes in many guises if they chose to acknoledge that then they wouldn't need to be any form of action taken against the company and it wouldn't lose profits as a result.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> There is no union rep.  There is no union representation of any kind.  I see no point in attracting trouble for myself by trying to start up something that I feel totally unnecessary, and I'd much rather just find somewhere else to work.  I don't even think anyone else would be interested in joining anyway.
> 
> It's not as though I'm tied to London either, and in all honesty I'd rather be somewhere friendlier, greener, quieter and cheaper.



i'm alright jack pull the ladder up.... 

who let this twat in the front door really...


----------



## rich! (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> ... which is, as has already been pointed out various times, *not essential*.
> 
> There's a lot of things that I 'could' do on the way home, to save time ... but they'd infringe on the space or rights of others (whether legal rights or just something people feel they can have) so I *console myself with relaxing by looking out of the window* at the world going by.
> 
> ...



Okay, it's now clear you don't actually use the tube. Most of it is "underground" and you can't watch the world go by.

Personally, I frequently leave work shortly before the last tube, having done 10-12 hours hard work. I like to relax my noggin with an ale while not thinking on the tube home, then possibly catch last orders at the local (Victoria line early closing, before you ask).

Why oh why should I be prevented from doing this?


----------



## Crispy (May 9, 2008)

he mostly rides the bus, rich - you can watch the world go by from the bus.

The letters page in todays thelondonpaper had 5 letters about the booze ban. one was supportive, the others were critical. the 'star' letter was a particularly good one and listed all the sensible arguments from this thread about why the ban was a bad idea.


----------



## ajdown (May 9, 2008)

rich! said:


> Okay, it's now clear you don't actually use the tube. Most of it is "underground" and you can't watch the world go by.



Just two points.

1) The majority of the actual mileage of the "underground" actually isn't in a tunnel, but out in the open.  

2) The ban is transport-wide in London, not just on the tube.  The problem Boris is addressing happens on all modes of transport.


----------



## lights.out.london (May 9, 2008)

8ball said:


> Well the removal of private advertising from public space would be a start - that actually _does_ have negative consequences on people.



Interesting idea.

Can you list some of the negative effects of advertising in public spaces on, erm, the public?


----------



## Psychonaut (May 9, 2008)

'preparatory' drinking can, and will be accomplished by transferring your booze into a soft-drink container before you leave 

Or simply being discrete with your can.


----------



## rover07 (May 9, 2008)

Psychonaut said:


> 'preparatory' drinking can, and will be accomplished by transferring your booze into a soft-drink container before you leave



Thats what happens here in Brighton, a ban on drinking in public was introduced in some parts of town. But the street drinkers (who were the aim of the ban) just pour their drinks into pop bottles and carry on as before.


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Just two points.
> 
> 1) The majority of the actual mileage of the "underground" actually isn't in a tunnel, but out in the open.


It's close, 55:45. But the majority of journeys and by far the most miles travelled are entirely underground.


----------



## smokedout (May 10, 2008)

i worked out some v rough stats from tfl's own figures on tubecrime



> Crime on the Tube - Some Perspective
> 
> There are around 18,000 recorded crimes on the Tube Network each year with the vast majority being low level criminal damage such as graffiti.
> 
> ...



here

theres no evidence at all for this ban, its just boris spouting off to look like hes doing something

and im not gonna stop drinking on the tube


----------



## Poi E (May 10, 2008)

lightsoutlondon said:


> Can you list some of the negative effects of advertising in public spaces on, erm, the public?



Persuading the public that any number of calorie, fat and sugar laden products are worthwhile to consume. Result? An epidemic of diabetes and obesity.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2008)

I'm drinking a can of beer on a no.76 bus RIGHT NOW! Not only am i a menace to society, but an alcoholic! I'm not just posting this to pass the time - THIS IS A CRY FOR HELP!


----------



## rich! (May 11, 2008)

teuchter said:


> I'm drinking a can of beer on a no.76 bus RIGHT NOW! Not only am i a menace to society, but an alcoholic! I'm not just posting this to pass the time - THIS IS A CRY FOR HELP!



Dialy 999y.

Really.


----------



## scifisam (May 11, 2008)

smokedout said:


> i worked out some v rough stats from tfl's own figures on tubecrime
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good post. 

I clicked on your link, too; one of your respondents thinks you're stupid for not realising that this isn't about making people actually safer, but making them feel safer, and that this is a worthwhile goal. 

I reckon it's a weird world where people feel unsafe because of someone having a quiet can of lager on a bus. It's an even weirder world where that discomfort is worth spending huge amounts of money on rectifying.


----------



## citydreams (May 11, 2008)

scifisam said:


> It's an even weirder world where that discomfort is worth spending huge amounts of money on rectifying.



There is no money being spent on this, afaik.

Boris hasn't had to spend a penny so far save for sticking up a few posters as The Media have done his work for him.

What is interesting as an observer is whether there will actually be a change in the by-laws to impose a fine for the offense.  

I think this is unlikely as it would put Boris at odds with the unions.

In effect Boris is just spinning the existing laws, imo, rather than doing anything radical.  

Quite cunning really.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 11, 2008)

the thing which annoys me the most about this is it's totally fictious reasoning.  we need to stamp out minor crimes in order to tackle major ones...

good idea to start at the bottom boris but until you introduced legislation this isn't any crime at all period so it's not stamping on crime it's stamping on the rights people have already in order to do fuck all of consiquence...


----------



## scifisam (May 12, 2008)

citydreams said:


> There is no money being spent on this, afaik.
> 
> Boris hasn't had to spend a penny so far save for sticking up a few posters as The Media have done his work for him.
> 
> ...



The extra cops will cost rather a lot of money. 

So would the knife arches and hand-held search thingummies, but they're blatantly never going to happen. 

Apparently there will be a change in the by-laws, but it won't come into effect until next year, so for now it's just big talk. He has actually changed the laws - the existing laws do not prohibit drinking alcohol on the tube, so making it prohibited is a pretty big change.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 12, 2008)

when did 'metal detectors' become 'knife arches'


is this newspeak to try and distract from the inconvenience and time these will cause to non knife wielding metal-object carrying punters?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 12, 2008)

Psychonaut said:


> Or simply being discrete with your can.


Something like this perhaps?


----------



## citydreams (May 12, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Apparently there will be a change in the by-laws



You're quoting a newspaper aren't you?  Word of mouth says that Boris has already got what he wants on the drink ban and will let it rest there.

He originally thought he needed a change in the laws, for which TfL advised him it would take a year or so.  He since managed to find a way to attach it to the conditions of carriage using existing legislation but, afaik, no power to fine.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 12, 2008)

citydreams said:


> You're quoting a newspaper aren't you?  Word of mouth says that Boris has already got what he wants on the drink ban and will let it rest there.
> 
> He originally thought he needed a change in the laws, for which TfL advised him it would take a year or so.  He since managed to find a way to attach it to the conditions of carriage using existing legislation but, afaik, no power to fine.


I've already been refused entry to a bus by the driver taking a dislike to my can of beer (once when it wasn't even opened). So regardless of legislation or conditions of carriage, the buses have pretty much been able to do this kind of thing anyway.

What i can't understand at all is how this will work on the tube? Will other passengers be advised to pull the emergency cord to report the offending ale consumer?


----------



## KeyboardJockey (May 12, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Something like this perhaps?



Thats a good pic of me as I shall be when I visit the next U75 drinks due to my support of Boris


----------



## ajdown (May 12, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> I've already been refused entry to a bus by the driver taking a dislike to my can of beer (once when it wasn't even opened). So regardless of legislation or conditions of carriage, the buses have pretty much been able to do this kind of thing anyway.



My guess is that, for many of the drivers who have suffered abuse from, or had trouble with, people drinking alcohol on the bus who have already had more than enough, they get a 'zero tolerance' towards people who might only be on their first one of the day or even just carrying a can.

I would have thought that the driver themselves really have sole control over who can and can't travel on the bus at that particular time, seeing how some let people on without a ticket and don't care, and others refuse to move until they get off.

As with most jobs like that, there's a lot of 'making decisions on your own initiative based on the circumstances'.  Sometimes they'll get it wrong or err on the side of caution unnecessarily... but I'm sure we all do.


----------



## Mitre10 (May 12, 2008)

Can't help but think a lot of the talk on this thread is more to do with a dislike of Boris than whether or not you can have a can on the tube. 

I have enjoyed a refreshing beverage before now but it was a bit of a shock to me when I moved to London from Newcastle where its been banned on the Metro system for years.

Anyway, in other news, Boris has got a deal sorted with First Great Western so we can use Oyster on their overground and states he will speak to the other train companies about their policy before the summer.

Good lad Boris, this is the sort of fucking common sense stuff that should have been in place for years. More of the same please.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7395741.stm


----------



## scifisam (May 12, 2008)

Mitre10 said:


> Can't help but think a lot of the talk on this thread is more to do with a dislike of Boris than whether or not you can have a can on the tube.
> 
> I have enjoyed a refreshing beverage before now but it was a bit of a shock to me when I moved to London from Newcastle where its been banned on the Metro system for years.
> 
> ...



Ah, so Boris did that within a couple of days, sure. Nothing to do with previous negotiations and the fact that this was already about to happen anyway. FFS.


----------



## Mitre10 (May 12, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Ah, so Boris did that within a couple of days, sure. Nothing to do with previous negotiations and the fact that this was already about to happen anyway. FFS.





Haha, thought that would wind some people up!! 

In all seriousness though, as long as he does keep holding talks with the others and gets them onboard too I will be happy. It is fucking ridiculous that I have to buy a separate ticket to get from Waterloo to Clapham Junction at the moment (make this journey sporadically once or twice a week as work disctates so not worth a pay monthly etc).


----------



## Badgers (May 12, 2008)

My plan works as follows: 

1. Buy can of Stella
2. Drink all of Stella
3. Top can up with fizzy pop 
4. Drink fizzy pop on tube and wait for the arrest 

WIN ^ ^


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 12, 2008)

ajdown said:


> My guess is that, for many of the drivers who have suffered abuse from, or had trouble with, people drinking alcohol on the bus who have already had more than enough, they get a 'zero tolerance' towards people who might only be on their first one of the day or even just carrying a can.
> 
> I would have thought that the driver themselves really have sole control over who can and can't travel on the bus at that particular time, seeing how some let people on without a ticket and don't care, and others refuse to move until they get off.
> 
> As with most jobs like that, there's a lot of 'making decisions on your own initiative based on the circumstances'.  Sometimes they'll get it wrong or err on the side of caution unnecessarily... but I'm sure we all do.


That me be one aspect of it but i think a far bigger reason is the fact that many bus drivers have to clean up the shit and mess left on their buses now from what i understand. 

Its why i'm happy to drink on the bus but always take my rubbish with me and stick it in a bin.


----------



## ajdown (May 12, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> That me be one aspect of it but i think a far bigger reason is the fact that many bus drivers have to clean up the shit and mess left on their buses now from what i understand.
> 
> Its why i'm happy to drink on the bus but always take my rubbish with me and stick it in a bin.



Ive been on several buses that have had to be taken out of service because some drunk git has thrown up over a couple of seats.

Good for you for taking your rubbish with you ... but few do.


----------



## scifisam (May 13, 2008)

Mitre10 said:


> Haha, thought that would wind some people up!!
> 
> In all seriousness though, as long as he does keep holding talks with the others and gets them onboard too I will be happy. It is fucking ridiculous that I have to buy a separate ticket to get from Waterloo to Clapham Junction at the moment (make this journey sporadically once or twice a week as work disctates so not worth a pay monthly etc).



Got to agree about that - it makes no sense. Bloody train companies holding out for so long, because they make more money out of it - especially out of the fines from people who thought they could travel by Oyster.

To be fair, unless it's something that is specifically Boris (like this drinking ban), I'm not going to credit _or_ blame him for anything in the next month or so, because things don't happen that quickly. Same with the next Mayor after Boris. 

@aj: you must the WORST LUCK IN THE WORLD when it comes to buses! Have you ever considered cycling?

Seriously, though, nobody disputes that drunks are sometimes a problem. The dispute is over whether those drunks are drunk because they had a tinny on the tube.


----------



## ajdown (May 13, 2008)

scifisam said:


> @aj: you must the WORST LUCK IN THE WORLD when it comes to buses! Have you ever considered cycling?


I couldn't, not in London.

I'm not selfish, I couldn't jump red lights, I couldn't weave in and out of slow moving traffic dangerously, and I certainly couldn't travel in packs of 3 or 4 blocking the bus lane.

I'd either ban cycling totally, or make people have insurance/take a test to be legal, and put policemen randomly at traffic lights to fine those who cycle dangerously.

Most of 'em have total contempt for those in cars too - probably because they can't afford to run a car or get a bus pass.  Perhaps it's time to get a job instead of full time 'activism'?


----------



## lighterthief (May 13, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I couldn't, not in London.
> 
> I'm not selfish, I couldn't jump red lights, I couldn't weave in and out of slow moving traffic dangerously, and I certainly couldn't travel in packs of 3 or 4 blocking the bus lane.
> 
> ...


Yawn, 1/10 etc.


----------



## pk (May 13, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I couldn't, not in London.
> 
> I'm not selfish, I couldn't jump red lights, I couldn't weave in and out of slow moving traffic dangerously, and I certainly couldn't travel in packs of 3 or 4 blocking the bus lane.
> 
> ...



We dont pay road tax and we're often quicker than cars across town.
I can afford to run cars, I just prefer freewheeling past queues of traffic watching fat and unfit drivers get vexed...


----------



## jæd (May 13, 2008)

lighterthief said:


> Yawn, 1/10 etc.



Anyway we could ban ajdown. I don't like his posts much, and, based on his own ramblings, if someone doesn't like something much it should be banned...


----------



## ajdown (May 13, 2008)

pk said:


> We dont pay road tax and we're often quicker than cars across town.
> I can afford to run cars, I just prefer freewheeling past queues of traffic watching fat and unfit drivers get vexed...



Precisely.  You don't pay tax for using the roads, yet you do.  Doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## ajdown (May 13, 2008)

jæd said:


> Anyway we could ban ajdown. I don't like his posts much, and, based on his own ramblings, if someone doesn't like something much it should be banned...



If the only defense against the truths I post is to silence me, then it just goes to show that you have nothing left to counteract what I'm saying.  

Funny how people here are fighting for 'freedom' and the ability to do whatever they want wherever they want whenever they want, regardless of how it might affect others ... then want to silence someone they simply disagree with.


----------



## Poi E (May 13, 2008)

ajdown said:


> . then want to silence someone they simply disagree with.



No. They want to silence you because you are a self-pitying, boorish bigot.


----------



## pk (May 13, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Precisely.  You don't pay tax for using the roads, yet you do.  Doesn't seem right to me.



We dont cause potholes, pollution, congestion, parking problems, or pay through the nose for fuel.
And the bike predates the car, we were here first, so we own the roads.

I'm pretty sure you used to post here before under a different name, am I right?


----------



## ajdown (May 13, 2008)

pk said:


> I'm pretty sure you used to post here before under a different name, am I right?


No, you are not.  That thought has already been clarified several times by myself and board staff.


----------



## untethered (May 13, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Precisely.  You don't pay tax for using the roads, yet you do.  Doesn't seem right to me.



You should try to avoid commenting on fiscal policy as you don't understand it.


----------



## Crispy (May 13, 2008)

Poi E said:


> No. They want to silence you because you are a self-pitying, boorish bigot.


Either way, arguments are a better weapon.
The paranoid accusations don't help either.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 13, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Just two points.
> 
> 1) The majority of the actual mileage of the "underground" actually isn't in a tunnel, but out in the open.
> 
> 2) The ban is transport-wide in London, not just on the tube.  The problem Boris is addressing happens on all modes of transport.



2a) the problem isn't being addressed merely the new mayor like the old one is moving the problem away from his own jurisdiction and into others then he can abdicated all responsiblity whilst continuing to complain about the shocking state of 24 hour drinking and people being drunk...


----------



## smokedout (May 13, 2008)

and the ban isnt transport wide, it only applies on tubes and buses

which means commuters will still be able to have a drink on their way back to the home counties


----------



## scifisam (May 13, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I couldn't, not in London.
> 
> I'm not selfish, I couldn't jump red lights, I couldn't weave in and out of slow moving traffic dangerously, and I certainly couldn't travel in packs of 3 or 4 blocking the bus lane.
> 
> ...



Who's engaged in full-time activism?  Every cyclist? I guess it's feasible you might think that, since you think (or pretend to think) that every cyclist does all those other things.


----------



## Fruitloop (May 13, 2008)

Ha ha. Every page reveals some new, weird preconceptions.


----------



## Crispy (May 13, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Most of 'em have total contempt for those in cars too - probably because they can't afford to run a car or get a bus pass.  Perhaps it's time to get a job instead of full time 'activism'?



Ha, now _this_ is funny


----------



## untethered (May 13, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Ha, now _this_ is funny



Isn't it just?

I know a fair few people whose jobs are full-time activism, often in environment and transport campaigns.

I suspect they don't cycle to work because they can't afford to drive.


----------



## teuchter (May 13, 2008)

I think we should all be quite glad that ajdown doesn't drink or do any drugs, really.


----------



## scifisam (May 13, 2008)

Mitre10 said:


> Can't help but think a lot of the talk on this thread is more to do with a dislike of Boris than whether or not you can have a can on the tube.
> 
> I have enjoyed a refreshing beverage before now but it was a bit of a shock to me when I moved to London from Newcastle where its been banned on the Metro system for years.
> 
> ...



FWIW, I've looked into this a bit more. Turns out that most of the train companies already accept Oyster; there are only three that don't, all have already agreed to start accepting it, on a schedule, and FGW were actually supposed to be doing it in May, so they're now doing it later than previously arranged.

So, well done Boris for taking credit for something that had nothing to do with his actions at all.


----------



## dream_girl (May 13, 2008)

ajdown said:


> I couldn't, not in London.
> 
> I'm not selfish,


 anyone who states they're not selfish is very dodgy imo - especially if they're right wing. How can you be right wing without being selfish? 

Cycling is the least selfish thing I do. When I drive I pollute and contribute to congestion. When I use my free travel facility I take a seat from paying passengers. 




> I couldn't jump red lights,


 Neither could I - its dangerous  Unfortunately many motorists on my commuting route don't feel the same and are willing to put other's lives at risk just to save a few seconds journey time - or to save using their brakes. 



> I couldn't weave in and out of slow moving traffic dangerously,


 how does a cyclist weaving in and out of traffic present danger? 
It's a pity most motorists don't have a concept of choosing a lane and staying in it, and not straddling two lanes to stop others getting in front, or realising that undertaking at speed is dangerous for other road users, and any maneouvre should only be carried out when visibilty is adequate - using mirrors and indicators as required by the law. 



> and I certainly couldn't travel in packs of 3 or 4 blocking the bus lane.


My experience is that illegally parked cars, cars impinging on the bus lanes, delivery vehicles, black cabs, road-works and badly driven buses are the main cause of blocked bus lanes. And if cyclists are moving, they are not blocking the bus lane (also marked as cycle lanes btw). 

I'm not the fastest cyclist on the road, but rarely does a bus keep up with me on a journey across London - blocking is just not an issue - unless you mean buses holding up cyclists, because that can happen. 




> I'd either ban cycling totally, or make people have insurance/take a test to be legal, and put policemen randomly at traffic lights to fine those who cycle dangerously.


Hey - good use of taxpayers money. I suspect that these policemen would be far too busy booking all the buses, cars and lorries that abuse traffic lights before they bothered cyclists. 



> Most of 'em have total contempt for those in cars too - probably because they can't afford to run a car or get a bus pass.  Perhaps it's time to get a job instead of full time 'activism'?



I have a free bus pass and a car. I am not so selfish that I would actually use my car during rush hour into central London. 

Most cyclists I have known over the last 25 years earn a good salary, own a car, and can easily afford the bus fair.  and you're a complete tosser if you believe people only ride bikes because they can't afford any other way to commute. do you know how expensive some of those bikes are?


----------



## dream_girl (May 13, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Who's engaged in full-time activism?  Every cyclist? I guess it's feasible you might think that, since you think (or pretend to think) that every cyclist does all those other things.



One of the most common things I get shouted at me on the roads when a driver gets the arsehole with me is "get a job". 

Er...I've got one, and what makes them think I haven't?


----------



## Poi E (May 13, 2008)

Crispy said:


> .
> The paranoid accusations don't help either.



 He be the paranoid whitey living in Brixton.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 13, 2008)

Somebody's probably already pointed this out but I can't be arsed to trawl through the 1000 + posts to find out so forgive me if I'm repeating.

This policy is interesting in light of Johnson's long standing opposition to the public smoking ban. In fact he even pledged that he would allow local referendums on whether the ban should remain. He had to ditch this one pretty quick however when someone told him that he had no power to do it. Nonetheless, the hypocrisy is staggering: whilst he wants to allow smoking in public places, which has been proven to be harmful to others, he has outlawed drinking in public which is in and of itself is an entirely harmless pursuit. 

Liberty my arse.


----------



## chainsaw cat (May 14, 2008)

8ball said:


> That would depend on whether they were right or not about the negative effects on others.  If they were morally and intellectually competent I'd be happy to let them do as they please.
> 
> Much happier than I would be to accept Boris Johnson's decision that drinking an alcoholic beverage on the Tube leads to a creeping voodoo-esque malevolence and must be banned.



Correct post.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Somebody's probably already pointed this out but I can't be arsed to trawl through the 1000 + posts to find out so forgive me if I'm repeating.
> 
> This policy is interesting in light of Johnson's long standing opposition to the public smoking ban. In fact he even pledged that he would allow local referendums on whether the ban should remain. He had to ditch this one pretty quick however when someone told him that he had no power to do it. Nonetheless, the hypocrisy is staggering: whilst he wants to allow smoking in public places, which has been proven to be harmful to others, he has outlawed *drinking in public which is in and of itself is an entirely harmless* pursuit.
> 
> Liberty my arse.



erm this makes a mockery of your entire biased loony conmment... 

no one with even half a mind of a small gnat would call the consumption of alchol entirely harmless....

even if we ignore drunk drivers, domestic disputes, violence, vandalism, sexual promiscutiy leading to sexually transmitted disease or worse, vomit, broken glass, noise, anti social behaviour and all the instantly recognisable social ills from drinking there are the physicological damage being done and the level of damage beign done to the body which can be as harmful if sustainted as smoking if not worse...

dont' forget that smoking kills less people every year than alcoholism...

If you were going to have a public health issue and want to ban somehting from public consumptuion then it should be booze before fags... by some way... 

but then this is the turkey voting for xmas isn't it.

the simple fact remains, people should have the legal right to chose to smoke in a premises they enter as should the premiese themseleves chose whether to allow smoking.  Social situtations or actions do not and have never needed state interference, to introduce legislation to outlaw a legal activity in public which is what in essence this is be it drinking or smoking is utterly utterly draconian unnecessary and literlaly taking a liberty...


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> no one with even half a mind of a small gnat would call the consumption of alchol entirely harmless....


For many moderate drinkers, it is. 

In fact, there's good evidence to suggest that moderate alcohol consumption can be positively _beneficially_ to your heath.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 14, 2008)

Garf, nobody is saying that alcohol is harmless, the debate is more about someone having a couple of cold ones on the way to the pub.  Such people are pretty unlikely to be drunk.  Hence the having the beer on the way.


----------



## ajdown (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> the simple fact remains, people should have the legal right to chose to smoke in a premises they enter as should the premiese themseleves chose whether to allow smoking.



What about the rights of non-smokers?


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What about the rights of non-smokers?



I'm afraid they don't have any rights in London any more, Ken Livingstone passed a bye-law just before he left power.


----------



## ajdown (May 14, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> I'm afraid they don't have any rights in London any more, Ken Livingstone passed a bye-law just before he left power.



Elaborate?


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> What about the rights of non-smokers?


Please, not this again.

* cue Burundi-style chorus of head to desk head banging


----------



## ajdown (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Please, not this again.
> 
> * cue Burundi-style chorus of head to desk head banging



Clearly I've missed something in the history of these forums.


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Elaborate?



i'm not sure if it extends to greater london, but in zones 1-3 anyway non-smokers are now subject to a range of proscriptive legislation, covering things like priority at road junctions and entry to public places. it was part of the reason boris johnson got elected.


----------



## ajdown (May 14, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> i'm not sure if it extends to greater london, but in zones 1-3 anyway non-smokers are now subject to a range of proscriptive legislation, covering things like priority at road junctions and entry to public places. it was part of the reason boris johnson got elected.



I have a sneaky suspicion that you could be trying to wind me up here...

Anything Ken did would have applied to zones 1-6


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> For many moderate drinkers, it is.
> 
> In fact, there's good evidence to suggest that moderate alcohol consumption can be positively _beneficially_ to your heath.



really brain cell death which occurse for any amount of alchol is apostive thing is it... 

like to see the medical science and research you have done which will back this up as fact... and that it's postively beneficially to your health.

links and sources please.

or again are you talking out of your hat...


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> really brain cell death which occurse for any amount of alchol



where's your evidence


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> like to see the medical science and research you have done which will back this up as fact... and that it's postively beneficially to your health.
> 
> links and sources please.


there are loads of doctors who say it's good and loads who say it's bad you must know that. what good would it be to pull up sources etc?


----------



## Badgers (May 14, 2008)

Will it still be legal to drink alcohol while cycling?


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

Badgers said:


> Will it still be legal to drink alcohol while cycling?



Yes. There is no legal limit and you cannot be breathalised. It's a judgement call at the discretion of the police officer who can stop you if she thinks you are too drunk to cycle.

But watch you're not drinking in a no alcohol zone.


----------



## ajdown (May 14, 2008)

Badgers said:


> Will it still be legal to drink alcohol while cycling?



Was it ever legal?


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2008)

Badgers said:


> Will it still be legal to drink alcohol while cycling?


Whilst texting. Naked. At night with no lights on.


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Was it ever legal?



yes - it is.


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

Badgers said:


> Will it still be legal to drink alcohol while cycling?


compulsory i thought? it is a bit of a hassle, cycling round old street roundabout having to hold the fag in my mouth whilst i change the volume on my walkman with the same hand i have the beer can in.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

RenegadeDog said:


> Garf, nobody is saying that alcohol is harmless, the debate is more about someone having a couple of cold ones on the way to the pub.  Such people are pretty unlikely to be drunk.  Hence the having the beer on the way.



you wanna learn to read i quoted in full and bolded the part where someone was actually saying alcohol isharmless and also our own dear hard the editor thinks it's perfectly harmless (not that ed is in any way biased in support of his own vices over those of others one might add, something we all do to some extent.) 

alchol destroies brain cells with any amount drunk it is a diluted posion.  period.  this can never be considered a good thing...


----------



## Fruitloop (May 14, 2008)

You could cycle with one of these:


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> compulsory i thought? it is a bit of a hassle, cycling round old street roundabout having to hold the fag in my mouth whilst i change the volume on my walkman with the same hand i have the beer can in.



makes it difficult to keep jumping all those red lights


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> alchol destroies brain cells with any amount drunk



I've hear this but read recently that its not true. Do you know that it is true - or is it just something everyone think they know?


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> makes it difficult to keep jumping all those red lights



yeh i had to spit beer all over this old lady to stop her cos she tryed to step onto a zebra crossing while i was speeding with no hands on the brakes


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> I've hear this but read recently that its not true. Do you know that it is true - or is it just something everyone think they know?



the sentence "alcohol destroys brain cells with any amount drunk" is not true.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> really brain cell death which occurse for any amount of alchol is apostive thing is it...
> 
> like to see the medical science and research you have done which will back this up as fact... and that it's postively beneficially to your health.
> 
> ...


Cut yourself a nice big slice of humble pie, Garf. Oh, and will you fucking quit shoving in your pathetic little personal digs? Thanks.



> *The old advertising slogan "Guinness is Good for You" may be true after all, according to researchers.*  A pint of the black stuff a day may work as well as an aspirin to prevent heart clots that raise the risk of heart attacks
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3266819.stm





> Some studies suggest alcohol can be good for you in small amounts. Evidence shows that for people more at risk of heart attacks – those in middle age and older – drinking one to two units of alcohol a day can minimise the chances of a heart attack and lower cholesterol.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/shouldiworryabout/drinking.shtml





> Middle-aged non-drinkers can quickly reduce their risk of heart disease by introducing a daily tipple to their diet, South Carolina researchers say. New moderate drinkers were 38% less likely to develop heart disease than those who stayed tee-total, a four-year study involving 7,500 people found.
> 
> Those who drank only wine showed the most benefit, the researchers reported in the American Medical Journal
> http://medicineroom.wordpress.com/2...-heart-risk-bbc-news-today-what-do-you-think/





> Drinking a moderate amount of alcohol could be the key to a longer life - as long as you also do a bit of exercise.
> 
> A study out today showed drinkers who were physically active cut their risk of dying more than people who abstained but did no exercise.
> 
> ...


Etc etc etc zzzzzzzz


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> there are loads of doctors who say it's good and loads who say it's bad you must know that. what good would it be to pull up sources etc?



the editor has made a definitive statement and shold back it up as he beleives it's 'positively beneficially' and entirely harmless.

any one adovating that should really be able to substatiate their claims... definuitively, else they cannot makes such claims... and should retract them...

it's called rigours of debate... 

i dunno have you heard of them...


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> the editor has made a definitive statement and shold back it up as he beleives it's 'positively beneficially' and entirely harmless.


no he hasn't. the end.


----------



## spring-peeper (May 14, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> the sentence "alcohol destroys brain cells with any amount drunk" is not true.



I thought that we grew new ones.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> alchol destroies brain cells with any amount drunk it is a diluted posion.  period.  this can never be considered a good thing...


Sigh. Why are you recycling these old wives' tales?


> Myth: Alcohol destroys brain cells and makes you stupid
> 
> * Alcohol has no effect on the lifecycle of brain cells* . According to Queensland Brain Institute director Professor Perry Bartlett in Australia, drinking *alcohol does not kill brain cells*, even if it feels like it did the next morning. The commonly accepted notion that alcohol creates huge craters of dead cells in your brain turns out to be an old wives’ tale. In moderate amounts, Italian researchers have demonstrated that red wine helps the brain and can prevent dementia in old age.
> http://www.fermentarium.com/content/view/110/59/





> Does alcohol kill brain cells?
> 
> *...alcohol does not destroy brain cells*, but it certainly can damage brain cells.
> http://www.nmsu.edu/~wave/ask_an_aggie/alcohol_drugs_tobacco.php


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Cut yourself a nice big slice of humble pie, Garf. Oh, and will you fucking quit shoving in your pathetic little personal digs? Thanks.
> 
> Etc etc etc zzzzzzzz



intresting not one of those actually proves your point though does it... or indeed disproves mine links pleas eto alcohol is *entirely harmless* ....

and as you've quoted it you can of course read, i have no doubt... 



> really brain cell death which occurse for any amount of alchol is apostive thing is it



when you are ready.

and saying someone is talking out of their hat isn't a personal dig unless you have some kind of elephantine ego which cannot stand being questioned on the vaildity of what they say in any matter.  Which, i wasn't previously aware you had.  

so can we stick to what's being said please.

back up your claim that alchol is entirely harmless the part which you have failed to provide any evidence for or retract as you were talking out of your hat... it's a simple enough proceedure.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Sigh. Why are you recycling these old wives' tales?



any chance of some non biased soruces which aren't from the alchol industry?


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> back up your claim that alchol is entirely harmless


could you find where anyone has said that alcohol is entirely harmless? i can't find anyone who's said that.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> any chance of some non biased soruces which aren't from the alchol industry?


Is the Queensland Brain Institute director Professor Perry Bartlett in Australia paid for by the alcohol industry then?
And what about this research:


> Study finds alcohol doesn't kill off brain cells
> 
> NEW research, to be revealed at a conference of some of the world's top neuroscientists in Cairns today, has found alcohol does not kill off brain cells as always thought.
> 
> ...



Seeing as you're insisting that some of the world's top neuroscientists are wrong, please provide some credible sources to back up your emphatic assertion that: "alchol destroies brain cells with any amount drunk it is a diluted posion. period."

Thanks.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> could you find where anyone has said that alcohol is entirely harmless? i can't find anyone who's said that.






			
				me said:
			
		

> no one with even half a mind of a small gnat would *call the consumption of alchol entirely harmless*....



my comment which the editor quoted and responded with the folllowing....




			
				editor said:
			
		

> For many moderate drinkers, it is.



ergo the editor is saying drinking is entirely harmless...

(for moderate drinkers. not all drinkers)


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> could you find where anyone has said that alcohol is entirely harmless? i can't find anyone who's said that.


I _certainly_ haven't made that claim, so I'll be looking forward to Garf's response on this one.

*edit: LOL at Garf's desperate, highly selective quoting of my words!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Is the Queensland Brain Institute director Professor Perry Bartlett in Australia paid for by the alcohol industry then?
> 
> And what about this research:
> 
> ...



oh i can trade research all day with you but the fact remains that you cannot prove it anymore than i can and i'd like to see some verifiable ualifations for your 'neurosicentitists' other than on your own links... 

come on don't Jazzz this, put up verifable cross refferenceable sources...


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> my comment which the editor quoted and responded with the folllowing....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ok so that's saying the consumption of alcohol in moderation is entirely harmless? ok well i would modify that to almost entirely harmless but i pretty much agree, that is the standard medical view isn't it?


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> oh i can trade research all day with you but the fact remains that you cannot prove it anymore than i can and i'd like to see some verifiable ualifations for your 'neurosicentitists' other than on your own links...
> 
> come on don't Jazzz this, put up verifable cross refferenceable sources...



i don't really get what yr arguing about any more!!


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

Garf: are you still sticking by your emphatic claim that: ""*alchol destroies brain cells with any amount drunk *it is a diluted posion. period" and if so, could you kindly produce some credible sources for that assertion?

Thanks.


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Thank heavens Boris is getting stuck into the really important issues!
> Apparently, we can expect drinking on the tube (and, presumably buses) to be banned within a few days.
> So there goes one of life's harmless little pleasures.



In answer to the OP as i dunno what you's up there ^^^ is bangin on about.

I voted that i arent really bothered but think its a good idea possibly.
Why is there a need to drink alcohol on the tube? if ya just travelling on the tube surely you can wait til you get off then have a drink - i think it'll help - i find it a bit intimadating when theres peeps drinking on trains getting rowdy...would also be setting an example to the yoof who see that its NOT ok to get pissed on trains/tubes/buse as they see adults then do it themselves and get frowned upon.

... and if smokings been banned then so should the other legal stuffs like alcohol - is it legal to sniff poppers on the tube? if not then why not?


TBH I dont really give a fuck coz i've only been on the tube once and it was naff so i conclude by


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> oh i can trade research all day with you but the fact remains that you cannot prove it anymore than i can and i'd like to see some verifiable ualifations for your 'neurosicentitists' other than on your own links...


Here's the qualifications of Professor Bartlett, who is widely acknowledged as one of the world's leading brain scientists.


> Professor Perry Bartlett FAA was appointed Foundation Chair in Molecular Neuroscience at The University of Queensland in August 2002, and as Director of the Queensland Brain Institute and Australian Research Council Federation Fellow in 2003.
> 
> He previously headed the neurobiology division of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne, where his group was the first to identify a neuronal precursor in the adult brain, leading to a paradigm shift in our understanding of the brain and underpinning the burgeoning field of neuroregeneration.
> 
> ...


Now, will you_ finally_ post up some research that actually backs up your assertion that "alcohol destroys brain cells with any amount drunk" now please, because so far it's Professor Perry Bartlett versus Garf and I know who my money's on here.


----------



## ajdown (May 14, 2008)

*Miss Daisy* said:


> would also be setting an example to the yoof who see that its NOT ok to get pissed on trains/tubes/buse as they see adults then do it themselves and get frowned upon.


An excellent point that I don't think has been made before.


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

*Miss Daisy* said:


> In answer to the OP as i dunno what you's up there ^^^ is bangin on about.
> 
> I voted that i arent really bothered but think its a good idea possibly.
> Why is there a need to drink alcohol on the tube? if ya just travelling on the tube surely you can wait til you get off then have a drink - i think it'll help - i find it a bit intimadating when theres peeps drinking on trains getting rowdy...would also be setting an example to the yoof who see that its NOT ok to get pissed on trains/tubes/buse as they see adults then do it themselves and get frowned upon.
> ...




fuck me


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

scottish study into alcohol related brain damage.
http://www.alcoholinformation.isdsc...tID=1976&p_applic=CCC&p_service=Content.show&

and the pdf itself. 

http://www.alcoholinformation.isdscotland.org/alcohol_misuse/files/ARBD_MeetingNeeds.pdf

austrailian study into acuuired brain injury 

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/BHCV2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Alcohol_related_brain_damage?open
 this being particularlly relevant.



> *Alcohol and brain injury*
> Brain injury can be caused by alcohol because it:
> *Has a toxic effect on the central nervous system *
> Results in changes to metabolism, heart functioning and blood supply
> ...



discussion of both Wernicke's encephalopathy and Korsakoff's psychosis

http://www.alzscot.org/pages/info/alcohol.htm

insitute of alchol studies scotish study...

http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/alcoholalert/alert200302/al200302_p16.html
and image 







insititue of alcohol abuse and alcoholism....

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa63/aa63.htm

as i said we can go on trading links all day but again you fail to conceed your original point was in error...


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (May 14, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> fuck me



no


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> scottish study into alcohol related brain damage.
> http://www.alcoholinformation.isdsc...tID=1976&p_applic=CCC&p_service=Content.show&
> 
> and the pdf itself.
> ...



all of those links say that HEAVY drinking MAY cause brain damage. you were saying that even moderate drinking definitely will cause damage... so they prove the opposite of what you say.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> as i said we can go on trading links all day but again you fail to conceed your original point was in error...


Not *one* of those links supports your claim that "_alcohol destroys brain cells with any amount drunk"_ so why don't you just admit you were wrong instead of wasting more time digging a bigger hole for yourself?


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

I've gotta say - none of this backs up your earlier statement Garfield.


----------



## citydreams (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> alchol destroies brain cells with any amount drunk it is a diluted posion.  period.  *this can never be considered a good thing...*



What, never!? Never ever??   I think you might be exaggerating a wee bit Professor Garf...    lay off the shandies mate.


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (May 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> An excellent point that I don't think has been made before.



cheers - obviously others think differently tho


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> all of those links say that HEAVY drinking MAY cause brain damage. you were saying that even moderate drinking definitely will cause damage... so they prove the opposite of what you say.



so logically according to your comments there is no build up or previous damage it all arrives at a given point and then does major damage....

suddenly 2 beers fine 5 beers brain damage.  

(obivously reductio absurbium but you see the point) 



editor said:


> Not *one* of those links supports your claim that "_alcohol destroys brain cells with any amount drunk"_ so why don't you just admit you were wrong instead of wasting more time digging a bigger hole for yourself?



ditto sudden and sever brain damage from nowhere.  no causality links oh noez... 




citydreams said:


> What, never!? Never ever??   I think you might be exaggerating a wee bit Professor Garf...    lay off the shandies mate.



I'm sure you are well aware of the consiquneces of mucking around with peoples users names.  it's stated on my every post for your refference...


----------



## citydreams (May 14, 2008)

*Miss Daisy* said:


> would also be setting an example to the yoof who see that its NOT ok to get pissed on trains/tubes/buse as they see adults then do it themselves and get frowned upon.



When i was getting pissed on jacked vodka at 14 the only adults that were doing similiar were the care-in-the-community sorts.  I wasn't aspiring towards their life-style 

It's one thing to get pissed uncontrollable.. It's another to have a wee dram and make merry.  

ps. In the jewish religion everyone, including hoodied-youth, are expected to get rip-roaringly drunk all day long for the festival of Purim.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> so logically according to your comments there is no build up or previous damage it all arrives at a given point and then does major damage...


Your claim was emphatic and free of caveats: "alcohol *destroys* brain cells *with any amount drunk*."

Can you finally back that up with some relevant research, please? Or, if you like, you could just admit that you were wrong, which you are..


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (May 14, 2008)

citydreams said:


> When i was getting pissed on jacked vodka at 14 the only adults that were doing similiar were the care-in-the-community sorts.  I wasn't aspiring towards their life-style
> 
> It's one thing to get pissed uncontrollable.. It's another to have a wee dram and make merry.
> 
> ps. In the jewish religion everyone, including hoodied-youth, are expected to get rip-roaringly drunk all day long for the festival of Purim.



 to yoo too!

i agree with you actually (the wee dram bit) but where do you draw the line - footie thugs knocking back kegs of beer - alkis having their brown paper bags - gangs of yoof with their alkopops.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Your claim was emphatic and free of caveats: "alcohol *destroys* brain cells *with any amount drunk*."
> 
> Can you finally back that up with some relevant research, please? Or, if you like, you could just admit that you were wrong, which you are..



i have backed it up large build ups cause brain damage. ergo small amounts contribute to this... 

unless you are saying that actually the effect is instantaious at a certain peak point taking us back to the frivilous 2 beers good 5 beers bad....

you not accepting that is neither here nor there i've established that your comments about alcohol releate brain damage is neither an old wives tale nor incorrect. as you clearly stated.  

and also that if a build up causes brain damage then the same follows for a minor amount, unless you can prove a sudden change occurs there is no other explaination for the build up.

it's simple extrapolation and one which is very elementary in it's logic.

it happens to be on a subject however where you are overly emotive because it's a vice you enjoy.


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> i have backed it up large build ups cause brain damage. ergo small amounts contribute to this...
> 
> unless you are saying that actually the effect is instantaious at a certain peak point taking us back to the frivilous 2 beers good 5 beers bad....
> 
> ...


it is much more complicated than you are suggesting. there is a kind of "point of no return" after which brain damage occurs fairly rapidly after prolonged heavy drinking. you can see even alcoholics who can function very well for a long amount of time, then they suddenly decline. it isn't the case each pint of beer causes a tiny amount of brain damage that is a ridiculous extrapolation!! otherwise there'd be loads of people at various stages of brain damage.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> i have backed it up large build ups cause brain damage. ergo small amounts contribute to this...
> 
> unless you are saying that actually the effect is instantaious at a certain peak point taking us back to the frivilous 2 beers good 5 beers bad....
> 
> ...


None of the above waffle helps - or backs up - your claim that "alcohol *destroys* brain cells *with any amount drunk*."

Oh well. You may be too stubborn to admit to your silly error, but I'm pretty sure all this blustering isn't fooling anyone.

Let's ask. Does anyone think Garf's assertion that "alcohol destroys brain cells with any amount drunk" is correct and he's backed it up with credible research?

Anyone?


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Let's ask. Does anyone think Garf's assertion that "alcohol destroys brain cells with any amount drunk" is correct and he's backed it up with credible research?
> 
> Anyone?




yes!






















No - not really


----------



## ajdown (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Let's ask. Does anyone think Garf's assertion that "alcohol destroys brain cells with any amount drunk" is correct and he's backed it up with credible research?
> 
> Anyone?



However, would you agree with the statement 'even just one drink can impair your judgement', even if only on a short term basis?


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> However, would you agree with the statement 'even just one drink can impair your judgement', even if only on a short term basis?


Yes, The response is not linear, though.


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> However, would you agree with the statement 'even just one drink can impair your judgement', even if only on a short term basis?



there are a lot of things that can impair your judgement - a headache, reading the Sun, or the Guardian for that matter, and believing in christian moralistic bollox - i find that above all impairs judgement actually.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> However, would you agree with the statement 'even just one drink can impair your judgement', even if only on a short term basis?


Of course, although that very much depends on the drink and the person drinking it and a host of other circumstances. 

I can't see why you're asking me this, to  be honest.


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Of course, although that very much depends on the drink and the person drinking it and a host of other circumstances.
> 
> I can't see why you're asking me this, to  be honest.


Let's wait and find out.


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Let's wait and find out.



i can hardly control myself


----------



## ajdown (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> I can't see why you're asking me this, to  be honest.


You don't need to know, you just needed to respond, and you agree with me.

That's a good start


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

I've already wet myself twice.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> it is much more complicated than you are suggesting. there is a kind of "point of no return" after which brain damage occurs fairly rapidly after prolonged heavy drinking. you can see even alcoholics who can function very well for a long amount of time, then they suddenly decline. it isn't the case each pint of beer causes a tiny amount of brain damage that is a ridiculous extrapolation!! otherwise there'd be loads of people at various stages of brain damage.



it's nto a ridiculious extrapoliation at all... clearly you know little about posioning...

posion of which alcohol is, builds up in the body to the pioint where the body can no longer deal with it at that point the sudden noticable decline happens however this will occur a long time before the sudden decline but have less noticeable effects....  Most of the evidence i have seen seems to indicate this may well be to do with the vitamin reuptake and the inablity to do so causing the actual damage rather than it being a direct damage factor of the alcohol.  this as we well know means that these deficencies must be occuring at a low level before the sudden obvious decline. 

no build up. no damage. yet there is damage beign done to take you to that point of sudden decline.


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> it's nto a ridiculious extrapoliation at all... clearly you know little about posioning...
> 
> posion of which alcohol is, builds up in the body to the pioint where the body can no longer deal with it at that point the sudden noticable decline happens however this will occur a long time before the sudden decline but have less noticeable effects....  Most of the evidence i have seen seems to indicate this may well be to do with the vitamin reuptake and the inablity to do so causing the actual damage rather than it being a direct damage factor of the alcohol.  this as we well know means that these deficencies must be occuring at a low level before the sudden obvious decline.
> 
> no build up. no damage. yet there is damage beign done to take you to that point of sudden decline.



it's still not what you said earlier though is it?


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> no damage. yet there is damage beign done.



how Zen.


----------



## ajdown (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> it's nto a ridiculious extrapoliation at all... clearly you know little about posioning...
> 
> posion of which alcohol is, builds up in the body to the pioint where the body can no longer deal with it at that point the sudden noticable decline happens however this will occur a long time before the sudden decline but have less noticeable effects....



Don't forget tolerance too.  As I don't drink, one or two pints would probably have me unconscious on the floor, whereas anyone who regularly drinks (in some amount) would be still standing after 4 or 14 pints depending on how heavy they drink.

Alcohol *is* a poison, after all.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> it's still not what you said earlier though is it?


Nope. Not even close, but Garf seems to be unable to admit that he was quite wrong with his earlier claim, despite me posting up research from Professor Bartlett, who is widely acknowledged as one of the world's leading brain scientists.

He even questioned the man's credentials, but as soon as I posted up details of Bartlett's impeccable research background, he went quiet on that one.

Seeing as you're still insisting that you know better, what's your qualifications in this area, Garf?


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2008)

What's yours? Our qualifications are irrelevant. The reported facts are not, and they're what counts.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Alcohol *is* a poison, after all.


Strawman. Just about anything can be poisonous in big enough quantities.


> A poison is any substance that is capable of causing injury, illness or death to an organism. 1 Salt, water and oxygen are all poisons because in high enough quantities they can harm people. Too much salt in a diet can cause serious health problems, hyper hydration can kill athletes, and too much oxygen given to a premature infant can cause permanent blindness.
> 
> Toxicologists emphasize that “the dosage makes the poison.” Although salt, water, oxygen, aspirin, alcohol beverages, and many other substances can cause poisoning in excessive amounts, *it makes no sense to call them poisons.*
> 
> http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1119724191.html


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> it's still not what you said earlier though is it?



yes it is it's indepth and better expalined than the previous snacthed comment but it's not different in it's content... 

build up would be damage storing and secreiting posion would be damage, sudden decline would be an example of systemic failure to contain the damage in its state allowing it to progress to other areas.

even on a basic health understanding you nkow that lack of vitimins causes problems for people and does damage to them long term deprivation of vitimins causes long term sever damage. short term deprivation is of course less damaging than long term damage. 

this couplled to the fact that i severly doubt that anyone who drinks in modicuim would consider 3 pints excessive and yet it is over your RDA of units.   (a pint over in essence) so we are constantly doing damage with alcohol, often consuming greater amounts than it healthy to do.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

Crispy said:


> What's yours? Our qualifications are irrelevant. The reported facts are not, and they're what counts.


Er, hello? Are you even reading this thread properly?

Garf made a claim.  I posted up a series of links from credible sources - including research from one of the world's leading brain scientists - that proved his claim was wholly incorrect.

Garf is still insisting that he is correct, so it's entirely reasonable to ask him what he's basing his claim on. So far, it's just his word, so I can only assume he has qualifications in this area. Or he's just making it all up. Let's find out.


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> I can only assume he has qualifications in this area.


No you can't. You're just taking the piss.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

Crispy said:


> No you can't. You're just taking the piss.


And you're intentionally misreading my posts, otherwise you would have seen that I have already posted up ample links to 'reported facts' that prove Garf's claim to be wholly inaccurate. My qualifications are irrelevant because I'm not making a claim that's at odds with expert opinion.


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> really brain cell death which occurse for any amount of alchol





GarfieldLeChat said:


> build up would be damage storing and secreiting posion would be damage, sudden decline would be an example of systemic failure to contain the damage in its state allowing it to progress to other areas.



Those two statements are not remotely the same

You implied that even moderate drinkers would be affected by accumulative damage to their brain cells. 

But that's not true - a moderate drinker does not suffer that accumulaitve damage - or at least you haven't produced evidence yet that they do.


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

i'm bored now anyway, see you guys later


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Nope. Not even close, but Garf seems to be unable to admit that he was quite wrong with his earlier claim, despite me posting up research from Professor Bartlett, who is widely acknowledged as one of the world's leading brain scientists.


again no refference to where he's regarded as the worlds leading brain scientists.  Did Jazzz give you the site link?  because you sure as heck using his logic to defend and define your sources... 



editor said:


> He even questioned the man's credentials, but as soon as I posted up details of Bartlett's impeccable research background, he went quiet on that one.



lie. i asked for a study not sponsored by the alcohol companies, which you failed to provide i suggest you go back and reread the exchange...



editor said:


> Seeing as you're still insisting that you know better, what's your qualifications in this area, Garf?



strawman. play the ball not the player.


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2008)

*gets drunk*


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

To be honest I'm only interested in the claim that drinking alcohol kills brain cells as I read recently that this is not true and there is no evidence that this is true. I can't find any evidence that this is true, and so far I haven't seen any quoted here.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> lie. i asked for a study not sponsored by the alcohol companies, which you failed to provide i suggest you go back and reread the exchange...


Could you highlight the link between Professor Bartlett's research and sponsorship form the alcohol industry please?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> Those two statements are not remotely the same
> 
> You implied that even moderate drinkers would be affected by accumulative damage to their brain cells.
> 
> But that's not true - a moderate drinker does not suffer that accumulaitve damage - or at least you haven't produced evidence yet that they do.



one is short hand for the other, jesus, trying to have a resoned debate with pendants is pointless....

ok fine you both are perfectly right booze is great it's a life affirming thing which does no damage to people or anything in any form or even from consiquences of it's use it's entirely a charmed susbtance and there are no ill effects ever... 

mean while in the land where faries and dragons don't live... the rest of us aren't so bought into the whole pro-alcohol agenda...

I find it fasinating the levels of seld delusion people will go to defend this habit in this manner especially considering previous stances on the smoking ban... all the arguments which have been made for the smoking ban can be applied to drinking.  and no doubt will be.

seems it's not a case of source for the goose...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Could you highlight the link between Professor Bartlett's research and sponsorship form the alcohol industry please?



how about you merely provide what you were asked to originally without misrepresenting other posters points and lying about them...


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> one is short hand for the other, jesus, trying to have a resoned debate with pendants is pointless....
> 
> ok fine you both are perfectly right booze is great it's a life affirming thing which does no damage to people or anything in any form or even from consiquences of it's use it's entirely a charmed susbtance and there are no ill effects ever...
> 
> ...



FFS - be anti alcohol if you like but I don't see the point in just making stuff up to back your point up, and then be abusive to those who aren't taken in by it.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> how about you merely provide what you were asked to originally without misrepresenting other posters points and lying about them...


Could you highlight your claimed link between Professor Bartlett's research and sponsorship form the alcohol industry, please?

Could you provide proof that "alcohol destroys brain cells with any amount drunk," please?



dream_girl said:


> FFS - be anti alcohol if you like but I don't see the point in just making stuff up to back your point up, and then be abusive to those who aren't taken in by it.


Absolutely.


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2008)

You're making out like it's black or white garf. you know that's not the case. If I have a glass of wine every day for the rest of my life, I will not get brain damage. If I drink all that wine intensively over a month, it'd kill me.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

Crispy said:


> You're making out like it's black or white garf. you know that's not the case. If I have a glass of wine every day for the rest of my life, I will not get brain damage. If I drink all that wine intensively over a month, it'd kill me.



i'll let the editor explain what i'm thinking tbh he seem to have it all sewn up chap no point in having the debate as the editor as deemed to speak for me....


----------



## ajdown (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Strawman. Just about anything can be poisonous in big enough quantities.



You then go on to add "Toxicologists emphasize that 'the dosage makes the poison'".

I agree.  Yet the cumulative affects still add up.  I believe the liver can 'handle' 2 units of alcohol per hour... yet many people exceed that on a regular basis.


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> i'll let the editor explain what i'm thinking tbh he seem to have it all sewn up chap no point in having the debate as the editor as deemed to speak for me....



emo!


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> i'll let the editor explain what i'm thinking tbh he seem to have it all sewn up chap no point in having the debate as the editor as deemed to speak for me....


Or you could just admit that you've got it wrong. Might make more sense in the long term you know, because no one's agreeing with you here and the expert medical research isn't helping you either.


ajdown said:


> Yet the cumulative affects still add up. I believe the liver can 'handle' 2 units of alcohol per hour... yet many people exceed that on a regular basis.


I'm sure some people do, but that doesn't make your original "Alcohol is a poison" claim any more accurate though, does it?


----------



## ovaltina (May 14, 2008)

Crispy said:


> *gets drunk*


----------



## ajdown (May 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Or you could just admit that you've got it wrong. Might make more sense in the long term you know, because no one's agreeing with you here and the expert medical research isn't helping you either.
> I'm sure some people do, but that doesn't make your original "Alcohol is a poison" claim any more accurate though, does it?



Australian government site any better? After all, Australians are not known for being shy of the odd cold tinnie, are they? http://www.nt.gov.au/health/healthdev/aodp/choose/poison.html

"Alcohol is a poison to the body, yet it has been with us so long that it is accepted in most social circles."


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Australian government site any better? After all, Australians are not known for being shy of the odd cold tinnie, are they? http://www.nt.gov.au/health/healthdev/aodp/choose/poison.html
> 
> "Alcohol is a poison to the body, yet it has been with us so long that it is accepted in most social circles."


AGain, anything can be a poison in sufficiient quantities.

Alcohol is on the 'more nasty' end of the scale though, as it's quite easy to ingest a lethal dose.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Australian government site any better?


LOL. What a shonky looking page!


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

ajdown said:


> Australian government site any better? After all, Australians are not known for being shy of the odd cold tinnie, are they? http://www.nt.gov.au/health/healthdev/aodp/choose/poison.html
> 
> "Alcohol is a poison to the body, yet it has been with us so long that it is accepted in most social circles."


ha ha have you read the rest of that site (it's a teen advice page on the northern territories government website)? it is very authoritative.

" I hear stories of the new LSD drug that is being put in drinks at nightclubs. It makes you lose hours of your life. Maybe nightclubs aren't as safe as they used to be – but then, what is?"


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

"New LSD drug" -  LOL!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (May 14, 2008)

usual circle jerk in full effect today i see... 

I'm sure you can continue this in the pub later...


----------



## rutabowa (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> usual circle jerk in full effect today i see...
> 
> I'm sure you can continue this in the pub later...


i reckon i've met up with you in the pub more often than anyone else on this thread!
are you off on... is it june 6th? pub in the park.


----------



## Crispy (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> usual circle jerk in full effect today i see...
> 
> I'm sure you can continue this in the pub later...


Get a grip, garf

There aren't two sides of an argument here, one sayingn "alcohol is harmless - glug away!" and the other saying "alcohol kills, even a little bit!"

You know full well that the situation is a lot more nuanced than that. 

PS: The last thing I'd want to do is jerk the editor off - my opinions are my own and if I disagree with him I'll say so.


----------



## dream_girl (May 14, 2008)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> usual circle jerk in full effect today i see...



I'm slightly embarrassed that I appear to be agreeing with editor on this - but so be it - can't be helped - I'm only stating my actual opinions.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2008)

Crispy said:


> PS: The last thing I'd want to do is jerk the editor off


I can't say the prospect excites me too much either.

*goes for cup of tea to remove the dreadful image now lodged in brain


----------



## ovaltina (May 14, 2008)

fap


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 14, 2008)

Over 1300 posts and no ones getting jerked off? 

I wonder why BoJo is so anti drinking in public and yet was against the smoking ban despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that second hand smoke damages people's health? Wonder if the up to £10,000 donation he received from the Tobacco industry had anything to do with it? 

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=143546&in_page_id=34


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2009)

The RMT union have declared themselves to be very unhappy about Boris's booze ban, declaring it unenforceable.





> A transport union has criticised the Tube alcohol ban a year after it came into force, saying its members have been abused trying to enforce it.
> 
> The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union says the ban is unenforceable.
> 
> ...


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jun 6, 2009)

The ban is such a stupid PR stunt. I completely oppose the tarnishing of anyone who wants to enjoy a drink on the tube as a wrongun, just because there's been the (supposed) occasional rowdy behaviour by a few who have been drunk in the past.

Of course there's no way to measure how much they have drunk before getting on the tubes, and there's no way to stop drunk people travelling anyway. Stupid, thoughtless, PR stunt with no financial support or training to back it up causing headache for staff who I suspect couldn't care less if people drink so long as they behave and don't fuck about.


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2009)

Well, exactly. If people behave, why should it matter what they're drinking? And if they do misbehave, there's already ample laws in place to penalise them without making up extra unenforceable and pointless legislation that makes no difference at all in the real world.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2009)

> Labour's transport lead on the London Assembly, Val Shawcross, said: "Boris says that the ban is his proudest achievement, but he has done nothing to make it work.
> 
> "There have been no arrests, no cautions, no alcohol confiscated and no records kept of how many people have refused to observe the ban."



Presumably this is because it isn't an arrestable offence, as stated earlier in the same article?

Anyway - I have continued to drink on the tube with the same frequency as I did before, and haven't been challenged once.

As for the RMT - why are their members bothering to try and enforce it? Are they now technically required to do something if they see someone drinking - or is it discretional?


----------



## editor (Jun 7, 2009)

Our Northern Line tube to Old Street was packed full of drinkers tonight and the only mild irritation came from a (non-drinking) oddball transsexual dressed in a bizarre Muslim costume who insisted in cavorting around the carriage floor.


----------



## Endeavour (Jun 7, 2009)

teuchter said:


> As for the RMT - why are their members bothering to try and enforce it? Are they now technically required to do something if they see someone drinking - or is it discretional?



Yeah it's odd isn't it. 

The RMT allowing their members to become pretend police with the sole power of _asking_ 'offenders' to leave the transport system.

The RMT's Steve Hadley said:





> "There's a lot of our members who have tried to enforce the booze ban, and they've been verbally abused by members of the public, and some of them have even been physically abused by members of the public."



Must have changed for the worse for them since the ban I would have thought for them, amen.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jun 7, 2009)

I've just ignored it whenever I have been over to be honest. Carried on as before
. I am more worried about this though

"Kulveer Ranger, said: "We feel it's been a good thing for Londoners, it has improved the environment on the Tube, there's aren't those empty cans and bottles of beer rolling around."


If that is a journo's typo then ok. If not, what the fuck are they doing working in PR


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Jun 7, 2009)

I would strongly suspect that is a typo by the journalist.


----------



## winjer (Aug 9, 2009)

> A PC lunges at Chris Leonard and grabs him by the neck as police try to clear a train station packed with party-goers.
> 
> Astonishingly it was Chris – who claims he was punched in the face up to four times and got two suspected cracked ribs when the officer threw him to the floor and knelt on him – who was charged with assault.
> 
> ...



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...by-police-and-thrown-in-jail-115875-21583044/


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 9, 2009)

i still drink on the tube, mainly going to/from footy matches, and to be honest, no-one ever gives me a second glance. no one really cares!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 9, 2009)

> A Met police spokesman said: “Now we’re aware of these allegations the Directorate of Professional Standards will look into them due to the seriousness of the allegations being made against our staff.”
> 
> A British Transport Police spokesman said: “We’ve been made aware of the issue and we’re looking into it as a matter of urgency.”


HELP my eyes have rolled right into the back of my head and won't come back!


----------



## paolo (Aug 9, 2009)

I still have the odd drink on the bus. Not had anyone look at me disapprovingly at all. One time, on a fairly busy bus, a 'well to do' lady sat next to me started rummaging in her bag, and pomptly decanted some wine from a bottle into a more anonymous flask


----------



## blossie33 (Aug 10, 2009)

I've seen a few people drinking on the buses since the ban.

I don't think all the seats are visible to the driver and as long as you are not making a nuisance of yourself or someone complained, it's very unlikely the driver would challenge you about it.


----------



## grit (Aug 10, 2009)

As a new arrival I'm really surprised that it was actually allowed in the first place. 

Personally I dont really care once they are not causing any trouble to any other passengers. I'd imagine thats a lot of peoples view on it?


----------



## Maggot (Aug 10, 2009)

grit said:


> As a new arrival I'm really surprised that it was actually allowed in the first place.


Not only was it allowed, there used to be bars on certain tube platforms.


----------



## paolo (Aug 10, 2009)

On Berlin's S-Bahn, there's places selling cold beers. On some station platforms there's even tables to perch up at, have a smoke etc. Very civilised over there.


----------



## grit (Aug 10, 2009)

Maggot said:


> Not only was it allowed, there used to be bars on certain tube platforms.



Poo as always I miss the best bits of the party  Thats pretty cool though


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 11, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I still have the odd drink on the bus. Not had anyone look at me disapprovingly at all. One time, on a fairly busy bus, a 'well to do' lady sat next to me started rummaging in her bag, and pomptly decanted some wine from a bottle into a more anonymous flask


----------



## Badgers (Aug 11, 2009)

On longer train journeys I find a few beers (ideally from the offy not the buffet car) is very pleasing. 
I suppose that the tubes/buses are a bit more confined but still think the whole things is a bit lame really.


----------



## Maggot (Aug 11, 2009)

grit said:


> Poo as always I miss the best bits of the party  Thats pretty cool though


That was a long while ago. I think the last one was the one at Sloane Square which closed in 1985. 

http://london-underground.blogspot.com/2005/08/pubs-on-london-underground.html


----------

