If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Yes, it's good for the policemen themselves as they need not be given the task of enforcing it. But people will still drink on the trains though.
There needs to be a more visable presence on the tube of security or PCO's or transport police, or all three. Just saying 'dont drink' isnt going to solve anything.
Well, as long as it saves money who could complain!
Not really
a) he doesn't have the power to do it on most rail services
b) the pattern of alcohol consumption is different
I'm not saying saving money justifies everything, but I'm saying you have to take it on balance. Will the net effect be a positive one? I think probably so. I think it's part of a bigger problem that he should be tackling that is binge drinking.
Disillusioned is spot on with his analysis: A blanket ban is a lazy, headline-grabbing and cheap way of pretending to address a problem which is complicated, nuanced and goes much deeper than a beer on the tube. I'm sick of having my liberties unnecessarily curtailed because of lazy and draconian law making which never addresses the real issue and is all about political posturing. What the fuck is wrong with me having a beer while reading my book on the way home on the tube on a Friday evening (or any other evening for that matter)?
Very little, but because of this ban you probably wont do it. However people so drunk they are likely to cause trouble arent going to give a rats arse about the ban.
Absolutely.
Once rail services leave Zone 6 there is bugger all Boris could do even if he wanted to do. The drinking pattern on most rail services is that of having a quiet drink (perhaps one or two) on a lengthy journey rather than binge drinking to become drunk.
however the pattern of my alcohol consumption isn't that of someone who is violent and drunk, maybe tipsy at most - so why should i be penalised when a rail passenger isn't?
being drunk and disorderly is a crime already... if that isn't enforced becuase of a lack of patrols, what will make an alcohol ban enforceable? will they sniff all water bottles for vodka mixers?
just doing it to 'give out a message' is a load of crap since a message would just to put more uniformed police on trains to get the drunk and violent people
ps - nice article on this here http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/steven_poole/2008/05/send_message_no.html
and again no one is mentioning night buses, where most of the problems lie really - yet their purpose is mainly to transport drunk people out of london after a night out
And to be frank I'd rather you were penalised by not being allowed a drink for thirty minutes, than my wife and many other women are penalised by having to put up with drunks on the train. Okay 99% of them may not do anything, but stuck with someone drunk and slurping a can of wife beater is not a fun experience for most women (and many men)
I'd much rather thought was put into legislation. There's plenty of stuff i'd rather not have to do, but i wouldn't for a second think that passing laws in my favour was a remotely sensible thing to do.
But this isnt going to reduce the number of drunk people on buses or the tube, even if people abide by the law they are still going to be drunk when they get on. The most this law can acheive is to stop people getting drunker.
Well yes, but unless you want drinking banned full stop, there's only so much you can do. and to be fair a drunk snoring in the corner or stuffing there face full of a big mac is much less intimidating than one chugging down a can of lager (to say nothing about the fact that I've yet to see a drunk pick up their can and take it home).
some of those laws I may agree with and some I wouldn't. In this case the action seems sensible. We don't have absolute freedom, which is lucky, because if we did we'd be vying with the Democratic Republic of Congo in our murder rate.
(and to be pendantic it's not new legislation - which can only be introduced by the UK Government, but using powers under already existing legislation)
I just dont have the faith that you seem to that A) people are going to obey this law and
The one thing which will work to reduce drunken disorderly people is enforcement, seeing uniformed people on buses and on the tube.
I've seen animals acting aggressively and being a nuisance on buses - blanket ban for animals?
I've seen food smeared, and drink spilt, all over seats on public transports - blanket ban on food and drink?
I've only ever seen men acting aggressively on public transport - blanket ban on men?
Fuck, i've even seen a fat person fall on a dude when a bus pulled away - blanket ban on fat people?
I don't think everyone will obey it - I'm not sure of anything that is. That's why we have the police.
and no it won't solve all the problems - but it will solve more than doing nothing.
I also can't see any reason why banning drinking stops police being on the tube. Though as that involves budgeting, recruiting and discussion with central Govt it takes more than a couple of days to announce.
I'd certainly ban all animals (except guide-dogs) and would be quite happy for food. I wouldn't ban men and fat people because the cost to society is greater than the gain.
I must admit not to be a fan of the reductio ad absurdum argument myself, as it suggests that the user is unaware of the value of pragmatism and dealing with issues on a case by case basis. I hope most people can see the difference banning drinking and banning all men.
I'm fully aware of the benefits of pragmatism, and that's precisely what I'm questioning. Banning alcohol will actually achieve very little positive, but will very effectively place restriction on regular, decent, law-abiding citizens' liberties. The only thing i find absurd about the argument is that your happy to restrict people's freedoms - completely ignoring the much more complex, nuanced issues - on the basis your missus may feel a bit uncomfortable sitting next to a dude with a can of beer.
Not just my wife. And if the problem was a few people sipping a can of lager I wouldn't support it. But then that's not the problem. It will almost certainly achieve positive things - now of course it won't lead to some crime free utopia, but then that's not the point.
There's plenty of evidence that dealing with minor anti-social behaviour has major knock-on effects it dealing with major crime and personal safety. If that means people have to wait thirty minutes for a drink, I'll live.
And of course whilst the freedom to drink on tubes is restricted, the freedom to travel without fear will be enhanced. Government actions aren't the only thing which takes our freedom away...
so what is the aim of the ban then? what will it fundamentally alter?
i don't regard someone being tipsy or having a can of lager as anti-social, in fact it's quite the opposite
:banghead: It'll stop people drinking on the tube which is threatening. It'll make the law easier to enforce and sends a clear message that you can't drink on the tube. But yes, it won't stop everything - just like the current law on murder hasn't stopped all murders.
where have I suggested anything similar - the law is that open containers are banned - it won't ban hipflasks
I'm sorry that people have such an alcohol problem they can't go thirty minutes without a drink and forgive me for being on the side of the vast majority of passengers.
You might find people drinking on the tube threatening - I don't. I feel threatened by people who are acting in a threatening manner.
You're being a bit of a naughty one there, and you know it.
I personally feel threatened by very few people. I'm just under six foot, played rugby and am sandhurst trained. But then I'm not a young woman travelling on her own or an old man. And people drinking are threatening. In a perfect world it'd only be draunks who had there drinks confiscated - that's an even bigger bugger to enforce, so a blanket ban is the way forward.
I hold my hands up to a bit of tugging on heart strings I admit...
And its enforcement which is the key issue, Tube staff will naturally be reluctant to tackle big groups of drunken people so the law may well do next to nothing about the actual trouble makers. Which makes this new initiative seem like just PR.
There is definitely a problem but this isnt the way to tackle it.
They can call the police if there's big groups or move in with several people if it's individuals...
So why not just tackle trouble makers? Having a law which is widely ignored (which I think this one will be) is bad for the social contract between the public and the police (see the drug laws as a shinning example of this).
I doubt it will be widely ignored (the same prediction was made for seatbelts as well). But we'll see in four years and if it and other changes haven't made a difference Boris will be out.
(To be honest if the social contract between the police and public is breaking down I don't think it's drug laws - it's more to do with peelers being made into office and social workers, rather than coppers)
We shall see I guess.
I can see what you mean, but the effect of a good third of young people fearing the Police because of personal drug use (which does little harm to themselves or others) cant be good for society.