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
It's absolutely a hammer. It is the equivalent of banning drinking because fights break out on a Saturday night. It's a lazy attempt at solving a nuanced and complex problem.
I saw one once. He was frothing at the mouth and fled back into the sewer when confronted.
The trouble with nunanced and complex problems is that solutions are normally out of the control of Government. it would need an entire cultural change to Britain's society and it's attitude to alcohol and violence - a problem which has been noted since at least Elizabeth I's time.
the best Government can do is reduce the symptons. It's meaning that people can't have a drink for about thirty minutes - which hardly seems sledgehammer like to me.
The trouble with subtle and complex problems is they require more than a lazy, headline-grabbing blanket ban in order to address them. Still, in this specific case you needn't go as far as changing the attitude of every disruptive drunk in the UK. If there is a real issue of people being harassed by aggressive people, drunk or otherwise, on the tube - and i'm utterly convinced the problem is being largely exaggerated - then why not have a police presence on the tube? Why not reiterate and tighten the policy of not letting people who are acting in an antisocial manner onto the tube in the first place? Why not ask pubs in the areas local to tube stops to be more vigilant about not serving people who look drunk?
You keep stating this 30 minutes as though everyone lives in Zone 1, most people I know commute for at least 40 minutes, and if they are going out for the evening may well go across town. Granted an hour without drinking isnt going to kill anyone but to keep saying 30 minutes is to misrepresent how spread out London is.
Anyway, what the problem needs is enforcement, something this new idea doesnt seem to have.
Several of which are likely to happen - but the policing for example, needs working through a lot more (ie what do the peelers drop, or if you recruit more where are you getting the money from).
There is also continual pressure on pubs to stop serving people who are drunk (and on off-licenses to do the same), including taking away their licence. It hasn't worked so far
You also make it sound like Boris is introducing one policy and then isn't going to do anything more for the next four years, instead of seeing this as one measure in a raft of policies which will be introduced over the next four years.
The same place, presumably, you're planning on getting the money to finance the enforcement of the the blanket ban. If it really is the problem that it's being made out to be then perhaps the council could use some of the extra 4% on my council tax that's going to the police this year.
Firstly, i'd be interested to see the figures for areas where the pressure was increased on pubs not to serve drunk people, but even if it didn't appear like it was having an immediate affect on drunken antisocial behaviour, then we could look at why it wasn't working rather than reaching for the blanket cupboard. Again.
I'll judge Boris as and when he brings out more policy. If he brought out ten stunningly-brilliant measures for tackling antisocial behaviour i'd congratulate him for those while still thinking he was a plank for this one. I'm utterly confident with four years (or however long he gets between now and the next mayoral election) that we're going to be in for some typical Boris-flavoured doozies.
what cost? A few posters is hardly a major cost. In 99% of cases in can be enforced by station staff already there, and in a few cases the police will be needed.
It wasn't working because pubs livelihood relies on them selling alcohol. the problem isn't that people are taking pint glasses onto the tube, but they're often buy bottles and tins when sober and drinking them later when drunk. Though again I can't see why a ban on drinking actually stops us doing this as well
So am I, but I also believe that whilst scousers will moan after he's rude about them, the quality of Londoners lives will improve.
A few posters isn't enforcement. If you want the law in place then you have to be prepared to enforce it. Station staff are at the station not on the tube - though you could argue they shouldn't be expected to confront threatening passengers anyway.
The quality of lives of people who through an irrational incapability of being able to discern between me reading my book and sipping a beer, and some chap being threatening and/or obnoxious, will be improved. The quality of lives of every other law-abiding member of the public who enjoyed a beer while reading the paper on the way home from work will be reduced.
I suspect we're just not going to agree on this. I don't like having my liberties - and the liberties of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens - curtailed by introducing blanket bans which criminalise people who were previously doing no harm at all. It smacks of laziness IMHO.
I will remember to send them over to you to sit next to next time, or maybe someone in your family who is vulnerable.
Public transport is an inapproriate place to start drinking alcohol, i don't think a mother with her child would appreciate someone with the hand eye co ordination of a foaming mouthed sewer rat drueling all over the show and talking to random people.
Me personally, i don't want to see people drinking on a bus for obvious reasons.
Seems like the same old story, as soon as people are told "you can't do this anymore" they fight against it by the off chance they might be in that situation one day whilst forgetting common sense and the fact that it's disprespectful and plain pathetic to drink on a bus, a bus is not a pub, there are places to go if you want to drink. The amount of times i've been on a bus and the person causing trouble has been drinking is stupid. Forget saying "people can't drink on a bus anymore", who are the people saying "we should be alowwed to get pissed on a bus". Would love to see those protest signs LOL
Sorry I missed this - I use 30 mins as it's about the average people spend on tubes. Some spend more and some spend less.
Again with enforcement - the chances are 99% can be dealt with by staff at the barriers or on the platforms. Most people won't kick up a fuss, the police can be called if they do (and to be honest if I was the Chief Constable of the BTP I'd be looking to have a few more officers around at the start of June - even if not sustainable in the long term).
I'm just unconvinced that there is any more issue in enforcing this than the enforcement of any other law.
They're on the platforms, They won't catch everyone, but then tell me one law which has 100% success rate
I've been travelling on the tube for about twelve years and I think the number of times I've seen a commuter crack open a beer and read a paper could be counted on the fingers of a man who's lost both his arms.
Now it is possible to deal with people after they've become threatening/violent, but I'd rather it was dealt with before hand. I can't see this as a loss of freedom or a civil rights issue - perhaps because I believe our freedom is just as much at risk from non_Government actors, as from the state.
Fair enough. Though some of your points have made me think (even if I disagree with them) and hopefully some of mine will have done the same.
Absolutely. You've certainly tempered my initial reaction to the subject. I think we probably have fundamental differences of opinions on how matters should be handled and this thread has been symptomatic of that.
Most people will take it, just those who wont will kick off big style.
Hopefully Boris will give the BTP the funds to get extra staff on - they are chronically underfunded.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7429638.stm
It's amusing that some are trying to blame Boris Johnson for these assaults. But I think it gets summed up quite nicely:
From those who I've spoken to who attended as journalists etc said it was mainly lighthearted ut it did go crazy towards the end.
I'm sure it did, but do you see the irony of a party in part to prove that people can behave sensibly under the influence of alcohol resulting in several assaults and 17 arrests?
Looking at Liverpool Street the concourse was packed as in rushhour, it could be compared to every rush hour commuter being pissed.
Yeah... Early on it was awesome. We were in a train which had people playing music.... However, you got loads of lads on who got rowdy later.
there were thousands on the underground, fights were inevitible. Just as they are inevitible out on the street.
I think banning alcohol on the tubes is stupid. Most offies are closed later on when people are really wankered... Most people who drink on the tube are just having a beer before a club or rave on their way in. It is also a waste of time and just looks like an opportunity for Boris-mop top to look like he has some serious policies to tackle crime. How about looking deeper than a few students having a beer on a train eh?
The only increase in injuries the underground will see, is when a lone train attendant asks a bunch of testosterone fueled footy fans to stop drinking.
Now there's an idea! How many injuries occur because of football?
In fact, given the number of people who were involved, I dare say it was proportionally safer last Saturday than any other in the year.
Every weekend the Tube is carries lots of pissed idiots. This law is going to change fuck all, other than taking away yet another liberty for the misbehaviour of a few.
You've probably got a point about people going on drunk, that's unavoidable, as is some sober violence. But how you're ignoring the link between alcohol and 'disruption' whether it be violence or anti social behaviour or even just people being sick. If people are drinking on the tube, this is going to be increased. It's not a random trend, it's pure cause and effect.
If people are drinking, they are more likely to get up to no good. Again, this is not unprecedented, it is merely bringing it into line with taxis and buses across the nation, it's only because the tube is nationalised that it takes 10x longer to respond to common sense things because the policy change has to go through bureaucracy.
Do you ever complain to taxi drivers when they say you can't drink in their cab? The only reason people complain about this is because the tube is run by a public organisation, but that doesn't mean you should be entitled to do what you like because you're part of the public. You still have to pay to get on, etc.
Many things could be linked to anti-social behaviour. Should we ban all personal stereos and MP3 players because some people play them louder than they should and bother others? So long as the person next to me is not misbehaving I'd much rather they were drinking than listening to their bloody iPod. Let's not even mention food, chewing gum, free newspapers...
Come now, you know that a person is more likely to be rowdy as a result of drinking alcohol than from listening to their mp3 player. Mp3 players don't make people drunk.
I understand your objection but I think in your haste to defend alcohol you're ignoring the fact that alcohol is responsible for over half of hospital admissions. It is a dangerous substance by the measure of the harm it does. I'm not saying we criminalise it at all, but I don't think it's anyone's 'right' to drink when and where they like, because it has behaviour modifying chemicals that are proven to make people more likely to be violent and a threat to themselves and others and just a general nuisance.
That's why banning it in very public places that should be preserved as safe for the public is very sensible. If you want to get drunk you are in your rights to do so, but you either must do it in your own home, in a licensed premises or in some other place where it is unlikely you will cause disruption to others.
The fact that people were upset and went to drink to protest, but then as a result of this there was violence is a simple case of 'told you so'. And whilst I'm sure in taxis and buses they are likely to tell you not to drink because they're concerned, I have no doubt it's also because they don't want people becoming violent or uncooperative or any of that.
And at that stage they wont give a toss about the ban anyway so will probably carry on drinking anyway.
I think the problems last weekend proved Boris right but I don't think the ban will change much at all. Alcohol causes antisocial people to behave even worse. The key problem is dealing with the antisocial people, which is going to take more than headline-grabbing platitudes.
I'm in favour of the ban and I don't consider it a loss of civil liberties at all. It's not even new - for as long as I can remember express trains from London after Leeds United away matches have had to be "dry" because they can't be trusted to behave. Tube users can't be expected to behave either, as Aladdin points out.