So, our tousle-haired new Mayor has decided that, from the first of June, drinking alcohol will be banned on public transport. As a result, I would like to be the first to call Boris Johnson a despicable fucking cunt.
Mr Johnson said: "I'm determined to improve the safety and security of public transport in London and create a better environment for the millions of Londoners who rely on it. I firmly believe that if we drive out so called minor crime then we will be able to get a firm grip on more serious crime. That's why from June 1 the drinking of alcohol will be banned from the Tube, tram, bus, and Docklands Light Railway.
You stupid little tit, you don't stamp out smaller crimes by introducing more misdemeanors to the statute books! Why don't you try policing the laws that we already have—you know, the ones that criminalise being drunk and disorderly, or harrassment, or threatening behaviour?
Oh and, as PigDogFucker observes, being drunk is not threatening behaviour.
If you find any of the following “intimidating”, “threatening”, or whatever pathetic term-of-the-day gets used to mean “oooh, I don’t like it, help me mummy”:
- people drinking
- people being drunk
- people being drunk and loud
...then you are a worthless cunt who doesn’t deserve to live.
Yes, if people start actually threatening you (which means “saying they’re going to do bad things to you”, not “being loud and common within your earshot”), that’s a bad thing and they should be arrested. But as long as they don’t, then either shut the fuck up or (preferably) kill yourself and everyone who shares your DNA.
As Timmy points out, coupled with the utterly unjustified reclassifying of cannabis, this seems to indicate a distinct trend.
In both cases we have millions of people being told what they may not do, both profoundly illiberal moves, on the spurious grounds of their possible effects on others. We already have rules agains being drunk and disorderly, we already have rules against bothering other passengers, we already have rules against any of the effects of either drugs or alcohol on other people.
But let’s ban them just to be sure, eh?
A good many commenters are saying that Boris will be a taste, the vanguard, of how the Tories might govern this country. For all our sakes, I hope that that is not the case.
But I fear that it is: we will merely swap one load of corrupt, incompetent, soft-Left, bansturbating cunts for another.
Politicians: hang them all.
UPDATE: some people really don't seem to be getting the point of this, so let's try this explanation from Banditry, shall we?
If we ban harmless things, then harmful things will magically disappear
It ought to be pretty obvious that banning drinking in a place is completely different from banning drunken louts from a place.
If you ban drinking in a place, it prevents people who aren’t louts but fancy a beer from having one, while doing absolutely nothing to prevent louts who are drunk from causing a nuisance (even if the drinking legislation were actually enforced against groups of rowdy chavs, which it won’t be).
If you actually want to stop drunken loutery, then you need to ensure that drunken louts are arrested, under the existing laws that provide a perfectly good arsenal of charges and punishments against rowdies, harrassers, disorderly conductors and affrayists. You don’t impose a new measure to punish the law-abiding.
It really cannot be made plainer than that, seriously. Oh, and just to finish up...
Side note: the ban appears to advertised as “making everyone’s journey more pleasant”. Since it will very clearly make journeys less pleasant for those who enjoy drinking while on a journey, this is clearly false advertising, and I’d urge everyone who sees such a poster to report it to the ASA.
Nice job, Boris, you fucking chump. Oh, and anyone who argues for this ban is still a worthless cunt. The next thing to go might be something that you enjoy perfectly harmlessly...