Thursday, May 08, 2008

Boris Johnson: illiberal cunt

No, Bruce, he's really not a libertarian.

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”:
  1. people drinking

  2. people being drunk

  3. 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...

47 comments:

Jamie said...

Not that links between being drunk and becoming more violent have EVER been proven, especially among males. No, and the fact that a huge proportion of crime in this country is alcohol-related is nothing to do with this ban. Your posts are usually great Devil, but slamming Boris for trying to stamp out crime is shameful, especially when you consider what the action is. No drinking on public transport, oh the horror. What shall we all do?

And, as per your source, being drunk and loud isn't a crime. But being drunk and loud often leads to being drunk and swearing a lot, and/or drunk and not exactly behaving very well. Which leads to the Section 5 Public Order Act and Drunk and Disorderly. Which PigDogFucker has conveniently ignored.

Cheers for the excuse to rant. Still find the blog hugely interesting, keep going!

wilczek said...

No-one who isn't a sociopathic street-mutt/professional victim isn't bothered either way about having the right or not to neck tramp juice on public transport.

Anonymous said...

i'm with boris on this one DK. normally a great fan of your blog.

but who the hell wants to neck cans of stella on the miserable, stinky tube system, except for chav scumbags?

Devil's Kitchen said...

"Not that links between being drunk and becoming more violent have EVER been proven, especially among males. No, and the fact that a huge proportion of crime in this country is alcohol-related is nothing to do with this ban."

Oh dear fucking god... Right, because some young men get violent when they drink, drinking should be banned for everyone?

That's right, we should ban alcohol because some people might get violent. Nice.

In which case, why restrict it to public transport? Shut the pubs, ban alcohol completely, because -- hey! -- didn't that work well in the US?

"Your posts are usually great Devil, but slamming Boris for trying to stamp out crime is shameful, especially when you consider what the action is."

He is not trying to stamp out crime. He is trying to stamp out potential crime by restricting everyone's freedoms.

Can you understand the difference?

"No drinking on public transport, oh the horror. What shall we all do?"

I had a bottle of decent ale during the hour's Tube commute back home last Friday. I also read my Private Eye.

Was I bothering anyone? No.

Was I also enjoying a quiet beer at the end of a hard week because I wished to do so? Yes.

And it is none of your business what I do, or where, as long as I harm no one else.

"And, as per your source, being drunk and loud isn't a crime. But being drunk and loud often leads to being drunk and swearing a lot, and/or drunk and not exactly behaving very well. Which leads to the Section 5 Public Order Act and Drunk and Disorderly."

Precisely, you arse. We already have a law under which those causing a nuisance can be prosecuted (we have a great number of them, actually); the problem is not that there aren't enough laws, but that the existing laws are not policed properly.

DK

Blue Eyes said...

This isn't banning alcohol, it is banning the consumption of alcohol on public transport. It is essentially a condition of carriage which as a private operator TFL is entitled to change from time to time. Or don't you agree with contracts between consenting adults now DK?

How is this different from TFL politely asking for a fare, or requesting that passengers don't put their feet on the seats?

How is this different from me asking my guests not to smoke at my flat?

As mentioned above, this doesn't affect polite sensible people because they don't swig warms cans of Stella.

Anonymous said...

So I should have to put up with people being drunk and very loud in my street when I'm trying to sleep at 2/3/4 in the morning and have work the next day? Don't think so.

Devil's Kitchen said...

No, Anon, because, once again, there are laws covering such behaviour.

Fucking hell, why is this so difficult for you lot to understand?

"This isn't banning alcohol, it is banning the consumption of alcohol on public transport. It is essentially a condition of carriage which as a private operator TFL is entitled to change from time to time. Or don't you agree with contracts between consenting adults now DK?"

Ah, so TFL banned this? Er... no, no they didn't. An elected politician banned it. And the same politician is going to make it a criminal offence, not a civil offence.

"As mentioned above, this doesn't affect polite sensible people because they don't swig warms cans of Stella."

No, polite, sensible people drink from a cool bottle of Bombardier's Burning Gold during the hour-long Tube journey home on a Friday night. Unfortunately, those polite, sensible people will no longer be able to do this because Boris thinks that people get pissed on the Tube.

Fucking hell, what is the problem that you are all having with this concept?

Let me spell it out yet again: punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty is not how a free and liberal society operates, OK? I can't make it any fucking clearer!

DK

Blue Eyes said...

Of course he's not going to make it a criminal offence, he is the Mayor not the Prime Minister. Do you think Parliament will rush an Act through by 1st June? No, he is going to change the conditions of carriage. The previous Mayor changed the conditions every year. Did you get upset then?

The Tube is not a public space it is a private premises. You do not have to use it, you could take alternative means or walk. Nobody is banning public drinking (although there are places where councils have got court orders to ba public drinking), there is nothing to stop you supping your ale walking home from the office.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Yes, I get all of that. However, I shall repeat this, yet again: punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty is not how a free and liberal society operates.

I really can't make it any fucking clearer!

DK

Devil's Kitchen said...

P.S. If the Tube is a private space, then a politician should not be able to interfere. That was the whole point about the banning of smoking in pubs too.

Either it is a public area, in which case politicians can intervene, or it is private, in which case the politicians should have no mandate.

Which is it?

DK

Anonymous said...

Not a great start from Boris.

How exactly will this be policed? Guards on every carriage? Everyone frisked before entering a tube station? It won't work.

Besides, the people who are drunk and swilling a warm beer on the tube at 11.30pm are already drunk - from the pub/bar/club/park whatever. If they are going to be scary or abusive or violent in the carriage they will be - whether they are drinking on the train or not.

What shall we do, ban drinking altogether in case some drunken person does something that scares us? It's insane.

Old Holborn - bitter and twisted said...

People who travel on public transport get all they deserve IMHO. Mugged, stabbed, headlice, the lot. And now they can't drink either.

I can see a backlash on the 17:20 from Waterloo to Cheam when Tarquin Ponsonby-Smythe can't get his G&T from the soda wallah in first class though.

Firstly, as long as you can buy alcohol, numbnuts will get pissed and get on the tube. They may not be carrying a can of Special Brew anymore, but their bladders will still be full of the stuff.

I'm the Devil on this one. Boris couldn't give a shit because he does all his drinking at the Eton Bastards Club on the Mall, not the 24a night bus to Harlesdon. We don't need more laws, we need the freedom to be law abiding citizens. You don't get that by banning everything

Blue Eyes said...

The Mayor controls the tube, for better or worse.

I agree that in principle politicians shouldn't go around banning things because some people can't handle them. But this isn't a public drinking ban. I agree that politicians shouldn't have banned smoking in pubs because they are not public spaces and therefore it should be up to the publican to set the terms of entry.

But the tube is owned by the state and the conditions of carriage are controlled by the mayor. If the chairman of South West Trains introducted the same policy would you be blaming politicians?

You are making an argument based on Libertarian Principles when in fact this is a case of the controller of TFL deciding that he wants to change the conditions in the hope of providing a better experience for most of his customers. The face that the controller of TFL happens to be the elected Mayor of London is a separate issue.

Blue Eyes said...

Old Holborn - last time I check the Mayor doesn't control the 17:20 from Waterloo to Cheam - a private company does. And that private company will still be free to set its own policy.

Sorry folks, you are getting confused: Boris is NOT changing the law.

Anonymous said...

Whilst I'm generally against the banning of things I don't have a huge problem with this. Can't you fucking wait until you get home to drink, or at least till you're off the train??

DK said "But I fear that it is: we will merely swap one load of corrupt, incompetent, soft-Left, bansturbating cunts for another."

Undoubtedly true, but the Tories will definitely be less incompetent and less corrupt. They will tax us less (in the long run). They are the least bad option, like Democracy is the least bad form of government...

Much as I love the idea of your libertarian party, I really do, you must accept than in 2009/2010 whenever the one eyed cunt has the balls to call an election - your party will not win one seat, I'm sorry but it's true - and any votes cast for them will be votes taken away from the Tories, which will make another Labour victory more likely. Is that what you really want? Do you want to be the next UKIP???

I'm afraid in the real world you have to be pragmatic, if you don't then you're no better than the socialist scum you are trying to remove...

Zorro.

James said...

After having bothered to vote for the first time in years as there actually seemed to be a reason for doing so (admittedly telling Labout to take a leap, not because I ever thought Boris was a stellar candidate, just that he might leave us all alone) his first action is to stop me having a beer on the train to unwind at the end of a weeks work.

Why the fuck did I bother?

Is there nobody who once elected could just fuck off fishing or something for his term and leave adults to behave like adults?

And all you morons telling me its a good idea, wait until something harmless that you like is banned for a reason you KNOW will make naff all difference, then go and scream into the bloody void, because there will be nobody who cares left.

James said...

Can't you fucking wait until you get home to drink, or at least till you're off the train??

Who the hell do you think you are to tell me I shouldn't do something that doesn't impact on you in the slightest?

The answer to your question is 'Yes, but why the fuck should I?'

Just because you don't see the point, doesn't make it wrong.

Blue Eyes said...

The point is that you are having a beer within the premises of Transport for London and the head of Transport for London has said that he would prefer that you didn't drink alcohol in his premises. The same goes for the people who operate my office. If I want to drink I have to leave my office. Similarly I ask people not to smoke in my flat. Please tell me the difference?

Anonymous said...

Bad move Devil

8 years since I last traveled on the underground but I DID find it threatening that some "ASBO" candidates WERE happily drinking from cans and bottles and using threatening language to STOP anyone but
I expected it any minute!!!!
They DIDN'T attack as it happens.

Now I, at THAT time of night, WAS a bit inebriated myself but I WAS NOT drinking, and would not DREAM of threatening anyone.
I think that neither would you.
Maybe YOU like to drink at ALL times and wherever but it really is NOT a problem to desist for a few underground stops!!!
Is it? MAYBE you have a serious problem!!!

Perhaps you have been VERY lucky and never threatened. Would you change your mind if you WERE threatened or even assaulted? I suspect so!!!!

There is sense and there is sense!!!
Think on Devil. We will NOT be sympathetic if you suffer!

xoggoth said...

If this rule was applied with discretion and only used to confiscate alcohol from those actually causing problems it might be reasonable.

Unfortunately our police, teachers, NHS workers and so on are never allowed to use their own common sense on anything. Policicians who can never do their own jobs properly are obsessed with dictating in minute detail how trained professionals should do theirs.

Mark Wadsworth said...

DK, spot on. Boris should be killed ASAP. Even Bob Crow reckoned this was unenforceable, even assuming it were a good idea, which it's not, it's a shit idea.

It's so tiresome when people associate 'drinking' (in itself inoffensive) with 'being a violent twat' (as you point out, there are laws against this anyway).

Ah well, I shall make the most of the next few weeks.

Bastards, kill them all.

JuliaM said...

In general, I'm not in favour of blanket bans - I'd prefer swift and terrible punishment for those who break the law by being drunk and disorderly while ignoring those quietly sipping ale and harming no-one.

But.....firstly, this was an election proposal, so the whinging lefties like Band who are wetting their knickers over this would be gleefully pointing out that Boris was a 'typical politician' breaking his promises if he decided against it, so they can safely be ignored as hypocritical little arses.

Secondly, as Blue Eyes points out, the terms of carriage are his to change as he sees fit. It's not a public place, and if people can't handle a Tube journey without a beer, then frankly, we are better off not having them. How about a bit of self control for once?

Thirdly, we have people in positions of authority who just can't use their bloody common sense! If they were given any kind of leeway, they'd be arresting little old ladies sipping a can of premixed Pimms while stepping over the booze-ridden bodies of the louts in the next seat, because challenging them might lead to some aggro, and they are lazy and cowardly. Until we've weeded out these people, then sadly, blanket bans can be the only way forward.

James said...

Think on Devil. We will NOT be sympathetic if you suffer!

Pillock.

The threatening behavior of these people was already illegal.

One of 2 things will happen with these types of people after this ban:

1) They get hammered, then get on public transport and behave exectly the same way.
2) They drink on public transport regardless. If its impossible to stop them threatening people, why do you think it would be possible to stop them drinking?

So once again, the only people who it will hit are those who fancy the odd beer on the way back from work, or people who fancy some beers before hitting a club and don't want to pay £5 a time.

James said...

Think on Devil. We will NOT be sympathetic if you suffer!

Pillock.

The threatening behavior of these people was already illegal.

One of 2 things will happen with these types of people after this ban:

1) They get hammered, then get on public transport and behave exectly the same way.
2) They drink on public transport regardless. If its impossible to stop them threatening people, why do you think it would be possible to stop them drinking?

So once again, the only people who it will hit are those who fancy the odd beer on the way back from work, or people who fancy some beers before hitting a club and don't want to pay £5 a time.

JuliaM said...

"..Even Bob Crow reckoned this was unenforceable.."

There's another good reason to bring it in!

What Bob Crow actually meant was:"Waaah! It's my train set! I don't want to do as I'm told! Waaah!"

Anonymous said...

Leaving aside the broader issue of bansturbation, the one functional problem is that while this law bans drinking on public transport, it does not actually ban being drunk on public transport.

That being so, I'm not sure it can achieve what Boris wants it to achieve, regardless of the ethical rights and wrongs of the ban.

Beyond that, if the filth won't enforce existing laws on drunk and disorderly behaviour, is it remotely realistic to think that they will enforce this new law?

In NYC, Giuliania's strategy (which Boris is trying to rip off) of stopping big crime by concentrating on little crime revolved, by and large, around getting lazy policemen to enforce the laws as they stood instead of turning a blind eye. Until Boris does the same, no amount of bans or new legislation will achieve anything.

xoggoth said...

Speaking personally, I am a miserable bad tempered right wing sort when sober but always get horribly liberal when drunk and would probably agree with everything Polly Toynbee says.

People should certainly be confiscating my drink before I get to that point.

Dr John Crippen said...

It's an important question; invasion of civil liberty, the right to a drink where ever and whenever you want, the right to have a train that does not stink of stale beer etc etc.

My son was on a train the other day and was threatened (thankfully only verbally) by some of the aforementioned louts with their tinnies. So I would be glad to see booze free trains.

Does the end justify the means on this occasion? Dunno.

But DK tell me this; if there were to be a referendum down in London on booze in trains, and 80% voted in favour, would you accept it then?


John

Anonymous said...

seems to me as if he's applying "broken windows" theory.

i.e. lose freedoms in small, non-essential areas and you'll end up with greater freedom overall, because of the decline of crime.

ok. it might not work in London, but at least he's giving it a shot.

Roger Thornhill said...

They have the ban they need to enforce it by having woodentops patrolling.

Now, had they just introduced the wooodentops to do the patrolling and not introduced the law, the few drunken louts about would soon find that they risk getting dragged of the train by the short and curlies and nicked, so the need to ban it for everyone would be rather moot.

If it is not possible to catch the louts, why is it possible then to catch the drinkers?

Don't tell me...CCTV in trains linked to face recognition and the Oyster card database. Sorry, forgot, we are chipped like dogs.

D-Notice said...

Boris has obviously never used the Tube for relatively long journeys, if he wants to ban drinking on it...

Booze is the best way to kill a long, slow, mind-numbing journey.

James said...

I think you have missed a trick here DK.

If Boris had preached about "tough on crime... catching existing louts not penalising innocent people" it might have been idealistically better but none of it would have made meeja headlines.

It was his responsibility to dream up a manifesto which would make consistent and memorable headlines. Whether the policies are a good thing or not is irrelevant.

He may be going to quietly drop it after a year or so; who knows what his plans are? But he has a better record on civil liberty than Red Ken; and there was no other choice in the election.

Leg-iron said...

The point here is not the drink, I think, although I see a considerable difference between a gang of yobs with a case of Red Stripe and a lone guy with a newspaper and a single beer. One would worry me, the other wouldn't.

No, the issue is the further erosion of choice and the efficacy of politicians in general.

I don't drink on public transport because I don't want to be busting for a pee when I get off and have to hobble home with legs crossed. All the same, I don't want to be told I can never, ever have so much as a sip of shandy throughout the journey, on pain of being hauled before the beak. The choice is there, I choose not to use it but I like the fact that it's there. Sorry, was there.

Blueeyes, you make the point that the tube is privately owned and you say it's the same as your office or your home in that respect. I disagree.

Your home is your property. It's not open to the public. You don't sell tickets to let anyone who fancies a look wander in. If you don't want anyone smoking in there, you have a right to say so (and had that right before the blanket smoking ban) and you're perfectly entitled to eject anyone doing anything you don't like.

Your office is the property of your company. It's not open to the public. No boss will put up with employees drinking at work, it is (and has been for a long time) a sacking offence. Interestingly, your boss has no choice as to whether to allow smoking or not. He's not allowed to allow it.

Public transport is open to the public, on payment of a fee. Yes, they can set whatever rules they like but they risk infuriating customers. It's not good business sense to annoy customers to the point where they seek alternatives.

Yes, they can and should eject troublemakers, and they can and should refuse to transport anyone who's abusive or threatening. Should they also harrass the passenger sitting quietly in the corner, sipping one beer on an hour-long journey? Is that good for business? How about letting twenty chavs board the train with a case of Special Brew each? That must be good for business because they do allow that.

There's no tube here but there are buses, taxis and a slightly random train service. The biggest use of these in the evenings is by people who want to go out for a few beers and have enough sense not to take their car. Something to be encouraged, I'd have thought.

Now, if people wanted to have a beer on the way, I'd have no objection. If they became rip-roaring drunk and started causing a hullabaloo, I'd be most miffed.

However, don't we already have laws against causing a hullabaloo? The guy sitting with his paper and one beer doesn't need to be slapped as well, does he?

The thing is, those ruckus-causing ruffians will continue to be ruckus-causing ruffians. They were breaking the law before, they won't balk at breaking this new rule too. Nobody tackled them about the laws they'd already broken. Nobody will tackle them now.

No, the guy with his newspaper and one beer is a much easier target. He's the one who's going to get nicked.

It's law without thought, stopping everyone from doing something just because a few thugs abuse the privilege. There are already laws in place against abusive behaviour, some verging on the draconian. This new 'ban everyone' approach just criminalises people who weren't doing any harm.

Look at penknives. I carried one for years. Now I can't. Possession of a knife could get me arrested. Yet I never thought to so much as trim someone's beard with it.

Yobs stab people, they carried knives, knife-carrying was made illegal, I stopped carrying mine. The yobs took no notice.

Stabbing people was already illegal. Why not enforce that instead of slapping down the law-abiding with a new, indiscriminate law?

Overall, the whole sense I get from politicians is "We have no idea how to enforce the law, so we'll bring in a few more to make it look like we're doing something. Then we can pick off a few easy targets to boost the arrest figures".

That guy with his paper and one beer is going to get arrested. For the Red Stripe drinkers it'll be business as usual. The tube won't be safer. It'll just be more controlled.

Mac the Knife said...

When Tarty comes over to my place, she was wont to neck a few pre-mixed G&Ts just to bring her up to speed, this will no longer be possible. It means that now she'll be soaking up my booze before she drops her knickers! I've a bloody good mind to send BJ (how apt) the bill!

'No, polite, sensible people drink from a cool bottle of Bombardier's Burning Gold'

The choice of gentlemen, I think I'll nip to the fridge and get one... :)

Hookers & Gin said...

Even Bob Crow reckoned this was unenforceable

Well, you can't stop someone from drinking on a train that isn't running because the drivers are on strike demanding a %300 payrise.

V said...

Well, I agree with DK - Boris has already shown his true colours!

a few well enforced laws work much better than this mad concept of law layers that politicians seem to like so much.

Most things that people don't like is already illegal. Rather than enforce these laws properly, Boris has gone down the route of making something more illegal than it was before - and the loser is the quite, respectable type who had the thought of voting for this idiot in the first place!!

I think we need to ban politicians - they cause nothing but trouble!

Jamie said...

The quiet, respectable type is not the loser in this case, because the quiet, respctable type that voted for Boris is not the mad loon trying to stab you because his can of Special Brew gave him some guts.

DK & various: You talk about enforcement of laws. Would you not agree that scrapping FPN's for things like D&D, S5 POA would have greater effect than this public transport ban. At the moment, people don't fear the law, because there are no consequences to breaking many of them. The Police do a reasonable job of enforcing such laws, but the final outcome is so weak because the CPS, PF (in Scotland) and the courts system in general is so weak. If this were not the case then this ban would be completely unnecessary, since there might just be some respect for the law.

John Pickworth said...

While I share The Devils instincts on most things, I'm with Boris on this one.

Certainly there are those who can enjoy alcohol on the various modes of transport who don't offend their fellow passengers. But sadly too many do make a nuisence of themselves and it IS a frightening experience for other travellers.

I agree that the existing laws should be used against these individuals but it seldom is. Leaving aside that you (or those entrusted to enforce the law) cannot so anything until you've actually been abused/assaulted, many people simply don't report the nuisence.

I've personally left the bus/train at the next stop and eventually stopped using a particular route altogether rather than place myself 'in harms way'. So the hooligan wins and the decent are left to walk home.

In this case, I think its a fair and measured loss of a minor freedom so that the authorities can clearly label all their transport 'No Alcohol'. The result is that anyone predisposed to get hammered on the Tube is left in no doubt where the line is drawn (excuse the pun).

In a perfect world I'd be quite happy for The Devil to enjoy his journey while quaffing his favourite medicine but I ask him to stand down on this one for the common good. He can/could enjoy a pleasent 30 minutes in a bar before catching the tube/bus or wait till he arrived home. Yes its a personal inconvenience but only that... its time that others got some peace and quiet for a change.

I will though be watching this experiement. I hope if conditions improve then the Mayor will revisit this policy and perhaps re-allow alcohol onboard at some future point.

John A said...

No problem, just wait until dark -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=564858&in_page_id=1770

"Chief Supt Ellis told a meeting of concerned residents that it was not safe to disperse revellers in remote locations when it was dark - insisting safety regulations meant officers had to wait until sunrise to break up the bashes."
-----------
There you are. Can't leave the station in the oh-so-scary dark because some other government department says so.

JuliaM said...

"...insisting safety regulations meant officers had to wait until sunrise to break up the bashes."

Oh.....FFS!

Local election of police chiefs is looking more and more like the only answer to idiots like this...

number 6 said...

Plod (or more likely plastic plod) complete with hi-vis vest and look at me I'm a polilceman dress up outfit, won't do fuck all to the pissed up hoolies on the tube.

The disadvanted yoof are only acting in a fashion forced upon them by society not providing a chauffer driven fucking Cadillac to take them from dole office to the nearest offy.Hence, their justified and fully understandable anger with the societal injustice of being forced to take the train.

The mug sipping a chilled can of G&T - my favourite way to numb the senses to shitty tube travel, will undoubtedly get nicked.

Anonymous said...

Boris should apply Sharia Law on the tubes.
At least when he gets on it he's going to get stoned.

monoi said...

How hard is it to understand ?

There ARE laws against being a nuisance to others.

They ARE NOT enforced obviously since we have all these scared people (I do question how many have actually been scared by the way, not say they are scared because the mail says they should be).

Why would you think (big word) that this ban will be enforced ? I would say that if they can enforce the ban, then why the fuck can't they enforce the existing laws already ?

Furthermore, are you actually saying that the people who are a nuisance get on the tube sober, and use it as a mobile bar bringing their booze with them ?

It is a stupid idea and a disappointment from Boris, but he had announced that a few months ago to be fair and you could have written to him to say what you thought. I did.

By the way, I have had some funny tube rides when people were drunk.

It will not affect me personally, like the smoking ban doesn't either, but the general principle is wrong.

tomfinnie said...

This is all the justification I need for getting a good silver hip flask, and filling it with single malt.

OFMN said...

I agree on the 'how fucking difficult is this to understand?' front. DK is in no way promoting turning tube carriages into single outlets of Bargain Booze.

Simply put:

There are laws to stop people being drunk and disorderly.

Boris is making new laws which will aim to stop... people being drunk and disorderly. Or, in fact, the much more preferable 'tispy and cheerful'.

Enforcing the former might be a better idea. Because if you can't enforce that one, then I'm not sure how the latter will be ran. Police on each train? Sounds realistic.

the a&e charge nurse said...

Devil - you say;
'the PROBLEM is that the laws against threatening behaviour are not being upheld - that is a failure of policing'.

No, it's not, the problem is the everday casual violence fuelled by alcohol.

The perp (and nobody else)is responsible if he (and it is almost always a he) turns on some sod because he happens to look at somebody the wrong way.

What sort of level of police presence would be required to stamp out every intimidating gesture that occurs on the tube ?

Look at the mayhem that occurs on the streets every night - we are going to need an awful lot of coppers if you want the tubes to be properly policed as well.

Marc said...

great, now london it's very own Guilliani.

it already has become as boring as new york. now there is one less reason to visit.

viva berlin!