Comments on: If we ban harmless things, then harmful things will magically disappear

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:26:28 +0000

Marvin, the point that you’re missing out on is that it’s restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens, who can drink their last drink on the tube home without causing a disturbance, in an attempt to crack down on the ones who do not obey the law, the ones who do cause disturbances.

Attempting to crack down on criminals by restricting the rights of everybody else rarely works and is never popular, and it feels more like this was enacted based on a personal preference of the mayor, rather than as an act that was designed to benefit the people that he supposedly represents.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like I generally sit on the tube carrying a bottle of booze, but I can at least recognise when a campaign is overstepping the line.

By: John B

John B — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:39:33 +0000

Excellent plan.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:35:11 +0000

I’ve never really gone into drinking on the tube, but perhaps we should have a farewell ‘tube crawl’ on May 31st?

By: Dirty Protest

Dirty Protest — Thu, 08 May 2008 04:16:23 +0000

The dippers and muggers tend to stay very sober when practicing their art, but getting rid of them would require more than just making a noise, so the morning suits and the evening builders will have to go then.

Does this mean I can orbit the circle line drinking special brew, throwing up into prams and calling everyone in the carriage a bollocks legally for the rest of the month?

By: miracle fruit

miracle fruit — Wed, 07 May 2008 17:32:30 +0000

Marvin: “Why not stop them getting into that state in the first place?”

They’re clearly getting in that state in pubs and clubs not on the tube, hence option 2.

By: John B

John B — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:30:51 +0000

3) Banning alcohol will reduce the amount of loutish behaviour. – no, that’s covered under point 2. If you think that banning people from drinking on the Tube in Saturday afternoon will have any significant effect preventing those likely to behave drunkenly and loutishly on Saturday night from doing so, then you are an idiot; end of story.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:24:56 +0000

I can’t believe people actually get drunk ON the tube – is there time on an average journey?

By: Marvin

Marvin — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:16:36 +0000

Why do you think it is a vote-winner then? There must be a third reason:

3) Banning alcohol will reduce the amount of loutish behaviour.

You suggest arresting drunken louts. Why not stop them getting into that state in the first place? Policing this on Saturday afternoon will be easier than policing the drunken louts on Saturday evening.

Of course, they’re welcome to do that in the boozer or at home or whatever – but the tube is different.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:23:53 +0000

Is drinking to be banned on the (what used to be) the British Rail(ways) lines in (mostly) S.London? As that is surely where it is the biggest problem. Or would that be too hard to disentangle from banning booze of Inter-City lines and the Eurostar?

By: John East

John East — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:15:20 +0000

You bring to mind my regular journeys from the centre of London to Ealing Broadway after a Friday night out. At that time there was only one loo anywhere along the line, at Shepherds Bush I think, so it was a long journey indeed with a bladder full of Watneys Special. Drinking on the tube was out of the question, as would have been peeing in the carriage which I’m sure would have never occured to us as an option in those days.