Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Monday, October 31, 2005

Nanny Bans Booze

Nanny Bans BoozeIt seems that Nanny, despite being in favour of "relaxing" the drinking laws that govern pubs and clubs, wants to ban drink from being consumed on all forms of public transport.

This would mean that people would not be allowed to drink on trains, buses and domestic flights.

Nanny feels that such a ban would lessen the number of drink fuelled incidents on the transport network.

Clearly this is another one of Nanny's headline grabbing "initiatives", which has not been thought through at all.

  • The majority of drink fuelled incidents are caused by people who are "boozed" up before entering the trains and buses, banning drink on board would have no effect whatsoever.


  • Banning booze because of the behaviour of a minority of moronic scumbags punishes the majority of well behaved people. Yet again the freedoms of the citizens of Britain are being eroded on the pretext of the "threat" posed by a minority, in this case the minority being moronic scumbags.


  • Having a drink is sometimes the only way to make the ordeal of traveling on our decaying and overcrowded public transport system bearable.
In other words, the proposal is bollocks!

7 comments:

  1. And I thought that virtually all public transport in the UK was now in the hands of private businesses. So what would the government suggest happens to the people who operate this business?
    http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/arrow.html

    Typically British Transport Police came out in support of the proposals, maybe they ought to just learn to do their job and protect the ordinary passenger.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chris, this is akin to the intense debate, carried out by the political idiots who all seem to have risen to the surface of this once fine country and are now trying to drown it, regarding banning smoking in "public places". A public place is a government office, council office, hospital, library and so forth. Not a pub, bar or restaurant. These are areas of business owned by hard working private individuals or corporations!! They are not "public". It is typical of Nanny to assume now that everything is owned by her, and so remove our freedoms of choice!!

    Once again, in banning drinking on buses, trains etc, Nanny is thrashing around for someone to blame for the ills resulting from her own impotence to deal with loutish binge drinking. Blame it on we ordinary citizens and punish us. Those same citizens who are implored to use public transport instead of our cars. Yet again, Nanny shows her wealth of fragmented and muddled thinking here, which is what this nation is coming to expect of her.

    And as for Blunckett, I'm surprised that Nanny has not started to blame his parents for a a bad upbringing which has culminated in his 'error of judgement'. This, from the very man who introduced no minimum 'proceed of crime' regarding the Money Laundering regulations!! Hypocrits, the lot of them!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. So how longer will it take after this legislation is introduced for there to be a massive jump in drink driving. Don't whatever you do drive after 10:00 PM on a saturday night!

    The real problem is the marketing of excessive drinking to teenagers. This is a problem caused by high street establishments. If I drank to excess and/or caused any problems I know I would not be welcome back to my local pub. Indeed I don't think the other locals would make welcome me back.

    Those who are drunk and disorderly should indeed be refused train and bus travel, but a blanket ban on those seeking a quiet drink or two will not help matters. More staff would (but not Transport Police. Their presence is intimidating not reassuring.)

    The last train journey I took was on a saturday evening. As you would expect the carriage had it's fair share of football supporters. Every so often a Transport Police office would walk through the carriage - at which point all the noise would die down. As soon as he was out of earshot the disorder commenced again. They were intimidating, but in reality caused no trouble. I don't see how this could be policed anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Grant3:26 PM

    Apart from the obvious stupidity of the broad brush approach when there are already plenty of laws (unworkable it seems) in place to deal with the effects of excessive imbibing, I have to say that I am in favour of some restrictions.

    The last time I was on a train (I don't use them often) returning to the Midlands from London my first class ticket (cheap deal) allowed me to enjoy free wine. But I couldn't, being a responsible citizen, since I had to drive home at the end of the journey.

    However everal already well oiled yobs were in the same, otherwise empty, carriage and seemed to be taking full advantage of the free plonk and the opportunity to make the odd dodgy suggestion to the stewardess. They also decided to smoke, despite the ban, though they did at least move out of the main area fo the carriage and into the section by the doors and the toilet. Unfortunately I was sitting next to the door and the extension of a quick fag into a series of meetings with a constant flow of people through the automatic door was a bit of a pain. Still, I had not paid the full price for the ticket.

    And nor had they, these people who completely ignored the polite requests of the train manager to refrain from smoking (he gave up after 3 attempts.) SO who had purchased their first class tickets? Well, I gathered from all of the conversations I could hear that these chancers, mostly middle aged yobs, were council employees (or perhaps councillors) for a local authority on their way home from a conference somewhere. So their constituents had paid. Presumably for the booze as well.

    They left the train at Leicester, Nu Labah heartland and I would not be surprised to find they were of leftist persuasion politically.

    So, if Nanny's ban brings the antics of such bloated thugs to a halt, so much the better. The only downside would be that there would be less opportunity for Mr. and Mrs. Public to see for themselves what an arrogant bunch of hypocrites the political classes and their local supporters can be.

    Sadly this probably applies to parties of all colours.

    (Of course, absent such late night yobs and the need to drive home, I would welcome the availability of free booze on a cut price 1st class ticket! ;-) )

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous5:36 PM

    "The problem" is not alcohol sellers, or advertisers, or even binge drinking. The problem is a minority of people who seem to believe that they are entitled to behave in any way they like because they've had a few beers.

    I don't care how much you've drunk - it is still not acceptable to have a piss in the corner of the tube train. There is no mystical exception to the no smoking signs on the walls that applies because "you've got to have a fag with a beer, haven't you". The ticket inspector does not want to "get her tits out for the lads".

    Grow up and take reponsibility for your behaviour, or get arrested for being drunk and disorderly, and sleep it off in the cells.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is typical of the knee jerk reaction of No 10, a "policy" not thought out properly and probably thrown out at a Cabinet meeting by someone geting fed up with sitting there. It is completely unworkable but illustrates once again that Tone is on the ball and looking after us.
    The problem is that such a lot of people believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How the f**k am I going to drive the 3's and 13's without a pint in my hand? I may have to take up hard drugs instead of drink !

    ReplyDelete