Drinking games have been part and parcel of youthful exuberance since mankind first learnt how to ferment alcohol. Indeed, the yard of ale has ben a fixture in pubs for centuries.
However, Nanny's chums in Exeter university recently decided that as a result of the death of a student from excess booze, these games are to be banned.
Gavin Britton, an 18 year old student at Exeter University, died after drinking a Jackson Five (12 shots of alcohol) during an evening of pub golf, where drinks are sunk in a 'par' number of swigs.
Exeter University have now banned drinking games and initiation ceremonies.
A spokesman said:
"There has been an effort to get other universities to follow suit."
Here's why this is not going to work:
1 Young people do stupid things, that's part of growing up
2 Banning these games will have no effect, they will simply continue "behind closed doors"
3 Many young people take part in these games without dying
4 Banning them will simply make them more attractive and appealing
5 Parents should teach their children to treat alcohol with respect, before they release them to university/society (ie take them down the pub etc)
Nanny's ban is, for once, well intentioned. However, it is not the answer and will not work.
Nanny really should do more than just ban the games. She should really be banning the activities that encourage the games. After all the previous Nanny dominatrix was keen to be 'Tough on crime, tough on the sources of crime' or something like that, so a it seems logical to apply the same principles.
ReplyDeleteNow the seduction to drinking may be different between the sexes so I won't comment on true reasons for our female planet cohabiters getting legless but in the case of males there are one or two well known catalysts.
Rugby for example. Both forms. Well known for the expectation that both players and spectators are likely to booze to notable excess. Rugby should clearly be banned for being a form of incitement to self destruct through the medium of alcohol.
Football. (Soccer to our New Colonies visitors.) Definitely on the cusp of a ban. Not quite as clearly fuelled by copious amount of alcohol as Rugby, but close behind. Precautionary Principle says a ban is required.
Tennis --- er, probably not actually, other than Wimbledon. Wimbledon should be banned to save national embarrassment.
Horse Racing - fueled and sponsored by alcohol.
Golf. We all know about the 19th hole. Ban required.
Swimming should be banned, though not for reasons of alcohol. More that there is a drowning risk and I dislike swimming.
Presumably Exeter Nanny is only able to directly apply these bans in her bars and halls of residence - basically her property.
Actually that may suffice. The students probably can't afford to pay the full commercial prices in local boozers.
Grant
Tough on booze, tough on the causes of booze.
ReplyDeleteDuring my student days, drinking games were played by most of us. I also played rugby into my late twenties and enjoyed many an hour up "sunshine mountain where the four winds blow", fueled by alcohol. Sadly, Rugby union was still a non professional sport then, I suspect few of a club's first fifteen drink large amounts these days.
ReplyDeleteIf I lived in Exeter, I too would turn to drink. Nanny is wrong to ban these games, happily though, few will take any notice of her.
Assuming that campus bars are as crowded, noisy and dark as they all seemed to be during my university years: a) who is going to notice when drinking games happen and b) who is going to stop them?
ReplyDeleteIs Nanny really going to recruit special 'University Drinking Games Discouragement and Bar Ejection Officers'?
Yeah, I suppose she is.
And another thing;
ReplyDeleteKen said, "Nanny's ban is, for once, well intentioned. However, it is not the answer and will not work."
Like almost everything that Nanny & her minions impose on us nowadays, whether or not it works is immaterial; what counts is that Nanny is understood to be watching everybody's every activity and - in the unlikely event that anyone is ever prosecuted for these non-offences - a few more quid goes into Nanny's back pocket or toward paying Mr. Speaker's wife's taxi fares.
It is all about power, control and their visible manifestations.
The dead bloke might not agree with you all.
ReplyDeleteAs for youth 'always' did it. No they did not- certainly in the 40s and 50s because they were not as wealthy or as idle as you lot are.
You don't explain why 'youf' must be indulged and must have its way.
The coming recession might change your ways.
Or even sharia law.
cramerj,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure whether you have totally missed the point, intentionally or otherwise, or you are right.
However, I doubt sharia law would give two hoots if a youth killed himself except that they would prefer the death to be something that could be presented as martyrdom if said youth was part of their belief system.
Given a choice of surviving a drinking game or certain death by explosives I suspect most, but not all, youth in the UK would prefer the booze concept.
Lack of wealth was not, as far as I understand it, a constraint on boozing is past decades though socially it may not have been quite as widespread and public as it is these days. But Youth still liked the challenges of maturing.
If the very occasional death and damage from drinking is such an important issue (which it may be to the University if the events occurred at least in part on their premises such as the student union bar and so they risk being sued by bitter parents perhaps) then they ought also to ban dangerous sports - Rugby, Mountain Bikes, Rock climbing, Adventure trips, and so on.
Actually Exeter seems to have been protecting itself quite a lot recently mainly by closing down Science Faculties. Perhaps its best bet to protect its students and reputation would be to close down completely.
It is a fact that most youth in most cultures take risks and lack experience. Been there, learned that.
Absent that we would not have functioning armies - now there is a thought, perhaps we should just ban youth?
Grant
Cramerj
ReplyDelete"The dead bloke might not agree with you all."
Life always involes risk....Would you ban driving for example as some people are killed on the road?
Would you ban life per se as it always leads to death?
"As for youth 'always' did it. No they did not- certainly in the 40s and 50s because they were not as wealthy or as idle as you lot are."
Young people have always drank alcohol in this country....It was part of our national heritage.
When you refer to us as "you lot" are you not one of us? Are you a recent arrival to the UK?
As society evolves so it is necessary to do less work....We no longer hunt and gather, we do not need to walk miles for water etc.
I will grant you that there is a juxta position between the use of labour saving gadgets such as, remote controls, dish washers, electric windows on cars etc and the fact that we need to go to the gym to burn off the calories saved.
We are as a nation, working longer hours now compared to many periods of our recent history.
"You don't explain why 'youf' must be indulged and must have its way."
Very few on here usually have any sympathy for the youth, and many would like to see an increase in discipline in the home and schools.
I have never known anyone on here support drunken rowdy behaviour.
"The coming recession might change your ways.
Or even sharia law."
Again you distance yourself from us.
You always seem to come on here to be anti alcohol and anti smoking....Are there religious reasons for that view? Is the religion that you follow given away in your last sentence?
I think that there is some truth in the notion that the government is trying to push us back into the dark ages with their climate change religion, perhaps that is to prepare us for Sharia law.
I welcome anyone into my home as a guest, however when a guest wants to rearrange my furniture or change the decor, I ask them to leave!!