When?

I know that it is on the Circle Line, but is there a specific time that it 
kicks off?

wrote in message 
news:mkZ%j.77976$zc6.5791@newsfe29.ams2...
> When?
>
> I know that it is on the Circle Line, but is there a specific time that it 
> kicks off?
>
>
>
>
>

Where did you read this? London Sh**e?

On 30 May, 21:20,  wrote:
> When?
>
> I know that it is on the Circle Line, but is there a specific time that it
> kicks off?
>

See this website...

http://www.lastordersontheunderground.com/

...which, for the sake of posterity, basically has this to say...

<quote>
Last Orders On The Underground

On June the 1st 2008 - drinking on London public transport will be
made illegal. We will be raising a glass to the end of this British
tradition with a good old knees up. Hurrah.

The Final Circle Line Party
Saturday May 31st
9pm

Liverpool Street Station
Circle Line Clockwise Platform
Rear of the train

</quote>


Said event really should have been called 'The Last Round', but I
suppose Tube boozers can't be choosers,

In all likelihood I won't be there, instead I'll be resting in the
nearest thing I can find to a gutter in an Underground station having
spent the day drinking myself into a massive alcoholic stupor on
London's transport system.

Anyway - and I have been away from utl for a bit so I've missed what
I'm sure were many comprehensive debates on Bozza's booze ban here - I
had always been half under the impression that drinking on the Tube
and London buses was never a totally legit activity in the first
place. In the days of yore I can certainly remember been refused entry
onto a bus because I was openly sipping from a modest double magnum of
antifreeze and also seeing others turned away because they were
sampling a drop or three from the kegs of continental lager they had
under their arm or were rolling onto the bus with them.

Me wonders whether powdered alcohol would count as an "open container
of alcohol" under the ban? Such stuff has been produced and sold in
Germany in the past, but seemingly not any longer, though I did find a
mention of another similar Dutch product that was apparently coming to
market but that has seemingly got waylaid en-route, perhaps in a bush
in someone's front garden. Sceptical about the chemistry? I was too,
but it would appear to be possible, albeit at a maximum strength of 5%
ABV or so - see:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/entertainment/powdered-alcohol-is-bad-but-is-it-real-115314.php
or via <http://tinyurl.com/22sncf>


Anyway, enough talk of powders, the new inhabitant of the glass
testicle (or BoJo's bollock as I now like to call it) apparently has
some troubles with sneezing when they're around and so might end up
banning them too, unless of course they've been banned already...

Instead, let us all remember the wise words of Mayor Bozza, who on the
night of his election said:
"Let's crack open the drinks tonight, and let's have a cracking
hangover tomorrow."

At least that's how I remember it, I was totally rat arsed by that
point.

hounslow3@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> When?
> 
> I know that it is on the Circle Line, but is there a specific time that it 
> kicks off?
> 

Well it certainly kicked off at Kings Cross - waiting on the westbound 
Met (&Cirlce etc) platform at about 22.40 there was a Circle line with 
plenty of drunken idiots onboard.

In what they'd probably call a party atmosphere but what a single woman 
would call a very uncomfortable one, the 'revellers' as the BBC calls 
them used sticks to hit the CCTV cameras to point away from the crowds, 
but I am tall enough to reach the cameras – so I moved one back.

They managed to break enough off the train that it first got taken out 
of service, but when the staff were too disorganised to shove people 
off, they evacuated the station.  I hope I'm never at Kings Cross when 
it actually needs to be evacuated in a genuine emergency because that 
was hardly executed well either: closing shutters at street level 
doesn't help people leave the station!

With little prospect of getting on any buses I walked down Euston Road 
but each station as far as Baker St was also closed.  I was fortunate 
enough to get to Marylebone for the last Chiltern train and managed to 
get a bus home from Harrow but I don't know what everyone else would've 
done.

If it was supposed to be a protest to claim that drinking didn’t need 
banning from the tube, I think they’ve just shot themselves in both feet 
with quite a lot of bullets indeed.

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 02:26:09 +0100, Thunderbug
 wrote:

>If it was supposed to be a protest to claim that drinking didn’t need 
>banning from the tube, I think they’ve just shot themselves in both feet 
>with quite a lot of bullets indeed.

I don't think it was - I think it was just meant to be a
two-fingers-up piss-up session.

I'm surprised the various authorities didn't find some way to prevent
it happening, such as registering a one-off alcohol ban for 31/5 but
not (as the railway does) publicising it until the last minute.

Actually, it did surprise me that the rule was not introduced with
immediate effect, anyway...

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

In message , at 09:38:16 on Sun, 
1 Jun 2008, Neil Williams  remarked:
>I'm surprised the various authorities didn't find some way to prevent
>it happening, such as registering a one-off alcohol ban for 31/5 but
>not (as the railway does) publicising it until the last minute.
>
>Actually, it did surprise me that the rule was not introduced with
>immediate effect, anyway...

Bringing it in after a Saturday night seems a bit odd. Other rules that 
co-incide with the start of months at weekends often wait until Monday 
to take effect.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:xoF9PS5ccnQIFAer@perry.co.uk...
> In message , at 09:38:16 on Sun, 1 
> Jun 2008, Neil Williams  remarked:
>>I'm surprised the various authorities didn't find some way to prevent
>>it happening, such as registering a one-off alcohol ban for 31/5 but
>>not (as the railway does) publicising it until the last minute.
>>
>>Actually, it did surprise me that the rule was not introduced with
>>immediate effect, anyway...
>
> Bringing it in after a Saturday night seems a bit odd. Other rules that 
> co-incide with the start of months at weekends often wait until Monday to 
> take effect.

I am sure that the office of the mayor never thought that anything like this 
would happen.

After all, there wasn't a history of parties on the tube so I doubt that 
anyone thought that someone would arrange one on the last day.

tim

> -- 
> Roland Perry

"tims next home"  wrote in message 
news:6afdriF37dtv5U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> I am sure that the office of the mayor never thought that anything like 
> this would happen.

I'd be surprised if they hadn't thought that sometrhing like this could 
happen.

> After all, there wasn't a history of parties on the tube so I doubt that 
> anyone thought that someone would arrange one on the last day.
>
I think that there have indeed been parties on the tube, albeit nothing like 
this.

But I believe that things like what happened on Saturday night have happened 
on other undergrounds in Europe. Didn't something happen in Berlin or Moscow 
a few years ago, forcing the authorities to basically shut down an entire 
line

tims next home wrote:
> 
> I am sure that the office of the mayor never thought that anything like 
> this would happen.
> 
> After all, there wasn't a history of parties on the tube so I doubt that 
> anyone thought that someone would arrange one on the last day.
> 
> tim
> 
Considering the Mayor is an intelligent man with some idea of the 
English character, I'd have thought it was entirely predictable, and a 
Saturday night after a London team was in (and as it turned out winning) 
the Rugby Premiership final wasn't the best timing ever.  It was 
effectively the equivalent of a teenager issuing an open invitation on 
Facebook when her parents are on holiday and finding the house trashed.

However, the Northern and Piccadilly trains I took home at about 11:30 
were full but impeccably behaved, and yes we were drinking.  By that 
time the info boards were showing that something untoward had affected 
the Circle and District, and the train missed out Gloucester Road as a 
result.  The only negative is that I think I forgot to touch out on 
leaving the station, which is probably as good a reason as any not to 
drink and tube.

I wonder what the extra fare take over a normal Saturday was?

Tom

"Tom Barry"  wrote in message 
news:AWv0k.48298$Zs3.6685@newsfe20.ams2...
> tims next home wrote:
>>
>> I am sure that the office of the mayor never thought that anything like 
>> this would happen.
>>
>> After all, there wasn't a history of parties on the tube

You might like to take a look on YouTube before you repeat that assertion.

>> so I doubt that anyone thought that someone would arrange one on the last 
>> day.

It was well publicised in plenty of time for suitable action (good 
people-management skills deployed around the Circle Line and a few 
suitably-placed police vans for the excessive revelers) to be taken.

> Considering the Mayor is an intelligent man with some idea of the English 
> character,

Y'see, that's where you're going wrong; with that assumption at the outset.

I look forward to Doris' "wise" words on the subject once he gets back to 
the office.

-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

On 1 Jun, 11:17, Roland Perry  wrote:
> Bringing it in after a Saturday night seems a bit odd. Other rules that
> co-incide with the start of months at weekends often wait until Monday
> to take effect.

They all but encouraged the party with the way it was implemented.
It's either incompetence for not foreseeing it, or massively cynical.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Jun 1, 12:01 pm, "tims next home" 
wrote:
> "Roland Perry"  wrote in message
>
> news:xoF9PS5ccnQIFAer@perry.co.uk...
>
> > In message , at 09:38:16 on Sun, 1
> > Jun 2008, Neil Williams  remarked:
> >>I'm surprised the various authorities didn't find some way to prevent
> >>it happening, such as registering a one-off alcohol ban for 31/5 but
> >>not (as the railway does) publicising it until the last minute.
>
> >>Actually, it did surprise me that the rule was not introduced with
> >>immediate effect, anyway...
>
> > Bringing it in after a Saturday night seems a bit odd. Other rules that
> > co-incide with the start of months at weekends often wait until Monday to
> > take effect.
>
> I am sure that the office of the mayor never thought that anything like this
> would happen.
>
> After all, there wasn't a history of parties on the tube so I doubt that
> anyone thought that someone would arrange one on the last day.

There's not much history of drinking either, so it was lazy piece of
non-policy addressing a non-existent problem*, on the lines of the
charm at my front door that has had 100% success in preventing
elephant-attacks since I hung it there.

But it's backfired and created a problem instead.

"I never would have thought of doing this, but if you are trying to
prevent me, I'm gonna make damn sure I don't let you push me around."

*Drunkenness may be, but sipping it while on public transport is not
the issue.

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 06:11:05 -0700 (PDT), MIG
 wrote:

>*Drunkenness may be, but sipping it while on public transport is not
>the issue.

It is on buses; you often get a can rolling around the floor where
someone has left it, spilling out everywhere and smelling offensively
in a way that a spilled can of Coke or cup of coffee would not.

While I'd rather the ability to drink remained in place (though I
don't believe I have ever consumed alcohol on a Tube train or bus, and
I rarely do on mainline trains), if people can't[1] take their
half-empty cans and bottles with them I think it does offer an overall
benefit that it is not permitted.  Provincial bus companies tend to
take it further in not allowing *any* eating and drinking.

It would also be nice to see an enforced ban on hot takeaway food, as
this *really* stinks.  Sandwiches and salads don't, so I see no reason
why they should not be permitted so long as the litter is taken with
you[2].  Merseyrail used to operate this kind of a ban of "no hot food
on trains".  (And they also ban alcohol, notably).

[1] Even ignoring the reek of drink, drunkenness does bring on a less
caring attitude, and thus drunk people are more likely to leave their
empty containers around than those drinking coffee or Coke.

[2] Littering is one of the worst scourges of this country, and I
strongly support Councils who are extremely zealous at issuing
penalties for it, even to parents of children who have dropped it if
the parent fails to deal with the matter.  I was brought up not to
drop litter, not ever, not even if there isn't a bin.  Everyone should
in my view behave like that.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 05:47:44 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
 wrote:

>They all but encouraged the party with the way it was implemented.
>It's either incompetence for not foreseeing it, or massively cynical.

Is there a reason why it could not have been implemented with
immediate effect?  That would have made a whole lot more sense to me.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 06:11:05 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote:

>There's not much history of drinking either, so it was lazy piece of
>non-policy addressing a non-existent problem*, on the lines of the
>charm at my front door that has had 100% success in preventing
>elephant-attacks since I hung it there.
>
>*Drunkenness may be, but sipping it while on public transport is not
>the issue.

And, significantly, drunkenness was already illegal under the railway
by-laws:

"No person shall enter or remain on the railway where such person is
unfit to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a
state of intoxication."

As is typical of politicians (particularly the current government),
when a problem is caused by legislation not being enforced, they try
to solve it by simply adding more legislation. Those who are
law-abiding have their freedoms slowly stripped away, while those who
ignore the law continue to get away with it.

Neil Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 05:47:44 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
>  wrote:
> 
>> They all but encouraged the party with the way it was implemented.
>> It's either incompetence for not foreseeing it, or massively cynical.
> 
> Is there a reason why it could not have been implemented with
> immediate effect?  That would have made a whole lot more sense to me.
> 
> Neil
> 

Designing and printing notices, getting bylaws changed, getting DfT 
approval for Overground, ensuring the legals stacked up, issuing 
instructions to staff (assuming this was done, they don't seem to have 
been consulted before the date was announced), dealing with police...

No, it can't be done immediately.  I'm not sure it can reasonably be 
done now.  I had a nearly empty bottle last night after midnight and 
there wasn't anyone around who was going to call the cops on me nor 
would I expect this to be the case if I pulled the same stunt tonight.

Tom

Brian Watson wrote:
>> 
> I look forward to Doris' "wise" words on the subject once he gets back to 
> the office.
> 

What is the meaning and intention behind changing "Boris" to "Doris"?

rc

On 1 Jun, 15:44, Tom Barry  wrote:
> getting bylaws changed, getting DfT
> approval for Overground,

Neither ofwhich have yet been done!
The bylaws require (I understand) an Act of Parliament to turn it into
a criminal offence and until then, all that can bedone isto require
the offwender to leave the train / station / bus etc.Thisisslated for
next year.

The ban isto follow on London Overground in a few weekstime -
presumably once DfT permisionsare granted?


> No, it can't be done immediately.  I'm not sure it can reasonably be
> done now.  I had a nearly empty bottle last night after midnight and
> there wasn't anyone around who was going to call the cops on me nor
> would I expect this to be the case if I pulled the same stunt tonight.
>
> Tom

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 12:07:05 -0400, redcat  wrote:

>Brian Watson wrote:
>>> 
>> I look forward to Doris' "wise" words on the subject once he gets back to 
>> the office.
>> 
>
>What is the meaning and intention behind changing "Boris" to "Doris"?
>
>rc
The answere might not be forth comming. Here is smething a
great deal more interesting, indeed edifying.

The world of cyber-space is full of controll freaks.

The Troll Hunters, NetNannies, NetKKKops and men with a mission aught
to be congratulated on their unrivaled success. The Trolls now own nearly
all of the uk.local newsgroups but sometimes have to share them with that
well know menagerie, the tripple seven knuckle draggers.

Not only did those wonderful plonkers with "milk monitor" mentality
report any and every "abuse" they boasted in the groups about it.
Where are they now? Some joined the Trolling Fraternity others
just disappeared whilst others joined other ng's (to protect them!).
Throwing down the gauntlet was not a good idea!!!! 

Caruthers Carstairs-MacKracken.

Lord High Troll.

Chris wrote:
> On 1 Jun, 15:44, Tom Barry  wrote:
>> getting bylaws changed, getting DfT
>> approval for Overground,
> 
> Neither ofwhich have yet been done!
> The bylaws require (I understand) an Act of Parliament to turn it into
> a criminal offence and until then, all that can bedone isto require
> the offwender to leave the train / station / bus etc.Thisisslated for
> next year.
> 
> The ban isto follow on London Overground in a few weekstime -
> presumably once DfT permisionsare granted?
> 

Apparently so - it was one of the things that stood out on the official 
announcement - I could travel from Gunnersbury to Richmond swigging rum, 
if I waited for the next Overground.  On the other hand, if I took the 
District I might get asked to leave at Kew Gardens, where I could then 
legitimately take the following Overground...

Tom

Roland Perry  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>>Actually, it did surprise me that the rule was not introduced with
>>immediate effect, anyway...

> Bringing it in after a Saturday night seems a bit odd. Other rules that
> co-incide with the start of months at weekends often wait until Monday
> to take effect.

Doesn't a "tube day" start with the first train, so the trains after 
midnight would count as Saturday and booze-permitted?

Thunderbug  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> If it was supposed to be a protest to claim that drinking didn’t need
> banning from the tube, I think they’ve just shot themselves in both feet
> with quite a lot of bullets indeed.

Indeed.

A crying shame - it could easily have been civilised fun, but (as often) 
the yob tendency spoiled the game for everybody.

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 14:07:25 GMT, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 05:47:44 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
> wrote:
>
>>They all but encouraged the party with the way it was implemented.
>>It's either incompetence for not foreseeing it, or massively cynical.
>
>Is there a reason why it could not have been implemented with
>immediate effect?  That would have made a whole lot more sense to me.

I understand that none of it has actually been legally implemented
despite the publicity. Some of the necessary legal changes may take a
year to sort out.  The whole ban will, in effect, be a chimera for
months.
-- 
Paul C

On 1 Jun, 21:12, Paul Corfield  wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 14:07:25 GMT, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
> Williams) wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >Is there a reason why it could not have been implemented with
> >immediate effect?  That would have made a whole lot more sense to me.
>
> I understand that none of it has actually been legally implemented
> despite the publicity. Some of the necessary legal changes may take a
> year to sort out.  The whole ban will, in effect, be a chimera for
> months.
>

Thus far all that has changed is the conditions of carriage - PDFs of
both the old and new are available online here, though the old will
presumably be disappearing fairly pronto:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/termsandconditions/899.aspx

So anyone drinking on the Tube or bus would just be breaking the
conditions of carriage rather than breaking the law, and if caught all
that could be done would be for them to be asked to alight and/or
leave the premises.

Though with a bit of smoke and mirrors it can be made to sound a lot
heavier than that - see the footnotes of this TfL press release:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/8423.aspx

<quote>
Both the Metropolitian Police Service and British Transport Police
will support TfL staff in enforcing this ban. Any person suspected of
committing a public disorder offence in refusing to comply with this
ban may therefore be arrested.
</quote>

Which translates to - 'if we ask you to stop drinking and you kick up
a fuss we'll nick you', though they want it to sound like 'if we find
you drinking we'll nick you'.

On 1 Jun, 19:05, Adrian  wrote:
> A crying shame - it could easily have been civilised fun, but (as often)
> the yob tendency spoiled the game for everybody.

From my experience it was good natured, spoiled only by the media
playing up the yob angle. There were thousands of people involved and
only a tiny number of yobbish incidents.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 13:25:50 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T 
wrote:

>So anyone drinking on the Tube or bus would just be breaking the
>conditions of carriage rather than breaking the law, and if caught all
>that could be done would be for them to be asked to alight and/or
>leave the premises.

Could they perhaps ban people or withdraw season tickets/Oyster cards
without penalty for such a breach of the conditions of carriage?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Mr Thant  gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

>> A crying shame - it could easily have been civilised fun, but (as
>> often) the yob tendency spoiled the game for everybody.

> From my experience it was good natured, spoiled only by the media
> playing up the yob angle. There were thousands of people involved and
> only a tiny number of yobbish incidents.

That's good to hear.

Mr Thant wrote:
> On 1 Jun, 19:05, Adrian  wrote:
>> A crying shame - it could easily have been civilised fun, but (as
>> often) the yob tendency spoiled the game for everybody.
>
> From my experience it was good natured, spoiled only by the media
> playing up the yob angle. There were thousands of people involved and
> only a tiny number of yobbish incidents.

Well, that may be your experience, but the reports I've seen amount to 
rather more than a "tiny number" of yobbish incidents.  I don't see how you 
can blame the media for passengers assaulting drivers, throwing bottles, 
damaging trains and stations.
-- 
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"redcat"  wrote in message 
news:hvadnToQot-3VN_VnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Brian Watson wrote:
>>>
>> I look forward to Doris' "wise" words on the subject once he gets back to 
>> the office.
>>
>
> What is the meaning and intention behind changing "Boris" to "Doris"?

He is what is known colloquially as a "bit of an old woman."

Since "Doris" and "Boris" are so similar in sound and "Doris" is a name now 
rarely used, but was commonly given to girls about 80 years ago, it seemed 
an appropriate substitution.

Should I be crossposting this to alt.english.usage, Cat?

:-)
-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

On 1 Jun, 21:25, Mizter T  wrote:
> On 1 Jun, 21:12, Paul Corfield  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 14:07:25 GMT, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
> > Williams) wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> > >Is there a reason why it could not have been implemented with
> > >immediate effect?  That would have made a whole lot more sense to me.> > I understand that none of it has actually been legally implemented
> > despite the publicity. Some of the necessary legal changes may take a
> > year to sort out.  The whole ban will, in effect, be a chimera for
> > months.
>
> Thus far all that has changed is the conditions of carriage - PDFs of
> both the old and new are available online here, though the old will
> presumably be disappearing fairly pronto:
>
> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/termsandconditions/899.aspx
>
> So anyone drinking on the Tube or bus would just be breaking the
> conditions of carriage rather than breaking the law, and if caught all
> that could be done would be for them to be asked to alight and/or
> leave the premises.

Hmmm - I said that in fewer words further back up the thread.....

In message 
, at 
13:25:50 on Sun, 1 Jun 2008, Mizter T  remarked:
>So anyone drinking on the Tube or bus would just be breaking the
>conditions of carriage rather than breaking the law, and if caught all
>that could be done would be for them to be asked to alight and/or
>leave the premises.
>
>Though with a bit of smoke and mirrors it can be made to sound a lot
>heavier than that

At least they aren't mentioning The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol) 
Act 1985, which in fact only bans alcohol on football specials - despite 
recently being quoted as the measure backing a much wider ban on a match 
day.
-- 
Roland Perry

On 2 Jun, 02:23, "Richard J."  wrote:
> Mr Thant wrote:
> > On 1 Jun, 19:05, Adrian  wrote:
> >> A crying shame - it could easily have been civilised fun, but (as
> >> often) the yob tendency spoiled the game for everybody.
>
> > From my experience it was good natured, spoiled only by the media
> > playing up the yob angle. There were thousands of people involved and
> > only a tiny number of yobbish incidents.
>
> Well, that may be your experience, but the reports I've seen amount to
> rather more than a "tiny number" of yobbish incidents.  I don't see how you
> can blame the media for passengers assaulting drivers, throwing bottles,
> damaging trains and stations.

Not to mention the simply terrifying crush that I was caught up in at
Liverpool Street shortly before 9pm.

Any sensible copper would have closed the station & limited the number
through the gates to prevent this happening. But oh no, the 8 there
simply watched from within the tube barrier line as more & more people
crushed in pushing us hard against the barrier line which was closed
owing to there being too many on the Circle line platforms (But b*gger
all on the central line, which is where I was going......took 30
minutes to get there)

Certainly v unimpressed with the BTP......they were atrocious that
night there.

Roland Perry wrote:

> At least they aren't mentioning The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol) 
> Act 1985, which in fact only bans alcohol on football specials - despite 
> recently being quoted as the measure backing a much wider ban on a match 
> day.

However, National Rail and LRT Byelaw 4(2) *do* cover it:

"Where reasonable notice is, or has been, given prohibiting intoxicating 
liquor on any train service, no person shall have any intoxicating 
liquor with him on it, or attempt to enter such a train with 
intoxicating liquor with him."

Cheers,

Barry

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:47:38 +0100, "Brian Watson"
 wrote:

>
>"redcat"  wrote in message 
>news:hvadnToQot-3VN_VnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> Brian Watson wrote:
>>>>
>>> I look forward to Doris' "wise" words on the subject once he gets back to 
>>> the office.
>>>
>>
>> What is the meaning and intention behind changing "Boris" to "Doris"?
>
>He is what is known colloquially as a "bit of an old woman."
>
>Since "Doris" and "Boris" are so similar in sound and "Doris" is a name now 
>rarely used, but was commonly given to girls about 80 years ago, it seemed 
>an appropriate substitution.

In other words, it was a childish insult.

Brian Watson wrote:
> "redcat"  wrote in message 
> news:hvadnToQot-3VN_VnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> Brian Watson wrote:
>>> I look forward to Doris' "wise" words on the subject once he gets back to 
>>> the office.
>>>
>> What is the meaning and intention behind changing "Boris" to "Doris"?
> 
> He is what is known colloquially as a "bit of an old woman."
> 
> Since "Doris" and "Boris" are so similar in sound and "Doris" is a name now 
> rarely used, but was commonly given to girls about 80 years ago, it seemed 
> an appropriate substitution.
> 
> Should I be crossposting this to alt.english.usage, Cat?
> 
> :-)

No, Brian. No crossposting necessary; nor cross dressing. I feel if 
Boris Johnson is to get a drubbing, his name should be used. Imagine if 
someone attempted to besmirch him with the name "Brian", since his name 
begins with a "B" and Brian was a name commonly given to boys 70 about 
years ago. This would signal he's "a bit of an old man".

Makes about as much sense as "Doris" and would make a Brian or two feel 
singled out at the old pub.

For your edification, here are some not "old woman" women named Doris: 
Doris Duke, Doris Day, Doris Lessing, Doris Roberts.

Cat

In message , at 12:54:42 on Mon, 2 
Jun 2008, Barry Salter  remarked:
>> At least they aren't mentioning The Sporting Events (Control of 
>>Alcohol)  Act 1985, which in fact only bans alcohol on football 
>>specials - despite  recently being quoted as the measure backing a 
>>much wider ban on a match  day.
>
>However, National Rail and LRT Byelaw 4(2) *do* cover it:
>
>"Where reasonable notice is, or has been, given prohibiting 
>intoxicating liquor on any train service, no person shall have any 
>intoxicating liquor with him on it, or attempt to enter such a train 
>with intoxicating liquor with him."

I know, so Why Oh Why [tm] so they also quote the inapplicable SECOAA?

Of course, you might want to argue what "reasonable notice" is. Should 
people be told at the time they purchase the ticket...
-- 
Roland Perry

redcat  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> For your edification, here are some not "old woman" women named Doris:
> Doris Duke

Which one? There's two in Wikipedia, one born 1912, the other 1945

> Doris Day

Born 1924

> Doris Lessing

Born 1919

> Doris Roberts

Born 1930

Some bunch of not "old women".

On 1 Jun, 02:26, Thunderbug  wrote:
>
> In what they'd probably call a party atmosphere but what a single woman
> would call a very uncomfortable one

You are Queen Victoria and I claim my five guineas...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, John B wrote:

> On 1 Jun, 02:26, Thunderbug  wrote:
>
>> In what they'd probably call a party atmosphere but what a single woman
>> would call a very uncomfortable one
>
> You are Queen Victoria and I claim my five guineas...

I still trying to work out why a single woman would be uncomfortable, but 
a married one wouldn't.

tom

-- 
Eat whip you steroid wall-bashing lug-head! -- The Laird

On 2 Jun, 16:08, Tom Anderson  wrote:
> >> In what they'd probably call a party atmosphere but what a single woman
> >> would call a very uncomfortable one
>
> > You are Queen Victoria and I claim my five guineas...
>
> I still trying to work out why a single woman would be uncomfortable, but
> a married one wouldn't.

Because the rowdy ruffians would fear the vengeance of her husband, of
course. Although I'd have expected them to be just as fearful of the
vengeance of a single maiden's father...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Adrian wrote:
> redcat  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
> 
>> For your edification, here are some not "old woman" women named Doris:
>> Doris Duke
> 
> Which one? There's two in Wikipedia, one born 1912, the other 1945
> 
>> Doris Day
> 
> Born 1924
> 
>> Doris Lessing
> 
> Born 1919
> 
>> Doris Roberts
> 
> Born 1930
> 
> Some bunch of not "old women".

You just don't get it, do you?

redcat  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>>> For your edification, here are some not "old woman" women named Doris:
>>> Doris Duke

>> Which one? There's two in Wikipedia, one born 1912, the other 1945

>>> Doris Day

>> Born 1924

>>> Doris Lessing

>> Born 1919

>>> Doris Roberts

>> Born 1930
>> 
>> Some bunch of not "old women".

> You just don't get it, do you?

Ah. They don't seem old to you, because they're younger than you are. 
Gotcha.

It's the only reason I can think of why five women with an average age of 
82 somehow don't count as "old women".

"James Farrar"  wrote in message 
news:lsp7441adllmjs44fgs8kqr1b5ac8i7so5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:47:38 +0100, "Brian Watson"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"redcat"  wrote in message
>>news:hvadnToQot-3VN_VnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>> Brian Watson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I look forward to Doris' "wise" words on the subject once he gets back 
>>>> to
>>>> the office.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What is the meaning and intention behind changing "Boris" to "Doris"?
>>
>>He is what is known colloquially as a "bit of an old woman."
>>
>>Since "Doris" and "Boris" are so similar in sound and "Doris" is a name 
>>now
>>rarely used, but was commonly given to girls about 80 years ago, it seemed
>>an appropriate substitution.
>
> In other words, it was a childish insult.

Correct. Accurate, nonetheless.

-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."