In article ,
invalid@invalid.invalid (asdf) wrote:

> 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.

Yes, punishment of the innocent because of a few guilty people they are
unable or unwilling to deal with under existing powers. So New Labour. I
didn't expect it of the Tories too.

-- 
Colin Rosenstiel

On Jun 1, 5:06 pm, rosenst...@cix.co.uk (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
> In article ,
>
>
>
>
>
> inva...@invalid.invalid (asdf) wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes, punishment of the innocent because of a few guilty people they are
> unable or unwilling to deal with under existing powers. So New Labour. I
> didn't expect it of the Tories too.

The powers may not really be intended to prevent the problem that has
been hyped up in order to sell them to the public (like hyping up the
terror threat to prevent dissent, or hyping up the paedophile threat
in order to monitor the Internet [and prevent dissent again]).

But I can't work out any hidden agenda with this drink thing.  Is it
going to be one of those things like being in possession of cannabis
that allows you to be arrested when they can't arrest you for what
they really want you for?  I can't see it being very effective for
that sort of purpose.  I really think it must just be there for the
appearance of action.

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:06 +0100 (BST), rosenstiel@cix.co.uk (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

>In article ,
>invalid@invalid.invalid (asdf) wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Yes, punishment of the innocent because of a few guilty people they are
>unable or unwilling to deal with under existing powers. So New Labour. I
>didn't expect it of the Tories too.

You didn't read his manifesto then.

James Farrar wrote in uk.transport.london on Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:06:42
+0100 MID:

>On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:06 +0100 (BST), rosenstiel@cix.co.uk (Colin
>Rosenstiel) wrote:
>
>>Yes, punishment of the innocent because of a few guilty people they are
>>unable or unwilling to deal with under existing powers. So New Labour. I
>>didn't expect it of the Tories too.
>
>You didn't read his manifesto then.

I can't actually see any reference to this proposed policy anywhere on
http://www.backboris.com/ (which I presume is an official site).