In article ,
james.s.farrar@gmail.com (James Farrar) wrote:

> 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.

You mean he promised the people of London he would punish the innocent?

-- 
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:10 +0100 (BST), rosenstiel@cix.co.uk (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

>In article ,
>james.s.farrar@gmail.com (James Farrar) wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>You mean he promised the people of London he would punish the innocent?

He promised the travelling public of London that they would be spared
the intimidating sight of fellow passengers swigging alcohol on the
Tube, yes.

On Jun 2, 12:40 am, James Farrar  wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:10 퍝 (BST), rosenst...@cix.co.uk (Colin
>
>
>
>
>
> Rosenstiel) wrote:
> >In article ,
> >james.s.far...@gmail.com (James Farrar) wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:06 퍝 (BST), 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.
>
> >> You didn't read his manifesto then.
>
> >You mean he promised the people of London he would punish the innocent?
>
> He promised the travelling public of London that they would be spared
> the intimidating sight of fellow passengers swigging alcohol on the
> Tube, yes.

I bet he wishes that he had promised to spare them from elephant
attacks as well.

At least that wouldn't have resulted in thousands of elephants on the
Undgerground the day before the ban (would it?).

On Jun 2, 7:43 am, MIG  wrote:
> At least that wouldn't have resulted in thousands of elephants on the
> Undgerground the day before the ban (would it?).

Nah , that would only happen if there was a double cheeseburger ban.

B2003