Boris Johnson’s first act as Mayor of London was to ban the consumption of alcohol, and the carrying of open receptacles of it, on public transport. I have already outlined the case against in full over at my own blog, but to recap briefly…
Boris’ ban is essentially petty authoritarianism. Considering the wealth of existing legislation that criminalizes anything that infringes the rights of others on public transport, all this measure will do is criminalize those who keep themselves to themselves but wish, for whatever reason (and I can think of plenty), to drink on public transport. Boris says the ban will cut down on so-called ‘minor crime’, when it seems to me it will do quite the reverse, criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens.
I urge you to join me in protesting against this illiberal ban by donning your evening-wear, breaking out the liqueurs, and exercising your right to drink on the tube one last time this Saturday. On this Sunday, 1st June, the carriage turns back into a pumpkin as the ban comes into force. Therefore, the drinking will go on until midnight. There are a number of different events going on, most organised on Facebook; it looks like turnout could be anywhere between 5,000-10,000 combined, from all the different events.
The main ones can be found here, here, here, here, and here. The official website is here. Sunny Hundal of Liberal Conspiracy is also organising something, so you could always join him. Alternatively, you could follow these paragons of harmless eccentricity, and have a dinner party on the tube.
Most of the events kick off at Liverpool Street Station, so there’s likely to be a significant police presence there. If you want to avoid it, I’d recommend getting on at a later stop on the Circle Line such as Tower Hill or Monument.
As the third party, Lib Dems so often find ourselves opposing policies that we know, whether we like it or not, are going to come into force. The public feels that same sense of helplessness and inevitability, I’m sure, and protests are an important way for the public to both vent and demonstrate their dislike of certain government policies.
Yet there is a frequent misconception that protests only comes in three forms – violent riots, self-discrediting publicity stunts and tired old marches and rallies; none of these are productive, and the first two are arguably counterproductive. That does not mean to say, however, that protests have to be one of these. Indeed, it’s imperative that we find new forms of protest, in my view.
Facebook and other social networking sites offer the ability to co-ordinate massive protests with ease and speed never before achieved; we should utilize this. However, we should also look at what people want from protests now – in an age of Live 8, Live Earth and so forth, it’s clear that the public are keen to protest but want to enjoy themselves whilst doing so. If protesting is going to get back in vogue, we need to develop forms of protest that are fun to be a part of, and – more importantly – look fun too.
I’m sure plenty of people reading this will know how fun good marches can be – the people you meet, the rousing speeches, etc.; unfortunately, they don’t necessarily appear fun to the outside world. Having a dinner party on the tube, however, definitely looks like good fun. Additionally, it’s acts of defiant, harmless fun that constitute the most powerful challenge to a government. Serious protests can be met with stern rebuttal; but how do you, as a government minister, wrestle the moral high ground from six people enjoying roast chicken and red wine around a fold-up table on the Jubilee line?
Satirists have always understood that mockery can be more powerful than serious criticism – Vince Cable’s now-legendary ‘Stalin to Mr Bean’ joke proved that definitively for me. We should take notice of this, and make protests as humorous and enjoyable as possible; therein lies the way to bring protesting back in fashion and to get the public out demonstrating in force once more.
* Leo Watkins blogs at Hunting for Witches.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Tractor tax could cost 200,000 jobs
Measles was good business for Mr Sowerberry in Oliver Twist
Being a gracious Zoom host
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Steve Trevethan
Mike Peters
116 Comments
I wish I could be there, but I’m not even remotely in the area.
It should go without saying that I’m fully in support of your aims. May you utterly embarass the authoritarian and his Evening Low Standard “reading” supporters by showing how unworkable, petty and half-baked his policy is.
I’m on the drink tonight, so I’ll toast you. Best wishes to you all. I’m all sad now I can’t come! 🙁
PS-
I hope people who aren’t Lib Dems come as well.
Well said.
Tomorrow has also been labelled “World No Tobacco Day” and thus I will, in spite of not normally being a smoker, attempt to smoke something. Maybe a cigar.
Perhaps a herbal cigarette would be in order 🙂
Hmmm, I’m split on this. On the freedom, responsibility, enforcement, existing laws point yes you’re absolutely right. Is this a token guesture to send a signal, yes it probably is.
In that regard though is it actually impinging anyone’s liberty in any way that’s very signficant. I can’t even bring myself to describe the ban as creating modest inconvenience, dinner parties on the tube are not a common occurence other than as a similar piece of guesture politics.
I think that puts me in the camp of ‘not a law I’d bring in’, but equally ‘not one I’m going to get very excited about reversing if I was in power’. If we had sunset clauses on legislation this would be the best way of dealing with this kind of by-law.
Why should government send ‘signals’ to individuals with regards to how they choose to live?
This law is impinging on freedom simply because people will not be free to drink, say, a can of lager on the way to a party. Who is to judge how ‘significant’ this is? It’s a removal of freedom by government diktat – or rather, an attempt to move freedom, due to the usual lack of enforceability.
I’m starting to wish I’d spoiled my London Mayor vote and just stuck to LD on the GLA parts. Actually, no ‘starting’ about it, this is definitely what I should have done.
The problem is, Norman, i’ve a suspicion this is just the first of many socially authoritarian measures that London is going to have to stomach, as Boris tries to appease his core vote.
I think it is worth illustrating to the Blonde Buffoon that Londoners won’t put up with such measures, and that he’s fooling nobody in thinking this will beef up his “tough on law & order” credentials.
The aim of the protest is, in my view, nothing more than to give Boris a bit of a bloody nose, in the hope that it will make him think twice about doing anything similar again.
These are the battles we should let them win. We stand up nothing happens, good things happen because of the drinking ban and we look like idiots.
Of course it’s authoritarian but the public will only care about results on a matter such as this and our protests will only knock the party further from them.
I think I’m minded to agree with Mund Leo, the media coverage of this, I’m going to guess, will focus on the eccentric dinner party and possibly 10 seconds of a serious point if you’re lucky. Not so much a ‘bloody nose’ as portraying the opponents of Boris as eccentrics and dogmatic.
Better to take on the social conservatives where they’re clearly in the wrong such as on the abortion debate where Nadine Dorres has been on film hanging out with and seeking counsel from militant fundamentalist gay-hating Christian fanatics.
The thin end of the wedge argument I’m not yet convinced by, what would be the likely next step in this slide?
“the public will only care about results on a matter such as this”
What about the 10,000 members of the public who are turning out to the protest? Or do voters only count when they’re called Angry in Suburbia and write letters to the Standard?
Also, why should we believe that this is going to prevent crime / disorderly behaviour or whatever it’s supposed to achieve? More likely nothing will change and it’ll be revealed as futile and authoritarian and “small government” BoJo will be left looking foolish.
“The thin end of the wedge argument I’m not yet convinced by, what would be the likely next step in this slide?”
Banning drinking in public / outside pubs.
Banning all food and drink on public transport.
The dinner party was a separate thing, to my knowledge.
The media coverage will, yes, focus on the fact that people are behaving eccentrically; so what?
If people are well-behaved and enjoy themselves on the Tube but in a restrained way that doesn’t impinge on anyone else, it undermines the whole case for the ban. Additionally, as i said in the piece, humour and mockery are very effective ways to highlight the absurdity of a government’s policies.
“What about the 10,000 members of the public who are turning out to the protest? Or do voters only count when they’re called Angry in Suburbia and write letters to the Standard?”
They will be badly portrayed and are protesting against something which has not happened so the public cannot visualize it even if you were right.
I KNOW crime will go down, because people will be drinking less in the presence of those who are not.
This protest will not do the liberals any favours.
“They will be badly portrayed and are protesting against something which has not happened so the public cannot visualize it even if you were right.”
I don’t understand this. Your point was not about portrayal (presumably you mean in the media), it was about what the public think. You said the ‘public will only care about results’. My response was that many members of the public are already against the proposals. Who cannot ‘visualize’ what?
“I KNOW crime will go down, because people will be drinking less in the presence of those who are not.”
Again, don’t understand. Do you ‘KNOW’ that crime is directly caused by people drinking in the company of people who aren’t drinking? This is what causes crime, is it? Quite a revelation.
“I don’t understand this. Your point was not about portrayal (presumably you mean in the media), it was about what the public think. You said the ‘public will only care about results’. My response was that many members of the public are already against the proposals. Who cannot ‘visualize’ what?”
Sorry I meant the will not be able to visualize your points about the keeping of the current law. As currently most people would consider the crime rate to be high (even if it’s not), so any measure will be welcomed, and attacking drink is perfect.
“Again, don’t understand. Do you ‘KNOW’ that crime is directly caused by people drinking in the company of people who aren’t drinking? This is what causes crime, is it? Quite a revelation.”
I suppose I know there are some member of society that I don’t want anywhere near me or those I love when they’re drinking.
So if they can’t drink maybe they wont do as many heinous things.
JH: “Banning drinking in public / outside pubs.
Banning all food and drink on public transport.”
O.k., but who, serious, is debating or suggesting the first of those ideas, the second is so anti-populist as to be a deeply unlikely from any camp.
With the smoking ban there was a very large groundswell of groups and opinion formers pressing for action and a great deal of anticipation around it that further restrictions or tax rises would follow. I don’t see any indication of a return to the prohibition movements of the 1920s at the moment.
I appreciate we may need to agree to differ, but I don’t see this as anything more than a headline moment about something that doesn’t matter, with few long-term implications for anything much.
Completely agree Norman. I can’t seem to make sense today.
The basic issue is this, as far as i see it:
Drinkers who infringe the rights of other passengers on public transport should be punished. Those who keep to themselves should not. The argument is that drink makes one liable to behave in such a way that one is more likely than not to infringe the rights of others; however, it is not inevitable that one will behave in such a way.
It sets a terrible precedent to limit people’s rights in the name of hypothetical crimes that they may go on to commit. It is treating every citizen as a possible criminal, and gives rise to the notion that the public simply cannot be trusted to drink responsibly on public transport.
Norman, it’s firstly about the principle, and second, as i’ve already said, about making sure Boris doesn’t try anything similar again. God knows what goes on inside that head of his, but are you seriously saying with certainty that he won’t try anything more socially authoritarian or ridiculous than this, over the course of the next 4 years?
We may not know exactly what he’s planning, but whatever it is i’m pretty sure it’ll be worse than the current measure. That’s why we have to take a stand now.
On principle Leo I agree with you, however in principle legal prescriptions to obey traffic lights are an imposition on safe drivers due to the iresponsibility of a few. I don’t though intend to start protesting to demand traffic lights become optional (although as a cyclist Mayor Johnson may actually like that idea, his leader certainly appears to).
On stopping him doing something similar again, I think if your protest makes his decision look like safety versus symbolism and eccentricity it will have the opposite effect. It is every politician’s dream to be attacked by groups perceived as quirky, dogmatic, or dangerous by the majority.
If further Mayor Johnson does have more extreme measures in mind, such as banning London-based Liverpudlians from engaging in their harmless right to express mawkish sentimentality, or making monogamy grounds for dismissal amongst his staff, there will be quite siginficant opposition. Opposition with more clout and media access than this bit of fun.
But if that time comes I will join you taking a stand. Right now though I’ll be sitting, probably on a tube, probably sober, and largely indifferent to the prohibition.
During my rides on the Tube, I haven’t drunk, or wanted to. But so what? I should have the right to engage in behaviours that are harmless, whether I actually do so or not. I’m not gay, but I wouldn’t want to live in a society that criminalised consensual sex between men.
And sometimes you have to ignore the opinion polls. Read what our old friend A. Mortimer has to say on the issue of our being “pioneers”.
Old?
[Locates zimmer frame. Shuffles into view] Ah, young Asquith, hehehe, bless my soul, dear boy, hand me my ear trumpet…
Lots of good and considered discussion in this thread as usual. Can we all pause for a brief moment of communal self-congratulation?
/pause/
Now then. Norman, there is one thing I want to add to Julian H and Leo’s arguments, and it’s that I drink on the tube. So do they, probably. We drink on the way to parties to arrive in a suitable state of sociability, or on the way into town so as to not pay £15 to get the first round in. On my way home from my last work journey after quitting last April (O happy day!) I cracked open a can on the Northern Line on a Tuesday and boy, did it feel good. We’re not, needless to say, hopeless alkies or ASBO kids.
Like drinking or loathe it (and I guess you probably like it) it’s a social custom and currently one partly cultivated on the tube. This ban is not about the theoretical infringement of liberty. It is a thing we currently like to do, and will no longer be allowed to do after Sunday.
No, I wouldn’t go to the barricades for it. But it will make my life a measurable fraction less enjoyable, I’m afraid, and for no good reason whatsoever. We all know and accept that the people who currently fight/cause trouble/vomit over everything on the tube are the people who aren’t particularly inclined to be civil and law-abiding in the first place. And there’s nothing to stop them getting tanked up before they get on.
“Serious protests can be met with stern rebuttal; but how do you, as a government minister, wrestle the moral high ground from six people enjoying roast chicken and red wine around a fold-up table on the Jubilee line?”
Yes, but this doesn’t sound like a protest more of a random display of eccentricity.
Could I have a copy of the photos you take to put up on my blog permanently? :@D
“So do they, probably.”
Yuh, I can confirm this. How did you guess?
By old, I meant “of long standing”. ie. before the television appearance!
I’m slightly disappointed by the ones who aren’t showing support. This is part of a whole, society-wide business against authoritarianism. The ID cards scheme, the restrictions on protestors, the enactment of more and more laws, and all the utter bilge the conservative parties do.
Jo – i’d characterize it more as a good-natured, humourous act of defiance.
I’ll definitely be putting some of the photos on my blog.
Mund, Norm (curiously pointing to Andy Mayer’s blog), as people have said here, there and everywhere, it is already illegal to behave like a twat on the tube, under sections 4 & 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. What this new law will do is essentially criminalise the act of opening a bottle.
And don’t be fooled by the idea that it is relatively harmless.
Fancy that quick weekend shopping break in New York? Well not anymore, the VWP no longer applies to you, so you have to go the US embassy and apply personally. Or looking to further your career with a job in the US? Well, think again, first question they ask you when you want an interview – ‘Have you ever been arrested?’. Want a new job in a responsible profession? Hmm, difficult with a criminal record.
The point is that a) as a good liberal what I do, as long as it has no adverse effect on you, is none of you effing business and b) by criminalising something which does absolutely no-one (apart from the imbiber) any harm, you leave the door open to the two worst phrases in English legislation: unintended consequences and mission creep.
I could wish the LibDems had had such liberal principles when it came to the smoking ban. Consumption of alcohol inthe Tube has clearly led to acts of violence against the public – passive smoking does not & the claims that it is a serious health risk to those not smoking is clearly not justifiable. It is also the case that the pub used to be a place where many people went to enjoy a drink – the Tube was rarely the first choice of those wanting to drink.
Neil Craig,
Why can’t you be positive just for once? Surely, as a libertarian, you agree with what these people are doing. It shouldn’t be beyond you to express support for them without bitching.
But apparently it is.
As a lot of people have said – aggressive/antisocial behaviour on the tube is already illegal, and the people that do that will probably be happy to defy the alcohol ban as well. This will only affect law-abiding people that worry about that kind of thing, and therefore will have little impact on antisocial behaviour on the tube.
Also as other people have said, the people who are a threat on the tube are the ones who are already drunk, not the ones having a tinny on the way into town because they’re too skint/cheapskate to buy a drink in an overpriced club – it’s very unlikely, by the time they get off the tube, that they will be drunk enough for it to have significantly affected their behaviour. Bear in mind some tube journeys are very long – say Amersham to Baker street takes almost an hour – drinking on a train journey of a similar length would not be considered antisocial – why should it be different on the tube.
Also, and I’ve just thought of this, this will affect a lot of people who didn’t even get to vote in the mayoral election!!! If you live in say, Amersham and get the tube to Watford (changing at Moor Park), you would be subject to this rule even though not only did you not get to vote for the mayor, you will not even be passing through a GLA controlled area at any point! Which seems rather unfair.
This brings new meaning to Nick Clegg’s speech at conference – a year off your life for every stop east :@D
My most powerful memory of alcohol on the tube was when I was in my late teens.
In a more than merry state returning from the off-license me and a couple of friends interrupted what looked like a bit of an argument going on a bit further up the carriage.
It looked like we were going to get beaten up, so we proffered them a drink.
Everything calmed down from then and we all exchanged pleasantries when we scarpered at the next stop, so I like to think that in some cases alcohol can dissipate threats too.
Would the law ever have stopped the Clash from taking speed on the tube? You can’t fight the law, because the law wins – but you can make it look ridiculous.
Hey, only I’m allowed to make gratuitous references to that track.
Ah, the Clash. Now they were a band 🙂
Bit left wing for my liking.
I just tried to post twice with an imbedded link; seemed to not let me do so. Point I was trying to make was that gratuitous, LD-themed reference to that track have been done before:
http://orangebyname.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-sought-laws-and-laws-didnt-run.html
Ah, there it is! Ignore subsequent post. In fact ignore me entirely, I should get back to work.
Jo, I rarely indulge in LOLs but I think that might be an exception.
LOL 😀
You give the electorate to much credit.
So how does this fit in with Johnsons talk about reducing police red tape and fighting crime? Instead of getting the police to solve serious crime, he’s going to have them waste countless hours arresting drunks and vagrants on the tube.
The policy is ridiculous and pretty unenforceable – I for one am going to have a tinny on the tube when I feel like it, and its pretty easy to spot a copper getting on the tube the way they dress.
If anyone tries to phone the police, i’m not particularly worried as they aren’t likely to have any signal!
Andy – i quite agree. Boris said this will prevent and thereby reduce so-called ‘minor crime’, but it seems to me that all this will do is criminalize otherwise law-abiding people, waste police time, and mean the real criminals get away with it.
More generally, there seems to be some confusion about what is happening on the 1st of June. It will not, in fact, be illegal to carry open containers of alcohol or to drink it; it’s another year until some kind of by-law relating to that will come into effect. Rather, from the 1st of June they will merely be terms of carriage aboard all TFL services, meaning that transport staff will be responsible for ejecting drinkers.
Andy, if you were civil & polite, your fellow tube-goers wouldn’t care whether you drank or not.
This is why I’m against stupid, pointless authoritarian laws. They trip up and stop the police trying to enforce good laws. And bad laws bring the law in general into contempt. Which has horrible consequences.
We demand more freedom, less legislation, and better enforcement of such laws as we believe we need.
But BoJo is just pandering to the Evening Low Standard “readers”, he scorns liberals as much as scum like Blunkett do.
Asquith, it’s not helpful or advisable to make judgements about the character of people, even if they behaved viciously and vindictively from a position of authority.
To do so is to commit exactly the same mistake as this prohibition of alcohol on the tube makes.
Sure, Blunkett behaved like scum would, but that doesn’t make him scum.
Shouldn’t we then also ban paedophiles or murderers from travelling on the tube? After all they could be cruising for victims – but how would we prove it?
Oranjepan, I refer to his authoritarianism, utter ignorance, and hatred of anything remotely decent. There’s a reason why “liberal” is his bogey word.
Nevertheless, I am probably talking utter shyte, as I am drinking 70cl bottles of Smirnoff Ice, & am currently engaged on my third.
Oh, well, I’m on apricot schnapps with pineapple juice and tonic, mmm for cocktails. I agree with where you’re coming from, but condemning him won’t convert him.
Yes, I’m having an intelligent conversation with my dad. I’m trying to point out to him that he is intelligent, despite being told by his sink, 70s, comprehensive school (in Stoke) that he was stupid.
I would be angered bby the sheer, utter, disgrace of a man who is far cleverer than most parasite cnut lawyers & politicians being written off by a right-wing education system.
But I’m going back to the ber, so cba.
Has someone started a rumour that I think I’m great or funny or something? I seem to be in for a lot of sarcasm/criticism of late…
:@D
It’s nothing to do with me, Jo 🙂
Jo, don’t misunderestimate yourself – we love you, really, no, really we do! Have a hi-ball on me!
squiffy, I can demnstrate how to be intelligent and stupid at the same time if you want…
Well, how did it go!?
Living in London and coming home from work at 11 last night, I can tell you it went exactly as, er, Boris would have wanted.
Everywhere you went smelt of booze, there were lairy people who presumably had started as soon as “the sun hit the yardarm” who were quite scary because they were out of it, there were empty cans and bottles strewn all over the platforms and concourses, and half the Tube network in zone 1 had to be shut because of out-of-control drunks.
See more of this delightful “fun” here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7429638.stm
Boris couldn’t have planned it better – proved his point about a minority of irresponsible idiots ruining travel for others perfectly. So well done.
I daresay the four drivers and the other members of staff assaulted by “revellers” weren’t that impressed by the party either.
Yep, now liberals look so appealing for the masses.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the authoritarians deliberately supplied the worst people they could find with drink, to try & prove a point. Well, they haven’t proven a point to me. I’d like to see the likes of this Peter Moore arrested, obviously. But behaviour of that kind has always been illegal, we don’t need more bansturbation.
In fact, going after everyone who has a glass of wine or a bottle of beer will, in fairly obvious ways, hinder the enforcement of the good laws which exist and always have done. And people will then start to treat the law with contempt, undermining the whole rule of law which is essential to a liberal society.
Any problems which ensue will be the fault of BoJo and his fellow punitive bigots.
I was going round the Circle Line up to about half eleven last night, and i can confidently say that, while there were a small number of incidences, the majority of people passed off the night in good humour and spirit.
Yes, some people abused the event but that a minority abuse a liberty does not mean to say that the majority should have to forfeit that liberty: we would not deny everyone free speech simply because a minority use it to spread hate; we would not deny everyone the right to gamble & bet, though some may do so irresponsibly.
As for the litter all over the place, to be honest that was always going to be a problem because of the chronic lack of bins in Underground stations; why can’t TFL just use some of those bins which are effectively transparent bags? That avoids security risks while actually providing a way for people to get rid of their litter.
To me, the more powerful rebuttal of Boris’ case came not from the masses of people who swarmed into Liverpool Street and the Circle Line, but from when my friends and i went on the Central Line. It was much more like a typical everyday scenario of a few people drinking on a normal carriage. I don’t think we were intimidating and everyone else could see we were just having some harmless fun.
A bit late to this party, but:
Food and drink of any kind is banned on buses around here, so it’s not that inconceivable that this is the first slice of the salami, is it?
Squiff: Yes it was all a dastardly plot by the evil authoritarian fascist with the blond hair and the dodgy shorts, giving everyone booze just so they could make even bigger t*ts of themselves and prove him right. Mwahahahahaha! His plan for world domination is nearly complete!
Litter: how about “why can’t idiots not have a party on the Tube, and go and do it somewhere more conducive to parties like a pub.”
Drinking on public transport is not a liberty, and still less is it comparable with free speech. I don’t remember reading about it in Paine or Mill. It is not the first leap to tyranny, not even a tentative baby-step towards it, and if anyone is even thinking of Niemoller’s quote they should grow up.
And it would seem this delightful little demo has proved Boris right about people who think a public space is their’s to use as they wish.
This just makes the LibDems look like irresponsible student politicians who go out their way to offend people. It must be a real joy to be allied with the Sparts and anarchists on this one.
Liberalism is not just about the rights of the individual but respect for other individuals as well.
Since LibDem Voice helped encourage this little shindig with this post will they apologise to the people assaulted, those who were travelling home for regular reasons and missed their connections, and the cleaners who had to tidy up the torn maps and bodily fluids splattered all over the carriages?
Or is your individual right not to apologise more important?
From the BBC:
====================
Six London Underground stations were closed as trouble flared when thousands of people marked the banning of alcohol on London transport with a party.
Four tube drivers, three other staff members, and two police officers were assaulted, and there were 17 arrests.
Several trains were damaged and withdrawn from service, which led to suspended services.
====================
Peter Moore, 35, a sailor from Brighton, said he had downed a can of beer in 10 seconds. “It’s sweaty on there, but I’m going round and round until I vomit,” he said.
====================
As Saturday night wore on, eyewitnesses described how drunken partygoers began fighting and vomiting, ripping up maps and adverts, spilling alcohol and leaving debris.
====================
Seventeen people were arrested for offences such as assault, being drunk and disorderly, assaulting police, public order related offences and drug offences, BTP said.
One police vehicle was damaged and two officers assaulted and another injured.
Police also reported four assaults on train drivers and three assaults on other members of London Underground staff.
====================
As well as assaults, there were also “multiple instances” of Tube trains being damaged, which meant they were withdrawn from service, which in turn led to several Tube services being suspended.
All to have a drink while travelling. How trivial liberals look. Equating this to Free speech was a masterstroke Leo.
It’s amazing how tories switch arguments when it suits them.
Boris’ introduction of a ban on alcohol in the tube was a great way of reducing anti-social behavior but the ban on smoking in pubs was evil despite any health concerns.
Um, nothing to do with spinning favorable opinion through your own perspective depending on who introduced the regulation, is there?
Shock horror Tories back policies based on political gain.
Borisville, i take full responsibility for this article and i neither expect nor want LDV to apologise on my behalf.
I stand by the article and my arguments – this was and is about the freedom of the individual playing second fiddle to political manoeuvring and self-righteous authoritarianism.
Of course it’s unfortunate that an extreme minority of people behaved badly and of course my sympathy goes out to any Underground staff who were insulted or intimidated. The fact remains, however, that one cannot confiscate liberties off the majority simply because a minority abuse those liberties.
To Anonymous, interesting that you say Mill never talked about the freedom to drink alcohol. I suggest you go back and read On Liberty, specifically the passages where he attacks Christian temperance movements. The freedom to drink alcohol is important in that it is a major dividing line between those who believe individuals should be free to make their own mistakes and to do things that are ultimately very harmful to them, and those who believe the state should legislate to prevent people from making those mistakes.
As far as drinking in public goes, the argument all along has been that what does not harm others should not be banned; the vast majority of people who went to drink and have a good time last night did not harm anyone else. Yes, some did but they were arrested under existing laws.
Last night was an overwhelming success, despite the uniformly negative media coverage of the event, because it proved that anti-social behaviour is not an inevitable result of the drinking of alcohol for the vast majority of Londoners.
That was what Boris had to prove in order to justify what was posited as a ‘pre-emptive’ measure designed to stop people from getting drunk in the first place, which assumed that people inevitably pose a threat to public order by being intoxicated.
As i’ve already said, i was there and i saw that, though drunk, the partygoers deliberately contained themselves in the last carriages of tube trains, staying away from the other people who needed to use it. Most people were giving out free beer, meeting and befriending strangers and having a good time.
Those that abused the event to have a pop at the police and underground staff were in an extreme minority, and i have yet to encounter a convincing argument for subsuming the rights of the majority because of the actions of a minority which abuse those selfsame rights. We would not view it as justification for limiting freedom of speech, extending the surveillance state, or curbing the right to protest; that is where the parallel comes in, Anonymous and Mund.
It highlights how political gain is often at variance with public gain.
Does one wonder why so many people think this country is going to the dogs (according to the old refrain) after a lifetime under this Conservative/Labour zero-sum duopoly?
Shock Horror indeed.
No Mund, not shocking, no horror involved. It’s a sad and depressing indictment of wing politics.
Leo Watkins: really? Does On Liberty go on to mention getting wrecked on the Tube, which had then just started up (fittingly, it was the Circle Line IIRC)?
Libertarianism is not just “do what you want”, there is also the question of effects on others, and drinking on the Tube (especially flashmobs of boozers) creates fear and distress; also detritus on almost every part, as we saw last night.
Last night was a success only for Boris’s position, and it proved that anti-social behaviour is an inevitable result of the drinking of alcohol in places it isn’t meant to be drunk.
Besides, you’re not old enough to drink apparently, so why the rush of concern.
My, what a nasty set of Tory rent-a-farts have suddenly descended on our humble Voice – and all at once too! What are the odds? You can’t get the quality trolls these days.
Sorry to drag tedious reality into your authoritarian wet dreams, guys, but let’s actually look at the facts of what happened last night:
1. Seventeen arrests were made out of a total of several thousand revellers. This is a vanishingly small percentage for an event that was supposed to bring London to a standstill. Of course, it’s seventeen too many for my liking, as for any law-abiding persons. But it’s still something of a damp squib for those who were looking for “CHAOS ON THE TUBE” although I see the papers haven’t bothered to reset their headlines. Too much trouble, probably.
2. All the arrests were able to, er, take place. This is because there are already laws to deal with crimes like assault, drunken disorder, and the like. This is exactly why we don’t need the alcohol ban. Will you please all try to grasp this exceptionally simple premise.
3. Six tube stations were closed – and the newspapers, frankly, are lying about the reasons why. I don’t know where their sudden insane blindspot has come from, but tube station closures are NORMAL. In both the morning and evening rush hours, every day of the week, dozens or hundreds of commuters crowded round a closed station entrance is a common sight. It’s to prevent overcrowding on the platforms and it’s very sensible. Last night we had a rush hour plus situation in terms of numbers all night – of course there were closures! It would have been criminally stupid not to control the flow of numbers and I would have expected nothing less of TfL.
I will just single out Boristroll for particular incredulity, if I may:
“proved Boris right about people who think a public space is their’s to use as they wish”
Er. Small detail. It IS. Pay close attention: liberalism entails the maximum leeway for every individual to do what the hell they like so long as it doesn’t impinge on the liberties of any other individual.
Assault, verbal abuse and pissing in corners does impinge on the liberties of others. That’s why there are laws against it.
Raising a glass to the lips does not impinge on the liberties of others. That’s why this law is wrong.
And of course LDV isn’t going to apologise :-D! What a card you are. LDV is a collective-run, non-official website for members and activists to state their views, whether by posting articles or commenting on others. This phenomenon is known in liberal circles as “freedom of speech”. It would be totally and utterly inappropriate for “LDV” (even if we could identify who that moniker really covers) to apologise for anything that appeared on its pages. You are a clot.
* luffs the Alix *
@Anonymous,
“Libertarianism is not just “do what you want”,”
Erm, actually that’s *exactly* what libertarianism is. Which is why only a few Liberal Democrats self-indentify as libertarian. I fancy it’s the definition of “liberalism” you are seeking to pin down. Though your uncertainty on the point should come as no surprise given that you are clearly an unpleasant authoritarian troll with no actual interest in the subject of liberty whatsoever.
Talking of unpleasantness, can I offer guys and trolls everywhere a tip re ageist sniping at the writer of the article: it isn’t helping your case.
Hwhy thankyou!
Not that I area scary stalkery type or nuffin… 😉
I never realised I could make good money from renting out my old farts, Alix 🙂 … another market opportunity that I missed.
Sadly I was unable to make the tube yesterday; I would have been tempted to squeeze in a cheeky half but I am too many time zones away at the moment.
However, the troubles that did occur highlight the underlying problem well.
While I am sure that you are able to quaff an admirable amount of your favourite tipple and stay good natured and charming (or at least remain witty in your misdemenours), unfortunately many people can’t. Add into this that many people do find it extremely threatening to have others drinking on the tube (not least because they don’t quite know whether they are sitting opposite nice Miss Alix, or someone on whom the disinhibitory effect of alcohol produces something rather more obnoxious.)
I suppose this is analogous to saying that while raising glass to lips might not directly impinge on the liberties of others, the behavioural changes associated with consuming alcohol not only make many feel threatened but are also linked to a very high proportion of ASB.
So while it is a step that I wish Boris has not had to make, I can fully understand why he did.
Passing T: “the behavioural changes associated with consuming alcohol not only make many feel threatened but are also linked to a very high proportion of ASB.”
But how much of that “behavioural change” is because people are *drinking on the tube* as opposed to being drunk when they get on it?
How much of the ‘behavioural change’ is due to the alcohol and how much of the ‘behaviour’ due to the person?
Alix I understand the protest was a “Good” thing to do. It was the right things to do. But it does our cause no good. The people that protest will attract were already liberals they just didn’t know it.
The remaining electorate just feel vindicated. It’s politics not philosophy, it matters how we look.
“The people that protest will attract were already liberals they just didn’t know it.”
Sounds like a result to me! 🙂 I’ll back any reasonable cause that gets people using the word “liberal” or “liberty”, even if they don’t trace it back to us yet.
I think you’d have a good point about our image if the Lib Dems as a party had officially made a big fuss about this and associated the party with it in the media – which would of course have been deeply unwise, and they didn’t do it. Only a tiny, tiny proportion of observers are going to be seeing this in party political terms and associating us with the perceived “wrongs” of the case. You really shouldn’t worry about the half-dozen orchestrated trolls here who already hated us. They *want* us to panic and doubt that we’re taking the right approach; that’s why they’re here. If they thought we weren’t a threat, they (or their handler) wouldn’t have bothered.
On your wider point though, I am ever more convinced that dilution of a cause in the interest of media friendliness doesn’t work in the long-term – Labour are finding that out the hard way.
PT, I dunno, I did get a bit lairy not long ago in Burger King at Charing Cross. In my defence, my target had jumped the queue. And he was a Chelsea supporter.
I echo Grammar Police – I just can’t see that the ban will make any cultural or practical difference. It doesn’t stop people getting on the tube off their faces. It doesn’t change the sort of people they are.
I’ll take a bet (which sadly, we can’t test) that all the people who used to regularly get tanked up, roll onto the tube with their tenth can open, piss over a fire extinguisher and start a fight did NOT wake up this morning and say to themselves “Oh dear! I used to think it was culturally acceptable to get wasted and punch people on public transport and leave little puddles of my vomit everywhere, but now that Boris has brought in the all-important alcohol ban, I had better stop my anti-social and inconsiderate behaviour towards other passengers straight away!”
Only hardcore Labourites really think this is how people’s brains work.
The same people obey the smoking law, but drink will be different?
It’s not untruths I want from the Lib Dems, just selective truths until the public is educated enough.
“The same people obey the smoking law, but drink will be different?”
Yes it will, because the two are not at all analogous. The smoking ban does exactly what it says on the tin – it bans people from smoking. All they have to do for the smoking ban to work is not smoke.
The alcohol ban is supposed to solve all sorts of problems from anti-social behaviour to full-on criminal assault. You can tell this because of the way people justify the ban – they’ll say something like “People in London are fed up with drunken behaviour, fighting and mess on the tube.”
So in order for the alcohol ban to “work” people have to not only not drink on the tube – they have to not be drunk when they get on the tube, and they have to not carry out any assault or engage in any anti-social behaviour while drunk. People who have a yen, and are drunk enough, to commit a criminal assault are going to do it whether or not they’ve actually got a can in their hand.
Orangepan: “How much of the ‘behavioural change’ is due to the alcohol and how much of the ‘behaviour’ due to the person?”
Strictly speaking neither. It seems that a person’s behavioural response to alcohol is largely conditioned by the expectations of society. Which means, from a policy point of view, what you really want to be targetting is what the public consider to be generally acceptable behaviour. Not an easy one to nail, though.
Alix, I think you’re wasting your breath trying to argue with these “individuals”.
Perhaps you should put your efforts into writing another blog post 🙂
Alix, I couldn’t have put it better than you did at 11.14pm (which, presumably, is why I didn’t).
When i was a Councillor I successfully introduced a public drinking ban in our town centre and helped succesfully oppose one on our local park. I think any restriction on liberty needs to pass a very high threshold but specifically
1. Proportionality. How big is the current harm being caused and how much liberty is being sacrificed?
2. have other measures been exhausted?
3. Is the legislation actually enforceable?
4. does the legislation disproportionately or unfairly target a minority?
5. An impact assessment for the law of unintended consequences or displacement?
I suppose my point is I don’t see the London ban as being illiberal in principal. After all society has fairly wide restrictions on the consumption of alcohol which we all support. However it may be illiberal in practice. As a non Londoner who uses the tube as a tourist I shan’t say what I think.
As for the flash mob protests. facinating use of technology and counter culture to make a political point. However also grossly irresponsible. facilitating thoasands of people to congregate, on a saturday night on a highly confined space already in use and drink alcohol until midnight. With no plan, coordination, safety assessment or anyone in charge.
How could anything have gone wrong ?
I suspect Boris will be laughing as in PR terms he couldn’t have asked for a bigger and better justification for his (probably) useless policy.
If anyone asks TfL for a gender and ethnic break down of the cleaners who had to wade through the vomit and detrius after this stunt they’ll find I suspect a more pressing case of infringed liberty than people who have to drink the in the pub rather than the Tube.
While we are at it, why don’t we ban gum-chewing and eating on the tube? Both annoy me intensely and make me murderously angry at times.
Sesenco,
I think that the problem you face is that there is an increasing tendency to assume that if something isn’t explicitly forbidden then it is OK. Eating on public transport used to be frowned upon because a lot of people (not just you) consider it unpleasant.
In the current culture, however, there seem to be few grey areas; either something is banned, or else people will just do it regardless of the impact on other people. The middle ground – that of politeness and consideration for others – is too sparsely populated.
Asquith you paranoia is astounding. Or maybe you deem me unworthy of Alix’s efforts.
Round one to Boris.
I can’t say I’m that sympathetic to the libertarians on this. Subway systems involve vast numbers of people being herded through steel gates, down stairs and onto fast-moving electrified metal worms. With all that complex machinery flying about, it’s little different from a factory or building site. Would you argue against a drinking ban in these locations?
Passing Tory, re: behavioural change and behaviour. I don’t think you can have it both or neither ways, one or the other please.
I tend to think a person is responsible for their behaviour under all conditions (if not the individual, then who else?), so any behavioural change is an entire irrelevance to the standards that others should expect of them.
Being drunk might be a reason, but it ain’t no excuse.
Passing Tory, while you put your case in a far more agreeable manner than some of the others who’ve objected to the event and supported the ban, i nevertheless respectfully disagree.
In my opinion, the only way people develop restraint and moderation in their exercising of rights and freedoms is through becoming accustomed to having those rights. As we saw on Saturday, people feel the need to exercise their rights more when those rights seem under threat.
I certainly fail to see how one can expect people to exercise rights in a responsible manner if one denies them the opportunity to do so.
However, i agree to an extent with your earlier point about people’s behaviour often being a product of the values their society deems acceptable and ‘normal’. That so many people binge drink in the UK doubtless perpetuates the notion that it is the ‘normal’ way to drink alcohol, and that the standard purpose of drinking is to get drunk and act as a kind of escapism.
I agree that such a mentality is a serious problem, but we should be looking at what it is about the UK that means that mentality dominates here, while it does not in other European countries. Finally, if other European countries seem to have avoided a binge drinking culture without resorting to blanket bans of the kind we’ve just seen brought in on London’s public transport, i see no reason why we should not be able to do the same.
@Sesenco/PT
It would be very depressing to think that this entire ideological debate might actually boil down to how uptight one is and how organised one’s domestic life. Possibly even, dare I say it, what generation one belongs to. I don’t know how old you guys are, but I’ve seen exactly your arguments perpetuated by too many old buffers (Lib Dem and otherwise) to be in any doubt about their basic origins.
I really couldn’t give a toss what people stuff into their various orifices on the tube, and that is probably in no small part due to the fact that I occasionally have the need to stuff my own. So I recognise their need, I suppose, and trust that they are carrying out necessary self-maintenance of one sort or another.
We have disposed, in this thread, of most of the substantive arguments against the ban (not hard). What we have left, it seems to me, is a bewildered cry of “But why do you NEED to drink/eat a smelly burger at midnight on the tube? It irritates me!”
The simple and liberal answer is that it’s none of your damn business. And if you can’t point towards anything more substantial than irritation as a cause for its being banned, then I’m afraid I can’t help you.
I get irritated with a lot of the sort of people who are backing the ban – smug, complacent old farts who have too much landed equity and thus stability for their brains not to ossify into defensive mode, essentially. But I recognise my own prejudice and try not to act upon it in policy terms – say, by being in favour of 100% inheritance tax.
Although many right-wing, red-meat libertarians, who are naturally against taxes in general, support inheritance tax because it encourages/forces people to make their own way in the world. If we want the poor to be self-reliant, the least we can do is ask the children of the rich to do likewise.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/269796/listen-to-adam-smith-inheritance-tax-is-good.thtml 🙂
And I agree with this “generation” business. I’ve vowed that I’ll never ossify into an old buffer. I know it happens with many/most people, but not I.
Alix,
I think that you are right that it is partly an age thing, but then you have to ask yourself whether it is because one grows a little wiser with age or whether one just ossifies (as per asquith’s nightmares).
It is very well for you, and nice clean-cut young Leo, to rail about how you don’t see why you shouldn’t be allowed to do anything you feel like but the macroscopic affect of such a philosophy is painfully clear in e.g. the failures of the current UK education system.
I guess my position reduces down to the idea that boundries are not a bad thing. Ideally these are policed by group approval but that mechanism seems to be breaking down and so increasingly the only viable mechanism is the law (and I don’t like that any more than you do).
This is not to say that I don’t expect the boundries to be tested. It would be utterly hypocritical of me to moan about young people going out, geting drunk and doing silly things. But the cruch is that such behaviour is very often antisocial and one should not be surprised to be censored over it.
Alix,
Oh yes, and if you think that I am old fart with too much landed equity I challenge you to come and live where I do for a couple of weeks. This is not about personal finance or economics, the size of one’s home or bank account; this is about what sort of society gives everyone the the best chance in life, and how you in reality balance the freedon of the individual against the requirements of a stable society.
Feet-under-the-table-Tory, isn’t the point in this instance that the “boundary” set by Boris gesture politics pure and simple?
The problem is not people drinking on tubes but rather drunk, anti-social behaviour on tubes/trains. We have laws to deal with this kind of thing already – is banning the act of drinking alcohol really an effective and proportionate measure that will further reduce anti-social behaviour on tubes?
As for the use of law to enforce politeness, where do I start?! To me that sounds like some totalitarian nightmare, and woul,d in practice, pave the way for social authoritarianism on a grand scale.
Surely the whole point of politeness is that it (should) comes from within rather than being enforced from without. It would remove the element of needing to think about other people as you go about your life as you’d just have to follow the rigid rules to be “doing the right thing”.
You seem to be living up to your “tory” moniker today.
GP, I agree that it _should_ come from within. The problem that you have to address is what you do when it doesn’t / isn’t.
In fact I agree to an extent with the idea that the alcohol ban is a gesture; but sometimes such gestures can be important in indicating what behaviour should and should not be tollerated.
While I might not feel that threatened by groups of people drinking (I am not quite as old or as ossified as Alix makes out), I have talked to a great number of people – and yes they tend to be older – who are; people who feel they cannot go out to a town centre on a Friday or Saturday night and who feel hemmed in and – in some cases – distraught that they feel unable to go out and enjoy an area that they have often lived in for many years.
Yes, of course it would be best to address the problem at source, but a clear message that govenement understands people’s concerns is not valueless.
And of course the Lib Dems are not averse to a spot of gesture politics or social authoritarianism. I seem to remember a call for a ban on patio heaters being advocated not long ago.
I have to say that I’m in favour of ‘a spot of gesture politics’ though I’d place the condition that any gesture must be positive and be backed up by some evidence of the positive benefit it will have.
I think it is entirely debateable whether the banning of alcohol on the tube is a positive gesture and there is absolutely no evidence as to whether the effect of it will be either socially or economically positive, neutral or negative.
To put it simply it was an automatic reactionary gesture for Boris to hang his hat on and distract attention from his otherwise lack of action in the meantime.
Live in T said: “in fact I agree to an extent with the idea that the alcohol ban is a gesture; but sometimes such gestures can be important in indicating what behaviour should and should not be tollerated.”
Yes, but what’s the behaviour that we really don’t want and should not be tolerated? Isn’t it anti-social and drunken behaviour? What have we banned? Drinking on tubes. Are the two things necessarily linked?
No.
As for a gesture to show you understand people’s concerns . . .
In 2006, local Conservatives put round a leaflet where I live stating “the decent majority avoid Wimbledon town centre after 7pm”. Since then they’ve implemented dispersal zones and a cumulative impact zone (the latter to restrict new bars).
As a resident of Wimbledon, I know the “decent majority” stuff is rubbish – but I know there are people that think this. But is the way to respond to this to implement schemes that are actually unnecessary, but look like you’re doing something, or to be brave and challenge the perception.
GP: “Isn’t it anti-social and drunken behaviour? What have we banned? Drinking on tubes. Are the two things necessarily linked? No.”
Even my rudimentary statistical knowledge suggests to me that there is a correlation between incidences of ASB and drinking in (as oppsed to before entering) the underground. Not 1.00, I grant you, but not zero either as you state.
The word “necessary” in “Are the two things necessarily linked?” states that the correlation might not be 0.
Well, if correlation > 0 then we are saying that there is a link and the ban will have a positive benefit on (i.e. reduce) ASB. It has a negative effect in terms of reducing individual freedoms so then all we have to haggle about is whether one term is more significant than the other, which is something we could go on all day about so I don’t propose to start.
It may well be the case that alcohol aggravates anti-social behaviour. But anti-social behaviour is the same whatever state it’s committed in, & should be dealt with in the same way. This is obvious, it is what I call a good law.
Bad laws, in which I include this ban, not only are bad in themselves but hinder the implementation of good laws. Going after everyone who drinks any alcohol at all will require an emormous, expensive police presence and will divert resources away from dealing with the morlocks. (Who can surely get drunk without drinking on the tube, and will probably find ways of circumventing the ban anyway, just as criminals merrily carry guns around without reference to the law while law-abiding citizens are disarmed).
I humbly predict that crime in general will rise under BoJo, due to his divisive, punitive 80s-style policies, which will produce the same soaring crime as Thatcher did (not that the Tories will ever tell you that).
Perhaps overlong, but you know.
“Oh yes, and if you think that I am old fart with too much landed equity…”
🙁 No, I did know to the contrary (some throwaway remark about buildng software and getting four hours sleep tipped me off).
It was a bad day for liberalism in the People’s Republic yesterday. I met a woman in, perhaps, her early sixties in the course of work who thought the alchol ban was quite right and the protest “ghastly” (which is fine, I’m happy to argue the toss on it) and then having totally ignored all my counter-arguments, facts and figures and repeated the word “ghastly” in response to everything I said, proceeded to share more of her charming views with me as follows:
* Teenagers who are caught with a knife should be imprisoned for life.
* There isn’t enough fear in society. We need to return to a state of fear.
* Unmarried cohabitation is causing a resurgence in the incidence of tuberculosis.
No I don’t understand the last one either. This was a woman, by the way, who is responsible for promoting community engagement in a London borough. The whole experiece made me want to weep. People like that basically *cannot wait* for mission creep to set in. God knows where it would end if it were up to her.
So I suppose I find it disturbing that reasonable people like you lend validity to their arguments and open the way for them to push their extremism, hence the jibe.
I agree with Asquith here, the real correlation is between drinking alcohol and ASB not between drinking on the tube per se and ASB. And I’m sure you’d agree.
Furthermore, I don’t deny that the debate is about “whether one term is more significant than another”.
As I said in my 9am post:
“is banning the act of drinking alcohol [on tubes] really an effective and proportionate measure that will further reduce anti-social behaviour on tubes?”
The answer to this is, for me, is no. I suspect that the vast majority of ASB on tubes is caused by people who are already drunk when they board tubes and those who would act in an anti-social manner anyway.
Your response to this seems to be: (1) even if an action is completely ineffectual and unnecessary*, it might be worth it to show we’re listening to people’s concerns, because (2) society needs boundaries and (3) politeness needs to be enforced by the law because we can’t trust people to act in a polite manner.
Here’s the link to join the Conservatives, I think you’ll feel right at home: https://www.conservatives.com/join/ ;o)
*in what ways are the existing laws deficient in preventing alcohol-fuelled ASB on tubes? Anyone who’s drinking on a train and acting anti-socially will already be covered by existing public order legislation.
Your friend sounds like a thoroughgoing settler to me 😉
Yes, I’ve been assigning everyone I meet a type. Next thing it will be fictional charachters…
“Unmarried cohabitation is causing a resurgence in the incidence of tuberculosis … No I don’t understand the last one either.”
Predictably this is because there is nothing to understand. The resurgence is due to resistance, and resistance is due to a lack of combination therapies (either by people taking drugs incorrectly, or by monotherapies – and / or counterfeit or substandard drugs). Resistance is not caused by shagging someone you’re not married to, and, also obviously, TB is not a sexually-transmitted disease. You’re more likely to catch it when a fat man on the tube sneezes on you.
Yours,
Dr Julian H
Why so much interest in this relatively minor issue, when the Government is about to impose 42 days inprisonment without trial- nothing at all about this on libdemvoice!!!
I find that incredible- that is the real destruction of liberty being imposed by authority, and libdemvoice is going on about Henley and drinks on the underground.
I am not labour, but labourhome has a very interesting write up on this and EVERY feedback has been against.
Look at the issues that really matter!
To clarify – when I said “a lack of combination therapies”, I didn’t mean that they are lacking in availability, more that legitimate ones are not being taken or are being taken incorrectly.
In case anyone misunderstood.
GP, thank for the link, but I’m already a memeber. The clue is in the pseudonym.
Ah, I seemed to mis-remember that you just identified rather than were.
Jo, you mean like this post from 29 May?
https://www.libdemvoice.org/tony-mcnulty-and-detention-without-trial-2768.html
Joe: there’s also this story about 42 days – https://www.libdemvoice.org/dear-labour-mp-will-you-be-listening-to-what-the-director-of-public-prosecutions-has-to-say-2446.html (along with other older ones)
Joe, I’m not sure that one restriction of liberty is necessarily worse than another especially when the grounds for supporting either restriction amounts to much the same thing.
The only difference is that the alcohol ban is noticed by large numbers of people in a relatively minor way, while 42 days without charge will be experienced by relatively few people in an extreme fashion.
I am reluctant to ban things unless there is a really strong objective justification.
Smoking in public places is one that passes the test. It is a vile, anti-social practice, and injurious to the health and well-being of those subjected to it.
Public drinking is a little different, because bystanders are not actually required to ingest the offending substance.
On balance, I think the ban is unnecessary, for the reasons already discussed in this thread.
A restriction I find wholly offensive and unnecessary is the almost total ban on dogs from enclosed public spaces. What is the justification for this? Dogs are good for us and we live longer if we have one. Tying up dogs outside shops is downright cruel. I long for the day when we can walk into a shopping-centre or a restaurant and be surrounded by dogs once more.
Yes, I wouldn’t file any complaints if dogs were more widely tolerated. I like having dogs in pubs, the dogs & their owners enjoy the attention. Who would lose out?
Way back in November 2007 I proposed a ‘Czech model’ (no Asquith, not that type of Czech model) system of dog freedom:
http://orangebyname.blogspot.com/2007/11/day-3.html
Sesenco, while I don’t disagree wildly with anything you say, I feel your post is in the perfect example of why emotive language and assumptions should never be allowed to enter a debate about banning anything. One person’s basic assumption is anathema to another.
I love dogs, and drinking, and until recently I loved smoking so lifting the bans on the whole lot would be fine by me.
You however would protest vociferously if the smoking ban was lifted. I was actually ok with the smoking ban because I accepted the reality that pub and restaurant stuff did *not* have freedom of exit, as we would prefer them to have in a genuinely liberal society. But I must say, as a mourning ex-smoker, i don’t much care for the way you categorise my dearly departed habit and I can’t help feeling your emotions have more to do with your support of the ban than rationalism.
Furthermore, my mum, for example, is extremely frightened of dogs, and her liberties would certainly be infringed if that ban was lifted. Much though it might puzzle you and I, not everyone loves the lovely doggies.